5 ms·

Should a minister always have hands-on experience with what they are minister of, though?

by AllegedAlec 8y ago

lessclue 8y ago
Um, with things as technical as cyber security, yes.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  What makes technical subjects different from, let's say, education, or defence, or the ministry in charge of environmental business?
  - Lio 8y ago
    All of those things you've listed as examples should also be managed by someone with a technical understanding of them. I wouldn't want someone with no understand of the concept of inflation for example in charge of interest rates. Equally I wouldn't want someone in charge of nuclear weapons that doesn't understand that if you let of a bomb in the next country you'll get covered in your own fallout.
  - rc_hadoken 8y ago
    it's harder to micro bullshit (be hands on) than macro (feign competence using "models") bullshit. If you are clueless about infosec or the hardware it relates to (using a computer) why are you a leader in the ministry of said field for a country?
contravariant 8y ago
Should a minister of cyber-security be able to answer questions about USB drives?
- Lio 8y ago
  They should if USB drives are a vector for cyber attacks.
- RandomTisk 8y ago
  It's 2018, they should be allowed to drive if they want to and are trained.
Kaveren 8y ago
Yes, always. A minister of a diplomatic department should have diplomacy experience. A minister of a justice department should have justice experience. Anything else is ludicrous. > "But Mr Sakurada responded that other officials had the necessary experience and he was confident there would not be a problem." Then why is he the one taking the job?
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  A minister is a manager. We don't expect our managers to be good at programming, because that's what they hired us for. I expect them to be good at managing their ministry and relegating to their subject knowledge and specific members' experiences on subject matter.
  - Filligree 8y ago
    Actually, I do expect my manager to be good at programming. How could he reasonably manage me otherwise? So far I haven't been disappointed.
    - zebrafish 8y ago
      I suspect you will continue to be disappointed with that expectation. Management of resources, motivating employees, and political savvy are all very distinct skills from writing code.
      - js8 8y ago
        "motivating employees" I don't think it's possible to motivate somebody in a discipline that you have never tried. If anything, it is hugely demotivational. It reminds me of a dialogue I had once with a manager of technical writers. She said that she wanted to be a manager because she was bored as a technical writer, in order to motivate people. Really? She couldn't even motivate herself to stay! So, feel free to claim that managers need different skills. But to motivate people, who can do something you don't know or don't like? Don't kid yourself, please.
      - 8y ago
coldcode 8y ago
Should a project manager of a technology project know something about the technology? I had one once (in place where PMs were essentially dictators) who said "I don't need to know technology, I manage people"--and then made all the technology decisions without input.
jacknews 8y ago
Agreed, hands-on experience does not equate to understanding. Should architects necessarily be skilled bricklayers, etc? Let alone housing-policy advisors. And as others have pointed out, politicians are not known to be the most careful users of computers, so perhaps he is rather wise to abstain.
- Kaveren 8y ago
  For the architect metaphor to work out he'd need to be a programmer, which I doubt because he'd likely mention that if he was. Also hard to be a programmer if you've never used a computer.
- aquadrop 8y ago
  What he's saying applying to architect is "Never been in the building" For finance minster: "What's a bank?" For science minister: "I don't need to be able to read, staff can read for me" For healthcare minister: "Homeopathy all the way, forget everything else".
hkt 8y ago
No, people are being silly. Often people are kept away from their 'home turf' in an effort to make sure that when they absorb the brief (which they're usually given by political and civil advisors) it is in a way which is appropriate to the level they're working at. They're executives, not (eg) healthcare workers or train drivers etc. Their job is not to have a technical grasp of how to perform operations or drive trains, their job is to understand how to measure and influence the system they inherit. In principle, this might not actually require that much pre-existing domain knowledge.
thanosnose 8y ago
It doesn't hurt to have hands-on experience, but it definitely isn't necessary. The job of a department head is to navigate government bureaucracy and attain the budget, gather resources and hire experts for his department's needs. The value of a minister of anything is his contacts/professional network, knowledge of government bureaucracy and his ability to marshal them for his department's needs. It's why in the US, we've had Secretary of Defense who have never fired a gun or been in the military. Obviously most have had military experience, but it isn't a requirement. People are mistakenly thinking that a minister of cybersecurity is a cybersecurity job. It isn't. It is a government bureaucratic job. Given a choice between a cybersecurity expert ( with no bureaucratic experience ) and a bureaucratic expert ( with no computer experience ), it's a no brainer to go with the latter as minister of cybersecurity. Ideally, you want bureaucratic expert who is also a cybersecurity expert. But you only have 24 hours in a day.
lordnacho 8y ago
Yes! A hundred times yes! Don’t let the fact that it’s common hide the fact that it’s absurd to have people with no relevant experience run departments (of governments and businesses).
WhyNotHugo 8y ago
He doesn't need to be an expert, but NEVER having used a computer, and not knowing what a USB drive is, is notably below what the average citizen knows. This is akin to the minister of defence not knowing what a bullet is for. It's okay if he's never used a gun, but not knowing what a bullet is, is just way too much.

