How to Manage Geeks? 151
Ratatosk writes "The paper Fast Company, which focus on work related things, has a "geek week" with articles like the tutorial "How to Manage Geeks".
Advices are: Get to know your geek community, the best
judges of geeks are other geeks and create new ways to promote your
geeks. " This isn't as good as the age old Managers Guide
To Geeks (does anyone have a URL handy?) which I tried to force
several of my previous boss's to read. But this is for the PHBs I
guess. I guess we're who they're talking about, does this sound
right to you?
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
Lateral moves (such as those afforded by contracting) make getting that experience harder.
More money helps me free more time to play with the toys I want to play with.
As a contractor, I'm always trying to satisfy 2 goals:
1) Increase my salary history
2) Move my resume in the direction I want.
Because I'm able to choose my next assignment, my resume is my fault.
-nanomid
(now if I had a big stock offer to do any related to my goals, I of course would take it
Who reads those magazines, anyway? (Score:1)
Re:We can't be managed. Let us be and we'll do fin (Score:1)
But geeks work best when they have the opportunity to explore and learn. The problem with this, from a business standpoint, is that it makes it hard to see what a geek is doing that's useful to the company. Too many companies are stuck in an Industrial Revolution model - Employee X works for 8 hours per day and produces 5 widgets per hour, each widget being valued at Y dollars...but geek work, despite being technical, is still more art than science. And how many other industries are built around giant groups of artists being expected to produce "deliverables" on time?
Antisocial ? (Score:1)
Re:Please stop generalizing (Score:1)
?!
I had a boss that:
* faked a demonstration at Comdex with a competitor's product
* couldn't beleive I wouldn't work weekends anymore after I worked 70 hour work weeks for 3 months with no overtime
* thought that 30K a year with no benefits in 1996 was just compensation
* didn't have a degree past high school
* micromanaged
* had the stupidity to say that I was lucky to have a job with him
* is now bankrupt because I left the company without notice.
Does HE qualify? The company is Rapid Technology and the asshole I worked for was Steve Levine and I'll always treasure the experience because it taught me that even when you work on fun and interesting stuff, it's stupid not to get paid for it. It was a real time motion JPEG encoder for video editing and the company is 6 feet under because I put it there.
Power corrupts, watcha going to do?
Re:Money is no motivator: Bullshit (Score:1)
How to manage geeks: moderate. (Score:1)
Money is *A* motivator (Score:1)
Maybe you're lucky enough (or tolerant enough) to not care about income. But, please don't pretend that everyone's the same as you-- we all have our priorities, our beliefs, our perferences. And thus, the importance of pay is rated differently by people. Nobody's "right" or "wrong" about it, but you need to open your eyes and be tolerant about differing beliefs.
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:2)
It's wise not to forget that the KIND of people you work with can also make a huge difference. If you're working as a member of a group where everyone is more interested in pursuing their own personal agenda, it take can an interesting project and turn it into a hellish experience.
Absolutely right (Score:2)
Even if you don't code every day, you ought to keep your skills sharp. Geeks know when they're dealing with someone who is out of touch with reality. And they don't like it.
Perfect job (Score:2)
The Manager's Role (Score:4)
I remove the road-blocks, stay out of the way and they make me look good.
Please stop generalizing (Score:5)
So one sided... (Score:5)
Gosh, Slashdot readers are so naive and one sided. It's "workers" (geeks) vs "bosses" (management)
I don't know what company you people are working for, maybe it's just the Europeans? But in Silicon Valley, and the DC area, there are two primary types of geeks:
1) consultant geeks
2) company oriented geeks
#1 are freelancers, run their own small firm of other geeks, do web projects for hire.
#2 are geeks in startups.
Geeks in startups get:
1) a large starting salary ($60k minimum)
2) signing bonus
3) paid relocation
4) stock options or stock
5) and the ability to become a manager.
Most of the time, the startup hires about 5-10 people, and has about 15 total. Then, during the next hiring wave after more funding is secured, the geeks with experience and who own their software modules (just like maintainers in open-source), get to manage the new people who come in and show them the ways.
Have any of you Microsoft bashes ever personally met anyone who works at MS? I have, and they are just as dedicated geeks as you are. Most MS project managers are highly technical coders. Alot of them sit on IETF and W3C committees.
If you are not working for a company like this, YOU ARE A MORON WHO IS SELLING HIMSELF SHORT.
My own company just closed a round of hiring and we couldn't pay anyone less than $70k.
One of my good friends who never went to college and started scripting two years ago got $80k plus $6k signing bonus. My girlfriend makes $75k doing Visual Basic programming.
The job market is so thin nowadays. I am sick of reading about geeks whining. If you really think your worth hot shit, quit your job and get another one.
My other experience is, *geeks need management*
Geeks have large egos, and when you put a few of them together, invariably there is friction. Secondly, geeks spend a lot of time fucking off. Browsing Slashdot everyday from work, working on side projects that no one asked them too. Geeks usually don't have great organization and time management skills I have found, including my self personally.
Yes, there are PHBs, but you narrow minded people think anyone who is not a coder is somehow a skillless dumb-ass, and that a company with nothing but geeks would be a paradise. In my experience, without business development people (and I'm not one), most geek businesses would stall. (and I am a geek)
Case in point: ID Software and Quake. During Quake1 development, they spent too much time fucking off, playing the game, researching side projects they through were cool, and not completing the game. They finally had to hire management to come in and organize the office culture.
Ion Storm appears to be in the same position, with very bad management. Netscape also fucked itself with poor management, flip flopping on projects, development plans, etc.
Geeks think only technology matters, when in fact, the most valuable asset in a company is its people and how they are organized. Effective organization and focus makes all the difference between being market leader, or market loser.
How many of you so-called geeks have ever picked up and read a book on economics, marketing, or management?
I hope I never hire someone who is so super-specialized in one thing (technology), that they don't have the hunger for learning or open-mind to consider other things.
