Slashdot Mirror
Geeks in Management?
The Other Side of the Coin asks: "I've been doing a relatively interesting job until now, but they've pushed me into management recently. Although the new position is pretty boring (I manage normals), I do still have time for all the geeky stuff I used to do before. My problem is: I have no formal (or any other, for that matter) management training. Sure, I'll read a lot about it (and take some education), but what are your experiences as geeks in management? For example, I naturally started to use Borgish management methods, and this wasn't received well by people, to say the least. What are the most difficult hurdles for a manager geek to jump, and can our personality be used as an advantage in management?"
Geeks in management make for a pretty good structure, though they may have little vision for the direction of the organization, rather like having accountants run the company. Dow Chemical used to have engineers at the top and was a pretty decent company to work for. Now it's all suits and they're more concerned with Profit(!!!) & Loss and Stock Value, like too many companies.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I asked the same question to a former manager of mine and his reply was that managing a business or people is a lot like managing complexity in software design. Of course you can't treat people like objects(pun intended) but principles of modularization, etc. still applies. Just as you don't put all your logic in one method, function, or object, you shouldn't do everything yourself. Delegate stuff out and have some people concentrate on certain things. The old *nix philosophy of doing one thing and doing it really well still applies. Trust your employees to do the right thing without you micro-managing it. In the end, you become the thing that brings all these pieces together.
Good programming practices/philosophy goes beyond CS. It's all managing complexity after all.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I second this. I had a great manager in the past who had the following philosophy:
1. Hire talented people
2. Get things out of their way
(and, of course)
3. Profit. (Note the conspicuous lack of ???)
Trust in your employees that they will do right by you as you will do right by them. If you can develop this symbiotic relationship between you and your employees then you will go far.
Trust that they will be doing their work, don't harp over their shoulders.
Trust that they will show up on time, not standing by their cube with stopwatch.
Trust that they will be responsible with their actions, don't be another mother to them.
If you can build the levels of trust that coexist between employee and management your life will be easier, but not easy, and your employees will be more productive.
As management of past jobs, I've managed to piss off my employees and them hate me, but on others I followed the above laws and they became one of the must functional and useful teams on the job site.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
The thing I learned while managing poeple is that the goal is is more important than the method. You would be amazed at the myriad of ways that something can get done. If you give one of your folks a project, a deadline, and reasonable easy to understand standards, then you should be able to turn them loose. Don't fall into the trap of telling them how to do it- trust them to get it done. If they don't get it done, or they make mistakes, then you can help them a learn a better process. If they get it done though (even if its through a bass-ackwards method that makes your teeth grate) then they have fulfilled their duties.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
It wont work. He's a geek.
To the guy who asked slashdot: Normals need to be treated firmly and unequivocally.
No playing games, no friendliness, no nothing. Just do it by the book. Tell them what's expected of them, recognize their achievements, punish their lack thereof. They need a firm structure, and they strive. They are climbing the corporate ladder. Remove the ladder and they're lost and confused. Get a book on military leadership, NCO level.
Ask management in no uncertain terms why they thought you would be good for the position. Because from the looks of it they just made a monumental error. If you don't feel you can have a straight talk with your manager, you got to either get to that point and make that happen, or you got to leave right away. Your future job opportunities depend on it.
Interview in 3 years:
PHB: Why did you leave the previous company?
You: They promoted me to management, but it was miserable, productivity dropped and my team was demoralized.
PHB: I see. Ok, we'll call you. Thank you for stopping by. Good luck!
"Piter, too, is dead."
It's kind of funny, but our personalities do, generally, suck! I have finally given up fighting it, though, and realize that by becoming a decent manager I can actually improve my people skills and better my life in general.
If your company is behind you and realize you are a geek but have intelligence, they'll help you. See if they can give you a psychological profile. It sounds worse than it is, and you need to be open to it. they'll tell you what you are like (although you should already know) and what is desireable in a manager/leader. But most importantly, they'll tell you what to do to go from here to there.
I also reccommend reading the books by Geald M. Weinberg, such as "Becoming a Technical Leader: An Organic Problem-Solving Approach" and "The Psychology of Computer Programming: Silver Anniversary Edition." Good luck, you'll appreciate the effort and so will your boss.
