5 ms·

> the possibility that managers do real work (they do, and hopefully this isn't controversial). I mean, I'd hope it's uncontroversial that any general statemen

by a1369209993 5y ago

> the possibility that managers do real work (they do, and hopefully this isn't controversial). I mean, I'd hope it's uncontroversial that any general statement about people has exceptions, but I assumed it was clear that we were talking about typical managers and salesdroids, not making blanket universalisms. If it wasn't I apologize for the confusion.

haswell 5y ago
I don’t think it’s even possible to define - and it’s certainly not fair to summarily dismiss - typical managers. If you’re just talking about managers that are bad at their jobs, call that out. If you’re advocating for a change in the actual management structure itself, call that out. Maybe “typical” narrows the net ever so slightly, but the definition of typical is “having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing”. Either “typical” is applied to managers broadly and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)… Or “typical” is used to describe a specific type of manager, either characterized by certain common negative traits, job duties assigned to the manager, etc. In either case, there’s something critically missing from a dismissal of “typical” managers without proper classification of “typical”.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > "typical" is applied to managers broadly Yes. > and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager) In the same sense that "typical" could be applied to, say, pickpockets broadly, and the associated negative characteristics are inherent to the pickpocketing role itself (and not necessarily the pickpocket)... sure? I don't really see why that would be a useful distinction, but I agree that it seems like a distinction you could make.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

haswell 5y ago

I don’t think it’s even possible to define - and it’s certainly not fair to summarily dismiss - typical managers. If you’re just talking about managers that are bad at their jobs, call that out. If you’re advocating for a change in the actual management structure itself, call that out. Maybe “typical” narrows the net ever so slightly, but the definition of typical is “having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing”. Either “typical” is applied to managers broadly and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)… Or “typical” is used to describe a specific type of manager, either characterized by certain common negative traits, job duties assigned to the manager, etc. In either case, there’s something critically missing from a dismissal of “typical” managers without proper classification of “typical”.

a1369209993 5y ago
> "typical" is applied to managers broadly Yes. > and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager) In the same sense that "typical" could be applied to, say, pickpockets broadly, and the associated negative characteristics are inherent to the pickpocketing role itself (and not necessarily the pickpocket)... sure? I don't really see why that would be a useful distinction, but I agree that it seems like a distinction you could make.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]