View Full Version : Technical management
Hey, nerds. If Ank can call for help on how not to crush hapless bystanders under massive solar panels I can tap your expertise a little as well.
I'm currently contemplating issues related to technical management. For example the problems of trying to make technical people managers and and having management people who are in a position to make technical decisions. What kind of management and supervisory structure should there be for technical people?
Can anyone suggest resources in this area?
I'm not a nerd, but I'll try to help anyway.
I found this book published by Wiley ( Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists: Succeeding as a Technical Manager, 2nd Edition (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471286346,descCd-tableOfContents.html) ) and there is a google preview available for it. I hope it helps in some way.
cameraman
03-06-10, 08:30 PM
It is going to depend on the field, especially if the technical decisions that you want to be made by management require some type of certification/license on the part of the decision maker.
It is going to depend on the field, especially if the technical decisions that you want to be made by management require some type of certification/license on the part of the decision maker.
It's Information Technology. But I should mention that you've got my thoughts with regard to managers and technical decisions exactly backwards. :)
I'm not a nerd, but I'll try to help anyway.
I found this book published by Wiley ( Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists: Succeeding as a Technical Manager, 2nd Edition (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471286346,descCd-tableOfContents.html) ) and there is a google preview available for it. I hope it helps in some way.
That looks very interesting. I'll look through the preview later but $135 is pretty pricey and I don't think this is something I would want to expense. :)
That looks very interesting. I'll look through the preview later but $135 is pretty pricey and I don't think this is something I would want to expense. :)Well, I'm still not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish, but I did find this link which may also help (I hope) give you some ideas.
how-to-make-non-technical-management-more-realistic-when-it-comes-to-developing-s (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1607223/how-to-make-non-technical-management-more-realistic-when-it-comes-to-developing-s)
datachicane
03-07-10, 01:33 AM
Man, that's an epic battle you've picked there.
Promote talented tech staff to management and you'll forever fight geek managers who'd rather code themselves than manage and will find every opportunity to do so. Promote mediocre tech staff and they'll wrongly assume that their tech skills got them there, and they'll push their technical misconceptions on their staff while ignoring contradictory information (this is a disturbingly common scenario- think Peter Principle).
In my experience, the best managers come from analytically-minded business experts who are smart/confident enough to delegate technical decision-making to their tech staff when they get in over their heads.
YMMV, of course, and purely the opinion of an IT guy who has resolutely avoided all opportunities for a switch to the management side.
In my experience, the best managers come from analytically-minded business experts who are smart/confident enough to delegate technical decision-making to their tech staff when they get in over their heads.
The problem is, those are hard to find.
I think this all depends on the staff you have now. The ideal situation, IMO, is that the people who are most passionate about what you are doing become the managers. For the opposite example, think of what happened when Detroit was no longer ruled by car guys. Ideally, either path could work, but you should be most interested in the most extraordinary people, period.
If you are the leader, then you need to be the one to set the tone. "Empowerment" too often becomes middle management making poor decisions and destroying the morale of the troops. See Deming's 14 Points 14 Diseases and Obstacles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming), or read his books if you want more insight. The tone or culture he describes is one where people of all types can flourish.
JLMannin
03-07-10, 11:09 AM
Read this book: The No ******* Rule (http://www.amazon.com/*******-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Surviving/dp/0446526568), Then make sure you have no *******s in management positions. Workplace *******s are self-replicating, in that they hire those who think, act, and devastate like them.
rosawendel
03-07-10, 11:17 AM
http://thedilbertstore.com/images/products/72/65192-311.jpg
cameraman
03-07-10, 01:18 PM
Read this book: The No ******* Rule (http://www.amazon.com/*******-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Surviving/dp/0446526568), Then make sure you have no *******s in management positions. Workplace *******s are self-replicating, in that they hire those who think, act, and devastate like them.
One sad thing that I have learned over the years is in academic basic research the successful principle investigators are almost always the *******s.
Does ******* really need to be filtered?
Well, I'm still not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish, but I did find this link which may also help (I hope) give you some ideas.
how-to-make-non-technical-management-more-realistic-when-it-comes-to-developing-s (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1607223/how-to-make-non-technical-management-more-realistic-when-it-comes-to-developing-s)
Thanks. Sorry to be coy, but I'm not exactly anonymous here so I can't spell it all out. Suffice to say that I don't agree with certain aspects of our current structure and how it's applied. I'm trying to form my thoughts around what's wrong with it. As part of that I'm looking for resources on best practices to make sure that I'm not just wishing that the world would conform to my view of the way things should be.
Promote talented tech staff to management and you'll forever fight geek managers who'd rather code themselves than manage and will find every opportunity to do so. Promote mediocre tech staff and they'll wrongly assume that their tech skills got them there, and they'll push their technical misconceptions on their staff while ignoring contradictory information (this is a disturbingly common scenario- think Peter Principle).