If I did hire someone, and they espoused views like "management isn't needed, marketing is bullshit, spreadsheets is bullshit, MBA's aren't any use. Only code and technology matters, oh, and my paycheck" I can guarantee you they would stay a n assembly line coder.
It's time to consider this essential fact: There are lots of people in the world who don't build things, but yet whose job is totally critical to your lifestyle, and without whom, you would starve.
PHBs included.
Re:Herding cats (Score:1)
Actually, I "got into computers" because they're so trivial in comparison to general relativity and particle mechanics. Dropped out of school with 12 credits to go on my physics bs, grad school lurking around the corner, and I'd just burned out.
Since I needed to make money, I just gravitated toward something simple and easily profitable. I suppose I'm not a "true" geek...after all, I had an active sex life (until marriage, of course!), play sports, tan in the summer...however, I'm a jammin' engineer and architect.
I'm not a "peopler", or a "worker", or a "silverback" (whatever that is.) Trying to categorize geeks, engineers, and other techies into such narrow categories is doomed to failure. Not all the great ones are pasty-faced and socially awkward.
Re:The Work, Its all In The work. (Score:1)
I have to agree here, I thing the man has a very adult veiwpoint of the whole situation. In this day and in our particular society we no longer have the same needs for survival and success. Especially when your young, who cares about having more money than you can happily spend, why shaould we be putting things away for our kids? look at the kids of rick parents, dont they just get up your fucking nose? And why is that? because they never HAD to do anything, poverty builds charicter and pecarious situations are the make of a man. (or woman, or free thinking concious enity, or whatever)
What Im trying to say is that we no longer have to spend all our engiesin survival, we dont have to hunt for food and we certaily dont kneed to have lots of kids and support them. Go with decedence and do what you want to do because the only thing holding you back is a lack of imagination.
Unit_52
Re:So one sided... (Score:3)
Working conditions:
DC/Silicon Valley & $70Gs? Take a look at your housing costs! There are more of us who live in more rural conditions in the US, and like it that way. The working conditions you mention come because of the need companies have to compete with their neighbors, and because of the number of senior engineers in those companies promoted to management positions. They understand the software development style, and have learned how to manage accordingly. While it does seem that many appear to whine about low salaries, it is you who is naive about the general working conditions around the world. It's nice to live here in New England (US) where the pay is only slightly less than that of DC or SV, yet our housing costs are about 1/3 of theirs. :) Unfortunately, not nearly as many managers here are as versed about software development as yours have been.
Geeks needing management:
I agree. I think a better relationship would be to have a good SE/Manager manage the tech division, and have traditional management act as liasons to the business/marketing/sales aspects of the company. The pay would be more balanced that way. It is hard to see someone with a business degee (much easier than an engineering degree...) making 2-3x a senior engineer's salary, especially when the individual appears much less intelligent. Business people as liasons fix this problem. The overall pay scale can still be heirarchical, but the standard businessman now may make less than the senior engineers and not know it. Both contribute their necessary roles, but the pay is seeminly fairer.
Cheers,
TheCanoleCaptain
Re:Fundamental (Score:1)
I work on (no hissing now) proprietary software for the commercial market. At a previous employer, we had to sneak our names into the released project Easter Egg-style, as management didn't believe in putting our names on it. At my current company, my name is among those in the About box. Which company do you think I enjoy working for more?
My biggest mistake with the first company was not leaving it earlier...
As always, YMMV (Score:1)
Fundamental (Score:1)
"But, as important as money is to tech people, it's not the most important thing. Fundamentally, geeks are interested in having an impact. They believe in their ideas, and they like to win. They care about getting credit for their accomplishments. In that sense, they're no different from a scientist who wants credit for work that leads to a Nobel Prize. They may not be operating at that exalted level, but the same principle applies."
That's exactly how I wish my manager would see my contribution to the company here. But no, arbitrary technical decisions reign. When that happens, all trust is lost. Fini
Re:Saving money at university (Score:1)
Re:The Man??? (Score:1)
We can't be managed. Let us be and we'll do fine. (Score:5)
Simple: Pay us enough. (Score:2)
If you're rich enough to not have to worry about money for the rest of your life (how many frickin' ferrari's does one man need? You've got ONE ass, and can put in only one driver's seat at a time).
So why not donate the rest of your life to a worthy cause?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re:Money is no motivator (Score:1)
Oh, by the way, I'm making a "nice" $38,000 now here in the US. (programming, 7 years experience, no degree. it sucks.)
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
I need to eat, so I program for money. Give me LOTS of money, and I will program for you. I really like it that I get to do something I enjoy for money, but I don't program What I Want When I Want, and so you must recompense me with money.
Linux programmed something he loved, took no orders from anyone, it was something he would have used anyhow. All in all, he was going to write it because he wanted to. And while he was at it, why not release it free? He didn't feel a need for money, so hey, why not? I can sympathize with that. I can agree with it. Heck, everything I used to write used the "ultimate" shareware model: If you like it, send me money, because I could use money. That's it. I think I only ever mentioned it in the documentation. Program worked the same anyhow.
Re: the road to six figures (Score:2)
See, there's the rub: You're not poverty stricken. Since you've not been bitten by the "don't have enough money" bug, you're not wanting more. Trust me. I've got an old computer which crashes often. I'd REALLY love to get a new one. In all honesty, what I've got now is better than what I had. I had a '286, which I've built up to a Pentium 133 by buying parts that cost no more than $50 a time (and each time, I did not buy anything else "fun" that month). My entertainment budget is $30/mo.
Trick is: Kids + House + Car + Student Loans + Past Debt from Unemployement = Need More Money.
For the curious: Making $38. 7 yr experience, no degree, 3 years of it working for the company I work for now. As I understand it, I make industry minimum. Guess what: I was happy about my job before, but now knowing that even with 7 years experience, I'm "less valuable" (aka paid less) than new recruits, kinda ticks me off.
