Slashdot Log In
Uneducated IT Managers, and How to Deal?
Posted by
Cliff
on Thu Aug 25, 2005 05:00 PM
from the patience-makes-the-perfect-tool dept.
from the patience-makes-the-perfect-tool dept.
R.Mason asks: "I work in an IT department for a small to medium sized family owned business. The job is great, except for our boss. He simply doesn't know nearly as much as he should. Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches. He spends hours and hours on the most insignificant tasks as if he has nothing better to do. Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole? A person you respect and frequently learn from? It creates an extremely frustrating work environment, and our team doesn't know how to approach the problem. It's becoming too much to simply "put up with it." What advice do those of you in the IT field have for this issue?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You know (Score:5, Funny)
Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Insightful)
The OSI stack was a failed, over-complex set of network protocols that tried to wrest control from the established, pragmatic, but not-officially-ISO-sanctioned TCP/IP (aka DARPA) protocol suite.
The TCP/IP suite model defined four layers: Network, Internetwork, Transport, and Application. That's (for example) Ethernet, IP, TCP, and HTTP for most implementations of teh Intarweb.
The OSI _model_ (not stack) is, in fact, the seven-layer cake you mention. Over the past decade or so, networking companies have "retrofitted" the OSI model onto the de facto stack, but you'll notice that they get a little wishy-washy at Layer 1, Layer 6, and Layer 7. Guess why? Because in the OSI Stack, there were actual protocols specified for those levels.
(definitely glad I learned the networking side of CS from folks [ietf.org] who [ietf.org] invented [faqs.org] it, rather than someone who learned it later, out of a book...)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
You should have gotten the other IT guys in on your action, and told the boss "Sir, you're absolutely right! We'll need a company credit card and a paid day off to go to CompUSA, BestBuy, and Staples and research alternative solutions!"
Spend 7 hours drinking at the strip bar and one hour buying some wireless networking gear. Presto! Everybody's happy!
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
No man, you've got this completely wrong. This is slashdot! We all know that if a slashdotter were given the day off, a credit card, and orders to go to a computer store and buy shit until the card is maxed out, that's what he would do! Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?
If so, you fail at being a computer nerd!
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?
Indeed! Just imagine all the pr0n you would be able to store on that machine!
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
No man, you've got this completely wrong. This is slashdot! We all know that if a slashdotter were given the day off, a credit card, and orders to go to a computer store and buy shit until the card is maxed out, that's what he would do! Are you really telling me that you'd rather see some girls take off their bathing suits instead of setting a up a massively parallel RAID-5 array of 300G SATA-150 disks!?
If so, you fail at being a computer nerd! :)
No you've got to get two credit cards and two days. The first day you go to COMPUSA, Fry's is better, where you buy the hardware then take it back and set it up. The second day is spent grabbing some chicks and showing them what you did.
FalconParent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Wireless Token Ring (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
Nazgul-Net was a much better solution...
Parent
Re:Contingency For Ethernet (Score:5, Funny)
I was once consulting for a firm that wanted to expand their organisation and communicate over the internet. I mentioned that it was imperitive that they use a firewall for security. The IT manager gave me a testy look and said "Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it?".
Fast forward three weeks. I turn up for another meeting and notice a bunch of workmen demolishing the computer room. I ask one of them what's going on and he says that they are installing fire-rated dry wall to replace the existing dry wall!
I walk into the meeting with a VERY large grin on my face and proceed to explain to the IT manager exactly what a firewall is. He turns bright red and then says to me "Well we were planning to fire-proof the computer room anyway!"
Parent
Re:You know (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on my experience, with six employers over a nearly twenty year career, it's rare to find a technically savvy manager above the level of team leader. I had one such boss and he was a joy to work for. Not only did he understand the technology, he also knew that he didn't know everything. Furthermore, he was not a micromanager and, after I'd worked for him for a couple of months, he would simply tell me what needed to be done and then trusted me to get the job finished. If you ever get a manager like that you are indeed lucky. A boss like that is easily worth, at least for me, passing up the chance to move to another company for more money, etc. I knew I had a good thing going and knew that my chances of having such a thing happen again was small.
One thing that I did find worked to a degree was educating the boss. This needs to be done in a non-threatening way. My method was to take magazine articles in to work and just say, "I think you might find this interesting." If the boss is not a true PHB, over time you'll likely see an increase in his/her understanding of the technical end of your job, beware - YMMV.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Parent
Re:You know (Score:5, Funny)
I can't tell, is that blasphemy or not?