My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
What you are asking is actually a question that people who are not geeks wrestle with daily as well. I would suggest a few books to get your thoughts in place, and weed out the useless.
1) "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from John Kotter (Kotter also writes a number of other papers I highly recommend.)
Management" by John Kotter
2) Good to Great by Jim Collins (SOLID Research!)
3) Built to last by Jim Collins
I recommend that you consider a couple personality assesments. Include those that consider your perspective, and one that also infers your social style. One you understand this better, you may see how your personality can mesh with people who have differing styles.
Finally, consider stufying for an MBA from a school that emphasises leadership.
Good luck! It is alot of work to sharpen the people skills when you have been so sharp technically. However, your intellect can carry you through if you consider how you best interface.
So in otherwords, give out free beer and never require them to do any work?
Peopleware (out of print last time I looked, but you may be lucky) is a superb book, and very readable. I particularly like the story about the Bell-o-phone, which sums up my attitude to telephones perfectly. It's not just about management, it's about working productively. If more managers read this book, I would consider going back to the real world (until I remembered the whole thing about mornings).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I hate to say it but "managing" is usually something most people do poorly without some serious background in techniques and training to be effective. You'll never be a great manager if you're pushed into it. And worse, you could end up hating the situation that you're in.
MBAs are for people with no management background and the coursework most programs provide is a good foundation. Sure, a lot of it is crap. But without it your odds of success are less good. That's not to say MBA grads can't be bad bosses, but if you have the personality it takes to be a manager, the MBA coursework will get you down the home stretch. I know everybody thinks they just product pointy hairs, but that's not the case.
Calling yourself a "geek" is very self-limiting and calling others "normal" is very divisive. When it come down to it, if you listen to other people. EVERYONE thinks that they themselves are weird and that everyone is normal. Normal is quirky, and all those normals out there are quirky, and you, too, are normal because you are quirky.
You couldn't be more completely wrong. The best manager I ever had, had no idea how to do my job. He didn't need to know that, there were senior engineers who did know how to do the job that he turned me to when I needed technical leadership. However he did an excellent job of running interference for me so that I could work. I didn't have to worry about went on over my head because he did all the political fighting, and reported back to me what happened. He was smart enough to find out what would be an issue in the future, and start the political process to solve them now, before they became a big deal.
While working under him I was under some of the worst upper management I've ever seen, but my day to day job was a pleasure because I was only vaguely aware of how bad things were.
Management's job is not to get things done, it is to get others to get the job done. Sometimes management must jump in and hands on get things done, but even then the manager must never forget that the first duty is to get the others to do the work.
Perhaps "normals" was not meant as a derogatory remark. Maybe the author realizes his deficiencies in general human interactions, and is now striving to bring his abilities "up" to a normal level.
Sure, maybe rainman could code some cool mathematical algorithms, but don't ask him to manage people. That's just mean.
The moral of the story: disrespect works both ways.
Ehh, depends. If someone is using geek to describe their ideal state, like christian, I agree. On the other hand if they are just using it to be descriptive, the same way I might say I'm an american or otherwise describe my cultural background.
Furthermore, while I agree with you about what everyone thinks some people really are more abnormal, or at least less accepted by society, than non-geeks. Sure, there are some very charming socially conciouss geeks but the very fact of their interests does put them at a disadvantage (talking about technical details does not make for good chit-chat). Also many geeks have very limited social skills (still not sure why that is...some suggest apsergers).
Now many people do decide they are geeks in a very self-limiting fashion, they realize they are not accepted by society at large and retreat and only interact with other geeks. This I agree is to be avoided. However, others may realize this and use this knowledge to change their behavior and try talking about something else than chip design at the next party. Also some people really have gone out and seen the world and decided they like hanging out with geeks best and this may just be a sign of maturity, everyone should reach a point in their life when they realize who they enjoy and stop wasting their time trying to get others to like them.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Well, that's not right.
The vast majority of people actually do want a structured environment that removes responsibility for decisions from them. Or at least puts their decision-making power firmly subordinate to a value framework that validates any decision that may come their way.
Cf. "religion". Also "political party". Et cetera.
The trick is to provide the framework of assumptions within which people will make decisions voluntarily that serve your ends. And, of course, to get that provision labelled positively as esprit de corps instead of negatively as cultish.
