[daseong]

While there are some good observations in the article, and while I agree with the detrimental effects the observed behaviours have on the effectiveness of teams, I feel there is also a missed opportunity of understanding the manager's perspective.

If we start with the basic assumption that people will rarely try to do intentional harm, we can conclude that most harm is done unintentionally. So while the choice of the term "clueless" might apply, it also doesn't help with creating a path towards mutual understanding.

My current perspective on how we think and work is that we all have a mental model of how the world works. It is modified and reinforced by our actions and the effects we perceive. We will then try to apply our model to novel situations. I find the term "clueless" to not be accurate. It is more that people act mostly based on clues. But it might very well be that the mental model is inaccurate or even inadequate.

I don't think the simple quality "has been a developer" is a sufficient indicator to predict a manager's success. I find the trait "is flexible adjusting the mental model" might be more fitting, but also harder to discern from a CV. So my critique to the author would be in a similar class of error. Applying an inadequate mental model to solve the problem.

I believe we could all benefit from more goodwill and empathy towards our team members (and I am including the manager in the team, as well as the whole organization). Asking "what is our mental model and where does it break down?" has been tremendously helpful for me in the past.