[Thursday24]

I'd say: No, not at all!

Read about Admiral Rickover. He built the first practical nuclear submarine in the world, for the US navy, in record time of 3 years. He cleared bureaucratic hurdles, played the politics when needed, kept tight control, delved deep into the technicalities of the project, recruited and trained a large number of people into the program, and ultimately made the project successful.

Dig deeper into any other large scale projects, you'll find great engineering management. The Manhattan project is another example (It should be categorised mostly under engineering management & not scientific management, according to some of the members in the team).

[AlwaysRock]

I think there is a huge difference between managers who can get a project over the finish line and ones who can get multiple large projects over the finish line. I'm not saying that Admiral Rickover didn't/couldnt do that but many managers are effective at cracking the whip and making X happen but at the expense of their teams health which leads to burnout and turnover.

I'd also say military management is significantly different than civilian. If my manager tells me to jump I'm not going to say how high. I'm going to say why are you asking me to move its early and i havnt had coffee yet.

[Thursday24]

Rickover was near the top echelons of US navy for ~60 years, as far as I know. Definitely, he knows a thing or two about burnout and turnover. He executed many, many sophisticated projects throughout his life. That's why he had such a long & successful career. I'd recommend reading his book - The never-ending challenge of Engineering. In my readings, this has been the best book on Engineering management.

Secondly, about burnout and turnover. Let's discuss from an empirical standpoint. The number one proximal cause of turnover is lack of "commitment". There are longitudinal empircal studies which demonstrate this. Job satisfaction is important as well; however commitment dominates every other factor.

Hence, it is important for managers to generate commitment, one way or another. I believe from these aspects, Rickover truly understood engineers and technical folks... In fact, he went against the US military books, and emphasised Individual initiative and judgement, regardless of what the rulebooks said. In a way, Rickover was able to work around the navy rules to create sufficient commitment to get complicated jobs done.

[burningion]

Author of the article here. I bought one of Rickover's books and am currently reading through it. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Thursday24]

However, Rickover was deeply against non technical people managing technical people in the organization. One is reminded of the Newton quote:

"Errors are not in the art but in the artificer"