Discussion on:

So you want to be a manager

... and the world needs ditch-diggers too.

Special - whatever, it's called ambition. The goal is to have life suck less.

You're either digging the ditch or you're in the air conditioned office.

Same thing being a developer.

You're either getting raises based on the number of lines of code written, or your drafting the mission statement for the 42nd time today.


o COULD YOU LAY OFF AN EMPLOYEE THAT YOU LIKE VERY MUCH BECAUSE UPPER MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO MAKE CUTS?
H*ll yes. I've watched about 20 developers get laid off in one day because management made bad decisions. Management got to keep their jobs.

o COULD YOU CONFIDENTLY PROMOTE ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES ABOVE OTHERS?
Immaterial. Coin flip. Ouija board. Steel cage match.

o WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL AN EMPLOYEE HE OR SHE NEEDS TO ATTEND TO HIS OR HER HYGIENE BETTER?
Yeah - and I can get rid of them for workplace harassment too.

o CAN YOU LEAD A TEAM TO RESULTS WITHOUT MICROMANAGING?
Agile development (and it's 2X daily meetings) is micromanaging. It's all the rage now. Try it. Managing is all about micromanaging. If they don't like being rode like SeaBiscuit, then get rid of them.

o COULD YOU SAY ?NO? TO UPPER MANAGEMENT WHEN THEY MAKE UNREASONABLE DEMANDS OF YOUR STAFF?
You can't say "no" to management - that's not really part of the team concept. You need to be supportive of management's decisions.

o COULD YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURES OF YOUR TEAM EVEN IF ONLY ONE STAFFER SCREWED UP?
Being responsible, and being accountable are two different things. You can be responsible, but hold that person accountable.

o COULD YOU LAY OFF AN EMPLOYEE THAT YOU LIKE VERY MUCH BECAUSE UPPER MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO MAKE CUTS?
"H*ll yes. I've watched about 20 developers get laid off in one day because management made bad decisions. Management got to keep their jobs."
I've had to lay off employees that I consider friends over employees I don't particularly like. You have to make decisions based on whats best for the company as a whole, not who you like.

o COULD YOU CONFIDENTLY PROMOTE ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES ABOVE OTHERS?
"Immaterial. Coin flip. Ouija board. Steel cage match."
Not at all immaterial. I can only get promotions approved if I have a solid case that there is a rational reason to do so. If I tried to get promotions without one, I'd find myself on the street, and thats the way it shoud be. Even the CEO has to justify his actions to the board, and the board to the shareholders.

o WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL AN EMPLOYEE HE OR SHE NEEDS TO ATTEND TO HIS OR HER HYGIENE BETTER?
"Yeah - and I can get rid of them for workplace harassment too."
Sure - this isn't easy trust me, but I've had to do it.

o CAN YOU LEAD A TEAM TO RESULTS WITHOUT MICROMANAGING?
"Agile development (and it's 2X daily meetings) is micromanaging. It's all the rage now. Try it. Managing is all about micromanaging. If they don't like being rode like SeaBiscuit, then get rid of them."
If you can't determine when you need to micromanage, and when its best to leave them alone, you aren't a manager, you are a robot.
o COULD YOU SAY ?NO? TO UPPER MANAGEMENT WHEN THEY MAKE UNREASONABLE DEMANDS OF YOUR STAFF?
"You can't say "no" to management - that's not really part of the team concept. You need to be supportive of management's decisions."
Sure you can, and should when you need to. You can't say no all the time or they will show you the door. But you have to push back when what they are asking is not possible or when it would impact other important projects. Quite often its not an outright no, its a question thats appropriate. The question is:"Is this demand more important than the other projects we already have committed to? Would it be ok if the other projects are delayed to accomodate the new one?"

o COULD YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURES OF YOUR TEAM EVEN IF ONLY ONE STAFFER SCREWED UP?
"Being responsible, and being accountable are two different things. You can be responsible, but hold that person accountable."
I agree there, the manager's responsibility is to take action on the screwup, not to defend it.

James

With that kind of thinking, you'll climb that ladder in no time. I wouldn't work for you to save the world, but you are definate manager material.


NOT!!!



TCB

I only wrote what I've seen. It's a working business model. I'm sure there are others.

