Re: Interview
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Arne Vajh?j wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Arne Vajh?j wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
It's not that the managers themselves - as people - are defective.
It's the system that's defective. Next time you get a chance look
at your organization or one that you have dealings with. If the
structure is one of top-level non-technical managers supervising
intermediate-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise
bottom-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise
technical people, you've got a problem.
Manager may not know about writing code, but they should know about
managing.
Since their job is to manage not to write code.
First level management actually do benefit a lot from
understanding what the work is all about.
But higher up the food chain it is all budgets, ressource
planning, strategy etc..
Budgets and resource planning, sure - that's pretty interchangeable
managerial stuff. But strategy, at any level of an IT organization,
requires technical savvy. It doesn't mean that a manager four or five
levels up needs to know how to write code, but they'd best be able to
listen to a technical architect without getting a glazed look in
their eyes. And IT managers two or three levels up had best be able
to talk to a senior developer, when the occasion demands, and have
half a clue as to what the developer is telling them.
Managers in other industries don't get these free passes like IT
managers seem to do. A manager in most other sectors actually has to
know a fair bit about the nuts and bolts of the job. But in IT it's
seemingly OK for a manager at intermediate and senior levels to know
extremely little about technology. I don't think that's acceptable.
If the manager has the skill to hire the right people and to
make those people explain the technical matter in plain English,
then they can do quite fine.
It all depends on how "plain" the English needs to be. I wouldn't be
surprised if each of us has had times when a relative or friend is
curious about what we are doing at work *right now*, and we find it very
difficult to explain in anything but the most general terms.
If they have the learning ability of a good manager and
the knowledge about the business side as a good manager,
then that should not be a problem.
It is like programmers using cryptography. Very few really
understands all the math behind it but chose to base
decisions on summaries from trustworthy sources.
True enough, as far as it goes. But any developer who uses cryptographic
software is well-advised to be conversant with things like the JCA. IOW,
you don't have the math to either develop or analyze a crytographic
algorithm, but you're still well-informed otherwise. You can (and
probably do) spend years developing this kind of knowledge as a
developer if you claim to have in-depth knowledge of application security.
A good IT manager should also have spend some years developing
understanding of people especially developers and projects
especially IT projects.
And I don't think IT is that much different from other
businesses regarding whether management has a past
doing what the company actually do.
I very much doubt that the managers in car companies can assemble
a car, managers in airlines can fly a plan, managers in oil companies
can drill etc..
I suspect a considerably higher percentage of managers in non-IT
businesses can actually do some of the basic tasks involved in their
business, or at least are well-informed about what those tasks entail.
I'm not talking about CEOs of large companies here, but the lower and
intermediate levels of management.
I see a different picture.
I myself truly believe that IT is treated differently, that it's
perceived to be a field where you can drop in a non-IT type as a manager
and that's OK.
They drop in non-XX types in XX as well.
If the manager understands managing incl. asking the right people
the right questions, then it works fine.
Arne