“Manglement”. I like that. I’m gonna start using that to refer to the incompetent leadership at my workplace.
Comment on Why is leadership valued so much over expertise?
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Because you are mistaking technical skill with people skills.
People who go up manglement chains have people skills. You don’t want your middle manglement making decisions that technical people make.
AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
atro_city@fedia.io 1 day ago
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not talking about technical people going up the ladder. I'm asking why going up the ladder is valued more than becoming or being an expert on the ground.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
Impact and risk.
Farther up the chain your decisions have broader impact, good or bad. Those kinds decisions have more value than decisions that have a much narrower range of effect.
As what my industry calls an SME(subject matter expert), at most my decisions effect one or two systems at a time, while a leadership decision impacts 10 or 100 (or more) people’s focus/direction. This includes the risks - so their decisions have a much broader scope.
boob_warbler@fedinsfw.app 1 day ago
2 things come to my mind
- Social pressure - There’s a need to be “seen”. Being a technical expert on ground doesn’t make you " seen”.
- Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.
atro_city@fedia.io 1 day ago
- Social pressure - There's a need to be "seen". Being a technical expert on ground doesn't make you " seen".
Ah yes, exposure 🤔 So maybe by making technical experts seen, it would normalise increasing their salary.
- Money - The higher you go, the more money you make.
I'm questioning why this is the case ;)
boob_warbler@fedinsfw.app 1 day ago
Its just too many things packaged and loaded in that question. Haha
If you are a brilliant engineer, you might build an amazing feature. But if you are a director managing 5 teams of 8 engineers, your decisions affect the output of 40 people. Even a small 1% improvement in their efficiency multiplies across the whole group, resulting in massive financial impact.
If a VP makes a strategic mistake, an entire product line gets canceled, and 200 people lose their jobs. Higher pay is often a premium for taking on that personal and financial risk.
On the flip side, traditional corporate structure puts a cap on individual value. They operate like early 20th century assembly line, where a deeply technical engineer is seen no different than a blue collar drone.
As for the “being seen” situation, its not about being seen by your bosses. Its more about being seen by your family and friends. At least in certain cultures, “man of the house” is expected to weild power over others outside their house too. While some are OK being called potty as long as they’re paid forty, not everyone subscribes to it.
serpineslair@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Money, power. Most people want to climb said ladder, so suck up to those higher to gain a foothold.
CameronDev@programming.dev 1 day ago
Ideally you want a balance of both, pure people skills ends with poor technical decisions, pure technical ends with inability to get the other employees on board.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Id rather they leave the technical decisions to the people they literally hire to do technical stuff, not the people they hire to do people stuff.
CameronDev@programming.dev 1 day ago
The direction a company should go in is a technical decision. It has to come from a leader of some kind, and if that leader is non technical or disconnected from the employees, that’s how you get poor decisions.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Using MySQL vs mariadb is not a managerial decision. Using Debian over Fedora is not a managerial decision.
Using Service Now over Top desk is a managerial decision.
That is what I mean when talking about technical people making technical decisions
A good manager points the org in a direction and let’s those hired for roles do their job in working to that objective.