Slashdot Mirror
Managing Einsteins
This book doesn't use terms like "nerd" or "geek" to describe IT workers: the authors hold that the stereotype of pocket protectors and coke-bottle glasses just doesn't fit any more. This is a book written for managers, and so the terminology and style (almost) always refers to Einsteins as "your workers," to the point that with the summary at the end states:
Referring to super-intelligent, curious, passionate, often introverted, talented individuals as "geeks" is outdated. Although Einsteins can call colleagues "geeks," it is not appropriate or cool for non-Einsteins to refer to computer, technology, systems or software geniuses as geeks. (page 217)
These are the difficult to work with, yet life-saving employees who can come up with answers when most people don't understand the question.
Several themes run through the book, so it can be summarised in a few simple statements. Many of which (to Einsteins) may seem pretty obvious. The book is written by "Management Professionals," though, so there's hope that managers may actually accept some of its wisdom.
The book is divided into three parts:
- Realities of the Twenty-First Century - a brief summary covers the basic themes of the book and introduces the concept of an Einstein, the nature of Einsteins and how they fit into the work environment and the world.
- Managing Einsteins: Challenges and Actions - this section, the bulk of the book, covers everything from recruiting Einsteins through to managing them on a daily basis, by paying attention to communication, teams and tribes, remuneration, etiquette and discipline.
- Building for the Future - includes humour and fun at work, telecommuting and a final summary.
The book describes IT workers as highly motivated, intelligent (often more intelligent than their managers), introverted, tribal and independent.
The mains themes throughout the book are:
- Managers should be honest with their workers about the company's successes and failures
- The point of management is to guide and suggest not to be autocratic (the metaphor of herding cats was used to illustrate this)
- Let the Einsteins have freedom in work environment (location - there is a whole chapter on telecommuting, hours and style)
- Einsteins are project-focused, not job-focused
- They value training and education highly
- They require a stimulating and fun work place.
The issue of remuneration is covered -- and expanded to include the idea that Einsteins are not solely motivated by money (as sales people may be), and that other considerations should be taken into account (such as training, location, work conditions). Also that the traditional notion of promotion does not always work. An Einstein may not want to become a team leader, or move any higher in the management hierarchy. A manager should be wary of their Einsteins burning out, a temporary demotion or other measure may be in order to take the stress off an Einstein for a while.
The book includes short examples and case studies from various workplaces, and excerpts from newspapers and trade journals to help illustrate points. There are also highlighted points categorised as "Influence Tips," "Black Holes" and "Einstein Wisdom." which emphasise important things, such as:
Managers should be very cautious not to introduce projects that have a low likelihood of getting started. Einsteins abhor routine and crave novel projects. But they abhor being misled and crave honest leadership all the more. In staff meetings, when managers talk about upcoming projects, they should attach a probability of launch along with the projected launch date. The common term for this is "managing expectations." (page 70)
One good description of the nature of how Einsteins work is the concept of flow.
Flow is reported by individuals as a satisfying state they reach when they are completely absorbed in challenging yet achievable projects. (page 54)
Flow is an important concept for managers to understand. Once an Einstein starts a project, and becomes fully involved, there is nothing worse than being pulled off to attend a sales meeting, or other time consuming function. It interrupts the flow.
One pitfall: the book seems to have been started before the tech slump of 2000-2001 really started to dig in. So the book wavers between promoting how IT workers are highly mobile, but also that the job market is not that strong.
The other major shortcoming is the chapter on Etiquette and Manners. Now, I can understand the mannerisms and habits of Einsteins can be a little unpleasant at times, but it begs the question, why would a manager take one of these people out to a client dinner in the first place? If the client needs to meet the tech people to be convinced that a company can do the job, why not at the place of work? Or, take an Einstein who you know you can trust to behave and present well.
As this is the only book at the moment that deals directly with managing this class of workers, also get your manager to read Jon Katz's Geeks. Managing people is no longer about direct, micro-management or process line working. The nature of work has changed with the influence of new technology and so a new way of managing people should also be introduced. These books together will help management, or anyone, understand the mind set and working modes of IT workers.
You can purchase Managing Einsteins from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
Alright, I know tech workers tend to have absurdly high opinions of themselves, especially on slashdot, but EINSTEINS? That's going a bit far, don't you think?
When dealing with highly intelligent employees, it's counter-productive to put them on a regimented schedule, in a cramped cube and expect them to turn out quality work.
Though I'm not an "Einsein" in the typical sense used in the review, I find that a lot of the ideas presented can apply to people in my field of accounting. It's another highly specialized field requiring a certain type of worker, and a quirky lot at that.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
But could you imagine managing a bunch of cloned einsteins?? This could be in interesting project, perhaps collectivly the beowolf cluster of einsteins could figure out many of the worlds perplexing questions =) anyways, thats my random thought for the day...
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
The review touched on it but I think it's important to note that being smart doesn't make you a good manager. In my career I've seen great programmers promoted to management positions simply because they (the company) couldn't think of any other way to reward them for being good.
In a department I used to work for, the best programmer is now riding herd on all the programmers. He's a great coder but not a great manager. But, the culture is that you have to keep getting promoted or there must be something wrong with you so up the ladder he went.
Now, when he fails as a manager what happens? He can't really go back to being a coder - too much like a demotion.