Being supportive of management at the cost of those below means you are managing the ****** above you and not those below but it happens all the time - it's called self preservation. Management is there to ensure workers have an environment in which they can succeed while supporting the business objectives and it's up to middle management to guard against the erosion of this environment by the short term personal goals of senior management

That was the best reply thus far Colinza. No clue what the first person was ranting about or where they were going.

Management is really about keeping the troops cool, focused, and providing opportunities to grow while giving the tools for success and putting team members in positions where they can be successful based on their unique skills. If I have to micromanage a team member, which happens, it's either for the better development of that team member or someone who I need to observe more to ensure they're suited for the challenges they're presented.

The best managers I've had were the ones that interfaced with upper management the best keeping us free to do our jobs. Its the ones that constantly dropped the ball forcing us to go to the executives that sucked.

The article touches on what some people may consider the 'hard stuff' and supporting management decisions that one may not agree with and firing people you like can be hard, these are tasks that can be achieved with or without compassion, skill or technique, the outcomes are the same, the manager described here is a conduit, not a decision maker or a leader and the divide between being a manager and being a leader is so wide that I doubt this article even considers the approach.
Robert K. Greenleaf wrote in his essay 'The Servant as Leader' way back in the 1970's - "The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants, And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"
Approaching management as a marionette dance to strings pulled by upper management is simply to be an execution pawn, and it will not make your life suck less, it will make it suck more, we have moved away from the carrot and stick need to manage people, it is a hangover from the industrial age that needs to be changed if we are to teach and bread leaders in the knowledge worker industry, to grow leaders who truly understand the reality of the hard work and dedication required by those who have mastered the 'soft stuff'. Only then may we even begin to think or consider that someone will follow us and that we may be considered leaders, after all that is what being a leader is all about.

Management is for the one eyed sycophants who believe they live in a world of blind people, may they achieve extinction quickly.

Greenleaf also wrote "The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first; perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions?The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature."

Very well Said Les, I agree. You must learn to follow before you can lead and even within leading you are a servant to your flock. I do not understand the concept of 'riding them' what does that mean anyway? You set up conditions so they can be successful and help them remove roadblocks that get in the way. It's as simple as that.

The initial articles does not remotely discuss the difference between management and leadership. All of the above questions are not hard to ask or accomplish, especially if you approach them with some tact. The real question should be do you want to be a manager or a leader. Many managers tend to be people manager and may or may not have a lot of input in the over all direction of the product/company etc. Many managers cannot make the hard decisions, like "do we ship this product to the customer and hope there is know major issues due to the limited amount of testing we were allowed to perform or do we hold the product and miss the market window". That is a more career limiting decision to make that I've had to make on multiple occasions (and yes, I've pulled product from major customers as the risk of delivering bad product (and ruining a customer relationship) IMHO far out stripped missing a market window). That is a real question that requires real leadership, not whether or not you can tactfully tell someone they smell and should bath more often.

So, question "Do you want to be a manager or a leader (or both as those are quite rare in my experience)". As a good manager is not a power position. It's your job to take care of your group, insulate them from upper management, be the ombudsman between groups, give credit to the team for success, be accountable for the failure of the team (and be able to explain why), and so on. A good manager accomplishes a lot, does not seek the limelight and is generally viewed by the staff as not really needed (though they are).

I would have to agree with you on what you have written here. In keeping my job description in mind, along with my education, I would rather be a leader in a small group governed by a manager rather than try to jump into that manager position (for now).

A leader does not have to be a manager of a group, but rather someone who is looked upon with respect to their experience within the job, along with their ability to make a decision on how to do the job efficiently. Sometimes that decision is a direct reflection of the people surrounding the decision maker. Inputs from the people can make the overall decision one that will make both the workers and the upper management happy.

Where I am currently employed, I am much more educated than everyone around me (workers, supervisors, and managers), but I thrive on the pats I get on the back for helping with new strategies to try. I am constantly asked for my opinion; which makes me feel like a huge part of the management team without the decrease in pay (yes, I said that correctly). After all these years of doing what I do, I still do not feel ready to jump into a management position. Some people were meant to be leaders, and some managers?I am happy where I am at.

