5 ms·

This is one of those great discoveries that is hardly surprising and makes you wonder why it hadn't be seen before. Well, the traditional view of "management"

by zzalpha 10y ago

This is one of those great discoveries that is hardly surprising and makes you wonder why it hadn't be seen before. Well, the traditional view of "management" is that it's a distinct job from "doing". Therefore, so the thinking goes, there is a distinct difference in skillsets, and thus the manager should be good at the managing bit, and the doer should be good at the doing bit. The reality is that in order to effectively manage, you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. Interestingly, this relates to a topic that came up yesterday about product managers (who are not "managers" in a traditional sense). Every time I see complaints about PMs, the root cause often starts with the PM not understanding how software is built and how developers work. Thus they disregard practical technical realities. Those folks describe as a "good" PM are often those with a technical background... who could, as it happens, do your job if needed.

hueving 10y ago
>The reality is that in order to effectively manage, you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. There is an important distinction. An effective manager should understand the general process and what can be time sinks, but they don't have to understand extremely specific details of what each worker is working on at any given time. For example, a manager of a software team doesn't need to understand the idioms of the programming language used by the team or even be that effective of a programmer. Some of my best managers have been ex-software devs that understood architecture, requirements distillation, etc really well but wrote the ugliest code you would ever see. :)
- coredog64 10y ago
  My best manager was an ex-Air Force fighter pilot who had a general idea of what we were doing. He understood his role wasn't to do what we were doing but instead to enable it. Some of the worst bosses I had were technical people who had been promoted to upper management and couldn't let go of the tech stuff. My attitude towards them was that if they wanted to code then they could take a demotion (and give up those huge equity grants) and get down in the trenches. Otherwise they could STFU.
dagw 10y ago
you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. While this may be necessary it is definitely far from sufficient. Especially in academia, where my wife works, I've seen countless examples of people whom are perfectly competent research scientists becoming scarily incompetent managers.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  No argument here. I'd never claim good managers don't have additional skills beyond the technical. Only that the crisp line we try to draw between the two roles is a false one. I'd also claim the following: sometimes doers have to manage up or laterally. In that sense, a good doer must have some of the skills of a good manager, just as the reverse is true...
bluGill 10y ago
> The reality is that in order to effectively manage, you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. Actually it is not. One of the best bosses I ever had had no clue what I was doing. He was smart enough to admit that he didn't know how to do my job. He was excellent at his job though: figuring out who were good people and removing roadblocks from their way. He identified a few good programmers to do the technical interview part while he focused on are the people he was hiring good fits for the people he already had. If you cannot have a great manager who will get out of your way, then a manager who understands what you are doing means at least when he tells you to do something it was probably what you were going to do anyway. The worst boss I've ever seen took some programming classes as a door into management - he knew enough to be dangerous when telling programmers what to do, but not enough to be helpful.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Actually it is not. Well, the HBR studies cited, here, indicate a correlation between a manager who could do their direct report's job and job satisfaction of that direct report. It does not claim that this is necessary for direct report job satisfaction, only that it makes it more likely. So, my comment could have been better phrased as: The reality is that in order to effectively manage, it helps if they understand what the doers are actually doing. If you cannot have a great manager who will get out of your way I claim that knowing how to "get out of your way" is a necessary but not sufficient skillset in a "great" manager. Understanding how you do your job will better enable a manager to remove impediments and provide you with the right environment (both physical and technical) and right motivators to help you perform even better. No one would claim that a football coach should try to handle the ball themselves (as per the manager you described in your last paragraph). But a coach that just stands back and lets the players play is only doing half their job (at best).
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    Yeah I think there's a balance here. One of my favorite managers also didn't understand my project (although he did understand software engineering in general) and I later found out everyone else hated him. I've seen what I suspect is similar later: managers who just see their job as defending their team. Someone needs something from the team? Push back. Their teams needs something? Hound those responsible. Team has an opinion? It's undisputed truth now. No ability to mediate or help with the bigger picture. Just like a lawyer for their employees. What you need is someone who will take care of the employees and jump on grenades of distraction so they can focus on their job. But you also have to have enough context to step back and say, "hmm... doing this would be best for the greater good - my team should take a look at this." It doesn't need to be the ability to do it themselves, but they have to have some.

by zzalpha 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

>The reality is that in order to effectively manage, you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. There is an important distinction. An effective manager should understand the general process and what can be time sinks, but they don't have to understand extremely specific details of what each worker is working on at any given time. For example, a manager of a software team doesn't need to understand the idioms of the programming language used by the team or even be that effective of a programmer. Some of my best managers have been ex-software devs that understood architecture, requirements distillation, etc really well but wrote the ugliest code you would ever see. :)

coredog64 10y ago
My best manager was an ex-Air Force fighter pilot who had a general idea of what we were doing. He understood his role wasn't to do what we were doing but instead to enable it. Some of the worst bosses I had were technical people who had been promoted to upper management and couldn't let go of the tech stuff. My attitude towards them was that if they wanted to code then they could take a demotion (and give up those huge equity grants) and get down in the trenches. Otherwise they could STFU.

dagw 10y ago

you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. While this may be necessary it is definitely far from sufficient. Especially in academia, where my wife works, I've seen countless examples of people whom are perfectly competent research scientists becoming scarily incompetent managers.

zzalpha 10y ago
No argument here. I'd never claim good managers don't have additional skills beyond the technical. Only that the crisp line we try to draw between the two roles is a false one. I'd also claim the following: sometimes doers have to manage up or laterally. In that sense, a good doer must have some of the skills of a good manager, just as the reverse is true...

bluGill 10y ago

> The reality is that in order to effectively manage, you have to understand what the doers are actually doing. Actually it is not. One of the best bosses I ever had had no clue what I was doing. He was smart enough to admit that he didn't know how to do my job. He was excellent at his job though: figuring out who were good people and removing roadblocks from their way. He identified a few good programmers to do the technical interview part while he focused on are the people he was hiring good fits for the people he already had. If you cannot have a great manager who will get out of your way, then a manager who understands what you are doing means at least when he tells you to do something it was probably what you were going to do anyway. The worst boss I've ever seen took some programming classes as a door into management - he knew enough to be dangerous when telling programmers what to do, but not enough to be helpful.

zzalpha 10y ago
Actually it is not. Well, the HBR studies cited, here, indicate a correlation between a manager who could do their direct report's job and job satisfaction of that direct report. It does not claim that this is necessary for direct report job satisfaction, only that it makes it more likely. So, my comment could have been better phrased as: The reality is that in order to effectively manage, it helps if they understand what the doers are actually doing. If you cannot have a great manager who will get out of your way I claim that knowing how to "get out of your way" is a necessary but not sufficient skillset in a "great" manager. Understanding how you do your job will better enable a manager to remove impediments and provide you with the right environment (both physical and technical) and right motivators to help you perform even better. No one would claim that a football coach should try to handle the ball themselves (as per the manager you described in your last paragraph). But a coach that just stands back and lets the players play is only doing half their job (at best).
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  Yeah I think there's a balance here. One of my favorite managers also didn't understand my project (although he did understand software engineering in general) and I later found out everyone else hated him. I've seen what I suspect is similar later: managers who just see their job as defending their team. Someone needs something from the team? Push back. Their teams needs something? Hound those responsible. Team has an opinion? It's undisputed truth now. No ability to mediate or help with the bigger picture. Just like a lawyer for their employees. What you need is someone who will take care of the employees and jump on grenades of distraction so they can focus on their job. But you also have to have enough context to step back and say, "hmm... doing this would be best for the greater good - my team should take a look at this." It doesn't need to be the ability to do it themselves, but they have to have some.