Uneducated IT Managers, and How to Deal?

R.Mason asks: "I work in an IT department for a small to medium sized family owned business. The job is great, except for our boss. He simply doesn't know nearly as much as he should. Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches. He spends hours and hours on the most insignificant tasks as if he has nothing better to do. Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole? A person you respect and frequently learn from? It creates an extremely frustrating work environment, and our team doesn't know how to approach the problem. It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?"

Comments

You know

[Pope Benedict XVI]

It's just about impossible to find a job working for someone whom you respect. You would not believe some of the stupid things my boss has done!

Re:You know

[raider_red]

I think we need to add a "blasphemous" selection to the moderation menu. I'm not sure whether it should be a +1 or -1 though.

Re:You know

[MyLongNickName]

Yeah! Like giving people free will. We see what a fiasco THAT turned into. I tried to warn him, but you know how it all turned out.

Lucifer

Re:You know

[Bloater]

I respect my immediate manager a great deal. He is knowlegable but recognises that his team members have their own areas of expertise. He doesn't gloat if you make a mistake or don't know something, and he laughs a lot. I say you can't get better than that, and nor would you expect to.

Re:You know

[morleron]

I have to agree and it's unfortunate that the situation is as it is. We're seeing the result of the management philosophy, taught in a lot of MBA courses, that you don't need to understand the technology in order to "manage" the people who report to you. Adding to the problem is the perception that geeks are not socially adept and therefore are not able to be managers. Given some of the egregious spelling and grammer errors that I see here on /., to say nothing of the flaming and religious wars, we geeks are at least partially responsible for that viewpoint of upper management.

Based on my experience, with six employers over a nearly twenty year career, it's rare to find a technically savvy manager above the level of team leader. I had one such boss and he was a joy to work for. Not only did he understand the technology, he also knew that he didn't know everything. Furthermore, he was not a micromanager and, after I'd worked for him for a couple of months, he would simply tell me what needed to be done and then trusted me to get the job finished. If you ever get a manager like that you are indeed lucky. A boss like that is easily worth, at least for me, passing up the chance to move to another company for more money, etc. I knew I had a good thing going and knew that my chances of having such a thing happen again was small.

One thing that I did find worked to a degree was educating the boss. This needs to be done in a non-threatening way. My method was to take magazine articles in to work and just say, "I think you might find this interesting." If the boss is not a true PHB, over time you'll likely see an increase in his/her understanding of the technical end of your job, beware - YMMV.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:You know

[sTalking_Goat]

Maybe I'm just lucky, but the vast majority of my bosses have been really cool people. I even had a boss whose techs kept quitting because of his gruff demeanor and I got along great with him, and he turned out to be the guy I learned the most from and had the best time working for.

So I don't know maybe its all in how you deal with people.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

xa____------____ax NOW I TOLD YOU NO MORE!!! GOD. xa-----=====----ax sig. a waste of space.

Re:You know

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Given some of the egregious spelling and grammer errors that I see here on /., to say nothing of the flaming and religious wars, we geeks are at least partially responsible for that viewpoint of upper management.

Are you implying that upper management can spell, or that they don't have flamewars? From what I've seen, they do just as much as we do, they just do it somewhere else.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

so why don't you marry him?

Re:You know

[Thuktun]

"Pope Benedict XVI" wrote: You would not believe some of the stupid things my boss has done!

I can't tell, is that blasphemy or not?

Re:You know

[SuperQ]

The last 4 out of 5 bosses I've had I had a good respect for.

They either knew what they were doin technicaly, or they knew that they were there to manage, and let me get my work done.

It's not hard to find a place with decent managment.

Re:You know

[twyt]

Totally agree with you there morleron. The skillset for a manager is quite different from ones needed to be a techie. I made the transition to the "dark side" a few years ago because I know I am not great technically and I need an "edge" from everyone else. The key thing for IT managers to understand is that they do not know everything, so they should either "skill up" or ask someone who knows. I sometimes found myself reading business school stuff on one window, and techie stuff on another window (and of course /. on the the third window) I think techies have to understand that these IT managers have other pressures from upper managements, so that's why they did what they did. Try understanding that too. My $.02 Tommy

Re:You know

[JWtW]

"...egregious spelling and grammer errors..."

I guess we can't be expected to do all of it, huh?

Sorry. It was insightful--I just couldn't help myself.

Re:You know

[Gentlewhisper]

so why don't you marry him?

Incompatible genitals

Re:You know

[xero314]

I think the problem is more what you are expecting than what the manager is doing. Expecting your manager to be knowledgable about your job is really not wise. Why would a company waste resource like that by duplicating knowledge. A managers job is to manage. The flip side of this is that managers need to spend less time worrying about the details of how their employees do their job and a bit more time letting them do their job.

Sadly enough the real world is not so ideal. Managers try to get hands on and employees do not respect people less knowledgeable about their job than themselves. There are examples of good working teams in the world. Most of them are lead by dedicated managers (not workers playing the part of a manager) and they have talented employees that the manager has respect for.

When I interviewed for my current job I asked if the manager was knowledgeable about the technology. The manager, who I was not aware was in the room, said he knew very little about the technology and trusted the opinion of his employees. The manager may not be respected by everyone but he does seem to run a pretty effective team and doesn't allow his employees to get bogged down in managariel red tape.

Re:You know

[xteddy]

Incompatible genitals

As if marriage had anything to do with sex. You'll find out soon, my son.

Re:You know

[The_dev0]

They sure do, and they get chocolate covered biscuits to eat as they are doing so... Spoilt bastards.

Re:You know

[hazah]

Wait wait wait... they're waiting to jump in my lap? They're scarce man, face it.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to agree and it's unfortunate that the situation is as it is. We're seeing the result of the management philosophy, taught in a lot of MBA courses, that you don't need to understand the technology in order to "manage" the people who report to you"

Indeed a good manager doesn't need to know the technology. They should seek advice, etc from those that do, and cultivate a culture of trust between themselves and those they manage.

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of good managers.

Re:You know

[SparafucileMan]

well, that's cause you don't really need to know the tech if you're a manager.

what you need to know is the _business_, i.e., how to turn that tech into _cash_. big difference. alot of times, knowing the tech is irrelevant to selling the product. i mean look at M$. they're just a marketing company that happens to be involved in software. it's not like they produce the A++++ products. but, they do make mad cash.

completely different worlds and completely different skills. seriously, its not like its easy sitting in a room full of carniverous V.P.s, explaining why your project is late. you can't just say "oh, the IDE RAID blah blah". they'd eat u alive.

a good manager is worth far more than a good programmer. that is, after all, why they get paid more. well, most of them. some programmers get paid more than managers. but they're exceptions, by and large.

Re:You know

[Yumi Saotome]

Your boss is ALWAYS dumber than you. By induction, that makes the CEO the dumbest person in the whole company.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Comments like that are why Pope Benedict v15.0 reached end of life cycle.

Re:You know

[Pharmboy]

The last 4 out of 5 bosses I've had I had a good respect for.

Because "4 or 5 bosses" covers about 20 years for me, you accidently reminded me of something I used to say, years ago....

"My mom said I would never get a good job. I showed her, I've had 4 good jobs this year alone."

Re:You know

[boredperson]

I keep thinking that Pope Benedict is a cornerback for the Atlanta Falcons.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

"and grammer errors that I see here on /.,"

Don't you mean grammar? ;)

Re:You know

[Maestro4k]

Adding to the problem is the perception that geeks are not socially adept and therefore are not able to be managers. Given some of the egregious spelling and grammer errors that I see here on /., to say nothing of the flaming and religious wars, we geeks are at least partially responsible for that viewpoint of upper management. That's some serious non-sequitors you have going there. What grammar a person uses and how they spell when posting on places like /. is not any type of indicator of how they will write otherwise, much less how socially adept they are. The same goes for the flame and religious wars. /. just isn't a place where you're going to run what you type through a spell checker, a grammar checker, proof read it a few times or even have someone else proof read it. (That last one we do seem to have, but we tend to refer to them as spelling and grammar nazis.) It's just not important enough to bother. No one writes everything perfectly the first try, but most of us, even most geeks, are quite capable of making sure the finished product is written well when it's important to do so.

If management is basing their opinions on geeks social and writing skills on their postings on /., or other similar sites, then they've got a major problem. It's quite likely that they'll jump to (incorrect) conclusions in other areas as well, areas that it's important they not do so. That's a lot of where the whole concept of clueless bosses (aka PHBs) comes from -- management that does indeed jump to conclusions incorrectly because they can't be bothered, or simply can't tell, what is really important and what's not.

Which would you rather have as an employee? I know I'd pick the geek spelling poorly on /. as long as he spells fine when it counts. I can very much do without people who jump to conclusions without proper facts.

Unfortunately it does seem that in most companies upper management prefers to hire management that jumps to conclusions readily. Why this is I have no real clue (seeing as I haven't tried to get a MBA I can't legitmately comment on the idea that MBA programs create this kind of attitude) but it hurts companies a lot. Sadly the companies hurt the worst by it seem to have all upper management that's the same way so they never realize it until it's too late.

Re:You know

[Thing 1]

OT: I'm re-reading Footfall and got your name reference. Cheers! (Flishithy!)

Re:You know

[grokMeNow]

lets stage another "Revenge of the nerds"...

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh depends how you define 'gruff' . I've got a team leader who is pleasant to those she likes, and 'gruff' to those she doesn't. Sometimes moving on is the only answer!

Re:You know

[Seraphim_72]

Based on my experience, with six employers over a nearly twenty year career, it's rare to find a technically savvy manager above the level of team leader. I had one such boss and he was a joy to work for. Not only did he understand the technology, he also knew that he didn't know everything. Furthermore, he was not a micromanager and, after I'd worked for him for a couple of months, he would simply tell me what needed to be done and then trusted me to get the job finished. If you ever get a manager like that you are indeed lucky. A boss like that is easily worth, at least for me, passing up the chance to move to another company for more money, etc. I knew I had a good thing going and knew that my chances of having such a thing happen again was small.

Thanks for posting that in a swarm of "My Boss is an Idiot". I currently have such a Manager as you have described, I am a coder - and he is not, but he tries to help me however he can. He is fluent in tech, a REAL human being, and actually wants to learn about what you are doing and how you are doing it, but to learn, not to hold it against you. He knows he doesn't know it all, and as code goes he has an uncanny knack for how long a project should take, though, again he is no coder. He knows that all that matters is how the customers feel - and they feel good. In short, you described my Boss, best one I have ever had, will ever have, I am staying put, for the long haul. Did I mention the pension is good??

Sera

Re:You know

[chthon]

Lawful -1

Neutral 0

Chaotic +1

Re:You know

[DataCannibal]

Maybe not, but according to some of the new laws our authoritarion government here in the UK is pushing through (in the bid to keepo the Muslim vote, but of course they don't admit that) regarding religious hatred, it may soon be illegal.

Re:You know

[Vo0k]

Well, in my company managers ARE a part of the staff. The teams are small, so there's not much managing to do, but managers, beside managing, do the job of any average team member. They get extra money, but they must work more than everyone - simply, with promotion new responsiblities are added, but old ones aren't removed. My boss handles just as many user support requests as me. If you look for the boss of the production folks, you're most likely to find him operating one of the machines, the head of the graphicians team actually does most of the actual work in the team, sales manager actually sits behind the counter doing the sales to bulk customers, etc. Usually they are supposed to cover up for any employee on holidays, so the work goes on uninterrupted, but even if there's full staff, you usually find them just doing normal work...

Re:You know

[cabra_nino]

I might. I once worked for a guy with a degree in Computer Science from Cambridge(the real one) and a PhD in image processing for medical imagine from UMIST woh thought that endian differences between our SUN Ultras and the Linux machines was an OS difference not hardware..... needless to say I resolved to leave soon after this.

Ben and Gareth's rules of the universe No.1 : "People are fundamentally stupid"

Re:You know

[Shaper_pmp]

+1, without a doubt.

From google, blasphemy is "profanation: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character".

So blasphemy is simply refusing to take an idea or thing as "sacred", but treating it the same as everything else. This sounds rather similar in concept to "objective", "impartial" or "unbiased", so it definitely gets a +1 from me.

It's just like "heresy" - a word which means (roughly) "what you're saying threatens my irrational beliefs, so you should stop thinking about it right now or I'll hurt you".

If you're seeking the truth, heresy and blasphemy just mean being prepared to question received wisdom, and not stop asking questions just because you don't like where the answers are taking you.

Heresy is good ;-)

Re:You know

[cakesy]

Bob, you're fired!!! Ha, ha, just kidding. Boss

Re:You know

[Lonewolf666]

That's fine for a manager who deals mostly with customers and lets the tech people do their job. As a glorified salesman, a manager can indeed get by with a superficial understanding of technology.
But as soon as you go into a management position where you direct the development or usage of technology, you are supposed to know technology. Because otherwise, you will be unable to make well-informed decisions and be useless as a manager.

From personal experience, I believe that a manager should only interfere with projects at a detail level he understands. Micro-managing beyond your skills is a good way to cause problems.

Re:You know

[donheff]

I agree with this post on several counts. I am an example of the non-technical manager brought into IT in the mid nineties because the IT staff needed some management professionals to manage them. I was the HR manager prior to my move. Luckily for my staff, I was an HR manager who was bitten by the Internet bug (I had a web site in 94 and started running Linux in 96). Within a few years I was considered the most tech savvy senior level IT manager in the agency. I found that rather shocking, but it was probably true. Very few of the top staff new anything about the technology.

There also continues to be a widespread perception that IT geeks are not people people, but I liked my IT staff (in several organizations) much more than the typical business line staff. There is a much higer proportion of IT employees who are truly "into" the work they do. And at least a typical proportion that have all the native talent needed to be effective managers.

Don

Re:You know

[Digz]

No, actually, heresy (airesis) means "to choose", and refers to those who only accept the parts of revealed religion that they want to while rejecting the rest.

Leave your elitist and isulting definitions at home.

Re:You know

[hcob$]

you could just stuff his computer with porn and type up a nice letter to some anonymous "friend" and get his butt fired. Just a thought.....

Re:You know

[jglen490]

It is necessary to understand the difference between "technical lead" and "manager". Both are critical to the success of whatever enterprise is being done, but they are definitely separate roles.

A technical lead is in charge of ensuring that specific technical operations are performed correctly, efficiently, and effectively. As such, the technical lead MUST be very knowledgeable of the specific technology, whether that technology is an assembly line, or a networking line, or any other process.

A manager is in charge of identifying and ensuring that assets are in place that provide the means for performing a business process. Those assets include people, equipment, supplies, and money. The manager MUST understand what is required under each of those categories, but is not required to have a full functional understanding of every detail. Sometimes that understanding happens over time, but it is not required.

Re:You know

[Symphony Girl]

My husband consulted a dot.com a couple of years ago, and we were invited to a dinner for the IT dept. at the end on the project. While the blowhard dept. head sat at one end of the table desperately trying to engage someone in a conversation about sports, all of the IT geeks sat around discussing computer stuff. It was soon clear that even the IT geeks's wives knew more about computers than the boss did. Finally out of frustration, he burst out with "Can't you guys talk about anything except computers?". There was a silence, then someone said "No" and we all laughted and went back to talking. He wasn't in it for the technology - he was in it for the money and the ability to push other people around. The IT geeks were in for the technology. That's the difference in a nutshell.

Re:You know

[Gargamell]

Hi Ron, I am going to reply to you directly simply because this is far too late of a post to get modded anywhere!

I think you are correct saying that we /.ers are partially to blame. In general we have a kind of nerd-chip on our shoulder that encourages us to be overly cynical, especially regarding our employers. It is as if we feel that everyone owes us something for being able to do what we do?

In any case, it is just a general feeling, I would also say it seems that it has calmed down a bit as many of us have gotten a little older. Which brings me to my real point - I used to suffer horribly from this nerd-chip. UNTIL I owned and ran my own business... I certainly feel for all managers, and I cannot agree more with your assertion that so many managers are taught: "you don't need to understand technology to manage it". Perhaps it is possible, but the BEST managers are by far those that understand it. BY FAR. I take your post seriously because I could definitely be making WAY more money - but I have been hesitant to do so because I am very lucky to have one of the best management teams I have ever seen.

I think the spelling and grammar errors are symptoms of this nerd-chip and I think if we can clean it up the entire community would take a step towards gaining a bit more respect as well as adding some more forethought to posts before cluttering up an otherwise excellent discussion group.

Finally, as if anyone else did read this post...

I have seen the same kinds of things out of managers that simply do not know what is going on. The best thing I can suggest is to be infinitely patient, and do your best to tactfully illustrate problems and solutions to managers in such a way that they gain insight into the complexity of the details. In the long run - you cannot imagine what it is like to have a manager that is always batting for you - no matter what.

My 2 cents.

Thanks, ~tim

Re:You know

[Hognoxious]

No, actually, heresy (airesis) means "to choose"

Interesting. I never knew that it's impossible for a word in one language to have a different meaning to the word in another language that it's derived from.

Re:You know

[Shaper_pmp]

Fascinating. That might be where the word "heresy" is ultimately derived from, but I can assure you it generally means something entirely different now. Or do you habitually only use the Old English, Roman, French or German meanings of words when speaking... y'know... modern english?

Re:You know

[Digz]

Delving further off-topic, but hey..

Theological language is a very precise language chosen for its accuracy in "splitting hairs" (hence the use of Latin, or in this case Greek-derived Latin). Hence the subtle differences in transubstantiation, consubstatiation, et al. One does no justice to the subject when trying to paint ones' opponents with the "I'm superior, you're an idiot" brush.

In this particular case, heresy refers to the rejection of a revealed truth (hence, "to choose"). Dogma is revealed truth formulated in the light of reason. Ergo, it is asinine and insulting to merely presume that something is labeled heresy because it is an indefensible position that knows no logic.

If you posit that dogmas are founded outside of reason, I suggest you read the Scholastics.

Re:You know

[cavemanf16]

I think both your post and the parent post are correct. I believe the parent poster was trying to point out that the non-geeky bosses see the 10% of the true super-geeks as representative of the entire population of 'geeks'. Sadly, this is a human trait that is hard to combat. We all do it. And of course PHB's aren't reading /. and characterizing geeks by what's on /. In fact, in my thousand+ posts and years reading, responding, contributing, bitching, and "hanging out" on /. I've seen far more intellectual posts and interesting commentary (sometimes even more so when it's meant as a +5 Funny post) on /. than anywhere else in my workplace - and I work around lots of geeks and "computer savvy" types in my job. I think if my boss DID read slashdot we'd get along much better, he'd understand my thoughts more easily, I'd understand his position more easily, etc.

As it stands, my boss IS one of the best I've ever had primarily because he DOES know that some of his reports like myself are much smarter "geeks" than he will ever be or ever care to be, and will defer to us on the technical issues about how best to gather data from a db, how to make the more complex mathematical calculations required in some of our work, and always comes to us first to help him make his next computer purchase for family members. ;)

However, it is still sometimes annoying when he "doesn't get it" and defaults to the typical management style of "do it my way 'cause I don't understand your thoughts." 'Geeks' just think about lots of things in much different, and oftentimes more creative ways than your typical "manager" type person does.

But ultimately I do agree with you: /. is NOT the place to characterize the remaining 90% of the 'geek' population because signal-to-noise here can be quite low at times. (Especially when it comes to the "journalism skills" of our esteemed "editors." - In the journalism world they are definitely trolls at best!)

Re:You know

[Digz]

because it is an indefensible position that knows no logic

or rather,

because it contradicts an indefensible position that knows no logic

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

you should check up the dilbert comic site, and stick some comic strip on your boss's office door.

Re:You know

[legirons]

"I respect my immediate manager a great deal. He is knowlegable but recognises that his team members have their own areas of expertise. He doesn't gloat if you make a mistake or don't know something, and he laughs a lot. I say you can't get better than that, and nor would you expect to."

And could he please stop looking over my shoulder / reading my slashdot comments...?

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

I can browse the Internet, however; you and I have a few things to discuss in the confessional.

Re:You know

[xero314]

I feel for you and think the you might want to suggest restructuring your company. There is probably not a need for that many managers if you do not have enough staff to cover the duties. I worked at a company where the CTO did atleast some of the programing. My job was basically to rewrite everything he did because he couldn't focus on the task and was a better manager than a programmer. It sounds like in your company you don't really have managers but instead have workers that handle some of the work load a manager should be handling. I feel for you, I really do.

Re:You know

[sjames]

Given some of the egregious spelling and grammer errors that I see here on /., to say nothing of the flaming and religious wars, we geeks are at least partially responsible for that viewpoint of upper management.

Apparently, you haven't seen the grammar and spelling in typical management memos (the ones NOT corrected by an assistant before posting).

Other than that, I agree.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine does gloat when I make a mistake.

...but that's OK, because he also laughs when I gloat because he's made a mistake.

All in good fun.

Re:You know

[FurryFeet]

You're wrong, and your own post proves it. Even tough you're writing on Slashdot, it is properly punctuated, capitals are used, grammar and spelling are pretty good. Good writing is not something you "put on" or "put off", it's a ingrained. If you write correctly, you'll have a hard time writing badly (a typo here or there I see, but not -1 posts).

Re:You know

[THEUBERGEEK]

In 20 years of working in IT or related fields I have always worked for the least technically competent managers, with the exception of ONE company.
invariably I have had to try to explain things to these manager just to have them decide that if they do not understand it... it isn't important.
I have even had a supervisor threaten to fire me if I performed any actions that he did not understand.

Re:You know

[ishmaelflood]

"But as soon as you go into a management position where you direct the development or usage of technology, you are supposed to know technology. Because otherwise, you will be unable to make well-informed decisions and be useless as a manager."

I disagree. A competent manager in that situation will delegate the decision making down to his team, if his team are the experts. He will then listen to what they have to say, and translate it into "organization speak", so as to get it approved.

I have had many managers over the last 25 years, the last one who could do my job in any effective manner would have been 20 years ago, and the last one who taught me /anything/ technical was 10 years ago.

A manager's job is to provide me the resources and the workflow, not to teach me how to do my job. If a technical problem comes up that I can't solve I approach my peers around the world, not the management tree.

Re:You know

[MickoZ]

I would believe it. I just heard one of our kind-of boss simply told someone after he said is code was not working correctly to put ON ERROR DO NOTHING in the code as the technology we use apparently support this. And of course that mean ignore why the error is, etc. and implicetely accept all the error that may cause in the end-result. So go ahead and tell me your story. ;-)

Re:You know

[LordoftheWoods]

hah! great game that. I dunno how alignment alone becomes a +/- thing tho.

Re:You know

[chthon]

It depends upon your alignment. If you are lawful, then you get -1 for blasphemy, if you are chaotic then you get +1.

This is analogous to offering someone of your race on an altar. If you are chaotic then you get +2 for your alignment, if you are lawful, then you get -2.

Re:You know

[LordoftheWoods]

Well this is no longer 'alignment alone.' I was referring to the fact that there is no bonus solely for having a certain alignment; alignment only determines the effect of certain actions. Your post does not refute this, it rather confirms it.

How to deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain on Slashdot of course. Make vague juvenile references to Dilbert comic strips.

Re:How to deal?

[JohnnyBigodes]

Unfortunately, most of the Dilbert comic stripts are quite realistic... :(

Re:How to deal?

[Up'emInIrons]

Another candidate for the new blasphemous mod rating!

fire him!

[mistermark]

fire him! ...oh no he's your boss...

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same problem as OP. Company of 40 employees. One of the owners is "Chief of IT". He picks up crazy ideas from his Xbase users group.. can't fire him.

Re:fire him!

[team99parody]

Not quote firing hem, but how about going to his boss and point out that you're more qualified for his job than he is and want to be transfered above him. Mention it in a constructive way and say that you're doing it for the benefit of the company. If the difference between your skils and his is large enough to be noticed it'll probably happen. If not then it's not clear that it should have happened.

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ.
You've never worked at a real job, have you?

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

If his family owned business is like the family owned business I work for, he's part of the family, and doing anything that would detriment the family is taboo. Not only that, but asking to be promoted above him is basically asking to be part of the "inner circle" of management types... which is also taboo, if you're not part of the family.

Re:fire him!

[MyLongNickName]

Ummmm. are you serious, or are you just mean and trying to get the dude fired?

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Re:fire him!

[platos_beard]

Hold on a minute. He's a manager. The question is, are you (and your cohorts) productive under him? If so, no matter how technically incompetent he is, he's a good manager (which isn't the same as saying you enjoy working for him).

Likewise, no matter how technically competent a manager is, if his deparatment doesn't get the job done, he's a bad manager.

Re:fire him!

[Back Slider 1969]

Give him Foxglove Herbal Tea for Christmas?

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can assure you that won't work. If you are more qualified for his job and you are not really qualified for your job and he is not qualified for his job,and management somehow finds all this out without your help, you might eventually replace him. Comparing yourself directly with your superior and sharing the results of that analysis with your superiors manager will just get you out of the door fast.

Re:fire him!

[Demanufacture]

You don't know what horrible is until you work for a family-sized company where the Head of R&D is the son of the company owner. The owner knew that his son made bad technical decisions and generally made our lives hell, but he wouldn't do anything about it.

Man I hope that company goes down the drain.

Re:fire him!

[mildgift]

Therefore, only perform technical miracles for your boss' superiors, but not for your immediate boss. Sounds about right. Some people call it kissing ass, but others call it being practical and not a slave.

Re:fire him!

[Anonymous Coward]

[yeah, I was kidding; but re-reading what I wrote it wasn't really that funny]

Some ideas

[nizo]

What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?

Certainly you can think of something to plant on his computer to get him fired? Of course you might get an even bigger idiot for a boss, so you may want to take that into consideration. On second thought maybe just sending in the secretary to show him how to fix things will humiliate him enough to figure things out on his own.

Get him fired.

[FoolishBluntman]

Have the entire IT staff sit down with the owner of the company and explain why the owner should fire the moron IT manager.

Re:Get him fired.

[geekoid]

except he doesn't touch on whether or not he is a good MANAGER.
Can he assign resource well? Does he understand how an increase or decrease in FTEs impacts the team? Can he assign priorities? does he tell his boss when the teams work load in too much?

If this person can do all that, then do not fire him, just relize he is there to MANAGE technical resources, not perform technical duties.

Contrary to the /. mind think, you do not have to have technical skills to be a good technical manager, you just need to know what your team knows(as in area of expected knowledge) and assign the properly.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried that. Instead of him getting fired we received another manager in between him and the dev team.

Re:Get him fired.

[hobbesx]

Agreed.

He doesn't say directly, but it can be inferred that he has poor managerial skills as well. What's he doing when someone is fixing his computer? Sitting and watching. How is he handling his team? Poorly- the entire team is upset, people are getting desprate, look where they're asking for goodness sake!

Re:Get him fired.

[tverbeek]

I don't expect my boss to understand everything I do or to be someone for me to "learn from". The best boss I ever had was a guy who was a year behind me in college, and whom I coached in real-world tech when he graduated. He went on to become manager of an IT dept and hired me a few years later. I did learn a bit about management and various other things from him, and it's not as if I'd taught him everything he knew about tech. But his job wasn't to teach me; his job was to play the role of "manager" and mine was to play the role of "techie". The important thing was that he understood my role, and generally trusted and respected my judgment, and it was mutual.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. A tech manager needs to know enough of the tech to know approximately how long tasks will take to complete. Otherwise he's going to overpromise and have very stressed-out unhappy workers and very stressed-out unhappy customers.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you going to your manager looking for answers to a technical question? you were hired to do that, not (at least, not always) your boss. what i hate the most is when my team comes to me and says "how do i do this?" without trying to attempt something first. granted, sometimes its good to have a manager that can point you in the right direction from time to time, but its not a perfect world and a lot of the time they don't exist. so YOU need to adapt, and learn from how he manages. then YOU can replace a manager like that in the future. i did it.

Re:Get him fired.

[subterfuge]

...but that may well be the OP's problem [as it is in my case] - the manager in question has no clue whatsoever. I do not see how one can properly manage a technical resource if one does not understand [even to a minor degree] that technology.

In otherwords, I don't expect the average driver [the manager of the vehicular resource] to be able to refine petroleum on the spot but I do expect him/her to understand that gas is required to make the engine run [and know the exceptions to the rule, as well].

The average company would do well to understand that given the economic times we live in that a clueless manager wastes far more of your assets by merely being clueless [and therefore unable to make timely/wise decisions regarding deployment/purchasing of technical assets] than that support FTE you are eye-balling for getting the axe.

Re:Get him fired.

[Lumpy]

99% of the time a manager that has zero clue about WHAT he is to be managing typically can not do anything you just said.

Want an example? ok. the last IS manager here that I replaced.

he was always bitching about how the SQL guys were not doing anything and that the VB guys were always surfing the net.

Guess what, the VB guys were surfing the net to figure out SQL because the manager was too fucking stupid to let the SQL guys help the VB guys by them writing the queries. The SQL buys spend much og the time staring at the screen and waiting for a query that is taking too long finish because the manager was TOO FUCKING STUPID to have IT take the servers down once a week to rebuild the indexes and defragment the servers. So his managerial skill, which by the way was to micromanage the entire team and have DAILY meetings which were actually chew outs of the staff and refusal to listen to realistic deadlines only made us lose some of the most talented people we ever had.

Luckily IT found illegal DVD rips on the managers laptop and fried his ass hard with corperate security.

Now? I tell sales that no they can not have that new tool in 2 weeks, they should have asked for us to start on it 5 months ago when they decided secretly that they needed it. I require software specifications before the guys can even be talked to by anyone outside of the department. I demand that the SQL guys do the SQL stuff, and the VB guys do VB stuff and work with each other to get the job done using everyone's expertiese on every project.

Me? I've been in the trenches for 20 years, I have done EVERYTHING IT and IS wise and still do. I help code with the guys, I help the SQL guys and I even help the IT guys by doing the unthinkable and changing toner on printers and other items (OMFG a managerthat actually DOES work! I'll be hanged at the board meetings for sure!)

I know that I am rare, I ignore corperate culture. as a manager I actually do things instead of sit on my ass and I am realistic. In meetings I'm the guy asknig what the budget is and what can we spend because nothing is free (sales managers hate me, VP's love me)

I personally have seen the manager this guy is talking about, I work with several. If they do not understand the department they are running, typically they cant manage a paper bag.

They are there because of friendships or family.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed the point. You are absolutely right that management of people and tasks are an important part of a manager's job, and he should not be judged without considering them.

But the poster said it was a medium sized company. I'm not sure what he meant, but in most of the environments I've worked in/seen, the technical staff is not large enough to need a fulltime dedicated manager. While I'm sure Dell and AOL need people who do nothing but assign resource and study FTEs (should I know what that means? or care?), many businesses need the IT head to actually know IT, because they regard IT as overhead and staff it appropriately. Which means as little as possible.

I can't say whether that's true of the poster or even most people reading these posts, but in my experience the head of IT should know the tech he's managing. They just usually don't. I'm not saying you "have to have technical skills to be a good technical manager." If the workload/staff is large enough, you are absolutely right.

Of course, it would be nice if the boss knew what the problem was without having to have it explained to him, so he could then assign the appropriate people.

Re:Get him fired.

[FragHARD]

and if that dosen't work then plan B
  plan B: 1.Get all of IT staff together
                  2.Find baseball bats 2X4's...etc.
                  3.locate moron IT manager
                  4.Beat sh@t out of him
                  5.Done

Re:Get him fired.

[Bloater]

> except he doesn't touch on whether or not he is a good MANAGER.

His description suggests he doesn't know anything about IT, so...

> Can he assign resource well?

He doesn't know what it takes to perform a task. so no.

> Can he assign priorities?

Managers are not required for that. Individual developers/admins/teams can do that far more cost effectively.

> does he tell his boss when the teams work load in too much?

The team is more than capable of doing that. What do you need a manager in there for?

> If this person can do all that, then do not fire him, just relize he is there to MANAGE technical resources, not perform technical duties.

That is the most common misconception of management there is. Managers are there to make sure the "people" (note that I don't refer to them as mere resources) that do the work have the necessary tools, time and information to do what needs to be done.

Mostly that means asking those people how important things are, doing the budget calculations for them, then asking them if they concur, rinse and repeat.

>Contrary to the /. mind think, you do not have to have technical skills to be a good technical manager, you just need to know what your team knows(as in area of expected knowledge) and assign the properly.

No, this is how it should work. Board sets a direction, programme managers reify the direction to measurable changes in eg, product positioning, infrastructure efficiency, etc. Programme managers know who has a fair amount of familiarity with a feature to be changed and brings them from the complete pool of talent with a project manager and representatives of stakeholders within the company - they do not go through a politician firewall. Programme management bring a project mandate to this table, and the project brief and approach are defined by those at the table and anybody they seek input from. The project manager produces plans without seeking approval from programme management, but rather seeks approval from the people that will do the work - he does not tell those people how it is gonna be. There should be various bean-counters on hand for the use of the people involved in a project - the bean counters are subservient.

Re:Get him fired.

[Ractive]

Yeah, I have lately found that good management skills are crucial for the efficient operations: My boss is an old school engenieer I guess he was computer savy like 100 years ago but now he has gone to the path of the management (which I personally despice) but he is a good combination between tech and management (actually he even does some screwdriver work once in a while) I guess I'm just lucky, but it hasn't been like that always I've been in contact with some of the worst kind of jerks but I've found that the best approach is to trick them into beliving that what you did was his idea, and let him sit and be an ass while you do your work well done(which you had to anyway) after a while he will end up asking for your advice all the time, because evidently he won't come up with any idea or correct approach, so you will end up doing what you want and running the departament. Of course he will always make more money and look good to the bigger bosses. Anyway you could slip some "raise my salary" advice once in a while. Also, tryng to get him fired will probably cause you to get fired before, don't go that way.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

For a manager in corporate America, you sure have a hard time spelling "corporate." But I guess spelling, like most other skills, isn't very important when it comes to middle management.

Re:Get him fired.

[Fmuctohekerr]

I know my IT manager goes to all the "board meetings." FOR SURE!

Re:Get him fired.

[Fmuctohekerr]

AND I know my IT manager is always saying, "what the budget is?" I love this post.

Re:Get him fired.

[XunilOS]

"Managers" are not there to be technical resources, in most cases. They are there to keep the crap from rolling downhill onto you (except maybe when you really deserve it). To manage expectations from other departments/managers. To delegate tasks appropriate to his/her employees' skillsets, etc. If you're looking for a go-to guy, someone who you can learn from, whom you don't need to teach anything, you need a senior IT tech, probably in a 'team lead' position. A good team lead (or "technical lead") will be the liason between a highly technical team and a non-technical manager.

Re:Get him fired.

[Guido von Guido]

Or English is not the poster's first language, or they don't give a shit about spellcheck when posting to Slashdot.

Let's get real--I've had managers who can't speak or spell worth a damn. I know of one who was concerned that it was holding him back, in fact (which was a shame because he was actually pretty decent). I've had managers who spoke English as a second language, nad not all that well.

I've also had managers who spoke very well and could even spell who turned out to be complete nimrods.

Re:Get him fired.

[Fmuctohekerr]

Oh lord. Sorry. That was not about language skills. I don't know what kind of company the OP works for but at the companies I've worked for IT managers don't go to board meetings and they don't "ask" what the budget is... they are told. The OP just seemed to be pretty much full of shit and I could have riffed on that post for hours.
That was all. The grammar was ok (by my standards).

Re:Get him fired.

[Fmuctohekerr]

F*ck. Also, "Lumpy," as our 20 year veteran of the corperete world likes to be called, is non other than "Tim Gray" from "Michigan, United States" so yeah maybe he should learn to speel since he's such an ace manager these days. Uhg.

Re:Get him fired.

[linuxpyro]

Can he assign resource well? Does he understand how an increase or decrease in FTEs impacts the team? Can he assign priorities? does he tell his boss when the teams work load in too much?

I see what you're saying, but IMHO, if he is going to do all of that properly, he needs to have at least somewhat of an understanding of what the tasks are, how long they should take, etc. He doesn't have to be an expert, but he does have to have an understanding of the area he is supposed to be managing.

Re:Get him fired.

[nwbvt]

Is the owner a technical person, or a business person? Most likely it's the latter. In that case, complaining that you boss is "uneducated" because he is not a whiz with computers probably won't be great for your career. He won't see the situation as an incompetent manager with a skilled staff; he will see it as a decent manager with a bunch of jack-ass nerd employees who feel they are superior to everyone who thinks a RAID is used for killing roaches. Guess who he will blame if problems arise in your department?

And misusing the word "ignorant" like the author of the original question won't make you look good either.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can he assign priorities?

Managers are not required for that. Individual developers/admins/teams can do that far more cost effectively.

You should read this book.

Re:Get him fired.

[salesgeek]

Have the entire IT staff sit down with the owner of the company

Just have an answer for who organized this and how long have you been planning to talk to me. Your jobs will depend on it.

Re:Get him fired.

[jwocky]

It sounds like you are in the exact position as me.

I work for a good sized family owned business (70+ full time employees, 5 locations). My boss was a friend of the owner and hired years ago when they were still small to take care of 1 midrange computer shared between 3 offices with little IT experience, let alone a relevant degree. 15 years later he finds himself as the IT manager.

Contrary to my initial fears, he actually gives me pretty much free control to do what i need to do and is very open to buying equipment i suggest. Also since I have more technical knowledge, he's constantly sending me to training courses for systems we have in place. As a result they paid for the last half of my mcse and all of my mcdba.

In short, if he knows he can trust you, he'll become dependent on you and you'll be indispensable.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you are a manager, maybe you can take an English writing class.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you have the modesty part ;)

Re:Get him fired.

[BoomerSooner]

Exactly, if they cannot format a fucking excel worksheet they don't need to be managing an IT team. Christ my 83 year old grandmother can do that albeit slowly.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing the tech won't stop that from happening. My boss is a case in point.

Technically, he's brilliant. He's never had much experience with management, though. His boss has no concept whatsoever of how short-staffed the team is, or how much work there is to do. So, his boss is always expecting everything to get done on an aggressive schedule with minimal funding.

My boss's problem is that he can't stand up to his boss.

So what happens? We get overworked. Everything is a top priority, but nothing can slip, it must get done! Oh, and the overtime budget is tight, so avoid working overtime... or is it that we have to work as long as it takes to finish? I can't keep it straight any more.

Lately, he's really been sliding off the deep end. He's been forging ahead with projects he knows we have no chance of completing. We're taking insane risks just to please his boss. Someday soon, he's going to lose the gamble.

Sad thing is, even with all of this well-documented, I wonder if it will be him that loses his job...

'scuse me. I gotta go check the help-wanted ads again.

Re:Get him fired.

[dbIII]

you do not have to have technical skills to be a good technical manager

I call bullshit and will supply an example. A former steel sales guy was appointed as head of a non-destructive testing section. When preparing quotes he didn't realise fundamental things like it is very bad to expose people to gamma rays, so the radiography had to be done when areas where clear, so it was done at meal breaks and late at night. This of course led to more staff and equipment being required, and the number of staff capable of doing the task was very limited, so hiring on more people at short notice would involve flying someone in. With these and many other mistakes and the surprisingly common fear of showing ignorance the company nearly went under and a lot of people lost their jobs - refusing all other work from existing customers while the big project that lost money was on meant there was no work available once it concluded. The guy was only brought in so the head tech could get out and charge serious money for his rare skills instead of being in the office arranging schedules.

To sum up, if a manager has no technical skills in the area they are managing then they need to be able to listen to those that do and at least pick up some basics. They don't need certifications that take years to acheive in most cases, but if they don't know the fundamentals they can make some massive mistakes. The difference between those such as Rupert Murdoch and Darl McBride, is that Murdoch could tell you what each division does and answer a few basic questions about each - because he has gone to the trouble to find things out to better run things - he doesn't need to know how to install cable but he at least knows the steps between recording and the show turning up on a subscribers TV.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... You're in IT.

Get used to the idea that your manager (and probably his/her manager) is at least somewhat deficient in the technical knowledge area. They're IT managers because they wanted to get into MANAGEMENT, not dwell on technical minutiae (like using a computer, etc.). It's not universally true, but 90% of the people I've worked for over the last 15 years have been bundering boobs technically. 50% of them have been blundering boobs in general, but that's not what you were asking about, now is it?

I'd say that if your non-technical boss is a good manager, keep him around and appreciate the fact that he's not a total asshole. Frankly, you can work his technical ignorance to your advantage most of the time if you're cynical.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A tech manager needs to know enough of the tech to know approximately how long tasks will take to complete"

No! That's absolutely wrong. What the manager should know is that you can't promise a project before it's scoped. Even the techiest of managers will overpromise if that simple rule isn't kept. If your manager is in the habit of quoting jobs without you...you're gonna get screwed.

Re:Get him fired.

[jack_csk]

Personally, I found it unnecessary to explain all the technical details of what I am doing to my manager. The time that I waste to repeat what I was doing in verbal form to the manager can be used to produce something more useful. In addition, I don't think he would like to get into that detail.
What he needs, and only needs to know, is the outcome of my work and how it contribute to the organization.

Re:Get him fired.

[corngrower]

Not only that, they need to be able to accurately assess how competant people are. Many confuse an outgoing personality with technical competence. This is often quite detrimental to the projects they're trying to manage. They'll assign some gross incompetent as the architect for the project, which can cause some big problems.

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You must be the person SNL satired when they did the skits about "Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy." Congratulations.

MOOOVE!!!

Re:Get him fired.

[DickeyWayne]

Any time that you have a truly motivated team of employees, the boss/employee relationship tends to turn upside-down. The employees tell the "boss" what they need in order to get their job done, and the boss will provide it for them. I've been on both ends of this kind of situation.

