Slashdot Mirror
Fire Your IT Boss
theodp writes "Instead of laying off techies who directly help users, Robert X. Cringely argues that the best place to cut IT organizations is at the top. One of the great problems in IT management, Cringely says, is that the big bosses typically haven't a clue what is happening, what needs to happen, and what it all should cost. He issues the following challenge: 'If you are managing an IT shop and can't write the code to render "hello world" in C, HTML, PHP, and pull "hello world" from a MySQL database using a perl script, then you are in the wrong job.' Even with help from Google, Cringely believes many technical managers would fail this test and should get the boot as a result — you can't manage what you don't understand."
I think having the manager understand the technical nature of whats going on is certainly an asset.. but ultimately I don't know if it's a necessity.
Point is, managers manage people. You are there to code.. not them. The only technical details they need to do their job is: how long it will take, how many people can work on it efficiantly, what tasks are dependant on it, risks, and benifits.. and you are there to provide them with that info.
Managers are about the big picture, not the fine details. In fact.. a micro-managing manager can be a bad thing.
I think we've all been there... the guy who is directing the circus has no clue about whats involved in it's component parts and you wonder how he ever got the job...
When you really look at what he spends the day doing though.. you realize the majority of his job revolves around the non-technical things that you probably don't want to have anything to do with (timing, resource allocation, cost, etc..)
As usual, Cringely is right. The fat floats to the top.
I'm an IT project manager. If one of my peeps bailed and I couldn't step right in and fill their spot and train their replacement myself I would consider myself a failure. It's all about the customer and if we fail to meet the customer's needs because of this everybody involved has failed.
I had this conversation recently: "Can you replace X?" Answer: "Of course. If I couldn't, we both need replacing."
I've got people both under and over me. I fully expect both the unders and the overs to be able to step in and catch the load if I step in front of a bus. I don't want to catch a bus, and I don't want my unders and overs to do so either. But I'm prepared for either event and you should be too because if you can't you're neither responsible nor capable of advancement and that's a sad place to be.
That said, most days my role is reduced to catering. I let my peeps do their gig and I get stuff out of their way. Only the newbs need direction and they get over it right away.
As soon as they're oriented:
I'm only an IT project manager until my bosses find someone better. My techs only work for me until I find someone better. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
A manager manages PEOPLE and not C/HTML/PHP code.
I love the smell of lithium in the morning
The article seems to more say that the IT manager needs to understand the underlings jobs and be able to describe the job. Not that the manager has to understand everything the underling must do to complete the job. The summary seems a little slanted.
The absolute best IT managers I've had were more than willing to state when they didn't understand the technical details. In the cases where they had to explain something in detail they did what a good manager would do; they'd ask the individual who DOES understand it better than they come and explain when that level of detail is needed. Those same IT managers not only understood enough of my job to outline what they'd like accomplished and stepped back to let me accomplish it in the most technically correct way possible, they shielded me from those above and outside the department so that I could do that job.
The last thing I want is to be managed by someone who thinks they are more an expert on the intricacies of what I'm working on. Either they are going to micromanage the individuals on their team or they aren't ever going to be satisfied with the work that is produced.
Maybe the poster would be happier if they were called IT Personnel Managers?
Are you kidding me?
As long as my I.T. boss shields me from the dipshits and the politics at levels above themselves, I don't honestly care what they can or can't program.
They're worth more to me as a human filter than a fellow developer. Christ. Let me actually fix things - they can go off and interface.
As an IT manager who has commit privileges to the core Python repository, and can write hello world in half a dozen languages, I'd like to chime in...
IT management almost certainly isn't about doing the work. That's why it's management and not technical work. Management is about helping other people do things.
For example, technical people are notorious for being not very good with people. Having someone helping them interface with the rest of the company, get funding, run interference for projects and decisions, all of this is very important to getting coding done, and does not require an ability to code or even an understanding of what is going on with the people doing the coding.
Having a die-hard techie in a management position may not be as valuable as having a die-hard manager there. Because if the manager just really wants to be doing the techie work, that's really where his passion is, then he probably is in the wrong job. Just as if the person in the techie job's passion lies elsewhere...
If you have someone in the organization, management or not, that isn't pulling their own weight, then definitely look at what you can do to remedy the situation. But whether a manager can write main() { printf("hello world\n"); } is almost certainly the wrong test to be using.
Would you fire the techie who can't come up with $50,000 in funding for new workstations and servers?
But, I guess the "re-purpose people who aren't pulling their weight" headline isn't as easy to get on slashdot as "fire your IT boss". :-)
Sean
There have been a lot of comments about how your manager doesn't need to know the technical aspects of what you do.
Let's just extend that with your Ford analogy.
The CEO doesn't know what a carburetor is. ...
So he hires person A to handle that.
But person A does not know, either.
So person A hires person B to handle that.
But person B does not know, either.
So person B hires person C to handle that.
Eventually you end up with the situation where you have layers and layers of "middle management" that do nothing other than move reports around and attend meetings.
And that's why you're probably driving an import today.
And 100% agreement on HP and Carly. I have no respect for HP now. The person at the top is paid a LOT of money ... supposedly because she has a LOT of knowledge and expertise and skill. Arguing that knowledge is not needed ... well, people always disparage what they do not have.