It's pretty obvious why there are so many bad managers (which is an incorrect term to begin with). From what I'm seeing in these postings most people have no idea what "management" is. You manage THINGS. You manage your budget. You manage an equipment account. You do NOT manage people, you LEAD them.

Leadership is about taking care of your people. You take care of/deflect the BS so they can get the job done. You're also their shepherd. Sometimes you have to cull the herd, sometimes you bring in new stock, sometimes you discipline/mentor/train them, but you never, ever manage them. Once you try, you have failed. Sometimes you have to carry out direction you don't agree with, but it is your job to present it from a perspective your people will understand.

First and foremost you have to CARE. That's where most "managers" appear to fail. They're more worried about their own career. If your first thoughts are about how something impacts your career rather than how it impacts your people, then you're in the wrong job. Leaders care. Be a leader, not a manager.

You are someone who gets it. Unforetunately, we can see most don't. In fact, developers in general make the worst managers and/or leaders of all, in my experience. And most companies spend absolutely no resources in the vital area of leadership training or coaching.

Remember, your team IS your department. How well they do, how much they produce is all related to how you treat them. We don't need more 'robots' in IT, we need more thinkers, and that includes managers.

Put yourself in their place when working out problems, don't blindly make life affecting decisions without thinking about how you would feel if you were them. I know we are all a slave to the 'bottom line' but, a little freedom and forward thinking goes a long way, respect your employees and you will all be better for it.

Remember, your team IS your department. How well they do, how much they produce is all related to how you treat them. We don't need more 'robots' in IT, we need more thinkers, and that includes managers.

Put yourself in their place when working out problems, don't blindly make life affecting decisions without thinking about how you would feel if you were them. I know we are all a slave to the 'bottom line' but, a little freedom and forward thinking goes a long way, respect your employees and you will all be better for it.

I like what you say about people being led and not managed, but there is a concept of managing your team as well. At least thats how I see it.

In order to win the confidence of your team, you apply the concepts appropriate to leading. But there are aspects of a persons career that need to be managed as well.

When I think of managing in this sense, I think of helping individuals to develop professionally and personally and not simply "getting the job done". Helping someone develop outside of a project environment can be just as important. Of course, there are limitations on how far this can go (the company still needs to benefit) but when an individual feels that someone is "managing" their career and helping them to attain the next rung of the ladder, then they feel that what they are doing could have a positive affect on them in the future.

Of course, this team leader/manager acts as a conduit between the team and management and this interaction helps the team build confidence in the person designated as the "overseer". And this confidence helps this overseer become a leader.

I certainly hope that I NEVER have the misfortune to work under your "management"

Your attitude toward most questions tells me you'd be a failure as a manager / leader.

I've worked for people like you, but not for long.

As leaders, we are called on to make these kinds of decisions. The job is about managing people and standing between our staff and upper management. Many times, we have to make hard decisions and stand behind them. That doesn't mean we like making them; that means we have to be able to make them and put them into effect and be convinced/convincing that was the absolute best thing to do.

The poster answered all of the questions but in such a clinical and cold manner that I think anyone under his "leadership" would be working under a veil of fear. They would constantly wonder where his entirely cold approach makes his team members no longer team members, rather expendible resources.

Finally a bit of honesty in the workplace

Trust me the colder the light you see management in, the better off you are.

You sound too cynical and bitter to be able to give an impartial opinion on this occasion.

Not all management is bad.

Been there, used to be one, hated it and it showed.

As I see it, this is middle management today:

1. The technical expert who got promoted off the floor into the office without realizing what he was getting into. He received no training and is expected to figure it out by himself. Every time he asks for help from his supervisor, he hears "It's your decision, you're the manager." Is it any wonder over half of these people fall flat on their faces?

2. The young gun who's stupid enough to think that his college degree makes him smarter than anybody else. He won't ask, doesn't listen, and can't understand why everybody who works for him spits immediately after they say his name.

For senior management, of course, everything is different. All they have to do is feather their own nests and blame middle management for the corporate failure. See Enron, AIG, bank bailout, etc.

and with good reason as well. Nor would they simply be my own direct experiences.

Short of a black mark from someone I do trust, I'll trust any manager up to the point they let me down.

I prepare for being let down, I'm rarely disappointed in that regard, I wish I ciould say different.

