[Porsche-O-Phile]

More corporate double-speak mumbo-jumbo to me.

IMO the best managers are the ones that have good common sense, a reasonable level of MANAGEMENT aptitude or experience (note: this is NOT the same as technical aptitude or experience), are reasonably well-disciplined, articulate, personable and of reasonable intelligence (this does NOT mean they're necessarily they're smarter than the people they manage).

The biggest mistake I see is that companies (for whatever convention/reason) decide that a guy making widgets is automatically a great candidate to supervise guys making widgets. Wrongo. Problem is in our society there are very few companies with the common sense to reward a senior widget-maker that's good with NEARLY the same compensation as a widget-maker-supervisor. As such, neither the company nor the widget-maker being considered for "promotion" to be a supervisor (manager) speaks up and says "I don't think this is where my talents lie". The company is just following stupid conventional thinking and the employee is just doing what's necessary to get better compensation.

A good manager needs MANAGEMENT skills - not the technical knowledge to do every one of their peoples' jobs.

The truly visionary companies identify which people are good in which roles, match them accordingly and compensate fairly based on the value of that service provided, not buckling to convention or resorting to the empty rationale of "well, that's the way we've always done it".

I've sat in on a bunch of higher-level management meetings of the type discussed here and they're ALWAYS just a B.S.-fest. Pompous fools trying to out-shout each other and puff their chests out and hear themselves spout buzzwords that they somehow equate with intelligence or expertise. (puke) Want to impress me? Either help identify (clearly) an existing problem or help offer a clear, direct, viable solution to that problem (or both), not some theoretical pap veiled in the latest corporate jargon vocabulary to impress schmoozer managers.