The expenditure curve.... (Score:1)
and expenses tend to expand to match your income.
No wife (or Husband or Partner) required.
Salary Differentials in foriegn countries ? (Score:1)
I think that number is significantly higher here in the US than elsewhere....
Does anyone know ?
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
At my soon-to-be-former company, the engineering process was horrible. We consistently underestimated schedule and budget, with the expected negative effects on employee morale and client relations. This company gave me $20,000 US in raises in less than two years, yet I quit because the chaos was driving me mad.
The company I'm going to is paying me more, but what I didn't tell them was that I would have accepted their offer if they had offered the same salary I was getting before, because I felt the process and learning opportunities were that much greater at the new place.
As it is, the old company loses me because their policy is "get the job, no matter what," and the new company was actually willing to walk away from a job because it was bad for the company, even though it was lucrative.
Phillip
Re:ACP (Score:1)
Use it wisely. You don't want to have the domain peg in your company logs and be noticed.
If I had the bandwith, I would gladly be a host for the ACP program. It needs to be mirrored as much as possible for people to be able to access in times of need.
Many thanks to the creator and maintainers.
Re:ACP (Score:2)
http://ians.978.org [978.org]
Not sure I buy the "less pay" argument (Score:2)
I am not sure I fully buy this argument. Many of the people making it are in their early 20's, which means that came into the workforce since 1990. Since the early 1990's (1993 or therabouts), the market for technical professionals in the USA has been incredible, with plenty of job opportunities and ever-growing salaries. In that environment, it is easy to say you would would for less money - you don't have to .
But if we ever return to a situation like the 1970's, when there was a surplus of technical professionals, employers held the whip hand, and (real) salaries were falling, I think you might hear a different tune. And believe me, large employers are doing whatever it takes right now to try to get back to what they see as a "normal" labor market.
Also, there is also the issue of age/perspective. It is again easier to say you would work for less when you aren't facing mortgage payments now and college tuitions in the next few years. It _will_ happen to you some day, even if you don't believe it at 22!
sPh
Politics is a tough issue (Score:2)
6) Keep the politics out of our hair, it is a distraction we don't need."
You bring up good points, but let me offer a slightly perspective from a manager's point of view:
Any organization of significant size has resource contstraints, multiple agendas, and conflicting goals. And typically there is no clear cut technical resolution to these situations. Deciding what to do in this environment generates conflict. At least since Cro-Magnan man learned to talk, politics is the method used to resolve these conflicts.
When technical professionals refuse to learn the basics of their organization's political culture, and don't participate in that culture at even a minimal level, they cut themselves off from a (not _the_, but _a_) critical forum for organizational decision making. And the manager thinks, "If the geeks refuse to learn the basics of this arena, what is their complaint when they don't get the decisons they want?"
Note that I don't necessarily agree with this POV, but complaints about "politics" should at least take it into account. And if you reject it, how do you recommend that resource constraints be resolved?
sPh
Social skills and a few other things (Score:5)
I am not sure I buy the oft-heard statement that geeks/nerds/engineers "lack social skills". First, we have all heard the stories about how geeks can't meet members of the opposite (or desired sex), can't get dates, spend their Friday nights wiping the zit cream off their 19" monitors, and so on. (And to avoid being too elliptical, we are primarily speaking of males when we say these things). But by age 25 or so most geeks who desire to find long-term relationships with the opposite sex, have done so or are in a position to do so. The qualities which are less appealing at age 17 start to look better around 25 (intelligence, persistance, loyalty, oddball humour, and not least a job that pays big $$$). So things start to even out there, and continue evening out through the 30's.
Next, let's take a detour though (syndicated columnist) Bob Greene's Student Council theory of government. Briefly (and there is no way I can do the deep power of Mr. Greene's insightful writing justice here), Greene states that the people running our government (and large institutions) are basically the people who ran for student council president in 8th grade. Much as I normally dislike Bob, I think he is on the money here. And those people have a certain _set_ of social skills, which are commonly thought of in modern western society as "correct" or "good" social skills. These include schmoozing, being at ease in groups of strangers, effortless dissembling (or outright lying) to gain desired goals, disdain for those who can't or won't dissemble, and others I am sure you can add.
Now it's true that the average geek doesn't have these "correct" social skills. And therefore, those in power view (or would prefer that the world view) geeks as "being without social skills". But I would argue that this isn't necessarily the case. It is just possible that geeks have, and are developing, a _different_ set of social skills that include honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty, and plain speaking.
Further, I would argue that the currently dominant group (the "student council") feel threatened by people (geeks or others) who act this way consistently. Thus the need to attack and marginalize "geeks with no social skills". But it ain't necessarily so.
Finally, and along the same lines, I would think a little deeper about Schmidt's statements concerning geeks always trying to tell the truth. I think what makes politicians, standard model senior managers, and the like nervous about geeks is the style of discussion when alternatives/choices involving hard technical choices are present. A typical engineer, when asked to give an opinion on a topic, will respond in the fashion taught by the military: (1) facts (2) observations (3) opinion (4) recommendation. In that order.
So when asked by PHB, "What Internet technology should we use?", the geek replies: "foobar is fast but expensive. jarjar is cheap but unreliable [facts]. Most companies our size who use jarjar are happy with the sevice, although their super geeks complain [observation]. Based on my experience I don't like jarjar's business practices [opinion]. I recommend we purchase a 12-month, terminable contract from jarjar [recommendation]."
However, manager-types think that this is an evasive answer, while geeks types think it is a complete, honest answer which gives the decision maker everything he needs. Everyone walks away unhappy: the manager thinks he can't get good advice, the geek either thinks his advice is ignored or that decisions "never get made". Both sides think the other is unable to communicate.
