[mcook08]

> Studies indicate that hospitals led by doctors, sports teams by star players, and universities by researchers outperform those led by non-experts

This is a bold point with only a vague reference to studies. I’m more familiar with sports teams than the other domains but star players who manage successful teams is an exception, not a rule. A few famous examples are Michael Jordan and Derek Jeter - both were legends playing their sports and have yet to participate in building successful teams at the management level.

[abhas9]

"Probably" this is the study being referred:

> Hospitals led by doctors outperform those run by non-medical managers. Universities, business schools and academic departments led by good scholars outperform those that are not. The best sports teams – using data from 15,000 basketball games and 60 years of Formula 1 racing – are led by great former players or run by racing specialists.

https://www.city.ac.uk/research/impact/case-studies/evidence...

[n_ary]

I would argue that it depends and varies on the person. I have had non-experts in management who did not often grasp the effort and difficulty and often made bad judgements. Then there were other non-experts who appreciated what was done on technical side a trusted that the reports will do a good job.

Then I had experts in management who always poked into everything and thought they knew better or often get swayed by sweet talks from other experts(even in cases when it didn’t make sense). Then I had experts who rose among the ranks and then despite being untouchable, still supported the reports and put immense trust and acquired all resources requested and let people do their best work.

In the end, I think, expert or non-experts bring different tradeoffs, but trust and a good relation with the people in trenches always gave the best results.