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.

Comments

Geeks in cages

[fremen]

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!

Case against consultoids

[Clairvaux]

Today innovation drives any business. And since you don't want to outsource your innovation, you need to have your own geeks.

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."

Don't get too comfy

[konstant]

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