Managing people is a complex problem that requires a specific set of skills which take time and practice to get right. I've known (and reported to) incredible managers who not only got us to achieve more than our team would have otherwise, but made us enjoy our jobs more in the process. I've also had managers who've lacked in that skillset, and had the exact opposite effect. And it was never because they were assholes or sociopaths- they just didn't have the skills they needed for the job.
I may take on the management role someday, not because of some dream of lording over people and giving orders (that part actually turns me off) but because it's a new domain of complex problems.
But the roles does come with some power. And after a while, it is human nature to get used to that privilege that it starts becoming invisible.
Getting used to being a manager (or the 'privilege' as you call it) is not a bad thing and in no way does your interpretation of human nature make any difference.
I wrote that the powers that come from being a manager is a privilege. Are you arguing that it is not? Or are you arguing that managers don't have such powers?
The "no true manager" argument is always brought out when I say something critical of the management profession.
>Power isn't the benefit of the role unless you're a sociopath or an asshole.
I agree. Guess who inevitably fills management jobs at medium to large companies.
For instance, I just left a well paying job at a very large company because my manager quit: he though no initiative could never be successful in the internal political climate, so he left despite being offered a big promotion. Since he left, the company had 6 high profile resignations, as we all knew the alternatives the head of IT was considering were just bad managers. Now, with tentpole technical people leaving, a lot of other qualified people are looking for new jobs too: It was quality leadership that was bringing the team together.
Really, your original comment on this topic would be 100% fair if you were describing what this company is going to end up with. I have worked for horrible, horrible managers over the years. It's just that once you have seen good management, and understand the wonders of productivity one of those can achieve, it's just very hard to agree with a view quite as dire as yours.
There's all this companies that are working on helping recruit good developers: In my experience, good developers are not really THAT hard to find: But a company that could help hire good managers, and properly identify the people that have management qualities in our office, as opposed to just those that look and sound managerial? Now that's a company that would be worth hiring.
That's a fair point- I won't say there aren't any bad managers- there are sociopaths attracted to the field. But I don't think you've met any of the good ones either. I'm sorry to hear that.
> Guess who inevitably fills management jobs at medium to large companies.
The sociopath-style manager will only have short-term gains compared to the managers who've acquired the skill set for the domain. One's people will be unhappy and quit; the other's will stay and encourage friends to join. After a few years of this, when upper management want to promote to a manager-of-managers, the long-term results will speak for themselves.
That's how I lost my best manager- he succeeded so widely that he was promoted up another level (where he continued to do very well).
My advice to you is to consider how you would behave as a manager. How would you run a team of ICs such that they'd be happy, productive, and meeting all goals? It's not about whether you'd want to or not, it's how you'd approach the problem.
No they won't because corporate management creates perverse policies of continuous turnover and stack ranking for this exact reason. Losing all your people many times over in a short time is just portrayed as a sign of a good manager culling the herd.
If you're hiring makers and doers who don't value good management, you will not be able to function.
After all, if I was going to do what I think is profitable, I don't think accepting a pay check from the company is worth giving up the entire upside of my own ideas - I'd quit and do my own thing. If I knew what customers wanted, and the company didn't, why stay?
You could have a situation where the sales people talk directly to the developers. If sales team were the managers, then they tend to over-promise. If engineering was in charge, then what they build tend to be out-of-touch with their market.
Taking out the manager is to bet that sales team and engineering team can work with each other directly with equal clout, and be able to maintain that equilibrium.
But for my own situation, if the founders decided to quit and promote me (and everyone else) to lead the company as a holacracy, providing only salary and no equity, I'd quit. I could work on my own ideas by myself with all of the equity, why do it in a company where I have none?