Sam Wilson wrote:

>Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.

There was a time when my Chief Engineer and Engineering Manager,
whilst both excellent engineers, had no real management skills.
This was such a shame, as their real talents were wasted, and
their ineptitude diminished the work of those in their charge.

I'm not sure what would have happened if we had been allowed to
share our evaluation, in the way that some systems encourage
these days, but it would have been interesting to find out.

I recall one of my annual appraisals, termed a "Merit Assessment"
(which was really just a way to allocate a budget for annual
increments by working backwards from the financial limitations,
like physics practicals) where I was given no enhancement because
I had not "expanded my role".

I suggested this might in some way be linked to my having
performed all those tasks which had be allocated to me, but
management hadn't chosen to "expand my role". This was not a
fruitful argument.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>managers.
>
>They need training for the management role, and many discover that they
>don't enjoying managing nearly as much as doing. The extra money and perks
>are nice, but the job may be less fun (eg, lots of pilots hate 'flying a
>desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.

Another good example is football, for those who follow it. Historically, it has
almost always been the case that the very best managers (eg, the likes of Alex
Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, and going back further, Alf Ramsey)
were, at best, mediocre players in their playing career. Because those who were
merely competant, rather than excellent, at playing the game were under no
illusion that to be a good, rather than merely competant, manager required a
different skillset. The star players, by contrast, often struggled in management
because their playing skills weren't transferrable to management and they lacked
the self-awareness to realise that.

Oddly enough, that has now changed to some extent, and former star players, such
as Zinedine Zidane and Steven Gerrard, are now making their mark as managers.
But one of the main reaons for that is the requirement for coaching and
managerial staff to undergo training in order to qualify for the UEFA Pro
Licence. Players can't just step off the pitch and into the dugout any more,
they have to spend time in the classroom actually learning how to manage.
Reputation alone isn't enough.

Mark

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 20:32:07 +0100
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:12:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:05:25 +0100
>>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:09:11 +0100
>>>>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:10:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>What particular skill set is that then, "Governing"? Thats not a skill.
>Any
>>>>>>fucking idiot can give orders or make suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>>You really are determined to rack up the wrong, aren't you :-)
>>>>
>>>>I know it probably hurts your ego as know doubt its what you do for a job.
>>>
>>>Another factually wrong statement. Ker-ching!
>>
>>I really don't give damn, you're full of shit you just don't know it.
>
>Ker-ching :-)

Do keep it , this is highly amusing :)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>
>
>It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>managers.

IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
their current role or ability to manage.

>desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.

Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:45:34 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>
>>
>>It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>managers.
>
>IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>their current role or ability to manage.

That may well be your experience of being promoted to management. It in't true
for everybody.

Mark

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>
>>
>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>> managers.
>
> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
> their current role or ability to manage.
>
>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>
> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.

Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
once they’ve received the promotion.

Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
satisfaction.

And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.

Lew

Lew 1 wrote:

>Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>once they’ve received the promotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

"The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by
Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend
to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are
promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach
a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one
job do not necessarily translate to another."

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:06:10 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:

>Lew 1 wrote:
>
>>Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>>structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>>ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>>once they’ve received the promotion.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
>
>"The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by
>Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend
>to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are
>promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach
>a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one
>job do not necessarily translate to another."

There is still a lot of truth in that, although greater understanding of the
necessary skillset required for management has tended to diminish it. It's most
common in places which still have the mindset that all promotion should be
internal, and the only way to the top is to start at the bottom and work up.

Mark

Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> Lew 1 wrote:
>
>> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>> once they’ve received the promotion.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
>
> "The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by
> Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend
> to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are
> promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach
> a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one
> job do not necessarily translate to another."

Ah yes - far more succinct than my half-memories!

