[zzalpha]

Only bad managers forego creativity and progress. Don't blame the role for the mediocrity of some people who play it.

Strangely, people don't hold the same view of conductors, even if they don't play the instruments. Or directors, even though they don't do the acting. Or football coaches, even if they aren't the playing game.

Hell, there's management simulator games out there that people love.

But software management? Well that must be exactly like Office Space.

Consider the following: maybe some management sucks and gets away with it because pop culture has taught us to expect it to.

[AstralStorm]

Nice no true Scotsman here.

Now define a good manager from a shareholder view.

[zzalpha]

I don't think you know what that fallacy is, or alternatively didn't actually read my comment.

That fallacy would apply if I was claiming bad managers aren't managers.

I'm not claiming that.

I'm saying not all managers are bad and the job does not inherently mean a lack of creativity or skill.

As for you cynical follow up question: Shareholders benefit from low turnover and high productivity in an environment that rewards creativity and risk taking. Building that kind of environment requires substantial management talent. Again, the coach metaphor is very apt, here.

As an aside: cynicism and nihilism might be fashionable but it's shallow and lazy.