5 ms·

> 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 th

> 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 ago
Are 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
Bobby 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 ago
  Isn'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 ago
    A college team churns ever 4 years at most. Consistent wins in that space is all about management, as the talent is fleeting.
    - ThalesX 5y ago
      Why 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 ago
        Do 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.
        ThalesX 5y ago
        I watch college soccer. There are talented players, talented coaches, shit players and everything in between. There are people who go on to become pretty known and there are people who die out in college soccer. I've never seen a single championship won by a team that doesn't have synergy going on between the players also, and not just a great top management. Anecdotal: There's a huge team here, wins most of the high level championship because they have a lot of money and end up buying worldwide players, so their access to the talent pool is broader. They also have the best coaches money can buy. One year, one of the most famous players we've had decided to start up his own academy and create a new soccer team, with local people. He worked on it for a couple of years and came in and took first spot in the championship. Brilliant games. They sold players due to their win, for a lot of money, and started the roster again. Next year, and since then, they have yet to achieve such a victory. I would blame this situation on the synergy of the team and find it hard to imagine your world where the top management gets to decide who wins and who doesn't.

MathCodeLove 5y ago

Are 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 ago
Why 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 ago

Bobby 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 ago
Isn'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 ago
  A college team churns ever 4 years at most. Consistent wins in that space is all about management, as the talent is fleeting.
  - ThalesX 5y ago
    Why 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 ago
      Do 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.
      - ThalesX 5y ago
        I watch college soccer. There are talented players, talented coaches, shit players and everything in between. There are people who go on to become pretty known and there are people who die out in college soccer. I've never seen a single championship won by a team that doesn't have synergy going on between the players also, and not just a great top management. Anecdotal: There's a huge team here, wins most of the high level championship because they have a lot of money and end up buying worldwide players, so their access to the talent pool is broader. They also have the best coaches money can buy. One year, one of the most famous players we've had decided to start up his own academy and create a new soccer team, with local people. He worked on it for a couple of years and came in and took first spot in the championship. Brilliant games. They sold players due to their win, for a lot of money, and started the roster again. Next year, and since then, they have yet to achieve such a victory. I would blame this situation on the synergy of the team and find it hard to imagine your world where the top management gets to decide who wins and who doesn't.