Lew

On 24/06/2022 18:02, Lew 1 wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>> managers.
>>
>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>
>>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>>
>> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
>> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.
>
> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
> once they’ve received the promotion.
>
> Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
> often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
> say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
> satisfaction.
>
> And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
> higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
> their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.
>

The Peter Principle I believe
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Lew 1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>> managers.
>>
>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>
>>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>>
>> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
>> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.
>
> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
> once they’ve received the promotion.
>
> Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
> often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
> say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
> satisfaction.
>
> And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
> higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
> their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.
>
>

The railway likes to move people like that 'sideways' to "Special Projects"
where they can't cause harm.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 24/06/2022 20:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Lew 1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>>> managers.
>>>
>>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>>
>>>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>>>
>>> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
>>> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.
>>
>> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>> once they’ve received the promotion.
>>
>> Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
>> often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
>> say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
>> satisfaction.
>>
>> And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
>> higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
>> their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.
>>
>>
>
> The railway likes to move people like that 'sideways' to "Special Projects"
> where they can't cause harm.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

Or when an MD is trying to find a place for somebody who serves no
purpose, yet cannot be dismissed.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/06/2022 20:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Lew 1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>>>> managers.
>>>>
>>>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>>>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>>>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>>>
>>>>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>>>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>>>>
>>>> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
>>>> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.
>>>
>>> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>>> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>>> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>>> once they’ve received the promotion.
>>>
>>> Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
>>> often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
>>> say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
>>> satisfaction.
>>>
>>> And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
>>> higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
>>> their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The railway likes to move people like that 'sideways' to "Special Projects"
>> where they can't cause harm.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
> Or when an MD is trying to find a place for somebody who serves no
> purpose, yet cannot be dismissed.
>

The calibration department

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Lew 1 <email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>>> managers.
>>>
>>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>>
>>>> desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>>> people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>>>
>>> Leadership != management. Management is mundane administration, real
>>> inspirational leadership is a skill few people possess.
>>
>> Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>> structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>> ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>> once they’ve received the promotion.
>>
>> Companies who give six-month ‘try-outs’ before commiting to a promotion
>> often do better, though that does mean beating some societal stigmas that
>> say everyone should always be chasing a promotion / higher salary over job
>> satisfaction.
>>
>> And once you’ve got a job where you’re incompetent, you won’t go any
>> higher, but neither will most accept going lower again without throwing
>> their toys out the pram and leaving the company altogether.
>>
>>
>
> The railway likes to move people like that 'sideways' to "Special Projects"
> where they can't cause harm.

Ah yes, we used to have people assigned to Special Projects, usually senior
people whose roles were redefined after a reorganisation. Also referred to
be some people as “Retirement In Post”.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:01:53 +0100
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:45:34 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>
>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>>good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>>of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>>even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>>managers.
>>
>>IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>>or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>
>>their current role or ability to manage.
>
>That may well be your experience of being promoted to management. It in't true
>for everybody.

Funny. I've specifically avoided management roles because A) I'm already
earning a similar salary and B) why would I do tedious admin when I can do
something far more productive and interesting with a sense of accomplishment
at the end.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:01:53 +0100
> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:45:34 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly the same used to happen in Universities, where a Professor,
>>>>> distinguished by being a good researcher, was also required to be head of
>>>>> department, requiring good administrative and political skills. There were
>>
>>>>> some disasters and things are much more flexible these days.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>>> good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>>> of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>>> even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>>> managers.
>>>
>>> IME people get promoted to management based on how much noise they've made
>>> or arse licking they've done. It has little to do with any ability either with
>>
>>> their current role or ability to manage.
>>
>> That may well be your experience of being promoted to management. It in't true
>> for everybody.
>
> Funny. I've specifically avoided management roles because A) I'm already
> earning a similar salary and B) why would I do tedious admin when I can do
> something far more productive and interesting with a sense of accomplishment
> at the end.

Genuine question: Why do you think that people who manage should be ones
with solid experience of the field they’re working in? Wouldn’t they
rather be doing the work like you do?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:39:10 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Funny. I've specifically avoided management roles because A) I'm already
>> earning a similar salary and B) why would I do tedious admin when I can do
>> something far more productive and interesting with a sense of accomplishment
>> at the end.
>
>Genuine question: Why do you think that people who manage should be ones
>with solid experience of the field they’re working in? Wouldn’t they

Because then they'll have an idea of how much effort and manpower a task will
require or whether its possible at all. They'll also be able to discuss issues
and future upgrades with higher management and customers beyond "I'll get back
to you" style platitudes.

>rather be doing the work like you do?