Well, I ment to say more but that is probably enough for now. I will write more if there is any demand.
sPh
Re:Saving money at university (Score:1)
Re:My System (Score:1)
Re:My System (Score:1)
Geekus Recipiet Terram
And the Geek Shall Inherit the Earth...
I'm a geek too, but... (Score:4)
Re:managing non-coder geeks (Score:4)
On the payoff side, several of the best unofficial UI reviewers I've had have been writers. IMHO, they're much more likely to have a feel for how a customer thinks than us coders.
dan
Re:Please stop generalizing (Score:1)
Mebbe you haven't worked at enough shops, but they are out there.
The best story I heard was form my ex-roommate, who was a contractor doing layout work on Macintoshes for catalogues, he - & several others -- were discussing the DPI resolution of different printers in front of their boss.
After a few minutes, said boss proved just hwo pointy his hair was by shaking his head at all of this talk, & stating that ``all of this talk of DPI is way over *my* head! You're just too technical for *me*!"
Same boss also spent most of his time on the phone, talking with his cronies at other companies about such important developments as the fact he bought himself a new Land Rover.
And I could tell stories of management at Stream International -- but anyone who has worked there knows mentioning the name is enough.
Geoff
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
>buck out of it, it still makes him a moron. Anybody who doesn't get paid what they're
>worth is stupid, period.
Excuse me, but do you work for Microsoft? No? Well, you ought to: statements like that appear to fit in well with their corporate culture.
A lot of us have to settle for less than we believe we are worth because we are looking for experience. Or we can't give ourselves a lateral transfer into that big room with the blue ceiling because we have bills to pay -- even if that will lead to a better paying job.
All of us are trying to make do wit the cards fate has dealt us: if someone can't do better than a pair of twos, then we don't need a loud twit like you making fun of her or his bad luck.
Geoff
managing non-coder geeks (Score:4)
I'm also a total sucker for positive feedback -- you tell me I'm doing a good job & make me feel appreciated, I'll reward you by working even harder.
On the other hand, if you make me feel under- or un-appreciated, and/or make me work on boring stuff all the time (everyone has to do boring stuff part of the time), and if I end up doing work that doesn't teach me new stuff, etc...I'll be looking for a new job.
Just don't forget that you have non-coder geeks as well, and they are also important to your projects and company.
- d
The best management is no management ... (Score:1)
Re:herding cats (Score:1)
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/22/cdu.html.
try this (Score:2)
reward based on accomplishment and effectiveness, not seniority. publish the reward algorithm, avoid political influences. publish the reward algorithm for non-tech folks. explore non-traditional rewards.
don't lie. if you must lie, explain why. if you can't explain everything, explain as much as possible and invite suggestions. give serious thought to these suggestions; you asked, after all.
get to the point. being convivial takes time from playing. time well-spent for a geek is a like a daze of intensity. learn to recognize when someone is in deep mode. schedule interruptions at boundaries or better yet, not at all. state your agenda up front. #define your assumptions.
establish or at least allow side projects. encourage lateral thinking and profilable solution strategies. but don't focus too much; grant some (significant) leeway for personal interest and growth. do not harsh on minor subversions.
Re:Antisocial ? (Score:1)
Tom Byrum
ISP? (Score:1)
I was webmaster for one for several years (I wasn't even out of high school at the time) and they expected me to answer web-related calls from stupid users and code a really huge dynamic system for a client and maintain the web server that was also all dynamic and allowed clients to use a web browser to configure e-mail, files, cgis, etc, etc. (We did that all in-house) Plus I had to go to school most of the day.
Needless to say, I'm not there anymore. It was impossible to get anything done with that kind of load and that many interruptions.
l8r
Sean
Re:Social skills and a few other things (Score:3)
the same goes for communicationsfolk (journalists and such), who usually don't feel comfortable with either suits or geeks - and who get the same reaction from them. there's a reason why popular media regard geeks as ridiculous, and geeks regard the entertainment industry as composed of overblown, overpaid idiots. going further, this scales both up (to countries and large social groups) and down (to individual social circles). to define oneself by differences from others is only a natural human tendency.
that's why when some halfwit says "X doesn't have any social skills", it has to be understood as symbolic of "in the context of the societies in which i participate and the norms which i hold to be right because they are present for my community, X doesn't have any social skills."
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
What geeks need to know about management. (Score:1)
...but certainly not in the fashion management seems to think of itself. Management has a number of roles.
Management's primary role in a technological field is to remove obstacles from the paths of geeks. Get the details out of the way so that the geek can solve the problem at hand.
Management is also a clearinghouse for decisions. A good project has to have a focus, and you can't get focus by committee. This doesn't actually mean, though, that a manager needs to be technically oriented-- a good manager can handle this sort of decision. Technical background gives one an edge in the decision-making process, but even a manager with a non-technical background can (though it seems he rarely does) get all the information required to make an intelligent decision. This aspect of management is the big time consumer-- and is, in fact, often farmed out to technical types; team leads or project managers. One place I've worked had six or eight projects going on. This made for six or eight project managers, and then one manager above all of them. The one manager covered the first part (getting the obstacles out of the way) for all six or eight groups.
Why is "management" considered "higher" than geeks? Because they need the authority to enforce the decisions. One has to have a chain of command. But if you want to keep your geeks happy, this isn't the important thing. If the manager is respected by the geek, you don't need a "chain of command" to give you "authority" (and it is possible for geeks to respect managers-- maybe even common. If you're not getting respect from your geeks, there's a reason!) Management, like anything else, is a job. If you do it well, geeks will respect you. And the best managers for geeks are ones that don't look like they're managing-- they do the first two things well. But they don't go getting in the way.
Trouble is, this goes against everything else managers read. Managers want to be good at what they do, just like everyone else. Gets 'em promoted. So they read, usually books on management or magazines. What do the books and magazines say? Things like "If it isn't broke, fix it!" and "be proactive!" What they never do seem to say is, "After you've fixed all the things that _are_ broke!" and "about appropriate things."