Perhaps instead of having "the entire IT staff sit down with the owner of the company and explain why the owner should fire the moron IT manager," the IT staff should sit down with the IT manager himself (or herself), and DEMAND that he get the needed training to come up to speed. Explain that this is what you need, in order to do your job. Of course, if he refuses, THEN you go to the owner of the company (or the next level up).

Re:Get him fired.

[MuuTuwon]

This whole "should an IT manager have IT skills" thing has been on Slashdot plunty of times before. There's always the people that say if you dont' know what you're managing then how can you manage it? then there's always the people that all it takes to be a good manager is management skills, whatever set that may include.

If you ask me, it depends on what you expect out of the manager. Or really more importantly, it depends on what that manager's style of management is. A manager with no technical skills can manage IT great, if they are willing to regonize that they don't have IT skills and therefore place that much more level of trust in the suggestions and evaluations of the members of thier team that do. If you have a manager that wants to micromanage the technical detials and yet does NOT have the technical knowledge, I mean, of course, you're going to have a problem!

Likewise, as I was saying, if the manager has good management skills. If they listen to and place faith on what thier tech people tell them, then they're still going to be a good manager even if they don't nesscarly know the difference between stack and heap memory.

Of course, you might say its not possible for someone to have good management skills, and still want to micromanage the technology of something they don't understand. Well.. lets just say I don't know about that.

Re:Get him fired.

[SComps]

wtf?!?

you clicked on a link in a post's header... then regurgitated it as a post yourself. Not only is that really lame, but extremely managerial.

I don't give a rats ass if the guy is lying, or telling the truth. *MUCH* of what he said is very good advice for an aspiring IT professional that hopes to grow into management. Some of it's bullshit, but that's part of life.

Posting easily accessible (a single click on a URL and 2 minutes reading is easily accessible) is just plain lame.

Re:Get him fired.

[LinuxPoultergist]

While this attitude is perhaps fine for other industries, IT is not one of them.

In IT managers MUST have a bit of technical background and expertise.

The reason is clear, and I haven't seen anyone on slashdot mention it yet. Managers generally have a say in what hardware and software is purchased for the company. If these managers have no technical background you get things like a single exchange server with no failover running on the cheapest dell server money can buy, and then expect the IT personell to keep it running 24/7.

Stupidity and ignorance in management cause those of us who work under them countless wasted hours fighting loosing battles against insufficient hardware and low quality software.

The people who will actually work on the systems should be the ones with the say in what is purchased. Not some manager who's swayed by pretty graphics and loud marketing.

Re:Get him fired.

[Bloater]

The problem with poor technology products is in product direction, that is not a job for an IT manager - that is a job for product management (a role within the programme management umbrella) in liaison with the developers. The problem with many IT related products is that they do not have a competent product manager - but an IT manager is not a product manager and a product manager is not an IT manager. If product management can specify a direction that is both practical and profitable (with advise from developers regarding whether it is practical and leaves the product in a good position for future direction changes), then developers can set priorities to follow that direction.

This middle management fad will wear off and those trained in middle management skills will become accountants and stress councellors, cost only what they're worth, and the consumer will be much better off for it.

Re:Get him fired.

[FurryFeet]

Maybe there's a reason he described the company as a family owned business?

Re:Get him fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP! Amen brother!

true engineers despise management roles

[Anonymous Coward]

You will typically find that true engineers despise management roles for themselves, therefore leaving only the less-than-qualified to rise into the management positions. The problem stems from the lack of good oversight in the corporate hiring/promotion process. If corporate managers were bonus'ed and/or penalized for bad promotions/hires, the landscape would look significantly different. Unfortunately people only seem to blame the bad manager and never the idiot that hired/promoted them into the position in the first place. Just wait until the day that you work for a company of 500 or more people.

Re:true engineers despise management roles

[Skiron]

That can be said in fewer words.

If you are good/great at your job, that is all you will ever do - be great. If you are shit, then expect promotion.

Re:true engineers despise management roles

[Total_Wimp]

I work in an environment where the reverse has been true. Very bright people routinely got put in management and I'd be happy to have our CTO at any engineer position.

I'm in management myself now and I consider myself to be roughly parrellel in level of knowledge to my staff. This situation has brought with it a very interesting observation: Bright people don't know stuff.

Ya see, the Novell guy, the ADS guy and they router guy aren't always the best at fixing their PCs. They're too focused on their main job and the PC is just a distraction. On the other hand, the really bright guy we hired to do magic with our PC images doesn't have a clue about our Exchange servers.

As the boss of all of these guys, I find myself both giving knowledge and asking for it on a regular basis. Do they think I'm stupid because I don't understand the exact thing they're working on? Maybe. But if they were a little smarter themselves they'd realize there's no way I could know it all. And if I did, I probably wouldn't need them.

TW

Re:true engineers despise management roles

[ShieldW0lf]

Did it ever occur to you that managing people requires a very different set of skills than engineering, and that engineers don't like management jobs because they are not equiped to do them? If you want to hire a manager, you don't go looking for someone who is more comfortable with math and physics than with people. I imagine that engineers would dislike jobs in nursing too, because they would suck and get no respect. I for one would be leary of working for an engineer; in my experience they tend to yell a lot and think they know everything.

As far as the articles question, the reason that he is keeping his hands in everything is because he doesn't trust you. If he did, he'd drop it in your lap with confidence and find something else to do, even if that something else is golf. He's not sitting around watching you because you're so easy on the eyes. As to the question of why he doesn't trust you, and is it him being untrusting or you being untrustworthy, that is something only you and him can answer.

Re:true engineers despise management roles

[RetroGeek]

That can be said in fewer words.

peter principle

Re:true engineers despise management roles

[dbIII]

You will typically find that true engineers despise management roles for themselves

I really think a lot of people on this forum really don't know what the word "engineer" means - they just use it as a trendy buzz word they derived from MSCE. The above quote should probably read "technicians despise management roles". Engineers often design stuff and get others to build it for them, supervise contractors etc. in addition to both the technical and grunt work they do themselves. How many of you really expect to have to build your own server rooms as well and bang in the actual nails?

Perhaps the quote above meant any sort of management beyond team leader/leading hand/NCO?

Family pwned business? Quit... just quit

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for one of these. The manager/pwner has no incentive to take on personal responsibility. Either all band together and tell the manager plus his/her brother/sister/mother/roomate CEO that he needs to shape up as it is affecting moral.... or

quit.

read more dilbert

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:read more dilbert

[Anonymous Coward]

lol what?

He is a manager - what do you expect?

[fatcatman]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

Yes. Not to be stereotypical, but he is a manager. In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.

As for how to deal with it? I doubt you really have a choice. Not to be cynical, but what are you really going to do about it? Hopefully he isn't a "know it all" type and will actually listen to what you have to say before making a decision. If so, just do your best to educate him in any given situation so he can make the right decision.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes - managers become managers because they have learned to replace their lack of technical skill and talent with some form of: "If I have smart people working for me, I can really go places."

And somehow they feel justified in that existence.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Schlaegel]

Perhaps the IT manager has different skills that are more appropriate to his job than the specific technical skills possessed by his subordinates.

For example, he might be a better communicator. The submission contains incorrect English that forces the reader to create their own meaning. It says, "Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?" Perhaps the IT manager would read this sentence and desire to "educate" the subordinate in English.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[ChipMonk]

In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.

The Peter Principle in action. You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.

Without exception, no matter what the work, the best managers I have ever had were the ones who had actually done the work, and understood the personal resources required by the job. Without that understanding, a manager is reduced to being a mouthpiece for his boss. He will be unable to justify investment in his subordinates, because he will not understand why they need $THING.

When his own incompetence interferes with his job, it also interferes with his subordinates' work, as demonstrated in the top post: Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches.

do your best to educate him

Again, from the top post: Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. They are only spinning their wheels, going nowhere.

And there is always a choice. Slavery is outlawed in civilized nations.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[jafac]

I've had educated, technical managers, who were "forced" up the chain because they were fortunate enough to also posess "people skills" - Often the best kind of managers.

The worst kind are the pure business-educated guys.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[fatcatman]

You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.

I'm not making excuses for anything. Of course he would be a better manager if he had actually done the work. I know this, you know this, and so does every other tech nerd. However, your typical I.T. manager has NOT done the work. If he could, he probably wouldn't be a manager.

Again, from the top post: Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. They are only spinning their wheels, going nowhere.

No, they're just whining and bitching. They're pissed because he makes twice their salary and "doesn't know anything." They think he should be some sort of I.T. god, that he should know everything they know. Well, he doesn't. He's just a manager. His expertise is in allocating resources other project management type activities.

Again, I'm not making excuses for him. He should have some skills; he would be a better manager. But he doesn't, and let's face it: Most managers don't. Now, maybe he doesn't even have management skills - maybe he just sucks completely. But what are you going to do about it? Nothing, you're screwed. Either find a new job or put up with it.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without exception, no matter what the work, the best managers I have ever had were the ones who had actually done the work, and understood the personal resources required by the job. Without that understanding, a manager is reduced to being a mouthpiece for his boss. He will be unable to justify investment in his subordinates, because he will not understand why they need $THING.

If only it were that easy.

Non-technical managers are fine, provided they don't try to get involved in the technical decision-making process. Technical managers are fine, too. But the worst, the absolute pits, is a manager who used to be involved on the technical side... and isn't any more.

The problem here is that said manager will occasionally turn up to a meeting --- a technical meeting --- listen with interest to the discussion, and then say: I think we should do it like this. This, of course, being the design we contemplated and discarded last week, or last month, or last year...

This kind of manager will do things like say, "I think the API should be thread-safe." The reason why the API is thread-safe is because it's subclassing another API that is not thread-safe. We can't make it thread-safe. But no, the fact that it has to be thread-safe is now a management decision, and can't be changed.

Give me a non-technical manager with non-technical requirements (such as "Make it work") any day...

(Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.)

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Dun Malg]

In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.

The Peter Principle in action. You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.

This isn't the Peter Principle, but rather the exact opposite. The Peter Principle would have a competent tech promoted to management, and being unable to manage his department because he's only good at being a tech. This is more like the Dilbert Principle, wherein incompetent workers are promoted to management because the competent ones are needed at the bottom to do the actual work.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[ChipMonk]

they're just whining and bitching.

I take it you've never lived with an incompetent tech manager. I've worked for managers who lived this. One of them finally mustered the balls to tell his boss that fixing internal systems was not his job, it was product development, and if he (the higher boss) was going to be careless with his mail attachments, he could find someone else to disinfect his system.

If their boss doesn't understand such simple things as filesystem allocation, virtual memory, and word size (concepts I can easily visualize them explaining, ad nauseum), he has no business working in I.T, period.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[MickLinux]

I'd like to add -- respect your boss not for what he can or cannot do, but for the fact that he is your boss. And replace that failing "work ethic" thing with simple loyalty and a will to be as helpful and obedient (submissive) as possible. Then, take all that money you save on TUMS, add the tax savings, and call it a raise. I know that sounds cynical, but it is my real life advice, which I use every day.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[neoweb]

This is right on the nose for the most part. You as an IT worker are there to give managers the knowledge they need to make a decision by educating him on what is needed and how it can/should/will be done. I myself am the "IT Manager" for my company, being a small company I also make up the whole IT staff, so instead of reporting to an IT Manager I report to the president/CEO. This is 10x's worse as he not only doesn't grab on to most of what I'm telling him (even if it's in simple langauge with diagrams) he makes rash decsions without listening or seeing the whole picture. Too many a nights I've gotten a call or email about how he made the decsion on something that I know isn't going to work and I now have to waste my time either making work or undoing whatever it is he did/bought. OH and to top that off I now have a thinks he "know's it all" CFO who keeps stepping on my toes and speaking for me in after hour meetings that I don't even know about.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[syousef]

Yes. Not to be stereotypical, but he is a manager. In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.

Oh man there's SO much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.

I've had managers that were ex-techy and they've always been the best to work for. Sure they were too rusty to be writing code but they understand technical difficulties when explained in broad strokes, and could spot a flaw in an argument. I'm lucky enough to be in a job where both my managers are ex-techy and very good at what they do.

By contrast I've worked for managers who didn't know what winzip was or how to unzip something. They were easily misled by vendors and contractors, and focused their attention on things that just plain didn't matter from a business point of view. My approach has been to spend some time educating/steering them to the right area, and some time working around them. I've been reasonably successful but I tell you it's no substitute for having a manager that has a clue what they're talking about.

It's like having a captain at the helm of a large oil tanker that knows nothing of basic seamenship. They rely on their underlings to do their job well, and fake their way through it but good luck if the underlings don't agree on the right course of action, or if you come into a real emergency!

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Ruzty]

I must be lucky. My boss and his boss are both former team members of my group. They got promoted for showing good leadership, but have been in the trenches with me in the past. This is common practice at our company where climbing the corporate ladder involves performing well at your job and earning the promotion.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Shant3030]

In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.

He manages because he actual has leadership and social skills. Managers are there to MANAGE, not to design systems and solve tech problems.

The goal of a manager is to underspend, motivate their team to go the extra mile and always deliver what's promised, on time.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[rizzo420]

my manager is actually quite technically savvy. and his boss, the VP for IT, while not tech savvy asks a lot of questions so she knows what's going on and what we're doing and she even picks up a few tech skills here and there. in a college where a lot of the people we support think computers are these strange things that should jsut work, it's nice to have a non-technical boss who wants to learn and isn't afraid. needless to say, our department is run very efficiently and there are very few personnel issues. and we all have a good time doing what we do because we do all get along...

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not fair to dump on all the managers. Many people are given the title "Project Manager" when in fact a more accurate description should be "Project Administrator". Yes you do need some technical background to really manage a tech team, but not to be a project administrator.

The way I see the problem is that many people who are really in fact administrators, get caught up in trying to be old style managers (autocratic), instead of working with their teams to build conscensus. That is really inappropriate in the tech world. Always remember that star performers don't work alone.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Nexx]

It's like having a captain at the helm of a large oil tanker that knows nothing of basic seamenship. They rely on their underlings to do their job well, and fake their way through it but good luck if the underlings don't agree on the right course of action, or if you come into a real emergency!

No. It's like an Admiral of a fleet knowing about seamanship. They still need it in an abstract way, to know their ships' capabilities while fightinig, but they don't need to remember how to take a destroyer out of port. Instead, they need to manage different problems.They get paid more not because their job is somehow more important, but because their job comes with more responsibility.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Darren Winsper]

How can you be good at allocating resources when you don't understand the very resources you're allocating?

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[sboss]

I dont mind a manager that does not know (technically) as much as their people, as long as they understand that they are not as technical as their people. Managers that are not technical that tries to be technical (making technical decisons, etc) is what drives me insane.

The best managers that I know, are non-technical but understand that they are not technical. They take the technical decisons made by the techies, mix that with the beuacratic/political decisons and come up with the (relatively) best decison for the issue.

At least I am not the only one with a non technical manager trying to be a technical person.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[boredperson]

"In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't."

I am not looking for a manager to have tech skills, just an understanding of what I do for the company. Example (one of countless at my current position): My boss promises a "high speed" private line connection to a client site, says we will have it operational in a month. My co-worker gets quotes from several vendors for DS-3s. My boss wants to know why it is $10,000 a month. He won't pay that much. After much back and forth explaining that you only have 3 vendors to choose from realistically he finally accepts one. Then we get a delivery date that is 3 months. He says we have a commitment to a client that it needs to be up in 4 weeks. Much ass-chewing ensues.

He does not need to know how to configure a router, how to monitor networks, etc. But a cursory knowledge of the telecom industry is required.

And he is a part-owner of the company so he is not going anywhere.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[spadefoot]

If I have to chose between a tech-savvy manager and a management-savvy manager, give me the management-savvy one every time. I don't know that I believe that the two groups are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they certainly CAN be exclusive of one another. My current employer changed CIO's about a year ago. The old CIO was a from-the-trenches IT guy. Nice guy, perfectly willing to change a toner or help someone get their email if everyone else was busy. In almost a decade as CIO, the department went nowhere. It had the same head count and the same outdated equipment because the tech-savvy manager didn't understand how to work the political side of the office to get a larger budget and more staff. Our new guy? He understands the basics of IT, but he spent a whole career as a manager and he REALLY knows how to manage projects, relate goals and accomplishments to the upper managers and keep his staff from going crazy from feature-creep and ever-shifting requirements. Sure, it takes 15 min to explain to him how ports work on a firewall but at least I have the time do to the explaining instead of having to run around putting out fires.

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Bimo_Dude]

Many people are given the title "Project Manager" when in fact a more accurate description should be "Project Administrator".

and therein lies one of the more pervasive problems at really large corporations. Due to the title itself, these "Project Managers" usually do not understand that "Project Manager" != Manager. I have, on only one occasion, worked with a PM that did understand this.

Another thing: the title "Technical Manager." IMHO, the title itself implies that the person in question is a manager who understands the technology. Many times, this is not the case. I've had several "Technical Managers" that really should have had the title, "Non-technical Manager" or (if they did not even have management skills), "non-Technical A$$hat."

This is not to say that all managers with a technical backround are good managers, or that all managers that are not technical are bad managers. I've had all four:

1. Technical and good manager (preferred)
2. Non-technical and good manager (almost as good)
3. Technical and bad manager (usually arrogant and difficult, but still better than the next)
4. Non-technical and bad manager (knows, but will not admit, that they are clueless. This causes problems for everybody)

Currently, my manager fits into the number 1 category, so I am very happy (and lucky).

Re:He is a manager - what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

This entire thread is just a question of semantics...a manager can be anyone who deals with people.

A TECHNICAL MANAGER must have both skills, i.e. technical and people. The problems mentioned in this thread are mainly about just managers who have been misplaced into positions as TECHNICAL manager, without any technical skills, hence the problems, misunderstandings, etc.

Hrm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligence in a manager?

Just because "IT" is in the job title doesn't mean they have any IT experience. They just manage the IT department.

I AM the IT Manager

[nb caffeine]

in a buisness the same as posted. In a small buisness, everyone usually needs to wear multiple hats. I am the IT Manager, head programmer, etc. Id hate to think how lost my coworkers would be if I didnt know what the hell I am doing. Thats my limited expirence, anyhow.

Re:I AM the IT Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

I bett that hiss boss kan spill, thowg.

Re:I AM the IT Manager

[dhakbar]

Buisness? Expirence?

Please tell me the name of your "buisness" so that I can avoid doing any "buisness" with you.

Re:I AM the IT Manager

[CGP314]

I AM the IT Manager in a buisness the same as posted. In a small buisness, everyone usually needs to wear multiple hats.

Why do your employees need to wear many hats? Are these hats necessary for the different jobs they do? Or is it a requirement that they use stupid, meaningless business jargon?


-Colin

Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now.

Re:Quit.

[PCM2]

My new boss knew less than me technically, but he knew and freely admitted that he knew less, as his job was to be a manager, not a technician. All my successes were mine, and all he took credit for was doing a wonderful job in hiring the right people - which is how it should be, IMHO.

Exactly. I was once hired to lead a team of developers, and it took me exactly one tour of the cubes downstairs to figure out that I would have a helluva learning curve to catch up to what these guys were working on. At first, I was perplexed. Finally, I asked one of them: "Why aren't you doing my job? You know as much about the guts of this project as anyone does."

His response? No freakin' way. Quite simply, this guy was a little bit introverted, didn't like speaking in front of people, didn't really have the social skills to distinguish himself in business meetings. Plus, what he really wanted to do was code, and if he was doing all the stuff I had to do, he'd never have a chance to do it.

DING! Well there you go, I thought. From then on I saw my primary responsiblities as being three: 1.) Advise the coders on what decisions made the most sense based on the overall agenda of the project and its team members and come to an understanding of how we planned to move forward; 2.) Go to meetings and speak to that position, gather requirements from the other team members and communicate them back to my staff; and 3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.

"All right," I said. "Can do."

Re:Quit.

[pete6677]

Having a manager take credit for employee ideas seems to be a common complaint among technical people. There is a great remedy to this problem, however. Managers like this are usually totally incompetent, so they won't know when they're being jacked with. Suggest some really stupid idea, like consolidating all database tables into one table for "efficiency". To guarantee that he will take credit for it, tell him to make sure to tell his boss it was your idea. Listen in the background as his boss reams him out.

Re:Quit.

[c64k]

Or weep when he comes back gushing about how the boss loves his new ideas for db efficiency.

Do not presuppose that further up the tree will have any more tech savvy than your boss.

Re:Quit.

[shutdown -p now]

Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.

Indeed, just let me do what I know best how to do... We do need more managers like that!

P.S. Oh, and that should've been #1, not #3 ;)

Re:Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

I get sick of hearing from tech-heads who know -it-all! So what if your boss doesn't have a clue. Grab your ankles and take one for the team. one thing is for certain... you won't go far in your organization with that chip on your shoulder begging to knocked off. :)

Re:Quit.

[Otter]

Quit. Seriously.

I don't know your situation at all...

Ummm, maybe I'm missing something but given that you have no idea whether his boss is taking credit for his work and that he didn't say anything about the boss taking credit for his work -- why exactly is he supposed to quit because of a problem you once had with your boss?

Re:Quit.

[I_Want_This_ID]

The real answer is "it depends".

An IT manager that doesn't know much but thinks he/she does often doesn't listen to those that do have that knowledge. This is a bad environment and I would suggest exiting the first instance possible (I was there for almost 4 years right as the dot com bust happened and got stuck).

Overall, the only job a manager (ANY manager) has is to remove obstacles to enable his employees to work as efficiently as possible. He doesn't need technical skills to do so as long as he defers to those with more knowledge when important technical decisions need to be made.

I've also found that if a mid level manager has tremendous technical prowess in addition to being a good manager, the higher level managers without so much of either trait become fearful and have a tendancy to eliminate the "competition" leaving nice safe idiots or ineffective managers surrounding themselves. I'm currently in that situation myself.

Re:Quit.

[nine-times]

From then on I saw my primary responsiblities as being three: 1.) Advise the coders on what decisions made the most sense based on the overall agenda of the project and its team members and come to an understanding of how we planned to move forward; 2.) Go to meetings and speak to that position, gather requirements from the other team members and communicate them back to my staff; and 3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.

I've thought for some time that the best managers are those who see their jobs backwards from the way most managers see their jobs: they act like they work for the people they manage. They help the employees work well together. They organize and make sure their different employees understand what is going on with the other employees. They evaluate the various obstacles that their employees are facing, and they try to remove those obstacles. They deal with executives and customers so you don't have to.

IMO good manager knows it's not his job to do the job. It's his job to make it easy for his subordinates to do their jobs.

Re:Quit.

[gizmonic]

3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.

I love you. *sniff* <wipes tear>

Re:Quit.

[slagheap]

DING! Well there you go, I thought. From then on I saw my primary responsiblities as being three: 1.) Advise the coders on what decisions made the most sense based on the overall agenda of the project and its team members and come to an understanding of how we planned to move forward; 2.) Go to meetings and speak to that position, gather requirements from the other team members and communicate them back to my staff; and 3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.

I told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to!!! I am good at dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that? What the hell is the matter with you?!?!?

Re:Quit.

[buck_wild]

Well said.

As an IT manager, my time (in my current job, your mileage may vary) is best spent working to allow my employees to be as efficient as possible. Employees that don't have to jump through tons of hoops or red to get their stuff done will be happier as a result.

So let me do that mundane stuff, and you can go be effective at what your role in the organization is.

As someone in another thread mentioned, I'm a proponant of the thinking that *I* work for the employee. Whatever I can do to make them more effective, efficient, etc. is a plus to the company.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Quit.

[baggins2002]

I have had 2 managers who had a poor technical background and were in the top 3 of the best managers I ever had. They also were the best preparation I could have had for management. Basically because I had to learn to talk in normal english instead of technical detail.
One of the worst managers I had was a PhD. Although at one time or another he understood or knew what was going on he couldn't accept that anyone else knew better than he did. No matter how many times you went over it with him and explained it to him ( I had dreams of beating him over the head with a bat ). He always seemed to be just wasting our time with meetings and extraneous crap, losing focus of current or long term project goals.

Re:Quit.

[E Galois]

Exactly, except the concept people seem to be groping for here is leadership, not management.

"Let's get rid of management. People don't want to be managed, they want to be led. If you want to manage somebody, manage yourself. Do that well and you'll be ready... to start leading." -- excerpt from an ad placed by United Technologies Corporation in the April 12, 1984 edition of the Wall Street Journal; as noted in the essay Leadership: Management's Better Half by John H. Zenger

Re:Quit.

[andydandy]

Its not such a bad thing to have a dumb boss "steal your ideas." If your ideas work and benefit your boss and he's not smart enough to come up with the ideas himself, then he's dependent on you, he's really your "puppet on a string." Its very easy to wrestle what you want out of those kinds of bosses or alternately to set them up and leave them twisting in the wind.

Re:Quit.

[Idealius]

paraphrasing.

"So you actually talk to the customers?"

"No... My secretary does that."

"OH, so you must take the information to the engineers."

"No... pft, well, SOMETIMES.."

Re:Quit.

[NeutronCowboy]

Awesome. Can I work for you?

Re:Quit.

[Michael Woodhams]

I've thought for some time that the best managers are those who see their jobs backwards from the way most managers see their jobs: they act like they work for the people they manage. They help the employees work well together. They organize and make sure their different employees understand what is going on with the other employees. They evaluate the various obstacles that their employees are facing, and they try to remove those obstacles. They deal with executives and customers so you don't have to.

Well said, thank you. I have the same opinion, but hadn't thought of such a coherent framework for expressing it.

This view also short-circuits another possible problem: the idea that many managers have that they must be paid more than anyone in their team, which in turn leads to talented techies changing into poor managers, because it is the only way to advance. (One would still expect the mangers to be getting above median pay for the company, however.)

The last (only) time I worked in industry, one of my team-mates was the company's alpha geek. He had no underlings, was probably paid about twice what my team-leader was, and more than twice what I was, and was worth more than 4 times as much to the company. This is sensible.

Re:Quit.

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

in other words...

"Well, look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!?"

Re:Quit.

[PCM2]

Haha! The sad irony of this little tale: I burned out and quit once we delivered the first milestone. ;-)

Actually, you'd be appalled. This was a company where the CEO was fond of telling everyone that what made the company great was all the "creative energy." By which he meant the mind-boggling talents of certain, specific employees, namely the ones who went to art school and could mock up amazing UIs in Photoshop and brainstorm clever marketing gimmicks. "Programmers are a dime a dozen," he would say. "I could walk out into the street and hire ten programmers right now. But I wouldn't be able to get this amazing level of creative energy."

Oh yes, he would say this. To everyone. At company-wide meetings. He honestly thought he was being inspirational. Once the CTO called him on it in private after he gave one of these speeches. "Don't you think you were being a little, um, insensitive?" But the guy would not back down. He repeated, to the CTO's face, his belief that technical people were basically worthless drones and that he couldn't see why the CTO didn't understand that. That CTO quit the same day and the CEO never understood why, as far as I could tell.

Re:Quit.

[bruceyeah]

Tom Smykowski: "Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people? "

Re:Quit.

[syousef]

Quit. Seriously.

I think you mean find a better job and once secured, quit your current job.

Some people have bills to pay, familes to feed etc. and it sounds like you found work before dumping the current job. Always the best way to do it. Make a serious effort at looking for better work!

Re:Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a small company, like the OP describes, there's no need for "managers" however... Or maybe there is, but there needs to be a layer between the grunts who do the work and management, a team leader. How can you expect to be a good team leader when you have no clue whatsoever about the tech involved?

I don't expect my boss to be able to do my job; after all, that's my job, not his. I expect him however to talk to the other departments about getting that info, or server access I need to get my job done. And I absolutely expect him to be able to grasp basic concepts I explain to him whenever I'm trying to enter into a discussion about the best approach for a certain task. I been in too many meetings with my boss where he and I are simply talking about two completely different and unrelated things, where after 3 hours of talking he still doesn't kow what the hell I'm talking about. And contrary to most geeks, I do have some people skills and know how to explain things to people in terms they understand.

A real-world example? We had to code an online timesheet tool where our telephone agents could fill in the hours they worked. This had the following two benefits for the company: to get rid of the long queues at the paper sheets on the way out (only one pen, and all sheets in one folder), and to help HR by allowing them to just use the export tools from interface (excell and pdf) to extract the relevant figures (how much must we pay every agent this month?) instead of having to spend a whole weekend typing over the paper sheets into a spreadsheet. Me and my colleague had this idea that it would be nice if we could fill in the hours for the agents, using data from the planning tool that was already online. This way, the agent would just need to review the hours, change them if he'd worked for longer or arrived late, but most of the time just press "submit". He didn't like the idea because then the agent can be dishonest and tweak the hours so he gets paid more... Ok... And we prevent this by not offering those nice already filled in forms, but require the agent to fill them in themselves? After 3 hours of discussion we still didn't reach an agreement. But I did learn a lot about the history and future growth plans of the company. Our main question "why not" however was still left unanswered because he simply didn't have a clue. Hard to believe that a so called manager and self-proclaimed data architect cannot grasp such simple concepts, but there you have it.

In the end though, I just concluded that it wasn't worth it anyway. If you pre fill in the forms and they're right most of the time, after a while the agents would start to get lax about reviewing their hours. Then when they found out they got paid too little at the end of the month, they'd cause a mess for HR to deal with, so we left the feature out.

In fact, it was much more enjoyable working with the guy from HR, whom we were doing the project for. Whenver we proposed something to him, he said "ok, let me think about that for a second...", then after a minute or so, he'd go "no, wouldn't work because these reasons: ..." or "Yes, and maybe even add this and this, if you think it's feasible". He usually showed a lot of insight in the business side of the deal, helping us steer the project in the right direction. Except for an intimate knowledge of spreadsheets and other office software, he was also relatively clueless when it came to IT, but at least he had *some* expertise to offer and knew the limits of his own expertise, and those of ours.

Mind you though, our boss ain't all bad. He does a lot of things for the company besides being our boss, and he's quite good at those. But managing an IT department, even a small one like ours, is just not his forte. If he'd only admit it, and let us do our jobs instead of trying to micromanage us...

Posting anonymously because even if our boss doesn't read slashdot, my colleagues do. Never know who might discuss the wrong thing at the wrong moment, like when the boss is standing behind them... ;)

Re:Quit.

[neo]

The marketplace is ready for radical change. No one should have to suffer underpaid, stupid jobs where the benefits suck. For too long the employer has held the upperhand by making it seem that there were few options for people in terms of employment.

I have the solution: Everyone quit their job on the same day.

http://www.quityourjobday.com/

Re:Quit.

[Sheepdot]

Can I come work for you? :)

Re:Quit.

[Tablizer]

He (hopefully) realizes that he's not as skilled as his workers, and will try to steal their (your) thunder every chance he gets.

According to the popular "How to Win Friends and Influence Others", you should *let* this happen. One will allegedly get along better and perhaps even promoted if they go ahead and feed other egos and stop worrying about credit. If you stroke his/her ego, the boss will eventually also stroke yours. You just have to be the one to let go of the credit-crutch first.

Being right and being liked are often contradictory. That is life. Us geeks have to learn how to deal with difficult people rather than just keep switching companies or hide behind email. We cannot hide from jerks forever, so we better practice face-on. Bitter medicine, I know.

Re:Quit.

[jericho4.0]

If I had a manager who could work to keep me out of meetings, instead of a manager who measures how well their doing by the number of meetings had, I might still have a job!

Re:Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The best manager I ever had was like that.

1. check with us before making promises
2. find out what we needed to meet those promises
3. get the sodding hell out of the way

It was *great* working with him. If we needed something, he got it. If he couldn't get it, he'd take our explanations of what it would to do deadline, feature set, or budget and pound it into his boss... which usually led to our getting what we needed, rather than running over time.

If something unexpected came up, he made it as convenient as possible for us to deal with it (i.e. "$foo happened and we need it fixed tonight. How long will it take? 3-5 hours? Chicken and bacon sub, Hermann's dark lager, yes?")

Keith

Re:Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you said "Alright". "All right" is not the correct usage of that word. Just FYI for your big shot presentations.

Re:Quit.

[CAIMLAS]

This post (and its grandparent) has to be one of the best damn posts I've ever read on slashdot.

It culminates all the knowledge and wisdom that should be taught in business mgmt classes in college, but is not. If only this information were given to business students, and they were forced to memorize it and recite it in a militant fashion, we would have excellent business practices in this country.

But they don't and we don't.

Re:Quit.

[ptruax]

doesn't seem like it

Re:Quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also one thing to consider - how did the manager get there? If he was promoted to his level of incompetence, vis a vis the Peter Principle, then that's one thing.

But I just got done with a stint under a guy who, while not an asshole or anything, was placed there by his buddy, who was also his boss (and therefore two notches above me). That guy was a total asshole and essentially a cancer on the company, and he placed my former direct boss there in place because he was controllable.

But a funny thing happened - my direct boss was in a position where he needed to produce a lot of code and he didn't know there were languages in the world other than VBScript. But I did, and so I wound up getting to do a lot more interesting things than if he had been competent.

Then the really funny thing happened, my boss' boss got fired. So now my direct boss is really screwed. Suddenly I had some power. He couldn't really get on to me because when he did I'd drop hints about quitting. I'd make jokes about recruiters calling (which they were). It was fun.

When the new director (my boss' boss) showed up, he basically told my boss there was no futire for him in the company. This is right before I was transferred to a different division where my new boss is an actual developer. Life is good.

My former direct boss eventually quit before being fired and moved back home.

Re:Quit.

[naoursla]

I came to that conclusion some years back. It works the other way too. As a worker (be an employee, manager, or business owner) you work for everyone. You work for your manager. You work for your customers. You work for your co-workers. If you fail to produce that they value then you are not doing your job. If they do not like your work then they can fire you by finding someone else whose work they like better.

Conversely, all of these people also work for you. The job of your manager is to make you more effective at work. If he doesn't do this, you need to fire him (perhaps by finding a new job).

Re:Quit.

[olympus_coder]

Non-tech example... The department chariman (Physics) says his job is to be shit diode for the faculty. Shit goes up to the dean, but doesn't come back down to them. That is one of the most improtant responsibilities of any leader. Take responsibility for your team and their decisions and make sure they are insulated from routine BS from above.

Of course, you also have to stear them so they do the job upper managment wants (or needs) without micromanaging.

Of course, IANAM.

Re:Quit.

[Terralthra]

Yes, I can see that alright is definitely the word to use.

Re:Quit.

[ninjagin]

I agree with your assessment of the post and the GP.

However, having worked as an engineer for 6 or so years, and also having spent that time going to business school for an MIS (in software dev, the most technical track in the business school), I can say that these axioms -=are=- taught in mgmt coursework -- at least they appeared in mine. I got two full semesters on mgmt, and what you found to be correct in the post and GP were reenforced many times over.

Concidentally with the overall topic, I've just recently been promoted to manage my group, and I do have all the same chops as the rest of the people on my team. Some of us are stronger in certain areas more than others, but we learn from each other. My current boss (the one I'll replace), never had any engineering experience, and while he was great as insulating us from the noise above, he could not summon the interest in the technical improvements we have to make to get the company working more efficiently. He's a great leader from the standpoint of process improvement and leaving people to do their jobs without hovering (how we do what we do), but he's short on ideas and innovation with regard to what we're doing.

When he was faced with having to innovate in a technical manner (instead of a process manner), he knew he wasn't up for it and tapped me to fill his shoes. While I'm delighted at the prospect of being able to advance us from a technological standpoint, I'm worried about how my rapid advancement will affect the relationships I have with the people I work with every day. Out of the four of us, three have been here for more than five years while I've been here for just one. Two out of the four are paid more than me, which I have no problem with.

Anyhow, I'm reading the posts on this topic with great interest. Not that I'd actually follow any recommendations, but more to get a broad perspective on these issues.

In the best of all worlds...

[rob_squared]

...managers would work their way up from the lowest possibile position to garner knowledge, wisdom, and understanding from other employees and return those favors. Unfortunately most companies hire managment from the outside. I had a manager from the same vague field as the one he was hired for in my company, and the man just tried to cookie-cutter his way though the position. In my mind, that fails quite often.

Sadly the grin-and-bear-it approach is the most common and the best way to maintain your position.

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fired, Mason. Clean out your desk immediately.

Signed,
Mason's boss

On the other hand...

[Bruce Perens]

I was self-employed for two years, and boy was my boss a turkey! :-)

Bruce

Re:On the other hand...

[Pope]

It could have been worse; his boss could have been sleeping with your boss right under your nose! :)

Re:On the other hand...

[PCM2]

Pfff, Bruce isn't even telling you the whole story. He had it easy. He was sleeping with the boss.

Re:On the other hand...

[Overzeetop]

Likewise, but I found the employees to be lazy, slashdot-reading, good for nothings.

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was self-employed for two years, and boy was my boss a turkey! :-)

Watch out Bruce - Eric Raymond has a gun and he loves to go hunting!

Re:On the other hand...

[hobbesx]

I was self employed for two years, and boy was my boss a turkey! :-)

You too? So, ah- when's the anniversary? ::slap::
Ow! Love you too, honey! Hey, wait! Put the bat down!
HEEELLLPPP MM
[NO CARRIER]

Re:On the other hand...

[oPless]

Mod parent and grandparent up.

It's soooooo true!

Re:On the other hand...

[FyRE666]

Tell me about it, when I worked for myself I got fired for sexual harrassment...

Re:On the other hand...

[RonGHolmes]

Good to see that someone as esteemed as yourself has a sense of humour. :)

Re:On the other hand...

[drsquare]

How is he esteemed?

Re:On the other hand...

[RonGHolmes]

He's fighting the patent fight for us.

Re:On the other hand...

[superpulpsicle]

When they give out raises he might have the advantage.

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

and his wife

Re:On the other hand...

[drsquare]

What fight? And what counts as 'us'? I've never heard of him.

Re:On the other hand...

[RonGHolmes]

Check out his website for a bio, but he is in my opinion, the more vocal opponent of software patents in the US. http://www.perens.com/ Big open source proponent. Regards Ron Holmes

Re:On the other hand...

[Paradise Pete]

I was self-employed for two years, and boy was my boss a turkey!

Maybe so, but I'll bet you got to be employee of the month a lot.

Ignorance

[WTBF]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes.

Re:Ignorance

[John Seminal]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes.

I disagree.

One of the best things very rich people do is delegate crap to subordinates.

Henry Ford said that he needs 100% of his brain to think about things that others can not. He assigned everything else to other people. He simply did not have the time to deal with the bullshit. Even if he took 1 hour a day to deal with crap that someone else can do, that is 1 hour less of innovative thought.

So what if the IT Manager has spyware on his computer and does not know how to get rid of it. And so what if the IT Manager can't use the internet wizard to connect to the internet? That is not his job. His job is to manage.

If I was him, I would fire my IT staff and find people that don't need to be hand held every step of the way.

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

I have worked with so many people in IT who are plain out stupid, except that they know something about computers. And they think that makes them smart in other things. That is not true. How about if tech staff took 4 years to get a buisness degree, then worked 2 or 3 years in a low level management position, then went back for 2 more years to get a MBA? And then after 8 or 9 years of preparing, they get the IT Manager position and have the burden of managing millions of dollars, and making choices that determine the growth of the company. Hopefully the IT Manager will be smart enough to find good IT staff and not have to worry about office politics or people who are "too good" to do work they consider beneath them.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. One could have hope and one could even participate in the process of growing that knowledge (called teaching - as noted in other comments). But the best jobs in IT I've had (and currently have) were working for managers that DIDN'T have high degrees of knowledge in the field. They WERE however great managers (also an option mentioned in other comments). I can't stress more how bad things were in times and places where the "boss" knew too much and had strong opinions, and didn't care whether anyone elses "idea" might be better. As we all know, the details can make a big difference and managers rarely look that deep. Better a manager that trusts your opinion.

Re:Ignorance

[interiot]

In most geeks experience, that 8 - 9 years of preparation for an MBA degree is somehow completely wasted. Yeah, technical workers have an almost completely different skillset than managers do, but one of the biggest problems with managers is big lack of experience in the field they're managing.

The attitude that someone can hop out of MBA school, hop into a chemical engineering company, and be fine, is crazy. The idea that they can hop out of that company and over to a software engineering company and have basically the exactly same job is equally crazy.

There's all sorts of managerial-level decisions that have to be made about quality, risk, deadlines, effort estimates, what mitigation procedures are effective and which aren't, how to make sure the people at the bottom actually know what the heck they're doing and aren't just a bunch of unexperienced unmotivated people just out of college. And these quality/risk/staffing balances can vary greatly from field to field, and important decisions like this do sometimes require field-specific knowledge.

If you don't know anything about the field you're managing, how are you going to make sure you have people under you who know what they're doing? Yes, it might be remotely possible with a ton of work, but most managers that I'm familiar with have done a very poor job at this.

Re:Ignorance

[slavemowgli]

There's a difference between a high-level executive (like Ford) and a boss who's directly in touch with the actual engineers, though.

What every boss needs to be able to do is oversee the work of those who report to him and determine whether they did a good job, where there's room for improvement and all that. If you're a manager who has other managers reporting to you, then you don't actually need to have computer skills (or whatever it is that your company does), true; but if you supervise people who directly work on the products, then sorry, but yes, you have to have some insight into what they're actually doing.

You may not need to know every little detail, like how to best apply this or that design pattern in your code, but if you're not even able to clean spyware of your windows pc (which really requires nothing more than running a program that does the job for you), then you're not suited for this kind of job - you should get promoted as soon as possible before you can do any harm. :)

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly written by a manager!! Probably one with no technical skills. :)

Re:Ignorance

[Taladar]

Your "has better things to do with his time"-theory is nice if you skipped reading:

Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches.

Wouldn't he find something better to do than sitting and watching if he thought he did not need the tech skills?

Re:Ignorance

[Cylix]

I've seen both sides of this road done well and done badly.

I've seen IT managers that came from the crew and knew how to get the job done as well as delegate authority and tasks.

