zlacker

Great comment. You interspersed the two, but instead of using management I like to say that it's leadership that matters. Getting a bunch of people (smart or not) to all row in the same direction with the same vision is hard. It's also commonly the difference between success and failure. Of course the ICs deserve admiration and respect, but people (ICs) are often quick to dismiss leadership.

A great analogy can be found on basketball teams. Lots of star players who should succeed sans any coach, but Phil Jackson and Coach K have shown time and again the important role leadership plays.

>>matwoo+(OP)
I'd extend that leadership in the form of management needs leadership in the technical aspect as well. The two need to work in tandem to make things work. Imho the best technical leads are usually not the smartest ones, they are those that best utilize their resources - read, other people - and are force multipliers.

Of course you need the people who can deep dive and solve complex issues, none doubts that.

>>Partia+O
Agree completely!

>>Partia+O
I'd go further than even that! You need 3 forms of advocacy in leadership for a successful business, business/market, tech, and time. The balance of those three can make or break any business.

You can see this at the micro level in a scrum team between the scrummaster, the product owner, and the tech lead.

>>matwoo+(OP)
I remember about ten years ago someone arguing that Coach K was overrated because his college players on average underperformed in the NBA (relative to their college careers).

I could not convince them that this was actually evidence in favor of Coach K being an exceptional coach.

>>CrazyS+Zk
Either thought process could be correct and it could depend on expectations.