Should a minister always have hands-on experience with what they are minister of, though?

lessclue 8y ago

Um, with things as technical as cyber security, yes.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
What makes technical subjects different from, let's say, education, or defence, or the ministry in charge of environmental business?
- Lio 8y ago
  All of those things you've listed as examples should also be managed by someone with a technical understanding of them. I wouldn't want someone with no understand of the concept of inflation for example in charge of interest rates. Equally I wouldn't want someone in charge of nuclear weapons that doesn't understand that if you let of a bomb in the next country you'll get covered in your own fallout.
- rc_hadoken 8y ago
  it's harder to micro bullshit (be hands on) than macro (feign competence using "models") bullshit. If you are clueless about infosec or the hardware it relates to (using a computer) why are you a leader in the ministry of said field for a country?

contravariant 8y ago

Should a minister of cyber-security be able to answer questions about USB drives?

Lio 8y ago
They should if USB drives are a vector for cyber attacks.
RandomTisk 8y ago
It's 2018, they should be allowed to drive if they want to and are trained.

Kaveren 8y ago

Yes, always. A minister of a diplomatic department should have diplomacy experience. A minister of a justice department should have justice experience. Anything else is ludicrous. > "But Mr Sakurada responded that other officials had the necessary experience and he was confident there would not be a problem." Then why is he the one taking the job?

AllegedAlec 8y ago
A minister is a manager. We don't expect our managers to be good at programming, because that's what they hired us for. I expect them to be good at managing their ministry and relegating to their subject knowledge and specific members' experiences on subject matter.
- Filligree 8y ago
  Actually, I do expect my manager to be good at programming. How could he reasonably manage me otherwise? So far I haven't been disappointed.
  - zebrafish 8y ago
    I suspect you will continue to be disappointed with that expectation. Management of resources, motivating employees, and political savvy are all very distinct skills from writing code.
    - js8 8y ago
      "motivating employees" I don't think it's possible to motivate somebody in a discipline that you have never tried. If anything, it is hugely demotivational. It reminds me of a dialogue I had once with a manager of technical writers. She said that she wanted to be a manager because she was bored as a technical writer, in order to motivate people. Really? She couldn't even motivate herself to stay! So, feel free to claim that managers need different skills. But to motivate people, who can do something you don't know or don't like? Don't kid yourself, please.
    - 8y ago

coldcode 8y ago

Should a project manager of a technology project know something about the technology? I had one once (in place where PMs were essentially dictators) who said "I don't need to know technology, I manage people"--and then made all the technology decisions without input.

jacknews 8y ago

Agreed, hands-on experience does not equate to understanding. Should architects necessarily be skilled bricklayers, etc? Let alone housing-policy advisors. And as others have pointed out, politicians are not known to be the most careful users of computers, so perhaps he is rather wise to abstain.

Kaveren 8y ago
For the architect metaphor to work out he'd need to be a programmer, which I doubt because he'd likely mention that if he was. Also hard to be a programmer if you've never used a computer.
aquadrop 8y ago
What he's saying applying to architect is "Never been in the building" For finance minster: "What's a bank?" For science minister: "I don't need to be able to read, staff can read for me" For healthcare minister: "Homeopathy all the way, forget everything else".

hkt 8y ago

No, people are being silly. Often people are kept away from their 'home turf' in an effort to make sure that when they absorb the brief (which they're usually given by political and civil advisors) it is in a way which is appropriate to the level they're working at. They're executives, not (eg) healthcare workers or train drivers etc. Their job is not to have a technical grasp of how to perform operations or drive trains, their job is to understand how to measure and influence the system they inherit. In principle, this might not actually require that much pre-existing domain knowledge.

thanosnose 8y ago

It doesn't hurt to have hands-on experience, but it definitely isn't necessary. The job of a department head is to navigate government bureaucracy and attain the budget, gather resources and hire experts for his department's needs. The value of a minister of anything is his contacts/professional network, knowledge of government bureaucracy and his ability to marshal them for his department's needs. It's why in the US, we've had Secretary of Defense who have never fired a gun or been in the military. Obviously most have had military experience, but it isn't a requirement. People are mistakenly thinking that a minister of cybersecurity is a cybersecurity job. It isn't. It is a government bureaucratic job. Given a choice between a cybersecurity expert ( with no bureaucratic experience ) and a bureaucratic expert ( with no computer experience ), it's a no brainer to go with the latter as minister of cybersecurity. Ideally, you want bureaucratic expert who is also a cybersecurity expert. But you only have 24 hours in a day.

lordnacho 8y ago

Yes! A hundred times yes! Don’t let the fact that it’s common hide the fact that it’s absurd to have people with no relevant experience run departments (of governments and businesses).

WhyNotHugo 8y ago

He doesn't need to be an expert, but NEVER having used a computer, and not knowing what a USB drive is, is notably below what the average citizen knows. This is akin to the minister of defence not knowing what a bullet is for. It's okay if he's never used a gun, but not knowing what a bullet is, is just way too much.