> at some point you have to rely on technical people to do their jobs.
On one hand, I totally agree that technical tasks should be left to the technical people, preferably those who are actually working on the system. There's almost nothing worse than a manager trying to take technical decisions out of people's hands.
> Am I wrong to think if I'm going to manage a 60-100 person organization across three timezones I don't really need to be under the hood in the code any longer? Or am I clueless?
On the other, I think people want to work for people they respect and to the extent that people respect technical chops that might be what they are screening for. Though the hash map question sounds like a soft ball, so it might be screening for a baseline of software competence.
I hear you about having enough technical ability to understand what's going on and make sensible decisions. Certainly in a role like that and the one I have now a mix of technical and positional authority are required.
But at what point does it become ludicrous? When your CIO is yelling "No, No! You have to enable the EPEL repo or you'll patch to the wrong version!"?
On one hand, I totally agree that technical tasks should be left to the technical people, preferably those who are actually working on the system. There's almost nothing worse than a manager trying to take technical decisions out of people's hands.
> Am I wrong to think if I'm going to manage a 60-100 person organization across three timezones I don't really need to be under the hood in the code any longer? Or am I clueless?
On the other, I think people want to work for people they respect and to the extent that people respect technical chops that might be what they are screening for. Though the hash map question sounds like a soft ball, so it might be screening for a baseline of software competence.