I've also had very good managers that say quite frankly they don't know the material.

In either case, I've always had to prepare a list of recommendations, points, pros and cons and ultimately let someone make the decision. We go back and forth on a few points and then someone ultimately has to be the point man for that decision. A responsibility I've been offered and I don't know if I really want that.

That said, I have been in a posistion where management has done everything wrong. From outright theft of credit and self promoting ideas they don't even understand. Then when my back is turned I get the knife because I'm a potential threat to their career. I could go on, but deny bad management exists is plain silly.

Funny thing is, people are not blind and at some point things will hit critical mass. In the end, working with good management who can take care of their crew is a great experience.

I don't think a lot of these complaints would be so loud if people could find a way to respect their management. Maybe I'm wrong, but personal experience tells me I'm correct.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

A/C while at work...
How about if tech staff took 4 years to get a buisness degree, then worked 2 or 3 years in a low level management position, then went back for 2 more years to get a MBA? And then after 8 or 9 years of preparing, they get the IT Manager position and have the burden of managing millions of dollars, and making choices that determine the growth of the company

Anyone with that much education that didn't along the way pick up computer skills at a level as basic as described by the submitter has no business being an IT manager, period. That person clearly belongs in Human Resources.

All kidding aside, if someone has been preparing for 8 or 9 years to be an IT manager he should know something about IT ffs. Most officers who graduate from West Point (at least they used to) hold engineering degrees, not MBA'S and these are people whose main purpose is to boss other people around and delegate tasks. Ask a military officer if someone with no technical knowledge in the relevant field can be a leader in such an organization. He'll most likely tell you "yes, but not an effective one".

Re:Ignorance

[interiot]

You and everyone who's modding you up is an idiot.

If you don't have any technical knowledge, how do you make sure you hire the right people? If you don't have any technical knowledge, how do you promote the right people, ones who push the organization towards more technical skill and greater efficiency? (not efficiency in terms of doing X task in fewer number of minutes, but choosing the right task to begin with) If you don't do either of these, your company flounders at recent-grad skill level, while your competition increases their collective skill level and experience over time, and cranks out well-designed MP3 players and saves shipping costs and reduces inventory.

Arguing that managers should have no technical skill whatsoever, just because what they do is so different from low-level workers, is absolutely moronic (but is unfortunately all-too-prevalent in the workplace).

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a fucking moron.

everyone is eventually promoted to their level of incompetency. It's The Peter Principle. Read it and get a clue.

Re:Ignorance

[WAG24601G]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

Having done the 'dirty work' of being a school custodian for two summers, I can say a good manager might not know about garbage bag quality, but when I ask him/her to order (or allow me to order) better bags for reasons X, Y, Z they manage appropriately and everybody is a little happier for it. (This as opposed to shutting my mouth and tracking garbage all of the building by using torn bags)

Re:Ignorance

[srw]

To use an IT analogy:

It's kind of like the ISO 7 layer model. Each layer needs to be able to communicate with the layers immediately above and below itself and doesn't bother itself with the rest.

Does this really work in a management situation? I would think, as a manager, it would still be beneficial to at least have a big-picture idea of what's going on beneath one's self.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

And any janitor of merit knows that you always double-bag the fucking cans. Sheesh.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference it that the Janitor manager is not going to order 200 000 garbage and then say to the janitor that he bought im the best in the world and he should be able to clean up everything with them, even liquid spill. (And he's not going to listen to some mop lover zealot, they said in the power point that all the janitor needed was their garbage bags!!)

Re:Ignorance

[ravenswood1000]

And I disagree. All Managers should be able to stop and assist the Janitor in opening the garbage bag as they no longer have to worry about that lack of knowledge again.

Your concept of what an I.T. Manager you have worked for, and what a real I.T. Manager is has you confused.

Re:Ignorance

[mirqry]

I completely agree. It's important to distinguish between someone like a team leader and a manager.

In a larger organization this is very easy. The bottom level IT guy or programmer will have a team leader directly above him with direct knowledge of what his team works on. As the levels go up, less IT skills and more manager skills.

Unfortunary, in a smaller shop you will always hit the full blown manager with less hops up the tree.

Re:Ignorance

[Rakishi]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

What a shitty manager, I'd fire him for wasting time and money instead of spending a trivial amount of time to change his future order to a different type of bag. I mean, why the heck do you even have a manager if he doesn't do anything to deal with problems (that can be easily solved)?

I also would venture to say that the manager understands, at least in basics, what the janitor does, what garbage bags are used for, that bags can break, that broken bags cause extra problems, that stronger bags may solve this problem, and be able to inquire as to how such bags can be purchased. Now this manager may not know in advance that these bags break however once learning of the problem he is able to rectify it with little explanation.

I believe the IT analogy is a manager who has no idea that they use bags, doesn't know what such a bag could be used for, has no knowledge of what a bag breaking leads to, and lacks understanding of the concept of "stronger bags." Furthermore, the Janitor to have the problem rectified would need to explain all these concepts to the manager.

Re:Ignorance

[syousef]

If I was him, I would fire my IT staff and find people that don't need to be hand held every step of the way.

Mr Trump is that you? I thought so. Thank goodness I don't work for you anymore. Firing me is the best thing you ever did because you're an arrogant narrow minded sod that doesn't understand what your own businesses are about.

Re:Ignorance

[mirqry]

If you don't have any technical knowledge, how do you promote the right people, ones who push the organization towards more technical skill and greater efficiency?

Thats the point of them being a manager. They know who gets to work earliest in the morning. Who takes the most number of sick days. If we are talking about IT, who closes the most tickets for week ( good indication of efficency ). Who meets all the milstones they set to as to down certain tasks of a big project should be done.

This is the managers job, and doesnt require any technical knowledge.

Re:Ignorance

[defaria]

If the IT manager, which is a technical field, does not know hot basically run a computer then that says a lot about his intelligence or lack thereof. Would you employ a manager of say a auto mechanic who didn't know how to drive nor what an engine was? I think not.

I didn't read the article to say that the IT staff required hand holding rather the IT manager was grabbing everybody's hands. There's a difference there.

And yes I would expect a manager of the janitorial staff to know a thing or two about the tools of the trade and what his staff needs or doesn't need. Matching up the janitor with an office manager is apples to oranges.

And in general smart people, while they may be exceptionally smart in one area, show intelligence in most areas of their lives or at least are not the bumbling absent minded professor who is a brillant say, scientist but cannot dress himself. That is not the norm but the exception.

Face it, this guy's just a bad manager.

Re:Ignorance

[blackbear]

I think that much of the problem we face is that the type of people who really excell at IT, are the type of people who don't want to be managed. And management hasn't yet figured out that IT management represents something truly new that doesn't fit into anything they can easily understand.

All the while, truly brilliant and innovative managers have been pushed outside the norm by a maturing industry, that now has something to loose, and is averse to risk. While truly brilliant computer professionals are pushed aside as contributing to greater risk, and not conforming to corporate expectations.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very ignorant view. What if the guy handing 5 tickets a day is the one getting the hardest problems (because he may be the only one who can figure them out) and the one clearing 30 tickets is the one handling the stupid simple questions (because that is all he can handle)?

Don't think this happens in almost every support role out there? Better get a clue!

Most tickets is like every other metric to measure productivity, by itself it is worthless. It must be used in combination with other dissimilar metrics to get a real picture of who is the most skilled, valueable, or productive in a job role.

I have seen this in almost every place I have been. Customer support roles are the worst for this. I currently have contact with a vendor whose primary metric is speed of closing tickets and volume of tickets. Do you know what that does for quality? It sucks it straight down the sewer because they don't care if they give you the right answer for your problem, only an answer that is plausible for your problem. Then they move their ticket into a "resolution identified" state, now I have to prove that the information they gave was incomplete B.S. before they have to lift a finger.

A manager that is worth anything must have a general understanding of the roles each person under his/her management and a general idea of the project load of each of them. In many shops, you don't have a pool of 20 equals, you have a pool of 20 people who each specialize in different areas because it is not plausible to know everything about every aspect of what the department does. So you must be careful when you have 15 concurrent projects not to have one person with hands in all 15 at the same time while having most everyone else with only hands in 2 or 3 projects.

My $0.02 worth.
BC.

Re:Ignorance

[mcrbids]

So, what have you managed?

Oh, nothing of note? Oh, but since you are in on the secrets of Henry Ford, you are a millionaire, right?

Oh, you aren't? Come on, not even a million?

What business have you to say what constitutes good management? There are a number of management styles, and there is more than ONE right answer.

Henry Ford had his managerial style. Read "Rich dad, poor dad" for a more current analog. It's a method, and it works.

On the other hand, there are many circumstances where having a manager with "field experience" is critical. For example, the military. Would you be wanting to follow a corporal into battle who was incompetent at shooting a gun?

Neither would I.

It's like education, or marrital relationships. There isn't a boolean "right way" and "wrong"; there are many, many "right" answers. Each answer has its strengths and weaknesses.

A consultative managerial style works well for soft, light-duty tasks that don't have much resistance or complexity. A rigid, "I been there and done it and you better too before I kick your arse" works well when there's tremendous opposition but not much complexity. A more informed, educational style works when tasks are complicated, (such as IT) especially when tasks are mutually discussed, merits and weaknesses are discussed, and a "best answer" agreed upon.

And there are many other methods, to each their own. Anybody who says otherwise is giving you a line of crap, as you've done.

Re:Ignorance

[dbIII]

That is not his job. His job is to manage.

If his job is to manage IT a clue is required in that field. If it is to manage in any field a clue in that field is required.

While I am talking about clues and feilds, many centuries ago there were riots when a clueless barbarian overlord in part of England attempted a fair division of land - and split the land into even portions. Those farmers that were given nothing but swamp were unimpressed. In that situation the manager should have known something about farming or had someone who did know about it assist in the descision making process before consequences occured.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

Let me guess, you're an ex-Army sergeant? No matter how stupid your decisions and policies are, your subordinates must not have any influence in them because that would make you look weak. No, better to waste their time with inefficient crap to make them feel inferior.

Re:Ignorance

[smchris]

Exactly. This all comes out of the 80's MBA culture, doesn't it? "Managing" is "Managing" and "Managing" is its own specialization. You wouldn't expect an IT person to be an expert on "Managing" so don't expect an expert on "Managing" to be an IT expert.

Which sort of ignores a 1000-year tradition of master/apprentice guild culture in specializations.

Re:Ignorance

[TecKnow]

Okay, first, complaining about how long it takes to get an MBA is unfair. People in technical fields can work just as long and just as hard to obtain thier own degrees.

Your janitor analogy is incorrect. The problem with undereducated 'janitor' managers isn't that they don't know about heavy duty garbage bags, it's that they they demand the janitor wax the floors with a broom, or paint without moving furniture away from the walls. Managers don't need to know how to do the jobs of the people they manage, but they do need to understand enough to appreciate the consequences of their decision and respect the abilities of their employees. If it's my job to fix spyware over and over rather than install a program that'll do it automatically, fine, but my manager must accept that there's a time trade-off in that.

A manager also needs to know that someitmes, the anwser is no. I'd love for my boss to know that there's no way for two computers to communicate without a connection of some sort, be it cat 5, wireless, cellular or whatever. I *expect* to be beleived when I say this on the grounds of my qualifications. More often than not, though, that's not how it works and a 3 months struggle (or more) results to defend my 'position' that a requriement is technically unfiesable even when it flies in the face of common sense.

Re:Ignorance

[Jammish]

It is very important for managers to have at least some understanding of the field they manage over. Especially with IT. There is still a lot of ignorance out there about even some of the simple processes we take for granted.

Personally, I wouldn't want someone who knew little about technology going up against a management board to approve a budget for equipment, software, etc.

What about accountability?
If Tech A is a hard worker, gets many projects done during the, and cares about the job, and Tech B does nothing but read webcomics and maybe finishes a couple projects per week. I would want my manager to know the difference. I have seen situations where the manager was completely clueless to this kind of activity.

What about Policy? I have been in situations were the manager had no clue to anythinig in tech, and literally took the PHB Standpoint of "If I don't understand it, then it must not take very long" and the IT department was run ragged (and yes these were two different managers)

Mangers Don't need to know enough to do your job for you, but they have to know enough to be able to be able to defend your position in the face of other management.

in summery , they need to know what your talking about so they can tell others - they represent your department. they need to know what you do, and generally how long it takes to finish it for accountability, and they need to be able to pitch/defend purchases to a purchasing board.

Hope that helps

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be an IT Manager. We have a non-technical one. And he can't manage, knows nothing about procurement of systems or resources and his on-going bad decisions have come back to haunt us.

Re:Ignorance

[nog_lorp]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up. From the original post, a better analogy would be if the office manager held a meeting of all the janatorial workers, and asked them to design a "backup system", incase garbage cans failed. I don't know about you, but the manager should understand what a garbage can is...

Re:Ignorance

[BoogieChile]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

A good manager might not neccesarily have to have the same level of technical knowledge that a trained Garbologist would possess, but you'd better believe he should be intelligent enough to listen to his staff when they explain to him so clearly and succinctly why he shouldn't order a thousand rolls of cheap, flimsy garbage bags.

Generally, they're also supposed to be able to spell.

Re:Ignorance

[Hao Wu]

", how to make sure the people at the bottom actually know what the heck they're doing and aren't just a bunch of unexperienced unmotivated people just out of college."

The standard solution, unfortunately, is to force a false sense of professionalism on those people, through completely lame training, accreditation, certificates, "empowerment", and - of course - a dress code.

It is all bull---t, and those "unexperienced unmotivated people just out of college" KNOW it. They resent it deeply, in fact, it would be better to just raise their salary a little and ignore any grumbling that remains over their lowly, ill-esteemed positions. (Those with truly poor attitudes should also be fired, with no hesitation.)

Re:Ignorance

[Jadeus]

This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.

You're right, that will save the company tons of money on the janitor's salary and an excessive Crappy Plastic Bag budget. What a great influence on the business you are!

Anybody that thinks that doing things the wrong way 10 time because it's 5% cheaper each time is a moron and should neither be in a technical nor managerial position. The correct answer is to listen to the janitor, understand the problem, and allocate/get the budget for better bags. Then the business saves money, the manager is doing his job and the janitor isn't getting shit on by people like you.

could be worse

[SamSeaborn]

Perhaps he's a good team builder, well-organized, good at setting and maintaining the expectations of his superiors, good at insulating you from the day to day high-level business problems and decisions...

Hopefully your manager has other positive qualities that out-weight his technical deficiencies. It takes people with varying strengths to make a good team.

Sam

Become his boss

[cvodebasher]

By being more incompetent than he is, It's the american way... :D

Re:Become his boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean Bush is the most incompetant because he's the 'boss' of the states? :)

couldnt resist.

Re:Become his boss

[Anonymous Coward]

It's posts like this that make me think slashdot really needs a new filter, so that I can set it to only show posts where UID = 700000.

Quit.

[jerkychew]

Quit. Seriously.

I don't know your situation at all, but if the manager has any influence on the rest of management, and they even think that he has a modicum of knowledge, your work life will be hell. He (hopefully) realizes that he's not as skilled as his workers, and will try to steal their (your) thunder every chance he gets.

I worked for a manager that knew very little about tech, and any time I had a suggestion for an improvement, it somehow ended up becoming his suggestion by the time it made its way up the food chain. I was lucky enough to land a great job elsewhere and I got the hell out before it got too bad.

My new boss knew less than me technically, but he knew and freely admitted that he knew less, as his job was to be a manager, not a technician. All my successes were mine, and all he took credit for was doing a wonderful job in hiring the right people - which is how it should be, IMHO.

kill him

[Anonymous Coward]

He sounds like a Stiffie Stifferson!

Tradeoff

[trevordactyl]

Not saying it's always 100% factual, but more often than not, the perception is that people who are technically apt are not able to deal with people.

Someone who shows "too much" technical knowledge might not ever make it to a managerial position. More often than not if someone knows "too much" about what actually goes into something, they can't dissociate their own opinions about the methods used in order to see the picture and get the job done, IMO.

Re:Tradeoff

[miffo.swe]

The problem is that the manager need to make the right decisions. If he doesnt know the basics he's not even in a position to make educated guesses. Enter consultants....

There isnt anything as too much knowledge, its just that you need a person who has balance. Just as you dont want a PHB you dont want a geek who hates people. Many times the geek just comes out as not able to deal with people because he knows what he talks about while everyone in the world seems to have a "friend" who keeps feeding them with utter rubbish. Its like asking your neighbour about medical advice while you have a heart faliure.

Re:Tradeoff

[rocker_wannabe]

Being one of those people, I tend to think that your're right. A good engineer tends to ruthlessly work at making a system more efficient and optimal. This doesn't work well in business situations where the big-picture solution is usually sub-optimal for various non-technical reasons, like lack of money or time. The manger, who is technically clueless, either can't really see that it's suboptimal, doesn't feel like they have a choice or just doesn't care. The engineer, on the other hand, can see that it is suboptimal and usually does care.

I've never met an engineer that liked to work on a crappy product but the truth is quality is rarely a companies first priority so every engineer has to compromise. At some point you have to ask yourself: "Can I live with the compromise I'm asked to make?". If the answer is no then it's time to quit. There have been a couple jobs I quit because the answer was clearly no.

I want to be somebody important.....like an actor.
-Cypher

Re:Tradeoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, technically knowledgable people can't drop to the least common denominator and manage projects that are low quality compared to their own standards. There's no point in doing such a thing, unless it's purely for the monetary benefit. But the headaches of dealing with self-contradictory behavior isn't worth the extra money to a lot of technically inclined people, and the money may not be what they're after anyway.

That depends...

[$1uck]

You said family owned... is he/she in the family?

If not you can always go to his/her boss as a group and air your complaints.

If thats just not politically feasible look for another job or put up with it.

Lastly if you're feeling ballsy tell him/her how you feel. If you do it en masse maybe he/she will resign or take steps to improve the situation.

Depends...

[Anonymous Coward]

It really depends on what it is you expect an IT manager to do for you.

(For what it's worth, I *am* an IT manager)

If he's there to provide logistical support - giving you the tools to get your job done, he doesn't need to understand technology. You may need to find your mentor in other team members, and recognize the fact that this manager may just be there to push paper and deal with the "suits".

Now, that said, if his role is more active - including selling technical ideas to other teams and more senior management, you've got every right to be concerned. More than anything, I'd be concerned about how the senior management decided to put such a person into that role. It may suggest deeper problems with your organization than just this one pointy-hair.

Them who Can't do become IT Managers

[OneByteOff]

More often then not IT Managers are not the most brilliant technical people, in fact many lack any skill at all when it comes to technical things. Usually they excel at decision making, budgeting, personel management, etc. etc. They hire sys admins to do the tech stuff and IT Managers to make decisions... Manager Technical

Re:Them who Can't do become IT Managers

[Taladar]

And here I thought decision making had something to do with knowledge and facts...

The Dilbert Principle vs the Peter Principle

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You've got a Dilbert Principle Boss. Take away his computer, give him an etch-a-sketch, and tell him to shake it to reboot.

In the meantime, do some resarch and turn in your resume at a company that believes in the Peter Principle- at least your boss will have done your job at some point in his career, even if he's incompetant to be in his current position.

Re:The Dilbert Principle vs the Peter Principle

[errxn]

Oddly enough, I once had an idiot for an IT manager whose name was...wait for it...Peter.

Re:The Dilbert Principle vs the Peter Principle

[Marxist Hacker 42]

For those who don't know the stories: the original Peter Principle manager was St. Peter- promoted to Pope by Jesus from fisherman, to a position far in excess of what he thought his aiblities were- and far in excess of what his abilities actually were. Ever since- the Peter Principle is that people get promoted until they are one step past their competancy level- thus, anybody who has been in a Peter Principle company long enough is indeed incompetant in their current job.

In the 1980s, the Dilbert cartoonist noticed something that he eventually named the Dilbert Principle- people got hired directly to high level jobs without climbing the promotion ladder, on basis of such fake credentials as how well they combed their hair, or MBA degrees. Most of these people were, like the Peter Principle managers, incompetant- but they rose to NEW levels of incompetance because they really had no idea what anybody below them actually did.

So tell me, was Peter the IT manager a Dilbert Principle or a Peter Principle hire?

His Boss

[MBCook]

If the situation is as described and he is incompetent for his job (that's what the description sounds like, but it's a guess. Obviously a guy who maintians the mainframes doesn't need to know windows inside and out). If that really is a problem (slowing the department down/holding it back) then it may be time to talk to his boss about that to see what could be done (training, or replacement). Obviously having the other employees believing the same thing will help your case as it is much less likely to be precieved as "I don't like my boss, get me a new one." Other people who are his peers (directly under his boss) that could vouch for that would help too.

But, when you go do this if you do, make sure to be nice and positive about it all. Not "Bob is an idiot" but "I'm concerned that Bob may not have the needed skills for this job." That will go a long way.

Re:His Boss

[Grail]

Remember that in a family owned company, IT Manager Bob is most likely in his position because he is family or a family friend.

The position to take when approaching the bigger boss is not, "Bob is incompetent" but, "we (the IT staff) aren't sure exactly what Bob's role is, and we're confused - can you help us understand what you expect Bob to be doing, so we can align our expectations with yours". This is probably the kind of thing that's best raised over a cup of coffee in the tea room, rather than by sending a deputation to the Boss' office.

You might find that the big boss doesn't know what the IT department is supposed to be doing. He might need to think about what he's expecting from the IT department - you never know, perhaps the reason Bob seems so incompetent to you is because he doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing either.

It may turn out that the OP and his friends are crew on a ship that doesn't know where it's going. Bad mojo!

Tell em

[UncleScrooge]

I got a boss just like that. He knows alot about selling stuff but squat about technology. Me and 2 co-workers called him in for a meeting and explained it to him. He didn't get mad and he actually signed up for some courses to get his knowledge up.

Stop whining

[GetPFunky]

and get back to holding your bosses hand. You should really stop your crummy bellyaching and be thankful you have a great job.

We're completely lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Your Coworkers

Re:We're completely lost.

[nb caffeine]

indeed :P

Send Link to this article.

[omniplex]

After enough comments, start printing out the main question and leave it on printers, or email everyone, including the IT manager about how this is a great discussion.

Re:Send Link to this article.

[TubeSteak]

Don't forget to browse at -1. Otherwise you might overlook some real gems!

Which is worse?

[RabidMonkey]

I have a manager thats HIGHLY technical, but his management skills suck. He's a YES man to every other department because he doesn't have any balls. He won't back us up and if you go into a meeting with him, you know you're in trouble. He doesn't do evaluations and unless you're asking him a technical question, won't make a decisive answer.

I think I'd rather have your boss ... you don't necessarily need to be highly technical to be a good manager, but if you're a shitty manager you're stuck. Technical skills can be learned, but good people skills are hard to come by.

I dunno ... I guess it's a toss up. My bosses boss is a great manager, but HIGHLY untechnical. Has a hard time shutting down her computer. It's annoying, sure, having to explain things twice, but at least we can trust her to manage stuff and cover our backs and get stuff done.

Re:Which is worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a hard time shutting down her computer.

Found your problem, sir! This manager thingy is missing a Y-chromosome doodad. But I'll try to inject one. Zip...

Re:Which is worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

YES man to every other department because he doesn't have any balls.
He won't back us up
if you go into a meeting with him, you know you're in trouble.
He doesn't do evaluations
unless you're asking him a technical question, won't make a decisive answer.
Uses 8 year old technology in a small enterprise environment because he thinks its retro and hence startrek cool.
Wont let the business have an idea unless it originated from his brain.

Doesnt know that when I was taking my mom out yesterday for lunch I was going to my 5th 3rd round interview this week.

Doh.

Id rather have the non-technical manager.

Re:Which is worse?

[slushpump]

I agree with my Junior Colleague, Mr. RabidMonkey. A boss who has technical chops but no balls is useless.

As an old fart in the business, I've had a number of Managers who were "Senior Technicians with a promotion" who had no skills in Managing (or motivating) a Team. On the other hand, I've had Managers with only a moderate technical background.

I'd *much* rather work for the second kind, as they had people, listening, and management skills and were successful because of those "soft skills". They cared about achieving "results through others", they motivated and cared for a high-quality team. They delegated technical analyses to those who were capable and acted on recommendations. Yes, they knew enough to ask probing questions and ensure we'd done our homework... but then when *our* recommendations were accepted and implemented we had not only pride of ownership, but some real skin in the game...so very much did things right the first time. That's a job where you wake up in the morning and say "Great! I get to go to work!"

On the other (sigh!) hand, when working for a Senior Techie who is much more comfortable with technical topics than human topics, those decisions are made for us, without our input, and often without benefit of our (more detailed and current) analysis. Knee-jerk decisions made further up the food chain go unchallenged. And we end up doing dumba** things for duma** reasons and end up picking up the pieces (or feces) when it goes badly. Team morale and motivation is nonexistent. Training (except for the boss) is a luxury, career development is do-it-yourself, and coaching is unheard of. That's the job where you end up propping up a whole (leaderless) department from the bottom up... mornings are more like "Crap. I've gotta go to work, I guess."

Bring on a less-technical Boss who wants to lead a team... and count me IN. He'll need to accept that he needs to listen to us, learn from us, and lean on us. My side of the bargain is to never let him take a piece of crap up the chain of command and make him look like an idiot. Where do I sign up?

Be Thankful

[NitsujTPU]

You should be thankful.

This guy may not be as technically skilled as you guys are, but it doesn't sound at all like he is meddling either. You may not be gifted with a wonderful experience, but if the guy isn't actually damaging things, I'd leave well enough alone. You may not be as lucky with the next guy.

Think about it, a bunch of management types, who will invariably hire another management type. Do you really want that to be a management type who is also convinced that his role indicates a level of proficiency that he doesn't have?

I feel like that is what you will get next if you push that issue.

Re:Be Thankful

[ave19]

Thanks, I've recovered a memory I thought I had repressed.

We had a boss that was just as you described. We, the peons, created a "Two Person Integrity" rule, because if any of us were with this guy when he destroyed something, he'd blame us, and there'd be no witnesses to back our side of the story.

If our boss' boss was less understanding, we'd have had people fired. It was a scary situation.

He once said: "I can unplug this token ring and plug it back in again before the systems notice." Then did so, and all hell broke loose. Then he said promptly "My, look at the time, I have to pick my kids up from school." And walked out. I'm not kidding.

-ave

Re:Be Thankful

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this. According to Scott Adams, there are four categories of bosses - they can either be clueless or well-versed on one scale, and evil or innocuous on the other scale.

We already know that your boss is clueless, so what you should do depends on whether he's evil or not now. If he is, you'd probably be better of quitting, since he'll make your (work) life a living hell; but considering that you seem to have gotten along with him yet, I think that's unlikely, so he's probably the clueless but friendly variety.

Just continue to do your thing, and don't do anything that would make him angry at you. The last thing you want is an evil clueless boss - they're even worse than evil bosses that *have* a clue.

Re:Be Thankful

[NitsujTPU]

Well, I'm blessed to be in a very good situation right now, but it wasn't always like that.

The key is to realize that you drive your own fate. You take responsibility for your life and decide that if things are not as you would have them be, that you will change them for the better.

It's at that point that you have control over your career and your destiny. It may sound like a lame motivational speech, but, honestly, many people never make the connection. They would rather blame their company for being poorly formed (perhaps it is) than themselves for being willing to stay in a lousy job.

Re:Be Thankful

[Shivetya]

Amen.

We are saddled with just that type of manager. He believes his position grants him not only the authority but the knowledge to make the proper decisions. The analogy we use at work is, "sandbox". Its his sandbox and he makes the rules. You either kiss-up or you don't move up.

It is truly frightening how much damage his type and his sycophants can do. We are 5 years into an 18 month project and still have only managed to install at 8% of our sites!

We now have a multitude of ways to track what we do, from two methods of time tracking, to requirements to submit goals and accomplishments weekly, to maintaining a timeline! Top it off we have a database of projects that are ranked on a priority/importance scale (1-3 importance, 1-10 priority). It is a running joke that anything 2 or below will never ever be worked on. We have so many 1-1s they had to add a button to indicate "really really important" items.

I would take an undereducated but knows it boss anyday over this. We used to have a manager to keep him in check but he has been out for the past 3 months on medical issues. When that manager goes on disability I will be leaving along with a few others.

We have a catch phrase at work borrowed from Aliens "We are on the express elevator to hell! Going down". Sometimes I think the corporate motto is "We make money inspite of ourselves"

Re:Be Thankful

[civad]

I think I *am* thankful that I work for a company where people do not know much about IT.
I work for a civil engineering design firm, a small shop w/ 10 desktops and a couple of laptops. The *official* network admin is a person who logs on remotely. I am the unofficial on-site network guy (and honorary). The following few instances intially frustrated me, then amused me, and then finally helped me decide that I had had enough and I gave up my unofficial IT duties:
a. People would use MS Outlook and download their emails from the server. With a pop server and "leave messages on server" unchecked, you can imagine what might have happened when we had to format a couple of machines.
b. We use AutoCAD (v. 2005/2006) wherein the recommended (or minimum? I forget) system requirements are 1 GB of RAM. Of course, we had 2 CAD operators with 512 MB machines. AutoCAD would crash left and right, and I had to go and help them recover files.
c. Windows updates are a joke in our office, and despite repeated reminders, people simply do not upgrade. (I uderstand this is the rule and not the eexception).
d. The Windows 2003 Server (Dell Small business server) often has the Admin logged on, the monitor on, all in a very visible and high-traffic (human) place.
e. Tape backups were a joke till they learnt the hard way how important monthly backups are. On Aug. 3rd, a client needed a file that was *deleted* the day before. Of course, we did daily backups, but we didn't have enough spare tapes.
f. All users initially had the same password for their email accounts.
g. I still have to e-mail the network admin about patches, etc. for AutoCAD and other design programs we use.
I think I would like to go on, but you get the picture. Oh By the way: the hard disk on a guy's laptop crashed last week, he hadn't backed up his data, and now I have to help him 'set up' his computer tomorrow morning. Sigh!

Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[new death barbie]

Perhaps if you spend more time whining on /. everything will work out for the better.

This is Slashdot. We're ALL smarter than our bosses. You don't catch us whining about it. Much.

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear!

Too many dumb people in the wrong fields.

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulation, Mr. AC. If I had mod points you would get "Informative" - this is the ONLY time I have seen someone actually type "hear hear" instead of "here here" (on Slashdot). I hope that others will read your post and have one of those "ohhhhh..." moments.

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe not mine :) I work at DynDNS.org and the two people above me in my dept are frickin' smart. And since the CEO of the company is like 24-25 and runs a multi-million dollar company, he's smarter than I.

But this is the exception, I think. More companies need to promote from the inside. Then you know exactly what you're getting.

--
http://stoopidme.org/
Bringing the world together through our common bond: our stupidity

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[PKtm]

It's a stupid boss indeed, in technology, who doesn't realize that the people working for him are "smarter" than he is, on core technology. But most projects don't fail because of core technology, they fail because of BAD management. Don't just judge a manager on nuts-and-bolts technical chops. This is a classic techie error, frankly.

I've come in to interview for jobs, as an VP-level executive, and been asked really inappropriate (i.e., overly techical) questions by techies. Organizations where that happens tend to be the organizations who most need management help, frankly.

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[whatthef*ck]

Congratulation, Mr. AC. If I had mod points you would get "Informative" - this is the ONLY time I have seen someone actually type "hear hear" instead of "here here" (on Slashdot). I hope that others will read your post and have one of those "ohhhhh..." moments.

An astute observation, but it has in fact happened before.

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is Slashdot. We're ALL smarter than our bosses. You don't catch us whining about it. Much" what if you are a boss?

Re:Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops! Your quantas are entangled. There, that's better!.

It's, "Your quanta are entangled." "Quanta" is the plural, so you don't stick an S on the end to make it -- what, twice as plural? The singular is "quantum".

Pinhead.

Of course not.

[Sayten241]

In no way is it ridiculous to expect an IT manager to have a basic understanding of how technology works. I mean, how are they supposed to make good decisions otherwise? I might suggest seeing if he/she would be interested in going to some training courses. You could even go along with, or better yet, get your whole team to go if possible, it could even be fun. I think that's probably the best way to go about improving the situation.

Re:Of course not.

[geekoid]

". I mean, how are they supposed to make good decisions otherwise?"

you lack the basic understanding of what managment does.

Re:Of course not.

[Anonymous Coed]

You're right. IT Management should be totally ignorant of the details of how IT works. Naturally.

BOFH solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Accept that hose who manage you do not know as much about what you do as you do. Give him stuff so he can look busy and productive. Feed him data to steer him the direction you want IT to go in. Let him claim the insight so he can get brownie points. The trick is to keep him out of the way of productive work, and give him something to keep himself busy and looking good to his boss. If that fails get some tips here on "solving" the situation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/

Certification

[PhYrE2k2]

Buy him a certification program for his birthday or christmas or something... A-plus may be a good one, otherwise M$ offers a series of them... sign him up TO LEARN.

It's not direct, but if you've put together some company money to send him to a 3-day course, he's bound to pick up something.

-M

Is he a good manager.

[saintlupus]

What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?

Is he a good manager?

Does he handle budgets well? Planning? Meetings? Does he keep the rest of the company off of your back?

The reason I ask is that I've found there is a pretty inverted relationship between technical expertise and managerial prowess. The worst boss I ever had was a field tech for DEC who specialized in component-by-component hardware repair. He was a technical wizard, but a lousy manager.

It's certainly possible that this guy is just the opposite.

--saint

Hate to sound cynical...

[tekiegreg]

But in my experience there are only 2 ways to deal with incompetence in management:

1) Take it up the arse (especially if he has any other redeeming quality)
2) Find a new manager yourself, fire up the ol' resume and start looking again

Doesn't necessarily matter.

[Jaywalk]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

I've worked with a few folks who were pretty clueless with technology, but were surprisingly good managers. They typically set things up so that they focused on matters they knew (like scheduling and procedures) and let us get on with what we knew (estimating, analyzing and coding). I'd be less worried about the fact that your boss doesn't know your job and more worried that he doesn't seem to know his.

A good manager needs to know whether to push, pull or get out of the way.

Manager != technical skills.

[h2oliu]

The problem doesn't seem to be his technical skills, but his management/time management skills. If you are fixing something, and he sits around watching, then that is a waste of his time. The fact that he doesn't know how to do something isn't the problem, the problem is that he doesn't recognize it, and instead of letting those who know just do it, he tries to, or has someone do it and watches them (a waste of his time).

A good manager should be able to let those with the best skills for the job get those jobs done.

If his technical ability is so low, that he can't understand the projects, and thus can't manage those, then there is a real issue.

Once you get a "manager" title, your technical skill immediately start degrading to some level, but theoretically your management skills should improve.

thats just normal

[bart416]

Thats sounds similar to what i have on school. Or IT managers are so stuborn. They think microsoft is the only company that makes operating systems. And then they start to explain us how to use simple things like ms word. Its realy 'usefull' to learn somebody that is programming to work with ms word. Get over it, IT managers are in most cases the bigest pc noobs.

Re:thats just normal

[c64k]

I bet they can spell, and use proper grammar. And funnily enough, I've seen many an IT admin type get stuck trying something like a mail merge in Word.

People who think they are too good to learn something new are bad for their employers. They sure as hell aren't 'usefull.'

The easy solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a really easy solution, though it's not exactly the best one.

Still, despite the negative consequences it remains the best option I've discovered.

Perhaps you've heard of this little thing called murder?

Your manager is trying to teach you

[Catamaran]

Your manager is trying to teach you, but you are not being recepetive. What he is trying to tell you is, "If you play your cards right, you can get paid for doing nothing."

Find a new job

[raider_red]

If you don't respect your boss, then it's time to find a new one. Get your resume together, and start looking for the next job.

That's the last straw... just...

[DNAspark99]

Burn the building down! [/milton] ...Yea...I'm gonna have to go and ask you to come in on .... Sunday, as well...Thanks!...

You are not alone, not by a long shot

[winkydink]

I've been invloved with SAGE, the
professional organization for sysadmins, since it was created in 1992
and have been a PHB for a while longer. Year after year, one of the top
three complaints that sysadmins have about their boss is that the boss
doesn't understand what they do. (Bear in mind that having a boss that
does understand what you do is a two-edged sword :) ).

If having a clueless boss bugs you that much, I'm afraid that your only
professional alternative is to find a new job. You can try "shooting"
your boss by going to the top, explaining the situation and trying to get
him replaced, but if you fail, you're likely to get shot yourself.

Good luck.

He's a manager, not a tech

[c64k]

Can he manage you as a team is the question. I've had technically knowledgable managers who couldn't manage for shit, and technically inept managers who kept the IT department running smoothly.

If he can't manage there's a problem. And from your description, it sounds like he's not doing anything.

But a good manager helps with tasking things, interfaces with the company's management (so you don't have to), helps you get your job done, and keeps out of your way so you can do it. It's a bonus if they're technically savvy.

It can work out.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot more to managing IT than knowing IT. One of my bosses didn't know the left button from the right button on a mouse (yes we did eventually buy her a Mac), but she how to sell. She knew the clients, she approached each project from the client's perspective, then called the IT people to help figure out what we could do. It worked out well -- until she decided she'd learned enough to start telling us how to do our jobs. But that's another story.

You don't need to know a lot about IT to be an IT manager. You just need to focus on something you do know, and know when to call for backup.

Family Business?

[PhYrE2k2]

He said it was a family business... I don't think that'll go over well.

-M

Various Suggested Strategies

[Anonymous Coward]

This link will provide you with an archive of winning strategies.

Possibilities

[zephc]

A difficult time mastering what other people can do easily? Have you considered the possibility that he's a chimp?

Re:Possibilities

[cp.tar]

I think he'd have noticed if he was working in the White House.

Lame, but couldn't resist... /duck

Hit The Highway...

[__aaclcg7560]

If I was working for a complete moron, and trying to work around the moron is impossible, I would find a different job.

I was working for one moron who told me to do it his way (which wasn't different than anyone else's way) or hit the highway. He was somewhat surprised that I choose the highway and turned in my resignation to HR instead of him. I was too tempted sing Johnny Paycheck's "Take This Job And Shove It". Last I heard, he resigned after too many senior people left (I was number three out of eight).

Re:Hit The Highway...

[geekoid]

IF you can not out think your moron boss, I'm guessing he's not the moron.

Re:Hit The Highway...

[__aaclcg7560]

Unless you happen to be Dilbert, there are some situations where it's better to walk away with your marbles instead of losing your marbles trying to "out think" a moron. :P

Deal with it or quit

[Suicyco]

Seriously. He is your manager, somebody hired him. Do you want both your manager and the person who hired him to be pissed off because you are stomping around trying to embarass them?

A manager doesn't necessarily have to know more then you, on the contrary. Think of it like a manager of a rock band. He is not the talent. He directs the talent and gets things done. He doesn't have to be highly talented at music (or IT work). He DOES have to know how to best utilize that talent to get things done. I have never had a more talented manager then myself. I have also managed others who knew far more than I did on certain things. However, coordinating things, prioritizing them, knowing all the ins and outs of having various folks on many disparate tasks, etc. etc. is what managing a team is about. NOT knowing all the piddling details of a persons job.

Re:Deal with it or quit

[Qzukk]

He is your manager, somebody hired him.

Well, this is a family owned business, so he may not have been hired, he may have just married into the business.

Personally, I'd ask if there were any other available daughters ;)

Oh no!

[derEikopf]

Does your IT manager read Slashdot? :o

Update your Disaster Recovery plan (aka resume)

[Sonicboom]

If you're that unhappy - then update your resume/DR plan - and send it out to friends and start haunting dice/monster/craigslist/unixjobs/whatever until you find something better.

I guess I'm lucky - because my managers are tech saavy and do their jobs quite well.

Depends on his actual reponsibilites

[ender_pete]

I've worked for technically competent and non-competent managers..

I prefer the non-competent just for the simple fact that they can't tell you how to do your job and they usually know it. Even if they don't know it you would just ignore them and do it right.

Unless he is actually supposed to make technical decisions.... then you are just screwed and you need to talk to him. Just be tactful or the workplace could get a little unfriendly

Here's My Advice...Stop Bitching.

[jpiggot]

Jesus, you make it seem like you're in some kind of P.O.W. camp...

"It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue ?"

Here's some advice, and I don't care if you mod me down. Quit your bitching and get back to work, or talk to his supervisor (if he has one) or get another job. This air of entitlement that seems to be the norm in this country these days makes me ill. "Well, I'm smarter than the boss, so I should be in charge." Since when was life ever fair ? Christ, the whole point of being a manager is to hire people who know more about certain things than you do, and to delegate tasks. Can you blame him for wanting to learn ?

I work in Hollywood, and for the last few years we've actually watched higher-ups switch to computers FOR THE FIRST TIME. You want to know what training those people is like ?

Not every boss you work for is going to know more than you know. Your job is to do the best you can. I know plenty of people who aren't being used to their full potential. If it's making you so miserable, quit and give your job to the hoards of other eager young IT professionals that would love to have it. But enough with the cries for sympathy.

Now drop and give me fifty, soldier !!

You're not going to like the answer...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

Some of your options:

- Some people might tell you to "grow the fuck up and deal with it." Well, this is certainly something to consider. You will encounter people like your current boss everywhere. It takes a certain amount of maturity to appreciate that these kinds of people are almost universal. But it also takes an incredible amount of patience to deal with them. And if they're paying you the right kind of money, you might consider putting up with it. But that's a decision only you can make.

- Yet some other people might say, "Rat that guy out, destroy his job, get him fired." Assuming he's not a major shareholder or owner of the company, you can collect enough evidence of his incompetency to blow him out of the water completely, getting rid of him for good. And his replacement might be even worse! But would you be OK with that? Again, that's a decision only you can make.

