Slashdot Mirror
Managing Geeks
MindStalker writes "An unnamed friend of mine was given this article from a online mag called fastcompany, in her buisness class at an unnamed universtiy. Its entitled How to Manage Geeks. I just wanted everyones opinion on it, it seems to have some insight, while still maintaining the old dribble. " Its one of the better articles I've seen on the subject.
I think the industry is already doing things to prevent this from happening, and there's even a whole institution dedicated to it.
And here's how it works... Consider the case of the medium-sized business that has a fairly easy to use computer system. But they've got one guy who runs around, reboots machines, fixes problems, etc. Maybe that's not even his full time job.
For some reason, he leaves the company. They advertise for a replacement. But instead of trying to just get a "computer fixit dude" they decide they want someone who really knows what he's doing, so the position gets a title: IS Department. (See where this is going?) They get a stack of resumes in the mail, and pick the guy who obviously knows what he's doing: certifications like CNE, MSCE, etc.
Alas, that guy is now going to totally fuck the company, and they don't know it. Why? Because those certifications aren't classes in fixing computers, streamlining networks, or solving problems. They are really just indoctination sessions for learning a specific vendor's products. Next thing you know, this MSCE is going around installing Windows or Windows upgrades, and replacing apps with "better" ones. Instant job security -- not for the computer guy, but for the products themselves! Also instant understaffing, because after just a few months of "upgrades", you need 3 or 4 of these guys, just to keep the same number of computers running!
Why? Because they install stuff that sucks. On purpose. Oh, that's not really what the MSCE guy is consciously thinking, but that's what the MSCE program is designed to do.
From the industry's point of view, who needs unions when you've got vendor certification programs? The difference is that instead of manipulating an employer into getting "locked in" to a specific labor force that will suck the life out of them (can you tell I hate unions? ;-) they get "locked in" to technology vendors who suck the life by requiring a lot more labor.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you don't want to lose your geeks, you have to find a way to give them promotions without turning them into managers.
That is the key problem with every company I've worked for (okay, so it's only two, but stories from friends at other companies have all been similar). They assume that the geeky jobs are at the bottom of the ladder and the PHB jobs are higher up. It's not so much that I want to put myself 'above' the managers, as it is that I want to see better stratification amongst the geeks. Too many companies have job titles that assume all geeks are the same. Most good managers know that isn't true, but they aren't in charge of the job titles, that's Human Resources, and so even the good managers can't do anything about the problem on their own. A kernel hacker with 10 years experience writing drivers *is* a different class of geek from a newly graduated 23-year old in need of some starting experience.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The ubiquitous blue-collar programmer is a little further off, due to the currently-unique skill set required.
But it could happen.
----------
"If children weren't copyrighted, no one would have babies." -- Alex Eulenberg
The information in the article is good, mostly on target and all but...
Frederick Brooks said it all 25-30 years ago in The Mythical Man Month.
Summation:One major problem I find is that IT professional is rather too broad a term to apply. Instead, I suspect that as the whole sector matures, distinct classes will evolve. Let's use a medical analogy to explain the point
... pharmeceutical dispensary) while quality ranges from the ubiquitious silicon snake oil to peer-reviewed double-blind testing (openSource), the truely valuable unbiased ones have a mastery grasp of the industry and is able to offer a range of competitive solutions covering herbal remedies to highly engineered solutions from the bewildering range of products
IT Field (Medical Field)
System Admin (Nurse) the indispensible field support of bandaging leaky systems using the ever-present duct tape (perl) and keeping life and limb together.
Help Desk (Public Health Education) informing the public of health issues and general reccomended practices. Greatly undervalued for their role in preventive health and reducine epidemics (viruses)
System Analysis (GP) first call for problem diagnosis and treatment, able to assemble a team of interns (programmers) to offer prompt (well hopefully) treatment and patient care.
Software Vendors (Drug pushers, errr
Consultant (Specialist) who understand the very detailed processes that keeps the system alive and has an intimate grasp of details. Highly trained in deep technical arcana, their expensive knowledge is highly sought to solve deep problems not normally apparent to general practictioners
Creative Source (Surgeon) one of the rare breed that have the imagination and high talent to create entirely new fields, these individuals, backed up by the appropriate team, form the seed of every major and complex software system (e.g. kernel).
Anyway, I'm sure there are other appropriate analogies people can draw. While Geek/Nerd may be a subcultural badge of distinction, in the long run it denigrates the immense levels of skills and undermines the credibility of the profession. One observation is that the IT field needs much better structure, training and certification to ensure people understand what they are getting and improve the confidence they have in the skill and/or advice they are receiving. In particular, IMHO eliminating the dominance of unnecessary administration management and returning to a more natural pyramid of talents might achieve a better job of professionals providing cost effective solutions (good information infrastructure design) instead of wasteful addiction to expensive and overrated drugs (software).
LL
So it probably bears repeating.
Its more of a line of common sense, for those in whom sense is not so common. I appreciate the point that good technology is more of an art than a science -- at least that's the engineering aspect of it. Oh yeah, and geeks need to respect their managers for there to be a even semi-decent relationship between them... very true.
