Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Have the entire IT staff sit down with the owner of the company and explain why the owner should fire the moron IT manager.
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.
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.
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes.
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
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.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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 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.
I think I'd rather have your boss
I dunno
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
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.
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."
Breakfast served all day!
"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 !!
StupidChildren...the reason jesus is crying
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.
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.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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.
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..."*
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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?
Christ.
You've never worked at a real job, have you?
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 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?
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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
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.
...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.
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
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
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.
What's a sig?
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.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
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.
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.
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.
...unless you are part of the family. A comment from the voice of bitter experience.
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.
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.
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.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
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...
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.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
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).
Mock Tech Interviews & Free Resume Review
I have to say I am in that position as well. But, I kind of have a different outlook on things.
/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.
I am not so sure an IT manager would still be there very long if he
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.
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!
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
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
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.
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.
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...)
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!!!!!!!
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.
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.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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:
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.
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
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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.
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!
*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.
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.
C - the footgun of programming languages
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.
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.
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.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
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).