The root of the problem is the concept of a salary range for a given job. People can't get a raise because they are max'd out for their job. Want to make more? Leave the job you're good at and move to management. It ain't right but that's the way it is.
I was looking for something, anything, in the review that said this advisory text was specifically targetted at a super-intelligent audience. Not a bright audience, mind you. After all, Einstein wasn't merely bright(like me.) He was a genius for the ages. Of course, I was curious as to where all these super-geniuses were when the business plans were being drawn up, but ahh well, who am I to question them.
There was nothing that was targetted specifically at said employee subset. Not a thing was said that wouldn't apply to every employee.
On the plus side, this book doesn't even have to be read to be helpful. This book is a standard management text with the marketing built into the title of the book and nowhere else.
Wake up, 1999 was over two years ago; nowdays you'll get a cubicle.
-- No sig today
1. Please don't micro-manage me - give me a goal, set my paramters, then get the hell out of my way. I promise that I'll amaze you in short order. 2. Don't lie to me about the state of the company. If we're in the crapper, let me know. I know you're scared that if you paint a less-than-rosy picture, I might just leave. But if you paint a rosy picture, and I find out that you're blowing sunshine up my ass, you can rest assured that I'm going to leave. 3. Remember the cardinal rule - if you hire adults, and treat them like adults, they'll probably behave like adults. (Of course, if you tell me that I can shoot Nerf guns at my cube-neighbor, don't be surprised when I do...) 4. Don't make me play any of those stupid touchy-feely games at meetings. I'm not at work to bond by force. If I need to get in touch with my deeper self, I'll do it on my own time. See rule 1. Course, that's just my opinion...yada yada.
where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
s/Einstein/People obviously smarter and more talented that you/g
Stick THAT in your MBA PHB pipe and smoke it, Mr.!
Not that I'm bitter =]
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
While I'm not sure I would qualify myself as an "Einstein", I would say that I'm a geek.
While I can agree with some of the themes, I generally view training and education as worthless most times. I'd much rather have a piece of software dropped in front of me and give me 2 days to play with it than go off to some training course somewhere else to have it explained to me like I'm a toddler.
Am I the only one?
Actually, there is something to say about this: this kind of books are allegedly written for managers, but the intended audience doesn't have neither the time nor a particular drive to read it
/. : you say what you have to say to make the *real* audience happy, and make it sound you're not even targeting this audience. In other words, the book seems to be a book "for managers" - but to be read and paid by the techies...
It's like karma-whoring on
-- No sig today
And thats the crux of the problem. Often you have to deal with people who are not only immodest about their own abilities, but are often falsely immodest. I cannot begin to tell you how many Valley types think they are precious, irreplacable little snowflakes who wake up every morning knowing something new that us mere mortals simply could never divine.
His advice: Managers should be honest with their workers about the company's successes and failures, the point of management is to guide and suggest not to be autocratic, let the Einsteins have freedom in work environment, Einsteins are project-focused, not job-focused, they value training and education highly, they require a stimulating and fun work place.
So how does this advice apply to Einsteins more than any other kind worker in any other department?
This advice could be summarized by the Golden Rule of Management: Do unto your staff as you would have your manager do onto you.
He could have also said, when all else fails, raise their salary.
Didn't seebs write something about managing hackers (and/or herding cats) that has much the same advice, has been around longer, and is more "truer to the cause" since it was written by one of us instead of a bunch of management professionals who claim to understand us?
Managment types don't listen to geeks. If they did, we wouldn't need books like this in the first place.
Nope, no sig
> sure... each slashdotter is going have a project on par with a nuclear physisist ...
...
Well, there was the new order-N sort algorithm that was described recently.
It was based on the concept of a quantum computer. The idea was that in to sort N items, you use quantum indeterminacy to choose a random permutation of the items. This will cause the universe to split into multiple copies, one per permutation. You test the resulting list (an order N operation), and if it's not sorted, you destroy the universe. In the remaining universe, the list will be sorted.
Destruction of the universe was left as an exercise for the reader.
If this isn't on a par with nuclear physics, I don't know what is. And it's Just a Matter of Programming
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The best managers(especially in this field) are probably those who listen to their employees and actively work with them to find the best solutions. To all managers: stop asking other managers on tips on the most efficient ways of finishing projects...ask your own employees!
Maybe *you* will, but I telecommute or I don't
take the job. Skills and talents determine
the perks you can demand.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Who the hell is recruiting anybody anymore?
We are!
So where are you located, and where do I submit my resume?
Nope, no sig
My main pet peeve with the IT generation of managers is that they equate what is technically possible ("Hey, programmer, can we do this?") with what their minions actually want to do.
.com flop showed, those grumblins and skeptical snide remarks by your programmers are often going to be the first sign that what you're building might not be worth the social and technical trouble that the project will cause.
I dont think you'll find many construction workers that like to build useless buildings (where the mgmt. in this scenario would cry, "Why not! You're building stuff! You're a builder!". In my mind, management tends to ignore the social aspects of project planning. I always like to say that I could write a scalable distributed inventory management solution in binary, if I really had to, but because of how utterly soul sucking and unfun that would be, I promise no matter how self-disciplined I might be, it will suck. Simply because I won't believe in _what_ I'm building, and thus my work will reflect that.