I understand it can be a little strange. About 4 months ago I was a ditch digger (sometimes called a helper). I had filled this role for 2 years. Then all of a sudden they pulled me in the office to setup a new computer. I am now running jobs, dealing w/ customers and have about 12 people under me who used to be my supervisors. Its all kind of wierdgoing fromdealing with a shovel to negotiating contracts that are 50x my income. Just a little to weird.
I no longer question my sanity.
I can agree with all of this. Perhaps something I can almost spell out - Take care of your people and they'll take care of you.
They will react differently each time you change management types on them. People hate change. The ones that like micro managers (yup, they do exist!) will cry about someone that is an off the hip type of manager, the others will cry (usually much louder and longer) for going from an off the hip to a mircro manager. Your team being successful is what causes you to be successful. Back them up when needed and you're almost gold.
From my own experiences: 1. Always explain to everybody what the rules are. 2. Reprimand them IN PRIVATE afterward if the broke the rules in 1. 3. Congratulate them in public for good task done. 4. Be logical, you can't win every time but if you back your team and get them to see the result, you'll be a lot more successful than the next PHB. 5. Have fun, which will save you from ulcers... Good luck.
Maybe I missed this in the other posts, but I think it's far more important to lead than it is to manage.
To me, the most useful 'managing' I do is moving roadblocks out of the way, and making sure everyone has enough of what they need.
My points are:
- keep as few secrets as possible
- tell the truth, even if you're not supposed to
- as another poster noted, defend your people. (Kick their a** in private, if you must).
- praise lavishly, criticize lightly.
- make friends. Yep, you absolutely can't be a 'peer,' but you can be a friend.
- look for the hackers in your midst and cherish them.
Spoken by someone who's obviously never read that particular book, since it covers much the same ground that you were talking about (but does it in a much better way - no offence, but he is a pro). So... why were you belittling someone's work when they were ready to support you, just to make your post sound more informed? And could that be a management problem?
I read that book twice actually, but only because I am a voracious reader, inherited the book, had read everything else on hand many more times than twice, and was stuck with nothing to do for long periods of time.
That book is about how to subjecate your own opinions and butter up to other people, how to be insincere, and how to make people like you because of how your calculated interactions make them feel. It is a truly offensive book that makes me angry when I read it. If I met that man face to face I would knock him to the ground and kick him until my foot hurt.
Oh, and I made a mistake... the book is called How To Lose Friends & Infuriate People : Leadership in the Networked World by Jonar C. Nader, and is an excellent book on how get to the truth and get things done in a world full of mediocre brown-nosers and politically correct bullshit.
Even if you're not in management, it's an entertaining read.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
May as well.
I've got no management experience, but I've worked for enough people, good (rarely) and bad (mostly) that i've identified what i like.
The superhero of middle management is my former boss, Ron, at a now-utterly-defunct embedded linux vendor.
Ron was Not A Programmer. He wasn't even technically speaking a geek, except in the strict jargon file definition. He was an old HAM operator and a former QA manager for various semiconductor fabrication facilities. He was managing a bunch of software QA people, me among them.
So, this was the basis of his attitude:
"As your manager, I am a man who is not competent to do your job, someone who, in fact, has only a cursory understanding of how you do your job.
What i need from you is for you to get your work done. How i intend to make that happen is by making sure:
a: You know what your job is
b: You know what your priorities are
c: You have everything you need to get the job done
d: Nobody will get in the way of your doing it, even if i have to jump in front of the bullet for you."
It was great. If people from other departments interfered with my work, Ron got on their case for it and hasseled their supervisor about it - so people from other departments rarely hassled me.
I knew exactly what my #1, #2, and #3 projects were, when they were due, and what was expected from them.
This rocked. If you've ever caught flack for not delivering something that you were never given any sense of urgency about, you can appreciate this.
If i needed anything - a particular cable, a memory module of a certain type, more clarification from marketing or engineering exactly what they wanted from me, an OK to take the rest of the day off if i was getting nowhere fast, heck, a sandwitch, Ron was on it.
I probably could have asked to take his daughter out to dinner and he wouldn't have said no right away.