Everyones different. Some people fancy a change or a different pace I suppose.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:39:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Funny. I've specifically avoided management roles because A) I'm already
>>> earning a similar salary and B) why would I do tedious admin when I can do
>>> something far more productive and interesting with a sense of accomplishment
>>> at the end.
>>
>> Genuine question: Why do you think that people who manage should be ones
>> with solid experience of the field they’re working in? Wouldn’t they
>
> Because then they'll have an idea of how much effort and manpower a task will
> require or whether its possible at all. They'll also be able to discuss issues
> and future upgrades with higher management and customers beyond "I'll get back
> to you" style platitudes.
>
>> rather be doing the work like you do?
>
> Everyones different. Some people fancy a change or a different pace I suppose.

But why would they want to do, and I quote, “tedious admin”?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 16:15:41 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Because then they'll have an idea of how much effort and manpower a task
>will
>> require or whether its possible at all. They'll also be able to discuss
>issues
>> and future upgrades with higher management and customers beyond "I'll get
>back
>> to you" style platitudes.
>>
>>> rather be doing the work like you do?
>>
>> Everyones different. Some people fancy a change or a different pace I
>suppose.
>
>But why would they want to do, and I quote, “tedious admin”?

Am I supposed to be a mind reader? How should I know, ask one of them.

Am 25.06.2022 um 18:04 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:39:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Funny. I've specifically avoided management roles because A) I'm already
>>> earning a similar salary and B) why would I do tedious admin when I can do
>>> something far more productive and interesting with a sense of accomplishment
>>> at the end.
>>
>> Genuine question: Why do you think that people who manage should be ones
>> with solid experience of the field they’re working in? Wouldn’t they
>
> Because then they'll have an idea of how much effort and manpower a task will
> require or whether its possible at all. They'll also be able to discuss issues
> and future upgrades with higher management and customers beyond "I'll get back
> to you" style platitudes.

For precisely this reason, our company has sucessively split the old
"development Manager" role into three:

"Line manager" takes care of people development(training, pay rises etc)
"product owner" takes (investment) responsibility of development projects
"software architect" takes responsibility for technical implementation
details.

Only the "line manager" is counted as a managerial role.

Rolf

In message <WNqdnSFVIJkKByn_nZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:53:41 on Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 22/06/2022 17:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:14:48 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t8ukb9$1qmq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:36:57 on Wed, 22 Jun
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> I've worked in over 20 companies in my career with another 3 as a placed
>>>> "consultant". How many have you worked for?
>>>
>>> At least as many as that. But such metrics are disjoint from whether a
>>> professional manager (for example a Head Teacher) has according to you
>>> the same skills as a bin man.

>> I wonder if a head teacher qualifies as a teacher then spends a
>>decade or 2 in the classroom first.... hmm, tricky...
>
>In the past I've heard anecdotally of teachers complaining that being
>"good at teaching" doesn't provide the skill set needed for managing
>other teachers (or things like procurement), and have heard of heads
>struggling with the transition.

You've hit the nail on the head there, and of course some Head Teachers
get appointed because of their skills of balancing budgets, property
management and so on, while never having been a particularly good
subject teacher.

In any event, the Head Teacher particularly in a seondary school, has
very little to do with managing the day to day teaching - that's
something the "Head of Modern Languages" [or whatever] has as their
role.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t8vf5h$nrf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:14:41 on Wed, 22 Jun
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:14:48 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t8ukb9$1qmq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:36:57 on Wed, 22 Jun
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>I've worked in over 20 companies in my career with another 3 as a placed
>>>"consultant". How many have you worked for?
>>
>>At least as many as that. But such metrics are disjoint from whether a
>>professional manager (for example a Head Teacher) has according to you
>>the same skills as a bin man.
>
>I wonder if a head teacher qualifies as a teacher then spends a decade
>or 2 in the classroom first.... hmm, tricky...

A decade or two in the classroom provides very little experience in the
tasks of a Head Teacher - balancing budgets, talking to architects about
the plans for the new sixth form centre, negotiating with unions about
redundancies and equal pay for the non teaching staff, etc.

>>>I have a damn good idea of what makes a good manager and what doesn't.
>>
>>I'm sure you do, but you appear to have had a spectacular run of bad
>>luck.
>
>I have? News to me.