And that's why geek management needs to be different. Geeks don't respect people who change things just because "change is good". Geeks, being problem solvers, tend to like problem solvers.
-F
Re:My system: Linux or Unix (Score:1)
Right now that would mean: Set the BIOS to 'boot from CDROM', pop in that RH6.0 or Suse6.1 disk, fdisk it all, and all the unix tools you need are being pumped onto the HD.
...
My windows box at work is not much more that a Notes client, a VNC viewer to our Unix workstations, and a regular blue-screen displayer.
(The best quote I read in EET about engineer salaries: "Pay us like lawyers!". It says all there is to be said).
herding cats (Score:1)
Re:The best management is no management ... (Score:1)
Dont get me wrong I've had managers before who could have done themselves a world of good by staying out of my business, but I've also had managers who knew how to keep me motivated to meet business needs. You can work all you want on something you like, but you wont be at the job long unless you're helping the business. I've seen many geeks who NEED to be told what to do, or they lose their focus and drift off to a pet project that does not address the needs of the business, wasting time, money, and effort. I dont want to disect your specific scenario, but dont pigeonhole people. It's this lack of understanding that causes the whole management/geek rift in the first place. Good managers want to be effective just as much as you do. Articles like this can only help.
For the record, I had a little stint in pseudo-management and it was a pain in the ass. Keeping people motivated is not as easy as it looks.
-Rich
Re:Money is no motivator (Score:1)
Tom
makes a fair bit of sense (Score:3)
I think it all depends on your image of a geek, but most peoples standards I qualify (Comp Sci degree, ex roleplayer, work as a programmer) but thats not how I think of myself.
There was a lot of truth in that artical - I want to solve problems, I want to be listened to, I do give answers to exactly the question I'm asked (although I do often expand around that). Basically that artical was very much talking about people who are like me.
It might be arrogance but I think I fall into the catagory of one of the group leaders, certainly I've been taking on that role with most of the companies new joiners (even tho' one of them has 20 years more experiance than I do).
Our company is about to reorganise and I'm going to be moving into the consultancy group - simply because my productivity is either outstanding or terrible based upon how interesting I feel a project is... and consultancy will give me lots of short interesting projects.
I admit it shouldn't be quite that binary but I find it almost impossible to concentrate on something boring.
Given this the incentives mentioned in the artical make a lot of sense - awards made by peer review would mean a hell of a lot to me. Thats an award made by someone who understood what I was trying to say.
I also liked the attitude of very light management - one of the things I fight hardest here is being told "don't worry about X your manager is dealing with that" - I want to worry about it - I want my projects in context. Basically I don't want to be managed - I want to have support made available when I request it.
I also want (and intend) to be paid very well for what I do - but that is actually secondary. Once I have enough to be comfortable my job decisions will be made purely on interest level - and working enviroment.
just my usual collection of semi ordered brain dumps.
Tom
Re:So one sided... (Score:1)
Every decent professional wants work which is challenging and interesting, even lawyers and accountants. Nobody in a technical or methodological field wants to be managed by someone who can't or won't make the effort to understand what they do.
I agree good management is essential. But good management is not management by abdication. Letting the geeks get on with their work and staying out of their way is fine, ONCE MANAGEMENT HAS SET THE GOALS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT (hopefully in consultation with the techies, but said consultation should happen with the janitor, soldiers in the field, or whomever). Letting geeks work on what they want is too close to letting the lunatics run the asylum.
I worked for a large Australian computing consultancy for several years. The bosses gave you assignments and let you get on with it. But they would provide backup and solve non-technical issues for you. The best account managers used to do some outrageous things and nearly drove me up the wall sometimes, but they kept the business coming in and kept projects coming. I respected them for that.
My current boss is a career manager, but also appointed himself network administrator, which he does quite well in his own time, and took the time to learn Dos, Basic, and Assembler programming back in the early 80's. He's more current with and has a better grasp of the wide range of computing trends than many of his specialist techie subordinates.
I also agree with your assessment of IonStorm. Romero sounds like he's in desperate need of a sharp manager - in his case the geek who manages himself has a fool for an employee.
"manager's guide to geeks"? (Score:1)
back sitting around on my web page...
http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/hacker.html
Not sure if that's the same kind of thing.
99% of managing hackers is mostly-like managing
anyone else well. The difference is just that
hacker productivity will vary a lot more with
quality of environment.
Re:Simple: Pay us enough. (Score:1)
What I think geeks need. (Score:5)
1) Give us an evironment where we are allow to think. Don't distract us with time sheets (on a daily basis) and micro-management. Many of us wouldn't be able to put in less than 40 if we tried. And those that do will have their end customer notifying management shortly. And if we work more hours reimburse us for our time (so I guess time sheets are need).
2) Don't decide which tools we have to use. Power Point may be good for marketing but is next to useless for engineering diagrams. If you need to limit the tools because of support issues then ask us for our preferences.
3) Acknowledge our good deeds, let us know about our bad ones. We can't fix something if we don't know it's broken and Marketing didn't fix the technical problems by esculating (and annoying us) so stop giving them our credit!
4) When we are working on a problem keep out of our hair. Hourly conference calls only slow us down and keep us from fixing the problems. Also it annoys us to no end to sit for 55 minutes so we can be rushed in giving our presentation in 5 minutes!
5) When a technical person gives a solution don't allow management types to circumvent it with a political solution. It will not fix technical problems.
6) Keep the politics out of our hair, it is a distraction we don't need.
7) Pay us fairly and give us incentive plans. It's nice that Marketing and Sales have incentive plans but they were not able to make the sale without our help. Also if we see a job were we have the same conditions but we're payed more we will leave (we are not stupid!).
8) Keep our work interesting, we recognize dead ends and we'll leave even if you pay us more.
9) Support us with managers who understand us and do not resent us.
