8 ms·

Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are. We're

Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are. We're not talking about an architect here. A team lead is different than a V or C level, my understanding is that the minister has about 3-4 layers between him and someone pushing code or writing policy. If I have the choice of putting someone at the head of a division of 200 people with excellent people management skills or good domain knowledge the former will trump in almost all cases. Domain knowledge is great, but it can actually make you less open minded and unbiased. I've seen some pretty scary discussions about underlying technology in executive management with seasoned industry veterans and it's the usually the person with no domain knowledge that asks the right questions that lead to a good decision. You depend on your team to execute. They depend on their team and so on. That's why the minister expressed that he preferred the questions in advance so he can distribute them with his team (the experts) and get the right answers instead of answering on behalf of them. Also it's pretty hard to get hacked when you don't have a computer. If anything the fact he rose to his position without the help of modern devices is a pretty strong testament to his fundamentals. Most managers and executives in tech would find their day-to-day pretty difficult without modern productivity tools.

fermienrico 8y ago
I strongly disagree with "Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are." These people defer everything to their subordinates including major technical decisions. Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"? As Steve Jobs said, "I don't hire managers. I hire amazing individual contributors, but the only reason they become managers is that they can't achieve their vision on their own." Just to be clear, technical managers don't necessarily have to get mangled up in detailed work - they need to have a vision for what their team is going to do. It is a "pull" rather than "push". An ideal manager should be someone that their subordinates aspire to be and they have a leadership character that is worthy of following. They give room for their team to provide inputs and they're decisive when time comes.
- tgtweak 8y ago
  Companies are made, overwhelmingly, of people. Managing those people is quite literally the definition of management. What if I told you that you could be a charismatic influential leader of a tech company without knowing how to program. It's definitely not what the developers on hackernews want to hear but it's true. Yes you can be both. EQ is a thing.
  - Jach 8y ago
    Companies are also made of non-people systems, indeed the system is what distinguishes a company from just another collection of people. People don't need management so much as systems do. Management's job has to be to improve the system. You can optimize your people as much as you please, dealing with incentives, bonuses, punishments, team placements, making sure everyone is "doing their job", "getting along", etc., but none of that matters in the end for quality and efficient production if the system itself isn't stable. Deming understood this, his management ideas that transformed countries have yet to break into software. https://maaw.info/DemingsRedbeads.htm https://maaw.info/DemingsRedbeads.htm is a starting point into the primacy of the system.
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    I've worked for 6 tech companies. Only in 2 did the owner know how to code. Only one was the owner an ex professional coder. They were all charismatic to some degree. Although the less charismatic were more pleasurable to work for, for whatever reason.
  - derefr 8y ago
    If your employees are managers, then it's (sometimes) okay to have no domain experience in whatever it is your company does, because the people you're managing aren't doing that thing. You only have to understand how those people think, and those people think—at least part of the time—like managers. The job of the team leads—those managers whose only subordinates are domain-worker leaf-nodes—to act as a translation layer between your thought process and their subordinate domain-workers' thought process. They need the experience. (And they're the only "managers" that most people on HN seem to think have any value, given HN's love of flat org-charts like those of Valve and old-Google.) But to be clear, while "EQ is a thing", for team leads, it's not enough. And in certain sectors (mostly industries where people are promoted into management roles by seniority), that continues to apply all the way up the org-chart, since in those organizations, the middle-managements will be ex-workers and will share the workers' views. So you, as a CEO, can't can't make any top-down decrees that conflict with those views. For an example: any manager in a hospital, all the way up to the CEO, cannot get away with walking in off a stint at an F500 with no previous hospital experience, and succeed solely because they have high EQ. They need to also understand—deeply and intuitively—that their whole organization is run by people who think saving people's lives is more important than making a profit, and that any changes intended to increase profit at the expense of lives-saved-per-day will either be left unimplemented by the people on the ground, fought, or result in low morale and staff leaving. (Usually all three!)
