From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ea968aeb8c7f10d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,d71a6822cd2fec5
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Do I Really Need A Supervisor?
Date: 1997/03/27
Message-ID: <1997Mar27.125223.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 228796759
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <5g7u24$1jeg@uni.library.ucla.edu> <JSA.97Mar24144925@alexandria>
 <5h8i3q$ni5$2@trsvr.tr.unisys.com> <dewar.859473116@merv>
X-Nntp-Posting-User: KILGALLEN
X-Trace: 859485147/6059
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.859473116@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> iDarriel says
> 
> <<A first line engineering manager does *not* have to be technically
> great but needs a good general understanding of the relavant technologies
> and of good engineering practices.  But IMO does *NOT* need to be, and it
> is often better if the manager is not, the technical lead.>>
> 
> Well terminology can get in the way of this discussion, but to me the
> technical lead *is* a manager, because they need to make management
> decisions. Someone has to make technical decisions on overall design
> and style. Sure these decisions can be reached by a consensus process,
> but that is always part of a good management style, but someone does
> ultimately have to make the decisions!

I have run into a lot of companies where the technical leads are
quite specifically moved out of the "management" hierarchy and
restricted to only dealing with technical matters.  For others
in the company, that doesn't really count as "management" since
there is no direct authority for budgets and personnel matters.

It can actually work really well, with the "manager" repeating
back to the larger organization in "manager-speak" the results
of those technical decisions, including schedules and feature-
level conflicts.

If the greater "management" hierarchy wants exclusive use of
that word, it should be fine, just so the process works. While
terminology, as Robert points out, can be a barrier, this is
one time where "giving in" to the greater corporate culture
should be acceptable. It saves semantic energy for c.l.a talk
about "illegal" vs. "erroneous" vs. "shoddy", etc. :-)

Larry Kilgallen