Always ready to blame the underlings for their own failures.

My first job was working for a (non-secret) government establishment. My boss had been there for years and knew his stuff IT wise but at the level above the management were rotated every three years and the incoming one could be from a different establishment and unrelated department. I'd actually prefer it if they don't know about IT provided they listen to those who do, the most dangerous managers are the ones who think they know but don't!

In the end I only met the boss's boss once, at my annual review, where he basically told me I was doing an excellent job, should be promoted to the next grade up as that's the level I was working at, but he couldn't recommend me as I hadn't been there long enough and it would be turned down automatically. I found another role shortly after.

Ah that's very government. Your doing a great job and you should be paid more but the rules say we cant (and thay usually do, but will be bent when it suits).

Happened to me, then after nearly 20yr I put in my resignation. They said they could 'maybe' get me another 2-5k to stay, I was being offed 30k more at that time. I did not stay.

up to the moment they suffer a [1]database normalization warning

[1] https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2017/11/24/bofh_2017_episode_16/

They know they have been promoted above their abilities so to hide their insecurity about their shortcomings they are super aggressive about immediately placing blame on others as a deflection.

Kind of surprised he was able to get her to admit she didn't know what she was doing and start listening. Sounds like there may have been some hope for her.

They know they have been promoted above their abilities ...

Often referred to as "Being Promoted to Their Level of Incompetence".

"Achieving managerial status does not, however, require newly minted leaders to know what their minions do at work."

Sadly this is the case in many organisations, not limited to government though it is rampant in the UKs civil service where you can move horizontally and vertically into roles where you have zero knowledge or expertise because the attitude is that anyone can manage any team if they've had the requisite management training.

Some of my best managers have been ones that aren't technical but instead act as a barrier between me and the rest of the company. Some of the worst too, come to think of it.

Couldn’t agree more. One of the best managers I ever worked for knew next to nothing on the “technical” side of his department - but knew the organisation’s hierarchy, having progressed through the ranks (and probably knew where a few bodies were stashed). His philosophy was to hire people who knew their job well and then guard their backs whilst they did what was needed. He never backed away from a fight if any of us had trodden on toes - he resolutely stood between us and any flak (though he wouldn’t then shy away from handing out a bo**ocking, in private, if it was warranted afterwards).

My experience from 30-odd years in the networking field is that the best managers know just about enough about the tech side to know when someone is trying to bullsh*t them but also don't have the desire to dig into the details of every situation and instead leave that to their specialists. And conversely, to shield said specialists from bullsh*t coming from other directions. I am fortunate enough to have such a manager now.

That's just an attribute of being a manager.

I shield those above me from you.

I shield you from those above me.

That's how it works.

It is a necessary element to being a manager, but not on its own sufficient.

There was a major technical issue that required working over a weekend.

The department manager knew virtually nothing about what we needed to do, but he still came in to keep us supplied with tea, coffee, sandwiches and words of encouragement.

Unfortunately, he left shortly after as his management style didn't align with that of the rest of the company (which is also why I left).

It's a toss-up which is worse, the manager who cheerfully admits they know nothing, ot the manager who claims knowledge because they can connect their iPhone to any other iThing, though not of course to a Windows box. Add in a bit of SQL, a dash of excel macros, a soupcon of Cloud for Leaders, and you have a moron micro-managing you and keeping you away from meetings you really should be at...

I've been fortunate in working for/with bosses who understand what is good for the business. They weren't necessarily familiar with the technical details but comprehended the business need.

I had a project/suggestion for a process improvement to our product and convinced the boss(es) to make provision for about £250k mostly in bought-in equipment. Because of the nature of the updating, several suppliers wanted to get in on the development and slashed their prices in order to get involved. Overall, we spent about £75k in equipment.

Some of the residual was shared around --->

director> We are looking for a new IT lead in this organisation. I heard no complaints about you, which is good. Do you know anything about Python?

pm> Yes, my brother actually has one. He also has a Gecko and a cat.

director> Splendid! The role begins in two months' time. Happy to transfer?

pm> Yes!

Past tense. He had a gecko and a cat.

The python got peckish.

Was the manager's name Jan?

No, but it was Jen.

Sodding autocorrect.

My daughter calls it "Autocorrupt".

I turn it off. Easier.

