[felizuno]

I think you'r point is that people with 10 or fewer years of experience (which I think is many people in this thread based on the comments) might have a sample bias issue that stems from working around fewer total managers and fewer companies, where those companies also may be worse than average at selecting managers? I would agree that there are probably plenty of people who fit that mold given the state of our industry recently.

As for "draining resources" to do whatever reporting they need to do I don't think I understand what is fragile about it or why it would be anything other than necessary. It's like log aggregation/introspection, you do it because you want to see what's going on at a lower level without dealing with the minutia of every point of data.

To this end as engineers we design code that fills management roles all the time in our systems, and we understand perfectly why their role is needed but sometimes fail to realize that human systems are analogous. Nobody is arguing why a load balancer can be an important part of a system, or the values provided by ORMs, but here we are arguing about what managers do in a complex human system.

[clhodapp]

or the values provided by ORMs

I'll point out that the world is pretty diverse and there are actually lots of people who think that ORMs were a mistake and lots of people who think that using them is always a no-brainer. There's an interesting phenomenon that it seems like a lot of folks manage to build up reasonably long careers while only running into one side of this divide or the other and not even realize that the verdict on ORMs isn't a settled fact where one choice is always right.

Perhaps it's similar with engineering management and we should be having a more nuanced conversation.

[bottled_poe]

> there are actually lots of people who think that ORMs were a mistake and lots of people who think that using them is always a no-brainer.

This doesn’t mean that both groups are right though.

[clhodapp]

I would argue that neither group is right. Both are myopic and only see things from a limited perspective.

[bottled_poe]

Ironic. Correctness is indeed a curse on the few.

[mrits]

I see that the phrase "draining resources" can be taken to only mean a net negative. I was attempting to state that it takes time away from the team for the manager to function. That manager could see positive or negative returns on the time it took.

[proser]

I still think there's an issue here just from the phrasing. "Taking time away from the team" implies that the team has better things to be doing. A manager isn't stealing a team's time by aggregating information to share upstream. A good manager is keeping the team aligned and informed so that they're working on the right thing at the right time. If the manager isn't there, the team needs to do that work, or be potentially wasting their time.

[mrits]

I see this as a rephrasing for a bias towards the management. Obviously a manager can completely waste the time of the team and company. Anecdotally I've had more managers do this than not that reported to me. I have been lucky with the people I've reported to myself especially earlier in my career.

[bumby]

>it takes time away from the team for the manager to function.

I think a more accurate take is that it can "drain resources" from the individual to provide a net positive impact to the team (ideally). The problem with a lot of the cynical takes here is they appear to be only considering the perspective of the individual.

It's like the idea that if somebody stops by my office to ask a question; it's great for them to get an answer, but a detriment to me because it interrupts my work. If all I cared about was personal productivity, I would lock my door but the overall team productivity would likely suffer. A good manager puts together a system/culture that balances all those competing goals to the betterment of the team.