Ron wouldn't make me work late unless he was working late too. Often this meant that he was in the office doing nothing important, so he'd fetch dinner and send flowers to the significant others. I'm serious.
If Ron was cutting out early before a holiday, he'd send me home first.
So, it was like this. I was certain - absolutely certain - that Ron would do whatever it took to make sure i could do a good job at what he'd asked me to do.
And, lets face it, that's what job satisfaction is all about.
I was entirely sure that Ron wouldn't ask me to do something unless it honestly needed to be done. That he would never bullshit me or sell me out.
I had no doubts about the fact that if upper management asked him to have us do something that he felt was unreasonable, he'd do whatever he could to talk them out of it.
So, whatever Ron wanted, Ron got. He treated us like princes and in return we exaulted him as our king. I'd work for him again in a heartbeat.
I'm not sure I'd even ask what the job was.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
The best sound-bite description I've heard of the responsibility of a manager is: "Eliminate uncertainty." A lot of the advice given here falls into this (clear goals, "run interference", "select good people" etc). It runs both ways: make things clear and unambiguous for your staff and ensure you provide consistent results for the company.
Don't "manage" -- "accomplish." I believe John Walker said that managers do just that: they manage a problem in perpetuity rather than make it go away which is what an engineer would. Don't fulfil his stereotype.Don't try to be the friend of the people reporting to you. Respect them, of course. Be friendly, by all means. But you are not their friend, and if they have a problem you can't cut them slack you wouldn't cut anyone else (and likewise when they're awesome, don't take them for granted but let them know you know).
Keep your perspective. I once worked for a CFO who referred to all the developers as the "direct contributors." Her biz-school point was they were the ones whose work our customers wanted. The rest of us (except for the sales guys) were overhead.
I've been told in the past I was a great manager and I also know that at times I was a dreadful manager. It's a skill like any other and has its own disciplines, problems and rewards. As long as you don't crash the plane along the way you can get better at it. Good luck.
1. Listening to complains
People will bitch about almost everything, when they do please put 100% attention to them, I typed while listening which made them feel bad.
2. 80% of the people "feel" and 20% "think".
We geeks tend to believe we think where we actually feel more, it was my mistake to assume that geeks think and make the logical choices--killed me at least twice when I believed that way.
3. Keeping your cool when you yourself could do someting in 20 min. but you get an estimate of 2 weeks.
Not Kidding ! please practice this--I finally had do things like lying about stomach ache (which I never get) before I can put up the face which shows interest and respect for the geek--this is 100% true. I fucked up once very bad when I could not take the BS from a senior programmer about something taking 2 Months and did the coding 15 mins right there while the one account manager watching this whole thing. Did not go well at all after that I rubbed her programming ego so bad that I got fucked later many times by her in totally unexpected ways. It took me 2 yrs to make up with her--after all she was a senior programmer and had some say about projects etc.
I guess this is what I did not do and paid for it so I can share this with the group.
- People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...
I have heard before that my job is to make my manager look good. The manager who said this interpreted it in the following ways:
taking the blame for his mistakes.
doing parts of his job he does not like doing.
not showing initiative, because it maked him look lazy by comparison.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not like that. However, what consists of making my boss look good that does not consist of doing my job to the best of my abilities? I wasn't hired to pat someone's belly, I was hired to do a job. It is my belief that such an opinion as "it is your job to make your boss look good" is far too abusable to be wielded safely. I have never met a boss yet who believed this and complied with his end of the social contract.
Furthermore, is it the opinion of YOUR boss that YOUR underlings' responsibility is to make you look good, or to do a good job? Isn't that pretty much why places like Enron and their accounting firm went under? Corporate policy focused on the illusion of a smoothly operating facility, but did not actually mind the business. In any situation I could probably think of ways to make me and my boss look good that in fact have negative impact on the business. Instituting new policies for no reason (to demonstrate you are "doing" something as a manager) comes immediately to mind.
If a solider hates the job he toughts it out, that's why they call it "service." You can shoot him if he flips and decides to leave.
What your forgetting is your Army NCO is one man with a rifle and two grenades, they, are seven men with five men armed with rifles and ten grenades, one with a rifle and a grenade launcher and one with a machine gun; they also have a few anti-tank rockets to boot. I'm sure you under-estimate how easy it is to catch one in the back, or to be left out to dry. Sure there are a few assholes in the Military, but overall they are people who are trained to accomplish too much, with too little resources, and their tasks generaly have a high cost of failure.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Like you, I started with the Borgish tactics, which didn't work at all.
