[jahsome]

As someone whose been sort of "up and down" the role ladder, and is very intentionally closer to the bottom than the top for right now, I think I am disproportionately perceiving the wisdom in that jira comment.

I don't think it's the _only_ important thing, but I think I do agree with the sentiment that it may be the most important.

Personally I'm all about diversity of perspectives when it comes to building a team. I would be thrilled to have both a principal who loves jira, and one who doesn't. Someone who tries to straddle both just strikes me as neutered.

When it comes to roles, I always end up back to the Ron Swanson quote "never half ass two things; whole ass one thing."

I do agree with you though, one-size fits all definitions are almost all laughably based on "vibes."

Then again, isn't management pretty much just vibe cultivation?

[zug_zug]

I think it only takes a few moments of skepticism to show that "Is X the most important thing about being a Y?" doesn't mean anything.

Being good at something obviously comes down to multiple different skills (manager may require social skills, writing skills, perception, business acumen, intuition, etc). So to try to ask which of those skills is "most" important is a poorly-defined problem, because there isn't such a thing as an 1-unit of of writing skill to weigh against 1-unit of intuition skill.

For whatever reason, a lot of people are drawn to these types of oversimplifications that are so drastic they become meaningless.

[jahsome]

The hypothetical question as I understand it isn't about which skills, but rather which activity yields the greatest expected value.