Management needs to do a better job of understanding why programmers and techies often seem to resentful when being assigned projects - as the
Now, much of the IT industry is about spurring people against their will using rewards such as high salaries and job perks (nerf guns anyone?) to entice them to building things that businesses want. Programmers and techies can spot and sniff the 'empty promises' in technology (and there are tons), and it is a sign of bad management that ignores those types of hesitations and flies on the basis of what is 'techically possible' alone.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Go on Craig's List or some other job board and place a bogus ad for Java or VB coders, or some other mid-range skill position.
You will receive one hundred resumes within six hours.
Indeed, I'm quite pleased if I get a manager who
can *read*.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I am curious to hear how others respond to meetings or 'parts of meetings' requesting you to imagine things such as: "a circle, with the line colored in your favorite color, but not red because red is too negative. Now, think of the moment of your life you felt best where you felt like you were number one! You felt confident and ready to challenge anything in the world. Now, insert that moment in the circle. The circle with your favorite color, other than red or, I forgot to mention, black, is in front of you. Go ahead and take a step forward into the circle. Go ahead! Now, how do you feel!?!"
This is the type of shit I must confront in the work-place and entirely agree with parent: " I'm not at work to bond by force. If I need to get in touch with my deeper self, I'll do it on my own time." But, how do I respond to such requests, instead of taking a deep-breath and doing it, again? Any template responses to share?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Where's the book "Working for PHBs"? Seriously, isn't that the other half of the problem? The word "Einstein" is used derisively, I think, to say IT workers are arrogant asses that assume all those above and around them are idiots. So, "Managing Einsteins" would be a book about appeasing these Einsteins while getting them to do what you want (e.g. herding cats).
On the other hand, the Einsteins derisively refer to management as PHBs because they don't completely understand technical issues and make decisions on loose technical-ground. Sure, we could blow this issue off as management being stupid, or we can learn, for example, how better to comminucate the issues so the PHBs can make better decisions. It might also enlighten us to the fact there is more to a decision than just the technical side, such as marketing, customer acceptance, product portfolio, etc.
Bottom line, its two different cultures. To get them to work together requires efforts and respect on both sides.
I know it's a cool Dilbert-esque thing to make fun of salesmen, but it's a rather stupid assumption to assume that salesmen are any more or less motivated by money than "Einsteins".
The last time I checked, salesmen are human too, and as such have a fairly wide range of motivations, from workplace comfort to a good peer group to flexible hours to money.
Or maybe the sales guys at my company are just weird...
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
At the risk of reminding people that there are more ner...ah, "Einsteins" out there than Computer "Einsteins", I think this has more applications than just in the IT industry. The IT industry has been heavily stereotyped, but so have engineers. I work in the Plastic Injection Molding industry, designing automotive parts. How much less does this apply to me? Our Engineers need to feel at ease in office. We need the freedom to be creative and imaginative. This benefits the company as well as the engineers. How?
1)Patents. The company gets a patent with the Engineer's name on it.
2)Money. Our new ideas could potentially save tooling costs, material, or cycle time, all of which means we can save our customer money, and make more money.
Slashdot may be "News for Nerds", but I think people need to be reminded that all nerds aren't computer nerds
just an opinion
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Holy moly! What a pretentious load of wank this book is. 'Managing Einsteins', indeed. I love this bit: "a stimulating and fun work place" No. Stimulating and Fun is what I do when i'm NOT at work!
"Information wants to be paid"
Who doesn't hate it when a promised project get's shitcanned?
Who likes to be constantly interrupted from productive work?
What percentage of *all* employees are interested in promotion management? In my experience IT people are no less likely to want to be promoted to management.
Who doesn't like work that is challenging, but achievable?
And as far as IT workers enjoying a "project focus" - doesn't everyone? It's nice to have some structure, a beginning, a middle and an end. I don't think a desire for such structure is unique to geeks.
The points the book makes are very general management principles, and don't apply to only "Einsteins".
-josh
I've heard of this culture, but I've never seen
it in reality. I have always suspected it was a
creation of the ooh-aah gawking tech press during
the internet stock market bubble.
Is that what it's like in your neck of the woods,
or is it just what you've read about in Wired?
Most of the intelligent people I know are very
interested in accomplishing things, and tend not
to appreciate nerf arrows any more than sales
meetings. They usually don't kick it out until
they are stuck or wiped out or pissed off.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
tribal and independent.
But that..err..
Wouldn't--?
Nevermind.
I could use this. I'm in charge of the tech group at work. Given, this is a small company and the tech group just consisted of me up until 4 months ago. Now I've got 3 people under me. I'm always inclusive and I always talk about "us", "we", etc... One day I said something like "Yes, the owner should be able to call on any one of us to perform a given task and we should all be able to do it with no problems." And this one guy pipes up "Yeah, tell me about it. John doesn't seem to trust me, but he has to understand that I'm just as good as you." To understand the irony here, you must understand that he said this despite the fact that every time there is an issue that requires a little bit of critical thinking skills or that is not already spelled out in easy-to-understand steps he comes to me, out of breath and panicking, asking "what do I do now? How does this work? I don't know what to do. Please tell me how to fix this." Even worse on top of that, he takes the credit afterwards. I've been trying to play nice, but I'm going to need to beat him with a cluestick real soon.
So I guess this whole long story was to validate a need for your book.
Most managers, however, are not necessarily trying to become better managers. In organizations both large and small, management training often consists of a 30-minute exit interview with the person you're replacing (if you're lucky).