- The next option is to just find another job. Start looking, find one, then bail. Quitting is tough -- you have to have enough money, and it can really throw a monkey wrench into your life. This is probably a decision only you can make.

- I guess the last thing I can think of is "Become a manager yourself!" I tend to favor this option. I'll bet you this assclown is making more money than you are. Ever wonder why? YOU need to be doing what he's doing. Then you can do it right. Work your way up, take classes to collect whatever lame-ass credentials are necessary, then step in and take over. Some people aren't into management. I guess it's a decision only you can make.

I guess it's a decision only you can make!

Re:You're not going to like the answer...

[geekoid]

1) If he is a good manager, then this is good advice.

2)Certian ethical issues and risk with this one. You might get caught..or ratted out.

3) How do you know your new job will be better?

4) If the poster s idea of a good manager is one who handles all the technical work, he will fail at management...because its management, not doityourselfment.

Re:You're not going to like the answer...

[An Onerous Coward]

5) Talk to the guy, explain in a constructive way how you think his managing could be improved, ask him why he does the things he does, and try to understand that it will be difficult to change.

Maybe I'm being wildly naive to think that a friendly chat with your boss is anywhere near as fun or satisfying as setting him up for failure. But it seems to me that when everyone is swearing that your options are "abandon ship," "destroy him," "cover your ears and pretend the problem will go away by itself," and "spend five years earning a business degree so you can have his job," then people are suffering from an odd sort of tunnel vision.

Welcome to the real world

[Anonymous Coward]

Often times we find ourselves in positions below personel who are under-qualified for their jobs. This is nothing new, and will not change. Seems like a rant which belongs on livejournal or myspace, rather than slashdot.

In my experience,

[Limburgher]

it's best to have a knowledgable manager. Failing that, it's best to have one who knows his/her limitations. I have a manager currently, for example, who, while largely ignorant of the nuts and bolts, is willing to learn and has no illusions about his own knowledge. If he doesn't know something, he doesn't just spout off some crap trying to make himself sound impressive, (like my old supervisor), he either does the research and comes up with a correct answer or informed opinion, or refers the question to someone who knows. He also tries to make an effort to educate himself about issues he needs to know about, such as email, spyware, virii, etc. He's no sysadmin, but he's not actively a problem, either, which is worth a lot.

It's not about how much good a boss does

[TheophileEscargot]

It's a question of how much damage he does.

From those complaints, it sounds like he's not doing too much harm: you don't mention him forcing you to adopt unsuitable technologies, or embedding you in a quagmire of bureaucracy.

Also it sounds like at least he's willing to listen to you when he doesn't know how to do things. A typical bad IT boss won't admit his ignorance, and forces everyone to use the obsolete technology that he still understands.

Sounds to me like you're relatively well off with him.

Good managers don't have to be technical.

[Skuggamara]

Just to start out with, I am a technical IT manager, and I'm quite knowledgeable about everything that my department works on.

Now, that being said, to do my job, you don't have to be a technical whiz. It certainly helps, but isn't a requirement.

Many good managers of technical departments are not technical themselves. They work on budgets, planning, and leave the technical decision making up to their underlings. If, as a manager, they employ qualified, knowledgable employees, he can rely on their skills for the technical stuff, and he can use his managerial skills to keep the department happy, funded and well-respected.

The technical guys can do what they are good at, and the manager can do what he is good at.

Now, if your manager is non-technical, as well as a being poor at budgeting, politics and management, I agree with the department sitting down with the company president as a group and explain the situation.

Other Responsibilities Might Be Worth It

[tarsi210]

It depends on what else he does that might make your job easier.

I have a similar situation -- 4 programmers and 1 manager who can program somewhat, and so helps us on many projects. Overall, though, quite incompetant when it comes to tech. Takes 3 times as long to do something as any of us.

However, he does something for us that is incredibly helpful -- he acts as the go-between and scapegoat for our department to the rest of the company. Bigwigs need talking to? Manager does it. End user getting narky? Manager deals with it. Programmers pissed about way things are going, but talking to the CEO directly would cause murder? Manager provides helpful ear and/or translation services.

Sometimes having the extra step in there is very frustrating, especially when something is *clearly screwed* and marketers need to be thumped, it sure seems like it'd be easier if I did it myself. But that buffer is mighty handy when shit starts flying and people are ducking -- I don't have to listen to the screaming of a customer directly nor the whining of sales or the ignorant questions of the CEO. That, to me, is invaluable.

So...before you get too frustrated at his incompetance, see if he's doing anything for you that you're damned glad you don't have to.

Getting better

[Sliptwixt]

We all remember this problem appearing in the late 90's. A lot of "IT Manager" positions were created, and it seemed you only had to qualify yourself as a manager to be a candidate. Now, 8-ish years later, a lot of us who paid our dues as IT staff are finally taking positions of power in the organization.

I think it's reasonable to expect your leaders to understand what they are leading. I also believe that it's been getting better as years have passed. My immediate Senior Manager used to do VB programming, and while she was probably never a hard core developer, she can differentiate from realistic and unrealistic expectations. (a problem that seems to plague most management)

Job Security

[ender_pete]

Think of the situation as job security.

Empowerment

[fbrathwaite]

Empower him to do his job better by making your expertise readily available when requested.

What about the "educated" bosses?

[Chagatai]

Since my boss stepped up into a managerial role he has sworn off the vestiges of his former technological self. And boy, he wasn't kidding. The other day we got a request to make a new process for connecting to a server. The IP address given was a private class C address, something that couldn't be accessed from our side. I wrote back in an e-mail that we needed the real IP address. His response? "Try it anyway and send the output back to the customer."

And some people wondered why I gave my two week's notice...

Does he know e-mail?

[SilentReallySilentUs]

In that case send him a mail from his boss's id saying "he should immediately clean up his desk and leave"

Keep 'em ignorant

[dsands1]

I've only been working IT for 5 years, have zero college education, and have increased my annual salary by $70K over the last 3.5 years... all because my boss doesn't know or understand what the hell I do. =)

Managers can be different kinds of leaders

[Lord Grey]

A person's direct manager can really "manage" a couple of different ways. On one hand, and what you seem to be seeking, is a manager that can actually sit-in for any of the employees. They have the skill set to do the same work. They may (or may not) be better than their employees in that skill set.

On the other hand, other managers manage the politics. They represent their group in high-level meetings, translate technobabble into marketspeak, etc.. They also shield their group from the political maneuverings.

Most managers are a blend of both -- and IMO that's the way it should be. Occasionally, however, you run into a manager that leans too far in one direction. They are a pure political animal with (for example) no technical skills, or they're an uber-engineer that pisses off senior management regularly simply due to their social skills.

If you find yourself with one of these people then probably the best thing to do is find a different person to take the "other half." In your case, find a tech person you can respect and make them a "project manager" and let your current manager become a "people manager." They would have to work together, obviously, to effectively manage a group, and that sometimes poses its own challenges. But if it works, it really works. You get the best of both worlds.

Last but not least, if any manager is a complete asshat then they should be reorg'd onto their own sheet of paper and put in charge of "special projects." They can do little damage at that point.

I have the perfect solution!

[erroneus]

Jack around with the admin account and put monitoring software on the boss's computer and do all sorts of things. Not that *I* think it justifies this behavior, but clearly This Guy thinks it does.

But seriously, there is likely to be a multitude of reasons (none of which you would likely appreciate or respect) for the state of affairs you find so distasteful. But I think it's important to get a firm grip on how things are rather than focusing on how they should be. Understanding how things are will give you a better place from which to see where your variables lie and what your options might be.

I suspect there's quite little you can do to win in this situation. He's probably in his position because someone "up the chain" thought he was worth having. So you can't insult him in any way without also insulting the person or people who put him there. Anything you do to make him look bad will likely slide back on you in some way. Anything you do to "out-shine" the boss as a means of contrasting against him will likely only bring praise to your boss for somehow motivating you to shine so brightly.

So I see two options in this common situation -- 1) seek other opportunities or 2) wait patiently for some forunate happenstance to change things for the better.

Oh yeah... and ry to grow up a little more. In this world it's rarely about quality so much as it is about marketing. If you give the impression of "value to the company" your value will likely be recognized at some point. (The caveat is when you're working for a company that has truly brain-dead management in which case... hey! I hear Google is always looking for sharp people!)

What kind of manager is he?

[faloi]

I've seen people managers and technical managers. If he's good as a people manager, let him slide on the technical side. Unless he's trying to impose his lack of knowledge on you. Be happy that he's asking questions and at least trying to learn. If he's supposed to be a technical manager (i.e. supposed to be a mentor to you and your team) then maybe it's a problem.

Otherwise, just let it go.

Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

My rather verbose boss, head of IT, wanted us to come up with a contingency plan for ethernet. At first we looked at each other trying to figure out what he meant. Evidently, he wanted an alternative to ethernet that still provided networking just in case ethernet failed. We're not talking about a device failing or the network being down, we're talking about failure of the protocol itself. And he wanted us to find a way around that... Did I mention we were just a regular office of about 30 people with a sum total of 3 IT workers?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[composer777]

I think that's called sneakernet. When the ethernet goes down, just write a protocol that has employees write the data to floppy/cd/whatever and then transport the data on foot. :) That should work for a small company.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[crazyphilman]

Man, you've got no imagination!

You should have gotten the other IT guys in on your action, and told the boss "Sir, you're absolutely right! We'll need a company credit card and a paid day off to go to CompUSA, BestBuy, and Staples and research alternative solutions!"

Spend 7 hours drinking at the strip bar and one hour buying some wireless networking gear. Presto! Everybody's happy!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[jp10558]

This might be a slightly overly geeky response, but what about Tokin Ring??

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Tolkien Ring? You'd want to give that to a clueless IT director?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[ScrewMaster]

I guess maybe I'm not geeky enough, but I just don't see how a bunch of IT guys sitting in a circle smoking some mediocre Mexican weed would help in this case.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Taladar]

Reminds me of Packet-over-Sheep (RFC 3203) or IP over Avian Carriers (RFC 2549; meaning everything from the Concorde to a pigeon)...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[markana]

Oh, you mean Tolkien Ring? I'm afraid there was only one of those built (the prototype was lost in some industrial accident or something). Anyway, it was prone to failure in high-temperature environments.

Nazgul-Net was a much better solution...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[ta ma de]

Speaken zie "token-ring"

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[TRRosen]

30 people and 3 it workers!!!!!! SHUT UP, be quiet and never complain about anything you are living in the IT Utopia.

Seriously if you had a competent manager the first thing he would do is fire at least one of you and use the extra budget money to pad his salary. Most companies are pushing 70-100 users per tech.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh.. kinda like the "J2EE Architect" who didnt believe me when I told him that it was actually possible to get memory leaks in java. .. or like when that same "Architect" wanted us to write a "de-hashing algorithm" as a part of a single sign on solution.
They're everywhere - the only thing you can do is to make sure you're paid as much as possible when you have to work with them.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[jrockway]

> Everybody's happy!

No man, you've got this completely wrong. This is slashdot! We all know that if a slashdotter were given the day off, a credit card, and orders to go to a computer store and buy shit until the card is maxed out, that's what he would do! Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?

If so, you fail at being a computer nerd! :)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

No, the problem with that is wireless networking gear still uses ethernet.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vancorps]

I do, you'd stop caring because no such problem exists. Problem solved, wipe hands, rinse, repeat.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[1010011010]

I'm sure IBM has Wireless Token Ring working in some lab somwhere...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

Actually, taking care of our 30 person office were our secondary duties. Our primary duties were related to the business our office conducted. Even at 3 techies, we were still very understaffed.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Cromac]

Tell him you've found a great backup in the form of TCP/IP you can use and should actually add some money to next quarters budget so you can switch to it.

Re: Contingency for Ethernet

[ziegast]

Suggest PPTP as an alternative.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[hobbesx]

The office I support had a machine that lost it's processor fan and died earlier this year- it was so old (P166) that the motherboard had to be replaced because we couldn't find a processor to fit in it, which meant we had to spend about $250 for a newer mobo/processor combo.

About four or five days later, his own (secondary) computer started making a bit of fan noise, but just on boot up. He pointed the noise out to me, and I said a new fan would cost them about $6.00- I'd go pick the thing up tomorrow morning.

The next morning I come in to check on the box, and it has a two inch hole drilled in the side of the case, which is covered in packing tape. Curious, I pulled the box out to take a closer look, and found two more holes on the other side of the computer.
When he comes in a few hours later, I ask him about the holes. His explaination:

Well, I was worried about the computer overheating and frying this one too- so after you left last night, I took the case off and cut a hole in the side with the dremel tool so I could look in and check on the fan to make sure it was spinning. But I cut the hole on the wrong side and all I could see was the bottom of the motherboard, so I took it back off and drilled another hole on the opposite side.
Except now, when I look in the hole, my face blocks all the light, and I can't see in to see the fan anyways. So I drilled another hole to shine my penlight in. It took me about three hours to get it all working, but now I can check the fan any time I want just by climing under my desk and shining the penlight in.

At this point, the look on his face made it very apparent that he was sure I was about to comment on his un-hindered genius. It was everything I could do not to double over on the floor when I explained that I could install BIOS fan monitoring software, or, since it was his second and normally unused computer- He could have just turned it off for the night, and I could replace the fan now for $6.00 and five minutes.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[adrianmonk]

boss, head of IT, wanted us to come up with a contingency plan for ethernet. At first we looked at each other trying to figure out what he meant. Evidently, he wanted an alternative to ethernet that still provided networking just in case ethernet failed

I sympathize with your situation because your boss clearly doesn't have enough of a clue to have any idea how to properly allocate resources. But...

• token ring
• fddi
• cddi
• firewire
• fibre channel

I'm pretty sure you can run TCP/IP over all these things (and many more). So, you can give your boss the answer, and if necessary give him enough pricing information to get him to shut up. (Start with fibre channel! I want to see how much it costs to replace the entire ethernet network, down to the PCs on the secretaries' desks, with fibre channel!)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[falconwolf]

I think that's called sneakernet. When the ethernet goes down, just write a protocol that has employees write the data to floppy/cd/whatever and then transport the data on foot. :) That should work for a small company.

You need a cassette tape to along with the sneakernet. Or papertape.

Falcon

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[sik0fewl]

Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?

Indeed! Just imagine all the pr0n you would be able to store on that machine!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[wed128]

It would make him disappear...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

Well, to use his logic, how do you know any of that stuff isn't going to fail either?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[falconwolf]

No man, you've got this completely wrong. This is slashdot! We all know that if a slashdotter were given the day off, a credit card, and orders to go to a computer store and buy shit until the card is maxed out, that's what he would do! Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?

If so, you fail at being a computer nerd! :)

No you've got to get two credit cards and two days. The first day you go to COMPUSA, Fry's is better, where you buy the hardware then take it back and set it up. The second day is spent grabbing some chicks and showing them what you did.

Falcon

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[DaHat]

Store maybe, but without Ethernet, how would you ever get it onto the machine?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[twofidyKidd]

IP over smoke signal???

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

you are so right. there's 3 of us for ~45 users and 20 servers. plus a phone tech for our customers

one me and a half could do the job :)

(posting anonymously in case the other two reads slashdot!)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[filtur]

Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?

Well, I was going to disagree with you then I realized how many pictures I could store....

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Cassette... CD .... Floppy... You kids and your new fangled technology. Why in my day we had punch cards and weeeee liked it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[TelJanin]

Token Ring? Modem? Serial? IR?

Networking existed before Ethernet.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[kosmicki]

High speed Token Ring over shielded coax!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always use a RFC-1149-compliant network setup. It would be much better if QoS is supported, according to RFC-2549.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one for 120 users and 20 servers..

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[tux0r]

I fail it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[punkass]

They do...but as soon as one station leaves the AP, the whole network ceases to relay tokens.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying you wouldn't rather take a quick trip to las vegas, find yourself a few nice $800 a night gals, setup a 4-on-1, then go back to the comp store, buy some expensive computer parts and come back and put together a slightly-less massive Raid-5 Array of 300G Sata-150 disks and then say you had to go to las vegas to get the most needed part of all; the TLC?

The boss'll probably think it stands for Threaded Local Computing or something :D.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! You have 3 IT'er for 30 people, I guess I don't feel so bad for being behind in my tickets seeing as we're a three-man IT staff with around 160 users.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[nerotik]

Well, SNAP beats them all... and gives new meaning to the term "Snail Mail".

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[bfioca]

Yes, they do. IBM Global Services Class Lab Engineering. They use Token Ring EVERYWHERE. It's frustrating.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[nofx_3]

I think he was talking about token-ring, or is that ethernet as well? Wait now im confused I didn't realize ethernet was a protocol, I though TCP/IP was the protocol. Maybe I'm missing the point of the whole story.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like this happened to me this summer... For various reasons, the IT service at my university is in a bitter fight with the engineering department. The result is that (1) we at the engi department aren't allowed to fix our own networking, and (2) they will delay repairs as long as possible.

Our building had been wired with coax before it was wired with etherner cables, so to make sure we have at least some level of connectivity, we equipped some computers with old 10baseT net cards and connected them together using the old wires -- since those wires no longer officially exist (they were supposed to be stripped off the wall, but most often that never happened) we are allowed to touch them.

The system works surprisingly well and, just for kicks, we resurrected a few 386s and 486s that are connected to the second network -- in fact, we just put together a new cluster, and i plan to use that to demo it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of Packet-over-Sheep (RFC 3203) or IP over Avian Carriers (RFC 2549; meaning everything from the Concorde to a pigeon)...

does that also apply to swallows, or are packets more difficult to carry than coconuts?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple! If that stuff fails, you still have the Ethernet you started with. That is, dual redundancy. Now optimise away the second protocol and you have dual redundancy with included optimisation!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about mediocre mexican weed? We're geeks bitch, we grow hydrochronic while all the little g's wish they could smoke our shit.

Oh, right, how would it help. It wouldn't. Now would you pass the bong please, you're holding the line up.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[tokinring]

This might be a slightly overly geeky response, but what about Tokin Ring??

My ears are burning.. No, really, my ears are burning. I tried to see if I could inhale this joint through my ear.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[thewiz]

Dude! Better to have the day off, a credit card, and a sexy babe who is a computer nerd too! You can get your RAID on and turn her on at the same time!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA
We had that issue with backup tapes. We record the bar code label and our own label we put on each DLT we send out and the bar code from each tape box we put them in before sending them out to the off site storage contractor. Our manager also wanted us to record the tape serial number in the same worksheet. Her thinking was if the box label, the tape barcode, and the self placed label all fell off while at the offsite storage facility, we would still be able to track the tape with the serial number. Of course we already have all the serial numbers --> barcode numbers cross referenced in another file so that number could be recreated.
Odd but for some strange reason, she would NOT back down from this and we now record that as well. I even asked the question point blank... If all of the other labels fall off while in the plastic case inside a metal box, what makes you think the tape would still be useable and/or we would not be able to either stick the tape in the drive and index it to see what is on it, or use our cross reference sheet to reproduce the label? Her answer was, "Don't be stupid". Wow.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[PunkOfLinux]

Indeed. I have a girl like that. She just recently became interested in computers, but damn, she's hot when she's working... not sure if it's the hard drives, the cables, or what. But damn, you're right.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

As I mentioned previously, taking care of our 30 person office were our secondary duties. Our primary duties were related to the business our office conducted. Even at 3 techies, we were very understaffed.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got like 8 people and enough work for 20.

Next business day my ass...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is this: What browser are you going to use on those 386s and 486s. I really wish that there was a browser which could run these antiques with enough basic HTML and javascript to handle modern web sites such as hotmail, Yahoo, myspace, etc. Links 2 comes close, but while I can log in to Myspace with Links 2, I can't read my messages there.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Ubergrendle]

I *knew* token ring wasn't yet dead...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[XSforMe]

All that is way too sofisticated, my ehternet contingency plan involves drums:

http://eagle.auc.ca/~dreid/

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

30 people and 3 IT workers? Sounds like you've got adequate staffing to develop an alternative to ethernet. As a consultant, I'm virtually sole support for 3 times that many people, and I frequently recommend usb key drives...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

3 people to cover 30 employees? Friend, I'd say that at a 1 to 10 ratio your company is overflowing with IT resources. I post anonymously since I report in disgust that I am at a 1 to 100 in my department.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[yuri benjamin]

Would that be African swallows or European swallows?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[The_One_Ring]

Working in a consultancy, I have to deal with this every day.

I was once consulting for a firm that wanted to expand their organisation and communicate over the internet. I mentioned that it was imperitive that they use a firewall for security. The IT manager gave me a testy look and said "Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it?".

Fast forward three weeks. I turn up for another meeting and notice a bunch of workmen demolishing the computer room. I ask one of them what's going on and he says that they are installing fire-rated dry wall to replace the existing dry wall!

I walk into the meeting with a VERY large grin on my face and proceed to explain to the IT manager exactly what a firewall is. He turns bright red and then says to me "Well we were planning to fire-proof the computer room anyway!"

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[MarsLander]

Ethernet and TCP/IP are both protocols. They're just at different levels of the OSI network stack:

Application Layer: Applications that use the data transferred
Presentation Layer: Data formats like GIF, ASCII
Session Layer: SQL, NFS, HTTP etc. are here
Transport Layer: Flow control, error recovery (TCP, UDP are here)
Network Layer: Logical addressing, end to end delivery of packets (IP is here)
Data Link Layer: Transcodes data into frames and adds CRC (Ethernet is here)
Physical Layer: Encodes and transmits data bits

From OSI stack description.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I mention we were just a regular office of about 30 people with a sum total of 3 IT workers?

Ahhh. You must use Windows on the desktop.

Don't get mad; I'm sure it wasn't your choice, but one IT worker for every nine "normal" employees seems a little steep.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[mikael]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a motorcyclist with a rucksack full of data tapes.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[leshert]

Defining Ethernet and TCP/IP as layers of the OSI stack is about as correct as defining the XBox as the successor to the Playstation.

The OSI stack was a failed, over-complex set of network protocols that tried to wrest control from the established, pragmatic, but not-officially-ISO-sanctioned TCP/IP (aka DARPA) protocol suite.

The TCP/IP suite model defined four layers: Network, Internetwork, Transport, and Application. That's (for example) Ethernet, IP, TCP, and HTTP for most implementations of teh Intarweb.

The OSI _model_ (not stack) is, in fact, the seven-layer cake you mention. Over the past decade or so, networking companies have "retrofitted" the OSI model onto the de facto stack, but you'll notice that they get a little wishy-washy at Layer 1, Layer 6, and Layer 7. Guess why? Because in the OSI Stack, there were actual protocols specified for those levels.

(definitely glad I learned the networking side of CS from folks who invented it, rather than someone who learned it later, out of a book...)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, We all heard of VoIP. If ethernet fails, IPoV

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[yuri benjamin]

10base2 is ethernet, just an older version.

Our building had been wired with coax before it was wired with etherner cables

You mean it was wired with coax before it was wired with twisted pair.
Coax and twisted pair can both be used for ethernet.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[MarsLander]

Oops. I guess there are disadvantages to going to university and getting a Software Engineering degree. Other than missing the dot-com boom and retiring on fat savings I mean.

Just another example of theory being good, practice being better.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[crazyphilman]

You know that. I know that. The boss does not know that. And you fail to see the opportunity there!

Boss: "OMG -- I just discovered that wireless uses ethernet!"

Me: "Quick! Give us the credit card! We won't stop until we've made it right"

(later)

Woo, HOO, ladies! Come to papa!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[crazyphilman]

Bathing suits? The strippers in your town wear bathing suits? Ours are butt nekkid. :)

Seriously, though, you've got me confused with a dweeb. I'm a BPFH (Bastard Programmer From Hell), which although not quite as powerful as a BOFH, is still quite sneaky, horny, and a complete degenerate.

I'll take hot nekkid chicks over server setup any day!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[TapeCutter]

"a sexy babe who is a computer nerd too!"

Sexy Babe: "Honey, I will be whoever you want me to be, until the card runs dry."

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Progman3K]

No the correct term is
net-walk

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[leshert]

Ack. That came out much harsher that I'd intended.

The last part wasn't aimed at you in any event--it's just that those guys have some fabulous stories that don't ever get told in the "official" literature.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Alien_Phreak]

personally, i'd hit the strip clubs.. mostly because I don't believe Bestbuy, circuit city of any of the mentioned places carry REAL fun gear.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

BC bud is the way to go silly. The ring is only as good as your grass man!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... let's do the math...RAID5+300GB SATA disks... i'm guessing 300GB worth of pr0n.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, how about (n-1)*300GB instead?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Radio_active_cgb]

You've been reading too much BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)

Resurrection and Chuck it and leg it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[ActualPussyOwner]

You guys are socially retarded. No girl want's to see what you did. try getting some real pussy andstep away from the computer. You all have good jobs. Find a girl you like, shut the fuck up about your geek life, take that extra day off and spend it with her. Don't know how to get her? DDidn't think so. Buy her some flowers or jewelry. don't act like an ass and demand something back in return for the gift. Then again shut the fuck up about yourself and your geek world and ask about hers. Listen. This is a geeks only chance at getting laid. Oh and eat the pussy!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[jrockway]

I agree. I'd go to Fry's.

Unfortunately they built the one Fry's in Illinois as far away from public transit as possible, so I guess I will have to shop elsewhere. Good work, guys.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not joking around, either. you've got to eat the pussy. bury your ugly face in it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[J4]

Flowers? Jewelery? Nah, just be a Man.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[ms1234]

If so, you fail at being a computer nerd! :)

No you've got to get two credit cards and two days. The first day you go to COMPUSA, Fry's is better, where you buy the hardware then take it back and set it up. The second day is spent grabbing some chicks and showing them what you did.

How creepy is that going to sound?

"Hey baby, wanna see my RAID-5?"

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[chefren]

Ethernet actually needs to be divided into two layers. The first is the physical media that can be coax or twisted pair copper or even optical cable. The second is the medium independent part of ethernet (CSMA/CD).

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it all wrong...

First they would set a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks. Which would provide enough storage to download video, and therefore allow them to see some girls take off their bathing suits.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

"The OSI _model_ (not stack) [...] Because in the OSI Stack"

So which is it? Model or stack? I've always heard it referred to as the "OSI stack".

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience as a consultant, that kind of attitude will get you fired. What you have to learn is the art of detecting when a client **really** knows nothing.

And then somehow putting him straight. Without embarrasing him in front of his underlings.

Tact, its called. Try it in your next job!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Madd Scientist]

does that mean i have to sign up for america online again? sigh :(

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[samjam]

i.e. one of the layers is the eletrical signal in the wires, with things such as voiltage levels, cable impedance etc, how 1 and 0 will be represented etc.

The other layer is the logical interpretation, meaning the packet/frame structure of the digital that signal encoded onto the wires, i.e. the 1's and 0's

Sam

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Trepalium]

The "Network" portion can be divided a number of different ways, depending on the physical network. If you're using PPP over dial-up, or PPPoA/PPPoE over DSL, you may have many slices. But they all remain the "Network". The Application layer could similarily be stacked onto. You can run SOAP over HTTP, but both are still in the Application layer.

In general you can think of the DARPA layers as completely pragmatic and somewhat modular. You can swap in different network modules, so long as it provides a packet based network to the internetwork layer. You can swap IPv4 with IPv6 (or even IPX. yuck) without breaking TCP and UDP (you may however break plenty of applications that run on them and make incorrect assumptions). Transport is also a block that can be replaced with compatible substitutes, but since there is very little use of anything but TCP or UDP, it's not terribly likely to happen.

With OSI/ISO on the other hand, physical and data link are heavily linked. If you want to replace the physical layer with a modem instead of ethernet, you also need to change the data link from CSMA/CD + Ethernet II framing to V.22bis (or hopefully better) + PPP. The Data Link layer is also over-populated because you almost always need more than one protocol in there (for example, with ethernet, you need both CSMA/CD signalling and Ethernet II framing to make it work). You often need to have two or more protocols in that layer in order to make it fit. On the other hand, the Session and Presentation layers are often completely unused by many protocols (like Telnet, etc), and perhaps shouldn't even exist since they're largely redundant.

The OSI protocols were highly overengineered, somewhat terrifying. A few bits of the OSI protocols still exist in internet protocols. ASN.1 is probably the most notable, since it's used in SNMP, LDAP and most anything that uses certificates with public key encryption. It's fared much better than the X.400 standard which spawned it.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[flambard]

IBM?

I'm sure I've got some in my cupboard, somewhere...,
Let's see..., I use to have a SUN pizabox on tokenring..., (dig, dig.....)
Must have been 8 years ago..., BTW where did I put
that token?

Now am i dated or not :)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[hplasm]

Frisbeenet. Why walk?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Bush Pig]

OSI, like ASN.1 and the Citroen, was designed by the French. If you think about it, that explains a lot.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Bush Pig]

A place I worked at recently had a heterogeneous network - part Token Ring, part TCP/IP over Ethernet. Fuck. It was just awful.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Brian4120]

+1 Monty Python Reference

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vo0k]

1.5 person (1 full, 1 part time) for some 15 people from which 1/3 doesn't even use computers, and another 1/3 admin their computers by themselves, it would have been the most boring/loose admin job I ever had if we weren't often "borrowed out" to troubleshoot some 5 other depts completely without their own admins.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

My mare would be unimpressed.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vo0k]

Palantir network was way faster and more efficient. Unfortunately its security sucked.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[el_womble]

You were going to take $$$ worth of stuff back home on a bus? In Illinois? Dude, you must be some big ass, scary looking, mofo, uber geek.

PS - Use the credit card to hire a taxi.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vo0k]

When the ETHERNET PROTOCOL fails, there's really nothing better to do. Either that, or hide in your nuclear shelter. Or both.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

You had punch cards...? Luxury! We had to carve data into tablets of stone and carry 'em forty miles!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[TheRaven64]

So, umm, if your stippers are naked, exactly what do they take off?

On second thoughts, I'm not sure I want to know...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[clone22]

... where the end of message is 4d414e

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[loucura!]

The model is the seven-layer cake which describes the stack which is the actual networking protocol.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[laplandsix]

"Did I mention we were just a regular office of about 30 people with a sum total of 3 IT workers?"

Holy flirking shnit! a ratio of 1 IT worker for every 10 employees? Man, that job must be cake! Where I work it's more like 1.5:300. Me and a part timer for 100+ locations and 300+ computers. Needless to say, one learns very quickly to work smarter. (Translation: Don't use IE)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[SComps]

This might be a slightly overly geeky response, but what about Tokin Ring??

It's been replaced by the upgraded Token Ring.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Most Overused Monty Python Refrence Ever

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Since african swallows are non-migratory, you wouldn't get any unless your office is in africa. So I guess european

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard the term "massively parallel" applied to a RAID disk configuration. Or do you mean you've found a way to setup hardware RAID with multiple processors in a massively parallel configuration, to streamline parity computations?
Hmmm...sounds juicy.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Ooblek]

Well, at least in computer science, they present only the OSI model for networking when discussing things such as TCP/IP. You can probably tell the people who are truly good at what they do apart from the people that just hold a piece of paper called a degree by asking if TCP/IP conforms to the OSI model.

People that just read a book and puke out what they read will tell you it does. =)

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[torn66]

Actually, commnig from a girl, who happens to be an IT Manager, who couldnt give a crap about some living things that will die in a day or flashy objects that I'll never wear, you're all sadly wrong. I, for one, would spend hours drooling over said setup and all its functions, abilities and possibilities. But then again, hey, what do I know.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[jc42]

Spend ... one hour buying some wireless networking gear. Presto! Everybody's happy!

You'd better hope your boss doesn't find out that "ethernet" was originally called that because it was designed to work "over the ether", i.e., it was supposed to be wireless. The wired form was just a stopgap until the wireless transceivers became available (and could legally be used in the US without applying for an FCC broadcast license for every node).

Of course, a boss as clueless as you describe probably wouldn't understand the humor in an explanation like this.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[porcupine8]

I read that as "Wireless Tolkein Ring" and thought you were trying to make an entirely different joke...

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[shamborfosi]

Dork that I am, I actually looked up the RFCs you mentioned.. RFC 2549 looks like it actually exists (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=2549)! The other one is pretty damn funny http://hive.devilnet.net/rfc3203/PoS-InternetDraft .txt but complete bs..

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you know nothing, you're a girl.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/08/26/02382 08.shtml?tid=133&tid=146&tid=14

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[tyldis]

30 people and *3* IT workers?!
I got 150 lusers plus 200 students *alone*.
Clueless boss or not I want your job!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[torn66]

Oh, only reason I'm called IT Manager cause it's just myself and another girl who is leaving (I'm her replacement). So I'm both technical and managerial. :P

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[torn66]

Leave it to a male to quote a troll post as fact.

Look up some details about the IQ test and you'll find some stunning results pointing to the fact that said test is worthless.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Optic7]

Or girlfriend swallows?

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of Packet-over-Sheep (RFC 3203) ...

Actually, RFC 3203 is the DHCP reconfigure extension. If there is a Packet-over-Sheep RFC, I haven't heard of it so far.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[PunkOfLinux]

How did this get modded INFORMATIVE?!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

No, taking care of the systems were our secondary duties. Our primary duties involved the actual external business of the office.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Vicissidude]

As I've said for the 4th time now, taking care of the systems were our secondary duties. Our primary duties involved supporting the actual external business of the office. As it was, we didn't have enough people to do that.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[leshert]

Right. My point is that while the model has been dusted off and retrofitted to more or less match reality, the OSI stack itself is dead (except for a few protocols which survive in legacy systems).

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[leshert]

One of my favorite interview questions if I suspect someone has "book learning" rather than real knowledge is to ask them to sketch out the OSI model. If they can do that, I ask what layer TCP/IP represents. If they fail to acknowledge TCP and IP as separate layers, then they probably only have a passing knowledge of network programming.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[crazyphilman]

All hail the bastard! He's my hero.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[crazyphilman]

Who cares? They're NEKKID! It's like disneyland and Christmas all in one.

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[jrockway]

The bus is fine. You put your shit in your backpack and nobody will bother you. I do it all the time.

Now, I will admit that I have seen other people almost have their stuff stolen... one guy got on at Chicago/State (near the Apple Store) with 3 brand-new 17" Powerbooks. He just put them on the floor in front of him and dozed off. Even I was tempted to take one. I coined a new rule at that moment -- "If it costs more than $2000, take a taxi." Or at least guard the @*#$ing thing with your life!

Re:Contingency For Ethernet

[Aumaden]

No, you need *3* credit cards

• The first day you go buy the hardware and set it up.
• The second day You grab some chicks to show them what you did.
• The third day you use your last credit card to hire a good lawyer to defend you from the credit card fraud and kidnapping charges.

Simple answer...

[PrivateDonut]

make his untimely death look like a photocopier accident. Find an appliance he can't use and tamper with it to electrocut him or something.

Funny you should mention this

[dgrgich]

Often, the manager of tech areas is a person who used to be one of the techs. Managers of this type are often poor managers - IMHO - because they feel inclined to get their hands dirty in the areas that are best left -- for better or worse -- to their employees.

The manager should know something about tech but they should especially know about how the tech in question is going to interface with the business at large.

Re:Funny you should mention this

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly

IT Managers v IT Technicial Staff

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not recommend looking to an IT Manager for technical leadership/mentoring. At the end of the day, how good a manager is, is defined by how well they track (people-based) minutae, and protect and champion their team in the wonderful world of office politics.

This is a completely different skill set to what you'd look for in a (technical) mentor. That said, you'd expect a high-level understanding of current/future directions and issues, but a manager not being able to fix a PC shouldn't worry you. Don't get me wrong, there are some that can operate in both camps, and they generally have fanatically loyal team members, but this is the exception not the rule.

Personally I'm a strong believer in the "even as a manager of IT, you must have one area of technical excellence". Simply because without it, it is very easy to lose the respect of your team - which is what you seem to be describing.

I recommend measuring the respect your boss's skills deserve based on "can you do his entire job better than him", but that requires you to be brutally honest in what his entire job actually is (and it's almost never written completely down in the position description).

In short, if your boss has protected you from continuously changing requirements and priorities, then they're likely a good manager, if they can't fix a PC, they might be a good manager or a bad one, you can't tell.

Managers Are A Buffer

[TheFlyingGoat]

I dealt with this a few years back. Thankfully the company's VP used to be a tech guy and realized how little our manager knew... he was let go due to "budgetary" reasons.

The thing is, managers act as a buffer between tech staff and the rest of the company. In some companies this isn't true, but at ours it was. If one of the other managers had an issue, they weren't supposed to talk to us about it. They were supposed to talk to our manager. That allowed him to do what he was supposed to do (manage) and gave us more time to do our work.

I would assume that your boss knows that he isn't nearly as gifted as the rest of your team, which is why he doesn't meddle like some managers do. Be thankful for that, and try giving him a point here or there on easier stuff so he can try doing those things better. Since he doesn't sound like a bad guy, just deal with it. The benefits of you not having to do management tasks (budgets, taking heat when something goes wrong, dealing with higher management, managing losers like his workers) are a fair tradeoff.

Re:Managers Are A Buffer

[Sentri]

I agree that managers are a buffer. The issues are meant to hit him first. However with little or no tech knowledge how will he know what is important enough to pass on?

That said most managers have it within them to understand the various importance levels of problems. Not the level of importance to you that is, but to the customer (be it external, internal, his boss, whatever)

What you sound like you need is a "Tech Lead" role. This person sits below the manager but above the workers and does the following:
-Works on the really nitty gritty hard problems that require the most tech skill
-Helps the other techies with their problems
-Is there when the manager needs to ask whats more important to the company tech-wise.

This position usually works out because the manager realises the Tech LEad has no desire to do any LESS tech work and so isnt out after the managers job. Tech Leads should be hired as experienced staff or alternatively created over many few years from new and brilliant staff. This position of experience makes them invaluable to the other techies and to the manager. It also means that buffer will start acting more like a router as the Tech Lead will send the tasks heknows you can do to you.

If your company is too small to need a tech lead then there isnt much you can do but learn to do the job yourself or change jobs.

Next time you change jobs remember that you are also interviewing the company, so ask a few questions about hierarchy and see if you can have a quiet moments chat with another techie. It will save alot of heartache like this.

Let "Real Life Mom" educate your boss

[roj3]

Thanks to XIOTech, we now have a "real life mom" to explain the complexities of data storage, server clustering and more! You should have your boss watch this series of videos.
warning: videos may result in ROTFL

Re:Let "Real Life Mom" educate your boss

[Anonymous Coward]

And "Real Life Mom" is kind of a MILF.

Re:Let "Real Life Mom" educate your boss

[wed128]

good thing too, because if she wasn't, i would have had nothing to distract me from the fact that the video was not funny and i just wasted two minutes of my life. Thanks a lot GP.

Troll Bait

[Anonymous Coward]

IT stands for I'll Try. IT is the final job of desperation for "professionals" who aren't good enough to get a real job in the industry. DeVry grads come to mind. Its always filled with barely adequate technologists who may be able to do something with Visual Basic and that's pushing it. Most of the time they fuck up people's systems more than they keep them running. Get used to it if you're resigned yourself to a life of IT.

My Advice...

[hotgigs]

Find a new job... there are plenty out there. www.hotgigs.com

Common mentality

[Franklinstein]

There have been a few posts already which correctly state that just because someone may not be technically skilled (even if that is their industry/profession), they may be a good manager. Now the story submitter commented to some degree that this is starting to cause problems. I'm curious as to what other qualities has has that may redeem his lack of tech skills.

As for ways to check, you yourself might start to take an interest in higher level "manager" functions, and just curiously ask him about it, see what he knows, play dumb, etc. Not only might you gain some insight and possibly a great deal of respect for him, but you've also started on the path to letting him know you might one day be interested in more responsibilities yourself.

Bah... Considering it a blessing!

[vertinox]

You: *reading slashdot*
Uneducated Manager: *stops and peers over your sholder* "What are you doing?!"
You: "Researching technology..."
Uneducated Manager: "Oh! I see... Um... Carry on!"
You: *starts to write comment "In Soviet Russia..."*

DDDDC

[Supp0rtLinux]

I believe AC/DC said it best... Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap ;) http://mobileoptimized.com/

Re:DDDDC

[finkployd]

That song always sounds to me like "Dirty Deeds, Done To Sheep". And guess what, the next time you hear that song, that is probably what you are going to here too, it is infectious.

Finkployd

look no further than...

[jr748]

the article a few days ago enititled: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/24/22 53233&tid=172&tid=4Building Secures Computers, now corrected of course.

Indeed

[phorm]

I've had managers in IT that were generally non-technical, but damn good managers. I've also heard of a great many technical managers who tend to spend more time playing with new ideas and toys, or thinking they can do their employees' job than actually managing.

Semi-unrelated, but I've also noticed that my best managers were women, can anyone else comment on that?

Re:Indeed

[timmarhy]

yes, i've worked in 2 work places completely dominated by female managers, and by far i found them to be bigger dicks then men. women have a trait men tend to lack - cattyness. also for the poster - my advice is ot keep this baboon, he is gold. you can talk complete bullshit to him and he will eat it up, not knowing better. if you got someone who had a clue, then you won't be able to bullshit to him saying you have to reroute the encryption and hack the mainframe, and that it requires they buy you a new pc for home.

Re:Indeed

[susano_otter]

It's my theory that women have a "civilizing" effect on men--mitigating our more barbaric impulses and channeling our animal energies into productive and intelligent activities. That is, that women make better managers (in some contexts) for the same reason they make better mothers and wives. (And just as men make better managers, in some contexts, for the same reason they make better husbands and fathers).

And now, let the flaming begin.

Re:Indeed

[LeonardsLiver]

As I sit & think back, the best managers I've had have been women. I'm not sure why...may just be coincidence. It could also be related to women, in general, being more inclined to encourage cooperation among team members, as opposed to competition with one another. Seems our nuts can be our best friends or our worst enemies...

