Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fire Your IT Boss

Posted by kdawson on from the if-only dept.

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."

13 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know if I fully agree with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..)

    1. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except, I'm not there to provide them with that info. Not really. I'm there to provide them with "this is how long it will take me" or "this is how long I think it should take". That's not necessarily the same thing as how long it should take, what it should cost, etc.

      In order to manage me and my fellow employees, as well as the time and money we are spending, they need to have an understanding external to us.

    2. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by kcbanner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (timing, resource allocation, cost, etc..)

      Yes, but the people who actually see those resources and money at work have a *much* better better idea where they actually go. A manager who has a history lower down will make better choices, instead of just throwing money at something, they might throw it at the project, but aim it a bit better.

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    3. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by Darkon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      A manager who does not grasp at least the fundamentals of the job(s) that the people under him/her do may not believe or understand subordinates when they give estimates of time/manpower/risks/benefits/etc.

      Someone who doesn't have a bit of knowledge of coding is more likely to say "yeah yeah, you can do that in half the time or I can hire this guy in India who says he can".

    4. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are exactly right. I have worked with numerous execs who weren't very technical, but if they are doing their jobs well and respect my opinions then they are perfectly fine in their roles.

      Years ago, at one particular job, I was the corporate network admin. My job was to maintain the network and to a lesser extent, help employees with computer problems. Anyhow, there was a time when the head of our marketing department had an issue that, by my rough estimation, I would be unable to resolve without an hours worth of work. When I told her this, she starting yelling and screaming at me, to which I basically told her to fuck off. She threatened to issue a complaint to the CIO since she had no authority over me. All I had to do was tell the CIO what had happened and he went over and chewed her out. It was a perfect example of two management types who both lacked the technical knowledge to assess the problem, yet one chose to berate me while the other chose to trust me.

    5. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not so much about slacking as it is about incompetence. Someone might work really hard but produce far worse results than someone who works half as hard, but has talent and pride.
      A manager without the skills is likely to keep the former and lay off the latter.

      And what does it help if your project completes on time, if it's seriously b0rken? Then there will be months of band-aiding, followed by a declaration that it was a success, no matter how horrible it was. And you end up with five times as many people in the support organization (and managers to oversee them) because you didn't understand enough of the gritty details to ensure that the project got done right. And as a CTO, you'll get a bonus, while the lower level people who have to support the steaming pile of technology get the shaft. Repeatedly, to Ravel's Bolero.

    6. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agree agree agree. I've had a good time working at utterly incompetent workplaces because the bosses 2-3 levels up from me shielded me from the idiocy above me. They deserved their perks, believe me.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    7. Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that by malchus842 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. As someone who has moved up through the IT organization and manages a large group, I spend FAR more time managing my boss and his boss than my staff. They get their assignments, with enough authority to get them done and responsibility to get them done. My job is to secure the necessary resources, provide a sounding-board, review technical decisions they make and run LOTS of interference to keep my boss out of their hair so they can actually get the work done.

      I've had very little turnover in my years of managing, and have had people who seek jobs for companies I go to work for to work for me again. Guess I'm doing something right. :-)

  2. How it is by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:

    • They're qualified to do what the customer needs.
    • They're authorized to do what the customer needs.
    • They're educated on how to replace me at need.

    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.
    1. Re:How it is by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By your logic, your boss should be able to step in and replace you. This will never happen across the broad set of roles and responsibilities in any company that does more than one simple thing. You will never get a VP that can replace everyone from an accountant to a programmer or fleet mechanic. TO manage, you need to know how to deal with people and priorities. A knowledge of the business is a huge asset, but a manager does not need to know every detail of the day to day work.

      I do like the Starship Troopers attitude though.

  3. Writing hello world is not a manager job by FR-lopet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A manager manages PEOPLE and not C/HTML/PHP code.

    --
    I love the smell of lithium in the morning
  4. IT boss=human filter for stupidity @ higher levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. As an IT manager... by jafo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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