This is a huge conundrum in technical management. Add to this the fact that if you should strike it rich and find a technically sharp person really willing to focus on management, they have to accept that before long they will no longer be so sharp technically. Since they're technical people at heart leaving technical decisions to others can be a challenge.
In my experience, the best managers come from analytically-minded business experts who are smart/confident enough to delegate technical decision-making to their tech staff when they get in over their heads.
I can see some support for that in my own experience. But there are two problems. As Indy says those are hard to find. And then too, unless you have a large, technically focused organization with lots of levels for technical professionals, you create a professional dead end for technical employees.
oddlycalm
03-07-10, 04:58 PM
See Deming's 14 Points 14 Diseases and Obstacles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming), or read his books if you want more insight. The tone or culture he describes is one where people of all types can flourish.
Good advice. No need to re-invent the wheel. Deming's method has a proven track record. To the extent we don't follow it we damage our efforts.
One sad thing that I have learned over the years is in academic basic research the successful principle investigators are almost always the *******s.
Often true yet propeller heads are pretty easy to manage. Give them the tools they need, attention and recognition of their efforts, a comfortable economic standard, and they seem to thrive. Arbitration of the minor anti-social stuff is about as tough as it normally gets. We like everyone to wear clothes and leave weapons at home. Semi-regular hygiene is also appreciated.
oc
One sad thing that I have learned over the years is in academic basic research the successful principle investigators are almost always the *******s.
Unfortunately if you let management foster the notion that really sharp people are often *******s then not so sharp people start to take advantage of it. Yours may be a rare exception, but I don't think most organizations have positions of such guru status that such behavior should be tolerated.
Does ******* really need to be filtered?
Probably not, but unfiltering it would require action on my part. Then *******s would abuse it and that would again require action on my part. So I plead calculated laziness.
cameraman
03-07-10, 06:46 PM
Often true yet propeller heads are pretty easy to manage.
This isn't a bunch of liberal ed professors trying to survive on whatever pennies the state legislature gives the school. No one manages the basic biomedical research professors. They are all independent operators, they live and die by the money that they bring in based upon their individual work. The only thing that matters is that they, personally, succeed and if that means screwing over their post docs or graduate students or the guy down the hall well so be it. If they don't get the money then the department will cut them loose. It is a kill or be killed world. This ain't an ivory tower it is a piranha tank.
For example the problems of trying to make technical people managers and and having management people who are in a position to make technical decisions. What kind of management and supervisory structure should there be for technical people?
Not my forte and probably not specifically related, but I've been reading some on the decisions made regarding the Challenger disaster and "O" rings. It seems they were confronted with these very problems.
Methanolandbrats
03-07-10, 09:12 PM
This isn't a bunch of liberal ed professors trying to survive on whatever pennies the state legislature gives the school. No one manages the basic biomedical research professors. They are all independent operators, they live and die by the money that they bring in based upon their individual work. The only thing that matters is that they, personally, succeed and if that means screwing over their post docs or graduate students or the guy down the hall well so be it. If they don't get the money then the department will cut them loose. It is a kill or be killed world. This ain't an ivory tower it is a piranha tank. Your post reminds me of the stupid, ass kissing ****er who stole my masters thesis idea and presented it as his. I haven't thought of him in decades, maybe I should look him up :mad:
datachicane
03-08-10, 01:59 AM
And then too, unless you have a large, technically focused organization with lots of levels for technical professionals, you create a professional dead end for technical employees.
Well, while I don't want to speak for anyone else, most technical employees that I work with (myself included) don't see it as a professional dead end. Must musicians aspire to be conductors? Must writers aspire to be editors? From what I've seen, the next step for uber-tech staff is often contracting (which carries its own share of headaches), not management.
I'm only a rung or so away from the highest tech level in my large enterprise, but a switch to management would mean only a token increase in compensation. I choose technical work because it fits my aptitudes, and, well, it's fun. While I love design and complex problem solving, I'm not so interested in problems that are subjective and non-concrete, and I am most certainly not interested in the politics that come into play on the management side. Beyond that, my geekly ego recoils at the thought of sitting in a meeting and not having the answers at my fingertips.
oddlycalm
03-08-10, 04:19 AM
No one manages the basic biomedical research professors. They are all independent operators, they live and die by the money that they bring in based upon their individual work. The only thing that matters is that they, personally, succeed and if that means screwing over their post docs or graduate students or the guy down the hall well so be it.
Yes, and I agreed with you, they are often major *******'s. Sorry if I didn't spell it out word by word.