Yeah, it's a piece of Shiv

I implemented a four hour minimum for on-site visits in (roughly) 1990, a couple years after I went solo. Double on weekends/holidays. A few clients balked at the new rates ... I simply told 'em "Don't call me unless you actually need me". Or, as I tell prospective new clients, "It's my job to ensure we see as little of each other as possible". For the most part this has worked well over the decades.

However, a new issue arose. Convincing 'em to pay 4 hours for a one minute visit. The old TV repairman's maxim applied, "I'm not charging you for thumping your telly with a screwdriver. I'm charging you for knowing where and how hard to thump your telly, and for showing up to do it". The explanation seems to have worked ... although about eight years ago, the child CEO of a start-up wondered why I'd need to thump a telly.

That child CEO is now the 30ish year old CTO for a Silly Con Valley company you've heard of.

IT is many things, but it's rarely boring. "May you live in interesting times" may not be an actual old Chinese curse, but it's applicable anyway.

If someone in my organisation called me and started hurling abuse at me, I'd simply say "Call me back when you're ready to behave like an adult." and hang up on them.

"Her response was that managers manage people and do not need to know the department's subject matter"

And this, my friends, is why enshittification is a word.

Sorry, but after 25+ years I've learned:

A manager should be able to do the jobs of those immediately below them.

A manager should be able to do parts of the jobs of those immediately above them.

They shouldn't BE doing those jobs, except in extremis, and they don't necessarily have to do everything perfectly or the same, but they should be ABLE to cope with that and understand that role.

Anything else is a nonsense that ends in disaster.

Wrong! By your logic, the CEO should be able to do everybody’s job, which is clearly nonsense.

What you are talking about is a team leader, not a manager.

Could be a Team Leader or could be a very good Manager.

I have worked with a manager who COULD do your job ... and could prove it if you dared to challenge him !!!

He had worked his way up from the ranks and knew his stuff !!!

:)

Agree ... BUT such souls are quite rare !!!

There are MANY who think they are THIS ... BUT ... reality shows them up when they try to prove it !!!

(Usually when the 'Computer Room' is on fire and the New CEO is coming for a visit !!!)

Have worked with a few, who made the job so much easier ... deflecting much of the flak from 'on high' while you got on with the job.

:)

Managers having souls?!? When did this happen?

----------> Typical manager!

I'm a Group IT Manager, I can do everything those under me can do (although not necessarily as easily or as quickly) but I wouldn't expect the C-Suite that I report to to be IT experts - it's not a big enough business to have a CIO or similar.

Back in the 90s I worked in academic IT at a college. As was the habit of the time IT, the Library and Media Services were lumped together and because the most senior manager in all of those was a librarian then she was given the role of managing all the services. She was lovely, but not technical in any way.

Generally speaking we were left to our own devices which was OK, but it did also feel directionless. We were quite interested to find out that the university we were a part of had decided to standardise on networking platforms. And we were told that it was either (Novell) NetWare or (Windows) NT and she couldn't quite remember, and were they the same thing or different?

I don't think I ever did find out. We just continued with NetWare.Incidentally, that was one of the things that drove me into the private sector where I first encountered Windows NT 4.0 which was primitive compared to NetWare..

do not need to know the department's subject matter, and that she had transferred into this role from a team that managed phone services.

And thats why they have cabinet reshuffles. Wouldnt want any of the ministers to know about their field.

this tax office never hired managers from outside the organization.

Well thats good! when I first got my first I.T. job I thought , wrongly , that I would learn progress and climb the ladder .

Especially as the employer had an "Investors in people" badge, sadly every time an opening came up they would bring in a new uni kid.

Amazing how this company in the story managed to combine "hire internal only" with "do not need to know the department's subject matter"

I worked for the civil service for several years in the 1990s and yep, most IT managers back then were simply the useless wannabe managers but were too useless to be given any proper management positions, so they gave them IT manager roles as IT was a black-art only understood by the contract hires like me.

One, the manager would go into meetings and invariably say "I don't know, I'll ask GGGGGG". Eventually the other mangers said to bring GGGGGG to the meetings

Nice guys, but made me aware of where he came from was It illiterate. That was shown when I went into that industry and saw how bad it was !

The other was at a large retail op. The manager there was not a real IT person, but knew his team, had us all in the right places and if we asked or said something he went with it and made purchases, arguments or suggestions. Did so because we all trusted each other and he knew we would not take the piss. He was a great buffer between us and the real twats above.

Others are the cringe worthy fail updwards into positions they should not be in