Re:Fat chance of that happening...
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
Most developers, myself included, don't have the skills to run their own company. We're as out of place in the business world as Donald Trump would be with a C++ compiler.
Worse, those developers who do have the skills to run their own company, if they do so, will eventually be viewed by those working for them just as they used to view their bosses. Or they'll just go bankrupt. There's a reason it's the same thing everywhere you go, and that's because that's what works in the business world.
While I agree that's what currently goes on. I disagree that that is how "things will always be" many developers are afraid of doing what is necessary. It's a matter of courage, risk taking, etc. Not listening to the party line or status quo. Women got the vote, the slaves got their freedom, so it's a matter of commitment and persistence to change, self-development and hard work.
The hard part of course is finding such people of which I admit is a difficult task.
"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. "
But this is wholly dependent on the project itself, some projects it's wise to have these kinds of managers. For others they are not required. Some knowledge definitely is required IMHO, but it doesn't have to be deep, and it is wholly dependent on the context.
The key ability is to be able to separate truth from what is not true, have enormous vision and foresight into the overview and people that others lack.
Re:I don't agree with this assessment.
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
While I agree, the ability of a manager to understand what is going on at some level is in fact important, depending on what you are developing. The key skill of a manager is knowing how to assess people, their skills, their talents, their personalities, who meshes with whom, who is incompetent, who is not, who works with whom... the ability to separate truth from illusions of truth
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.
While I agree with you on the micro-management thing, the whole point is to keep the team on track and not give into feature creep or pet projects, or "this code should be done like that because it's more beautiful, efficient, etc but it will require a reworking of x/y/z" beauty and function sometimes have something in common, but often times it's irrelevant to the task at hand.
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.
IT managers ideally need enough understanding of what they are dealing with to make effective decisions, the fact is that things change too quickly too often and the manager doesn't have enough time. Hence managers SHOULD be former (reformed) coders or from professions who's skills cross pollinate, who have "let go" of their past profession, i.e. are laid back, no longer longer concerned about micromanaging others work, code, etc. But who is able to separate truth from illusions of truth, that is, know what the hell is going on in the overview.
... if developers want to work for sane people they are going to have to get their collective heads out of their asses and come together as a community and fund their own companies. But you'd need people who love risk, are laid back people, who have good values, good work ethic and are committed for the long haul, and will not give up their values and ideas. Persistence is key.
I've been thinking of just such a thing (see link in my sig), wanting developers to come together and discuss ideas and have dev's fund dev's to get away from incompetently run companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Most developers, myself included, don't have the skills to run their own company. We're as out of place in the business world as Donald Trump would be with a C++ compiler.
Worse, those developers who do have the skills to run their own company, if they do so, will eventually be viewed by those working for them just as they used to view their bosses. Or they'll just go bankrupt. There's a reason it's the same thing everywhere you go, and that's because that's what works in the business world.
While I agree that's what currently goes on. I disagree that that is how "things will always be" many developers are afraid of doing what is necessary. It's a matter of courage, risk taking, etc. Not listening to the party line or status quo. Women got the vote, the slaves got their freedom, so it's a matter of commitment and persistence to change, self-development and hard work.
The hard part of course is finding such people of which I admit is a difficult task.
"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. "
But this is wholly dependent on the project itself, some projects it's wise to have these kinds of managers. For others they are not required. Some knowledge definitely is required IMHO, but it doesn't have to be deep, and it is wholly dependent on the context.
The key ability is to be able to separate truth from what is not true, have enormous vision and foresight into the overview and people that others lack.
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.
While I agree, the ability of a manager to understand what is going on at some level is in fact important, depending on what you are developing. The key skill of a manager is knowing how to assess people, their skills, their talents, their personalities, who meshes with whom, who is incompetent, who is not, who works with whom... the ability to separate truth from illusions of truth
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.
While I agree with you on the micro-management thing, the whole point is to keep the team on track and not give into feature creep or pet projects, or "this code should be done like that because it's more beautiful, efficient, etc but it will require a reworking of x/y/z" beauty and function sometimes have something in common, but often times it's irrelevant to the task at hand.
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.
IT managers ideally need enough understanding of what they are dealing with to make effective decisions, the fact is that things change too quickly too often and the manager doesn't have enough time. Hence managers SHOULD be former (reformed) coders or from professions who's skills cross pollinate, who have "let go" of their past profession, i.e. are laid back, no longer longer concerned about micromanaging others work, code, etc. But who is able to separate truth from illusions of truth, that is, know what the hell is going on in the overview.
... if developers want to work for sane people they are going to have to get their collective heads out of their asses and come together as a community and fund their own companies. But you'd need people who love risk, are laid back people, who have good values, good work ethic and are committed for the long haul, and will not give up their values and ideas. Persistence is key.
I've been thinking of just such a thing (see link in my sig), wanting developers to come together and discuss ideas and have dev's fund dev's to get away from incompetently run companies.
it's a dead end, I'd really like to see the numbers of how much they make vs how many they believe prevented piracy.