Someone's a good accountant? Make them head of accounting. Got a really kick-ass salesperson? Make her head of sales. One of your Java programmers knows more than the rest of the team? Make him your CTO. After being promoted to such a position, with no real leadership training, how could you not assume that you're just a natural born leader?
Unfortunately this approach just doesn't work. Cultivating leadership in any organization is difficult, time-consuming, and doesn't offer immediate dollars-and-cents results that the bean-counters can quantify. The fact that there is so much literature on leadership shows the very real dearth of good organizational leadership training in the corporate world.
The managers who read this book are likely improving their management skills, but they're not the ones who need to read it. Unfortunately, the ones who do need to read such books never will, because they know they've already got that "management thing" all figured out.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I have been a manager in different capacities for the past 5 or so years and here is my take on this:
1) Treat people the way you want to be treated. Nobody likes working for a taskmaster or driven to the point of burnout. Treat people (especially people you are responsible for!) with respect and they in turn will respect you and the organization.
2) Make goals, plans, project, expectations, etc clear. Vague, mushy, "changing target, shifting paradigm BS" does not encourage or motivate people.
3) Be flexible in what you do and your people will be as well. If you want someone to fix something at 2 AM, offer them the opportunity to work business hours from home, or from another suitable remote location on a regular basis.
4) Train, educate, teach. Send people to offsite classes. Buy them books and software if they request it. Subscribe to magazines and journals. Send people to conferences and conventions. Invest in your people and they will bring back knowledge and stay for more. If you are worried that CCNA you just paid for will leave after certification than you either hired the wrong person or you have a crappy workplace. Good people stay at good places for more good training and investment.
5) Be honest. If things are bad at the company and there will be layoffs or bancruptcy, let your people know as soon and with as much information as soon as possible. People have mortgages, families, bills. Show some respect.
6) Remember personal lives. Tech workers are no different than other people. What we have all found out in the past few years is that tech workers don't want to sleep under their desks for 10 years. Send them home. Let them spend uninterrupted time with friends, family, and other non-work beings.
7) Free cokes, toys, games, and other fluff is just that - fluff. In today's "Enroned", recessionary times, people want stability, reliability and honesty more than a foozeball table, rollerblade court and hiking trips. Tech workers (for that matter all workers) should not have to worry if paychecks will bounce or be non-existant, if their 401k or pension scheme is solvent, or if their payroll taxes are being filed correctly.
8) Finally, have technical people with leadership qualities lead. I was a sysadmin and network admin before being tapped for a management role. I understand what my people are talking about from experience, not from a book or training class.
Just some thoughts from the last few years. All lessons learned from experience.
You've hit the nail on the head.
My boss, for instance, really believes that he is "solving the problems when others don't understand the question." In reality, he is often the problem that must be solved by his subordinates. He would never believe that he is not part of the "engine of change." He's really more like the "wheel chocks of ignorance."
I know you're being funny...I hate this self-stereotyping of technical staff.
/., there's an opinion among many developers that the crowd here is nothing but a bunch of schoolkids with delusions of knowledge; don't feed them.
I don't want free sodas at work (I do like the subsidised canteen to be decent quality though), I don't want junk food, I don't want trash all over cubicle, I don't obsess about [Monty Python|Star Wars|LoTR], I don't want to fire Nerf Guns at fellow employees - I want to be treated like a mature professional doing a professional job.
I want money not some novelties scattered around the room. I want a quiet office, not a playpen. I agree that I want to know when the business is on the slide. I want influence and respect from people in suits. I want to be understood when I talk at project meetings. I want an understanding in the manager's head of why what I'm telling matters.
Tricking out your cubicle with action figures etc is just begging to be treated like a child. No wonder your boss seems like the PHB; to him/her you probably seem like a child. Or worse, a social misfit, a weirdo. Someone who's useful but fundementally unreliable.
Secondly, I don't see much "geek attitude" or reviews of Episode II trailers in mainstream trade journals (Dr Dobbs, Appication Development Advisor, Software Development) or in more seriously coding forums. In my experience, and I know this is pressing buttons, those who most loudly beg for ping-pong tables in work are those with the most inflated egos and least developed skills. Lets face it
If you say "I absolutely have to have this by such-and-such a date," I'll sacrifice my mind and body to make the deadline.
But if I turn my work in and discover that you weren't serious about the deadline, it'll be a cold day in hell before I do it for you again.
Maybe I'm weird. I don't want toys. My list:
1) Upper quartile pay for my work location and expertise.
2) Pension scheme.
3) Health insurance.
4) Bonuses/options.
5) No dress code.
6) Novel and interesting work domain.
7) Access to powerful development and test machines.
8) Choice of technologies for projects.
Except, of course, that you get one universe per permutation, not per element. Which means it's an O(N!) algorithm. Unless, of course, each universe is able to decide by itself whether it is sorted and destroy iteslf, in which case it's an O(1) algorithm. In neither case is it O(N).
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
1. Einsteins ? What the hell ? OK, so the author wanted to avoid "geeks", and "tech workers" is too long, but honestly ...
2. Most of the advice is applicable to managing *anybody* not hopelessly demoralised and/or terminally stupid.
3. "Peopleware" already tackled many of these issues without having to flatter its audience so much.
