Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordnacho | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I’ll sound like a bitter old techie, but it’s absolutely wrong to have someone with no direct experience managing something that is technical.

If you can’t code, you shouldn’t manage coders. If you’re not a lawyer, don’t run a law firm. If you haven’t been in charge of a class of kids, you shouldn’t run a school. And that’s despite the day-to-day of these management roles not touching code/clients/kids.

The experience gained in a few years on any ladder is enough to appreciate most of how people in those fields think.

Have you ever tried working for someone who didn’t have relevant experience? You get people deciding that they don’t need an issue tracker, let alone a code repo. You get people who think paying Google 5 bucks a months is not worth it, they’d rather have their own email server. And it’s not that there’s never a case for having your own server, it’s that the case is never made in a technical way (eg we want security / uptime / whatever). The techies end up having to translate complex reasoning into something a layman could understand, or at least pretend to. A lot of time is wasted explaining things. And then when there’s feedback - and most people cannot resist the temptation to act like they’re contributing - it only makes sense to the non technical staff, while the tech people are trying to implement whatever crazy modification it is they’ve been given.

What these people tend to do is to make everything a management issue. So management, just like politics ends up having its own ladder. Relevant experience for being a health minister is to have been an MP. Relevant experience for managing a code department is having managed the interns.

It massively corrosive to let this continue.

And before someone makes this argument, it's perfectly possible for techies to do the managing and politics.

View on HN

Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are. We're not talking about an architect here. A team lead is different than a V or C level, my understanding is that the minister has about 3-4 layers between him and someone pushing code or writing policy. If I have the choice of putting someone at the head of a division of 200 people with excellent people management skills or good domain knowledge the former will trump in almost all cases. Domain knowledge is great, but it can actually make you less open minded and unbiased.

I've seen some pretty scary discussions about underlying technology in executive management with seasoned industry veterans and it's the usually the person with no domain knowledge that asks the right questions that lead to a good decision.

You depend on your team to execute. They depend on their team and so on.

That's why the minister expressed that he preferred the questions in advance so he can distribute them with his team (the experts) and get the right answers instead of answering on behalf of them.

Also it's pretty hard to get hacked when you don't have a computer. If anything the fact he rose to his position without the help of modern devices is a pretty strong testament to his fundamentals. Most managers and executives in tech would find their day-to-day pretty difficult without modern productivity tools.

I strongly disagree with "Some of the best managers I know, especially in tech, are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are."

These people defer everything to their subordinates including major technical decisions. Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"?

As Steve Jobs said, "I don't hire managers. I hire amazing individual contributors, but the only reason they become managers is that they can't achieve their vision on their own."

Just to be clear, technical managers don't necessarily have to get mangled up in detailed work - they need to have a vision for what their team is going to do. It is a "pull" rather than "push". An ideal manager should be someone that their subordinates aspire to be and they have a leadership character that is worthy of following. They give room for their team to provide inputs and they're decisive when time comes.

I think you are on to something. Steve Jobs was like a "curator" from top to bottom and beginning to end. Though he could not code, draw, or design he certainly could lead (albeit in a quasi-abusive fashion at times) and his vision was shaped by Vitruvian theory.

"...Vitruvius believed that an architect should focus on three central themes when preparing a design for a building: firmitas (strength), utilitas (functionality), and venustas (beauty)..."

Interesting Ref - https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/bodies/vitruvius/proportion....

>Though he [Steve Jobs] could not code

Right, I'm going to throw a MASSIVE [citation needed] here.

This is common knowledge. Did you think he was code reviewing Woz while they were working together? Jobs was the salesman, Woz was the engineer.

Since you couldn't be bothered to Google it yourself, here's an archive of Woz's personal website.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130208163637/http://www.woz.or...

Companies are made, overwhelmingly, of people. Managing those people is quite literally the definition of management.

What if I told you that you could be a charismatic influential leader of a tech company without knowing how to program. It's definitely not what the developers on hackernews want to hear but it's true. Yes you can be both. EQ is a thing.

I've worked for 6 tech companies. Only in 2 did the owner know how to code. Only one was the owner an ex professional coder. They were all charismatic to some degree. Although the less charismatic were more pleasurable to work for, for whatever reason.

