(Good Manager + No Tech Skills) > (Bad manager + great tech skills).
I don't think that is the argument... I think it is:
(Good Manager + No Tech Skill) < (Good Manager + great tech skills)...
and on that point no one would disagree.
It is interesting how so many have tried to frame the argument the first way - perhaps they are more of a unicorn than one would hope... but it would still be better to have BOTH skills.
I agree... but it all depends on the role. Ideally, "management" can span the two buckets well. But, without understanding the technology, management is left standing on one leg.
If what you directly manage is technical... then you must be technical and be able to communicate those opportunities up. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the entire management chain must be technical.
If what you directly manage is technical... then you must be technical and be able to communicate those opportunities up. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the entire management chain must be technical.
I think you are correct and incorrect.. I am not suggesting "expertises". I am suggesting "Literacy"... at least enough to "detect B.S." of his immediate direct reports (and that part is also key).
In 4 levels of management the CEO is not to be the BS detector of the 1st level but most def. be "technical" enough to detect B.S. at the 4th and (maybe) the 3rd levels of management.
Those I admire and have studied: Disney, Elon, and Jobs (many others) could maybe detect down to the 2nd and 3rd levels. To do the impossible - you must have a grasp of the "possible"
"They can also be a false signal to investors, who often look at how much money a company has raised as a signal of its success, when "in fact, it's the opposite,"...
I think this is definitely true of a physical product company... without a subscription model of some other way to generate MRR.
I agree... they once had a nice product, but failed to skate to where the puck was going, became a me too company... with no differentiating vision. Go-Pro already pretty far down the same path.
I know a few product managers who think that managing a technical product can be reduced to entries in a backlog... and features are somehow separate from the technology that drives them. What the miss is... Technology "IS" the product.
Non-technical managers... needs to be a thing of the past.
No one considers a guide for "Managers who cannot read, but must supervise writers" as meaningful article worth writing.
Being "non-technical" should be synonymous with being illiterate (if you are in a technical field that includes supervising technologists). The topic is no longer something to be assigned to "nerds in the basement" is is the language of business and life.
Great article! I have been working on my own Chatbot solution based on IBM's Watson (supposedly cutting edge tech)... it is cumbersome... it cannot do something simple like extract a full address from a conversation (I think cities are still in beta)... The good news, there is a definite opportunity for some start up. AI is all the rage and for solving a specific problem with clearly defined parameters (or if you have a team of a few 100 people working on it) it is getting pretty good. But interacting with a human is many things... "defined" is not one of them.
Your description of the companies you worked for - tell me a lot. Not that you are not a great developer, but the types of employers you like and filter you use to select your next job - that too is important.
My hope that someone who is passionate - cares more about building the best product they can (than even I do). As a result, they should welcome "valid" criticism.