My point was that outside of the unique situation with basic researchers technical staff is relatively easy to manage if consideration is given to their needs and motivation. We have close to zero turnover going back a couple decades and there's a reason people stay around.
oc
WickerBill
03-08-10, 01:37 PM
My company believes you cannot be a manager until you can manage anything -- i.e. a Linux support team or a field marketing team or a legal patent protection team. In other words, a good manager is a good manager.
However, in my opinion, they take it too far then by discouraging the management from delving deeply into any sort of details of the field they manage. "Leave that to the grunts" is the methodology, "just manage".
I think the very best situation is for truly progressive, bright people who want to be in management to be given the reigns, told to rely on their direct reports' knowledge and drive, and told to dive in to understand everything they can.
Here are the pitfalls: 1. bad managers don't get fired. Therefore, there is no room to bring in better managers (of the progressive and bright variety). Those managers that are in your org who are bright and progressive will not stay at the lower layers of management for very long. Remedy: managers should be rewarded handsomely for being managers, but should be under high scrutiny and fall to the axe if they underperform (and should be replaced with someone better). 2. technical people -- IT specifically -- tend to disrespect management that does not understand what they do to the nth degree. This fosters pettiness, griping and sniping that will drive a good manager away very fast. This kind of atmosphere must be nipped immediately, and the progressive/bright manager must be given authority and a chance. if a manager tries to buddy up with the alpha male of the IT group, the team is lost, period.
Technical people can lead as long as they lead from a position where they stay somewhat hands-on. In other words, Joe is the best programmer we have, and he has exceptional drive, soft skills, and forward thinking. We will put him in charge of the programming team; he will set direction with input from the other team members, but he will continue to program at least 50% of his time and will not be put on a pedestal as being "better than" the rest of the team.
But I'm just an IT grunt, what do I know other than what I wish my place was like?
Sean Malone
03-08-10, 02:48 PM
I've been in corporate IT for 15 years. The company I work for utilizes a balance of technical project managers, who manage projects, not people, and have had some experience in an IT role to be able to speak the language, and managers, who have the technical experience to provide specific low level decisions making, manage resources and personnel issues. Managers report to directors...directors to staff vice presidents. The director and staff vp level tend to be MBA's who have gravitated to IT for whatever reason, as opposed to being promoted up. The area managers are typically promoted from within after having proven themselves in a tech lead role.
The development area uses the manager/project manager 'co-management' model, while the infrastructure area uses a single manager with a 'tech lead'.
Managers are required to take numerous classes on enhancing their people skills etc although no matter how much training one has in that area, the personalty of the individual tends to dictate how they interact. Some get it, some don't. IT lacks the warm and fuzzy interactions that is popular on the business side. The PM's that come over to give IT a try rarely last.
datachicane
03-08-10, 03:29 PM
Man, this place is crawlin' with geeks!
:gomer:
Man, this place is crawlin' with geeks!
:gomer:
buncha IT nerds on this site :D
WickerBill
03-08-10, 08:18 PM
shut up or i'll post your name and SSN on digg
OK, so this is my line of work...it's the lesser of the evils, IMO. You either create a control freak by promoting from with in (too much hands on the code/tech decisions), promote from with in blindly someone that doesn't qualify, or bring someone in from the outside that pizzles off the existing org with new entrenched ideas. In my experience, there are few engineers that are capable of being people managers...they are better suited to be architects than managers. I've seen far too many e-mails parsing the word the over the years. :saywhat: Dev folks (aka: code monkeys) are a diff'rent breed. :saywhat: :shakehead :)
-Kevin
Three major general problems with U.S. business:
1) Managers not knowing the jobs of the people they manage.
2) Competition between all individuals and groups within the organization.
3) Lack of purpose and culture from top management.
All credit for these ideas goes to Deming, BTW.
So what should be done? All managers within or at the top of every functional area should have started at the absolute bottom and worked their way up. They should have total "street cred'" with their people and should be able to do any job below them. There should be no performance based rewards, no performance reviews, no SBU's, no form of internal competition of any kind. A company should be viewed as a process (think process flow diagram) instead of a structure (like an org. chart). It should be the purpose of everyone to improve that process wherever possible, all seeking to employ maximum cooperation and integration of resources. All of this must come from top management. Anything less is an abdication of their responsibility as leaders.
And, by the way, this place is a geek-o-rama. :laugh:
...In my experience, there are few engineers that are capable of being people managers...
-Kevin
Reminds me of Mitch Hedberg joke:
When you're in Hollywood and you're a comedian, everybody wants you to do other things. All right, you're a stand-up comedian, can you write us a script? That's not fair. That's like if I worked hard to become a cook, and I'm a really good cook, they'd say, "OK, you're a cook. Can you farm?"
