3 ms·

You are describing the best kind of manager for two reasons: 1. They understand what their reports do, can mentor the less experienced ones, and are a competen

You are describing the best kind of manager for two reasons: 1. They understand what their reports do, can mentor the less experienced ones, and are a competent peer to the more experienced ones, rather than an obstacle. 2. If they turn out to be bad managers, there is a low stakes, no hard feelings, path for them to go back to being an IC. There is a huge aversion to firing people, so bad managers who can't do anything else tend to stay around creating problems much longer than bad managers who can also contribute. Your presentation of "experience" and "preparation" as the most important things for a manager is typical gatekeeping that we see from the bureaucratic class--parasites without any real skills.

sevensor 2y ago
Strange that you’d say that. What I’ve seen is that promoting homegrown ICs to line management is a favored strategy of nontechnical MBAs in upper management. Any large organization is bureaucratic. Given the intensely bureaucratic record of communist governments, your invocation of Marxist rhetoric here is frankly laughable. What promoting inexperienced managers from within does is place them at a tremendous informational disadvantage. Never having worked anywhere else, they don’t understand the coded language of bureaucracy and they have no perspective on what constitutes normal behavior. This gives the MBA latitude to abuse them as pawns in organizational power games they don’t understand, until they either burn out or wise up.
- alphazard 2y ago
  > he used the word "class", let me find Marxism in my dialogue tree. If you were unaware of the term "bureaucratic class", it's not a pro-marxist shibboleth. It refers to the population of aging white collar workers without useful skills, usually in management positions. They can be found parasitizing most large companies. If their incompetence could be reliably detected, it would trigger a massive unemployment crisis. They are often unwilling or unable to learn new skills; the productive skills that originally got them in the door have atrophied or become irrelevant. Any organization as dysfunctional as you describe isn't going to be meaningfully affected by choice of managers. If politics are that prevalent, then the company is coasting on laurels, and it's not really about getting anything done to expand the pie. It's about in-fighting over the predictable, fixed-sized pie that comes in every quarter.
  - tome 2y ago
    Interesting. How do you distinguish that notion from the notion of the "bourgeoisie"?
    - alphazard 2y ago
      "bourgeoisie" refers to the capitalist class. Made more rigorous, we can say the set of people who do not need employment to pay their bills, they can live off of investment income. They often still perform labor, but as a part of their own businesses. The bureaucratic class depend heavily on employment income. They are very lucky to have their jobs, and could be easily replaced or eliminated. They are desperate to maintain the structure of the bureaucracy in which they thrive. They create a cost born by both the "working class" and the "capitalist class". They consume the resources of the capitalist class, and mis-allocate the labor of the working class. If the investors and employees could coordinate without them, more value would be created for the capitalist and more wages could be kept by the worker.

sevensor 2y ago

Strange that you’d say that. What I’ve seen is that promoting homegrown ICs to line management is a favored strategy of nontechnical MBAs in upper management. Any large organization is bureaucratic. Given the intensely bureaucratic record of communist governments, your invocation of Marxist rhetoric here is frankly laughable. What promoting inexperienced managers from within does is place them at a tremendous informational disadvantage. Never having worked anywhere else, they don’t understand the coded language of bureaucracy and they have no perspective on what constitutes normal behavior. This gives the MBA latitude to abuse them as pawns in organizational power games they don’t understand, until they either burn out or wise up.

alphazard 2y ago
> he used the word "class", let me find Marxism in my dialogue tree. If you were unaware of the term "bureaucratic class", it's not a pro-marxist shibboleth. It refers to the population of aging white collar workers without useful skills, usually in management positions. They can be found parasitizing most large companies. If their incompetence could be reliably detected, it would trigger a massive unemployment crisis. They are often unwilling or unable to learn new skills; the productive skills that originally got them in the door have atrophied or become irrelevant. Any organization as dysfunctional as you describe isn't going to be meaningfully affected by choice of managers. If politics are that prevalent, then the company is coasting on laurels, and it's not really about getting anything done to expand the pie. It's about in-fighting over the predictable, fixed-sized pie that comes in every quarter.
- tome 2y ago
  Interesting. How do you distinguish that notion from the notion of the "bourgeoisie"?
  - alphazard 2y ago
    "bourgeoisie" refers to the capitalist class. Made more rigorous, we can say the set of people who do not need employment to pay their bills, they can live off of investment income. They often still perform labor, but as a part of their own businesses. The bureaucratic class depend heavily on employment income. They are very lucky to have their jobs, and could be easily replaced or eliminated. They are desperate to maintain the structure of the bureaucracy in which they thrive. They create a cost born by both the "working class" and the "capitalist class". They consume the resources of the capitalist class, and mis-allocate the labor of the working class. If the investors and employees could coordinate without them, more value would be created for the capitalist and more wages could be kept by the worker.