10) Group us together with other techies (of like work). We often need to bounce ideas off other techies to verify that we are on the right track. Breaking up the hardware engineers to work directly with the software engineers (or vice versa) may sound like a good idea but makes it difficult to perform sound board discussions. Or worse don't put the engineers with marketing. 'Suits' (Marketing/Sales) make us nervous!
11) Give us the tools and training we need to keep current. Then allow us to use both. I've seen enough companies train their people only to have them leave when they box them into the same job. We need avenues of advancement just like management but don't expect us to become management.
Re:My System (Score:1)
1.Give me cool stuff to work on.
2.Recognize and appreciate the work I do
for you.
3.Stay the hell out of my way.
This is my list too. I voluntarily left a startup (of which I was a cofounder) shortly before the IPO because the new regime wouldn't come up with even one of these.
What I found astounding was the degree to which other geeks would put up with boring work, and lack of recognition, (not to mention outright hostility and a pay cut).
I think too many geeks & nerds take whatever their stupid/evil management dish out. I find this incomprehensible given the opporunitites available today, but some people just hate change.
Loyalty to a company is dumb. Be loyal to your ideas and your values, and look for a company whose interests coincide with yours.
The Work, Its all In The work. (Score:1)
Re:Make sure project authority matches pecking ord (Score:1)
Seriously, the lead on a multi-disciplinary team should know what he's an expert on, and what he isn't, and should refrain from laying down the law outside his expertise. He may occasionally say "We're making this decision so that we can move on, and it may not be the perfect decision", but he won't say "I'm right, because I'm the lead."
It all has to do with respect. If the lead respects the team members, they may well return the favor. If the lead is insistent on her authority, rather than using her influence and experience to persuade, she will find that she has less and less real clout.
Make sure project authority matches pecking order (Score:4)
project is less qualified than the nominal team
members. If (when!) the lead overrides sound technical decisions on the grounds that "I'm lead, and you're not!", resentment builds.
A happy team trusts the lead, when there is one, to make decisions based on what's best for the project, not on what's best for the lead's ego.
Usually, not always, good people are also confident people. The worst case is the incompetent insecure person, who regards every challenge to his ideas as a challenge to his authority.
Re:Geeks in the trenches (Score:1)
Generally speaking, the only person who reads pages 2-50 of a 50-page "document" is the person who wrote it.
Just a thought.
Re:Politics is a tough issue (Score:1)
Oh, I don't know - how about leadership ?
The total lack of leadership ability in all but my most recent employer is my biggest complaint as a programming consultant... Nothing is more irritating than dealing with someone who has eneough authority but not enough guts to deal with problems as they arrise. At times it's almost made me want to offer to take over!
Office politics over non-petty disputes are the direct result of poor management. They are a constant and intollerable impediment to getting anything done.
-sam
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:2)
-cpd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
large amount of hardware ... (Score:1)
If only everyone thought like this! Fortunately the people I work for don't micromanage, and they just pumped in 35K+ for some really nice hardware.
The real important freedom is the ability to use whichever software you like. In general the free stuff is the best, but not always.
Re:My system: Linux or Unix (Score:2)
Re: the road to six figures (Score:2)
I did. I did the contracting thing for 6 months, which basically doubled my money. Hated it, gave it up.
Money may not buy you happiness, but I don't think poverty does either. Call me crazy.
Why does everybody think that because I said I'm not in it for the money, I must be poverty stricken?
Re: the road to six figures (Score:3)
It's not business, it's philosophy. I'm happy where I'm at, so why should I go around asking, "Can I be happier? Will someone give me even more money?" Because if I do that, and then I find out that somebody will, then I won't be as happy as I was. I'll spend my life in that loop. No thanks.
I know people who change jobs every 6 months just for the salary bump. They don't seem to count the stress of a different work commute, change of social life, paperwork to be filled out, blah blah blah...they're only chasing the almighty buck. They never have a chance to decide if they even like their work, because they're just there to pick up a paycheck. Want to retire early, they say. Want to drop dead early, more like it.
My former boss called me just today and asked what it would take to get me to come to his new place. I'm sure many people here would have quoted a number. I said no thank you. Maybe my bliss is just ignorance, but all my debts are paid, and I'm not going hungry.
My System (Score:5)
(1) Doesn't mean that I want to write videogames for a living. It just means I want something that I find challenging. Job#1 I was doing digital certificates, Job#2 was XML/Swing, Job#3 is natural language. Fun fun!
(2) Could mean money, but not at the expense of #1. More often it means ego strokes. I recently got a magazine article published, and my boss sent copies to all the higher-ups in the company, something I didn't expect. Back at company#1 I was surprised when the president mentioned me by name in his yearly state-of-the-company address. Stuff like that, combined with cool stuff to work on, will keep me alot happier than paying me double and telling me to work on boring shit.
(3) means I'm one of those arrogant assholes who thinks that the rules don't apply to him. I admit it. I'm a geek, I'm a hacker, I'm a different breed than every employee you've had for the past 20 years, so don't push your dress codes and your administrative rules down my throat, because they'll stifle what I can do for you. White shirt and tie everyday? No thank you. No food in my cube? Forget it. I will do my 80+ hour workweeks for you, you don't even have to pay me hourly or overtime, but as a result of that I will take off my shoes and walk around in my socks, I will have my radio in my cube, and a box of Poptarts in my desk. If some manager somewhere thinks that the tradeoff isn't adequate, that's his choice, but he's an idiot.
For the record, I left job#1 because of item#1 (they killed my project and told me no more Java). I left job#2 because of #2 (a brief consulting stint where I was a hired whore), and I'm currently at job#3 where they just put me on their "emerging technologies team" (covering #1) boosted my salary and let me publish some articles (covering #2), and I'm sitting here in my socks listening to MP3's munching on a poptart (covering #3). :)!