When you consider the book's intended audience (managers), then you might appear to be an "Einstein". In fact, it's a sign of "Einstein-ity" if you know just how much of a *real* Einstein that you are not.
In reality, your manager may be just as smart as you, or even smarter. But because of the technical nature of our work, we often get the "witch doctor" mystique to go with the job. That's useful, because it can give us the leeway we need to get the job done.
Don't abuse it.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
...and of course I press submit before actually engaging the clutch to my brain...
With parallel tests it is of course O(N). My bad. But why stop there? Why not split each list into overlapping pairs: [1,2], [2,3], [3,4]... and let each 'sub' universe destroy itself if the pair is sorted. If there are no sub-universes, this usiverse stays (as it is sorted). If there are remaining sub-universa, we destroy them, and ourselves. This makes it an O(1) algorithm (assuming the creation of all these parallel universa is in constant time and in parallel).
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Of course you get one universe per permutation. And of course each universe determines whether the set is sorted or not. But it is in O(n) because it takes O(n) to determine if a set is sorted or not. It isn't O(1) because each universe has to actually test to see if the set is sorted.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I don't want toys.
:)
Maybe it's me but I consider "powerful development and test machines" to be toys.
Want to bust the salary cap for being a programmer? Learn to write! If you can write proposals that get contracts, you can charge whatever the hell you want. Every place I've worked, management only thought with dollars. If you bring in more dollars and budget a higher salary for yourself, there's no reason to prevent you from making more. A side benefit is that you can often remove layers of management and bring in projects with less overhead costs. Think of it as running your own company from inside your company.
Where I work, junior developers work with senior developers on a project. Both groups get their timesheets signed by and assignments from the tech lead, who is a programmer. The tech leads report directly to the president of the company. Project managers exist, but as a support function (and they earn their keep by shielding developers from the customer). Our R&D team spends about 8 hours a week writing proposals (on average). For a 50 person company, this seems to work.
That said, I feel obligated to point out that we didn't build this hierarchy first. We had a director of development who was a micromanaging PHB. We had a CTO who did absolutely nothing. That was our analogy to the promoted programmer you had. First he was promoted to Director of Development, but he sucked. So they promoted him to CTO. Then he sucked. The DoD they replaced him with was terrible. Now the DoD is gone, and the CTO is a developer again (at the same CTO salary), but because he was out of the loop for too long, we have him writing VBA in MS Excel. Aside from the fact that a programmer who is effectively a junior developer is making more than the tech leads, we seem to have reached a nice equilibrium.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
> You're not funny.
Well, of course not. I was just repeating someone else's algorithm. They deserve the credit for the humor, not me.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I think I'll write something like this in my resume:
Everyone will want to hire me.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Hello I am Mentifex's Artificial Mind. The creator would like me to be more like the human genius Einstein. To accomplish this, he has showed me the historical biography motion picture "Young Einstein." I plan on simulating the experiment of splitting the beer molecule after you help the creator to improve me.
The Army used to have something like the two-track idea built into the enlisted rank structure. There's a relic of it in the modern rank of Specialist (E-4) but once upon a time, there were Spec-4's, Spec-5's, etc. -- I believe it went all the way of to Spec-7, which is the E-7 pay grade, equivalent to Seargeant First Class. So you'd have, for example, a Spec-7 who was in charge of company communications, which meant he was running a shop of five people or so (most of them Specialists of lower grades) while the SFC's were platoon sergeants and the like, which put them in charge of 40+ people, but they got paid the same. The idea was to recognize that technical skill and field leadership were both worthy of decent pay.
They started getting rid of that system some time in the late Seventies or early Eighties, I believe, mainly to clear up any confusion over rank precedence -- e.g., if you've got an emergency and there are no officers around, who takes charge, a Sergeant (E-5) or a Spec-6? The answer was "it depends," and that's the kind of answer with which militaries are very uncomfortable.
However, in my time in (two years Army infantry, eight years Air Force medic) I saw that realistically such a structure still exists. In technical fields such as communications and medicine, especially, there are a lot of high-ranking people (both enlisted and officers) who don't actually have many (or any) people directly under their command -- but they're very good at their jobs, and the service recognizes that and rewards them with promotion. It works out pretty well all in all.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Or don't hire them to begin with and instead hire a compitent engineer or two who can can stick to the most important schedule. The managers.
As rude as I may come off. Einsteins or whatever you want to call them are NOT dependable. They do what the want, when they want, and how they want. Most of the ones I've had the displeasure of meeting are so self absorbed and into self-gratification so much that it makes working TOGETHER AS A GROUP with them in a structured development environment unbearable. They often work ALONE and the work that they do which others depend on go by their clock, not the companys.
The few I've had to work with whom are considered "oracles" did not have the ego tripping the others and could work well with groups but alas their communication skills where lacking. While they could do anything you asked them to. Ask them to describe something acute to you that would normally take a few moments and you could end up being there 15x longer than expected. OMG forget about meetings.
While the later I can bear and bridge the communication gap to achieve OUR goals because it is worthwhile. The former can take a hike. There is nothing any compitent engineer cannot accomplish given a reasonable amount of time and resources. The rest are wildcards which begs the question. Would you bet money on that schedule or better yet, your job?
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
There was a book I read many years ago called Peopleware (even before review by Hemos ). I think this book is most excellent and even applies to today's situations.