If your employees are managers, then it's (sometimes) okay to have no domain experience in whatever it is your company does, because the people you're managing aren't doing that thing. You only have to understand how those people think, and those people think—at least part of the time—like managers.

The job of the team leads—those managers whose only subordinates are domain-worker leaf-nodes—to act as a translation layer between your thought process and their subordinate domain-workers' thought process. They need the experience. (And they're the only "managers" that most people on HN seem to think have any value, given HN's love of flat org-charts like those of Valve and old-Google.)

But to be clear, while "EQ is a thing", for team leads, it's not enough. And in certain sectors (mostly industries where people are promoted into management roles by seniority), that continues to apply all the way up the org-chart, since in those organizations, the middle-managements will be ex-workers and will share the workers' views. So you, as a CEO, can't can't make any top-down decrees that conflict with those views.

For an example: any manager in a hospital, all the way up to the CEO, cannot get away with walking in off a stint at an F500 with no previous hospital experience, and succeed solely because they have high EQ. They need to also understand—deeply and intuitively—that their whole organization is run by people who think saving people's lives is more important than making a profit, and that any changes intended to increase profit at the expense of lives-saved-per-day will either be left unimplemented by the people on the ground, fought, or result in low morale and staff leaving. (Usually all three!)

But there's a difference between not knowing how to program, and having never even used a computer!

Coding experience might give a leader more empathy for their employees, but the latter gives them an understanding of their customers and users.

Companies are also made of non-people systems, indeed the system is what distinguishes a company from just another collection of people. People don't need management so much as systems do. Management's job has to be to improve the system. You can optimize your people as much as you please, dealing with incentives, bonuses, punishments, team placements, making sure everyone is "doing their job", "getting along", etc., but none of that matters in the end for quality and efficient production if the system itself isn't stable.

Deming understood this, his management ideas that transformed countries have yet to break into software. https://maaw.info/DemingsRedbeads.htm is a starting point into the primacy of the system.

I'm sure it's possible. But in my experience, nontechnical people are generally not the best people to lead companies where the technology itself is a primary success factor. In such a business, I believe it is essential for top management to have an instinctive feel for the potentials and weaknesses of the technology.

Admittedly, such companies are a minority, perhaps a small minority, of what are called "tech companies". A lot of "tech companies" are simply applying relatively-well-understood technology to business problems. But when the mission of the business requires pushing the edges of what's possible, it needs leaders who understand what that means.

> These people defer everything to their subordinates including major technical decisions. Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"?

Imo, the idea that the job of a manager is to make decisions is extremely misguided (and old fashioned). It's their jobs to ensure that the right decisions are made. This is a very different thing.

>Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"?

Yes, absolutely. I work for a "people manager" with enough software development experience to ask the right leading questions when someone's stuck on a technical question. Never seen him make an overriding call on the "how," only the "what."

> with enough software development experience ...

^ this detail basically supports the initial point that domain experience is required..

Nevertheless, his role is to manage people and their careers, not to make technical decisions.

And the argument is that those with domain experience are better at managing the people - because they understand what and how those people need to to their job properly.

The problem then is knowing what constitutes a good "what" to decide upon. This can end up with them listening only to their favorite subordinate who may well be offering bad advice when other underlings know better.

> These people defer everything to their subordinates including major technical decisions. Then what the hell is their job!? To "people manage"?

Their job is to shield their developers from the rest of the company, so that the developers can focus on development. That means pushing back on dumb feature requests, helping gather requirements, and going to bat for their team when a project blows its budget or its deadline.

Which leads us back to square one, because to do that efficiently they need experience. If they can't tell a dumb feature request from their ass, they're part of the problem.

But Steve Jobs himself didn't do any of the engineering or design either, so...isn't he a people manager himself? And didn't he bring success to his company?

I think the point of discussion is about decision making. Steve wasn't involved in detail design, programming or engineering but he made decisions. It was his vision, not their subordinates'. He rallied support for his vision of personal computing.

When managers don't make decisions, and instead leave up to their staff to make decisions, what is their job then? "Managing"? Meaning, sitting down on 1:1s every week and act as a face of the team, do yearly reviews and assign safety training courses?