Re:Indeed

[Johnboi Waltune]

It's my theory that women have a "civilizing" effect on men--mitigating our more barbaric impulses and channeling our animal energies into productive and intelligent activities.

Sounds like someone's never been to a strip club.

Re:Indeed

[susano_otter]

Sounds like someone's never been to a strip club.

That's where you're wrong. I enjoy the strip clubs, and frequent them... frequently.

The fact that I can find some women who are willing to cater to my barbaric tendencies has had little impact on my overall impression that women in general have a civilizing effect on the men they work and live with.

To me, it sounds like someone's never had a mother, or a wife...

Re:Indeed

[m.x.stone]

I have had managers of both genders and really I cannot say that one offers anything over the other. I have had one female manager who was technically computer illiterate and a horrid manager (If something bad was happening she would not talk to anyone), I have had a male manager who has thought yelling and putting people down was a good way to motivate them.

Both were horrid situations and in both cases the actions of these managers was causing the company to lose tons of cash.

In the end, finding a good manager is hard, finding a good manager who is also an expert in your field is one in a million.

Re:Indeed

[halfelven]

Women may be better in situations when the company (or just that group) is in "maintenance" mode, such as mature companies that are in a stable state.
Men might be better in situations when rapid and/or aggressive changes are required: startups, etc.

Women are not good conquerors.
Men are not good maintainers.
(political correctness be damned)

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone's never been to a strip club.

That's where you're wrong. I enjoy the strip clubs, and frequent them... frequently.

Buddy, I think he meant with female dancers.

Re:Indeed

[defaria]

The only civilizing effect that a woman has is to turn men into pussies. You're already too far gone to realize this.

Re:Indeed

[monkeydo]

As the senior technical person on my team, I would rather my boss be less technical and more managerial. The team and I can handle all of the technical aspects of our job, and explain to him anyting he needs to know. We need him to act as an abstraction layer between us and upper management.

IME, most technical people who complain about a boss who "just doesn't get it" should point the finger of blame at themselves. These individuals are typically people who find pride in being a "jack of all trades", or a "hobbyist" who expects everyone's knowledge to be as broad as his own. Unfortunately most such people have broad but shallow knowledge, and are not very useful outside of their comfort zone. I know that individuals like this are highly prized in some environments, but for most tasks in a large enterprise, I'll take a focused expert over a so-so generalist anyday. A common trait of this class of IT worker is that they also typically aren't good at explaining concepts to non-technical folks, since they don't really understand what they are doing, having gained most of their knowledge by playing until something works.

As a mentor of mine used to say, "If you casn't explain it, you don't understand it." If your boss doesn't understand what you do, you have no one to blame but yourself. Of course, there are exceptions.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Semi-unrelated, but I've also noticed that my best managers were women, can anyone else comment on that?

Do you have any empirical data on that? Otherwise, you are stereotyping. Most often, that is a bad idea, both ethically and logically.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also noticed that my best managers were women, can anyone else comment on that?

It's the brestesses.

Re:Indeed

[MrResistor]

I've also noticed that my best managers were women, can anyone else comment on that?

I've noticed that departments (or small companies) that employ women in non-subservient positions (ie not only as receptionists) tend to celebrate birthdays, have potlucks, and so on.

In an all male department, those things just don't happen. Every once in a while there might be pizza or ice cream at a meeting (my last boss would sometimes provide ice cream to ensure that we would all show up to his meetings), but by and large men just come to work to, well, work.

As soon as you add a woman, though, suddenly there's cake for every birthday, and everybody's bringing in their crockpots on the third tuesday of the month (not a bad thing, IMO).

Perhaps these social activities bring the team closer together, and foster a more positive work environment?

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Women have long ago mastered the art of getting guys (particularly loser dorks like ourselves) to do *exactly* what they want for little to no effort.

Do a test: give a guy and a girl about six bags or boxes to carry, and have them go down the street trying to carry them all without dropping them or bumping into things. The chick *will* get help.

Re:Indeed

[khoury.brazil]

...having gained most of their knowledge by playing until something works.

I'm pretty sure that I know a hell of a lot, and I'm quite capable of explaining what it is that I'm doing. Everything I know was from "playing until it worked" or watching someone else. In fact, some of the most capable people I know have had no training whatsoever and solve problems that they haven't experienced through trial and error. Perhaps I'm the exception or perhaps you've been burned by someone.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the fat ones?

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I must agree. At my current job, technical skills are held in high regard. Many of the managers are themselves very technical. The CEO has a CS degree. Developers (i.e. people who have no employees reporting to them) appear in all ranks of the company, some getting the same pay and slot in the hierarchy as vice presidents. That's the good.

The bad is that the lunatics run the asylum. The CEO is exactly the kind of generalist that you describe. As a result, he feels that all software developers should be interchangeable and refuses to hire specialists to do things like (website) usability design (should be everyone's concern, right?), user interface (java coders are great at HTML, right?), and quality assurance (ah, developers can test as they go, right?).

You know the old saw, "If you can't do, teach?" In this company, it's if you can't do (or are simply tired of doing), become a project manager. Further, they have no people skills. Some of them try. Others do not (and get promoted further--that keeps them from impacting the developers as much and leaves them only harassing other managers; unfortunately, the managers get tired of their BS eventually...so they need to be promoted again).

My manager was so bad at project management that he appointed one of his *three* employees as project manager for the group. We'll see how that goes, but it doesn't fix other problems. I once spent a day justifying...a one day project. Wouldn't it have been simpler just to have coded? Or just to have said that he didn't want to do it? He makes decisions without sufficient information; I work on them; he changes the decision once he gets more information (to what I originally suggested). Higher management has asked him to collect more metrics for reporting, so he asks us to figure out which ones. In other areas, he should delegate but instead participates.

It's a frustrating mess. Really, what he should have is something like your job (senior tech). Then they could have hired an actual manager to handle the managerial duties. Unfortunately, that would be sensible.

Re:Indeed

[monkeydo]

Trial and error may indeed get you to a solution. But it will rarely get you to the "right" or "best" solution. And even if it does, you won't know it. So, if getting it done, without regard for how long it takes, or how efficiently you do it, by all means continue with the trial and error approach.

To a certain extent, the dot.com explosion is to blame for this mentality. For many startups, labor was nearly free, costing little more than stock options and free snacks. When developers and engineers are willing to work 16 hours a day for chicken scratch, it's attractive (but flawed) to allow them to reinvent wheels rather than hiring skilled but expensive wheel smiths.

I'm sure there are exceptions.

Re:Indeed

[jack_csk]

Correct.
Managers, IT or not, are responsible for managing $stuff. They are not there to do the same job as the tech.

There is a Chinese saying going like this:
If you don't know how to do stuff, you teach.
If you can't teach, you manage.

which is so true -- the manager don't do the stuff

Re:Indeed

[n54]

You seem to have been spared non-technical managers who spend all their time on toys! They are the worst and completely worthless, what is even worse is that they are close to being the definition of middle-management! *resists temptation to name people even if I don't work for them anymore* Not that there's any lack of doofuses in upper management either... however a few of the good ones are worth the company buildings weight in gold.

It's my experience that if you get a woman as a boss or manager in an otherwise typically male-dominated profession (ICT, military, law, etc.) you have a greater than average chance of getting a superb boss/manager/leader because they've had to fight tooth and nail to prove their real value, and they had to do so on merit rather than hear-say and dirty tricks.

If it is in a woman in a female-dominated profession your are overly likely to get just the same as with men in a male-dominated one: an absolute asshole/bitch - shit that floats - someone who has used all their dirty tricks to achieve a position.

By greater than average chance I mean that it's slightly more likely for a woman to be a great boss in those situations than it is to find a man who is a great boss - however both are sadly much less common than getting a bad leader no matter what sex.

To a lesser extent this also applies in the other direction as well; the ratio of good vs. poor workers is slightly better for women than men in ICT.

These opinions are of course subject to my personal experience and might not be true at all. It could be that I'm overestimating because there are so few women in the professions I'm thinking of and that this makes them stand out disporportionally when they are really good (then again I've met clueless women in these professions as well both as workers and bosses).

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a rather new techie at a large research facility, and in my immediate area there are two groups of workers, one managed by a man, the other by a woman. I've never heard anyone from the woman managed group complain about their work situation, and they have a lot of freedom in how to do "their thing" (applications, workflow, work methods). In the other group I have seen examples of micro-management, a senior doing the job of a new member without the latter knowing until release, and verbal complaints are served at both meetings and in private.

Just my statistically insignificant $0.02

Re:Indeed

[TheRealSync]

Yup. Recently a woman joined our (till then, all male) development team, and instantly people started being nicer to each other - also, overall work productivity went up 20%...

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what your sample size is, but I've had the exact opposite experience.

My last boss was a grumpy old man. But we had cakes with candles and cards and singing for every birthday.

My current manager is a seemingly normal woman. And I have yet to see anybody celebrate anything here.

Re:Indeed

[khoury.brazil]

But it will rarely get you to the "right" or "best" solution.

I can agree with that, however, in many cases there is only one way to really fix the problem and make things work again, error free. It would be nice if every company could afford the extra 30K a year for the person that could fix it in 20 minutes instead of an hour but many can't. I taught myself many things and I'm better with them (be it a program or a language) than most of the people that graduated with that as a specialty. I believe that it takes a certain person to be really good at something, and the problem with the educated and uneducated that aren't good at what they do isn't their level of education but rather something deeper. I'll agree when a lot of people state that IT in general is becoming more of an industry like that of a plumber, but there are still certain things that take that "magic" quality. I'm not going to say that I have that quality, that's for others to determine. But I sure hope I do.

Re:Indeed

[susano_otter]

(political correctness be damned)

Glad to see I'm not the only one...

Re:Indeed

[susano_otter]

I'm not shocked that a barbarian would see civilization as pussification, but that doesn't make him any less of a subhuman beast.

At least you can spell, though. Let me guess: one of your grade school teachers was a woman, and her good influence never quite wore off.

There may be hope for you yet, beast.

What's an IT manager?

[publius_ovidius]

OK, the question "what's an IT manager?" might sound silly, but it's not. What is his job description? Just because he has a particular job title doesn't mean what he's been hired to do is what you would expect from that title. Those "insignificant tasks" you mention might involve him preparing budget reports to justify your continued employment. Sadly, many technical folk I meet have a poor understanding of business needs (and vice versa).

That being said, if he is truly causing difficulty, you need to document the problems. Have dates and times ready. List what was done and how this caused problems. Speaking from sad personal experience, I've discovered that going in to a meeting without solid documentation of the problems that must be resolved frequently winds up turning into a vague bitch session. Vague complaints tend to be viewed very poorly and can hurt the complainer more than the the target of the complaints.

What does he do?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't specify what he actually does for the company and that will ultimately determine what you can do about it.

In a family owned business, he may have been parked there "temporarily" until a higher level spot opens up. In which case, the best thing to do is treat him as just another user contacting customer support albeit one you cannot mouth off at. What you will need to do is create a clear line of demarcation. Your job is to make the technical decisions. His job is to supervise the budget, deal with human resource type problems, do any necessary social networking (such as getting vendors to come visit you), identifying and approving training and travel opportunities and so on. He does need a fully functioning computer, but beyond that he's no different than the cute, perky blonde accountant over in financial.

If he was hired or placed in his position specifically for his technical skills, then it is your obligation to point out his ineptness - he potentially can cost the company lots of money making bad strategic decisions. However... you must be discrete, delicate and tactful - know the company culture and have plenty of hard evidence before you go over his head. Be prepared to debate or accept whatever counter arguments they provide - for example, maybe his expertise is in UNIX systems and they actually do plan to migrate to UNIX in the near future.

The third option, and this is the best... invite him out to dinner or a nearby pub, suggest to him the value of improving his technical skills, AND tell him about the actual opportunities available. For example, local community colleges typically offer classes on Microsoft Office in the evenings. I've also seen colleges offer two to four week long courses covering "very basic programming", "introduction to computer security", "introduction to computer networking", "introduction to the internet", etc etc. Simply taking a couple of these classes boost confidence to the point where they'll ask reasonable questions and remember the answers.
The overall point to remember is that it is not your job to teach him!

Your Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Your situation: You took a job for an employer who wanted to pay you money for what you know and what you can do. Unless they promised to train and mentor you, it sounds like you should have known what you were getting into.

Your options:
Either quit or put up with it. Trying to "out" your boss's inadequacies will only make you unwanted in the workplace by your boss, his bosses, and coworkers.

Mentors and managers

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?"

Rarely is any job a perfect mix of factors. If having a mentor is important to you, typically jobs at smaller companies and startups will have more mentor-type folks. Find a job that offers that - now that you know what to look for. For really halarious results, ask the company you're at for an IT mentor. Heh heh.

If you just want to not have incompetents around you (and above you) in any job, well, this is just part of the current working landscape. How about applying some brain gears to figuring out ways of making folks without the background able to be more competent? We'll need those kinds of solutions just to keep profit margins reasonable over the next decade. And it looks like you have ther perfect test subject... (Of course, just leave people with a bad attitude in the dust... no need to waste your time or efforts.)

And, remember domains of competence and responsibility. Is it really part of the manager's job to keep up technically? Or is it his charge to coordinate the technical crew for best results? And, is it reasonable that he be required to do both? Like, who isn't over-taxed in this working world?

I say that because of something that recently happened to me... I've been programming for 28 years now, and while training a group of managers on their new web-based PHP-mySQL CMS and task communications system - which I wrote for them - they all gave me a good ribbing because I couldn't remember how to change file attributes in Windows on the demo laptop in their meeting room. Like, I program on Linux all day, I haven't touched a windows box in five years (by choice), the little laptop desn't know chmod, and yet to these folks, it may have appeared that I was someone that "didn't know the most basic things" in the IT world. Huh.

Your boss's job is to manage

[lakeland]

Not to have technical skills...

Now, having technical skills is helpful, especially in order to pick up on slackers in the IT staff and avoid getting suckered by sales reps. However, his principal role is to keep you lot solving the problems. That's why MBAs have managed to survive in fields they know nothing about.

Since your boss will be less aware of technical implications, you will need to practice keeping him informed at a largely non-technical level. Consider it good practice for you next job where you're the IT boss and you're reporting to people who don't know IT.

Basically, as long as he's ok to work with, it doesn't matter. Or, as another poster said "Leave, now!" -- oh, and what's your boss's phone number? ;-)

If you can get away with it

[shareme]

If you can gert away with it.. 1. Invite Boss to drinking party 2. Eeveryone at party gets alcohol less drinks, Boss gets the real alcohol. 3. One blanket 4. Two fists per person 5. By now you know what this step is.. 6. A Sign that says: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO HIGH TECH UP 7. Place sign on Boss when done If it doesn't work at least everyone will enjoy that leaving company party! The general point is up until this time ewveryone has been avoiding oslving the problem thus really messing up your Boss with false beliefs that his skils are up to par and the belief in company upper managment that things are going well.. Or if you can do without his help for 8 hours a day pick a coworker each day to derail him out of harms way..

Some Advice.....

[segedunum]

Family businesses?! Seriously, family businesses are absolute hell on Earth as it is. All the personal tensions you get in a family are brought to work......not good. Pick up a good business book by a respected business leader to find out why to be wary of family businesses. What you've described your boss doing (spending hours on meaningless tasks) is typical of a family business. People just come in and go through the motions, and quite often, not even that.

Anyway, there will come a point where this will make your job absolutely untenable - and trust me, it will. If, and when, that happens you will simply just have to tell your boss in the first instance. IT is a profession, and you need to have the knowledge and skills to get by and work with your colleagues. If you don't then you shouldn't be there. Many people get into IT because they've heard there is money in it, and because there are no real professional qualifications involved, like in accounting, engineering or architecture, you meet your fair share of arseholes.

If you just want to go with the flow and claim your salary, then don't do what follows below. But of course, we all know that simply claiming your salary isn't always realistic. You have to live from day to day in a job, and it does have to provide something just a little bit more than money for you to survive in any sane state.

First, get some security and another job lined up first and choose carefully. You may need it with or without what comes next. Then, just simply flat out tell him, and exhibit your serious concerns. He will not like that experience one bit, and will make him extremely defensive. If nothing comes out of this then take your concerns higher and if no joy there then simply leave the company.

Trust me, you won't regret it. In a few months, or a few years time, like a lot of family businesses that are run by people who just idle away the hours, you will have heard that they've gone under because all the people who actually ran the business and brought in the money have left. You will then be free of all that stress and aggravation and having to rush around getting a new job anyway. It happens every time.

It's a balance

[bmajik]

a good manager understands that you are better at what you do than he or she would be at the same tasks. That's why you're employed, after all.

The good manager asks for your opinions and input on items which, in the managers ability to determine such, are relevant to you. the manager then looks for logical fallacies in your arguments, and also presents other arguments he or she has heard (probably by his or her other employees) for you to consider and rebuff.

This dialog makes both you and the manager better, and when the manager needs to present and justify a position, she is in a better position to do so. In certain cases, a good manager will ask you to tag along to meet "the big whigs" whom you are normally insulated from.

If someone is sufficiently intelligent, and they have intelligent employees, they can make wise decisions in areas for which they have no domain knowledge. It is up to the leaf-node employees to present the specifics, and up to the manager to make a weighted analysis of the factors identified by the subject matter experts (the employees).

A good manager loves having employees smarter than herself, because the entire team looks great as a result.

On the other hand, if your manager cannot make decisions when given multiple choices, and cannot ask the right questions, and cannot challenge you and your team members with precision questions, what value are they adding ?

A good manager will not make you smarter by showing you things you don't know. A good manager will make you smarter by making you remember the things you already know, by asking you questions you already know the answers to.

Get him a chief IT staff member; train him

[davidwr]

I'm ASSUMING he's a good manager in every way but this one. If he's not, fire him.

My recommendations:
Either train him in the areas he is weak in, or have him appoint a technical lead, someone to handle the technical side of his work.

If you get the right technical lead and the right technically-ignorant manager, they can still be productive.

Even if he has a technical lead working with him, he really should know basic things, like how to do basic troubleshooting and fixing if his PC goes wonky.

Management

[daigu]

Ever try conversation? My guess is that you only have part of the picture and are judging the person you report to by the same criteria you apply to yourself. Here's the fact: management rarely means technically superior or even knowledgable about the work you do.

People that are technical superior and knowledgable - don't tend to manage well. It is too easy for them to just jump in rather than let you struggle with the problem and find a solution on your own.

Management is also a different skill set. It is about helping people find their strengths and use them in the best possible way. Also, tasks that you consider insignificant - like having meetings, talking on the phone or whatever he is doing that you consider insignificant - might actually be hard work.

Example: Have you ever been in the point position to take responsibility for things that do not work - even though you have very little control over why they broke or getting them fixed? That job is called management - and it isn't much fun.

Maybe you should cut him some slack in the short term, assume you really do not know enough about the situation and try to figure out the scenario better. My guess is that if you try that you might find out a lot of things that will change your perception.

Even if you are right, it might be best to change your expectations. Your boss doesn't have to be your technical mentor - find someone that can be and then figure out what your boss can teach you.

duurrrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't spell and you can't think and you seem to resent people who "know something about computers." I'd suggest you go read eWeek or CIO or something, sir, because slashdot isn't really the site for you. :) By the by, I'd like a raise or else your wife gets a copy of the "research" you do online over lunch.

Re:duurrrrr

[TheWanderingHermit]

After reading his post, I'd say you are attacking him, when he made a legit point. He doesn't say he doesn't know IT. He's got a good point. I've seen it over and over on /. -- people who think that because they are smart in one area, they are smart in many areas. He's talking about understanding people, and that is something your post makes quite clear you don't understand.

If you did, you'd see how offbase your post, even if it is a try at humor, is.

Or even worse..

[Anonymous Coward]

This really happened to me..

We had a manager leave and a replacement was hired..
we were basically told us everything we did was junk..
he then contracted consultants to come in and interview us as to the way we did things..
proceeded to instruct us to change stuff the "way it was done at his previous job.."
and even many other things..

Simple Answer

[DogWalk]

Deal with it or leave. As an IT Manager you have a lot of other things to worry about besides knowing how everything works. Sometimes you spend more time covering for the people who work under you. My advise is don't judge before you walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

That's why it's important...

[callipygian-showsyst]

...not to take a job if you don't like the manager. Remember when you go on a job interview, it's 2-way. You're interviewing them as much as they're interviewing you.

Gee, you have an asinine boss? No one else does...

[Snommis]

To paraphrase Drew Carey: "Oh, you hate your boss? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar."

Management responsibilities

[jonathanhowell]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

Knowledgable, perhaps. It's not a requirement for a manager to know the nuts and bolts of the work, but he should have a good handle on the big picture and a set of priorities for his staff that he should be able to clearly share.

A person you respect and frequently learn from?

Respect is important, but learning from your manager is less so - unless you want to learn about personnel management or company politics. A good manager should be able to protect his staff from those problems.

IMHO, of course.

I am a manager...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and every one of the guys I've hired knows more than me in their field. THATS WHY I HIRED THEM!!! My job is to get the right team together and MANAGE them. Its about knowing what the company needs and knowing how to make sure it it has it when it needs it withing the given constraints.

Dear Slashdot

[Mensa Babe]

I am a manager in an IT department for a small to medium sized family owned business. The job is great, except for our workers. They simply don't know nearly as much as they should. I find myself teaching our team or explaining things far too often. Even when their business partners are acting up, they don't know what to do with it and have me fix the relationship while they sit and watch. They spends hours and hours on the most insignificant tasks as if they have nothing better to do. Is it ignorant to believe an IT worker should be a knowledgeable in business and social interaction as a whole? A person you respect and frequently learn from? It creates an extremely frustrating work environment, and I don't know how to approach the problem. It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?

Re:Dear Slashdot

[tempest69]

IT guys dont bother getting a clue because they see these actions as unimportant. And until they "See the Light" they wont spend time on it. The best approach that Ive found is to put it into some really stupid rules, or checklists that they are required to hold to.

For instance:

Greet user by name, walk over to the computer, ask them exactly what their problem is, if your not solid about it, have them show it to you.. (at no time should you be touching the computer). Once you have an Idea of what the problem is, ask if anything else has been acting up on their PC (double whammie here). Then give the user an idea of what your going to do, and let them know if they need to stay to re-login, or if they can hit coffee, or if they need to move to a different workstation.

assuming that the machine gets fixed, then you have the user test the machine in front of you, and ask them if it is working the way they want.

Then call back about 4-8 buisness hours later to verify that everything is just fine. Ad give them some "commandments" that spell out some not-so obvious social blunders (i.e. dont blurt out what to do next while another technician is doing their job) even though IT guys have a need to be right.

Storm

out of the field for three years, your mileage may vary.

Re:Dear Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The symptoms you describe are classic for a team that is not being challenged. If you solve your team members technical problems, very soon they will depend on you to solve their hard problems for them. Simultaneously, they will lose their motivation, since they aren't working on hard, interesting problems anymore. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it!! Try weaning them off of your help, and start holding them accountable for results (without telling them how to accomplish those results). Don't make any drastic, overnight changes, but work towards this. I think you'll see a difference before too long.

Obstacle or Opportunity ...

[PseudoJudoName]

If the Manager holds a job position you aspire to this situation is presenting you with an opportunity.
Then use a 'tail that wags the dog' approach to your situation. Help him and create a dependancy situation whereby he can't do his job without you. After awhile, once you have become more valuable to him, either go over his head or atleast negotitate more money.

If you do not aspire to his job title this situation is presenting you with an obsacle.
Then you need to either leave or deal with him. Leaving means look around headhunter and start interviewing elsewhere, dealing with him after you have identified him as an obstacle means its going to get worse before it gets better! Serve him his head but still line up a head-hunter just incase this family business does not eat its own.

Been there...

[iCoach]

I worked for a small company under a boss who during my second week informed me that he wanted me to, "take over the technical side of business." So he could, "Sit back here and get fat."

I thought, great! in two years I'll have someone under me, running the software development, this could go far.

4 years later, I was in-deed handling everything technical, including project managment of significant software development projects, technical support, website development and system administration. In short, I was the IT department. Not that it should be unexpected at a small company, as my boss said, "we all have to wear a lot of hats." Funny that most of his said "DUNCE" on them. But the extent that it was taken to, my workload, stress, and the lack of any growth opportunities, it was a bad scene

In the end, I got fed up. We hired another developer, and it looked like I might finally get a chance to move up. Nope, he was essentially going to be taking over the one part of my job that I found interesting, software development. My boss stated that he was, "Queit, like that genius quiet." I would call him, "Quiet, like that really creepy quiet." Alarms went off when he came into my office his third day there and asked me some development questions that anyone worth their salt would know. Such as, "VB just crashed, what should I do?" And another gem, "How do I get a WinSock control to connect?"

Four short months later I basically had enough. I was managing the largest project the company had ever tried to undertake in an organized fashion, and my boss essentially took credit for all my work, and reemed myself and the other developer out every weekly meeting. So I told him off in dramatic fashion - pointing out his short comings and lack of any real involvment in the current project.

I was fired a week later...

In retrospect it was decent money for someone in their mid 20s (~33k), but for the amount of stress I was under (2 nervous breakdowns in the office), it just wasn't worth it. I was told the only reason I was fired was because I didn't apologize. I'm still glad I didn't.

Bottom line is when working for an technically incompetant boss, find an out. Network like crazy and find someone who you can work with, not work for. Me, well, I bailed without a parachute. But now I'm back in school, completing my MIS degree, and I hope to take my old bosses job from him at some point. That would be such sweet revenge.

Another option...

[John Whorfin]

Another option I don't see listed, is you could have him killed. It's like investing in server hardware and costs about the same just to have someone pop him.

Or if you're a DIY kinda guy, you can save a little money. You could get a cricket bat and invite him to watch "Shawn of the Dead" at your house.

As long as nothing splatters on the racks -- you ever tried to clean those lil holes on those Dell 1Us -- you should be good. Don't put him under the removable floor panels tho, that ticking noise will drive you nuts if someone comes asking for him.

Seriously:

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes.

Seriously: You misunderstand his job.

His job is NOT to drive the tech. (If he's knowlegable it's a bonus, but it's not required.)

His job is:
  - to keep upper management (and himself!) off your back
  - to get you the resources you need to do YOUR job
  - to set policy for the department
  - to evaluate your performance and assist you in improving it
  - to settle disputes and allocate resources and tasks among the department's members

Many of these are helped somewhat by technical knowlege. Some are actually hindered.

In particular, if he knows too much or rose from the ranks, he is likely to try to do some of the work himself (and neglect his other, more important functions) or worse yet try to micro-manage YOUR work, making decisions for you and otherwise getting in the way.

In a VERY small company or a startup he might also "wear the hat" of an individual contributor and spend part (ONLY part) of his time as a member of the team. But this is dangerous for a number of reasons (starting with you judging his managerial competence by his individual-contributor competence). And in even a moderately-sized department it's impossible: If he's doing it, he should be out hiring another hand (or fighting for a req to enable that).

Don't think of him as a more-expert team member: That's the Tech Lead's job. Don't even think of him as Captain Kirk to your team's Spock, Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, Checkov, and Bones (though that's much closer.)

Think of him as your stereotypical congressman - out doing political battle and deal-wheeling to bring home some pork and change the laws in your town's favor.

Meanwhile: His job is not to BE a star: His job is to make it possible for MORE THAN ONE of you to be stars. Your job is to make him, you, and your co-workers look good to those above him, by keeping his promises to them and feeding him good information.

Re:Seriously:

[nasor]

This is nonsense. A manager cannot carry out his basic function of monitoring employees and facilitating them in their work if he doesn't understand what they are doing. When an employee tells his manager "I wasn't able to complete the task that was assigned to me because of X," the manager needs to be familiar enough with X to know if it's a reasonable excuse or not.

When a manager doesn't understand what his employees are doing he will not be able to evaluate them effectively or fairly. Suppose you have a number of employees. One employee usually takes longer than the others to finish his tasks, while another usually takes less time. Is the slow employee lazy while the fast employee is especially hard-working? Or is the slow employee always tackling the most challenging tasks while the fast employee always works on the easiest tasks? How are you going to know which one to choose when it's time to recommend one of them for a promotion, or when word comes down that the company is downsizing and you need to eliminate one of your team members?

You say that a manager should be able to settle disputes and allocate resources among department members. How is he supposed to do that if he doesn't understand the job they're trying to do? If two employees can't agree on how to do something, how is he supposed to decide which one is correct? Flip a coin? What if two employees each claim that they need a particular limited resource? How will you evaluate which one needs it the most?

Re:Seriously:

[uc_nuhrd]

Huh? Your job functions describe someone who IS knowledgable about technology. How is a manager going to obtain resources, set policies or perform evaluations without himself being knowledgable about what needs to be done? The manager's sole responsibility then is to keep himself and other monkeys off the technicians' backs. Wow, that type of skilled labor really justifies the six figure salary. This makes the manager an over-payed errand boy. Oh wait, I'm forgetting the task of "making you and your co-workers[sic] look good to those above him." I've always relied on my merits to do that. If the top level executives depend on the advice of a soulless automaton to make personnel decisions I'm quitting. I'd rather be my own moronic boss thank you very much.

Post AC next time.

[uberjoe]

"I have a manager thats HIGHLY technical, but his management skills suck. He's a YES man to every other department because he doesn't have any balls."

I hope he's not technical enough to figure out who you are if he is reading this.

Re:Post AC next time.

[Neoncow]

Don't worry, he doesn't have the balls to confront him.

Slashdot is maturing

[nuggz]

We get this topic every now and then.
A few years ago it was a rant and attack how dumb managers and supervisors were.

Now we get posts asking and explaining what managers should be doing, and why actual skill in the task of the workers isn't as important as one might think.

Anyone want to take bets on how long till slashdot argues that a MBA is valuable, and CEO's are underpaid?

Most don't know what to do

[ItsMr.Data]

Most of the managers i have worked with do not have the tech skills. One guy was able to make ethernet patch cables but that was about it, he could not make his email work and constantly had "problems" with his PC. Another guy had lots of knowledge of ATM networks, but could not understand spanning tree protocol. Both of these guys were hard to work with and they gave very little respect to those around them. At a different job, the manager was very good both at helping the workers and dealing with customers, she had the respect of everyone there and the workers respected her as well. I think it really is just the personality of everyone involved. If you do not like the managers personality/performance than find a new job and put in your resignation.

hey man..

[TheHawke]

Preachin' to the choir dude. Preachin' to the choir.

IT Managers need more than managerial experience

[shmotlock]

Its one thing if I am the Webmaster and my manager doesn't know how to program PHP and Java, but if he doesn't know understand the basics of programming and how machines interact and what security issues to look for then I would say he is useless. The IT manager needs to have a long term goal for an organization and have the experience to guide the employees toward the goal. The IT part of the IT manager is the experience in the tech/sys admin industry that keeps the IT staff on the right track while understanding what is possible. Its not uncommon to have to explain lower level implementation details to my manager, but the distribution of knowledge should go both ways. I am the local web expert, but my IT manager knows a broader range of information, best practice techniques and policy. It all boils down to experience and knowing how to motivate the staff and get things done.

It's good to have a buffer on both sides.

[jbum]

I've worked at a number of jobs including ones where I was the most knowledgable person, and ones where I was the least knowledgable in the problem domain I was working in.

It is tempting to accept jobs in which you will be the most knowledgable person because it is gratifying to the ego, but ultimately it gives you an over-inflated sense of your abilities, and causes you to hate your boss.

I now believe it's best to have at last one or two people on both sides of you, a buffer if you will, so that you are neither the most, nor the least knowledgable.

Ideally, it's good to be on the upper side of the bell curve, but not at the far end of it.

And yes, it really helps your working relationship if your boss is smarter than you.

The problem with non-knowledgeable IT managers is:

[crazyphilman]

They have no way of evaluating your work. You could be brilliant; you could be an utter moron. A manager who wasn't promoted from within has no way of telling which is which. Everything eventually turns into a popularity contest as the manager favors the suck-ups and punishes the oddballs.

When a manager thinks a programmer may be crap but has no way of personally evaluating it, he'll take that programmer's work to another programmer (likely the first programmer's rival). The reviewer will shit all over the other programmer's work and the manager will think the programmer is crap even if he isn't. That programmer's life at the company is now ruined.

This happens a LOT with successful projects. Other programmers want a piece of them, so they sabotage the developer and take the project off his hands. Incompetent managers facilitate this.

The manager you WANT to work for is someone who was promoted from within, and who was a developer not so long ago. He'll have a good bullshit detector, and he'll understand the rivalries that develop on teams. In other words, he's not going to be a pidgeon.

ALL managers congradulate themselves for their "people skills" but they're fooling themselves if they think they've got the chops to really know what's going on right under their noses. Only an actual techie has a chance of really knowing what's going on.

Trust me on this one. I've been suffering under a know-nothing for four years. My life is a living hell. Every five minutes in my office, one programmer stabs another one in the back, and the manager goes along with everything with a deer-in-the-headlights look. I think internally he's muttering "hope for the best, hope for the best" because he SURE doesn't seem to know what he's doing...

Just my two cents.

Managers Manage People

[nurb432]

That is their key function, to manage their employees.

Sure, its nice if they also know the 'business', but that is a secondary trait.

Now, if they are incompetent, AND cant manage, then you got a problem.

I dunno who said it, but it's true...

[xactuary]

Keep the best and shoot the rest.

I'm an IT manager

[erikharrison]

I'm an IT manager and head of RnD. Yes, it can be too much to ask

Get over it. You don't want an IT manager who knows more about technology than you do. You want an IT manager who trusts you to be more knowledgeable, and knows how to manage. Knows how to keep upper management out of your goddamn face so you can get your work done, knows how to motivate you, and is smart enough to make the understand that if he's busy managing he can't keep up with technology.

I basically had to give up being tops in my field anymore, because I can't recreationally pursue pure technology any more. Just the facts of the job, and I'm a better manager for it.

However, having an IT manager who can't use his computer is a problem. The question I have is it because he is incapable, or because he is stretched to thin to deal with it any more? My boss has trouble with FrontPage for god's sake, which (having never used the program in my life) I fixed in less than a minute.

Of course, this was the same guy who built all of the core technology our company is built on from scratch 7 years ago. He's just too busy managing money, manageing resources, and generally being a CEO to focus all his brain power on the problem in front of him

Re:I'm an IT manager

[sparkz]

Can I work for you?!!

It's quite possible...

[fretmore]

...that you haven't given us enough information to say whether or not your boss is actually unqualified to do *his* job. You didn't mention anything about his management or communication skills, so assuming those are right on, then this just sounds like typical griping. If he lacks the aforementioned skills, then I think he should seek success elsewhere.

The worst managers I have had were women

[geekoid]

All but 1 woman managers I ahve had were worl aholics that couldn't understand why you wouldn't work 12+ hours a day, and bring your kid in to the office while they worked another 12 hours an saturday.

My current managers is a woman, and she is one of the best managers I have had ever.

Re:The worst managers I have had were women

[JWtW]

" All but 1 woman managers I ahve had were worl aholics...?!?"

As I read this sententence, I could only think--alcoholics?

Managers don't need Technical Skills...

[Jack Johnson]

...if they have real management skills. A manager who listens to, respects and effecively mediates his staff while promoting and actively representing them positively is a great asset.

Great resource site on the subject

[kosmosik]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
I am sure that you will find inspiration here. ;)

PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[arfonrg]

If ARCNET fails, you've got bigger problems than 'no network'!

A long time ago, when we were still running Arcnet, someone made the joke that ARCNET could be run over rusty barbed-wire fences and work. It wouldn't suprise me if it was true. Very robust.

http://www.arcnet.com/

Anyone remember the Dilbert strip?

[WebCowboy]

It gave me a chuckle...IIRC it went something like this:

The PHB complained to Dilbert that he couldn't log in. Dilbert notices the network cable has come out and says "Uh-oh, the cable for the token-ring network is unplugged--the token must've fell out", at which point the PHB starts looking on the floor for the token as if it were a contact lens.

Apparently the PHB is a real person, and happens to be the boss of the fellow who was tasked to develop an "ethernet contingency plan"

Re:Anyone remember the Dilbert strip?

[PDA_Monkey]

I was thinking of the other Dilbert strip where the PHB was given an Etch-a-Sketch "Laptop" that would "freeze up" a lot.

The fix was to turn it upside down and shake it. :)

Re:Anyone remember the Dilbert strip?

[kzinti]

You mean this.

Re:Anyone remember the Dilbert strip?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when both were first published ten years ago. Was working as the infrastructure analyst for a smallish company, and thought they were so hillarious, I put them on a wall of my cube.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he's a good team builder

He hired the original poster so ... no.

Answer

[robyannetta]

Duct-taping his ass to the flagpole has been known to teach them a lesson real quick.

Unfortunately, the lesson is how fast you can pull a Houdini and dial 911.

It really depends

[sflory]

All of the best managers I ever had didn't have the slightest idea about what I did. (Some were highly technical in other areas, but some weren't.) A good manager knows how to get the best job out of his subordinants. How to get them to summarize the issues. How run interference with the rest of the company for the team.

    The real question is does he take your advice when needed? Does he stick up for you guys with upper management? Do you get clear stable objectives? Do you get along with him? If the answers are yes he's better than most manager's with more technical back grounds. If not you've got to decide if the rest of the job is putting up with him.

    Be aware it's very rare that you can go head to head with your manager and win. Most people who are managers tend to be good at corporate politics. Plus upper manager doesn't tend to like uppity techs. Your only hope in being able to can a manager is to document, document, and document things. Then when he's screwed up things and attempting to deflect blame you can give his detractors a bit more ammo.

Start your own and hire your own looser family

[Anonymous Coward]

guess the subject stated it best ;)

You forget to provide the critical datum...

[oldenuf2knowbetter]

Is your manager a member of the family that owns the business? The answer makes all the difference in the world.

It's all a matter of direction

[dereference]

Up or Down, to be specific...

If you don't know anything about the field you're managing, how are you going to make sure you have people under you who know what they're doing? Yes, it might be remotely possible with a ton of work, but most managers that I'm familiar with have done a very poor job at this.

Yes, I fully agree. These MBA types that the GP is defending typically know very well how to manage "up" the chain of command. They can make the upper strata feel all warm and fuzzy about the way things are being managed. They become very proficient at this, and ultimately get positive feedback, so they spend further effort managing in this direction.

However, the same training does not at all prepare them to manage "down" the chain, to their subserviant underlings. These poor souls only get to hear about all the management-style doublespeak from the upper tiers, while then being "directed" to just shut up and go do their job.

Such direction is typically so devoid of any meaningful "management" that these folks end up essentially on their own. It's basically random whether their tasking is even possible, let alone whether it can fit within the quality, time, and resource constraints imposed by their techincally-ignorant manager. Perhaps worse, there is no incentive for the manager in this position to change focus; managing "down" becomes both painful and unrewarding.

Re:It's all a matter of direction

[interiot]

PRECISELY, VERY well put.

So how do you fix that? 360-degree reviews seems like they would either be too petty or too open to retribution.

I was holding out hope that there were some companies out there that could foster the right management culture, but after reading about the criticisms of NASA's management (whose responsibility in terms of life-and-death and budget are much greater than companies I've worked at, yet they still fail), I'm beggining to think there might not be any good companies to work at.

Re:It's all a matter of direction

[Anonymous Coward]

>> 360-degree reviews

hahahahaha! that's like...uhm...reviewing yourself! maybe 180-degree would be better

>

Re:It's all a matter of direction

[interiot]

I didn't make the term up, that's what they call it. "360" is cooler, I guess (XBox 360...).

Re:It's all a matter of direction

[Bimo_Dude]

They can make the upper strata feel all warm and fuzzy about the way things are being managed.

I first read this as, "They can make the upper strata feel all warm and fuzzy about the way things are being mangled," then I realized my mistake.

Get used to it.

[supabeast!]

This is normal in pretty much any technical job. Get used to it, and if you can't, you need to do what a lot of techies do - get out of the field entirely. There are a lot of reasons that tech managers are technically inept, including:

- Techies are usually bad with people, and above all else, an IT manager's job is often to act as a buffer between the techies and the rest of the world.
- Good techies often don't want to work in management jobs, and will quit before getting stuck in a boss role, so the crappy techies who aren't bad enough to get fired are promoted.
- Good techies switch employers often to get higher salaries. Crappy techies have a harder time finding new jobs, but because they stay around forever, get promoted a lot.

And always remember the disgruntled sysadmin's best friend - beer.

Managers do not need to know it all

[Anonymous Coward]

If a manager knows more than the workers why does he have workers?

But yes he should have a basic understanding.

One recommedation

[Fuzzball963]

Curl into a fetal position and whimper maybe ?. Seriously though, I haven't figured it out either on how to deal with them :). Maybe we should establish a hunting season on IT managers, say from Sysadmin day on for about another month :). But don't get rid of him until you've trained his replacement :). (note to all IT managers out there) I am just kidding. No one would want to hunt their IT manager :) . Would they?? WOULD THEY? :)

"Family owned business"

[mikehunt]

Talk to the family. I am sure they can arrange the departure of your IT manager if you put things the right way!

Knowledge is irrelevant -- Trust is the issue.

[Up'emInIrons]

While I agree that to be a great IT manager you need to have a solid understanding of development, it is not required. You didn't mention if this person was reasonable with expectations or trusting of your recommendations, just that it was annoying that they didn't know enough about your work.

If your manager understands people, can be effectively guide your team to accomplish the goals for your company, and promote your team's value to the company leaders then I don't see any problem with helping them with computer problems. However, if they have poor leadership skills then I agree with the "Quit" suggestion above.

I just (today) got laid off from a fortune 100 company after 14 years of service. During that time, I had a mix of managers most of whom did not understand IT. I have found that the best and most inspirational leadership ability was not related to their knowledge of IT.

