I used to think technical competence was a desirable trait in a manager, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that technical competence doesn't really matter all that much and could even be a negative.

Instead, I feel that the most important trait in a manager is trusting the technical competence of his or her subordinates. The best managers I have ever had gave the team (and individuals) a direction to go in, and then sit back and let the employees work out how to solve the problem. They are always available to answer questions, facilitate communication, remove roadblocks, cut red tape, insulate the team from corporate politics, and provide resources to the team.

None of that requires technical skill, but loads of soft skills. I'll go so far as to say that having technical skill is often a detriment, as it is tempting for a manager to say, "I know how to solve this," and thus begins the slippery slope to micromanagement.

> Instead, I feel that the most important trait in a manager is trusting the technical competence of his or her subordinates. The best managers I have ever had gave the team (and individuals) a direction to go in, and then sit back and let the employees work out how to solve the problem. They are always available to answer questions, facilitate communication, remove roadblocks, cut red tape, insulate the team from corporate politics, and provide resources to the team.

This works as long as the subordinates are acting in good-faith. The primary reason why technical competence is important in a manger is to enable them to identify the subordinates that are bullshitting them.

> This works as long as the subordinates are acting in good-faith.

Presumably they are judged on their ability to perform their jobs instead of trying to read their minds and determine whether they're acting in "good faith."

And one would hope their managers do not call them "subordinates" and instead choose a more respectful moniker.

> Presumably they are judged on their ability to perform their jobs instead of trying to read their minds and determine whether they're acting in "good faith."

1. One example of not acting in good-faith would be spending more effort on looking like they are performing their job well than actually performing their job well. This makes it harder for a manager to judge people's ability to do their jobs

2. Another example would be spending effort to make it look like ones peers are doing #1, thus making it harder for a manager to properly detect #1.

3. Criticizing the term "subortinates" in a reply to my comment is a bit of a non-sequitur considering it was taken directly from the GP post.

Change in an organisation comes from collaboration at minimum and cooperation at best.

It also needs a working alliance between leaders and followers. In teams with shared leadership, different people contribute to team goals in different ways or can shift between leader or follower over time depending on how the task evolves. I developed a concept called quantum leadership that tries to study and convey this point. It's a bit esoteric but I've experience it.

https://www.brettmacfarlane.com/blog/2019/8/11/19/quantum-le...

I have a teaching case study based on a project team for Apple and the first car controlling watch app.

I think technical competence is a good criterium because then you can relate to the engineers in deeper ways.