Intelligent and skilled workforce should not waste their time reporting to these people who have no vision or spine of their own.

Their job is similar to that of a Symphony Conductor. They should absolutely have intimate feedback with their immediate subordinates, but only really need a high level overview of what's happening and to have open dialogues with those that are more domain expert than they are.

Having said that, //never// used a computer? To my mind this is like hearing someone say they haven't ever cooked at all for themselves. Not even really basic simple things.

It makes you question just how sheltered and insulated from every-day life this individual is.

Right, but you wouldn’t want a conductor who has never listened to any music. You can have an expert orchestra, but if the conductor is just waving his arms around like he saw in a photo once, they’re just going to ignore the conductor and do their own thing.

> Then what the hell is their job!?

Their job is to let people do their job without interference from an "application architecture group" and pointy-haired bosses, as Joel Spolsky once pointed out: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/04/11/the-development-ab...

It depends what role the manager plays. Some of the best managers I've ever had were not "tech people". Their job was to ensure that we had what we needed to do our jobs effectively, and that we were delivering the level of service upper management wanted.

Somebody once told me that the true definition of a great manager is someone who can clear a path for their team to be able to focus and do the best job they can, while protecting them from the political bullshit and stupid decisions being made around them. Someone who will fight for their team and nurtures their growth and productivity. You don't need to be a tech whiz to do that.

And even when I did have a tech whiz manager I could always learn and depend on for technical decisions, they were great managers in the aforementioned way first and foremost. That is the most important thing.

In addition to the point fermienrico made about the fake managers you discussed, I also think this:

> Domain knowledge is great, but it can actually make you less open minded and unbiased

Is a bit strange to say, since it also undermines your position. If someone has domain knowledge in "managing", then your quote would suggest that they could be "less open minded and unbiased", and as such, a person without domain knowledge in managing might be better - in fact, an acorn (without knowledge in any domain) would be least biased. I'd argue that while you will gain biases as you gain knowledge, you will also be more knowledgeable about relevant things, and that's important. Thus, the best person for a managerial position would be someone with knowledge about managing people and with knowledge about what those people are doing.

> hard to get hacked when you don't have a computer

This is true, but it's also hard to understand what's going on or stay in the loop when you don't have a computer

I'm sure he's aware of this article despite not reading it on his computer :)

I absolutely agree that you can have fantastic managers from a non-technical background if they're intelligent reasonable people with good people skills.

However...

> I've seen some pretty scary discussions about underlying technology in executive management with seasoned industry veterans and it's the usually the person with no domain knowledge that asks the right questions that lead to a good decision.

I think the seasoned veteran in this example is not a seasoned veteran - well, depending on how you define the term. Because the people who are best at their jobs tend to "know what they don't know". If someone has bias, they were probably never any good at their job in the first place.

So I tend to think if you can find someone who has good domain knowledge and good people skills they will consistently outperform someone with just good people skills i.e. Managers gain nothing by not having proper experience in the domain they're managing.

In the example of Japan's cyber-security minister... while he may be able to effectively manage people who might be able to make the right decisions... how can he competently decide who to hire/fire and manage their roles if he has fundamentally no experience in the domain of computers and cyber-security?

I feel the issue is that the hierarchical nature of Japanese society/business/government means few people will challenge a superior. If he declares that in the interests of Cyber Security all passwords should be the same so they are easy to remember will someone challenge him? Will the minister listen to the sage council of a 22 year old hacker fresh out of uni who has been hacking systems since she was 8?

" are the ones that admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are"

This is true but NOT if they have never done any of the work before themselves.

It is not about being better than your teams. It is about knowing the field of work to ensure that you can use your teams to build something better (or at least supposed too).

I have the experience of an accountant who never knew how a software development was supposed to be done, the next is the typical non dev nightmare manager, unreasonable deadlines, confidently adding epic features each week because his team was delivering.

In the other hand I have seen people without any knowledge climb in the corporate, an aunt of mine could not finish high school so no university degree, patience and self learning in home for about 2 years and now she has 5 years of experience as consultant of environmental security for metal industries.