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:5)
It's not uncommon for the true geeks and hackers to turn down mega-paying jobs in their quest for something more interesting. I've had my calls from Microsoft and IBM, and I'm sure many of the people here have, too. I consulted at a place for what was basically double what I'd been making as a fulltimer - and dropped it after 6 months.
No, it's definitely not simply about paying more.
Re:makes a fair bit of sense (Score:1)
Re:ACP (Score:1)
Extended gratitude
Dave
Re:Money is no motivator: Bullshit (Score:1)
Almost has a clue (Score:5)
Ha! This is our most redeeming feature.
It's nice that this guy recognizes that without geeks there would be no technological industries, but he's still stuck in the Dilbert-esque mindset that developers/engineers/artists/etc can do nothing without the "enlightened" leadership of management. Managers without technical backgrounds are not our leaders. They exist to manage resources, schmooze customers, and keep us grounded in fiscal reality, but they have no business making technical decisions. They do not merit higher salaries, nor should they have greater clout than senior developers.
The CEO of Novell isn't successful because he knows how to manage geeks, he is successful because he is one. He knows the technology, therefore he knows how to make clueful decisions reagarding it. The developers respect him for it, so he has legitimate authority. A manager without respect has no real authority, only the authority to sign paychecks.
I'm afraid this article do the opposite of the intentions of its author. Mediocre managers will read it and think "ah, so that's how I control my geeks. Now they will do my bidding!" which is exactly the way to piss us off. Managers should learn humility, learn that respect must be earned, and not try to manipulate us.
Re:Herding cats (Score:1)
It took me several more years (a busted minor league baseball career in Japan) two marriages to former models and an advanced degree or two, to realize where I could fit in in the the geek community. I've held elective office in a town of 100,000 and speak four foreign languages. I'm neither pasty-faced nor socially-awkward.
And yet, I consider myself a 'geek' and a happily adjusted one. The programmers community I work in has the three types of 'geeks' that I outlined primarily. Categories are only meant to be helpful guidelines, not boxes. If I've offended I apologize. More and more 'peoplers' are appearing as the field broadens. I think it's a great phenomenon. We're not locked into one IT department anymore.
Herding cats (Score:5)
'Silverbacks' are the rarest. They have worked in computers forever. Geek managers trust them to solve the hardest problems. They absolutely need to feel indispensible and adored, but only geeks should interact with them. Don't even think of moving them into management. Treat their cubicles as the holiest of holies. They are however, the perfect compliment to 'Peoplers' geeks, who should bounce their ideas off of a silverback before commiting resources to them. Don't bother getting silverbacks any training.
'Workers' form the majority of all geek populations. Given a standard toolbox they can solve standard problems. They respond somewhat to cross-training. Occasional training is apreciated. They really should only meet with, be promoted over, or be responsible to fellow geeks. Programming teams are their forte.
'Peoplers' are the only safe geeks to interact with non-geek employees. They need to be in the loop. They actually thrive on being liasons. Often they are not the best programmers. They should be plugged into programming teams on different projects. Their own projects should be small, low-priority and permitted to fail. This keeps them in the geek world. 'Peoplers' can definately become overloaded so they need their programming time and a safe haven. Training has the greatest benefit to these geeks. These people are absolutely essential to the smooth functioning of your company. Don't promote these people into geek manager functions, but treasure them in other ways. But keep them geeks.
"Age old managers' guide" - the Peter Seebach one? (Score:5)
It's All About Communication (Score:5)
Haven't heard this phrased quite in this way before - very direct.
Fundamentally, geeks are interested in having an impact.
This is what is hard to explain to some people. There are so many people that are only worried about how much they make. If you're going to be doing something for a significant amount of time, make it something worthwhile to your beliefs.
The rest of the article has more specific ideas, but it seems to me it all comes down to knowing your people and their abilities, and motivating them to do their best work. I do like the idea of small, fast teams, because communication on projects needs to be clear and with fewer people there is less chance of misunderstandings.
But when you look at large projects coordinated with people at geographically diverse locations, you can see large teams can work.
Open communication. Know what you can do and what your team can do, and talk with them. Too many managers talk at people and that is, IMHO, the biggest problem.
Re:Geeks in the trenches (Score:1)
I firmly believe that really good software can't be developed with the formal process management tries to put us in so that a project and it's progress can be measured. Giving some geeks an interesting idea and leaving them alone gets better results, faster.
Re:We can't be managed. Let us be and we'll do fin (Score:1)
That's funny - I work one of the Big Three Automakers, in the Engineering Support department. I've found that our Change controls are attended by people who truly understand most of the systems involved. Of course, we don't run any of the development changes through the change control system - it's only when we need to affect large numbers of other people, or the entire support department. (We make ourselves guinea pigs on a lot of the PC changes..)
Re:We can't be managed. Let us be and we'll do fin (Score:1)
Two suggestions:
(1) Build the program around the problems the user has and is trying to accomplish, instead of what we think would be a cool problem to solve or the easiest way to throw something together. This usually means drawing up what the program is going to look like from the outside first. Managers can understand this. Then you say, "this is what we're building." Then you get to make the big fuss in the meeting whining about sign-off and procedures when the recent marketing graduate wants to move the OK button. It's a lot harder for people to argue for changes when they've seen an actual picture of something that would have to be changed.
(2) Use the user's view picture to explain progress to management. Draw other pictures if necessary. We know that managers think anything presented in PowerPoint on an LCD projector is true and authoritative. Humor them. "See this little box that says 'database'? That's what we finished this week. See this web page with the colorful 'Buy Now' button? That's next." Then next week you tell them how that's finished. That's all they want.
And while it's true that lines of code and CPU time aren't good ways to measure progress, too many programmers are afraid of marking milestones and living up to valid measures of progress. I'm tired of working with deluded people who have no idea how far along they are and who think that just one more 70 hour week will solve everything. I'm also sick of debugging and trying to figure out code people wrote when they were too tired or wired to even drive.