May be my comment was a bit harsh, but I'd recommend to any one with a boss, that they have a fallback position in case management yet again doesn't come through.

That includes you, unless you are the top guy.

Anything else is as naive as I was near thirty years ago, or stupid.

Don't blame me for that blame the managers who abused me.

Have acted as a leader in the past.
Don't care for the additional responsibility.
However people who ask to be managers/leaders in my experience should have been the last choice.
Theirs is not ambition, it is greed.

A few of them broke that mold but seldom ones who ased for the position. Just heroes with the task thrust upon them in times of need.

About 15 years ago, my manager asked me the typical yearly review question, where do you see yourself in three years. I answered, "not in your job". She asked why and I replied,"too much bureacracy, meetings, paperwork". From that point on she strove to make me a manager....

Sometimes I wish I could go back.

James

"Theirs is not ambition, it is greed."

And I bet you expect a paycheck. Very few people with any measure of skill work for free.

I've seen 3 of my managers who were skilled and qualified to be an IT manager.

Too many times, the person running the place is a "yes man" who is not afraid to kiss butt above his, and kick butt below his.

And quite often, the people who are willing to apply for posted management jobs have two traits:

1) they saw the pay range and wanted it
2) they'd be willing to fire their mom to meet a fiscal goal because it's easier than hashing through their budget to determine the least detrimental way to their realm.

Most management types are cut-and-dry, looking for the easy way out types. Get it done no matter how it happens or who you hurt.

Then they'll tell the same person in the grocery store two weeks later "It was nothing personal. It was a business decision."

When you affect someone's ability to feed their kids even though they were a good worker, it is personal.

Anyways...rant over.

Firing can certainly be personal.

Layoffs shouldn't be, unless you are only laying off because you are too chicken to fire someone.

I had to make one of those tough choices not that long ago. Layoff someone I got along great with, who was the most productive, or layoff someone who was productive, but not great with me or coworkers. I had to set aside personal feelings, and chose the one whose leaving would least impact the business.

It isn't always a scenario that you have someone whose productivity is so low that it is a straighforward choice, sometimes you have to look at the skillsets, and the work you have before you, and decide.

BTW I never applied for my first management job, I was quite happy as an individual contributor, same level as a entry level manager but no reports. I was drafted.

You make it sound like lower level managers have a choice whether to layoff or not. I get to chose who, but I do not get to chose how many, that comes down from on high, and if I refuse, then I need to write that resignation letter.

I've been laid off, and I didn't hold a grudge against the person that did it to me, we are still friends and still talk.



James

But, there are management types who will get a financial expectation from on high and immediately pick someone from the list of their charges and let them go, rather than to take their responsibility as management and "manage" their assets (space, people, property, budget).

I've seen it too many times. And usually, the unskilled manager looks at "who is my biggest financial burden" rather than "how can I keep my department running best".

And IMHO, it's because those unskilled members of management have the least team experience and understand that getting the most "bang for the buck" is better than "getting rid of your largest expense".

Of course, that's why I've avoided going back into corporate America. If I had a manager who I knew would:

a) keep their word to me unless it was absolutely prohibited by their superiors
b) not lie to me or hide things from me
c) tell upper management when they are asking for the impossible/expecting IT to "walk on water"
d) work for their check in every aspect of their job just like they ask those under them to do

I saw a guy once who was promoted to "manager" level. He was 2 years younger than me, and I thought maybe he was some talented guy to make it up through a corp that fast.

Should have known better: ends up, he arse-kissed the VP of the division, took him golfing, etc etc., and had brown-nosed his way into the job. He'd worked at the company *3* years (1.5 in a manual labor position) before being moved into the senior manager role at a facility. He had no idea what he was doing, and he was to replace a guy with 35 years experience.

Needless to say, that VP ended up contracting the guy who'd been there 35 years they were getting to leave through attrition...at 3 times his old salary (which ended up being well into 6 figures).

But the new guy was nothing but a yes man. I could have managed the place better than him.

Within his first 3 months, he'd pissed off the entirety of the bargaining unit employees, and was starting to get on the nerve of other managers for talking directly to their employees and for expecting results from them.