jamescostian 8y ago
In addition to the point fermienrico made about the fake managers you discussed, I also think this: > Domain knowledge is great, but it can actually make you less open minded and unbiased Is a bit strange to say, since it also undermines your position. If someone has domain knowledge in "managing", then your quote would suggest that they could be "less open minded and unbiased", and as such, a person without domain knowledge in managing might be better - in fact, an acorn (without knowledge in any domain) would be least biased. I'd argue that while you will gain biases as you gain knowledge, you will also be more knowledgeable about relevant things, and that's important. Thus, the best person for a managerial position would be someone with knowledge about managing people and with knowledge about what those people are doing. > hard to get hacked when you don't have a computer This is true, but it's also hard to understand what's going on or stay in the loop when you don't have a computer
- tgtweak 8y ago
  I'm sure he's aware of this article despite not reading it on his computer :)
Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
I absolutely agree that you can have fantastic managers from a non-technical background if they're intelligent reasonable people with good people skills. However... > I've seen some pretty scary discussions about underlying technology in executive management with seasoned industry veterans and it's the usually the person with no domain knowledge that asks the right questions that lead to a good decision. I think the seasoned veteran in this example is not a seasoned veteran - well, depending on how you define the term. Because the people who are best at their jobs tend to "know what they don't know". If someone has bias, they were probably never any good at their job in the first place. So I tend to think if you can find someone who has good domain knowledge and good people skills they will consistently outperform someone with just good people skills i.e. Managers gain nothing by not having proper experience in the domain they're managing.
marzell 8y ago
In the example of Japan's cyber-security minister... while he may be able to effectively manage people who might be able to make the right decisions... how can he competently decide who to hire/fire and manage their roles if he has fundamentally no experience in the domain of computers and cyber-security?
zwayhowder 8y ago
I feel the issue is that the hierarchical nature of Japanese society/business/government means few people will challenge a superior. If he declares that in the interests of Cyber Security all passwords should be the same so they are easy to remember will someone challenge him? Will the minister listen to the sage council of a 22 year old hacker fresh out of uni who has been hacking systems since she was 8?
outside1234 8y ago
" are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are" This is true but NOT if they have never done any of the work before themselves.
UlisesAC4 8y ago
It is not about being better than your teams. It is about knowing the field of work to ensure that you can use your teams to build something better (or at least supposed too). I have the experience of an accountant who never knew how a software development was supposed to be done, the next is the typical non dev nightmare manager, unreasonable deadlines, confidently adding epic features each week because his team was delivering. In the other hand I have seen people without any knowledge climb in the corporate, an aunt of mine could not finish high school so no university degree, patience and self learning in home for about 2 years and now she has 5 years of experience as consultant of environmental security for metal industries. Both parts must be willing to work to ensure good works, but when one of the sides does not know and do not care to fit to the job, company objectives and field of work is when everything starts to break.
sjapkee 8y ago
>admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are But he still needs to know what they are talking about.

