4 ms·

No, this is favoring competence at the skills necessary for a different role, rather than assuming competence at one set of skills extends to another.

• tgv 4y ago
  You misread it, I think. The parent comment wrote "They're too valuable to pull away from day-to-day involvement." That's short-term thinking. Of course you should only hire people in roles that match their capabilities. Instead, the thought process behind the parent comment leads to "Who provides least value right now? Ok, bad luck he/she makes a bad manager."
  • bjornsing 4y ago
    Yea, the perverse incentives* of this culture can utterly destroy a company long-term. (*) The better you do your job the lower your chances of promotion. Hard work and dedication becomes a road to serfdom.
  • throwuwu 4y ago
    I think your paraphrasing is inaccurate, they said > Instead it might be better to select programmers who are good (but not necessarily great) at coding Good but not great doesn’t mean they are the least valuable, it means they are competent or at worst average. This may be a good indicator that they would like to explore other forms of career advancement than mastering programming. You for sure shouldn’t just pick someone and make them a manager, you’d need to survey a few people or create an opening and take applications from interested parties. You also need to evaluate for competence and train them to become managers.