• Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 104 subscribers
  • Views 1154 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Managment and promotion in orgonisations. Do autistic people miss out?

Peter

So i've been thinking about an issue that I think is dificult for STEM employees and especially autistic ones in companies. And that is that there offten isn't a path to career progresion that doesn't involve transitioning, even if gradually, from a technical to a people manament role. The issue is a lot of stem personel don't want to do this. And for autistic personel it may not be within their capabilities. That isn't to say autistic people are bad at managing tasks, planing projects, just not nessiceraly good at handeling the people working on those tasks and projects. So my proposal in a nutshell is let the two aspects of managment be seperated. Let the task manager and the line manager be two seperat people. Let the people persons specialise in line mangment and the probblem solvers specialise in task managment. Lots of orgonisations already do matrix managment where one person may answer to multiplu project heads but generally only has one line manager (who is also a project head or who is line managed by one) So why not have line managers who are not project managers, they just look after people. Training, vacations, sicknesses, absences, complaints etc, all that stuff. but not actual bread and butter work which they leave to the project managers. That way people can bepromoted from technical roles into technical roles or even promoted in place as they get more expert so the orgonisation can keep that acumulated skill.

The way I see it as things stand autistic people get stuck in junior roles, leave for other companies or go into roles that don't realy suit them. Also if you get really great people persons as line managers they can mange more people. And freed of the red tape project managers can project manage more people. And do it better.

What do people think?

Parents

  • I'm reminded of the hate-hate relationship between architects and engineers. The architect lays out the plan. The engineer says it can't be done. Egos collide.

    So, a few thoughts. If you separate the typical manager position into two roles, divided roles means divided responsibility, and therefore divided pay. Right there you take a blow to the primary motivator for people to seek promotion.

    Are the responsibilities of the line manager and the project manager enough to justify creating two separate roles? It sounds like if this system already existed, employers would probably want to roll the two positions into one anyway.

    Now, say the system was implemented. If the project manager is responsible for the technical aspects of a project, and the line manager for the team that will work on said project, then you add more moving parts to the machine, hence more room for malfunction. If the two managers don't see eye to eye, you're probably going to end up with power struggles. The team is going to back the manager responsible for their vacation days.

    I mean, who knows? The system could potentially work. But it seems to me like the best way you're going to find out, is if you start your own company to put it into effect.

Reply

  • I'm reminded of the hate-hate relationship between architects and engineers. The architect lays out the plan. The engineer says it can't be done. Egos collide.

    So, a few thoughts. If you separate the typical manager position into two roles, divided roles means divided responsibility, and therefore divided pay. Right there you take a blow to the primary motivator for people to seek promotion.

    Are the responsibilities of the line manager and the project manager enough to justify creating two separate roles? It sounds like if this system already existed, employers would probably want to roll the two positions into one anyway.

    Now, say the system was implemented. If the project manager is responsible for the technical aspects of a project, and the line manager for the team that will work on said project, then you add more moving parts to the machine, hence more room for malfunction. If the two managers don't see eye to eye, you're probably going to end up with power struggles. The team is going to back the manager responsible for their vacation days.

    I mean, who knows? The system could potentially work. But it seems to me like the best way you're going to find out, is if you start your own company to put it into effect.

Children
  • in reply to Oran G. Utan
    Oran G. Utan said:
    If the project manager is responsible for the technical aspects of a project, and the line manager for the team that will work on said project, then you add more moving parts to the machine, hence more room for malfunction. If the two managers don't see eye to eye, you're probably going to end up with power struggles. The team is going to back the manager responsible for their vacation days.

    In the long term that tension might be a good thing. Technocrats who are task focused often make unreasionable demands of staff and burn them out. This leads to poor retention and lawsuits. Having someone outside the technical process to step in and interupt that could be helpful.

    Line managers who just want to box tick through the work quickly to give the apperence of efficency lead to shody work and practices that are far from future proof. Having a technocrat with an eye for detail lead the work planing can help prevent that.

    More conflict isn't always a bad thing. Conflict within constraints can improve productivity.