/This is a reply to a reply (which I thought was thought-provoking) but commenter deleted it. I'm posting regardless to flesh out my thoughts.
>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.
I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.
> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>
I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.
> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals
I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.
>...that still doesn't mean they will do what you want them to do.
I get the generalization/perspective, but I reject the premise that you can't influence or manage subordinates to "do what you want." While you can't avoid your subordinate (a) daytrading their job or (b) empirebuilding for the sake of empirebuilding, you can for sure mitigate with monitoring, prioritization, and termination.
> <anecdote about Larry Page getting frustrated about PMs not doing what he wants in early Google>
I don't know the context of the Larry Page story, but the qualifier of "early Google" makes my point that they were still figuring out their leadership presence as rising managers/leaders. Jobs was also a known micro-manager. The answer, I assume, is that they began to realize how to manage results and I bet they could get a random employee to "do what they wanted," but prefer a different approach.
> learning to be hyper-aware of how your employees' agendas/motives can subvert your goals
I don't disagree, but there are checks and balances you can incorporate as a principal. The Gervais Principle takes it one step further by incorporating how these "subverters" can be useful to take risks that if things work out (and nobody gets caught), you get a pat on the back and the bonus. But, if you get caught (for doing something illegal but highly profitable), well we have to fire you. Either way, the principal is getting subverted, but it's not always against the principal's wishes.