> If a manager trusts their reports, they can manage those reports effectively, because they are getting accurate data about what their people are doing. That trust (also known as being professional) short circuits the need for the manager to understand the work being done.

That works in the happy case. But lots of things work in the happy case.

The problems happen when ICs do things that are good for themselves, but not good for the company. One obvious example of this is resume-driven development.

>If a manager trusts their reports, they can manage those reports effectively, because they are getting accurate data about what their people are doing

This statement is nonsense. How does simply trusting your reports guarantee anything, let alone that you're getting accurate data about what your people are doing? How would you be the wiser if you didn't have a fundamental understanding of the work being done?

>That trust (also known as being professional) short circuits the need for the manager to understand the work being done.

Again, nonsense.

Your statement is akin to saying that being a successful basketball coach doesn't require knowledge of basketball, but rather just simply having to trust in your basketball players. Yet show me how many successful basketball coaches are there that never played the game, or was around the game to develop a fundamental understanding of the game.

Or hell, put it this way: if trust short circuits any need for management to have any understanding, then anyone could be a successful manager. I'm sure my dog trusts me and most folk, I guess by your reasoning, he could be the manager of any department in any company!

Yeah, nonsense. You need some fundamental understanding of what you're managing otherwise you're a bad manager, or simply a figure head...