7 ms·
It's fine to feel that way, but it's not a particularly effective approach in my opinion and in fact quite the opposite of what I look for in a manager. A good
by Kranar 5y ago
It's fine to feel that way, but it's not a particularly effective approach in my opinion and in fact quite the opposite of what I look for in a manager. A good manager manages people; they understand people's strengths, weaknesses, goals, how to motivate and reward people, how to resolve potential conflicts, how to delegate, and how to help people grow. These are all people things. People are not robots which is exactly why they need to be managed. After all you typically do not manage robots, the point of using robots is that they're autonomous.
Problems are not things you really want to manage, maybe in the short run you can try to manage a problem, but ultimately the goal is to solve a problem as opposed to managing it. The goal of a manager is to assemble a team of people who can work together to solve problems.
Your issue is conflating management with superiority, you seem to think that someone who coaches a basketball team feels superior to its players. That couldn't be further from the truth. While Michael Jordan's coach was in his time a competent basketball player, he would never claim to have ever been better than Michael Jordan, and yet both he and Michael Jordan had an excellent working relationship without either of them feeling superior to the other [1].
The issue you have about superiority has nothing to do with solving problems or managing people. You could be a lawyer working entirely independently from developers and feel you are superior to them (or vice-versa). A good manager can cross multiple projects and multiple problems, because a good manager understands people first and foremost and lets competent people work on solving problems, as opposed to trying to manage problems.
[1] https://www.netflix.com/title/80203144 https://www.netflix.com/title/80203144
- Godel_unicode 5y ago> Your issue is conflating management with superiority... Your issue is not realizing that many managers feel this way. They think that being a manager puts them above the people they are managing, and that their job as a manager is to boss people around (thus the genesis of that term). Edit: I'll see your Phil Jackson and raise you Bobby Knight.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoAre you arriving at this conclusion from a place of jaded bias or from actual data? Some managers feel that way sure, but your statement implies that its essentially the norm to be expected which is not the case.
- ThalesX 5y agoWhy is this argument so easy to make for politicians that get corrupted by power, but not for managers that might suffer from the exact same human weakness?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Godel_unicode 5y ago> implies that its essentially the norm to be expected which is not the case. I deliberately chose words which do not draw a conclusion about "the norm" because I, just like you, don't know what that is. There is no such dataset, all anyone can do is assemble anecdotes.
- mikelockz 5y agoBobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the most important metrics in sports - championship wins.
- ThalesX 5y agoIsn't this exactly the point GP was making? That managers conflate the team's wins with their own 'succeeding'? It's not the manager that wins the championship, it's the team that is comprised of the manager also. Why is this so hard to grasp for managers? Is it the power? Is it the disconnect from the actual work? As someone involved in both the technical and business side, but heavily biased towards tech, it's amusing to me just how cliché the management parties after a 'big win' on a 'visible' project are. It's almost unbearable to be around save for the brilliant food.
- scsilver 5y agoA college team churns ever 4 years at most. Consistent wins in that space is all about management, as the talent is fleeting.
- ThalesX 5y agoWhy would a college team need to preselect players if it's all about the management? Couldn't they just pick random players? Thinking about this more, I find it hilarious to imagine that you would expect the same results from A and B given the same set of performant managers: A - team of highly unmotivated, undisciplined players B - team of highly motivated, disciplined players
- scsilver 5y agoDo you watch college sports? Or are you just talking about what you imagine to be true? It’s not the same thing as a team of mid 20s+ trained professionals working in the context of a tech org. Indeed, The excellent talent skips college, goes to the pros, where talent matters much more than the org management.