"The unspoken truth about managing geeks"

[vakkotaur]

Actually, I think that should be the "Unrealized Truth About Managing People." About a week ago an article in ComputerWorld made the rounds, The unspoken truth about managing geeks, and got a lot of positive reaction. While it talks about IT Professionals, it applies to anyone with enough brains to not swallow every bit of nonsense some idiot salesman says. I've extracted a few key bits, but the entire article is worth a read. It should probably be required reading for anyone even contemplating a management job. I doubt that will ever actually happen, after all Dilbert is a documentary disguised as a comic strip.

On perceived ego: "It's not about being right for the sake of being right but being right for the sake of saving a lot of time, effort, money and credibility."

Mentality: "When things don't add up, they are prone to express their opinions on the matter, and the level of response will be proportional to the absurdity of the event. The more things that occur that make no sense, the more cynical [they] become. [...] Presuming this is a trait that must be disciplined out of them is a huge management mistake."

and

"If you are dismissive of complaints, fail to recognize an illogical event or behave in deceptive ways, [they] will likely stop complaining to you. You might mistake this as a behavioral improvement, when it's actually a show of disrespect. It means you are no longer worth talking to..." [Emphasis mine.] This is so very true. It's a off-net version of dealing with damage by routing around it.

Insubordination: "[They] are not anti-bureaucracy, as many observers think. They are anti-stupidity."

"Arbitrary or micro-management, illogical decisions, inconsistent policies, the creation of unnecessary work and exclusionary practices will elicit a quiet, subversive, almost vicious attitude..."

"They may work on big projects or steer the group entirely from the shadows while diverting the attention of supervisors to lesser topics. They believe they are protecting the organization, as well as their own credibility -- and they are often correct." [Emphasis mine.]

Credit whoring: "[They] would prefer to make a good decision than to get credit for it. What will make them seek credit is the danger that a member of the group or management who is dangerous to the process might receive the credit for the work instead. That is insulting. If you've got a lot of credit whores in your group, there are bigger problems causing it." I don't like saying "I did that" just too much when it is or should be a team effort, but if a slacker is getting equal credit because the rest of us are working our asses off to compensate for his lazy butt, well, don't be surprised if you hear a bit more detail than you think you need to hear.

Antisocial behavior: "Like anyone else, [they] tend to socialize with people who respect them. They'll stop going to the company picnic if it becomes an occasion for everyone to list all the [...] problems they never bothered to mention before."

And this really goes for everyone, at least everyone with any work ethic at all: "[They] work their butts off for people they respect, so you need to give them every reason to afford you some. Also true is, "Standard managerial processes are nearly useless." Earlier the article mentions that professional courtesy is not the same as respect and while that professional courtesy may be an automatic thing, respect is still an earned commodity. I once told the expediter (dock supervisor) at the Post Office that I stayed later than scheduled because I was helping him and NOT because of the regular supervisor who was a micromanaging buffoon. Had it just been for that fellow, I'd have clocked out exactly as scheduled and not felt the slightest remorse about it.

And this is also true: "...the fight in most [..] groups is in how to get things done, not how to avoid work. [They] will self-organize, disrupt and subvert in the name of accomplishing work. An over-structured, micro-managing, technically deficient runt, no matter how polished, who's thrown into the mix for the sake of management will get a response from the [..] group that's similar to anyone's response to a five-year-old tugging his pants leg." That's not just IT folks, that pretty much describes every place I've ever worked. Things get done in spite of micromanagement, but never because of it. This was (and is) as true at the Post Office as it was (and is) for programming.

In fact, when that micromanager at the Post Office wasn't there, his substitute tended to be rather scarce and barely appeared to do much at all. One of the things he realized was that everybody knew what had to be done and how to do it. So he simply got out of their way and let them do the job. He was only needed when things really didn't go right or something unexpected happened. The result was a much smoother operation and a much happier crew. And this wasn't IT or programming or engineering but was largely grunt-work.

Farker vossiewulf summed it up in three rules:

1. Don't bullshit [them] and keep all marketing weasel speak out of your vocabulary.
2. Don't tell them how to fix a problem, define the desired behavior and let them determine the best solution.
3. Give them the tools they need to get done what you ask of them.

If you don't want to believe that, consider this bit of information from Farker sseye "That was actually a decent article. I've seen a few companies that would still be worth something, or still in business, if their management took that advice."

Marketing weasel words and similar nonsense merely trips very sensitive bullshit detectors - and once those go off, everything is dismissed as the drivel of an idiot and/or liar. The person spouting such garbage gets all the respect of the proverbial shady used car salesman - because that's all he deserves.

Comments

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

Just based on the excerpts you put here, I completely agree that it should be required reading for anyone in management or contemplating being in management. In fact, I'll take it a step further - it should be a required part of the course work for anyone getting a degree in management.

I suspect, however, that that would turn most, if not all, MBA programs on their heads, because given the BS I've seen at various employers, especially with those whose managers have MBAs, it's my belief that this is completely the opposite of what MBA students are taught. (I continue to believe that the MBA is the single most overrated and useless degree ever created.)