You work really hard to earn your technical degree, and all they say is, "Ok you're a good engineer. Can you put a budget together? Can you schedule?" :p
datachicane
03-08-10, 09:36 PM
Reminds me of Mitch Hedberg joke:
You work really hard to earn your technical degree, and all they say is, "Ok you're a good engineer. Can you put a budget together? Can you schedule?" :p
:thumbup:
datachicane
03-08-10, 09:40 PM
Dev folks (aka: code monkeys) are a diff'rent breed. :saywhat: :shakehead :)
Not to hijack, but I keep a small pyramid of monkey skulls procured from American Science Surplus on my desk near the entrance to my cube.
Nothing says "Are you sure this is important?" like a pyramid of monkey skulls. :gomer:
You work really hard to earn your technical degree, and all they say is, "Ok you're a good engineer. Can you put a budget together? Can you schedule?" :p
word. :irked:
Methanolandbrats
03-08-10, 10:11 PM
Not to hijack, but I keep a small pyramid of monkey skulls procured from American Science Surplus on my desk near the entrance to my cube.
Nothing says "Are you sure this is important?" like a pyramid of monkey skulls. :gomer::laugh:
extramundane
03-08-10, 10:55 PM
Reminds me of Mitch Hedberg joke:
You work really hard to earn your technical degree, and all they say is, "Ok you're a good engineer. Can you put a budget together? Can you schedule?" :p
"Can you manage the unmanageable rogue dumbass tech we hired over your objections 2 months before moving him under you in the org chart?" :irked:
"Can you manage the unmanageable rogue dumbass tech we hired over your objections 2 months before moving him under you in the org chart?" :irked:
:rofl: :rofl:
Well, while I don't want to speak for anyone else, most technical employees that I work with (myself included) don't see it as a professional dead end. Must musicians aspire to be conductors? Must writers aspire to be editors? From what I've seen, the next step for uber-tech staff is often contracting (which carries its own share of headaches), not management.
I agree completely. That's part of the challenge I'm thinking about. Many companies don't have any kind of structure for advancement of technical professionals. The large, tech focused company that I worked for in the past had four technical levels. Smaller companies or just companies that aren't tech focused tend to have two or maybe three from what I've seen. After that you either have to move on or go the management route.
Either way, your ability to retain capable senior level technical people suffers. Without those people to mentor your junior technical people, your whole technical workforce suffers.
WickerBill
03-09-10, 08:27 AM
It would be nice to work in a company where what you *currently* do is valued. In other words, it would be nice to hear "would you like to move up to architect or management, or are you happy where you are?" The constant fear put into technical employees here is that if you aren't progressing up the ladder, you aren't valuable. Unfortunately, what that does is force false promotions and make people leave doing what they love so they can feel "safe" from outsourcing. The only thing accomplished is a ton of Peter Principle in action.
If someone loves programming and they're good at it, and that's all they want to do, notify them of the ramifications (salary limitations) and then let them be happy! Happy employees are GOOD.
WickerBill
03-09-10, 08:28 AM
"Can you manage the unmanageable rogue dumbass tech we hired over your objections 2 months before moving him under you in the org chart?" :irked:
i gotta figure out who you are. it's obvious you work at my company.
Not to hijack, but I keep a small pyramid of monkey skulls procured from American Science Surplus on my desk near the entrance to my cube.
Nothing says "Are you sure this is important?" like a pyramid of monkey skulls. :gomer:
We used to have a guy who wore a USPS hat and had an ammo locker thingy on his desk. :eek: :saywhat:
-Kevin
If someone loves programming and they're good at it, and that's all they want to do, notify them of the ramifications (salary limitations) and then let them be happy! Happy employees are GOOD.
Or have a more equitable pay system where talented people are not forced to abandon their callings in order to take care of their families.
And of course as Americans we could do the honorable thing and have the people at the top, who bear 90% of the responsibility for the performance of the company, take the most punishment first when things are bad instead of 1) laying off the lower tier, 2) giving bonuses to themselves for the their brilliance in raising productivity, and 3) riding the company into the ground in what, for them, is a very profitable death spiral.
Our attitude that we had better **** the other guy before he ****s us will be the cause of our demise. We have been living off of the fat generated by WWII (which essentially destroyed the industrial base of the entire world, except for the U.S.), and we are now fighting over the scraps.
oddlycalm
03-09-10, 05:38 PM
Or have a more equitable pay system where talented people are not forced to abandon their callings in order to take care of their families.
Nobody points a gun at our heads and orders us to embrace artificial and arbitrary job classifications and compensation scales. We want our technical people happily doing what they do and we want them to stay. If we arbitrarily say a level x manager is worth more that somebody that has been contributing to our products for 15yrs that's a self-inflicted wound.
oc
I came across this article (http://www.businessinsider.com/engineer-friendly-workplace-2010-3#forget-hierarchy-an-egalitarian-environment-wil-get-you-the-best-results-1) on SAI today.
-Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.