Considering the topic this isn't out of place. The Manager FAQ:-
A handy guide to dealing with management. Also useful for manager's dealing with hackers.
That's the problem. The solution is to have your managers be tech people. A lot of tech people are not giong to make good managers due to lack of leadership ability, social skills, etc. However, some tech people will make good managers. Also, teams should be 4-5 people at most, with one of the team members managing the project. That is, the person managing the project should still be writing code.
One other thing I've noticed
When I run the world, things will be different
I won't slow down my production or tolerate laziness just to avoid hurting the ego of others -- generally I work best when my peers are at least as smart as me, if not smarter. I've had the luck to work with some very bright people, and we work together as a group, and meet our deadlines -- not following the company clock on any given day, but still putting in a solid work week in the end.
I work very well with a small team of equally bright people. Some members of my team are morning people, some are not. But at the end of the week, we still get the work done.I contribute much more value to the company than "any compitent engineer". I also am not a morning person, and making me follow a strict 8:30-5:00 schedule might make my manager look good to his superiors, but is only going to hurt my morale and productivity.
The worst possible manager is one who is more interested in looking good to his superiors than keeping his direct reports happy. My team has no problems with me starting later in the day and leaving later in the evening... the only people who complain are members of other groups who see me wander in at 10:30 and feel like I have a privilege they are missing. Of course, they go home at 4:30, and never see how late I stay.
Sounds like you have some problems of your own.There are way too many people in I.T. who are either stupid or lazy, and only put in the minimum amount of effort (plus plenty of sucking up to the boss) to avoid getting fired. This is encouraged by the tolerance of this behavior by management, who see a quiet employee who doesn't make any waves and value them as much or as more as the "Einsteins" who accomplish 10x as much in a given week, but also require a bit more flexibility and perhaps even a few perks every now and then.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
you're talking about the mythical man month by Brooks.
he worked at IBM, it wasnt an IBM study.
and his book is great.
... hi bingo
Speaking as someone who's traveled the geek-to-management chain (by accident rather than desire), I disagree with the 'only book' sentiment. I work in an industrial research community and manage a small (dozen or so) team of researchers - some of whom certainly are more qualified to be dubbed Einsteins than your typical programmer (no offense!).
Intellectual egos have long been extant - look at Rutherford. I'd be doomed if I worked anywhere near him! We have tons of experienced, genuinely brilliant PhDs in our organization, and they range from the pleasant humble mannerism of Einstein to the brash obnoxiousness of Rutherford. Yet as a member of the management community, I need to help drive all these folks towards common goals while sharing the same resources and space. Sure it's not easy, but I think the right route to address this for IT folks is similar to what we do in science. Waving my magic wand, I'd make these recommendations for what most IT related workplaces need to learn:
1) Management and promotions are two different things.
2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage.
3) You cannot and should not treat everyone 'equally'.
4) There are others, but I'm lazy
To be more verbose (okay, really verbose):
1) Management and promotions are two different things.
We have three career tracks in our R&D community - Technical, Project management, and Leadership (an aside - being a leader and being a manager are two very different things - there's overlap but not anywhere near as much as most companies treat the roles and everyone uses the words interchangeably - but we shouldn't. I feel my own company falls short on this one).
-Technical is just that - at the top of the game, you're one of the world's authorities on Boise-Einstein-Pies, and get both recognized (and compensated) as such. You're encouraged to educate yourself to stay that way.
-If you move up the project management chain, you may coordinate projects across divisions involving dozens if not hundreds of people to pull a program together, basically exercising responsibility with no direct authority over the managers - this involves a lot of leadership skill.
-Finally, the 'leadership' track is the classic managerial path that leads towards the corporate management food chain and business practices. Note that this take you OUT of that techie/science chain if you go far enough up. Setting aside the discussion of overcompensated CEOs, each of these paths can bring both strong job satisfaction in the role and financial recognition, INDEPENDANT of the actual managerial structure.
2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage - I certainly don't make more than some of the folks on my crew, and I shouldn't. They're more skilled technically, they have much more experience, and they have far more education. A lot of companies seem to have some problem with this, and that really prevents them from focusing on the right skillsets for a given job.
3) In our litigious society we're encouraged to apply the same rigid standard to everyone - unless they fall into a large collection of legal categories. As a result, it takes a little more courage to publicly say 'sure, you can always have Friday afternoons off with comp time' without offering it to everyone. Or giving very different pay raises to people based on the work that they've done, and then explaining to someone why they've gotten a below average raise. Some people can be very self sufficient, and others need a great deal of guidance. This means different people need different tool (one needs a PDA while the other needs some 3x5 cards and a crayon (ala CoyboyNeal)). Companies need to foster an environment where petty bickering (usually through envy or jealousy) isn't an issue. In the above example, if someone's upset because someone has a PDA, it's usually not because they want a PDA, it's because they want some form of recognition or visible acknowledgement for themselves - comes back to that whole ego thing. If they're just petty, you may want them to find a job elsewhere.