Both parts must be willing to work to ensure good works, but when one of the sides does not know and do not care to fit to the job, company objectives and field of work is when everything starts to break.

>admit their teams are far better qualified to make those decisions than they are

But he still needs to know what they are talking about.

Here's a counterpoint: Lou Gerstner. He saved[1] IBM 25 years ago and had no relevant tech experience. I've also had personal experience with non-techie managers who were exceptional.

Moral of the story is I don't think it's wise to automatically overlook non-techies in the available pool of candidates who might do better at the job.

[1] - Arguably ruined it as well by turning it into a services company, but hopefully everyone agrees he exhibited competence in the turn-around despite the direction chosen.

All the truly non-technical managers I've worked under have been great. They know the bounds of their knowledge, and will either work to expand them if needed, or accept that they should take advice. Very technical managers are also generally fine (up to a certain layer, where business and people management fundamentals trump all). The scary ones are the pseudo-technical managers who think they know far more than they actually do, and so insist on getting into the weeds of technical discussions, and even overruling people who know what they're doing - my worst was a manager who in a post-mortem on a weekend outage after someone pushed "urgent" code on a Saturday morning came out with "well people just shouldn't write bugs, its that simple".

Can’t agree more about pseudo-technical managers.

In 2011 I warned a manager that we must go full JavaScript/HTML5 to be tablet friendly on a website we had to launch (lots of dataviz was involved). He overruled my advice, in front of the boss, and choose a hybrid flash/Wlanguage solution that only him master in the company. ‍️

Of course it’s 2018 and said site still haven’t transitioned out of flash. ‍️

I’m not frontend, theirs customers are not techs savvy, but I can’t help feeling ashamed everytime I need to interact with this site.

Sounds like he was effective in steering the bus away from the brick wall....and into the ocean.

Makes you wonder if a different person could have both turned the company around and steered it into the right direction.

I dunno. Getting a company of hundreds of thousands of people out of a death spiral and into an additional quarter century of prosperity seems like a pretty amazing achievement?

You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you've worked on the assembly line? You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have engineered an automobile? You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been in marketing? You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been a personal injury attorney? You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been an accountant?

You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have relevant experience in auto manufactoring, yes, correct, absolutely.

They should at least have been inside a car!

Sure, but the argument by lordnacho is an extreme overextension of the idea that the leader should have relevant experience.

The context here is a member of the national executive, so demanding detailed micro level experience is required is just silly, at that level nobody can have such broad detailed knowledge. The only practical way is that whoever is in charge learns what they need as they go along.

I think far more important is that whoever is in charge isn't an idiot so they can realize when they have to learn new things. The fact that this guy accepted a position for cyber-security without reading up on computers is plenty of evidence he is an idiot.

How about a bus? Or a train? Or a van?

Do you suppose that there is really a Japanese minister today that has never used a computer? A smart phone? A microwave? A TV? An MP3 player? A network-connected device?

They probably use a computer to enter their home or office. Their desk phone is probably a computer. Their car radio is a computer.

It would be quite a challenge to find a living person in Japan today who has not used a computer. I suppose nothing is impossible, but some claims are so hyperbolic as to be ignored.

I worked on a job rolling out a virtual ISP service for a bluechip telecoms company around 15 years ago.

The project manager was in his fifties and had not only never used a website, he had never touched a keyboard or mouse.

That was secretarial (female) work.

The three things he did in his job was to dictate documents, have meetings and cause utter chaos.

Carlos Tavares, who turned around PSA, is known to be crazy knowledgeable on all things cars and all things manufacturing. Call me bitter but being able to take complex fact based decisions beats taking decision based who got the best Powerpoint. I suspect Lisa Su is a bit the same profile. Extremely successful CEOs tend to be able to be able to understand the details of their operations.

Lisa Su got her BS, MS, and PhD in EE from MIT, so I'm sure she is very knowledgeable on making cpus.

On the other hand most of CEOs that "kind of" manage to perform or totally flop typically don't have any in depth knowledge of what their company actually does.

