4 ms·

That's precisely what I, being considered a star programmer, thought when I was 20. I knew better than anyone, so I wanted to be left alone. I looked down on me

That's precisely what I, being considered a star programmer, thought when I was 20. I knew better than anyone, so I wanted to be left alone. I looked down on methods, tools and organizational systems. Over a decade now and being in charge of 20+ smart people now, I understand how without effective personnel and project management, employees are irrelevant. Now, if you get a smart person that's responsible, driven and methodical enough so they can be effective and contribute without being managed, you just make them a manager for other people so they can make them effective. Skilled managers are a force multiplier. Unfortunately technical ("smart") skills are often contradictory to management and people skills, so that person is very much a unicorn (but when you find them, it can transform a dysfunctional organization to a performer). Between having a mediocre managed brilliant group, or a brilliantly managed mediocre group, I know where I'd put my money.

sjg007 10y ago
This is about performance reviews and not about managers. Although you can argue effective management does not require managers. What you missed is autonomy. That's the key. Alignment (join the company), autonomy (trust), effectiveness (facilitate).
- flyinglizard 10y ago
  Effective management requires managers, it just doesn't say how many managers (just one at the top, or many levels). But someone has to set the tone. Trust is not enough. People need to be guided, synchronized and harmonized. It doesn't happen well in a flat, distributed system. A good employee receives autonomy, a great employee often receives control over other employees. But autonomy is not independence; it still requires a guiding hand, which is management.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    Again, I didn't say anything about managers.
Spooky23 10y ago
Managers are both a weapon and a threat. These 360 HR schemes are about asserting and maintaining control. The company supposedly wants to purge the ineffective, but they also want to make sure that managers don't get too entrepreneurial.

sjg007 10y ago

This is about performance reviews and not about managers. Although you can argue effective management does not require managers. What you missed is autonomy. That's the key. Alignment (join the company), autonomy (trust), effectiveness (facilitate).

flyinglizard 10y ago
Effective management requires managers, it just doesn't say how many managers (just one at the top, or many levels). But someone has to set the tone. Trust is not enough. People need to be guided, synchronized and harmonized. It doesn't happen well in a flat, distributed system. A good employee receives autonomy, a great employee often receives control over other employees. But autonomy is not independence; it still requires a guiding hand, which is management.
- sjg007 10y ago
  Again, I didn't say anything about managers.

Spooky23 10y ago

Managers are both a weapon and a threat. These 360 HR schemes are about asserting and maintaining control. The company supposedly wants to purge the ineffective, but they also want to make sure that managers don't get too entrepreneurial.