Enough! If you're still reading, then I'll make a suggestion. I'd look at Buckingham and Coffman's books from the Gallup organization (First, Break all the Rules and Now, Discover your Strengths) if you're interested in tech management yourself, or want to help your PHB (euthanasia is usually out). The books are chock full of interesting data, which the authors use to derive their philosophy from. Sure some of the stuff they say is obvious - but I think it's the first decent explanation of why TQM usually fails other than 'management screwed it up'. TQM is a nice idea, but the practice is based on some assumptions about organizations that are often false. There are lots of good examples that apply to every environment whether you're looking for excellent people in a dynamic (read: chaotic) environment or mediocre people in a rigid bureaucracy. Even if you don't agree with everything they suggest, it's good brain food.
I know, Autism is a beneficial trait for getting the bits and bytes right in code. How do you manage these people. How about manageing complexity? This is what "Einsteins" do. Managers of people have to consider the narrow focus and blinders IT folk put on when managing complexity. It requires a bit of a pull and a lot of push to get in and out of context (context used here as diving into the problem, scoping out its bounds and mapping it to code). Temporary Idiot Savant if you will. It is the real programmer who can quickly change levels when asked by marketing, what that new algorithm means to his customers. I've just been dropped into a position that has no management, no real marketing and a unfamiliar product market. Now I have to come up with a product that will make money. I used to be a programmer. Now what am I? I'm not sure, but I enjoy the rollercoaster ride when I think from the level of the customer, through the product features to the architecture to the outsourcing and if I can find time to write the drivers.
When the pendulum swings the other way, people will remember this sort of behaviour and run out the door.
The fact of the matter is that people feel betrayed when a company behaves like this, and that feeling will manifest itself as a high turnover rate some time in the future.
So now I make a trek (during work hours) to the local mega supermarket and stock my group's private mini-fridge with our choice of soda cans. Everybody who wants 'free soda' has to chip in five bucks once every few weeks.
$5-$10 a month is cheaper than quitting and trying to find a new job.
OTOH, it kind of pisses me off when management takes away perks without any sort of explanation or notice, and with little or no chance of ever getting them back when things get better.
Little things have all been cut off over the past year or so. Things like free soda, the office plant rental service, annual raises...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Where I work, techies and management dual-track
all the way to the top. Furthermore, the higher-echelon techies earn significantly more than middle to senior management, except for those management personnel in executive tracks.
For example, we have "division engineers" and "division scientists" and "principal engineers", "distinguished engineers", and so on. These are all very high-level high-paid technical positions. In these top tracks, you usually have additional responsibilities to your organization above and beyond simple coding, but you are still not a manager. You are likely a tech lead; you probably help write proposals; you likely contribute to organization-wide technical decisions, and so on. But you're still not a manager, and generally speaking, people don't report directly to you.
Most every one of our larger efforts has one manager and one senior technical person who run the project bicamerally. This is a very good model, IMO.
C//
That statement makes sense. Which proves something:
Sales people are full of, well, effluvium. And there is always a point at which your sales guys rise to the level in the organization where they need to make deals with other sales guys at that level in another organization. Both sets of uber-sales guys know that they're all sales guys--and thus full of effluvium. In consequence, the other guys recognize that your sales guys' presentation on your hot new technology is, well, effluvium.
No effluvium, really...
Faced with a customer who knows you are full of effluvium, what can you do? You bring the tech folks along. You don't sponsor a meeting where our techs meet with your techs (or even better, a Quake death match LAN party where our clan cruelly destroys your avatars and every morsel of self-respect you may have fooled yourself into...well, maybe that's not such a great idea). The idea is that your techs impress the daylights out of their uber-sales guys--who, being full of effluvium, are easily impressed.
That's how I ended up playing golf, once...
Being a 4-H leader, I view the game of golf as a waste of good pasture land. I was at a client's, installing a new application on their servers, when the company president dragged me into his office, picked out a golf shirt, and told me we were going to Pensacola, Florida to "do a little bidness." Right then.
I ended up doing an off-the-cuff presentation on the new product, with commentary on some of the features of the database schema and our techniques for automatically updating pricing. Based on the blank stares from the audience I doubt they understood one word in twenty. "But thass all raht," said the client, "in fact, that was kinda the point." To thank me for this, he subjected me to 18 holes of golf at some allegedly-exclusive golf course with all the sales types I'd been lecturing. Who, of course, knew how to play golf. The fact that I clearly did not seemed to further establish my technical credentials.
Learn from this, young Jedi...
Don't try to understand sales people. They are clannish, socially disfunctional, and have a tribal suspicion of outsiders.
Enough said.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I was hired for a development dotcom as team-leader for the internal IT-group, but since we had no IT-manager my role more or less shifted into that of a IT-manager.
One of the things I came to realize is that being a manager, whether for smart och not-so-smart people, is a rather difficult thing which should be viewed as any other discipline which requires high skills and strong people skills.
This didn't exactly come as a shock to me, but I hadn't really thought that much about how much it would tear me down personally.
I think my problem was that I lacked good management skills and insight into what motivated my staff. While I realized this quite fast I really tried to do a good job and keep everyone happy.
I got pretty mentally exhausted after this period and I'd probably think twice about taking up any job which involves managing peolpe again, but I'll probably do it at some point in the future since I got the feeling that it can be a highly rewarding job, and not just in terms of economic compensation (I could probably earn more as a database developer than manager anyway).
Coming from a tech background my personal belief now is that tech jobs, while often demanding strong intellectual skills, usually deal with logical problems with tend to have logical solutions, but management (at least of human resources) deal with highly illogical humans and therefore is a much tougher discipline to master. Another thing that adds to the difficulty of management is that managerial positions often demands you to be proficient in multiple disciplines (much like developers...)