Compare the CEO of Verizon who built it into what it is today - Ivan G. Seidenberg against a CEO of Sprint or Global Crossing at the time. Notice that the CEO of GlobalCrossing at the time is the current CEO of T-Mobile. It is well known that he had no clue about products of GlobalCrossing or technology behind it and therefore could not realize its competitive advantages. On the other hand he clearly understands the mobile phones which is how he managed to take a T-Mobile from a pissant company that no one cared about to a company that forces ATT and Verizon to respond.

It also helps that T-Mobile (Deutsche Telekom) is the largest telecommunications provider in Europe and the fifth largest in the world.

Not discounting that their positioning in the states has improved in the last couple of years, but they should be to do (and finally are doing) more than just forcing ATT and Verizon to respond.

DT bought VoiceStream in 2001 and renamed it into TMobile. For 11 years TMO was a pissant company even with all that DT "knowledge" and money. Even Sprint and Nextel laughted at it.

It took Legere becoming a CEO 11 years later for anyone to start taking TMO seriously. And boy they do.

with an aggregate function like an auto manufacturer, you'd want the executive in charge of each constituent function to be competent in that area. The CFO should be well-versed in accounts, the head of design should have been a designer, the head of factory ops should have experience and knowledge of how a factory works, and so on.

The CEO is an awkward one because they can fill different roles in different companies, but I guess CEOs are usually people managers first and foremost so it makes sense for CEOs to come from the management chain.

There are always exceptional individuals who can be effective managers without direct business-line experience. These people can incorporate the experience of others (by listening to them) and make good decisions.

However, in the general case, having direct experience in that industry's work brings a large amount of perspective on how the industry works. And this perspective can well inform decision makers for decades afterwards.

How about you shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have some previous experience in auto industry? You need to know the game...

Jaguar Land Rover engineering employees do work on the manufacturing line for this reason.

No you are wrong. Simply you shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer if you have never been in a car for at least a ride. Al least you should know the shape, the noise, the feeling. Otherwise you are just a puppet of the consultants. This guy is supposed to manage the networks security of the olympics! What does networks security means? Probably he thinks that we can change the locks and we are safe again? Or the passwords!! WoW like a movie!

Do you know this person's name? Have you seen their resume? Have you read anything they have written? Have you listened to any interview they have done?

How do you know what they are thinking?

Did you read a headline written by a source you don't know and assume it was true?

Architecture projects are managed by architects. In fact, non-architects don't get to play in "management" of the architecture firms.

Those with no experience in construction do not run around being managers of construction companies doing construction. Those that do won't account for rain delays or know that at certain wind speed one cannot operate a crane and that wind speed would need to come down before 11am. And that's why the projects end up slipping.

> You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been a personal injury attorney?

You will fail at managing a personal injury lawfirm unless you are someone who is intimately familiar handling ( and therefore laws ) of personal injury cases.

> You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been an accountant?

You will fail at managing an accounting firm if you have no idea about accounting process, deadlines, amounts of paperwork or different filing schedules.

I think the key claim here is that the manager should have intuitive understanding of the core value adding functions of the company. Not of every function. Being intrinsically motivated about the core value adding process should be considered a superpower.

A stereotypical example: Nokia vs Apple. The Nokia leadership - just before Iphonegeddon hit all the incumbents - really weren't enthusiastic about their technology nor of their products. Where as in Apple the CEO was deeply involved at least in an editorial role and sourced key components himself, like the glass.

I really would love to hear a counterexample where the company with the aloof macroeconomist golfer at the helm beat the company managed by domain afficionados.

I presume it would be in the commodities, but I'm hoping to be surprised.

Example in the same vein, during Iphonegeddon, RIM CEO Jim Balsillie was consumed with buying an NHL team and told RIM's chairman "We'll be fine".

I studied mechanical engineering and we had to spend more than 3 months in the shop building stuff. This made a huge difference in my understanding of issues when I worked in production management for a while.

So I think if you run a car company you should at least like cars, know how they work to some degree and have worked at a car company for a while. When I came to the US in the 90s and rented a Buick I wondered if the CEO of that company even had tried that car once. It was so bad that I couldn't imagine that anybody who knows a little about cars would have allowed this car to ship.

