A few years ago I had a job offer for a position in technology.  Since this was what I wanted to do at the time, it seemed like a great idea.  It also seemed like a great idea because I would be getting a raise.  I interviewed and decided that it was a go from my end.  After a few days, I thought instead of keeping it a secret (one of my beliefs is secrets are stupid), I decided to tell my boss.  This was before I knew it would work out, so I was taking a chance.  However, I thought that if my boss wanted to keep me, this was the time to do it.  At the time, I believed this was not, in any way, going to happen.  Let's just say wages were frozen at this point.

Anyway, he said he would talk to the president.  The next day he came back with a better offer than the other company.  I was absolutely shocked.  "Wow," I thought, "they must think I do good work here."  Now, before I explain why I think this thought of mine is wrong, please understand that I'm a realist.  I do my best to see the truth rather than focus on the negative or the positive, in other words, I do my best to stay objective.

So, a few months later, I was discussing this situation with my boss.  I can't remember exactly how we arrived at this point, but he began explaining the events that transpired from his end.  Apparently he told the president, in other words, that if I left, he would have to do my job, and if he couldn't do the job, then the president would have to do it.

Your first reaction might be, "Why on earth would your boss tell you that?!  That's insane!"  a) I don't know and b) I'd have to agree with you.  Keep in mind this company is rather small, the president started the company over thirty years ago, and my boss was the first employee.  Still ...

"Wow," I thought to myself, "glad I stayed here."  Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm

No, my friends, yours truly is not wanted because of his skill, his intelligence, his integrity, his passion, or his leadership skills. No, he is wanted so that his boss's boss doesn't have to get his hands dirty.  Huh.  Sure you couldn't, ya know, HIRE SOMEONE ELSE!

The title of this post might mislead you into thinking that I manage people. I do not. However, I have opinions about how people should be managed, or put another way, how to manage people.

There is a lot that depends on the work being done, but I think there is a lot that doesn't. The main idea I'm challenging here is that the manager should be able to do the work any of the managed can do.

While I think it's great if the manager can do the work, I think there isn't any reason why the manager has to. For example, if a machine shop required the manager to be able to do the work of _any_ of the machinist's, I think they wouldn't be able to find a manager. All that counts here is that the manager can judge the work of the machinist's. How long are they taking to finish a piece? Is their quality lacking? Are they capable but need more training? I suppose that I'm arguing that a manager should be good at critical thinking.

If the circumstance arises where the manager is expected to do the work of those that are managed, then I think that means that those who are managed are doing a horrible job.

Skill-set is a word that illustrates what I'm talking about. If the skill-set of the manager and the managed overlap, then that's great but I don't think it's required.