Unfortunately my last manager not only didn't understand IT but had terrible people skills. She didn't trust us, didn't understand the work, and made poor strategic decisions. I can easily see why we were targeted for a layoff--Don't let yourself get caught in the same trap.

It's not just small companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Our company has offices in 5 different states. Our CIO requires more support time than any other individual user. Our CIO sets standards, but never follows the standards herself...she has a laptop model unlike any other in the company. It crashes every other month and at least 3 of our staff have rebuilt it (she keeps having someone else rebuild it, but the problems keep coming back after she has it for a week). Her idiocy is larger than just a total lack of technical knowledge. She implemented a dress code (everyone has to wear a tie now) while she parades around the office in flip-flops...

A Manager Manages, A Worker Works

[aquatone282]

Personal anecdote:

With twenty years experience working military avionics in a mostly back-shop environment I was reassigned to the flight line as a Production Superintendent, responsible for the daily and periodic maintenance on a fleet of 3 (sometimes 4) USAF U-2 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, as well as officially validating that all maintenance had been performed correctly and the aircraft was airworthy before a pilot accepted an aircraft for a mission.

I knew squat about the aircraft except for the few systems I had worked on. But the guys who worked for me - crew chiefs, jet propulsion mechanics, pneudraulics specialists, comm/nav weenies, etc. who did. I had to rely on them to not only do their jobs correctly but to give me correct information when I had to make a decision that could affect whether or not a mission would be canceled. That meant I had to ask a lot of, what were for my team, simple and obvious questions.

I was fortunate to have a motivated and competent team. In return for their assistance, I wrote their evaluations, submitted them for decorations, juggled schedules to accommodate their leave and provided personal counseling when needed, but most importantly I worked hard to keep the buffoonery generated by our maintenance officer to a minimum for them. I also made sure that when I was complimented for a difficult task the team had accomplished, the appropriate people got the credit.

In time, I picked up the basics of their jobs, and when short on hands or time could pitch-in and help. I would like to think that even though I never became as knowledgeable as they were in their respective specialties that I earned a modicum of their respect for providing the management that allowed them to do their jobs in a relatively stress-free environment.

If your manager is managing and doing the things necessary for you to do your job in a relatively stress-free environment, then thank your lucky stars because the alternative is much worse than explaining how you do task x, y, or z to him.

Re:Tokin Ring

[hobbesx]

Ah- I think you mis-spelled it. You obviously haven't read the third book, or seen the third movie so I won't spoil it all for you. Suffice to say, the ring has been destroyed.

Improve the breed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The job is great, except for our boss. He simply doesn't know nearly as much as he should. Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches. He spends hours and hours on the most insignificant tasks as if he has nothing better to do. Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?

I refer you to:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/le wis/980518rl.htm
(and realize I don't necessarily agree with him totally, just the point that he makes that it may not all be maliscious)

and the sory he mentions; "The Political Engineer" (sorry, no links on the Web).

As one who has worked under such people (and, yes, some of them were people I respected outside of that particular incompetence) and was subsequently punished for it, I can only suggest that you leave and let them perish under their own incompetence lest you perish with them.

WHOA, VERY WRONG, MOD DOWN! Re:Get him fired.

[q2a]

This is so wrong I just have to chime in.

First, a technical manager without technical experience is worthless.

Second, managers with no industry knowledge other than first year MBA knowledge, (your quote), are worthless.

Third, anyone who does NOT understand that handling both people AND systems requires insight into both is not woth your time.

Re:WHOA, VERY WRONG, MOD DOWN! Re:Get him fired.

[drdewm]

Anyone who doesn't agree with this is First, Probably one of those worthless managers. Second, too inexperienced to realize the truth yet. Third, Dee Dee Dee

Re:WHOA, VERY WRONG, MOD DOWN! Re:Get him fired.

[debiansid]

First, a technical manager without technical experience is worthless
A guy with zero technical knowledge, yes, its not worth it. he should have to know what his subordinates are talking about. But its not necessary that he should be an uber hacker. I think Techno-Functional is the right word for it.

Personally, I have found uber hackers to be clumsy managers as they indulge themselves too much into "getting that piece of code right". Thats not a managers job. And if he really has time for it then either he's missing out on something or someone else is sharing part of the job he really ought to be doing. Here's some of the jobs that an IT firm manager would have:

• Manage project/team Resources
• Meeting up with clients
• Building business relationships
• Get right people on right jobs
• Monitor team workflows and try to tweak them
• Address grievances of his subordinates

Long story short, its about making life easier for the developers/techies so that they concentrate only on the tech stuff. If there's some technical detail related to a niche problem that he really needs to know to take a certain decision then it is the techie's duty to get his boss up to speed about it atleast in terms of "action and consequences".

I believe these should keep a man busy enough. If you have time out of this then there's one of these things then you either might not be doing at your best or you're one heck of a rare breed manager.

You don't have to know everything

[TheBillGates]

I supervised 36 people in an Air Force computer shop that maintained about 12 different mainframe systems. My techs knew more than I did about those systems. My job as I saw it was to find ways to achieve the best performance from those 36 people. It didn't mean diddly if I didn't know those systems. What mattered is how well I could get the overall picture from those people to derive a good plan. You don't have to be "the expert in everything" to be a good IT manager. You just have to know who the experts are and to rely on their input.

Advice for that bad boss...

[andydandy]

Dumb bosses are the second least offensive kind of bad boss (next to the do nothing boss). Some advice:

1) Go out and buy yourself a copy of Yourdon's "Death March" and read it.

2) You have to decide where you want to go with your bad boss. If you decide you want things to work and take responsibility, you will need to make your bad boss an ally in your efforts. If you don't, you'll have to either be happy with your lot or find another job.

3) Dumb bosses love smart sycophants. Consider sucking up to them to at least shield yourself and your colleagues from some of their worst vagaries. Properly wielded, you can wrangle considerable resources out of a charmed dumb boss (e.g. "as long as we are redoing the network we should buy all the developers Microsoft Developer Network subscriptions.").

Contingency For Token Ring

[Vicissidude]

Yeah, so what happens when the token ring fails? We have to come up with a contingency plan for that as well!

You see the problem with the pattern here...

Re:Contingency For Token Ring

[Scaba]

Well, then you bring in the Chinese needle snakes.

Re:Contingency For Token Ring

[Pharmboy]

Then the gorillas?

Re:Contingency For Token Ring

[Scaba]

Of course.

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[ThJ]

I'm pretty confident I could run 100 Mbit ethernet over four rusty barbed wires. I've been itching to try it for some time. Now to find a rusty barbed wire fence...

Quit.

[fire-eyes]

What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?

You aren't going to change the situation, change jobs. You will be happier in the long run.

Never, ever, work for a family business...

[keepingmyheaddown]

...unless you are part of the family. A comment from the voice of bitter experience.

Re:Never, ever, work for a family business...

[jimmydevice]

I once worked for a "family" owned company. It was known as "Advanced Nepotism and Paranoia Corporation" They took care of, as in hiring and firing on whim and requirements, The Staff. ANPC for short. Never trust anybody. My father told me a parable when I was a child. A Man placed his son high up on a tree limb and told him to jump, The kid was afraid and refused. The father eventually convinced the kid to jump, "Don't worry, I'll catch you!" The kid jumped and the father let the kid hit the ground with a thud. The kid cried, You said you would catch me? The father replied, Never trust ANYBODY, Not even your father. I should have listened to my father. The prick.

Re:Never, ever, work for a family business...

[KowShak]

My family runs a family business that I'm never going to involve myself in if I can avoid it. I can do without getting involved in the sibling rivalry, score settling and grudges that go on there.

Re:Never, ever, work for a family business...

[gfreeman]

... or they make you an offer you cannot refuse, eh, Tony? Fuggedaboudit.

If You Like That One

[tjasond]

Then you'll like this one too. After many requests for our manager to upgrade our desktop machines from limping 500 Mhz processors (this was 3 years ago, when Ghz was old news), I finally decided to send out an email detailing the loss of productivity in compile time on those machines versus my Athlon 1300+ at home. The numbers came out to over a 5x compile time increase, enough to staff an extra developer for an entire month. I had all the screenshots and graphs and charts to back it up. The response? "You make a good argument here, but you forget that we bill by the hour."

Some managers will never get it. There are a dangerous breed out there (like the one mentioned above) that relentlessly pursue power, no matter how (un)qualified they are. Also, the sad but true Peter Principal further facilitates this incompetency. The only effective counter that I've found is to go the grassroots route. If you garner enough support, you may end up with your marketing folks hanging printouts on every office door entitled "Ask not what your developer can do for you, ask what you can do for your developer". It didn't take long after that.

Re:If You Like That One

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the sad but true Peter Principal

It is also sad but true that Wikipedia has a redirect. B-O

Re:If You Like That One

[Twylite]

Let me see if I understand this. You want to invest cash into upgrading the developer PCs. No additional money will be made by this investment (because your company business model is to bill by the hour).

In other words its not an investment so much as an expense.

The problem here comes from (1) your lack of understanding of "the Jewish principle", and (2) your lack of understanding of productivity.

The Jewish principle is pretty simple. $1 out, more than $1 in. As long as you're doing this consistently, you're doing good business.

Productivity, on the other hand, is poorly understood. You think you are being more productive because you are able to work faster. But that's efficiency, not productivity. You see, to be productive you must also be effective, that is, there must be some commercial value in what you are doing.

By way of example: a factory that produces 10,000,000 tins of powdered ethernet cable per day has a productivity of zero because there is no market for powdered ethernet cable. It is a marvelously effecient factory, but it is adding no value, and its not being productive.

The fundamental part of productivity is adding value. If you're not adding value, then you're not being productive. Most people think of "unproductive" as the time they spend shirking off, browsing the Internet, chatting to friends on IRC, etc. But if the "real work" you are doing doesn't add some value to the business, then it's no different to shirking off -- its unproductive.

From a business perspective, your boss is exactly right. If the PC upgrades cannot bring in more money for the business, then they will not make you more productive, just more efficient. No value is added, so the expense cannot be justified (*).

If, on the other hand, you could spend the time you save on activities that add value to the business, it would make sense to upgrade.

(*) There are of course other justifications for expenses, for example, the upgrades could improve the working environment and the morale of employees.

Re:If You Like That One

[FurryFeet]

By way of example: a factory that produces 10,000,000 tins of powdered ethernet cable per day has a productivity of zero because there is no market for powdered ethernet cable.

See, this is where you are wrong. Powdered ethernet cable is what you sprinkle around to make wireless networks.

Remind me to explain you some other time how they make the magic smoke.

Re:If You Like That One

[ninjagin]

I've been a Jew for almost forty years, and I've never heard of "the Jewish Principle". How very interesting.

May I suggest that bringing in more money than you spend is how profits get generated in any business or household. It doesn't have anything to do with Jews or being Jewish.

Re:If You Like That One

[Twylite]

Okay, I guess I'd better add some background on this one ;)

A lot of businesses these days put a lot of money into building brand, expanding, diversifying, adding capacity ... all the "planning for the future" things. And somewhere around 60% of those (for SMMEs) fail because of this. It's not the lack of profit that kills them, its the lack of cash flow.

A lot of businesses also make a profit without getting in more money than they spend, or make a loss despite getting in more money than they spend. Accounting is a wonderful thing.

I had a boss (Jewish) who made his comfortable living by buying up failing small businesses and turning them around. His philosophy was the "Jewish tailor principle" (and I have subsequently heard it called the Jewish accounting principle, lawyer principle, doctor principle, etc).

The Jewish tailor principle says that you don't spend money unless it is to make money. Not to possibly make money in the future, but to make money now. You spend $0.50 because its going to put $1 in your pocket tomorrow. Also, money is cash and nothing else counts. A payment on credit is not money (unless you're the one paying ;) ).

I don't know a huge number of Jews, but those that I know all seem to know about "the Jewish principle". Perhaps its some sort of in-joke in the local community.

Re:If You Like That One

[ePhil_One]

Excellent summary. What the worker bee is missing is that there is no extra work available to fill the time that would be freed up. He'd upgrade all the computers then have to layoff some staff that were no longer needed, which would actually save him money in the long run. Fortunately the "dumb" manager would prefer to hold on to valued employees and wait for an upturn.

It's just the way things work

[ded_diode]

I used to be in the exact same situation. I would be the geek, and my boss would handle the managerial duties without understanding what exactly it was that I was doing. It often crossed my mind that someone who knew the technical end of my department better should be the one managing it. After putting in my time as a lowly tech, the company grew, and my boss got promoted. Having now spent close to 3 years as Technical Manager, I see things in a much different light. My job is to MANAGE, and let my techs do the tech, just as our respective job titles imply. I oftentimes find myself losing a grip on current tech and learning technical tricks from the people that I trained, and this is OK. Sometimes the current task that I may be working on may seen trivial to some, as I used to think of my boss, but things are a lot different on the other side of the fence. I am simply a spokesman, they are the ones that get the job done and they are the ones that deserve the credit for the work. When it comes down to it though, I do miss being a tech frequently. Just be thankful that someone else, technical or not, is writing reports and sitting through meetings instead of YOU.

When is a manager a Manager??

[Anonymous Coward]

Comment from an anonymous IT Manager...

Lets put this into perspective, is the manager effective at addressing problems, improving the environment, fulfilling his reporting requirements, managing and relating to his staff? There's probably a couple more categories that I haven't mentioned, but if he does his role effectively then they are the main areas that his role expects him to address.

The problem you have is that you percieve an excessive amount of time being spent by IT staff supporting your IT manager - isn't he just a user like anybody else? Or is he really taking up more time than all other users?

Personally if my laptop goes wrong and I cannot fix it then sure I'll ask somebody on my team to look at it. But if a member of staff has a Solaris problem then they know that I will help them out and I have more experience in this field then any of them (14 years since SunOS), same if they need personal support, ITIL/process advice, Linux support etc.

I do regard my role as partly mentoring, but it is not necessarily best fit for all individuals in a managerial or even supervisory role. Certainly I do NOT regard my technical abilities to be a core part of my role - its just something that keeps me interested.

Don't quit your job or have an issue because your IT Manager is a user! If you don't respect your manager simply due to lack of technical ability and cannot see the qualities that he does bring to the team then I'd suggest you have a look at yourself, not at your manager.

Before the flames start, I am not defending all managers, I know there are lousy ones out there, but think about what the manager does that you have no idea about. There's a number of very technically savvy people out there who have difficulty relating to clients, cannot perform pre-sales roles, manage others, write up a business plan, handle a simple budget, put into place ITIL processes, handle an ISO9001 implementation, address statutory and regulatory compliance issues etc. If you can honestly claim to be able to do all that and are still working technical jobs then you are either a technically savvy manager already or are wasted in your current role.

Rant over.

I won't read this thread again so if you want to flame me with childish comments, don't bother - hopefully somebody will think before they start slagging off their boss.

I've been in your shoes.

[scriptx]

I was director of systems administration for a large company on Long Island. The president one day asked me to layout a contingency plan incase the port system failed. Sometimes you have to grin and bare it. I no longer work for said company. Cheers!

IT Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the replies deal with large organization management while the original poster is talking about a 30 person family owned comapany and a 3-4 person IT group. The post also posits a high degree of frustration with the manager due to his/her lack of technical skills.

Given the size of the IT group the manager would have to be technically aware since they are actually part of the IT technical resource pool. They don't have the luxury of just managing people, they actually have to get down and dirty. If they were part of a bigger organization and a larger group then more management time would be spent acting as a buffer between the technical types and the rest of the organization. Even there you have to have some subject matter knowledge or all you ever do in meetings is say "I'll get back to you". The myth of the genereal manager who can be dropped in and then manage any group is just that, a myth. When a good manager starts with a group there is a learning curve that they go through while they become conversant with the area that the group is working in and the people doing the work. If the manager doesn't become conversant in a reasonable period of time, as is pretty explicitly stated here, then the worker bees either:

1. Continue to pick up the slack and cover for the incompetant;

2. Put up with it and hope upper management notices;

3. Continue the education process, some people aren't as fast as we expect; or

4. Leave.

It is true that a manager is first and foremost supposed to manage, but if all of the people who they are managing aren't happy then its the manager's fault, not the workers.

I've been in situations where the organic waste has hit the rotary impeller unit and my management has backed me up and let my team get on with fixing the problem. The situations were high pressure and not enjoyable but because management knew what we needed to succeed and let my team get on with the job we were willing to do what ever it took to get the situation fixed. They're basic job was to provide the environment where we could succeed.

Basically you lead by example.

BTW - A leader is a also a good manager but a mangaer is necessarily a good leader.

I wish I could remember the name of this law...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence.

Two things

[Stonefish]

Most people have poor technical skills so you pay for those that have them.

Most people have poor managerial skills so you pay for those that have them.

Expect to pay heaps for good Technical and managerial skill in the one package.

There is a school of thought that technical people make poor managers. This is wrong. Most people make poor managers and training just makes these people believe that they are good managers.

Jesus Christ... I can't believe you guys

[ellem]

If you had a problem with me you guys could have just come to me and said something.

Oh and hey my DHCP is DNSing again.

Re:Jesus Christ... I can't believe you guys

[erica_ann]

"Oh and hey my DHCP is DNSing again." well then why don't you go and HUP it again, finger it and then cat it? I mean come on!

Simple problem to fix

[fuzzylollipop]

find a new place to work! you can't "fix" this guy or this place, trying to is going to kill you or kill your desire to work "with computers" at all.

IT managers in western culture

[heroine]

The purpose of IT managers in western culture is not to know anything about software but to represent you. They shouldn't be using computers for anything but scheduling and presentations. They're supposed to be politically savvy representatives who show what you've done to the budget writers and the customers and conciel the back room work. You'll never have an IT manager with experience in the actual work unless you move to India or something.

DOS Rules!

[Tanaka]

Our Technical Director is stuck in the world of DOS. Any windowing environment is the work of the devil. Multi-tasking OS are an overkill to him, but he reluctantly uses Windows for the Internet. He finally updated to boardband last year, having stated previously the Internet was just a fad, and dial-up was just as quick.

He is a C programmer, yet he didn't know what the IP protocol was until 4 years ago. He doesn't know what an SQL server is, or what Telnet and ssh is. He discovered VNC just last week, but that was only because he was under pressure to use it.

We ran out of ports on our office Switch, so we ordered up another one to link to the existing switch. When he found out what we had done, he told us to run the two Switches as independent networks, because linking them together was 'over complicated'.

ha...you don't know the half of it!

[The Lynxpro]

Our office's IT person yanked QuickTime off my desktop computer because according to her, it was a security problem because "QuickTime goes across the net to check the time...you know...that's why they call it Quick Time."

She also denied me the right to install Mozilla FireFox because according to her, "Mozilla has more security holes in it than IE." If anyone wonders why IE ranks so highly in visits to Slashdot, its probably because so many employers have wankers for IT staff that won't allow any other type of browser installed on the office machines.

The same IT person tried to claim that our office had to buy a new license for a copy of Microsoft Visio that was installed on a machine that nobody used anymore instead of uninstalling it from that particular machine and reinstall the program on the computer of the employee who requested the program. Management wouldn't listen to my protests on this until I produced an email from Microsoft directly indicating the extra license purchase was unnecessary.

Yet another case of bonehead government IT staff justifying their knowledge and position with an MCSE certification.

Re:ha...you don't know the half of it!

[blahplusplus]

"Yet another case of bonehead government IT staff justifying their knowledge and position with an MCSE certification."

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit MCSE has been overhauled much since the NT days and even then it wasn't exactly a cakewalk (you had to solve real problems and if you didn't know what they were talking about for many problems you were up shit creek). Sure it may be easy for some hardcore computer geeks but seriously doing the full MCSE certainly isn't a waste of time if you want to learn about networking in regards to windows, it is more of an addition to ones education then the 'main course' itself and it should have always been understood to be that way.

Re:ha...you don't know the half of it!

[swordgeek]

Apparently you don't need proper english skills for an MCSE. Pity.

I know some people who got their MCSE in the early NT days--good admins, with good skills. Then the standards were lowered, and everyone got it. The best of those early adaptors got over it, the rest complained bitterly about it.

At the end of the day, what matters is that there are a lot of unskilled MCSEs out there, which negates the point of the cert.

Re:ha...you don't know the half of it!

[dbIII]

MCSE has been overhauled much since the NT days and even then it wasn't exactly a cakewalk

It is still by far the easiest way to call yourself an "engineer", so yes, it is a cakewalk.

The previous poster had a sensible attitude to it as an extension of the basics, but human resources fools sometimes tended to look at it as if it was superior to a real undergraduate or postgraduate degree.

Ignorance is a managers Job

[broadScot]

If the managers knew only a little of what they should they would become very dangerous indeed!

Yeah, why should the IT manager know IT?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, you don't expect the CFO to know finances or the Production Manager to know anything about production, or the Sales Manager to know anything about sales, so why should the IT Manager know anything about IT?

non-tech Mgmt not the prob, non-tech Sales *IS*!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if my Manager doesn't know anything about tech... As most posters have said, his role is not a technical one - MINE is... In fact, I appreciate the built-in job security that comes by knowing he couldn't function without me. As long as he has the 1337 mgmt skillz...

My career-long pet-peeve, however, is the virtual lack of *any* technical competency on the Sales force of businesses who sell technical services/products.

ALL of us who've worked for a company specializing in that field have horror stories. "You sold them WHAT?!?!?!" As if designing/implementing a solution based in reality wasn't difficult enough, often times we walk in to projects already accepting eventual failure because the customer has been sold pure fantasy.

It's an even harder kick to the stomach when the technical team is truly talented enough to pull off some amazing ad-lib innovation that never gets the deserved recognition because the customer was promised a pie in the sky.

Oh yeah, those fool's pay dwarfs the techies, but who's counting...

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[Dorsai42]

Depends on how much rust. If the rust is thick and scaly, you might not be able to get above 10Mbit. Some hokum about surface effect. ;-)

A manager is not meant a mentor

[djfatbody]

I have worked for big companies and small companies. I have had good bosses and bad. I have learned over time that managing people (especially geeks, cuz we're not always the easiest to deal with) is a skill all its own.

I have found that the best bosses I have worked for have mastered the skill of managing and weren't very technical. I respect them for their ability to manage and lead.

As a result, I am not alway consumed by the fact that my boss is a technical idiot. This has left me with time to seek out mentors who have both the time and the skill to move me beyond where I am.

Re:A manager is not meant a mentor

[Halvy]

Thats a GREAT idea!!

I find that when I 'slow down' and try to look over a situation like this, and try and 'walk in the other guys shoes', that I come up with good ideas-- like you stated here (seeking out other mentors). :)

this hits close to home

[Anonymous Coward]

i work for an IT consulting company.

the owner is the project lead on everything. its a small business. about 4-5 employees.

he's a fucking idiot. he doesnt know the first thing about networking, computers, programming, management.

the guy steals shit and claims it as his own. ive seen him download white papers and tech docs and show them to a client claiming he wrote them up for them.

he makes outrageous claims like he invented (insert huge technological break through).

on top of that, he straight up makes fun of me (by far the most knowledgable of the group) if i dont know the answer to something extremely complex and way beyond my specilization. and then he'll make up an answer because he knows know one will know the real one. but the answers are so way off and filled with buzz words to cover up the fact that he has no fucking clue what he's talking about, that we all just look at eachother and try not to laugh. or in a similiar situation, he'll have just gotten the answer from microsoft and then claim he knew this from prior experience from way back when he set it up and basiclly defined the standard for (insert process)

i gotta get a new job...

From the other side of the fence

[nusuth]

I used to be a chemical engineer. And I like to assume I'd been a good one. Nowadays the company is so big that I can't do all R&D by myself anymore (and therein lies my claim for being a successful engineer), so we sought someone to help me. After the newspaper ad, it turned out there were many qualified for the job, and many more overqualified for it. We ended up hiring four of them.

Now I'm a manager. I don't know what to do with it. Everyone we hired is expected to know more about either chemistry or chemical engineering more than I do and I'm supposed to make them work efficiently. It is really hard. Much harder than working efficiently myself. It is not that we are clueless, but we frequently have to hire people who know more than we do. Cut us managers some slack.

Re:From the other side of the fence

[malkavian]

Now that you're a manager, in a technical lead role, the aim is to make sure that you always see the bigger picture.
You don't need to understand the detail as well as the people you've hired in.
You just need to know that it will work, and have a ballpark figure of how much effort is likely to be involved.
You take the aspects of the big picture that involve each of people you manage, and explain to them in concise terms (you need to understand the subject to convey correctly what you want someone to be doing/achieve) what the big picure involves, and what section you'd like them to take on.
And who to talk to when they cross over into other people's remits.

Hiring people who know more than you do about sections of a subject, and acknowledging that fact pretty much shows that you're a good manager. Finding it difficult probably means you're making sure that all the issues of the people you've hired are dealt with effectively too.. Which means again that you're a good manager.

The general points in all these threads seem to point to the concept that as a manager, you need to know enough to know when you should be relying on someone else's experience, but know what lies firmly in your grasp enough to co-ordinate the right tasks to the right skillsets.
Having done/doing management (and running my own company in the past), I'll agree that yes, doing it right is hard.
That should mean the people who you manage find their tasks vastly simplified, and all they need to worry about is achieving their tasks, not budgets, corporate politics etc.

Guess I asked a decent question yesterday....

[RealisticCanadian]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160001&cid=133 92632 At least it's not a dupe article.

Well it depends

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is his role in the organization. If he's supposed to act as lead developer than obviously that is a problem, but if he's more of a project manager than he does not need to be as technically capable as his developers. If his job is to just doll out the work to your team, then why does he need to know the nuts and bolts of what you're doing?

Brother, I feel your pain...

[Anonymous Coward]

My boss (the head of IT) knows AS/400's (barely, she can't do the hardware stuff like I can), DB2/400 and RPG and that's about it. She don't know jack about Ethernet, TCP/IP, and gets confused with the difference between server software and server hardware. Actually, she gets frustrated that a peice of hardware can be called a server and software can be called a server.

Everything about RPG programming and DB2/400 she learned on the job or going to a computer trade school. Although, she expects us to learn what we need to learn out of a book. For some things that's okay, but for other things I think paid training would be quicker and more productive.

I can almost feel your frustration. In our case, our boss has good business and database sense, which is pretty much the heart of our business. As far as our application systems and database goes, everything is top notch. I guess that's why she's the boss.

Although, I wish she would spend more time trying to learn ways to get our legacy system more web-enabled. But, the web is a foreign thing to her still.

*sigh*

I forgot to mention, more on the boss! (follow up)

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I forgot to mention is that he always seems to take credit for things with the other managers. It's always "WE" did this, "WE" did that, when he didn't have a single part in it. That's the worst part...putting your hard work into something, and not getting the recognition from the higher-higher-ups. He rarely thanks us or commends our work, and does extremely little to motivate us. I would quit, but like I said, the job is wonderful aside from him.

Uneducated IT Staff, and how to deal?

[the-build-chicken]

I manage an IT department for a small to medium sized family owned business. The job is great, except for our staff. They simply don't know nearly as much as they should. I find them going into irrelevant technical details that have nothing to do with our business needs far to often. When my computer acts up and I just want it back online so I can finish my reports, I get the distinct impression that they think it's beneath them to fix it. I spend hours and hours on the most important tasks of quantifying and solving the business problems only to be berated by my subordinates because it's not a "cool" and "technical" solution. Is it ignorant to believe that IT staff should be a knowledgeable in the business and it's needs as a whole? People that can put aside their technical aliences and focus on return on investment for our business? It creates an extremely frustrating work environment, and I don't know how to approach the problem. It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you that actually create income for your businesses have for this issue? Should I just fire them all?

Welcome to the real world, son...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your situation is not uncommon. In fact, the higher a manager advances, the less technical smarts they retain over time. After a few years, the time spent in endless meetings drains any relevant tech knowledge that they may have once had...

Quit

[Anonymous Coward]

You whiny little fag.

Re:Quit

[Halvy]

Yea, and tell us where you work(ed).

Your boss sounds preddy qool :)

You don't know

[pigiron]

"Given some of the egregious spelling and grammer errors that I see..."

It is spelled "grammar"!

Great Question

[mr.warmth]

I have read Slashdot for a while and never felt the need to comment being that my real insight into technology is nonexistant. Yes, I am a boss just like the one you're talking about.

First thing to realize is that unless your boss is a technical lead who's a developer/tech, he is hired to things which are different from what you're hired to do.

I have no clue how to fix a computer, I don't even know what version of Windows I am writing this on. But I do know how to keep a few hundred developer from programming our company out of business. We have guys whose job it is to keep my PC running. I can't do what they do, and they sure as hell can't do what I do!

Second thing: How does your manager measure success? Since I know I can't develop the whole product myself, the only way I know to succeed is to make sure my developers succeed. That's the only thing I can shoot towards which will produce net gain for the company. If your manager measures himself the same way, you're golden. If he realizes he's not a tech and lets techs do their job, what more can you ask for? Would you preffer a tech manager who was convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he could do the job better than his underlings?

Third: I heard people complain about their bosses this way (I am often the target) Usually its sourgrapes whose root cause has zero to do with management's technical ability. Sometimes the manager's personality clashes with the employees, or the employee is jelous of the status and money. If these are the true causes of your discontent, look within yourself for a resolution.

Fourth: all other things being equal, a good manager who also posesses an understanding of what his people do is more valuable than a manager lacking that understanding. In other words, if you can learn all the non-technical stuff your boss does and he doesn't learn the tech stuff you do, you will soon become more valuable to the firm than he is. If this is your ambition, go for it.

Finally, you'll be better off if you learn what it is that your managers are held accountable for by THEIR bosses. You bet your ass your boss isn't measured by how well he can fix the computer, but only by how many computers you as a department fix in the year (or some metric along the same lines).

Re:Great Question

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so I read the first three posts on your blog, and I don't understand you.

You say that you want to have interns doing meaningful jobs, but also warn that if an intern (someone who is by definition most likely very inexperienced in both the workplace and in their software coding skills) "fucks up" a key piece of software that you will ream your sub-manager's ass for the intern's fuck-up. You can't ask the for the impossible and eat your cake too! (Interns doing important work, but absolute zero chance for screw-ups and delays)

You also go on to criticize employees in the post below for bemoaning the fact that they're not you, and don't love their jobs, hence the reason they're not you. The next post the describes how:

We didn't build this company by nurturing developer egos. We made our first sale a year before we expected to have a product, and we promised to deliver it in 5 months. Everyone worked 15 hour days, at least 6 days a week to get it done! When someone slacked off or fucked up, they jeopardized everyone else's work. "Why are you trying to ruin my company?" the owner would scream, "If you don't want to succeed, just quit and make room for someone who's not going to sabotage us!" A few couldn't deal with it and fell by the wayside.

Are you kidding me?!? Again, you ask the impossible of people and expect your employees to magically worship your god-like enthusiasm and zeal for the job you have and how hard you've worked to get there. Guess what? Some of us don't expect the work week to consist of 1) not seeing our family - AT ALL or 2) being screamed at by the owner of the company for making mistakes when working under stress levels akin to being in combat!

BTW,

I wish HR understood this. It's so obvious they don't give a shit about the product or our clients. They don't understand that we have to compete daily. It's win or die in this market. They don't care if we go out of business tomorrow, as long as it's not because some disgruntled reject sued us for having a "hostile workplace"

You DO have a hostile work environment if what I copied above is true of you and your superiors. I and many others like me have no problem working hard, but we DON'T respect people who make ridiculous promises to 'clients' and then force those below them to meet said ridiculous promises. Because guess who profits the most from our ridiculous amount of work? Not us! Being able to "crack the whip" harder than everyone else does not make you worthy of a higher salary than those of us doing the work. I'm sure you work very hard too, but that in and of itself does not justify expecting everyone else to work to the level you do.

You are just another corporate whore.

Re:Great Question

[duguk]

C'mon, what do you expect? He confesses he's a manager!

Dug ;)

Re:Great Question

[ninjagin]

Well put.

Thanks for posting (finally). I just recently got promoted to manage the team I currently work with. I found your observations to be very keen and helpful.

NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Venner]

As part as my undergratuate engineering coursework, we had to take a Professional Ethics class. During that time, I spent 4 weeks going over the Challenger disaster with a fine-tooth comb. It absolutely disgusted me.

By and large, the engineers did their jobs to the best of their ability. They were aware of the O-ring problems, having been warned by the manufacturer and they knew the O-rings had never been tested or launched at the low temperatures that day. They repeatedly voiced their concerns to management. They even refused to sign off on the launch.

The management, on the other hand, didn't take any of it as a serious problem. Of the group directly involved with the launch, only one had a technical background, and he caved almost immediately from the pressure of the majority. The managers were under political pressure to make the launch a go, and that was their only concern.

An engineer by the name of Boisjoly blew the whistle* on what happened knowing full well that by doing so, he would probably ruin his career. No one hires whistleblowers. Otherwise, we might have heard a very different story.

What was the point I was going to make... Ah. Management never seems to have much use for professional ethics, too little understanding of what they are managing, and always seem to think their MBAs are advanced degrees that somehow trump a "lowly" B.S. in Engineering.

I think one of my old professors summed it up best.

Engineers:
The A students go into teaching/academia
The B students get most of the jobs.
The C students go into / switch to management.

*he was later awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the AAAS for doing everything in his power at the time to halt the launch and exemplifying professional behavior

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Create an Account]

Disclaimer: I am an MBA student. I used to be a pipelayer/foreman but blew out my knees and went back to school.

We also study the Challenger explosion and sit around saying "What a bunch of sh*theads." Likewise with Enron and Worldcom. Managers are like anyone else: most are about average, some are better, some are worse. You just don't hear much about the good guys devoting their days to getting stuff done. When a manager cheats, it's front page news. When one behaves responsibly and ethically everyone just goes "So what?"

As far as thinking the MBA is 'better' than an engineering degree? Mostly we just think it's 'different.' Anybody with an engineering degree is gonna be better than me at math, it's a given. Math, however, is not enough to manage an organization.

I think both sides have buttholes. The best we can do is all to try not to be buttholes, and be tolerant of the buttholes we are forced to be around.

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Anonimo Codardo]

"I think one of my old professors summed it up best.

Engineers:
The A students go into teaching/academia
The B students get most of the jobs.
The C students go into / switch to management"

Does it wonder that a Professor is making such a statement? He could have saved some breath if he just said "I'm great, I was an AA student".

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Venner]

This particular Professor, I think, managed to just scrape by for most of his undergrad, ended up doing well by the end, and never finished his terminal degree.

Did he know his subject matter? Oh yes, very well. It just took him a while to get there. A graduate of the school of hard knocks, in some respects.

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[slackerboy]

"I'm great, I was an AA student"

I knew quite a few those. It really tended to hurt their grades...

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you might be interested that there is a very interesting Harvard Business School case study that goes over the disaster and the problems with, as you said, the groupthink and push to launch even under the untested temp conditions. It was one of the most memorable lessons I took from my degree and I can assure you that us MBA's are getting a clue once in a while on these issue.

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Twylite]

Strange. In the "real world" ...

The A students fail second year maths and drop out, start their own business, make a packet in a few years, go insolvent, and end up getting a job.

The B students get jobs, realise that they won't be able to keep up with the pace of change forever, study management, get promoted.

Most of the C students go out and get jobs. They will be replaced in time by younger C students with more recent education. Some of them may get promoted to management, where they will be flamed by their underlings for incompetence.

The remainder of the C students go into academia, where they remain blissfully unaware that half of the knowledge and skill behind software engineering is management.

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The remaining (the "You Failed It!!") guys have a hard time understanding wtf is it that they didn't do for them to succeed rank in the **AA.

To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: reinvent

Re:NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault

[interiot]

Yeah, there's a range of good/bad/average managers. The startling thing though is that the NASA examples show that the best managers have to offer just isn't good enough.

Managers at my fortune-500 company have a ship-at-all-costs attitude, which I had come to accept, because we're not in a life-critical field, and our customers demand that we ship products on a schedule that's in step with our competition.

What's strange though is that what I've read from NASA stories is that NASA managers ACT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as they do at my lowly company, suggesting that maybe it's not the specifics of a particular job that causes them to behave the way they do (eg. they're not trying to behave appropriately for their particular situation), but instead something else is driving them (eg. management politics, the fact that they really only need to pay attention to their superiors, and only have to pay attention to their underlings when there's a crisis).

There ARE quality guidelines that all managers should follow. Most company's quality goals aren't as strict as NASA's, but if most managers are essentially ignoring quality standards everywhere (for whatever reason), then that's a problem.

dumb ass hired you

[HoodCrowd]

he had to be stupid, huh

BOFH

[jay2003]

The Bastard Operator from Hell has plenty of tips for situations like these.

Join the Club!

[Stone316]

I have an acting manager who isn't technical and also can't manage! (I'd go into details but I don't know if any of my co-workers read this..) The sad part is, unless you want to make waves then theres no point saying anything. Your just sticking your neck out on the line for something that probably won't change.

I've officially had it with mine and i've given then until after the next big upgrade (6 months) to find a replacement. If that doesn't happen then i'm going to start looking for a new position.

FYI: I haven't told them that, I never tell management if i'm considering changing jobs. A company I was previously employeed with had layoffs and our group had to let one go. I fully expected it to me because my client didn't have much work for me to do and everyone else was busy. Long story short, they let another person go because they mentioned they were looking for a new job. It made sense, no point firing someone who intends to stick around and keep someone that is looking.

Also, half of our group quit last year because of this manager but only one spilt the beans at the exit interview. The others didn't want to burn any bridges.

Promoted to incompetence

[mezron]

A former boss of mine put it to me rather eloquently... A person is promoted up to the point they become incompetent, and thats where they stay. I've found it to be pretty much true wherever I've been.

Re:Promoted to incompetence

[erica_ann]

I believe that is coined the Peter Principle..

Re:Promoted to incompetence

[mezron]

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that before :)

Consider yourself lucky...

[trg83]

If you are working for a small to medium-sized family business and are actually getting paid every payday, consider yourself lucky. Some of us have much worse to deal with than the boss being an idiot.

Turn on the Internet!

[- lang -]

Reminds me of my Boss's Boss who came by the Network Operations Center one day and asked if anyone had "the internet turned on".

It depends

[heli_flyer]

I have some experience with this. Basically, if he's so clueless that he wastes a lot of your time (and thus generates negative productivity) then it's a problem. I had one manager like this. He was so clueless and insecure that he needed my help for every single one of his proposals and presentations...also he wanted me to be present at every single meeting he was at, regardless of whether it was relevant to me. Basically, I was doing both my job AND his job. If he's not generating negative productivity and he does a reasonably decent job of buffering and keeping you out of endless meetings (so you can get real work done) then he's probably okay.

Best manager.

[youroldbuddy]

My manager has extensive knowledge on how to fix typewriters, I kid you not! He urges me not to worry about customers. He meets up with troublesome customers and squares things - to the extent of not accepting business with them because "They are just not worth the hassle". He worries that Im taking work too seriously. He is one of the reasons I look forward to going to work every morning. My manager has extensive knowledge on a lot more than just how to fix typewriters, I kid you not!

Management

[sparkz]

I had a boss who was an ex-techie, moved into management, and he was actually really good. He understood that his role was to interface between the techies and the board. His knowledge wasn't quite up to date, but he understood what we said, and could translate it to non-techies. Similarly, he could translate non-techie stuff to us. That is a good manager. (From talking to other staff after I left, apparently he got too "into" the director stuff, and lost touch with the techies, and lost his credibility with it) Where I am at the moment (and have been for many years), the Director is an ex-techie; he hired a "manager" to do the management stuff, but the "manager" knows neither IT nor how to manage. Both are money-grubbing bastards, focussed solely on how to make the most money, not at all interested in getting work done (which strikes me as the obvious way of making money!). Between them, they've got no idea about how to manage staff, from the HR perspective in particular. Although they've been pretty cool about working hours (do the hours, prove it, don't have to do 9-5), I'm looking forward to going to a "proper" company in a month, with decent management.

Wireless Token Ring

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

If you take your laptop out of range while you have the Token, you get to keep it. If you collect 10 of them, you can mail them in for a prize.

Re:Wireless Token Ring

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

rolling... on the floor... laughing.

whatever happened to that, um, interesting topology, anyway?

Re:Wireless Token Ring

[fifedrum]

whatever happened to that, um, interesting topology, anyway?

it's lying in wait, secretly passing the token around in banks, large industrial complexes and universities. Until something breaks or someone with a budget complains that 16mbit isn't fast enough, it will continue to be used.

Uneducated vs Know it all

[erica_ann]

I have to say I am in that position as well. But, I kind of have a different outlook on things.

I am not so sure an IT manager would still be there very long if he /she was way ahead of the employees. Might be the break he or she would need to find a better job that pays more elsewhere.

Another thing.. I, Personally.. as a Tech.. would rather work with a manager who doesn't know as much as the techs do.. than one who "knows it all" anyday of the week.

In my case, instead of dreading having to explain something new to a manager, or over and over again.. I looked at it as a chance to make sure I knew what I was talking about TO be able to teach someone. Also, it gave me the confidence to be able to practice HOW to teach someone that isn't at the same level I am at. Each person learns differently. Knowing I had to "teach" a manager gave me the opportunity to learn how to convey knowledge which in turn has helped me in other areas.. and I didn't have to worry about it being a client!

On a side note.. From my expereince, it's not the ones that have the best skills that are the best techs.. many more times it is the ones that may have lower skills but can adapt to other levels and be able to exaplin it inside and out - so those who who do not have the skills CAN understand - are the ones who are better.

Re:Uneducated vs Know it all

[Halvy]

You hit the nail preddy much on the hed!

The only thing I'd add is that if I was so sure and confident about my abilities, then someday the person above me, if he was truly a 'good' boss, would recognize this, and promote me (even if it meant being his boss eventually!).