BTW, I've been laid off too. I didn't old a grudge against the office director who had to do it. I understood the market was down, and that he had been asked to take me on after 2 other sections had screwed up contracts I had worked (and that the managers at the contracting companies liked my work). I figured it was upper management's fault for not putting me on a project somewhere earlier that had been open that I had a similar skillset to but would need maybe a week or two of training, and they decided they wanted only perfect fits.

Anyways, i'm not saying all managers are idiots or unskilled or slackers. But, I've seen some doozies in my time.

I've even been a section head (a manager without the title), and I avoid it now. You'd have to pay me a huge sum to deal with things in a management role unless upper management were willing to give me carte blanche over my projects and people and budget.

In my business you lease office space for 5 years, and you buy PBX/Network Gear etc based on anticipated volumes, but you don't anticipate downturns and layoffs. I'm sure most places are the same.

Add to that the fact that labor costs are the largest single expense and make up sometimes more than 2/3 of the expenses of a company, and you can understand why businesses do layoffs.

I'm never asked to reduce labor costs by X, I'm asked to reduce headcount by Y, so I do have some flexibility. Do I always pick the most expensive employees, no, in fact I never have. Do I always pick the newbies? No, though I wouldn't reject it either. Its really simple. What projects/processes are critical to the company, and what people do I need to make them happen. Sure I could say all of them, but the truth is I need some more than others. You look at skills, experience, potential, all kinds of factors.

Sure you've seen bad managers. I've seen bad employees and bad managers. Managers can do more damage, for sure.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but managers can't share everything they know with their staff. You can hope that they share everything thats relevant to you that they are allowed to share. If you have a manager who can't not share, then how do you trust them when you have to give them something in confidence?

I do believe that you sometimes have to set "stretch targets" for staff, but you should let them know they are stretch targets and offer all kinds of assistance to help them meet them. Walking on water, don't even go there. Thats not competent management, and would quickly be found out where I've worked.

James

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but managers can't share everything they know with their staff. You can hope that they share everything thats relevant to you that they are allowed to share. If you have a manager who can't not share, then how do you trust them when you have to give them something in confidence?

Sure they can't share everything. But, it is about sharing what is going to affect your people...with your people.

As for not sharing pertinent workplace info vs not sharing your personal/ private/ confidential things are two totally different beasts.

I do believe that you sometimes have to set "stretch targets" for staff, but you should let them know they are stretch targets and offer all kinds of assistance to help them meet them. Walking on water, don't even go there. Thats not competent management, and would quickly be found out where I've worked.

Guess I've worked with a lot of incompetent managers then.

For instance:

Last job, I was on a project to develop a web interface. I was working on it in the new Microsoft Silverlight Beta 2 Version 1. Microsoft hadn't even defined or constructed the final control object library yet.

I sat for *7* weeks waiting for my boss and the owners of the company to finally decide that...hey...there's no tree control in Silverlight yet...can't do a tree. Duh.

Then, that gave me 5-6 weeks to finish. This was a project I was expected to have fully implemented and ready by a set date, and they had used half my time up in making one, simple, obvious (to me) decision...go with ASP.NET since it already had all the tools and facilities in place to get the job done.

Now can you see what I mean?

BTW, I got the project done in time. Right before I left the company. I wasn't about to stay get stressed out, and talked down to.

redundant, put up for redunancy, sidelined, career killed, a poor review, no pay rise, no rewards, no acknowledgement, couldn't give a toss. I expect all that.

When they give me that our employees are our greatest asset shite, I see red though.

What most companies do is like a bad classic car owner. They'll brag all day about what they have and how well it works, but they then don't take the time to care for them properly and make sure they are tended to.

I haven't been a valued asset at a job since 2007. And, I've recently thought about going back to work there til I leave the state.

This one always got me as well. And the first thing they do is lay off.

I read a Dilbert book (the guy is a genius) that said companies want the best employees in the industry but only want to pay the average pay.

So they have to find someone that is smart enough to be one of the best, but not expect the higher wage because of it.

A corporation can't validate a $2000 a year pay raise for an engineer for doing good work that makes a income-providing product.

But, they can justify golf trips and country club memberships...even for low-end guys in sales and marketing.

I guess in business...the better you kiss arse and schmooze, the more you get.

that we are techies because we are too thick to make it in management.

