4 ms·

I didn't say they're not mutually incompatible, just that if all you've got is so-called "manager skills", and you still can't do the job of the people you're m

by mmjaa 9y ago

I didn't say they're not mutually incompatible, just that if all you've got is so-called "manager skills", and you still can't do the job of the people you're managing, then Peters Principle is well and truly in effect and the situation is dire - whether you like to think of yourself as a special human for having special management skills or not. Manage me, by all means, using the newest-fangled management psychology you think is necessary, but if you can't do even the most basic of my tasks, you're simply not qualified for the job and should quit. Seriously, this factor is cancerous on the industry and is, I believe, one of the most significant causes of the loss of productivity, revenue and ultimately success in our industry. Its time for this attitude to die.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
The only problem I have with what you are saying is that there do exist good or great coders who go into management and become average or even poor managers. To me this phenomenon would imply the existence of some tangible management skills, separate from technical skills.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Huh... I think you're actually talking about the Peter Principle, where skilled programmers are promoted to the point where they stop being skilled. The parent topic seems to be closer to the Dilbert Principle - people being placed in management who would never have gotten the job below theirs. Unfortunately, both of those things are pretty common. Promoting "up the ranks" gets you Peter, and hiring "for management skills" gets you Dilbert. Avoiding both at once seems to be an almost unsolved problem.
- kpil 9y ago
  Obviously so. I can think of three distinct dimensions; technical, planning and political/coaching. Maybe it's four but I think the last two are sides of the same coin. You need all of them to some extent.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  "Management" skills and "Technical" skills are neither all-inclusive, nor exclusive, nor does the presence of one imply the other, but the most optimal scenario is simply where an individual is capable of competence at both.
Bartweiss 9y ago
> if you can't do the job of the people you're managing, then Peters Principle is in effect Wait, Peter's Principle? If that's "promoted to their level of incompetence", shouldn't it describe managers who can do their subordinate's work but not their own? This sounds closer to the Dilbert Principle, honestly - people who get hired as managers but could never have held the job below theirs.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  They are incompetent managers, promoted up the 'management chain' to a position of incompetence, which is due to the fact that they can't do the job of the people they are managing. They are 'management people' who have gone as far necessary to be outside their competence level.

by mmjaa 9y ago

mediocrejoker 9y ago

The only problem I have with what you are saying is that there do exist good or great coders who go into management and become average or even poor managers. To me this phenomenon would imply the existence of some tangible management skills, separate from technical skills.

Bartweiss 9y ago
Huh... I think you're actually talking about the Peter Principle, where skilled programmers are promoted to the point where they stop being skilled. The parent topic seems to be closer to the Dilbert Principle - people being placed in management who would never have gotten the job below theirs. Unfortunately, both of those things are pretty common. Promoting "up the ranks" gets you Peter, and hiring "for management skills" gets you Dilbert. Avoiding both at once seems to be an almost unsolved problem.
kpil 9y ago
Obviously so. I can think of three distinct dimensions; technical, planning and political/coaching. Maybe it's four but I think the last two are sides of the same coin. You need all of them to some extent.
mmjaa 9y ago
"Management" skills and "Technical" skills are neither all-inclusive, nor exclusive, nor does the presence of one imply the other, but the most optimal scenario is simply where an individual is capable of competence at both.

Bartweiss 9y ago

> if you can't do the job of the people you're managing, then Peters Principle is in effect Wait, Peter's Principle? If that's "promoted to their level of incompetence", shouldn't it describe managers who can do their subordinate's work but not their own? This sounds closer to the Dilbert Principle, honestly - people who get hired as managers but could never have held the job below theirs.

mmjaa 9y ago
They are incompetent managers, promoted up the 'management chain' to a position of incompetence, which is due to the fact that they can't do the job of the people they are managing. They are 'management people' who have gone as far necessary to be outside their competence level.