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I suspect about the same, and for the same reason, alas.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

I continue to be impressed by the fact that you come up with things I agree with 100% on some occasions (such as this) and am 100% against on others (such as peas). This is a sign of someone who knows how to use his brain.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I think we can agree that minted peas are an atrocity, if for different reason.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

And this is why I'm actively looking to leave my current job.

Also why, the last time I managed a large group of people and upper management forced me out, my entire cast got together and said they'd walk if I wasn't brought back. Quote one "She's the only one who hasn't tried to feed us a line of bullshit since day one!".

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

From what I gather of your current boss (someday I'll figure out just what C.O.M.B. stands for... I must have missed or forgotten the definition) he isn't any mere MBA-droid which would be bad enough, but is in desperate need of some sort of therapy.

And your second paragraph does not surprise me. It does, however, impress me.

Perhaps related, perhaps not, one of the very first things I remember you saying was at the after-closing gathering at a restaurant at the first Salisbury Faire I ever attended. You said that what really impressed you about the faire was that whatever politics there might have been, you didn't see them and appreciated that.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

Crazy Old Man Boss :)

also see his son COMBjr

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

also see his son COMBjr

I think I'd rather not. I suspect it's nurture rather than nature, but crazy begets crazy just the same.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

It all makes sense to me, but these are the kinds of guys who call a plumber and then tell them how to do their job. If I hire a specialist, I ask them what they need from me and then I get the hell out of their way.

When I was President of a small theatre company, I told my Secretary I didn't care WHAT the newsletter looked like as long as the information was correct and complete and it got out on time. For the rest of that year we had a hand-drawn "Aaron and Airhead" comic strip photocopied off notebook paper as our newsletter - and everyone read it too!

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Hehehe... I like that. People seem to mistake "professional looking layout" for genuine quality, which leads to great looking but ultimately useless PowerPoint presentations. Similarly, I've found most hour+ long meetings to really only ever be a few minutes deep. Not that long ago I was stuck in a four hour meeting presentation about treating customers well that would have done far better to have scrapped the marketing drivel and silly exercises and just showed Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure instead. "Be excellent to each other" was the intended message, but not communicated nearly as well.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Ah, so much blessed truth, it's nice to know that it's out there even if the people who need to read it won't see it.

I've been working in HP ServiceCenter for over a year now, it's the most unmaintainable programming environment I've ever worked in, but the higher-ups are convinced that salvation is just around the corner with a few more patches and a lot more overtime. I've subtly (and occasionally unsubtly) tried to communicate this for the entire year, but it never got through.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

They listen to the salesdroids and management consultants selling the latest snake oil but not to the folks who have to use the tools. And they have the false belief that all programming is fungible. The idea that any problem, once solved, stays solved with the exact same coded solution even if the hardware or software environment changes. I wonder if they'd consider a repeatedly patched tire to be a good one. Evidently they believe an endlessly patched (but never properly overhauled) program to be just fine.

I once had a chance due to a big hardware change to almost completely redo the (astonishingly brittle) software on one product several years ago. I ignored the "we don't need that" (one manager told me he wanted a Chevy, not a Cadillac... but what I was doing was the equivalent of getting away from the hand-crank, manual spark timing, and manual choke.) and incorporated almost every variation that the earlier model had ever gotten and left hooks for one or two things that I expected to be asked to do later. It was an excellent investment of time and effort. Many times I could answer "Can we make it do this?" with "It already can do that." The one big addition (dealing with a weird protocol) happened fast because I had planned for it.

[rdfox.livejournal.com]

I actually *would* add a "rule 2a" to that:

2a. If, for some valid reason, there are solution to the problem that are not acceptable options, do tell them this beforehand, and be sure to explain exactly why they can't use these options. ("Oh, and guys, we can't put the Wankel in this car; we simply don't have the manufacturing capacity to build enough of them, and adding capacity to do so would result in a $50,000 econobox. Not really viable, that!")

This, of course, SHOULD be part of the definition of the desired behavior, but so often, it seems that management fails to mention such points in defining the specification until after people have already started working, at which point they come in and tell them, "Oh, that won't work for us, we need to try something else," resulting in lots of wasted effort (and money!) and erosion of morale.

Of course, this also means that there has to be a rule 2b:

2b. If they then come up with an idea for a way to make an unacceptable option viable, hear them out--they just might be right.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

"The customer never knows what he wants until he sees what he gets." seems to be true everywhere, even internally. I have told many people, repeatedly that what they called a bug was not a bug - it was a specification error. If they don't specify things properly they don't get what they want because the people making the darned thing are not psychic. They get upset that they got exactly what they asked for rather than what they wanted. And they are continually surprised and offended by this thoroughly predictable circumstance.

And that one, not hearing things out in full, infuriates me. At times I've even had a family member who should know better finish my sentences or thoughts with clearly incorrect assumptions and then proceed to tell me why what I never said and was not going to say wouldn't work. Then they get upset when I point out they wasted time telling me what I wasn't planning on doing anyway wouldn't work and now I'm ticked that they assumed I was such an idiot.

[electronin.livejournal.com]

I'm going to develop a product line packaging confusion and frustration because that's what people seem to really want out of the whole consumer experience.