fermienrico 8y ago

I strongly disagree with "Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are." These people defer everything to their subordinates including major technical decisions. Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"? As Steve Jobs said, "I don't hire managers. I hire amazing individual contributors, but the only reason they become managers is that they can't achieve their vision on their own." Just to be clear, technical managers don't necessarily have to get mangled up in detailed work - they need to have a vision for what their team is going to do. It is a "pull" rather than "push". An ideal manager should be someone that their subordinates aspire to be and they have a leadership character that is worthy of following. They give room for their team to provide inputs and they're decisive when time comes.

tgtweak 8y ago
Companies are made, overwhelmingly, of people. Managing those people is quite literally the definition of management. What if I told you that you could be a charismatic influential leader of a tech company without knowing how to program. It's definitely not what the developers on hackernews want to hear but it's true. Yes you can be both. EQ is a thing.
- Jach 8y ago
  Companies are also made of non-people systems, indeed the system is what distinguishes a company from just another collection of people. People don't need management so much as systems do. Management's job has to be to improve the system. You can optimize your people as much as you please, dealing with incentives, bonuses, punishments, team placements, making sure everyone is "doing their job", "getting along", etc., but none of that matters in the end for quality and efficient production if the system itself isn't stable. Deming understood this, his management ideas that transformed countries have yet to break into software. https://maaw.info/DemingsRedbeads.htm https://maaw.info/DemingsRedbeads.htm is a starting point into the primacy of the system.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  I've worked for 6 tech companies. Only in 2 did the owner know how to code. Only one was the owner an ex professional coder. They were all charismatic to some degree. Although the less charismatic were more pleasurable to work for, for whatever reason.
- derefr 8y ago
  If your employees are managers, then it's (sometimes) okay to have no domain experience in whatever it is your company does, because the people you're managing aren't doing that thing. You only have to understand how those people think, and those people think—at least part of the time—like managers. The job of the team leads—those managers whose only subordinates are domain-worker leaf-nodes—to act as a translation layer between your thought process and their subordinate domain-workers' thought process. They need the experience. (And they're the only "managers" that most people on HN seem to think have any value, given HN's love of flat org-charts like those of Valve and old-Google.) But to be clear, while "EQ is a thing", for team leads, it's not enough. And in certain sectors (mostly industries where people are promoted into management roles by seniority), that continues to apply all the way up the org-chart, since in those organizations, the middle-managements will be ex-workers and will share the workers' views. So you, as a CEO, can't can't make any top-down decrees that conflict with those views. For an example: any manager in a hospital, all the way up to the CEO, cannot get away with walking in off a stint at an F500 with no previous hospital experience, and succeed solely because they have high EQ. They need to also understand—deeply and intuitively—that their whole organization is run by people who think saving people's lives is more important than making a profit, and that any changes intended to increase profit at the expense of lives-saved-per-day will either be left unimplemented by the people on the ground, fought, or result in low morale and staff leaving. (Usually all three!)

jamescostian 8y ago

In addition to the point fermienrico made about the fake managers you discussed, I also think this: > Domain knowledge is great, but it can actually make you less open minded and unbiased Is a bit strange to say, since it also undermines your position. If someone has domain knowledge in "managing", then your quote would suggest that they could be "less open minded and unbiased", and as such, a person without domain knowledge in managing might be better - in fact, an acorn (without knowledge in any domain) would be least biased. I'd argue that while you will gain biases as you gain knowledge, you will also be more knowledgeable about relevant things, and that's important. Thus, the best person for a managerial position would be someone with knowledge about managing people and with knowledge about what those people are doing. > hard to get hacked when you don't have a computer This is true, but it's also hard to understand what's going on or stay in the loop when you don't have a computer

tgtweak 8y ago
I'm sure he's aware of this article despite not reading it on his computer :)

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago

I absolutely agree that you can have fantastic managers from a non-technical background if they're intelligent reasonable people with good people skills. However... > I've seen some pretty scary discussions about underlying technology in executive management with seasoned industry veterans and it's the usually the person with no domain knowledge that asks the right questions that lead to a good decision. I think the seasoned veteran in this example is not a seasoned veteran - well, depending on how you define the term. Because the people who are best at their jobs tend to "know what they don't know". If someone has bias, they were probably never any good at their job in the first place. So I tend to think if you can find someone who has good domain knowledge and good people skills they will consistently outperform someone with just good people skills i.e. Managers gain nothing by not having proper experience in the domain they're managing.

marzell 8y ago

In the example of Japan's cyber-security minister... while he may be able to effectively manage people who might be able to make the right decisions... how can he competently decide who to hire/fire and manage their roles if he has fundamentally no experience in the domain of computers and cyber-security?

zwayhowder 8y ago

I feel the issue is that the hierarchical nature of Japanese society/business/government means few people will challenge a superior. If he declares that in the interests of Cyber Security all passwords should be the same so they are easy to remember will someone challenge him? Will the minister listen to the sage council of a 22 year old hacker fresh out of uni who has been hacking systems since she was 8?

outside1234 8y ago

" are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are" This is true but NOT if they have never done any of the work before themselves.

UlisesAC4 8y ago

It is not about being better than your teams. It is about knowing the field of work to ensure that you can use your teams to build something better (or at least supposed too). I have the experience of an accountant who never knew how a software development was supposed to be done, the next is the typical non dev nightmare manager, unreasonable deadlines, confidently adding epic features each week because his team was delivering. In the other hand I have seen people without any knowledge climb in the corporate, an aunt of mine could not finish high school so no university degree, patience and self learning in home for about 2 years and now she has 5 years of experience as consultant of environmental security for metal industries. Both parts must be willing to work to ensure good works, but when one of the sides does not know and do not care to fit to the job, company objectives and field of work is when everything starts to break.

sjapkee 8y ago

>admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are But he still needs to know what they are talking about.