Wow. This is exactly what the top comment was talking about with the opening sentence. These people may not need deep concentration to be successful, but that doesn't mean they don't do real work.
They didn't claim that. They claimed that the fact that these people don't do real work means that they don't need deep concentration to be successful. A implies B, not B implies A. (For example, off the top of my head, plumbers (unlike salesdroids and managers) clearly do real work, but very little if any of it involves a deep mental model that would take significant time to rebuild if interrupted.)
FWIW, I don't actually agree with that implication as such - it would imply that, eg, playing Factorio is "real work" - but the problem is less stupid than "doesn't need deep concentration => doesn't do real work".
Parent comment’s take was actually more charitable to the GP by at least leaving room for the possibility that managers do real work (they do, and hopefully this isn’t controversial).
And I’d go a step further and argue that even within the managerial role, there are tasks that demand focus and deep work.
I mean, I'd hope it's uncontroversial that any general statement about people has exceptions, but I assumed it was clear that we were talking about typical managers and salesdroids, not making blanket universalisms. If it wasn't I apologize for the confusion.
If you’re just talking about managers that are bad at their jobs, call that out. If you’re advocating for a change in the actual management structure itself, call that out.
Maybe “typical” narrows the net ever so slightly, but the definition of typical is “having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing”.
Either “typical” is applied to managers broadly and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)…
Or “typical” is used to describe a specific type of manager, either characterized by certain common negative traits, job duties assigned to the manager, etc.
In either case, there’s something critically missing from a dismissal of “typical” managers without proper classification of “typical”.
Yes.
> and then the negative characteristics you find fault with are inherent to the management role itself (and not necessarily the manager)
In the same sense that "typical" could be applied to, say, pickpockets broadly, and the associated negative characteristics are inherent to the pickpocketing role itself (and not necessarily the pickpocket)... sure? I don't really see why that would be a useful distinction, but I agree that it seems like a distinction you could make.