Great response! I love talking in terms of analogies so this is great! Unfortunately, I don't think your assembly line manager analogy really gets to the heart of what the problem might be. Lets unpack the original cyber security argument:

1) Cyber security is really hard, and it might normally take someone a full university degree, plus several years of experience before they might understand at a high level what kind of strategies are often employed.

2) This minister has no education or experience.

3) Without any education or experience, the minister will not understand exactly what they are responsible for, fail to make good decisions, or otherwise perform poorly.

There are a few key difference between your assembly line analogy and the argument above.

1) The existence of a reasonable best-alternative. It is possible for one person to obtain domain knowledge on cyber security, as well as the knowledge required to perform ministerial duties. In your auto manufacturer example, it is near impossible for any one person to have experience on an assembly line, engineering, marketing, law, and accounting. Lacking this, it might be more reasonable with auto manufacturers to try and select someone who has reasonable breadth, or maybe depth in a couple domains, but might not have depth across all domains.

2) Certain jobs such as that of an assembly worker, do not require as much education and experience as working in cyber security, and as such, it is easier for a manager to have a conceptual model of what is required from their role, without having performed the job themselves.

Agreed 100%.

> If you’re not a lawyer, don’t run a law firm.

Fun fact: the ethics rules of most state bars prohibit lawyers from becoming partners with non-lawyers in a business whose business model involves providing legal advice.

See ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 5.4(b). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

No it is not because you are a bitter old techie. You're right. The world has gone mad.

Look at the most competitive industries: Software, automotive manufacture, film, news, energy, finance, accounting, law.

What do they have in common? The principles of the major corporations all have deep, deep backgrounds in multiple areas related to their business. They often don't even come with a mere CS degree, they've layered it with a masters or PhD or have a degree in a useful field like law.

*principals

This is what happens when I rush out the door before proofing a comment. Thanks.

As an engineer turned manager, I disagree with this.

While it is absolutely essential that the person managing the domain area needs to be capable of understanding the technical details surrounding it, it's not a requirement to have to have done the exact same work as the team.

What's much more valuable and preferable to me and my team is for the person to understand how to build trust and push/prod/coach/enable folks to do their jobs in ways that are best for the team and for the company while having thought through the strategy of the direction we're heading into, and of course, take responsibility for the execution. In order to do that, being able to talk shop is important, but it's only part of the picture.

From being a good engineer to being a good manager is analogous to going from being a good runner to being a good tennis player: some relationship between the two exists (both are athletes), but it's a different set of skills.

> While it is absolutely essential that the person managing the domain area needs to be capable of understanding the technical details surrounding it

Having been a developer who worked his way into management. I cannot see how a manager has time to get to understand the technical details. Between meetings, HR duties and one on ones there isn't much time to get to the technical detail. You need loads of uninterrupted time to get to grips with technical details. As a manager, you don't have that time.

Emphasis: "capable". Mapping one concept into another and between abstraction levels is something displayed by all the strongest leaders I've met.

This depends on what you think a manager's job is. If you think it is to "be the boss", to run things, to make decisions, to tell people what to do, then yes, relevant experience matters.

But there's another view of a manager's job, and that is to create an environment where they can get their work done without having to worry about bullshit like schedules, budgets, and politics. For that kind of a role, a non-technical person can be a great fit, possibly better than a technical one.

The tech manager is an apt analogy for me because I am currently working on hiring a new boss for (myself and) a team of programmers, high performance computing consultants and geographic information systems specialists. Each applicant has different levels of experience in these areas, but I think its safe to say that there are few people in the country that have good GIS and HPC experience.

Different groups need different managers/leaders. I could argue that I need a manager that understands my work so that they can guide me appropriately choosing techniques/languages/architectures. I could also argue that we have a diverse team of experts that self-manage well, and that we need a manager who is a good advocate for the group and good at dealing with the politics of university management, who won't micro-manage, and can deal with all of the admin requirements so that our team can program, make maps and support HPC customers. I agree that they should probably have some kind of a tech background, but I don't think you need to have been a professional programmer to manage me.

* Hopefully no one from HR, and none of the candidates read this.

* * Actually if a job candidate gets an advantage by reading a HN comment then I would consider that in-bounds for their interview prep in this case :)

Just go raid the BCIT GIS program. Find the ones who have management success.

