3 ms·

> Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. I agree with this. Having a tech p

> Having a person with no tech experience leading a tech department is a very easy way to create a terrible tech department. I agree with this. Having a tech person lead the tech department creates a reasonable floor for output of the team. However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Again this is a risky approach and has a high failure rate but the biggest wins can be massive.

constantcrying 1y ago
>However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Wrong. The person fundamentally does not understand what the employees are doing and can not make informed decisions. You are correct that the decisions will include more "out of the box" thinking, but this will make the entire department a torture chamber for the employees as they are suffering under decisions which are obviously nonsensical and counter productive. Prioritizing novelty over competency is a road straight to dysfunction. The people who are the best at implementing new concepts are the rare cases of people who have both a deep technical foundation and great leadership skills. Those actually can come up with new Ideas which work.
- paulcole 1y ago
  > Wrong Lol sorry I didn’t realize.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    No Problem. Glad that you realized your error after reading my actual reasoning hidden after that one word sentence.
    - paulcole 1y ago
      Didn’t even read it brother.
      - constantcrying 1y ago
        What is the point of replying? If you want to have your nonsense validated take it to a LLM.
        paulcole 1y ago
        It’s just not the same as an organic interaction with a know-it-all tech bro.

constantcrying 1y ago

>However, I think the ceiling is higher when a non-tech person is leading the group. When a tech person is leading the group the ceiling is (roughly) their technical ability. The non-tech person can be more open to new ideas, alternative approaches, flexibility, change, etc. because they don’t have the same built-in biases and preconceived notions as a tech person. Wrong. The person fundamentally does not understand what the employees are doing and can not make informed decisions. You are correct that the decisions will include more "out of the box" thinking, but this will make the entire department a torture chamber for the employees as they are suffering under decisions which are obviously nonsensical and counter productive. Prioritizing novelty over competency is a road straight to dysfunction. The people who are the best at implementing new concepts are the rare cases of people who have both a deep technical foundation and great leadership skills. Those actually can come up with new Ideas which work.

paulcole 1y ago
> Wrong Lol sorry I didn’t realize.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  No Problem. Glad that you realized your error after reading my actual reasoning hidden after that one word sentence.
  - paulcole 1y ago
    Didn’t even read it brother.
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      What is the point of replying? If you want to have your nonsense validated take it to a LLM.
      - paulcole 1y ago
        It’s just not the same as an organic interaction with a know-it-all tech bro.