As soon as I realised what it was I was doing, I found some time, and contemplated what my options were. More speciffically, I reflected back on all the managers and supervisors I'd worked for. I was looking for the very best one supervisor or manager.
What I found was a man named Bob, that had the ability to motivate people, without being borgish, Bob also gave employees enough information to allow them to set their own priorities, additionally, when there were problems, he was quick to analize the facts, and either educate employees as to the causes of their trouble (letting them draw their own conclusions and solve the problem) or if need be (rarely) solve the problem and motivate employees toward implementing goals and objectives which would effect a fix of the problem. But most of the time, Bob just walked around - he called this MBWA (Management By Walking Around)
My reason for searching for a single best boss was to emulate as close as possible the things I admired about his management style.
From that day on, whenever there was a problem, or issue that needed my attention, I asked myself "What would Bob do in this situation?"
If I came up with a blank, the overriding ideas was to empower employees to make their best decision as to what to do, or empower them to effect the fix I knew was needed. I asw a tee shirt once that summed it up well - "Tell me what to do, Or how to do it, but not both (both is called micro-management, and that is worse than Borg tactics. Then ALWAYS follow up, to see how things are working.
Bob also had a lot of personal integrity - If he said "I'm going to do this, at that time" it was done at the time promised. Bob also solved his problems without snitching. He would never mention a wayward employee to senior management, with the exception being a time for action against an employee that was truely un-trainable, about 10 minuites before escorting him to ER, and he did this personally, and was honest and forthcomming about the issues, to the point that a terminated employee knew what was wrong with their behavior, and how badly they'd failed at fixing it. Oh, you might say that Bob might have been a hardass, but not so. To get fired,. an employee had to be unable or unwilling to learn and/or modify necessary skills and behaviors. And he NEVER discussed an employees performance, except with that employee alone, away from other employees. I asked him about this once, and his reply - " The only people that need to know about an employee's performance is that employee, and me. peroid"
But mostly, Bob was a resource that anyone could ask help from, that would spend time teaching you the necessary things so that you could succeed. And he never NEVER worked on product.
Hope this helps
toosmart
Man oh man... where are those mod points when I need them?
I *really* wanted to mod you up for your statement! It seems like these replies are a sea of suggestions on how to take on that new management role - yet, the best suggestion of all may well be yours.
I faced a similar problem a few years ago. I had been working in corp. I.T. for nearly 6 years at the same place, and it became apparent that management's view of me was quickly turning negative. (Basically, it went from earning respect for being a rather "senior" PC support person with lots of experience, to someone who must lack motivation because I didn't make a strong effort to "move up" into some type of leadership/management role.)
For a while there, I really had to ask myself if I was "screwing up" or "slacking" or what? But I came to my senses and realized *NO*! The real problem was/is, corporate culture tends to "promote" people to management because they don't really have any other feasible way to reward you in a tech. position once you achieve a certain level of skill/experience. It's often a really bad idea, because it takes people away from what they're truly good at... throws them into a role they're typicaly NOT good at, and hampers the ability of the people they manage to be productive workers. All this because of such things as "salary scales/ranges" which place artifical ceilings on how much they can pay someone in a given role. (In my case, they all but flat out told me they simply didn't know what to do come yearly raises next time around, because they were already paying me the most they were allowed to, according to their salary limitations.)
The only mistake *I* made was sticking around when the writing was on the wall... I guess I thought my experience would see me through, but I was wrong. When management realized they weren't going to be able to cram me into a functional management role, they eventually gave me the boot.
Know what though? Despite some initial bitterness and stress about finding another job, I'm SO much happier now. I no longer bother with coporate I.T. at all. Instead, I work for a *small* business focused on on-site PC service and support, and I get to do what I love every day for different people - with no management breathing down my neck at all. It's just me, out there each day, making or breaking it because of my own skills (or lack thereof). The pay's not quite as good, but I'm not stuck watching my life get sucked away by paperwork, meetings, telling a bunch of intelligent people how to do their job, or whatnot.