I'm not sure they need to code and know every detail but...having actually USED a computer and having a basic understanding of how it works would be a good start.

It is totally possible for a non-technical person manage a technical team well. There are even certain downfalls (trying to make technical decisions that they are not knowledgeable enough to make) that a manager with a technical background is MORE likely to make.

That doesn't mean this particular one is good at it, of course. But the role of management is often to manage external relations, with the non-technical world. They can either do that by having a few trusted technical direct reports who advise them, and they have the bureaucratic and political skills to manage relations with the outside world, or they can do it the other way. But virtually no one is good at both. The most important thing is if you are self-aware of which one you are not good at.

let's say this Cyber Security Minister has trusted subordinates who do actually understand the technical aspects. how do they even begin to communicate with a person who's never used a computer? purely in metaphors?

there needs to be at minimum some common language between managers and what they're managing. otherwise it worse than broken telephone.

without a certain level of understanding, it's just a useless abstraction level for the sake of filling a govt position.

In a more sane situation the minister would read up to gain some basic literacy in the field, the fact that he hasn't is strong evidence that he is an idiot.

But you can be an idiot regardless of experience, and selecting an idiot as minister is arguably the graver error.

Why would they need to understand any technical aspects? Ultimately it comes down to making a decision between several alternatives, those alternatives have tradeoffs. If the technical people can't explain what those tradeoffs are in terms the non-technical decision maker can understand, then either they don't understand them themselves, or they aren't worth being concerned about.

>How do they even begin to communicate with a person who's never used a computer? purely in metaphors?

They don't. It's a bureaucracy, not a meritocracy. The first business of a bureaucracy is to maintain the bureaucracy, and the second business of a bureaucracy is to reward party loyalty, and the third is for the bureaucrat to maintain and enhance personal power.

He will listen to people of his own social class and party whose word and sponsorship lends political merit, take orders from above, and his subordinates will do as they're told.

> It is totally possible for a non-technical person manage a technical team well. There are even certain downfalls (trying to make technical decisions that they are not knowledgeable enough to make) that a manager with a technical background is MORE likely to make.

We will see it play out in front of us again:

AMD v Intel

Have you ever tried working for someone who didn’t have relevant experience

Many times.

You get people deciding that...

Literally never happened. I've had a few bosses/managers who'd be the first to admit they knew nothing about programming. And in every case they defer to team experts when it comes to specific technical questions.

On the flip side I've had managers who where deeply technical and spent all their time getting involved with every little technical detail and completely neglecting their job as manager.

A government minister isn’t a tech. Honestly, not having experience with computers may be an advantage from a policy perspective — having no dog in the fight may be useful.

Let's say a minister talks to two groups, which give him two different pieces of advice. Each group is an industry body with supporters that includes some companies the minister has heard of.

Group A says he should ban IoT devices that don't come with a guarantee 5 years of security updates.

Group B says he should ban cell phones that don't come with antivirus software.

How would you propose a minister weight the advice of the two industry bodies?

Ideally the minister would troll[1] the universities for security experts and defer those type of decisions to them so that he would have more time to play the politics game and secure funding and resources

In actuality he would probably try banning keyboards in the organization after learning USB devices could carry viruses

[1] fishing definition

Do whatever the one that donates more money to him wants him to do.

Right, but for government agent in charge of cyber security, they would need a pretty high level of IT knowledge for it to make any difference. I don't see how that's feasible for career politicians. I also don't see how it's necessary, they in the end are just managing people.

> I don't see how that's feasible for career politicians

Goes to show that's not who should fill the position

> I also don't see how it's necessary, they in the end are just managing people.

But not empathizing with them, a trait most would say effective management requires. Also, you are completely ignoring the decision making aspect. It's not like 100% of decisions will be deferred.

It depends on many things.

The lady who manages my gym spent 8 years doing cybersecurity in the U.S. Army. If you were trying to fill this kind of role in today you could definitely find somebody who has technical experience in the military.

The military was an early adopter of computers (in the 1970s my high school science teacher was an air force officer who managed computers. He would, with trepidation, board an Army Helicopter to go to an Army base and help them out with their computers.) Same for police, intelligence, and other careers.

