6 Jan
2012
6 Jan
'12
3:51 a.m.
On 1/5/12 2:58 PM, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2012 03:51 PM, Mouse wrote:
No.
You're jumping to an incorrect conclusion. I'm fully aware that a
really good manager is a godsend. I'm also fully aware that such
managers are an endangered species to the point of practically being a
fabled creature. I've been working in this field professionally for a
few decades now, and I have never met one. I'm not just saying that
I've never worked for one, I've never MET one. Ever.
So yes, while your assertion is quite right theoretically speaking,
in practice things are quite a bit less nice. The people that actually
get the managerial positions typically have just about zero brainpower;
that has very much become the norm for such positions.
I would never make the assertion that computer technical smarts are
somehow the only true kind of smarts.
-Dave
I've had really good managers ( a couple) adequate managers (a couple) and
horrible managers (too many to count). Anymore at least in the corporate
setting it seems that management is too busy playing corporate politics to
get the management job done properly.
And that
crazy idea that being in "management" (overhead positions
that require no real brainpower) as opposed to creating things has
really crippled our industry.
It's almost as bad as the idea that management is pure overhead that
brings no value.
I mean that. Management _can_ be pure zero/negative-production
overhead. But hey, so can any other position. And a really good
manager is a godsend.
There's a tendency for computer geeks to wear blinkers specific to
their field, to think that anyone who can't make a computer sit up and
dance must be stupid (cf the "no real brainpower" remark above), as if
computer technical smarts were somehow the only true kind of smarts.