You are constantly moaning about it. My definition of a good manager is
one who approves my requests for annual leave promptly, nothing at all
to do with whether I'm doing my job properly.
--
Roland Perry

In message <s89bbhp1fmt765rmkarqm8v2ocqtp32efr@4ax.com>, at 13:02:26 on
Fri, 24 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:37:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>It's not just in education. In almost every field, people who are really
>>good at something don't necessarily turn out to be good at managing teams
>>of other people of more variable ability doing the same job. And they're
>>even less likely to be naturally excellent senior managers of other
>>managers.
>>
>>They need training for the management role, and many discover that they
>>don't enjoying managing nearly as much as doing. The extra money and perks
>>are nice, but the job may be less fun (eg, lots of pilots hate 'flying a
>>desk', after they get promoted into senior management). Conversely, a few
>>people are natural leaders, and are better in that role.
>
>Another good example is football, for those who follow it.
>Historically, it has almost always been the case that the very best
>managers (eg, the likes of Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger,
>and going back further, Alf Ramsey) were, at best, mediocre players in
>their playing career. Because those who were merely competant, rather
>than excellent, at playing the game were under no illusion that to be a
>good, rather than merely competant, manager required a different
>skillset. The star players, by contrast, often struggled in management
>because their playing skills weren't transferrable to management and
>they lacked the self-awareness to realise that.
>
>Oddly enough, that has now changed to some extent, and former star
>players, such as Zinedine Zidane and Steven Gerrard, are now making
>their mark as managers. But one of the main reaons for that is the
>requirement for coaching and managerial staff to undergo training in
>order to qualify for the UEFA Pro Licence. Players can't just step off
>the pitch and into the dugout any more, they have to spend time in the
>classroom actually learning how to manage. Reputation alone isn't enough.

When I was at University (in the 70's) the course was specifically
designed to not only teach how to be competent hands-on engineers, but
be able to manage teams of engineers, communicate with clients (while
not verbalised, being a marketing person) and so on. Because it was
recognised most of us would end up in that role sooner rather than
later.

Getting back to the hands-on engineering, the mission was to know enough
about a dozen different branches of engineering to be able to assess,
define, and ultimately recruit a subject-expert(s) who could deliver the
fine detail.

I could never design a GSM phone single handed, but I known some men who
could [and did]. Oddly, perhaps, some of the skills in high power RF
engineering are actually material science (what to use as a sufficiently
both heat-conducting, and electrically insulating, material for heat
sinks).

One of my work-experience placements was doing that kind of thing for
in-aircraft radar, which ObRail operated internally at 25kV, which was a
bit exciting. Of course you also get quite high voltages inside CRT
colour televisions, so there's many transferable skills here.
--
Roland Perry

In message <0dCdnT-m-6KMACn_nZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:04:15 on Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 22/06/2022 07:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <VYqdnav-NJm7YSz_nZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>18:13:09 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>remarked:
>>> On 21/06/2022 12:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> and let's face it the biggest problem schools have is prioritising
>>>>the  use of the limited funds they have.
>>>
>>> Is that really a bigger problem than all the kids..?
>> Of course it is.
>
>I'm pretty sure getting rid of the kids would solve a lot of the money
>concerns,

Only if that meant getting rid of the teachers (whose salaries are the
vast majority of a school budget).

You then run into resistance from the unions, who will probably insist
on a last-in-first-out policy COMPLETELY REGARDLESS of individual merit
as classroom teachers. (Been there, got the t-shirt).

>while getting rid of the money wouldn't solve the kid problems. See
>also: the pandemic showing that railways really do run better when
>there are no passengers to get in the way.

--
Roland Perry

In message <39sbbhdfli8ruboebpb73dpmvrgbtv24ag@4ax.com>, at 18:16:51 on
Fri, 24 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:06:10 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Lew 1 wrote:
>>
>>>Isn’t there a school of thought that, the way most western companies are
>>>structured, you will *always* end up with people promoted beyond their
>>>ability because the only time their aptitude for higher role is tested is
>>>once they’ve received the promotion.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
>>
>>"The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by
>>Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend
>>to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are
>>promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach
>>a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one
>>job do not necessarily translate to another."
>
>There is still a lot of truth in that, although greater understanding of the
>necessary skillset required for management has tended to diminish it. It's most
>common in places which still have the mindset that all promotion should be
>internal, and the only way to the top is to start at the bottom and work up.

One of the interesting things about education (as an industry) is that
internal promotion is rare, and people have to switch to a different
school to advance their career. Even if they turn up later back at the
original school a couple of rungs up the ladder.
--
Roland Perry