(no subject)

[rivka]

[Poll #649524]

I set question #1 up as a forced choice because I suspected that, otherwise, everyone's answer would be "it depends." I'd be delighted to entertain further discussion of what it depends on, and why, in the comments section - but I also wanted people's gut reaction if they were forced to choose one or the other.

Comments

[elynne.livejournal.com]

My answer to #1 is universally A good supervisor doesn't ask subordinates to do anything the supervisor isn't willing to do. No nuance. A good supervisor absolutely should know how to, and be willing to, do everything that the subordinates do as part of the job. A good supervisor absolutely should have been promoted "from the ranks", rather than given a bit of paper that says "I is a Managur!" and stuck into a position of authority (this one I have experienced, many times, and it has universally sucked ass, and not in a good way). This doesn't mean that a good manager should do everything; a manager is meant to be managing, not doing the jobs of the people she is managing. But, if one of the people has a problem, if one of the jobs gets completely out of control, if work is not getting done as fast as necessary, a manager should absolutely be willing and able to roll up her sleeves and jump in. And she should be willing and able to lay down some heavy smackdown and/or training afterwards, so that situation doesn't happen again.

In an emergency situation, I have far, far more respect for a supervisor who leaps into the trenches and pitches in than I do for a supervisor who stands on the viewing platform shouting "Dig faster! Dig harder! Go team go!"

[kightp.livejournal.com]

A good supervisor absolutely should have been promoted "from the ranks", rather than given a bit of paper that says "I is a Managur!" and stuck into a position of authority

I used to feel this way. But my current boss did rise through the ranks - from the job that would become mine - and his inability to let go has been a thorn in my side for more than a decade. He still expects me to do things the way he used to do them, even though my own methods work perfectly well - and even though the job and the technology used to perform it no longer bear much resemblance to the job he was doing in my place.

Frankly, I've been happier working for managers who were professional managers, had great people and organizational skills - and little or no on-the-ground experience in the jobs of the people they're managing.

[bsquad.livejournal.com]

In the field of software development, promotion from within the ranks is often the worst possible course of action and harmful both to the development process and to the managerial side of things simultaneously.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Not just there, either. Ever read The Peter Principle?

[bsquad.livejournal.com]

No, but I've had it summarized.

In software, it's particularly tricky, though. Because of the huge disparity in productivity, promoting your least competent programmers to management is actually a better choice than promoting the competent although neither choice is particularly good.

This is part of a much larger rant that may or may not eventually resolve itself into a book about what it takes to be a good manager of software developers and how those skills are different from both what it takes to be a good programmer and what it takes to be a good general-purpose manager.