> A good manager should. A technical manager, doubly so, and if you're an engineer, your manager should be technical. They really should not. Their job is to m

> A good manager should. A technical manager, doubly so, and if you're an engineer, your manager should be technical. They really should not. Their job is to manage a team, not to replicate everyone else’s work to understand in detail how clever they are. It’s just impossible. Particularly as teams tend to have a distribution of profiles and skill sets. In this case, do you expect the manager to be a master of all of them? That is clearly unrealistic. If you are a good engineer, you should be able to come up with some executive summary in 1 slide or a paragraph to outline what’s good in whatever you came up with. Otherwise, it means that you don’t understand what you’re doing or that you’re bad at bringing information together and condensing it in an understandable form, which is really not great for a technical role. > Of course you're ultimately your best cheerleader and hypeman, but your manager should be doing that job too, especially to other higher-ups. If incentives are set up correctly, a manager will advertise to the top. They should be rewarded when their team perform well, so it’s in their interest to publicise successes. (Bad managers will do it whilst claiming the credit for themselves, but that’s another problem). They cannot do it if you don’t provide them the information they need, though.