3 ms·

> This is why managers often get paid more I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my

> This is why managers often get paid more I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my point: The average base pay for a manger in the USA is much lower than the average base pay for an engineer in the USA. I'm talking about management as a discipline in general and engineering as a discipline in general. > A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. Can you define "good" in a way that would allow us to empirically test this statement that doesn't make this statement a literal tautology?

TameAntelope 6y ago
Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. It is much rarer to know what to build than it is to know how to build.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. Right. The whole thing is a silly tautology. Good managers are force multipliers. Better hire good managers! and then if they don't force multiply they must not have been good managers :( It's literally an unfalsifiable tautology. > The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. "Knowing what to build" is not what 90+% of managers do.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    No, it is not a tautology. You are misusing that word. A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. If you can't understand this fact, then I don't think you and I have anything more to discuss. Have a good day!
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      > A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as someone who improves the performance of her direct reports... Importantly, any empirical evidence that less management structure improves outcomes is easy to dismiss because it's really just proof that the particular manager/company that failed wasn't a "good" manager/management structure. After all, if they were "good", then the output of engineers would have been multiplied, right?! Tautology (n): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Saying that we know good managers force multiply by improving performance of reports -- and then defining "good" to mean "improve the performance of her direct reports" -- is absolutely a tautology. More importantly, ignoring empirical evidence by making a rational appeal to the truth of this tautology creates a rather pointless conversation. Given the choice between blind faith in a tautology that "good managers = good" and empirical evidence that sometimes "less emphasis on/power for managers = better", I prefer the latter. You have a good day as well :)

TameAntelope 6y ago

Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. It is much rarer to know what to build than it is to know how to build.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> Even those tiny orgs follow what I'm talking about, you're mistaking bloat for specialization. Right. The whole thing is a silly tautology. Good managers are force multipliers. Better hire good managers! and then if they don't force multiply they must not have been good managers :( It's literally an unfalsifiable tautology. > The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills. "Knowing what to build" is not what 90+% of managers do.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  No, it is not a tautology. You are misusing that word. A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. If you can't understand this fact, then I don't think you and I have anything more to discuss. Have a good day!
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as someone who improves the performance of her direct reports... Importantly, any empirical evidence that less management structure improves outcomes is easy to dismiss because it's really just proof that the particular manager/company that failed wasn't a "good" manager/management structure. After all, if they were "good", then the output of engineers would have been multiplied, right?! Tautology (n): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Saying that we know good managers force multiply by improving performance of reports -- and then defining "good" to mean "improve the performance of her direct reports" -- is absolutely a tautology. More importantly, ignoring empirical evidence by making a rational appeal to the truth of this tautology creates a rather pointless conversation. Given the choice between blind faith in a tautology that "good managers = good" and empirical evidence that sometimes "less emphasis on/power for managers = better", I prefer the latter. You have a good day as well :)