>>This is not a problem managers who are experts in what their workers are doing have.
You're more or less right, but I don't think this is exactly the case. A good manager shouldn't need to be an expert in what their staff is doing. The manager should be there to help them let them do their jobs and stay out of the way. I always say the same thing around this, "If you have to constantly watch your employees either, why do they still work for you, or why are you the manager?"
Managers play very different roles in different jobs. There are many jobs where your direct manager is a foreman who is doing pretty much the same job but is expected to be an expert in that job and has the responsibility of teaching the others how to do it and doing quality review/supervision to ensure that they're doing it properly.
> A good manager shouldn't need to be an expert in what their staff is doing. The manager should be there to help them let them do their jobs and stay out of the way.
It's not an either/or, it should be both. A good manager must be at least good at anything their staff is doing and a good manager should be there to help them, let staff do their jobs, and stay out of the way.
If the manager isn't really good at (or an expert in) the role under them, then by definition they can't be a good manager, because they couldn't actually help their staff. But a manager shouldn't be doing their staff's job (they shouldn't be micromanaging), they should have trust in their staff to do good work, and only get involved when explicitly asked, or when something has gone too far off the rails.
---
It should be a "trust but verify" situation. You should trust your team to do work, and stay out of their way to let them do it, but also know enough of the specifics to be able to verify any of it and correct when necessary.
A good manager must be at least good at anything their staff is doing
Completely disagree. I've never had a manager who was as good as me at doing my particular job, even when I was the most junior of developers and that has not once been a problem. Even the bad managers I've had weren't bad because they could help me with my day to day job. If I needed help with those aspects of my job I spoke to the project lead or one of the senior developer.
Maybe it's just semantics and terminology, but I consider those two very different roles (that admittedly are sometimes done by the same person). A manager has personnel and admin responsibilities, and ultimately is the one that decides which projects I work on and how I spend my time. My manager can fire me, while my project lead cannot. My manager is the person I go to talk salary and related issues. I can be working on 3 different projects with 3 different project leads, while still having the same manager.
You're more or less right, but I don't think this is exactly the case. A good manager shouldn't need to be an expert in what their staff is doing. The manager should be there to help them let them do their jobs and stay out of the way. I always say the same thing around this, "If you have to constantly watch your employees either, why do they still work for you, or why are you the manager?"