John,

Yes, you are correct: There are a few technologists who make excellent managers. Few is the operative word.

I would submit that they had the credentials in the first place.
One of the things that I believe that the Peter Principle has wrong is the promotion aspect.
Any time you begin something new to you, the chances of being incompetent are usually very high.
It usually takes time to become proficient.
You can take good managers and make them really crummy techs.
Why? Because they weren't suited to it in the first place.

My premise is that there has been a spiral down for management over all, and that even non-bad managers are the exception, rather than the rule.
If you read the writings of Dr. Chris Argyris you might find what he says compatible with my statement.
And there is always "Moral Mazes" by Robert Jackall (because "Assertive Incompetence--An Introduction to Management Malpractice" isn't out yet).

Douglas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> John Clogg <[log in to unmask]> 05/04 9:17 AM >>>
Douglas Becker writes:
>Haven't these people [who promote technologists] read the Peter Principle?

The Peter Principle is alive and well, and many folks who shouldn't be
managing people are expected to do so.  Douglas seems to imply, however,
that technologists never make good managers.  Technologists who make good
managers are not plentiful, but those who have the right stuff are great to
work for (e.g., Bill & Dave).  I have worked for managers who have no clue
what I do for a living, and it isn't pretty!  Disclaimer: I have also seen
notable exceptions to the previous statement.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *