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
I know we're all colored by our personal experiences - but, based on my own, I think the problem is exactly the opposite. A lot of IT managers think they are technically savvy, because they've managed to get some sort of certification at one point or another in their lives (or maybe they were rather knowledgeable at one point, years ago, but have not kept up simply because of the other demands that come with management). These types of people are the epitome of "know just enough to be dangerous". It then gets exacerbated because they often sell themselves to the rest of the organization as "IT savvy", and feel free to make technical decisions regarding project details when they really have no business doing so.
I think we need IT managers that are MANAGERS, not IT people. Those managers should then trust us to know how to do the detail work required for our jobs.
My own manager has been learning this lesson over the last several years, and as such my work situation has steadily improved. He is still the liason with the rest of the organization, but he usually sticks to the broad strokes and lets us underlings sweat the details.
#DeleteChrome
How much you wanna bet a bunch of CEOs are going to RTA and fire all the COMPETENT bosses and keep the PHB's?
[End Of Line]
It's true. They pretty much all fail.
I had a job where my boss told me to go redo the website using whatever technology and features I thought I needed to make it excellent. He gave me two weeks time to do the first phase of moving the old content over to the new framework and coming up with some cool new ideas.
It was fun. About six days into the project, a manager came down from another branch had an interview with my boss, sat next to me while I explained the site.
The two of them had a little meeting and called me in. "We're pulling the plug."
"What? Why?"
"You're doing it wrong."
"What are you saying?"
"You should be using Dreamweaver. Everyone uses dreamweaver and you're doing hand-coding. What language was that again? PHP or ASP?"
"PHP and MySQL."
"Dreamweaver does that automatically."
Anyway the whole conversation went like that. I was told that I had to change into their idea of what a programmer was -- and that's the big problem. Managers have no idea what a web developer or programmer should be because their idea of the job typically is distorted. They rule based on FUD.
I left the company, obviously. If you can't manage your people, you won't have any.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Unfortunately, this is frequently bad as well. Being a good programmer does not make you a good manager. As much as I hate to admit it, management is a valuable skill. A good manager will base decisions on the information supplied by the the tech that report to him (or her).
Of course, many of us have ended up working for those who are neither good programmers or good 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.
Here's a different technical case: I know someone (let's call her Betty) who is an HR director. She's standing in for someone on maternity leave. The person she's standing in for (let's call her Helen) is "technically" superb, knows the nitty-gritty of HR really well. Helen is fully up to speed with every current aspect of HR. She could not only replace every member of her team, she's probably technically better than every individual member of her team.
But she's a crap manager. She micromanages everything, everything HR has been tasked with gets delivered late and in too much detail. Why? Because at director level, you don't need the micro-detail and you don't need the HR director's involvement in getting every step of every task done.
Betty hasn't done the job of HR for a decade, but she knows how to run a tight ship. After six months of having Helen out of the way, the HR staff are happier and more productive, the board is delighted with the stuff that HR is producing and Betty is doing very little indeed.
You don't get a dog and do the barking yourself, Mr Cringely.
Ciao, Obnoxio
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
I once had a similar gig for a major newspaper. They had contracted the usual clueless newb to engineer their online presence. The app had a memory fault that crashed the server. They hired me to fix it so that it worked, and incidentally deny the original guy the pay for the contract. I found that a different method of memory allocation would eliminate the issues. Rather than telling my bosses about it, I called the original programmer and told him how to fix all three lines of code that were at fault. He revised it and it worked.
I lost my gig but I still feel good about it. Doing the right thing is not always in your immediate best interest. I'd feel bad about stealing the benefits from his work for three lousy lines of code.
The retarded newspaper editors - not so much. They haven't given up their horse-and-buggy-whip model of business. If they had kept me we would have fixed this issue by now. It's not too late to fix this but I no longer care about their welfare and they neither think I have the answer nor remember where to look for me to find their salvation. Such is the ebb and flow of business.
Help stamp out iliturcy.