There is a social conflict between I.T. professionals and other professionals.

A bank like "Ally Bank" is entirely an electronic operation with no branches, no cash, etc. Even the areas that require a bank officer to get involved could be best done by a bank officer who knows how to make Jupyter notebooks. You could take an extreme fintech point of view here and have all the C-level people be techies and put VCs who invest in blockchain and pot on the board, etc.

But you won't. You'll put down the bong and find some bankers to fill the C-level slots because the C-levels have job #1 of being down with the regulators. That way you can get your service in front of customers.

Thus bankers stay in the driver's seat and the bank that was so innovative in 1928 went bust the year after and inexplicably has been bailed out ten thereafter still has the gall to do business under the same name and (like most established businesses) is able to use influence to establish a 'moat' that keeps competitors out.

I was once a full-stack dev-ops programmer/analyst level G embedded in an academic library and saw similar conflicts.

Library science is about ontology and modelling things; Dewey doing by hand what Knuth would do with a computer decades later. I took to library science readily and found it went together with my blue collar appreciation of data structures and algorithms like peanut butter and jelly.

From the viewpoint of the union, however, the library is a machine for employing people with MLS degrees and when budget cuts came my division got the squeeze and I was out.

There was no way, however, I got have gotten to pay band H or I at that organization even if we were crammed with cash because librarians came first. (We could avoided a diplomatic incident by sending me to Germany instead of the meanest physicist in the world but they told me they only had a travel budget for Librarians!)

I concur. I worked for awhile in a software company where the CEO was literally the boss who had his secretary print out his email so he could read it.

it's perfectly possible for techies to do the managing and politics.

The trick is finding those who can do it well.

Elon Musk gets a lot of props and he was never been an automotive worker or a rocket engineer before founding the technical companies he is famous for.

Are you arguing that he succeeded at running a rocket company because he once programmed for a computer game?

Your analogy is too literal. GP is saying some relevant experience has value, not experience in every little aspect. So, with that in mind, GP is arguing he succeeded at starting/running a technical company because he once started/ran a technical company.

No, he literally said

> If you’re not a lawyer, don’t run a law firm

and then never climbed down, just adding detail about why it was bad.

You are defending a more reasonable position than the one GP expressed and I attacked.

Individuals running private companies can do whatever they want, as long as they can convince others. This is a public postion.

Reasonably sure EM has also used a computer and managed technical companies. Someone who hasn't used a computer in 2018 is not suitable for most jobs, short of digging ditches.

In 2018, there are plenty of people who don't own a computer and have no real experience using one (other than their phone). And they are employable, because there are jobs (other than digging ditches) that don't revolve around computers. But when they apply to a sizable company, they are told that they need to come in to the employment office to fill out their application on a computer there. So I think it's pretty hard to avoid computers entirely because most things are paperless.

Stop straw manning. Thanks.

GGGP never said that to run a law firm, you had to have practiced in every area the firm does. He never said the law firm should outsource its HR and payroll and travel, unless the managing partner had experience in those functions. He said the manager of the law firm should be a lawyer.

Elon Musk has a degree in physics and began a Ph.D. program in materials science, which is probably the second-most applicable field to automotive engineering generally (after mechanical engineering). For someone doing solar cell and battery work, materials science might be the most relevant field. So tell me why you think Musk proves your point and contradicts GGGP.

Except Elon Musk is notorious for diving deep into any subject he's involved with.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket...

Christian von Koenigsegg taught himself how to make Hypercars.

This Japanese minister has no interest in learning the topic he's responsible for on a national scale.

I am not making an argument about an idiot minister, I'm objecting to the notion put forward by the GP that only those with explicit previous experience of a process can manage people performing it.

> If you can’t code, you shouldn’t manage coders.

It should be, if you're not technical, you shouldn't manager coders. I've met many a manager that couldn't code, but had a very good understanding of architecture, systems, logging, etc. Engineering is more than coding and arguably the actual coding part isn't very important.

It's not bitter, or old. I'm neither!

It's hard to keep on top of technological possibilities and capabilities. Especially for someone non-technical making and overseeing technical decisions.

Tech folks can learn business easier than business folks can learn tech... Time to get to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com