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
How do we get our bosses to read this though?
You can't control a process you don't understand (Score:3)
This brings up the issue of staffing software projects. Ideally, I think you want a *very* small group of highly skilled people to work on the project initially, to nail down the requirements, create a sane design, and code the essential/basic/difficult parts of the system. Then, near the end of the project, you build up the team with possibly less-skilled people to build the rest of the system on this solid foundation. Thus, the software almost magically comes to life in the last ~25% of the schedule, when there *appeared* to be hardly any progress before-hand.
The cost and quality of software is *hugely* affected by decisions that happen early on. These decisions must be made correctly, and the initial design must be coherent and sane. Once this solid foundation is layed, it's OK to make the team larger, and add less-skilled people.
Re:Real Simple: Pay more (Score:1)
But....I gotta say I don't want to be marginalized. I'm a book geek and a computer geek. Where do I fit in? I can code or a page or catalog a book (in MARC and AACR2!!!)
Thanks! (Score:1)
I should also mention that herding budgies is quite easy. I trained both of mine to respond to a hand signal - they fly back to the cage when I wave my hand twice
Re:The Manager's Role (Score:1)
1) There are an increasing number of 'geeks' that don't have a good background on what they're doing. "I can recompile the XXX kernel and you can't" doesn't cut it when what is really needed it hard core science. I don't need, nor now want, a geek that is very bright, but doesn't know the background in CS. There is no sense in re-inventing zillions of wheels. Engineering does it all the time and we don't have the time in CS to screw around with things that have already been solved. I get a big warning sign from places that "oh we hired him
2) Pretend Geeks. I'm now pretty good at flushing what I call 'pretend geeks'. These are not 'Geeks in training', but people who think that they can dress down, be rude, etc but not do the work but enjoy the perks. There are lots of places I've consulted at that have these folk on staff. "lookie, SEE WE HAVE A GROUP OF GEEKS TOO!" Like it was a token minority that they were required to have. I think this comes from the deserved reputation of Geek-dom intermixing with gross scarcity of even vaguey competent computer people. My filter is to switch to Geek (like changing to Spanish!) and find out if the applicant is a real geek or just dressing up like one. Being a former -tea shirt- programmer does have its advantages.
3) Like the previous respondent, being an umbrella that keeps the company crap away is mostly what I do. I also do sanity checking to be sure that the path being followed isn't already understood to be a lemon. A few kind, but rigorous, design reviews tends to keep the 'project killed at the end' moral killers to a minimum. It sill happens, but that's life.
More (Score:1)
to 1.
Emphazise on quality! Some guys comcentrate on "customer-loyality" (brand marketing etc.), but I think: make a perfect produkt for a good price, the rest is secondary matter.
to 2./3.:
Saying that they recognize me is not enough.
If I need a better maschine, because I think, I'll be more productive with that (because I can work faster or are more motivated
Most managers see themselves as decisionmakers. I hate to be overwritten by someone who doesn't understand the problem.
To draw a line, I want to be my own company in a company. I do cost a lot (both direct and indirect) but bring a lot.
3. It would go one step further: most of the time, I'm working alone and most of the rest can be done via email or chat. Let me work at home!
Demand :-) (Score:1)
Also: What, do you think, is the way managers think?
Not at all (Score:1)
Managers, as defined by their role, must be superhumas. They make the final decisions, so they must know the technical things *best*. They have to manage the resources, make strategic plans, motivate the employees and represent the company.
Very unrealistic.
I think, every of the above domains should have their own experts, which make independent decisions. Most of the time, these very different teams will come to completely different results. So, every group must understand the other ones *a very little bit*. Even then, a team of "evaluaters" must hear every party and then decide based on arguments.
But they are not the guys, who are managers at the moments. They must ahndle abstract arguments, so they could be mathematicians.
Re:Herding cats (Score:1)
Actually, I wouldn't say that computer science is easier than physics - but there is a different type of thinking involved. I find the logic of code and algorithms more pleasant to deal with than cranking through ugly diff eq's.
I have to agree that classifying geeks into narrow categories is not a good idea; but, I do fit the category of J. Random Hacker [tuxedo.org] pretty well.
Re:Make sure project authority matches pecking ord (Score:2)
The leader needs to be sufficiently grounded in all of the necessary specialities so that he understands how they all go together. He needs to be able to negotiate with the specialists (who often think that their part of the problem is the most important), and he needs to recognize when he is being given good advice from team members who know more than he does in a specific field.
The team members also have a responsibility, though. They must respect the leader even if he cant't whip up a killer app in 10 hours, because he does know things that they don't. (hopefully)
Geeks in the trenches (Score:3)
Tools: let your employees choose "best of breed". (Score:5)
Geeks get attached to their tools. They love them in the way a senior manager adores his favorite brand of golf club. Just as in golf, the right tool for one person may not be for another. While corporate standards have their place, micromanaging those standards is often a WOMBAT - a Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time.
A war story, and a lesson:
A few months ago, I worked at a shop which (among other things) tried to mandate the users' choice of mail tool. It foisted a ported Windows application onto a bunch of UNIX users who were comfortable with Emacs, vi, elm, pine, procmail, and all those other goodies we've come to know and love. The theory was that using the ported Windows application would allow us to "interoperate" more effectively.
The funny part, of course, is that none of the NT users in the company seemed to have trouble reading mail from us UNIX-heads, even though us UNIX-heads often tore our hair out at people who sent six separate binary attachments containing little icons for an e-mail consisting of three lines of text. (Or worse, a three-line-long Word document!)
Actually, that's not the funny part. The really funny part is that the UNIX development team was working on the product on which the company's future had been staked. With the stroke of a pen, the management team had managed to alienate the most valuable segment of the company's intellectual capital pool.
I don't work there any more. I work somewhere else. The pay's better here, as is the coffee. And I can read my mail without swapping to disk. Life is good.