The fact that we thought about it, decided we wouldn't like and wouldn't be good at it, and that we do like and are good at what we do, is apparently irrelevant.

That's why they talk about promoting a lead tech to manager. It's not a promotion, it's a career switch.

Could you ask one of your employees to do something illegal?

Could you endanger them to save money?

Could you lie to them about meeting agreed expectations, to avoid rocking the boat mid-project.

Could you ignore child porn on your bosses computer?

Could keep the whistle unblown?

If you can answer yes to all these questions you are cut out for management.

I'm a no on every one of these, while being a yes for all yours. Theory vs practice strikes again....

I don't want to be a manager, management cured me of that fantasy decades ago. It's a dirty job, others are more than happy to do.

There's a huge difference in levels of management. I was stupid enough to believe I would be allowed to manage people. Not so. I was just a mouthpiece to positively present sugar-coated turds that upper management thought were wonderful ideas. My whole life was spent hoping to survive. The best accomplishments I could attain were putting out fires.

That's why I like project management a whole lot better. You clearly define the scope, plan the work, and work the plan. Simple, fulfilling. It's great to look back on a project I led and see the results still in production after 15 years. All I can remember as a 1st line manager is being a whipping post.

Just like a extraodinary athlete, writer, musician, artist or actor, the manager is born with a gift. The gift can then be developed to levels that the individual themself control.

I have seen many business promote the most senior or tenured employee to a position in management based on a personal liking. This is no differnt than nepotism.

People want to be managers because they get paid more - it ain't rocket science, but it's a different story when they find out what it's actually like...

You have fundamentally hit the nail right on the head, whilst also completely missing the point as well...what a paradoxical paradigm. The original article also failed miserably to address the real issues.

It is basic problem solving 101.

People seek management because it is a more secure, (they do the firing, duh!), and the pay is better. Fair enough, but the original article asked why people would want to do the job given it's roles and responsibilities, without addressing the real question...why would anyone want to be a manager if we accepted that all roles are equally important in the work environment and managers weren't paid multiple times the wages/salaries of their subordinates without contributing any more to the value of the company than their subordinates, given that they generally don't "produce" anything?

Who would want to be a manager if they gained no more remuneration as a true reflection of them being merely an overhead and not a productive member of the company?

Any takers for that job?

Do you get the better salary because you manage or did you manage to get your self a better salary.

Essentially management is the imposition of a beneficial order on your environment. A good manager does produce something. They do it well and they do it all the time. They manage the environment which can include people, conducive to a particular objective.
Obviously in order to do that they need certain level of control.

Unfortunately various crap managers over time
have quite sensibly used their power to be rewarded based on the amount of things they could control instead of their sadly lacking ability to control.

If you believe you aren't producing you are probably right, if you were managing, you'd identfy yourself as the problem, and then correct it. Or of course you could point to all those 'subordinates' and say you deserve to be paid more than them because you control them....

You've got to be careful about the attitude that comes along with the word subordinate, by the way. Run into some one like me and your lack of people management skills will stand out like J-lo at a pensioners convention.
Don't use it, don't think it, you'll do better.

...I LOL at your way with words while agreeing with your insight.

Quote: "Unfortunately various crap managers over time
have quite sensibly used their power to be rewarded based on the amount of things they could control instead of their sadly lacking ability to control."

Priceless. The question have is can we ever expect that to change?

It's not just an I.T. phenomenon.

of time at a very small number of places.

One good manager has a bad day, employs the CEO's nephew. He makes a suggestion to Uncle Jim, and instead of being reamed for epmloying a clueless thimble brain in an effort to curry favour, you get a pay rise.

Slice one in the death of a thousand cuts.

I'm not sure it's a bad manager problem as such, as a nice easy metric to measure the value of a manager. Sort of like that feeble minded 'Lines Of Code' one for devlopers that was very popular at one point.

Oh, it's money that motivated,,,,,,,,

Peter Tchaikovsky & George Gershwin

Sandro Botticelli & Michelangelo

Robert E. Lee & George Patton

Paul McCartney & Michael Jackson

Michael Jordon & Tiger Woods

I don't and never will buy that notion. These folks were born with a gift that they developed into greatness.