Oxryly
Remember, geeks do well when put in cages for the night. They should be fed twice a day, but not overfed. That could lead to collic and the possible need for a veterinarian.
Be firm, yet gentle with your geeks. If a geek has lost it's temper, do not make eye contact. That could cause them to attack you. Instead, talk in a soothing voice and hope that the geek goes back to what it was doing. Have trainquilizer darts if necessary.
A clean geek is a happy geek. They should be washed regularly, and their cages should be kept clean and neat. Feed your geeks deworming medication daily to keep their intestinal tracks free of parasites and other pests. Having them checked up twice a year will also give you a happy healthy geek that has a shiny coat and bright teeth. A rabies shot is a must.
Positive renforcement is good for your geeks. Try using biscuits or other treats when training them. Negative renforcement can also be effective. Shouting "No!" in a clear voice will carry the message of dissatisfaction.
But, don't forget. Years of love and care for your geek will give you a geek that loves and cares for you!
Ok....so if this is how you manage geeks, and (stretch) most geeks are really just autistic, then I think we've figured out how to solve the problems teachers have with autistic kids in school! I'm going to be rich! ;-)
Werd.
"If management didn't give you engineers early deadlines, you'd never get work done."
My first thought was that this claim, on the surface, seems to be an argument against vertically distributing your enterprise.
But on rethinking it, I recognized that a specific statement is being made here -- the value of controlling your information infrastructure. In a world where the variables defining the digital universe are constantly in flux, it helps have permanent core crew members who are in touch with them.
The truth is, you need to have a stable of technologists around -- not just to run your systems but also to help you figure out which strategies to pursue, which innovations to invest in, and which partnerships to form.
I have only found this to be true when two conditions are satisfied:
a) These technologists must have a grasp of the larger strategic business picture - they should understand concepts such as the technology adoption life cycle, Ronald Coase's theory of transaction costs, the theory of "network externalities" (whether you subscribe to it or not) and other realms typically outside off the scope of your average geek.
b) If (a) is true, management must also commit in a powerful way to trusting and embracing the input from these "renaissance geeks". In fact, such geeks should be a part of the core management team, perhaps not necessarily at a president/ceo level, but at least at a CIO/CTO level.
I've seen cases -- large companies in PARTICULAR -- where the CIO/CTO did NOT come from a technology background! These people, while hard working, smart, and enthusiastic about learning, simply don't have the gut level immersion in technology that I believe it takes to have a chance at really understanding it.
It's a fact of life: If the technologists in your company invent something ahead of everybody else, then all of a sudden your business will get bigger.
Again, only subject to condition (b) above. I'm sure that we've all had personal experience with companies within which some innovative group devised a genuinely creative and powerful concept, only to be squashed by the skepticism and lack of support from non-geek brass.
I can see how this perspective arises from the fact of Eric Schmidt being something of a geek himself.
Perhaps the last commandment missing from this article should be:
"BE a geek."
Crusade against lame software! votezone.com
Getting a professional education does not in and of itself insure anything. So what happens if 99% of the population gets a professional education? Wages for professionals go down b/c there is a greater supply of 'professionals'. The real answer, at least in our economy is to be unique. The more unique your skills, the more likely you are to get a higher paying job.
Education in this country is limited mostly along class lines -- most rich kids + the token brilliant poor kids. By limiting the availability of education, a college degree still "means" something.
If you disagree with me, consider the high school diploma. Once, it was a sign of some level of education. Now, it is considered a given that anyone should have a high school diploma--you can't even join the army without one. The cost of a high school graduate, though, is minimum wage--as low as possible. A college degree once meant you were a professional, but now B.A.'s etc. are so common that post graduate studies (M.B.A, M.F.A., etc.) are considered the signifier of the professional.
It's not the just the learning of education that creates the well paid professional -- it's the uneven (and othen unequitable) distribution of that education.
Our current situation at the pinnacle of the labor force reminds me a lot of the "royal proletariat" of the 19th century. Since the majority of workers during the industrial revolution were unfamiliar with the new machinery, they were qualified to do little more than pull levers and run thread through spindles. But a handful of these workers were prized because they had acquired a familiarity with the workings of the machines. They were the artisans who could fix a mill when it broke, or adjust a boiler, or plan a mine shaft, etc.
These workers were highly paid and greatly catered to by their employers, but they ultimately remained working men. Their social standing was not greatly changed by their wealth. As the technology gradually became ubiquitous, more and more of these skilled workers were needed for their maintenance. This proliferation diluted the value of the skill, and the lofty position of the "royal proletariat" disintegrated. Consider the lowly plumber of today: he is lampooned and considered inferior by those not in the know, but he quite probably is indispensible to our civilization.
If computers undergo a shift towards simplification, or if they become as common as some people predict, then our own cushy posture might have to change as well. Ultimately, it's important to realize that we are getting these concessions only because our skills are rare, and not because we are inherently remarkable. If the supply ever exceeds the demand, some of you might start reconsidering JonKatz's endless calls for geek unionization.
Hey, so I'm a pessimist. Sue me.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Although i'm sure it's old to this audience, i still prefer Orson Scott Card's take on managing programmers like bees. I found the text of it here