The guy in this story doesn't know if his boss is playing dumb, or what cards he may be holding.

But I'm sure no matter how dumb he (the boss) may be, he 'senses' the feelings that the guys under him are projecting... which may be to their detriment eventually. :)

Re:Uneducated vs Know it all

[Lego-Lad]

I have a boss who isn't what I'd consider very technical...he understand telephony, general network stuff, permissions, etc. But, his understanding general and his skills are circa 1995 access and excel. He does, however, have a strong management background and can "work" people. I think having an IT manager who is a good manager is almost more important than having a brain-dead one, or a know-it-all.
 
A good manager will let you do your job and not get in your way.

your IT Manager ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is doing the wrong job. an IT manager should manage his team and resources, not be farting around troubleshooting computers and networks. his mission should be about creating architectural and policy decisions that are future-proof, resilient and scaleable. his day to day activities should include drafting plans, doing budgets, approving projects, removing friction from processes, intra-team communicaions and hiring decisions. if he's applying patches to workstations and servers or unjamming printers he's no longer an IT manager, but a systems admin and should have his title (and salary) adjusted to suit.

an IT manager can know less about tech than I do.

[xutopia]

but he's got to be a good manager. The two can be exclusive. What sucks is when the bad IT manager who knows nothing about IT thinks he knows it all.

That's how you end up with a manager saying shit like: "Are you having Vocal Protection Network problems again?" or "I need more ram for my ."

It depends on the customer

[HangingChad]

I have one customer the IT head at least has a technical background. She's great to work with. Another has no IT background at all. Guess which shop runs smoother?

It's sort of like the signs that say you have to be this tall to go on this ride. You have to be smart enough to know who to listen to if you're going to run the IT department.

The lady with the technical background has a real enterprise architecture plan, understands the difference between the back end and middle tier and understands the value of that mid tier and what it does. She doesn't know how to program Big-IP or a router but she knows the difference and can explain what they do.

The other shop with the non-technical IT manager...and I wish I was making this up...shows us a 7 gig database with no relationships, no indexes, no stored procedures and no schema. But during the meeting he's absolutely insistent that we have to protect the data integrity of that application. Riiiiight. Does that mean we have to protect all those orphan records and corrupt calculations, too?

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that their network is a bug farm. It's like a spyware showcase. I'm surprised any of their desktops even boot.

Good thing I don't work for you

[Halvy]

And I doubt with that attitude that any one actually does.

Not so smart IT manager syndrome...

[virtualthinker]

Actually you might as well get use to it or find a better field, cause this sort of non-sense started un the 1980's when the big corporations determined that technical people were simply "resources", to be used and abused as needed. They replaced technical IT managers with business people who knew noting about the technology. At the time the technical IT managers became highly paid consultants, started their own businesses, etc... most of them probably retired about the time the business disappeared into oblevion. As for small companies, it is a universal truth that it is not what you know, but who you know...

If Annoyed - Sart Your Own Darn Company Biatch

[LunarStudio]

Not denying which you say is true - I've worked with some mean back-stabbing bosses in the past that will take credit for your hard work and leave you hanging out to dry. But unless it is a huge company with good job security, you'll find people will step all over you. My suggestion to you if you feel you're more competent - try to run your own company and watch other people pull the same stuff on each other. It's the only way out of being someone's b****

It's a mistake to think that he's stupid

[briancnorton]

It's really easy for technical people to write off their superiors as "stupid" but the fact is that *oftentimes* we could no more do their job than they ours. Management is not a technical field. It's a people field with people issues. Competant, motivated technical people often don't need functional management, they need personel and administrative supervision and a voice with decisionmakers.

I won't pretend that I know your boss, but I can suggest that the fact that you have to explain remedial stuff to him may mean that he simply wants to be able to explain it to his superiors that are even less technical then he is. I've done management, and I have no interest in dealing with wetware ever again.

My boss is a lawyer

[mslinux]

He's got a MBA and a JD and he's the CTO. He's educated... just not in the right way. It's not uncommon for him to say something like, "Hey Tom, what's a byte and how many are on my computer."

Re:My boss is a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats a byte? Eight bits. Or about a dollar.

I Hear You Brother!

[Anonymous Coward]

Had the same problem. A new hire who was supposed to "hit the ground running" and could not even share a windows directory. Fortunatly he has directors above him. As much as I hate office politics I had a "quite word" with these senior ppl. I was also able to provide a list of incidents that I fixed when he should have been able to.

Then the email went down for three days and I pretended I couldent help him. He is leaving soon..

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[monkeydo]

Cisco was running 10Mb Ethernet over barbed wire years ago.

The Conundrum of the IT Manager

[Zarf]

Would you hire a Business Manager who knew nothing about business? Would you hire an Accounting manager who knew nothing about accounting? Would you have a chief surgeon who never went to medical school? Would put a lead engineer over a bridge project who had never built a bridge? Would you have your multi-million dollar corporate head-quarters designed by a person who had no experience or training in designing anything?

Yet this kind of thing happens all the time in the IT world.

I don't get it. But, that's the way the world is for most people. I'm very lucky, I work for a very technically savvy and intelligent boss. But, I've been where you're at. You've only three choices really: suck-it-up, just move on, or stage a Coup D'etat.

If you need to be told how to stage a Coup D'etat then don't bother, you don't have the political skills to actually pull it off.

Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

On where in your career you are, and where your boss is. I'm a manager. I have five techs working for me of various levels. I also have a manager who gives me work.

I don't want or need my manager to give me technical advice. I only need him to placate user groups and keep his managers of my back.

The guys that work for me, are at various levels some 2 some 3. I analyse the task I've got, make a decision as to it's criticallity, and then determine who gets the job.

super urgent --- level 3 guys plus me
urgent ---- level 3 + level 2 as tool bag holder
interesting experience ---- level 3 as mentor + level 2 as lead
everyday --- level 2

I expect to include the level 3 guys in the design/architecting process, and for them to come to me when they are in a pickle. I expect the layer 2 guys to go to the layer 3 guys when they are in a pickle.

Choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?

Unfortunately your only choices are to either "put up with it", or find another job. You won't change your manager, you won't make him grasp IT concepts more than he's willing to, etc.

However there are various ways to "put up with it". The honest approach (my favorite) is to actually offer alternatives. They do exist. And when given a price to implement such an alternative he'll quickly back off. At that point, make sure to point out to him (in a subtle manner) that Ethernet is not going to fail. Don't try to make him look stupid, just point out the facts, but only after offering alternatives as he requested.

This applies to any field, in my experience. Some managers are the type who:

- Always try to cover their ass, whether they know what they're talking about or not;

- Do not like being proven wrong or told how something is done/how something works.

The best way to approach such a manager is to offer a suggestion. I prefer the "hm, well, what if instead we did this?" approach. It lets them make it out to be their idea, and avoids them feeling like you're trying to tell them what to do.

As much as I hate the boss taking credit for my ideas, it really works out better that way. For one, the boss does in fact know where the good ideas come from, even if it isn't publically acknowledged. Secondly, if you try to outsmart the boss, it won't get you any further (in most cases anyway). And the ones who really matter, know where the ideas are really coming from.

Bottom line is, either learn to "put up with it" to use your words, or go elsewhere. Because I have never known a manager of that type to change their ways or acknowledge a better idea without feeling threatened. You can learn to work with the situation, even to your advantage, if you really try and are subtle about it.

If you are really smarter than him, surely you can get your way while letting him believe he's getting his way ;)

You're new here, aren't you?

[bastardadmin]

Welcome to small and medium business.
The guy who gets the IT Management gig is the guy who knows what a computer is and possibly how to turn it on.
Yes, it sucks, it really does. This is why we have Monster.
The upside is not all places are like this, and sometimes you get a non-technical person running a technical department who will actually value the opinions of the people working under them, which in turn means you may actually get a reasonable budget, or at least a reasonable manager who understands that things just take time sometimes.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Re:You're new here, aren't you?

[RembrandtX]

Actually, I came from a fortune 500 (now working for a GREAT startup, and both my immediate project manager (10 people) and our IT director (30 people) were essentially clueless on both how to get stuff done, and how to manage the people doing it.

it has nothing to do with IT, it has everything to do with them being a good manager, or a bad manager.

ironically, i had been hounding them for weeks to get a project moving (because i knew i was leaving) and they dragged their asses. after I *LEFT* not only were the conditions i had been bringing to constant attention for over a YEAR fixed, but other advice i offered on my exit interview were implemented as well.

ironic.

truly bad managers

[SuperBanana]

In some companies this isn't true, but at ours it was. If one of the other managers had an issue, they weren't supposed to talk to us about it. They were supposed to talk to our manager. That allowed him to do what he was supposed to do (manage) and gave us more time to do our work.

Ding. Other posters said the same. A good manager handles all the non-technical stuff, and as long as he/she knows his/her limits, they're fine. The worst is a technically saavy manager who has to stick his/her nose into absolutely everything.

I (very recently, though not my current job, thankfully) had a manager whose solution to the slightest complaint was to drag me into his office and talk with me for an hour, while work literally piled up. He refused to stand up to even the slightest complaint from the lowest employee- morale as a result was atrocious in the department.

Even better, in monthly status meetings, he'd complement me by comparing me to my coworkers. "Oh, you're much better than this stuff than Tim, he's not very bright when it comes to..." When I got out of one of those meetings, I realized he was doing the same thing with them- complementing them by insulting me, most likely. That night I started my job search.

Two weeks later I was "let go"- and I don't dare list him as a reference. Instead, I've gone through a 5 minute "why it didn't work out" explanation with prospective employers, and said I'd be happy to provide references in the forms of VP's at the agency who were my "customers". I've been careful not to insult him- be honest, but careful and reserved if you find yourself in the same position. Most have seemed understanding- most everyone's been in the position of being under a lousy boss too.

The Manager's Job

[Spazmania]

Its not the manager's job to know technology. That's what he pays you for. His job is:

1. Figure out which of his people know what they're doing and which don't.
2. Find better people to replace the ones that don't.
3. Make sure that your work is coordinated with your colleagues so that all the needed work gets done.
4. Focus your efforts so that they serve the company's actual needs.
5. Keep the cost of your work within the bounds of what the company can afford.
6. Keep you reasonably content so that you continue to come to work and do a good job.

If you want to judge your manager, don't judge him on how well he can do your job. Judge him on how well he does his.

Re:The Manager's Job

[gujo-odori]

Amen to that. I freely admit that each of the nine developers I manage is a better programmer than I am. However, it's not my job to be the best programmer on the team. I'm not even very good as a programmer, honestly, and never will be. But I'm very good at managing people who are.

My job is to find good find people (where good = technically skilled and - this is really important - has a good personality fit with the rest of the team) and recruit them to our team.

Once they're on it, my job is to get them integrated into what they do, although much of that now is left to my three technical leads, one of whom will succeed me as manager when I move up (or out) one day.

My job is to keep bureaucratic BS of all kinds away from them so that they can focus on their jobs. Happily, there's not much BS in this company.

My job is to set goals, manage projects, and review performance.

My job is to make sure my people have good morale, keep everyone pulling in the same direction, and keep them motivated.

Note that if I've done the first things right (finding and recruiting good people and keeping BS away from them) those last points are very easy. Choose the right people and they'll be almost self-managing. Just point them in the direction you need them to go, keep them happy, and they'll produce for you.

I'm a big fan of Joel Spoelsky's writings.

And yes, my job is to keep our costs within bounds we can afford. I am, after all, a manager and have that responsibility to my company. Fortunately, that too is fairly easy if I have done all of the other things right.

All that being said, I nevertheless sympathize with the original poster's lament. I am not technically incompetent like her/his boss is made out to be; I'm just not as a good a programmer as the people I manage, but hey, it's not my job to be as good as them. It's my job to manage them. Like you said, it's how good I am at my job that matters, not how good I am at theirs.

Still, I am not technically incompetent, as the OP describes her/his boss. I have solid work experience as a sysadmin and network engineer and I am better than my staff in those areas. And, I love technology, I've been crazy about computers since the first time I saw one. So I do appreciate the OP's lament.

What would I do about it? I'd advance my skills as far as I could in that job (or as far as I could stand to work there, whichever came first) and then move on. I have worked under an incompetent manager (not just technically incompetent, but incompetent at managing, too) just once, and that's how I dealt with the situation. When I moved on, it was to a much better position at a much better salary, with a much better manager, who in turn recruited me away from that place to follow him when he took a new job himself.

Re:The Manager's Job

[JPriest]

Those are all valid points, but there are plenty of managers out there that micromanage technical work when they have no idea what they are doing. Many of them believe they should be responsible for all decision making (even technical) when many times that is better left to the techies.

This is why techies should be managed by other people who also have a technical backround. Currently all the managers in my building are technical and I couldn't be happier with the work environment. Communication works so much better when people understand what they are communicating.

manic/depressive working for a passive/agressive

[jimmydevice]

This seems to be a common occurence. Bi-polar engineers able to outperform normals in development and design poisoned and driven to suicidal thoughts by managers who praise the wage slaves one day and castigate them as lazy and imcompetent the next.

internship

[racerxroot]

I'm in an IT internship right now, and my boss is just amazing. He's the most amazing guy i've ever met when it comes to technology. He's clever, knowledgeable, and he handles the user-base very well... the problem is, he gets paid FAR too little for his time, and he's well aware of it. He's just such a good hearted person. Thats what sucks so much about this... i couldn't take a job under him, because the pay for his subordinates would be just far too little (not to say i deserve much of anything... but with as little as he gets paid, i'd get nearly nothing)... its unfortunate that to find a good hardworking guy like that, you've got to take such a small cut in pay... but hell, i'd say its really almost worth it to have such an amazing fellow lead you. The guys getting the big bucks can rattle off their certification list like the alphabet, but experience is where it counts, and they seem to rarely have it... :-(

see the next story

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Didn't RTFA

[hellraizr]

I did not rtfa but I have 10+ years experience in IT. If you are expecting a technically competent boss than you are naive. Most employers seek management material by how well they can balance a budget and how much they impress and interact with the top brass. Certainly not by how technically competent they are. If they *claim* they know oracle, or solaris or whatever it is that the organization uses than they are considered as adequate or competent.

I am pleaseantly surprised at my position that my boss participates in daily operations at the same level that us admin's do. Not only that he possesses one of the highest levels of knowledge about the system and network one can possess. I am honestly shocked at his technical competence. This is a very rare occasion in the IT field. I have had 8 other jobs in this field where the brass made all the decisions without any proper technical knowledge or education. I have been fortunate that the blame fell on the executive when shit broke vs falling on poor little me.

Anyways it is amazingly naive for an IT professional to assume his boss knows what he/she knows. I would refer you to the BOFH for advice on this. Although his methods are questionable at best his reasons are valid. check him out at bofh.ntk.net you might learn something :)

Re:Didn't RTFA

[MickoZ]

There was no Article ;-) Also... I believe there would be different manager. But in IT, in a big project, someone who can at less get an overview of the project and can broke down the project in small piece has a greater chance to achieve his goal. Estimating correctly is yet another goal. Most developper can't even do #1 (broke down correctly or even logically think sometime... no matter how many time they are allowed). As for #2, it depends of a lot of factor. If the broke down is small enough, if you are sure that your whole overview is not fuzzy, etc. Else a lot of time it is a big bet.

You are also confused.

[Some Random Username]

Its not too much to ask at all. He's not asking for a manager that knows all the details of everything. But an IT manager should have been a tech at some point, and should have a good deal of IT knowledge.

For instance, you don't have to know what command is used to reload the firewall ruleset. But you should understand what a firewall does and why, and what a good firewall ruleset would look like.

Don't get confused and think its ok for an IT manager to be completely clueless and not understand basic, fundamental concepts, just because they don't have time to know the details. He should be capable of learning the details on his own if he had the time, otherwise he is incompetant.

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[MarsLander]

Hrm, well, for noise cancellation, they'd have to be four rusty barbed wires twisted in two pairs. But hey, that might work. So long as they didn't short.

The Secret to Jobs

[Master Eclipse]

For starters, let me tell you about my life. I hate my job. I really do. But I live in a town where there is nowhere else to work.

I have come to learn something in my life...

Ignore your job. Remember, it is just a means to an end. My manager makes stupid decisions. My co-workers are all stupid and spend hours each day congratulating themselves on a job "well done".

The secret is to care just enough to keep your job and do it well. Forget about all of the other crap.

You work to feed your family and your children. Your company will never thank you for all of the hard work you put in. They will never recognize you for your talents.

Just do your job... and go home to what realy counts....

Your family.

And Half-Life 2...

YEAH, BABY, YEAH!!!!!!!

Re:The Secret to Jobs

[pjy]

Ten years ago, my boss found an unsoldered wire connection. He then took away all the soldering irons and replaced them with higher powered ones with larger bits - similar to what plumbers used. We just got the old irons back out of the bosses cupboard when he wasn't looking. I used to like my job despite working for incompetent managers for several years. Now I feel the same as you.

Re:The Secret to Jobs

[Jippy T Flounder]

i totally agree. it would be nice if your career and whatever you actually want to do with your life are the same, but in general it doesn't work out that way.

it's like university - you don't learn a trade there, you hopefully get educated a little. and find out more about what you WANT to do. what you do for cash takes a large part of your day, but it shouldn't stop you from going after your dreams.

that's what nights are for, that's why some of us don't get any sleep. aside from sleeping at our desks, that is.

Re:The Secret to Jobs

[stry_cat]

Your company will never thank you for all of the hard work you put in. They will never recognize you for your talents.

Actually your company does thank you. Every time they give you the pay check. They recognize you for your talents too, otherwise they wouldn't have hired you or keep you.

Would never be me

[digitalgimpus]

I'm in college going for a Business MIS (Management Information Systems) Degree.

I can honestly say, I'd never want to be that boss. I don't think I could be. Partially because I'm a geek (I'm a business guy, but I do code quite a bit).

I don't understand how people could want to manage others, and not understand what they are doing. To manage requires a great understanding of the task at hand.

If I didn't know what my employees were doing... I'd take a class. Honestly.

I don't want to be misled by employees, or slow them down.

That's just a terrible manager. Who ever hired him/her, or put him/her in that position should be re-evaluated. That's unacceptable. It's costly to the company. Not to mention frustrating to otherwise good employees.

RE: How to deal with management

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/

The ticket system is your key to salvation

[i_ate_god]

You can't hide from stupid people, so have them send tickets. This might even be a good way for this manager to come to some sort of realization of whats important and whats not.

Answer: Colt Forty-five

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't mean the drink.

You are a car.

[phoenix.bam!]

Your manager is like a driver. He doesn't care how the engine works. He doesn't care how the road is built. He doesn't care how the gasoline is refined. He just knows he needs the car, road and gas to get where he needs to be.

You sir, are a car. Your purpose is to get the manager to his destination.

His ONLY job is to know how to drive you properly. That is what makes a good manager. Someone who knows how to use his employees, not someone who knows what the fuck his employees do while he's got his eyes on his destination.

Re:You are a car.

[Goose3254]

Incomplete analogy. Sure a driver can drive, but at a minimum he has to know how to put gas in the car. The best operators realize that there are established guidelines for maintenance, and have at least a working knowledge of why these are necessary, in order to show due diligence in following them.

In my experience, to continue this analogy, there are three types...the mechanic's car, a rattle trap always one step ahead of the junkyard, the clueless driver's car, "I saw the check engine light but I thought there would be a bell or something if it was important", and the enthusiat's car, well maintained, clean, and allowed to run full out occasionally. I want the third but have often been saddled with the first two.

I've worked for both

[sl4shd0rk]

The know-it-all jackass was the worst. He was smart, and had good knowlege of the tech end, but that was it. I like the managers that are good people managers. They might not know the tech end all that well, but when you ask them to do something about the tech wiz in the corner cube that smells like a butt all the time, they get results somehow. Yes, that's based on a true story. When people can't work together, that's just as costly as a boss that needs babysitting.

Betcha couldn't tell

[gov_coder]

from my handle that I've been there, too?

Well, it was a several years ago - but I kinda figured out that my boss's boss was the person I could reach and impress. By keeping that guy happy I guaranteed my own success - or at least staved off my incompetent and jealous boss until I could get a better opportunity.

My advice is to make sure you realize that person you need to keep "happy" is often not your direct supervisor or manager/boss. Usually it is a level or two above that. You don't have to stoop to brown nosing to learn what matters to that person. Generally if you just ask them - WTF is most important - they will tell you.

Another way to look at it is this:
If you do the dumb things your dumb boss wants, you'll be looked at as dumb by those in the organization who know better.

Just following orders, sir won't cut it.

small pool to sample from but...

[xenomouse]

I've only ever had one female supervisor, and it was unpleasant working for her. She denigrated other employees behind their backs (myself included). She would never admit when she didn't know how to do something, and she would get angry if one of her underlings suggested potential solutions or came up with a good idea before she could.

To be honest, i believe she was just old enough (mid to later thirties) to have come from the school of thought that women needed to work twice as hard to prove themselves in the tech sector (or to break that glass ceiling or whatever). Although, i'm sure she did have a few things wrong with her personality. She was always suspicious, and whenever she sat to the side of me, i could have sworn she was staring at me just out of the corner of her eye.

Get used to it

[nightsweat]

And get ready for your day in the barrel. After a certain level, it's no longer your boss's job to understand all the technical nuances. He's there to motivate you, sort through the advice he gets from all of his team and chart a course from there.

It's impossible to keep up with ALL the technologies involved as you move up the food chain, not only because you have other responsibilities, but becasue you manage a wider and wider array of technologies. One person cannot possibly know everything.

Butch up, get over it, and try supporting your manager rather than tearing them down. If you're seen as a reliable source for info on (your specialty here), he'll take your opinion and worry about those areas where he's not sure of his staff's expertise.

Re:non-tech Mgmt not the prob, non-tech Sales *IS*

[Goose3254]

Jesus I want to mod this up but it's AC. This is the problem with AC.

Re:You know one day you may be that boss

[sgant]

I'm just saying...all the younger IT guys working at companies saying how stupid their bosses are and how they have to explain everything. They themselves DO get older...they move up in a company or get hired as a manager at a different company then all of a sudden everything's on the other foot. Do you really think your employees respect and admire you and think you're so smart? For one, the managers at larger corporations can't really be down in the trenches with the IT guys fixing and mending and installing things because they're ALWAYS at some idiotic meeting...so what happens to their skills? They atrophy. They grow stale. This isn't like riding a bike folks...you need to be on top of the industry and new technology...but there is only so many hours in a day.

So just keep in mind the boss you're bitching about today may actually be YOU tomorrow.

You Need To Learn Grammar (and Possibly, spelling)

[Anonymous Coward]

While I identify with much of what you say, your writing skills need improvement.

Aha....

[dumbskull]

After all i am not alone!!

This Might Not Be So Bad

[bryanporter]

I'm a manager of software engineers, as well as a software engineer myself, and whenever I meet someone who knows more than me or is smarter than I am, I do whatever I can to hire that person. Will this person be out to get my job? Doubtful - if I'm hiring qualified people, then my department - which is my responsibility - is doing its' job, therefore so am I.

I've worked for people who knew a lot less that I did; that isn't a problem. The real problem comes up when you work for someone who *doesn't* know as much as you, but thinks he does and requires that you do your job the wrong way.

Think about it - this guy can be frustrating, almost like having your Uncle Ed (that annoying relative that calls you all the time asking if his new keyboard will increase the RAM in his computer) at work all day, but in the end if he lets you do your job and doesn't get in your way, why bother trying to usurp/reform him? He's done his job - he's managed to build a department of smart, capable people, who can perform the tasks under his purview. He's not supposed to do them himself, he's supposed to know how to get *other* people to do them in an efficient manner.

Management requires an entirely different skill set than what most people think. Does it help if the manager can do everyone elses' job in his department? Absolutely - but it's not required, it's only required that he understand the *difficulty* and *qualifications* neccessary to perform the jobs that fall under his jurisdiction.

Honestly, it doesn't sound like you're in that bad of a situation.

RE: Uneducated IT Managers

[Siddly]

I met the first one back in 1978 as site engineer called in to a mainframe customer's site. I was just about to put in a diagnostic floppy when he collared me into making some phone calls to our management. The upshot of it all, we got a Director to load his car up with spares heading off on a 130+ mile journey, we had a support guy travelling and a Jet standing by at Amsterdam airport read to fly in a spare. I sat down, put in the floppy and the diags called a board that we had in the cupboard. Machine up and working, we turned everyone around. Next day I asked the shift leader about this mysterious problem they had earlier in the week, he told me the guy didn't know what he was talking about. The Manager was very pleased at the way he had handled the problem. In retrospect, I think he was groomed for failure by a literate and knowlegeable IT Director who was leaving the company, this Manager was fired some months later. The Shift Leader resigned earlier after the Manager had insisted he did his appraisal and he objected on the grounds that the Manager didn't know enough to give him an appraisal. Unless he's the boss' close relative, he'll be found out and fired, if he is a relative, he'll get a job in some other department.

Rather than...

[JWtW]

turning your boss over to /., and having your boss and every other PHB flamed, why don't you just be honest? If you're intelligent enough to start this flamewar, you are (should be) intelligent enough to explain the inaccuracies of your boss' thinking, without throwing anybody under the bus. Either you truly hate your boss, or you were just looking for that explosive topic that would finally get through the editors.

The solution...

[statikuz]

Burn down the building.

PHB

[FLoWCTRL]

That reminds me of one of this week's Dilbert comics.

Damned pointy-haired bosses...

All it takes is ...

[constantnormal]

... for the country to identify traits of good managers and figure out how to encourage them. From there we could move on to improving teachers, and technical workers.

Oh -- but before we go that route, we need to start with the voters, who would then improve our leadership ... and before we do that, we should figure out what makes good parenting skills and upgrade the parents in our fine nation.

I'm really very optimistic about our prospects, really I am.

you obviously lack experience with good managers!

[Xtifr]

I very strongly disagree with you. The job of a manager is to manage people, and make sure that things get done. (And, more importantly, that the right things get done.) If you don't have a good manager, then yes, having someone with technical skills is good, because he can help you guys do your work, but that's not the same as managing. It also tends to result in systems that users hate, because there was nobody on the team who understood the non-technical side of the requirements.

The thing is that good management skills are rare. Very very rare. But if you'd ever had a good manager (and I have), you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.

What is all-too-common is to have a manager who lacks both technical and managerial skills. But that's a separate problem. If all you've ever experienced is managers with no management skills, then, yes, it is easy to assume that managers without technical skills are worthless. But that merely reflects your own lack of experience.

Frustrating Boss

[klept]

Believe me, it isnt only the IT department. In a different profession worked for a large organization, and got paid big bucks as manager of a division of a department. The problem was that the department head was stupid and ignorant. This made him hyper insecure, and he tried to compensate for this by being manipulative, both inside and outside his department. Unfortunately, what is probably happening where you work is that the owners dont know anything about IT and believe this guy's bs. At least that was how it was where I worked. And the hilarious thing was that this girl and I, both licensed professionals, were hired to clean up this smucks mess. Problem was he wouldn't let us because he was afraid how it would make him look. My advice. Quit. If you are good, you will find a happy situation. That's what I did for less money, and I never regreted it.

It's not so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

(quick check to make sure I'm posting anonymously)

If you boss is a bit simple minded, it can really make your job easier and make you more effective. The secret is to view it as part of your job to "manage your manager". This is trivial if he/she is technologically challenged, since you (hopefully) already know how to deal with regular lusers.

The first order of business is to discover what it is that really gets him excited, both good and bad. For example, my current boss is quite enamored with large quantities on paperwork. No one will ever read all the stuff we produce, but he seems visible more comfortable if there are a number of large binders on his desk filled with 3 hole punched reports. My previous boss, on the other hand, seemed scared of paperwork, but equally scared of our QA department.

The other step is to act on those peculiarities of your boss. I'm presently working on an install checklist that has hundreds of pages of log printouts and screen prints. I told him about it's progress today, just to see the look of satisfaction on his face. Yes, it's a pain and a huge waste of time and resources, but this one project will only take a few days and will feature prominently in my annual review. So much so, I can mostly coast for a few weeks before trying something else as mind-numbing.

Whenever I feel the frustration levels rising, I just remember what they pay me per hour to print out logs and initial/date each page. It's kind of freaky to think about, but if it makes him happy, then I really am contributing to the team, because like they say "if ain't happy, ain't nobody happy".

Try it, it might work for you, and it's certainly easier than stirring up trouble by making him look bad. The next boss you get might make this one seem great - Better the devil you know.

Will /. still let me post this if I exceed the maximum cliche' count?

All the managers in this thread, please...

[broKenfoLd]

To many managers who posted here: Your job description does in fact not include being the best programmer, sysadmin, or help desk jockey. It is true that doing the specific work assigned your subordinates is not your specific duty. However, while it isn't the specific role for you to do the work of your charges, it is your job to manage them doing that job. It equates to trying to "manage" someone fishing, without knowing what fish were if you don't have an amount of knowledge about the specific function of your group. This is OK in cases where you have a relationship where the fisherman has alot of say into the "management" process. But if you find that you feel you have an even mediocre understanding of the job function of your group, don't let this make you believe that you know how modern fish operate just because you once threw your line in years ago. A good manager is one who seeks constant feedback from their group on how to manage, what needs to be managed, and who needs to get managed. A manager with mediocre or lower knowledge of the job their people do can only be good if they realize that in a fluid and changing IT world, they must allow themselves to be managed by their staff. I realize this sounds perhaps a bit egotistical, but it is just true.

That's why he hired you

[mmdurrant]

If your IT manager was as tech-oriented as you would like him to be, you would be out of a job.

Seriously, the reason he is an IT manager is because he knows who to hire to get the job done.

Relax

[Anonymous Coward]

Just nod & smile at the idiot. You might find the phrase "Good idea, boss!" useful.

Let him have the reins. He'll either fuck things up enough to leave on his own/be walked out or finally find his niche. It'll be a hell of a ride. You just have to remain calm in the storm.

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[arminw]

....Now to find a rusty barbed wire fence.......

We have miles of rusty barbed wire fences here. Send me a self addresses paid for UPS truck and I'll send you all you need for your networking setup.

Maybe they have other gifts

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

I too complain about my boss (in one case he explained that the md5 output from one implementation was somehow different than the md5 output from another implementation and I had to explain that it wouldn't be MD5 if it differed!), but when all is said and done, perhaps I am supposed to be the techie guy in the trenches and he is supposed to keep upper management off my back, even if he is a bit out of touch with SAN and XSL and RoR and rsync and etc. etc. etc.

Cut your boss some slack. Stop whining about his lack of detailed and timely technical knowledge and try to see what he IS doing.

Probably been said already . . .

[mindbomb33]

Leave. That's what I did.

Only one thing needed

[rockwood]

I manager of *ANY* business or supervisor of any team (or subset of employees) needs only one skill - the ability to delegate.
Delegation of employees is diffult - to stern and your an asshole. To relaxed and your a push-over. The in-between grey area is difficult to master but when found and perfected can be a motivational power for any company. Employees that look up to and confide in their boss while also getting optimum output in their work.
Your bosses lack of IT knowledge is not important. Unfortunately he does seem to be "getting on your nerves" therefore he obviously lacks manager skill, which is what makes him incorrect for his position.

Manage Your Manager

[wdmr]

Technical knowlege != good technical manager.

Between traditional employment and contracting and consulting I've seen alot of managers in action that run the whole gamut of technical knowhow and I've noticed almost no correlation between technical skills and good management. We all bitch about the clueless boss, but sometimes the clueless boss *knows* he is clueless and sticks to the things that he can do and lets his engineers make the decisions he can't which actually gives us *more* control over our lives since it frees us to implement processes and technologies that actually work instead of those that some hottie saleschick convinced the boss he had to have.

Most of the things a manager needs to do are not technical or are things he should not be doing without input from his top engineers. He needs to:

1. Manage people (set schedules, manage vacations, do performance evaluations, distribute bonuses, etc)
2. Make strategic decisions (choose technologies, distribute budgets)
3. Fight up the chain for needed resources (people, rasies!!, budget)
4. Protect his team from outside groups so that they can enforce rigor and process and keep his engineers sane and hopefully not overworked or in perpetual fire-fighting mode.
5. Stay out of your way so you can get things done (enough with the status reports already!).

If you have a non-technical manager who can get your team the resources it needs, keep others off your backs, lets you self-prioritize and self-schedule as much as possible and gets you raises and cool toys, then KEEP HIM. Just convince him that he needs to defer technology decisions to the senior engineers. He probably isn't really that comfortable making those decisions anyway and I have found mba-types to often be quite easy to guide to the realizition that making a tech decision is not a managerial task.

On the other hand, I have had some highly technical managers who couldn't keep their little fingers out of every little situation--often with dated knowledge since they can't stay fresh like a practicing engineer. I once had a manager who had been out of the trenches for a decade but who insisted on logging in and "looking around" during really hot problems. Inevitably he'd walk in every 30 minutes and ask about something we had already seen and discounted or taken care of. Once as a joke we modified his shell so that it just said "Everything is working fine, sir." no matter what he typed.. lol :)

The problem with lots of MBA-mill managers is that they apply the crap they learned in school to managing developers and engineers and don't understand that what we do IS NOT MANUFACTURING! Most high-tech work is highly creative and hours worked does not always correlate to productivity. Problem solving, coding, etc all require focus and inspiration and do not respond well to traditional management techniques. So that is the main upside to a technical manager is that he at least has been there and has some idea what it is like. Unfortunately many technical managers can be so lacking in management skills that are clumsy for a long time before they learn how to manage engineers. This can be compounded since so many of us have had bad managers--it's like child-abuse, even if they know the a-hole boss method doesn't work on engineers it's the only thing they've experienced and so they revert to it out of desperation because subconsciously that's how they think a boss is supposed to act.

The ideal manager is one who understands *engineers* since that is what he is managing. If he understands the technology that is a big bonus if he is able to do all the other stuff. But I'd trade a technical boss who can't protect his people or wage corporate war effectively for a "clueless" MBA who can wrap the C-level executives around his little finger any day of the week.

First of all

[Gary Destruction]

What exactly were the job requirements to be IT manager at your organization? Depending on the company's perspective of what an IT manager should be, he might not have had to know anything technical.

Competences

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who can -- do.
Those who cannot -- teach.
Those who cannot teach -- administrate.

Seriously, as many already said, your boss has to manage things and people. Ok, that's right. He doesn't need tech knowlege at all (really?!?) and so on.

BUT, i guess he *is* asked to know how to use fairly well the tools for completing his work.
And those tools today are: damn computers. Now way out it's anything else. The funny part is he's the IT manager...

Hell, a taxi-driver is asked to know how to choose the right routes for his customers; a lawyer is asked to know where and how to research and understand bills; a farmer is asket to know how to handle his own tractor; and so on... it's and endless list.
(Anyway, only marketeers seems allowed to not known what they provide, but this could be the exception which confirms the rule)

So, how is it possible that your boss can't manage to send by e-mail a document he just wrote?
Because he knows how to write a document, right? Ane he knows it has to be saved before trasmission? Ane he knows *where* he saved it?

Obviously,I don't know if is this the case since it is not explicitly mentioned, these are only plausible figures.

Conclusions?
Is he worth? I mean, is he able to drive the department to accomplish with the requested tasks? In other works: is the work done under his guide?
Or is just another one which is there because he's a friend of a friend?

perspective from an MBA student

[dh003i]

As an MBA student (Simon school), it seems like many people here don't appreciate the role of management. There are good managers, and there are bad managers, just like there are good techs and bad techs.

Most of the concentrations don't relate to the kind of management that this post is discussing: namely, the kind that deals directly with employees in technical positions. However, those that do include manufacturing operations amangement, service operations management, and possibly marketing. The other concentrations are at a higher level, and deal with things like corporate accounting, financial decisions, corporate organization, corporate strategy, investing, and so-on and so-forth.

I'm in business school for investing, however, I am very influenced by Philip Fischer, thus think that investing in companies with competent management at all levels is critically important (poor management can run any company -- no matter current financial position -- into the ground). I highly recommend Philip Fischer's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits & Other Writings ; I have found the book so useful that I have it very extensively underlined and annoted. I think that reading this book will give people a good understanding of what is necessary for a company to succeed in terms of quality-of-organization*.

For a book -- actually a "novel" -- that deals specifically with the kind of management (low-level) that this post is dealing with, I'd highly recommend Goldratt, Eliyahu M. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement . This book is the story of a plant that's going under, told from the perspective of the manager, who is highly technically competent. However, technical competence -- and even good people skills, which he has from the start -- isn't enough to ensure good management. A manager needs to know how to leverage his tehcnical and people-skills to benefit the firm, in terms of profit (specifically, NPV).

Now, one issue barely discussed in this book directly -- but that the reader gets a sense of -- is that alot of times managers have the wrong incentives. There are different ways to create incentive-structures for a division. Basically, it comes down to (crudely) a profit-center vs. a cost-center. If a manager is very constrained, it may be appropriate to treat his division as a cost-center, rewarding him based on how much he can reduce real costs. However, in many cases, a profit-center would be more reasonable. There are other larger issues, such as the tendency of many mechanisms of managerial performance to bias management decisions for short-term profitability at the expense of NPV (that is, disconsidering long-term profitability). This is an issue of corporate governance at the micro-scale, and one solution is to have retroactive bonuses that can still be paid off after managers leave, depending on how well the division is situated (this encourages managers to manage for the long-run, and to find good successors).

In any event, the manager being described by the original poster seems to be incompetent, in that he is actually hindering the work of his subordinates by constantly requiring them to help him with simple tasks that anyone should be able to deal with. However, the tone of many here seems to indicate a lack of understanding of what managers are there for. Managers are there to organiz

plug in the wrong hole

[edudx]

I swear this is not a dilbert cartoon: I work for an 8 person co. doing all the IT stuff. We had a power outage last month and just to be prudent I unplugged each powerstrip to the computers and a few others to avoid the surge when power was restored. After an hour the power came back on and I told everyone to plug in their comps and powerup. 5 minutes later, our boss came over to my desk and said angrily, My computer is totally down! We strolled together back to his office and I stood in the doorway for a few seconds while I looked at his computer. The PC was plugged into the power strip, and then he had taken the powerstrip plug, and plugged it back into the powerstrip. I looked at him, and (though I was wondering if he'd tried flicking the red switch on the powerstrip at all after he'd plugged it into itself) I said flatly, "I don't think it's gonna work like that" and plugged the strip into the wall. Before the power outage he was an ignorant control freak. Now I kind of have carte blanche on all IT decisions.

Tolkien Ring

[Bifurcati]

Guess I read too much LotR...

Re:Manage Your Manager

[aXis100]

Great post, I wish I had mod points for you.

Easy -- just fire your boss

[thisisauniqueid]

Easy -- just fire your boss

My security department.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm taking this opportunity to vent about the IT "security" dept. of my workplace, unnamed for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is a BIG company dealing with very sensitive and personal financial information.

They run XP machines and a windows network. Everyone has unrestricted access to this network as well as internet. There are no firewalls in place and we use good ol' Outlook for email. An outdated Norton antivirus is the only defense against malicious files. Everyone has a USB port and can see,copy,delete files on about any computer in the building. The security manager claims to be an ex-cracker but I see otherwise. He asked us (supposedly non-IT folk) for tips on improving security, which worried me. In any case, they don't pay me enough for my IT knowledge and they will stay insecure with these clowns running the circus. I'm not even 133t and I can see some very big holes wide open there.

Is he a good MANAGER?

[Anonymous Coward]

*You* are supposed to be solving technical problems. Manager is supposed to manage his/her workers. A good manager doesn't need to undrestand technical details (it helps when he/she does understand details into certain extent). A *good* manager lets his/her underlings explain to him/her what he/she needs to understand to go to the meeting and defend his/her underlings. Good help you when he/she finds out you lied to him/her.

A good manager creates good working conditions for his/her people. Including going to the meetings with higher management and fighting for you, so you can focus to getting the work done.

Yes, I DO know such manager. My boss. And when he asks we try very hard to do the impossible for him immediately and miracles within three days. Yes I know I am very, VERY lucky.

you meen i just spent 4 days

[bxbaser]

tearing apart my freaking house and a firewall isnt fire rated drywall.
My wife is gonna be pissed

Short and Sweet

[tailgate]

Well, let us be honest here. You need to point the finger at yourself. If you are so much more qualified for the position... Why are you not the manager? He obviously has done something to be in a position to be a higher authority; maybe you should take leadership and not envy it.

the BOFH would know what to do ....

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first law of networking - loose ends are bad, termination is good."

Electronic door handles, lift doors opening when the lift isn't at the correct floor, electronically controlled revolving doors .... the list and possibilities are endless - unlike your boss's life!!

(Disclaimer: this is a joke people!)

Solution: Klingon rites of succession

[macraig]

What your department needs is Klingon rites of succession. The Peter Principle doesn't work so well when your subordinates' likely response to your incompetence is a batleth to the back of the neck.

Get him fired

[rashanon]

I have seen the same thing happen. He is a position of managing people who do a job, and he does understand the job. That is just damn wrong management. for everyones sake he needs to go. Now. Gone. Out the door. Because he isnt contributing. If people arent contributing to your organization they are vampires. they take resources but create no result.

Putts Law

[zootman]

Reminds me of Putts Law : "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand." Best Regards,

corperate?

[hasst]

Still, you did not got a chance for some decent grammar crash course.

We're ALL smarter than our bosses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya well,

I work freelance in consulting, and as a musician. The people I work for love me, because they Can't/Won't/Don't have time to do what I do.

When I clean up virii and malware, or set up someone's network, the clients are so enthralled that they most always give me at least 10% tips, and when the bar owners see our group (or me as a solo) hold the crowd until the end of the night, they usually give a monetary compensation. .00002 cents.

Why do you have a boss?

