4 ms·

There's also a flip side of this: a manager of a team of N is responsible for representing the collective results of a team of N. If the team is successful and

There's also a flip side of this: a manager of a team of N is responsible for representing the collective results of a team of N. If the team is successful and hits a home run, then the manager benefits a lot. If the team crashes and burns, then the manager is at significant risk of job loss. (Yes, office politics will come into play and managers will do their best in the latter case to diffuse blame, but the point is, they are the most visible elements of their respective teams.)

gjm11 12y ago
> If the team crashes and burns, then the manager is at significant risk of job loss. I hear this frequently, but I'm not sure it matches my experience well. Among people I've known and worked with, I haven't noticed that managers get fired at any greater rate than non-managers. I haven't looked at any actual statistics on this; maybe management really is much riskier. But I can't help suspecting that the idea that management (and especially executive) pay is justified by greater career risk may be mostly a story told by managers to make themselves and others feel better about pay differentials.
- theorique 12y ago
  Perhaps it is more accurate to say: "If the team crashes and burns, then the naive, politically confused, disconnected manager is at significant risk of job loss". Most people don't like firing people they have worked with for months or years. Most people don't like getting fired. The savvy manager who knows organizational jiu-jitsu and can explain with a great story can often come up smelling like roses after disaster. The naive manager who assumes that everything is the way the mission statement says it is ... will be out on his ass. See: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...

gjm11 12y ago

> If the team crashes and burns, then the manager is at significant risk of job loss. I hear this frequently, but I'm not sure it matches my experience well. Among people I've known and worked with, I haven't noticed that managers get fired at any greater rate than non-managers. I haven't looked at any actual statistics on this; maybe management really is much riskier. But I can't help suspecting that the idea that management (and especially executive) pay is justified by greater career risk may be mostly a story told by managers to make themselves and others feel better about pay differentials.

theorique 12y ago
Perhaps it is more accurate to say: "If the team crashes and burns, then the naive, politically confused, disconnected manager is at significant risk of job loss". Most people don't like firing people they have worked with for months or years. Most people don't like getting fired. The savvy manager who knows organizational jiu-jitsu and can explain with a great story can often come up smelling like roses after disaster. The naive manager who assumes that everything is the way the mission statement says it is ... will be out on his ass. See: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...