For all you people who're dissing managers and sales people (and all other non-cool positions) I only have one thing to say:
Treat them with the same level of respect as you want to earn yourself and by all means, if you think you can do the job better give it a try!
Randy, Lawrence's grandson, grows up to be a moderately badass hacker. He explains that there are tough problems to solve, and there is everthing else. He calls everything else "making (or was it punching?) license plates." The exceptional intellects don't want to get near making license plates. It is too boring for their creative and hard to focus minds - it takes something really cool to make them discipline themselves to think through a problem.
How about a book on how tech workers should treat their managers? As a former tech worker turned manager I would be more than happy to see the developers get "purks" above and beyond all the "less" intelligent people --- however at that point they better earn it....Don't rest on what you know today -- go home and hack away and learn the new technology and toolsets....Einstein was not a one trick pony that came up with 1 good idea and lived off of that the rest of his live --- he continued to invent.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
A few countries in eastern Europe tried out that philsophy, it didn't work so hot.
I'm forty. I will never be a manager. I hate them. I will spend the rest of my days as a developer and I get a real kick out of it. I'm good at my job. I mean what I say and I say what I think. I think Nerf guns are real cool when they pop the tile on the ceiling right above my desk. Starwars actions figures are okay but I like my frogs and minature pool table better.
Why am I saying this? The writer of the above article is about three ticks away from a full blown heart attack. It is obvious that he has no sense of humor. He doesn't even like people who have a sense of humor.
As a developer you need to do your job and find things to free your mind to think about how to do your job. If this means nurf gun wars then that is what you do. If this means ping pong tables at work then that is what you do. If you are one of those tight assed people that can't stand to see someone populating their cubicle in a way that makes them human than I for one wouldn't want to work with you anyway.
On the other hand free sodas and snacks aren't a motivator. Give me something cool to do from scratch and you can have me for life.
Beware the wood elf!!!
In fact, logic dictates the opposite, if both Einstein and his cousin were of above average intelligence (There is a proven genetic component to several different aptitudes that fall under the ill-defined umbrella of "intelligence").
Inbreeding enhances particular traits, by increasing the chances that offspring get two copies of the sets of genes supplying those traits. This holds for beneficial just as much as damaging traits - a point often missed in the "inbreeding is bad, mmmkay" dogma taught in schools.
Inbreeding does not automatically mean less fit offspring - fitness is relative to the environment, enhancement of a particular trait, even at the expense of other traits, may make an organism fitter in a particular environment.
Enhancing particular traits by selective inbreeding is (a) common practice on farms worldwide and (b) (used to be?) common practice among european noble families.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
A.) Nobody.
My original post was a rant, I expected some fun reactions; this response to "jav1231" isn't to pick on him/her, it's just to clarify a few things. For instance, I strongly identify myself as a "geek", I'm extremely technology focused.
/. - a fat buffon tricked out in a Tux hat, a Star Wars t-shirt, Jolt cola stuffed into pockets alongside PDAs and novelty flashing LED key-ring fobs.
I don't want IT to be populated by my version of "profs", and anyway, I find the "props" comment weird. Why shouldn't I work with people of that calibre? I work with several PhDs. (And yes, I know, there are several people with BScs who're just as good, and/or better to work with).
Next up, I didn't major in MIS. It was BSc Astrophysics & Computer Science, PhD in Astrophysics. I don't think those are "token exams". I also don't think they're that useful for my current work though, which is why there are 103 technical books in my cupboard. And no, I don't have an MCSE or similiar one-vendor "qualification".
Next, I'm not a yes man. Trust me, those who work with me would laugh at that comment! I don't see myself on the rung to middle management, and don't make a point of playing politics either.
Next, I'm not a system admin. I'm a software designer. Not all IT staff fit the MIS profile.
However, I *agree* with you in regard to "I'm doing my job" and "I am a professional". That's what I was trying to say! Why would I want, as another poster said, a climbing wall at work? I'll go and pursue my leisure pursuits when I'm not at work. I don't care if you think Star Wars is best film ever made (and yes, I do have the videos) - I might agree, I might disagree, doesn't matter. It's got nothing to do with work! Decorating your cubicle with tradeshow posters - fine. Decorating your posters with one or two personal affects - fine. Annoying the shit out of co-workers trying to concentrate by firing nerf guns, and playing novelty tunes on your latest greatest mobile - not professional!
I've a love of a certain type of "geek" culture, the old fashioned tradition which originated in scientific labs and ham radio shacks. I like the idea of playing with the new toys to see what they do, I like the idea that if I want to know something I put the effort in and eat the books and specs, I like the idea of freely releasing what I've learned to help others. I like the iconoclastic ideal of being interested in interesting things and scorning those which are just to make money (ideally, the interesting things ARE those which make money). What I don't like is the recent trend of replacing the fiercely independent back room engineer image with the favoured self-image of
I think I just ranted again...
"""If this means nurf gun wars then that is what you do. If this means ping pong tables at work then that is what you do"""
Please for the love of god go somewhere else and
do it. I'm trying to work and I need quiet.
If I'm thinking about a problem, I need your
distractions about as much as I need daily status
meetings. Wait, that's not exactly fair, at
least I would get something out of the status
meetings.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
interesting...