- Who has the unchecked authority to blame others for their mistakes?
- Who will take direct credit for the work of others?
- Who's going to write a bad performance review of someone they don't like that much?
It goes both ways!
No one, its done by committee and/or senior leadership, the team/department with no seat at the table is always at a disadvantage.
>Who will take direct credit for the work of others?
A managers job is to distribute credit and shield blame/failure. This may sound generic but its true... a managers true strength/power/greatness or what ever other BS comes from the strength of their reports. Its extremely short sited to not pass on credit and grow those under you.
>Who's going to write a bad performance review of someone they don't like that much?
A good manager tries to be very objective and doesn't bring personal opinion into reviewing performance. I have had people who I did not like personally who i brought though multiple jobs... good managers respect effective people not people they can get a drink with after work.
Managements role, technical leadership role and politician role are different roles. The required skill sets and experience are different. The outcome of grabbing a wrong role is usually poor. Not confusing politician, technical leader and manager roles is probably a good idea to improve outcomes. As checking for required experience, to take the role.
You look at my examples as negatives... its the wrong way to look at it... thoes other managers of other departments? Are the bad people? No... but they have a job and responsibility to represent their departments and do from their point of view whats best for their team and the company.
I feel like there is a segment of workers in engineering has this weird self damaging hatred for leaders/managers other departments do not have... then thoes same people get pissed when they dont have a leader and their department is glossed over because no one represents them when/where some of the most important decisions are made.
On "strategic long term decisions", I think this needs clarification. There are many areas in which such decisions can be made.
To give an example, think of a flying airplane. Would you give a power to make "strategic long term decisions" regarding the flight to someone who bothered to go to flight school, ground school and had been certified as a pilot? Or to someone who hadn't done it, but is an excellent politician, people's manager and could mediate conflict well?
To give another example, if a conflict between passengers and crew had happened onboard of a flying airplane. Would you prefer a pilot (say, with no political or mediation skills) to stop flying the airplane and engage into the conflict? Or would you prefer a professional people's manager and mediator to step in?
> To give an example, think of a flying airplane. Would you give a power to make "strategic long term decisions" regarding the flight to someone who bothered to go to flight school, ground school and had been certified as a pilot? Or to someone who hadn't done it, but is an excellent politician, people's manager and could mediate conflict well?
I don't think this analogy works. The manager decides which routes to fly and ultimately who flies which ones. Presumably some routes are preferable, and there are competing priorities between routes. So the manager picks the routes to fly, addressing external conflict, and then alloctes people to routes, handling any internal conflict.
The manager isn't on the plane. The rest of your comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I think your analogy works. And it seems that we agree, it'd be stupid for a manager without pilot's training and expert knowledge to make or impact "strategic long term decisions" that impact the flight in a flying airplane. And we likely agree that interference of a manager (who is used to exercise power) will likely make negative impact on rational expert decisions of a pilot.
Regarding "strategic long term decisions" outside the airplane - we can just look at the recent example of Boeing debacle with 737 MAX. Again, a good question would be - would the situation be better, if the company board had people that had bothered to go to flight school, ground school and had been certified as pilots?
No, I asked for an example of a management role that was apolitical. There are certainly responsibilities that managers have that aren't political, but someone claimed that people, political, and technical management were different. So I'm intrigued by the idea of a people manager who doesn't handle any political problems. My point is that by virtue of being in charge of people, political arguments become unavoidable.
As for your Boeing example, I fail to see what this has to do with managers having to address political issues in the company. It seems like you're having a conversation about how managers should have been ICs at one point which while an interesting discussion, is completely unrelated to anything I've said.
Can you give an example of unavoidable political problem that people manager unavoidably has to handle?
- Two of your reports want to work on the same project, perhaps because it will look good. There's only enough work for one of them
- The team fails to meet an objective. This needs to be addressed, somehow
> Political problems in that case would be implicitly handled by company culture
Someone(s) still need to make the decisions that align with the culture. Those people are making political decisions, they just have values that help guide the decisions.
I agree, this is a political problem. But it doesn't seem to be unavoidable. Perhaps, increase rewards for long-term gains for the company and remove rewards for short-term personal gains? It just wouldn't happen then?
Team failing to meet the objective. I don't see how this is a political problem.
You've just described a way of dealing with the issue when it arises: paying the person working on the less sexy project more. This may sometimes be a tool the manager can use, but it isn't always an option. So presume you don't have this tool, or the value of the project is larger than the value of the compensation you can provide.
> It just wouldn't happen then?
You're presuming that the company can perfectly reward people for work, and that every employee believes that they'll be rewarded optimally for work in the company's best interest. I've yet to encounter a company that can accurately reward employees for their performance, and because of that, I've yet to find a company where the employees believe that their performance will be perfectly fairly rated. If you can fix this problem, I'll buy your product.
- Whos going to push back and sales and marketing for harassing you directly or taking direct blame for failures?
- Who will represent the engineering team in leadship meetings to make sure policies/decisions are made with their needs in mind?
- Who's going to fight for your raises and promotions?
- Who's going to make sure that there is budget for what engineering needs to do and keeps a proper record to keep finance happy?
Please thing about it... any company that grows to 30-50 people (even startups) need to have management and processes that eventually lead to (even unintentional) politics. The other departments will have leaders/managers defending/supporting them... its foolish to not understand or respect competent leaders.