The Hacker FAQ was written from the standpoint of an employee trying to communicate something clearly to their manager - specifically how they work. This FAQ is by a manager trying to explain how the employee should act around managers. Fundamental difference here, and the two FAQs are only vaguely related.
A manager can dramatically improve your performance, both as an individual and as a member of a team, or a manager can get in the way and keep you from working.
This is a good way of looking at things and, had the author continued along this style of writing, I might not have been rubbed the wrong way by the article. The big thing that rubbed me the wrong way though was the politically correct "She she she she she" over and over again. The male pronoun is clear and concise - nothing else is. Even worse, the author was not consistent - referring to the manager as "he" and the employee as "she". How sexist! That was my second indication the author was not only a suit, but a trendy suit.
He seems to do a good job, but he's not getting along with the engineers.
Didn't we just say that the reason managers dress in suits is to be sociable, and that the primary function of a manager is to facilitate social interactions to improve productivity? If he's not getting along well with engineers, not only has he failed in his primary role, but he is now also interfering with others' ability to work. Yet we get justification for this?! Strike two.
4.3: My manager wants me to promote me into management; I am not interested, and she seems offended by this.
The Hacker FAQ already asked and answered this, and not only was their answer both concise and well-reasoned but it also happens to agree with my view on the matter. Why didn't the author make any of the suggestions that the Hacker FAQ made - such as a job title improvement, or discounts on computer hardware as the original FAQ mentioned? Strike three - not grasping the source material.
Conclusion: Bad advice, and not meant for employees. This was written as a justification for continued poor performance by a manager, not as a tool to help employees better understand management.
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.