This is going to sound insulting and I don't mean it that way, but does anyone ever wonder about the fact that managers are frequently considerably less intelligent than the people they manage? I think that's what drives the frustration a lot of the time. The thing is, just because they're less intelligent doesn't mean they're not good managers, but it think it certainly makes it a lot harder for programmers, who are usually very bright, to accept the choices their managers make when they don't particularly agree with them.
Having said that, I think a good compromise would be to make sure that the people who get assigned to managerial positions have formerly had the job of the people they manage. That way they're likely to understand the pinpoints and the frustrations and be motivated to eliminate them. Obviously not all programmers will qualify for this job, but some certainly will.
I guess that you are still a novice. Usually managers did the work of their underlings. However seldomly a competent person gets promoted - as you need someone to do the work. And since the less competent person will be relatively better manager than producer in comparison to the competent person, the less competent guy gets the promotion.
I strongly advise everyone to read the Putt's Law, where this phenomena is broken down in great depth.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of technical people who are geniuses technically do not have the qualities necessary to be good managers. Good managing requires ability to communicate up, down, and across the corporate hierarchy and the political minefield that comes with it.
Good managers will balance out good technical people in terms of skillset, and help their team to do their job, while also coaching them in the areas where they are weak (and if the manager is weak technically, then obviously technical coaching is not in scope). Good managers will filter what reaches inside their team from the outside and protect their team from crap while captaining the ship forward. They know their weaknesses and also know that good leadership requires hiring people who are smarter than you are, and then helping to facilitate the magic that can happen when good people get together.
Having managers who are strong both technically and in a business sense is rare. There are only so many Elon Musks in the world. But when you work with one, your work becomes very enjoyable.
At the end of the day, team members don't have visibility as to what managers do every day. This blog is great for understanding this stuff: http://randsinrepose.com
I'm just trying to say that just because one may not have experienced them or seen them does not mean they don't exist. I've worked for a few and with a few. They helped me grow.
It's a popular saying around these parts (as in the startup community) that you should hire people smarter than you. It seems like having managers less intelligent than their direct reports would be a sign that the company is applyig that rule well...
Completely agree, a manger without a technical (coding, sysadmin, etc.) background has a weak foundation: how can they make decisions without knowing the domain itself?
Not so sure coders trump managers in the intelligence dept. After all, managers tend to earn more, and do less; I'd say they're brilliant in this respect ;-)
Having said that, I think a good compromise would be to make sure that the people who get assigned to managerial positions have formerly had the job of the people they manage. That way they're likely to understand the pinpoints and the frustrations and be motivated to eliminate them. Obviously not all programmers will qualify for this job, but some certainly will.