[neurophys]

In many kinds of work it would be stupid to expect the boss to know more (or as much as) the workers on their central function. If you as a worker don't have something to "sell" the company, why are you there. In some industries you still only sell you time. However in IT and many others the company rent your brain and what is in it.

If your boss think he is interlectually ruling the workers he missed it.

A modern boss should use his knowlegde ( economy, organization theory and so on) to help you to produce more and better. You should work as a team. From time to time (that must not be often) he have to use his position to order something, but then he losing something in the production.

E.g. I don't think a business educated leader of a hospital would tell the neurosurgeon where to cut.

Pål

my boss!!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, when I pronounce IP (I pee) to my boss, he thinks that im talking about my toilet break..

heeeeeeeeeelllp meeee!!!!

im alone in this world!!!

Vlatko.

Imagine

[planetfinder]

Imagine how you'd feel if your boss knew more than you about your job and had to occasionally teach you how to do parts of it. When you disagreed with them you would be SOL because they are the boss and they obviously know more than you and it would be a mistake to press any point to hard because they are in fact your boss. Haven't you ever had to deal with a "superior" boss. Look around, I'm sure that one of your brow beaten friends does. The idea that there is some ideal boss in between those too hells is a statistically insignificant dream.

In the world that you dream about you would be inferiror on all fronts. Not only would your boss be your technical superior but she would be your corporately acknowledged superior. Your posture would acquire a stoop and your sexual preferences would start to meander. You'd be bitchin about how that controlling egomaniac doesn't know as much as they think they do and you'd be constantly arguing that you really do know more than them and you'd be whining about how you'll be gettin a new job any day and then they'll see how stupid they are for treating you this way ...

What will clarify this "problem" for you is to work for a boss who knows so much that they know where you should click your mouse next.

You are so lucky to have a boss that you can feel superior too. Maybe your boss isn't so dumb after all.

Actually, that's rather the point.

[C10H14N2]

Sometimes it takes a blinking idiot to point out the obvious. This is why I like to have the most simplistic morons I can find working as my QA testers. If I didn't code against them, *I* would be the one they called stupid because I failed to account for some inconceivably absurd circumstance that the brainless dolts came up with in ten seconds flat.

Re:Actually, that's rather the point.

[Knuckles]

I once worked at Frequentis. They had a company kindergarten and let the kids play with the air traffic control test systems as part of QA

damned if you do, damned if you don't

[eztiger]

I've had technical and non technical IT managers before and each have their own problems and benefits.

The technical ones often insisted on having too much of a hands on approach in my particular area of employment which is fine when things are going nicely but if you disagree with what how they think you should be doing your job it can cause problems (as they're the boss and ergo you'll end up doing it their way).

It also means you run the danger of them thinking they're all knowing about computers and chiming in about anything regardless of if its correct or not. And again...they're the boss so suck it up.

However, you can often defer problems off onto them and you can avoid alot of accountability for things going wrong.

On the flip, the non technical managers I've had wouldn't know a ps2 port from a usb port. However they managed. They knew the end of result of what they wanted to achieve and employed people in the areas required to do it. And more or less left us to it. Status reports were required of course and they'd make sure things were generally going in a direction they wanted but didn't care about how we got there. i.e 'I need our web page to do x y z go do it' and wouldn't be interested in getting involved in a discussion about whether we should do it in php or perl...that was our responsibility.

Bonuses: we had complete responsibility for our own jobs. We decided how to do it and the buck stopped with us. For the most part we were left completely alone to do it with no interfering. We didn't see any behind the scenes nonsense or any political company sillyness because the manager took care of that at his level before it got down to us.

Downsides: If we messed up, we messed up big and there was no one else to try and pass the buck onto. If there was something that came up that was beyond the teams scope of knowledge there was no 'higher up' person to talk to about it, we had to figure it out or come up with an alternative.


All in all I'd far rather work for an untechnical manager (as long as they understand they're not technical and are happy to purely manage on a goal orientated basis) as it allows me to actually do my job. With a technical manager I find mysel being second guessed, overruled and generally not in control of my area of work. Sometimes this was for the better (when I had got something wrong) but usually for the worst.


In summary...careful what you wish for!

Kev

Video / Audio Instruction

[digitalextremist]

Send the man video material and some popcorn, if he doesn't get the message, audio material and a get well card.

Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You get internal telephony? Simply add a cheap modem in each of the computers, and plug the phone through it.

Maybe try this?

[unlabeledchick]

Change an easy-to-find setting, that won't make a drastic change, but will annoy him a little. Assure him that you can't change it back, and hint that you 'know' that he can change it back himself. He probably won't argue over it, because politician-types hate to admit that they don't know something.

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Over two TWISTED PAIRS OF rusty barbed wire fence :) You need some kind of isolation (say, small wooden sticks) to keep them from shorting when twisted. Also avoid sharp turns or you never get 100 Mbit.

But you know, that's some good idea for a pasture surveilance system :)

Bosses I've had

[BestNicksRTaken]

1. Cool dude.
Quite a nice bloke, basically a Web Designer, he realised that I knew more than him about programming and systems stuff, so left me alone to do my job.

Useless manager though - no deadlines, no projects "just fix what you think needs doing".

2. Ex-techie.
Well, he had delusions of being a geek - so much so that he would actually go to DefCon and shop for clothes at ThinkGeek to try to fit in. He would profess to have written C programs that we later found were downloaded from SourceForge.

Useless manager - well he did the usual PowerPoint stuff and had meetings with upper management all the time, but would get obsessed with something he'd read about, so forced us to use it, even if it was totally inappropriate. Two people left just because of him.

3. Micromanager.
Quite technical so demanded to know exactly how we planned to do everything, was also quite manager-y so made project plans and gave us [artificial] deadlines. Had favourites - mainly those who sucked up and were generally bad at their job.

I can remember 4 really good workers in 3 years who quit just because they couldn't get on with him. He treated us like mushrooms too - it was almost impossible to get to the President and find out what was going on with the company. Mind you, the President was a bit of a pyscho, I liked him though.

4. Non-technical.
This bloke was a bit of a dodgey geezer, some definitely illegal stuff was going on I'm sure. He basically ran the place by being threatening and shouting/swearing if things didn't get done. Very high staff turnover, but if you were loyal, you would be well rewarded.

5. Religious freak.
This one believed in penance. If you screwed something up, you'd be doing a stock take or cleaning the place up. I remember a bunch of us went to a trade show and one of us (not me) was unfortunate enough to have to share a hotel room with him - he walked around naked apparently!

I've had other bosses too, like the power nut (everything has to be done my way), the dirty old man (mainly hired 18 year old girls in short skirts) and one woman (always off because of her kids, or sleeping her way to the top).

You're wasting your life.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Think about it - you're spending over half your waking life "not caring" - it might as well not be done.

Then you go home and accomplish nothing.

Sure, it's a great way to pass the time, but before you know it, that time adds up to 10 years, and you've nothing to show for it - certainly less than you'd have if you'd entertain some ideas of moving or finding some work you don't find so horrible.

Re:You're wasting your life.

[gfreeman]

That's certainly not how I read the post. I read the post as the job is simply a means to get money. When you get home it's the things you do there that measure how successful you are in life.

You got that report out on time? Way to go, you really accomplished something there! Your 10 year old daughter brought home straight A's so you took her to the park for a picnic? Well, I guess those 10 years were just wasted and you have nothing to show for it.

I'd much rather be a hero to my family and friends than a hero to my bosses shareholders.

Re:You're wasting your life.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no interest in heroics, nor grandios plans.

I just want to live a quiet, peaceful, happy life.

Most people put out extreme goals for themselves that only a fraction of folks ever actually reach.

My goals are minimal. Perhaps I am not the greatest person in the world, but what I do have is inner peace. And having been under incredible extraordinary pressure before, I wouldnt change it for the world.

I have a few friends, a few lovers, and a loving family. Thats all I need.

Re:You're wasting your life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. Applause.

Its difficult to understand how true that is. When you finally realise that life is about having peace of mind, things like bar binges and strippers and money and cars and the latest fucking release of $program is just too watered-down a subject to throw you off track.

I'd say you deserve the happiness from being content, and you deserve that loving family. Sincerely, there are very few people (like you) in this world who *understand* why not to be a part of the rat race.

Being content, happy, and loved. (however, knowledgeably moderated :) ) Wow. You are a real lucky chap.

More power to you!

Re:You're wasting your life.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

By no means was I suggesting that he put work before family. I was suggesting a move.

Seriously - if his job is so bad, why not either find another or move? That's 8 hours a day at work, plus X hours commuting and general getting-ready time. It leaves precious little for family as it is. And add onto that the fact that his work time might as well be spent sleeping - he doesn't feel like he gets *anything* out of it.

I'm not putting down his family time - it's obviously the best time of his day - I'm just questioning the quality of his life as a whole.

But then, I'm young. Maybe my idealism is still ripe.

PS - I was referring to half-life with the "accomplish nothing" comment - I'd missed the previous two words ("my family"), so there was definitely an edge I didn't intend on that comment. Someone who works all day to be able to afford to play HL2, I'd have some harsh words for.

Re:You're wasting your life.

[duguk]

I just wanna say how much i agree with your sentiment! If I had mod points, you'd get them all. If everyone thought this way, maybe things would be better. Shame that'll never happen, think I'll get back to my bong ;) - I say you might as well enjoy wasting your life, if you havent got much to live for. D

Labotomies 'R Us

[GuyverDH]

Remember folks, the higher up the management chain you go, the more brain cells you have to be willing to sacrifice. Don't you dare appear to be more intelligent than your boss.

Not a problem

[beforewisdom]

I have had IT ignorant IT managers before.

I've only found it to be a problem when they have not respected my expertise in making making IT decisions.

In my experience...

[ByeLaw]

I have worked under a few IT Related managers in my years in the industry, and hardly any of them have IT backgrounds, only managment.

Is this a good thing? They stick to managing the people, his/her staff stick to managing the technology??

I know it is fustrating, but it seems to be the status quo most of the time :(

Re:You know one day you may be that boss

[VdG]

All of my bosses have been ex-technical people, but not always in the same field. They need enough technical knowledge to understand the issues but the detail stuff is up to us. And that's how it should be.

(My previous boss was an ex IBM mainframe sys-prog, managing a UNIX and Windows support team. She didn't know a great deal about either operating system but she did have a fine understanding of computing in general and the issues which are relevant to any platform.)

There are a few intermediate people where I work, managing a small team whilst still being involved in the day-to-day work. Whilst it's true that much of their time will be taken up with meetings and admin stuff, which might tend to make their skills a bit stale, they have the advantage that they can cherry-pick the most interesting work.

Mgmt in general

[Snocrash]

Well..... Managers should manage and workers should do the work. As an example. I am an enginner in the automotive industry, I have had both types of managers in my career. I much prefer a manager that is not an engineer. Managers that actually know the job tend to micro manage and try to take over projects. Believe me..this is MUCH worse than a manager that dose not know the actual job. Let the Manager manage the people and the department. Don't expect any more of them. You will be happier....trust me. Just my $.02 Sno

jellyfish: the peruvian prince

[psyjoniz]

all in all i've had about 9 different bosses ranging from completely inept to (what i would consider) 'well adjusted'. the most notable of my bosses was referred to as either 'jellyfish' or 'the peruvian prince' by the people who reported to him. jellyfish because he was completely spineless when it came down to confronting people he knew were integral to the flow of work and the prince nick was due to his lack of respect for *anyone* because, as with most arrogant people, he thought his 5h*t didn't stink. somehow this guy wormed his way into the VP position of the IT dept on top of the guy who actually hired him who was quite a few years older than him. the hiring guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed but his organizational skills along with his ability to get people working in a team efficiently would have, imo, made him the perfect candidate. unfortunately his shrewdness was nowhere near jellyfish's, so he lost the position to an undereducated and underqualified bull5h*tter. back to jellyfish.. there are stories upon stories about this guy - but i think the only one that needs telling is the time he got one of those phishing emails looking for your bank account information .. and responded. with everything you'd ever want to know to get into his finances and essentially take over his life. from what i was told this was the damage: his account was emptied within minutes. 2 houses. 4 cars. and thousands upon thousands of dollars in credit cards racked up within a day or so. what a fool. and this guy is the VP of IT for a company who does +-10million OI a year. pathetic. thankfully i now work for someone who has the ability to delegate tasks to the proper people, allow them to do their job and knows their limits. of course i haven't seen those limits yet because the guy seems to have done just about everything both in and out of work. he's a pleasure to work with and for. never gets overly upset nor jumps to conclusions without proper information at hand. and if there is an issue, its worked out - not worked up.

common

[bagatonovic]

I work in IT for a very large insurance company. I am afraid to mention the name as I have a mortgage to pay, and I dont want to lose my job. Our manager open admits he knows little to nothing about technology. At my prior job, my manager was amazed by a shell script I wrote. She didn't understand how the text could tell the computer to do stuff. I believe it is common for IT managers to be ignorant of IT. Sad but true. Welcome to Earth - it's odd here.

Trick him into finding stuff out for himself

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

I'm posting a bit late, so this will likely be lost in the mess of people taking the opportunity to be funny and being generally unhelpful, but I was experiancing simular trouble with my parents. Albeit that was more annoying than aggrivating. My solution was to teach them how to fend for themselves. I showed them Wikipedia for terminology they didn't know and also instead of showing them how to fix their problem, I showed them how to search google ("howto" "example" "help" "faq" and other keywords) for a solution to their problem and then made them fix it for themselves. My rule was that if they hadn't been reading HOWTO's for at least half an hour, they didn't need my help yet. Of course, you have to do all this much more descretly than I was able to. I'd employ tricks like, "Oh, yea. I can take care of that, but I've been trying to finish this thing all morning. Go ahead and see what you can find out for us [those two words are surprisingly important] on google while I take half an hour to get this done." Something a little more difficult is to get him to read, on a regular basis, pages like Slashdot. When I first started reading slashdot (although Digg might be better for the slightly less technically inclined) I had ABSOLUTLY NO IDEA what half the stuff was about. But as I started seeing the same words in more and more context, I figured it out and now it's been a couple of years since I've seen something that I had no clue on.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Get used to it! My boss, his boss, and up are all idiots! Suck ass, get ahead!

A new Slashdot record:

[Hosiah]

I have splorked coffee and simultanueously wet my pants.

Advice? Quit and go get professional mental help; you are far too bent to have a job!

Respect...a boss who knows anything...what perversion!!!!

Bosses

[kilodelta]

I've found that a boss that I like on a personal basis tends to be a bad manager.

Ones that I don't really have a personal relationship with seem to be the best bosses I've had. I guess familiarity really does breed contempt.

In masone235's case, I've dealt with one like that. He fell into the first category I described above. Turned out to be the boss from hell. He was a Mac person but at work he had to use a PC. Oh the joy. Of course I put VNC on his machine and when I knew he wasn't at his desk I'd change backgrounds, etc. Used to drive him bonkers.

The boss doesn't need to know IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up, you insignificant programming twit! Your boss can hire 5 more like you in the course of a day. Welcome to the real world.

Those who can...

[Zanthor]

Tech

Those who can't...

Manage.

Both kinds of managers

[CrazyTalk]

I've dealt with both kinds of IT Managers - those with a strong technical background, and those who were "clueless" about technology. As long as they aren't clueless about everything else (managment, the business, etc.) I actually have prefered the latter. Techie managers tend to micromanage and stick there hands in the developers code, not always to the best effect. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. On the other hand, a smart manager who does his or her job and knows how to delegate technical decisions to the experts can be a great person to work for.

It's always better that way

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it is better that the boss doesn't know as much. When they know how to do stuff they usually spend their time doing my work instead of the management job they should be doing.

Nitpick

[Farmer Tim]

But you should understand what a firewall does and why, and what a good firewall ruleset would look like.

I'd say you're half right. A good IT manager should know what firewalls are and why they're important (well enough to justify the expense to upper managment), but understanding a ruleset is clearly a job for a subordinate who can be assigned the time to do it right; its a good example of exactly the kind of knowledge a manager shouldn't have if you want to avoid micromanagement or other interference in day-to-day tasks. The point I'm making here is that a manager should have a good overview of what they're managing, and leave the technical details to people who have been hired specifically to handle the technical details.

Still, from the article:

Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches.

So this guy expects his boss' computer to fail (even though his department of experts "fixes" it), and then complains that his boss doesn't learn about it...seems like they were made for each other. To paraphrase Marx, it sounds like he doesn't want to work for a company that hires people like him.

Re:Nitpick

[Some Random Username]

I disagree. Having been on both sides, I can say without a doubt that having the technical skills to handle the firewall does not mean you will micromanage. Not to brag, but I am one of the best tech guys I've ever met, yet if you were to ask the people who worked for me, I only got involved in the details if and when they needed me to, and they learned alot and made a much better department as a result.

Just because I know how to do your job, doesn't mean I am going to. It simply means I can provide guidance, and am able to tell if someone is doing their job properly or not. If you are not capable of doing your minions' jobs, then you are not capable of telling if they are doing their jobs adequately, incompetantly, or exceptionally. You can't reward and punish people appropriately, or judge who is worth hiring and who isn't. You are also likely to buy bullshit excuses because you don't know any better.

Understanding what is and is not a good firewall ruleset is something every IT manager should know. He or she should obviously not be spending the time to do it themselves, but they should still know how.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

So, my boss (a former DBA who knows quite a lot about tuning Oracle on Solaris) isn't a good manager because he expects the infrastructure group to handle the Checkpoint firewall insteand of spending all his cycles learning about something that he wouldn't be allowed to touch anyway? You've got some ... interesting ... ideas about what a manager should do.

Re:Nitpick

[Some Random Username]

Have you tried hooked on phonics? I clearly said he shouldn't be spending time learning about checkpoint. He should however know what a firewall does and why, and what a good firewall ruleset would look like. How hard is this to understand? I don't care if he has no clue how to use the nasty checkpoint interface, any reasonably bright person can figure it out, as long as they understand the fundamental concept of a firewall.

Re:Nitpick

[Farmer Tim]

Just because I know how to do your job, doesn't mean I am going to.

Admirable self-restraint on your part. However, your attitude is far from universal; if it were, we wouldn't see so many posts about micromanagement in this thread.

If you are not capable of doing your minions' jobs, then you are not capable of telling if they are doing their jobs adequately, incompetantly, or exceptionally.

More properly, you could use a performance-based system that analyzes tasks, their complexity, projected time versus actual time to completion, failure or repetition, etcetera, and creates a verifiable, quantified record based on a standard (to avoid accusations of personal bias); establishing such a set of performance criteria requires surprisingly little deep technical expertise. Looking at it this way, its very easy to identify who is or isn't working well, and you're equally immune to bullshit excuses. And since this is how your superiors measure your performance as a manager, it gives you a clear idea of your own effectiveness from their perspective. And again, understanding a firewall ruleset (or any given technical point) isn't important; the ability to coordinate a group to work at its most efficient is (ie knowing who of your underlings is best for a task, which is the whole point of performance evaluations). Any other attributes may or may not be a plus, depending on the individual, but if they detract from the key role of handling people then they aren't desirable in a manager.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating total technical ignorance, I'm just saying that technical expertise can be detrimental to the managerial role, so it isn't reasonable to expect your manager to have greater knowledge than you. Its nice when it happens, but don't count on it.

Re:Nitpick

[Some Random Username]

That's a total strawman though. So micromanaging managers is a problem, yep. That has no correlation to technically capable managers though. I've been micromanaged by someone who was totally clueless of technology, its certainly not limited to technically competant managers. And if a manager is wasting time micromanaging, then they are incompetant still, tech skills or not. They are failing to do their job, and apparently don't even understand what their job is, therefore they are incompetant. I am not saying we should shift managers over to being technically competant and managerially incompetant instead of the other way around. I am saying managers can actually be competant, in both aspects, almost like they are just plain competant, period.

No, you can't use magic "performance-based system"s to find out if someone is doing their job well. If you don't have a good understanding of technology, how do you know wether that proposal they gave you for the new mail cluster is good or not? You can see how complex it is, and guess how long it would take, but you have no idea if its even a good idea to start with. Managers like this lead to huge cluster-fuck's that have to be fixed by an contracted IT company. As much as said companies appreciate the business, its bad for the companies these incompetant managers work for.

If you can't tell what a good firewall ruleset looks like, then you can't check it when they are done implimenting it, and your business could be at risk do to the incompetance of your employee, and your incompetance in not knowing they are incompetant. When I was in charge of IT, getting owned because the firewall was setup wrong would have certainly been MY fault, not my minions. I am responsable, that's my job, therefore I need to be capable of telling wether its done right or not.

Re:Nitpick

[Farmer Tim]

That's a total strawman though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Actually, no it isn't. A "strawman" is deliberately misrepresenting your opponents view in order to ridicule their argument on your own terms. I don't believe I did any such thing, and I resent the implied lack of intellectual rigour associated with that particular debating tactic.

And I didn't say micromanagement is practiced by technically knowlegable managers exclusively, I was citing it as a reason in direct response to your own example. Another reason is that a technically inclined manager might become personally involved in a project to the detriment of other projects, but that wasn't relevant to the example you provided. There are a host of other reasons that also aren't relevant to your example; my apologies for not being comprehensive enough and assuming you'd fill in the blanks, as you left everyone else to do.

No, you can't use magic "performance-based system"s to find out if someone is doing their job well.

The fact that you describe this very basic, proven management technique (time and motion analysis) as "magic" suggests that you have no idea how to implement such a system correctly, which would also explain why you don't believe its possible. But let me ask: how did you judge whether someone was a good employee, by the jargon they could rattle off while standing by the water cooler, or how effective they were in executing their job? If the answer is the latter, then you're dealing with statistics that can be analysed; your failure to do so represents you failing in a primary managerial task (instigating a method of recording and evaluating your subordinates' performance).

If you can't tell what a good firewall ruleset looks like, then you can't check it when they are done implimenting it...

Feeling the need to check your subordinates work yourself, rather than delegate the task, is a very good example of micromanagement: you're sending a clear message that you don't trust them to succeed without your direct supervision and intervention. Is it possible that nobody complained (AFAYK) only because you do posess indisputably superior technical knowledge and/or you have a winning personality? Maybe it was easier to do a half-assed job and let you fix it; do you know for sure? I'd also like to know how many people you were managing, because your approach is impossibly time consuming when you're handling more than around 10 people, which many IT managers do without difficulty.

Look, if you're not prepared to take my word for it, fine. I'd be happy to put you in touch with the ex-manager of IT for Telstra; he was responsible for creating Australia's largest ISP/upstream provider, but lacks any of the technical ability you maintain is so necessary, which means either Telstra doesn't exist as a profitable ISP, or you're demonstrably wrong.

Re:Nitpick

[Some Random Username]

Sorry, a red herring then. The fact is you are acting like being technically competant takes away from your managerial skills, which is complete nonsense.

As I said, I have been an IT manager, and been managed by IT managers. The technically competant ones have without fail, 100% of the time been far better. They were also managerially competant though. As I said, advocating that managers be only half competant is crazy, regardless of which half of their skillset is lacking.

You are still dismissing the fundamental fact that you CANNOT analayze statistics you don't have. I decide if you are good or not based on how good a job you do. That means I need to know what a good job looks like. I call it magic because it would have to be. If you understand what a good job is, then you can certainly use a performance based system to determine who to keep/reward/fire/etc. But if you don't know what a good job is, then you have no reliable data to analyze. You can't see how often joe did good work, because you have no way to know if joe has ever done good work.

And spending a couple hours a week checking to make sure my department has done their tasks correctly is most certainly not something I should be delegating. Delegating it to who? "Hey guys, I want to know if you are doing a good job or not, so check and find out for me will you?". That's a great approach. My job as IT manager is to ensure that everything my department is supposed to take care of is done on time, on budget, and the best way possible for the company. I am responsable to make sure things are done right, and good employees are rewarded. I have to check their projects to find these things out, if I don't do this then I am not doing my job.

And I am not taking your word for anything, this is a matter of opinion, not fact. I am sure some incompetant managers have had good IT departments. I also think that competant managers are likely to do better. And that being technically competant is NOT A BAD THING. Being technically competant does not hinder your management skills in any way, and if you look at other things outside of IT, good managers always know about the jobs of their employees.

What should you do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal with it pink boy!

Seriously, there's a reason you probably know more than your boss. Your boss hasn't been "in the trenches" doing programming/maintenance work for years. He's been doing conference calls, paperwork, explaining why things are taking too long to HIS boss (who has probably come straight from a business school and knows nothing about how his company's products or services actually work).

Unfortunately, the IT industry doesn't have the concept of working your way to the top. Typically, you need money or connections to get anywhere in the upper management chain, and once you're there... you can move to another company and stay up there -- even if it's a totally different kind of company!

We used to call that the CEO club... how many former C?O's do you know who dropped back down out of that level of management? Even if the company is bought by a bigger fish, they usually get titles like "Vice President of Basket Weaving" or something, just so they don't have to fall back into the Peon Management with the directors and all their underlings.

Don't like working 60 hours a week with a shared pool of sick/vacation time, no raises, little to no chance of promotion, slim to no chance of profiting along with your company (you'll be bought out and downsized before those stock options ever mature), and being totally "at-will" so they can throw you out because your shirt is the wrong colour? You picked the wrong industry to be in. No unions means no controls beyond what the market will bear, and whatever legal rights the government still allows you to keep.

I hear it's nicer on the coast where there's enough competition so they have to be semi-nice to you or you'll walk across the street... but in the middle of the country, you take it or get used to hamburger grease.

OSI Model isa useful conceptual model.

[Lanboy]

Just make sure you don't take it too literally.

I have had the what layer is tcp argument quite a few times...

IT Nepotism

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are that the owner of the business put this person in there because they trusted them - not because of their IT knowledge. They also may have gotten a break on the salary too!

I'm the IT guy at my wife's business. Lucky for me I know more about IT than anyone else there. But, in my previous position I was a general supervisor, and I knew more about systems than my entire IT department (yes, this is rare). But, I knew my limits and didn't interfere in areas that I didn't know more than the IT folks. And, before I took any action I would always confer with the IT folks.

How to fix this? Do you really want to? Having a boss who knows nothing (and realizes it) is most folks ideal job. It leaves you free to make the choices about what has to be done.

To fix it, you'll have to address it to the person who does the firing. And, since it's a family member your case will have to be very, very strong. Maybe you can suggest moving him into a less sensitive position?

Different levels of management.

[Saggi]

I'm a nerd, and I know it. For many years I have done a good carrier in the IT business, working as Senior IT Consultant to top management. My experience has told me that the skills and tasks are very different at various levels of management.

At low levels you have team management. Here you need to be technically skilled, as you manage your team directly. You have to be able to advice you team members and often coach them in various issues.

When you advance you get into middle management. Here your intersocial skills begins to out weight your technical skills. If the team size goes beyond 10 people you need to manage the team as a group, and not as individual persons. Now this requires much different abilities. It is much more important to motivate and delegate tasks in the project than being able to know technical details.

At top level management technical skills are almost irrelevant. Here the issues relate much more to strategies and directions. You don't need to understand how to do a specific task, you need to priorities business cases and calculate return of investments...

Try the BOFH approach...

[OmniGeek]

The Register's BOFH column has useful guidelines for this situation, cunningly disguised as satirical fiction...

Look somewhere else

[sheepoo]

http://www.workopolis.com/
http://www.monster.ca/

What to do

[jeff67]

Replace his laptop with an Etch-a-Sketch.

Start your own company

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. If you know more about the business than your superiors, maybe you should try to open a competing firm with some of your coworkers. It's harder than it sounds though. People who have a good head for business are sometimes not the most technically-oriented, and they surround themselves with smart people to strengthen their organization. I was an analyst working under a Director who didn't understand what the hell I'm talking about sometimes. But, he could talk a snake out of his skin, and knew exactly what was going on, even if he didn't fully understand it. That's management.

Similar but different....

[RegalBegal]

I had a situation much like yours. Boss knew nothing really, but was the boss. Resources wasted, etc, etc.

So...I searched around for another company to work for. I secured a new gig, quit and now I'm happier and I don't put up with a bullshit, know-nothing, micro-managing boss. You should try it.

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[Ex-MislTech]

I hope this is a sarcastic joke, ARCnet is a relic of the past,
and optical protocols are the future, not some dinosaur limited
to 10 mega-bit speeds .

Not to mention the issues of the connectors for coaxial networks .

It is time copper died, fiber is the future, and light has zero
interference form EMI/RFI noise .

SONet/DWDM already promise Tera-bit speeds in the MAN .

Peace!
EX-MislTech

If he is fair and cool....

[gatkinso]

...then definately put up with it. Help him out and make him look good. Teach him.

If he is an a-hole, then take the good advice you get in other posts.

People friendly bosses are hard to find. Note that to be a great leader he doesn't have to know squat about what his workers do - General Leslie Groves headed up the Manhattan Project not knowing squat about atomic theory.

The best combo

[Duck of Death]

My old manager was a high school teacher before he became a techie. I imagine that he was a good one. The guy knows a LOT, can explain things well, is patient, knows to step back and let us do our thing, but also knows to step in when there are problems.

That manager moved up to a VP slot and is now my boss' boss. My current manager doesn't know as much about what we do or how we do it, but she is a good manager. She knows that her job, in a nutshell is to help us do our jobs. If we have a problem that needs to be elevated, she wants to know 1) What's the problem, 2) Why is it a problem, and 3) What do we, the guys with the experience, see as possible solutions or alternatives. Armed with this information, she tries to resolve the issue. Things may not work out in our favor every time, but we know we've got someone who a) recognizes her shortcomings, b) acknowledges our expertise, and c) is willing to go to bat for us.

Is it any wonder I've worked here for over 10 years?

DD

its not just managers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's the occasional manager out there who doesn't know their ass from his elbow. But I'm much more concerned about the quality of "CS" graduates in recent years. There seems to be an over abundance of .X certifications being pumped out of trade schools calling themselves universities and colleges that can't draw a functional block diagram of a computer, have no clue what base conversion is, and the term "optimal" means "easiest for them."

Re:Manage Your Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the things a manager needs to do are not technical or are things he should not be doing without input from his top engineers. He needs to:

1. Manage people (set schedules, manage vacations, do performance evaluations, distribute bonuses, etc)
2. Make strategic decisions (choose technologies, distribute budgets)
3. Fight up the chain for needed resources (people, rasies!!, budget)
4. Protect his team from outside groups so that they can enforce rigor and process and keep his engineers sane and hopefully not overworked or in perpetual fire-fighting mode.
5. Stay out of your way so you can get things done (enough with the status reports already!).

Heh, my last doucebag manager only did #1. Yeah, he was really good at keeping the vacation spreadsheet up to date and making sure that we entered project status weekly on our reporting website. Other than that he was a big pussy, and every time one tried to get him to engage higher levels of management, the answer was always "don't rock the boat".
"Strategic decisions are what someone else makes and tells me what to do."
"Fight up the food chain? Well, I'm confident that they'll give us what we deserve."
"The data warehouse group says we need to follow their burdensome release process. I think it's way too much work, and it's OK with me to not follow it, so you can work it out with their manager."

It was a very happy day indeed when I got a new job and left his sorry ass behind.

Why was he not fired earlier, you ask? Well, not to give too much away, but he was a "lifer" at the local Telco and had enough connections to have personal pull. Oh, and the fact that people don't really have to do a good job managing when you're making money hand-over-fist off local telephone service.

Get a new job

[CyberdogOSX]

i know what it's like to work for an idiot. i worked for the manager of a high tech pre-press and print shop who was an Office Mgr right before he took this job.

F'd it up horribly and ended up being fire for that and behavioral problems unrelated to his job skills.

i quit when i realized the mgmt wasn't going to fire him, and it wasn't going to get any better.

point is, you don't tell upper mgmt they made a horrible mistake. they don't want to hear that from you, the worker. and the mgr himself will definitely not be responsive to your insight.

i don't believe the ridiculous assertion that "if i knew what you know, what do i need you for" crap i've heard some mgrs say. you need me to actually do it j*ck*ss, and you need these others to do the other things that need done around here. you going to do it all?

on the other hand, it's kind of arrogant to think that everyone around you is not worthy of their jobs if they don't know as much as you though. i see a lot of that in IT.

my advice, if you think that upper mgmt will be unreceptive to your opinions, start looking around for something else. don't try to mold the workplace to your vision, find someone who is already following it.

go west young man! or somewhere else......

Re:Get a new job

[CyberdogOSX]

i realize i said he wasn't going to be fired right after i said he was.

he was suspended for knocking up a secretary and then stalking her while he was suspended. after breaking into the place drunk to steal money out of the tampon machine in the womens rest room, THEN he was fired.
i suspect that they were growing suspicious of his book cooking too.

i left when i realized that upper mgmt was not interested in hearing my opinion of the person they had specially selected for the job. the person they liked and were buddies with. they don't want to hear anything that reflects badly on them

if he hadn't been such a nightmare otherwise, he'd still be there. and i would probably have been shoved into a room with him and an HR person to "work out our differences".

get out while you can. in the exit interview, diplomatically explain your frustration with your managers lack of knowledge. don't vent. best you can do for whomever comes after you.

Job #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had it both ways, working for folks that know less than, and more than, myself. Either way is okay, but you have to know which side of the fence you are on.
The key, I think, which has served me for some 15 years, is to remind yourself that if you cover the boss's butt to the point where it doesn't get chewed up to the point where (s)he considers it to be on your behalf, most of the rest just takes care of itself. This only works if the boss is smart enough to realize that you are a friend, troubleshooter, helper. In the five or so years prior to the most recent 15 my boss two levels up was an ignorant strutting @ss, and there was no chance of reconciliation, so I eventually left. Currently my immediate boss is the fellow that mentored me in Unix, though he was not my boss then; we have worked for each other over the years since, me hiring him after his five-year stint at another location, then helping to promote him to be my own supervisor. His supervisor is now the one we work to cover...

Best of luck. Luck counts in these things...

Why stay?

[HackerAce]

As an experienced professional you can always take you talent and experience to another company right?

I know it's been said, but...

[Thumper_SVX]

I'll probably get lost amongst the chatter here, but I have to weigh in as I've been both a manager and a technical guy for most of my career. I've had more time as a techie simply because I prefer that line to the management track.

Basically, a good manager does not have to be good at the job of his employees. In fact, more often than not it's preferable that he's not. The reason for this is that managers (good managers at any rate) need to deal with stuff that technical guys find wearing or even bullshit. Stuff like project planning, resource allocation, and generally playing the "politics game". If you're a technical guy in a management position, there's an almost natural tendency to presume that you're better than your employees. That leads to a presumption that you know the answer when they do not, and thus that you can do their job better than they can. It then irrevocably leads to a manager who micro-manages his employees. This makes him a lousy manager.

I personally went into the management job and knew this was a risk. As a result I made a conscious effort to seperate myself from the technology even to the point that I requested my rights to the system be taken away (I was granted admin privileges when I started). This forced me to go to my employees and look to them for solutions. As such, when we had a problem I usually sat down with them, explained the problem and asked them to give me a BRIEF overview of their proposed solution. I always told them to avoid technical details as I didn't need them. Then I usually asked for a timeline for a fix and walked away. I could then go back to the manager / business owner / department head who reported the problem and give them my take on the problem and give them a timeline (usually plus a few hours or days depending upon the extent of the problem). I never told them who was working the problem or how it was going to get fixed. That's how a manager works. This way I showed trust in my employees abilities, kept the heat off their back and set the expectations of the reporter that the problem was being diligently worked on and thus would be fixed.

I'd say 80% of my job was "public-relations" based. To me, my technical knowledge was somewhat of a liability. I ended up looking at solutions to problems and sometimes over-analyzing the solution my employees had come up with. I had my own ideas about solutions more often than not but had to keep them to myself. I couldn't test or implement because I had no access, and if I were to try then I would be showing my employees that I didn't trust their judgement. This undermines the entire department and thus turns you again into a bad manager.

Eventually I quit. Not because I wasn't wanted in the position (I had great working relationships with my employees that I enjoyed and still stay in touch with some of them), but because I had found my "geek-karma" to be a liability to my direction as a manager. I wasn't comfortable being the "general", I found I much preferred being "in the trenches". Besides, honestly I find that I can be much more flexible with my schedule as a techie than I ever could as a manager. Even though I have the occasional evening and weekend work I need to do, I prefer it over the constant 11 and 12 hour days I needed to get all my stuff done as a manager, the interminable meetings and the absolute hard-and-fast requirement that I be in the office between the hours of 8am and 5pm every day... even if I'd been there until 2am dealing with paperwork.

And as for those who comment that a manager will take your "thunder" as a "hot-shot", think about this. When you f**k up, a good manager will also take the hit. I can't count the number of times I had a screw up in my ranks that I had to go to my management and say, "A member of my group dropped the ball. They're diligently working on a solution and I will take full responsibility for it." I got on the wrong side of a few upper managers because I refused to state who on my group screwed up. I always told them I would deal with it in

Re:I know it's been said, but...

[MickoZ]

There is a problem and it is not just about being a manager. Even being a techy, I realize that there is a lot of people who have serious logic problem when it comes to develop. I have noticed this at school (not 10% of bad, but rather 90%, maybe I exagerate, but maybe not), I notice it at work, etc. Some people thought have some capacity, but are not as fast as the other would want. That lead them to do bad move and fuck up. It is maybe very hard, but a good leader/manager in a team with a great technical vision might be the best. The problem is when it comes bureaucratic and the reunion, etc. grab your time, so you have none to think correctly. Sometime just go slowly to think and then go fast once you have the solution is the best way to go. Unfortunately some system make it harder for us to apply. Indeed human communication is something that make it even more complicated. There is project that are also deemed to failure since beginning. Some good project leader are able to say yes or not from seeing this, in other case, it is just a matter of time. I guess that is part of life. Your story, my rambling, etc. ;-)

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[Optic7]

Reading about arcnet certainly brought back some memories, but read the link he provided to see what they are using it for nowadays (I had no idea). It's likely that the optical stuff just isn't rugged enough for their use. Plus they don't need the speed.

Re:You know THAT THEY DON'T KNOW

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes no sense to myself either that some of the guys that lead the guys "down in the trenches" doing the ACTUAL WORK (e.g.-> coding, networking engineering/adminstration/tech, &/or etc./et all concerned in this field) can't do the job many times themselves, or @ least proficiently.

That is what you get when you have folks that cannot do the job themselves, they can't earn the respect of their subordinates, & are not very useful in "pinches" or deadline 'crunch times' because they're useless in this field.

I have seen it TOO many times... way too many. This field, in particular, since it is SO technical in nature, really ought to have mgt. that is EXTREMELY capable in said positions... bosses that can 'jump into the mud' with you & help out @ tech levels in particular (and be as good as YOU are, or better imo).

APK

P.S.=> "WELCOME... TO THE REAL WORLD..." Morpheus to Neo in 'The Matrix' -

IMO, these type of bosses probably get the jobs because of having the sheepskin &/or 'networking' (but, not the PC kind, the kiss butt kind via ingratiation)...

Bad move imo, ALL the way around, to hire IT/IS/MIS mgt. based on that, & no real-world hands-on actual working experience in this field @ a technical level... apk

You all have good jobs

[falconwolf]

Actually I don't, I'm on disability.

Falcon

My IT Manager was the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

http://fallbehind.blogspot.com/

Re:PFFT, EASY! ARCNET!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey our company still runs 10m everywhere in all its offices and is a billion $ cap stock market company in .au

We're still using win2000 too

Quote from the top

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of the real problems with American business is this notion that you can be trained in management, in some kind of generic form of management, and then you can manage any operation. But that absolutely does not work in a technical situation. The manager has to have an intuitive gut feel for what ought to be done in a particular situation, and if you don't have the technical background, if you haven't participated personally, you don't have that."

- Bob Noyce, co-inventor of the silicon chip and founder of Intel and Fairchild Semiconductor

It's a two way street

[Lord Kano]

Not only must a good manager know how to manage well, you must also know how to be well managed.

If your manager makes a mistake, correct him/her about it as soon as time permits. If s/he is stubborn and refuses to change an idiotic decision, don't be afraid to go over said manager's head. Go to his/her boss and explain why the mistake will hurt the company.

Crying and wallowing in misery because of someone else's mistake never helps anyone.

LK

Is *some* value produced?

[chris_7d0h]

If you manager produces noticeable value in the area for which s/he was hired (technical or non-technical) for you, your team and the rest of the company, then s/he is probably in the right spot.

Managing and being at the fore front of technology is VERY taxing and tends to result in burn outs of most people. I've seen people being able to cope with such jobs at a maximum of 18 months at a time before requiring downtime (e.g. focusing on either for a while) or they'd be hitting the wall (too many have gone down the latter road for my liking).

Personally, I've been in a position where I for the last 12 months have had to negotiate contracts, make planning, acquire resources, deliver architecture and manage the execution and delivery of systems for a government contract. If it were not for the fact that I'd be handing this over to a replacement in 1,5 months I'd burn myself out.

When I eventually do take a position in a line organization I'll definitely choose to *either* focus on sales, resource management, project execution or architecture. Not all of them at once since it's unrealistic to expect an "IT Manager" to keep "consultant" like pace as part of a long term career (5+ years?). No person I've ever met have ever managed such a feat and expecting such from your manager is not realistic i.m.h.o.

And yes, if when the time comes to choose a path and the path happens to be non-technical, I will become less skilled in the areas not being the core of my new position. E.g. I would not see myself being able to teach younger specialists (as an example) the ins and outs of various techs. I'll expect any person I hire or manage to be better than I in their respective field and will rely on their advice and expertise for making the proper decisions.

Please reflect over your manager's situation and the work s/he does. In most likelihood the person is busy making sure you and your team can perform to your best while at the same time "shielding you " from upper management and the issues coming from that direction. I'd also wager SLA , customer commitments and allocated budgets weigh heavy on your manager to name but a few examples.