Parent
He is a manager - what do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Not to be stereotypical, but he is a manager. In a perfect world, he would have tech skills, but he doesn't. So he manages.
As for how to deal with it? I doubt you really have a choice. Not to be cynical, but what are you really going to do about it? Hopefully he isn't a "know it all" type and will actually listen to what you have to say before making a decision. If so, just do your best to educate him in any given situation so he can make the right decision.
Re:He is a manager - what do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] in action. You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.
Without exception, no matter what the work, the best managers I have ever had were the ones who had actually done the work, and understood the personal resources required by the job. Without that understanding, a manager is reduced to being a mouthpiece for his boss. He will be unable to justify investment in his subordinates, because he will not understand why they need $THING.
When his own incompetence interferes with his job, it also interferes with his subordinates' work, as demonstrated in the top post: Even when his own computer is acting up, he doesn't know what to do with it and has us fix it while he sits and watches.
do your best to educate him
Again, from the top post: Our team finds ourselves teaching him or explaining remedial things far too often. They are only spinning their wheels, going nowhere.
And there is always a choice. Slavery is outlawed in civilized nations.
Parent
Re:He is a manager - what do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Peter Principle in action. You are making excuses for a lack of understanding.
This isn't the Peter Principle, but rather the exact opposite. The Peter Principle would have a competent tech promoted to management, and being unable to manage his department because he's only good at being a tech. This is more like the Dilbert Principle, wherein incompetent workers are promoted to management because the competent ones are needed at the bottom to do the actual work.
Parent
On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Quit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know your situation at all, but if the manager has any influence on the rest of management, and they even think that he has a modicum of knowledge, your work life will be hell. He (hopefully) realizes that he's not as skilled as his workers, and will try to steal their (your) thunder every chance he gets.
I worked for a manager that knew very little about tech, and any time I had a suggestion for an improvement, it somehow ended up becoming his suggestion by the time it made its way up the food chain. I was lucky enough to land a great job elsewhere and I got the hell out before it got too bad.
My new boss knew less than me technically, but he knew and freely admitted that he knew less, as his job was to be a manager, not a technician. All my successes were mine, and all he took credit for was doing a wonderful job in hiring the right people - which is how it should be, IMHO.
Re:Quit. (Score:5, Insightful)
His response? No freakin' way. Quite simply, this guy was a little bit introverted, didn't like speaking in front of people, didn't really have the social skills to distinguish himself in business meetings. Plus, what he really wanted to do was code, and if he was doing all the stuff I had to do, he'd never have a chance to do it.
DING! Well there you go, I thought. From then on I saw my primary responsiblities as being three: 1.) Advise the coders on what decisions made the most sense based on the overall agenda of the project and its team members and come to an understanding of how we planned to move forward; 2.) Go to meetings and speak to that position, gather requirements from the other team members and communicate them back to my staff; and 3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.
"All right," I said. "Can do."
Parent
Re:Quit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've thought for some time that the best managers are those who see their jobs backwards from the way most managers see their jobs: they act like they work for the people they manage. They help the employees work well together. They organize and make sure their different employees understand what is going on with the other employees. They evaluate the various obstacles that their employees are facing, and they try to remove those obstacles. They deal with executives and customers so you don't have to.
IMO good manager knows it's not his job to do the job. It's his job to make it easy for his subordinates to do their jobs.
Parent
Tradeoff (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone who shows "too much" technical knowledge might not ever make it to a managerial position. More often than not if someone knows "too much" about what actually goes into something, they can't dissociate their own opinions about the methods used in order to see the picture and get the job done, IMO.
Which is worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'd rather have your boss
I dunno
Be Thankful (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy may not be as technically skilled as you guys are, but it doesn't sound at all like he is meddling either. You may not be gifted with a wonderful experience, but if the guy isn't actually damaging things, I'd leave well enough alone. You may not be as lucky with the next guy.
Think about it, a bunch of management types, who will invariably hire another management type. Do you really want that to be a management type who is also convinced that his role indicates a level of proficiency that he doesn't have?
I feel like that is what you will get next if you push that issue.
Dear Slashdot, my boss sucks... (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot. We're ALL smarter than our bosses. You don't catch us whining about it. Much.
Managers Are A Buffer (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, managers act as a buffer between tech staff and the rest of the company. In some companies this isn't true, but at ours it was. If one of the other managers had an issue, they weren't supposed to talk to us about it. They were supposed to talk to our manager. That allowed him to do what he was supposed to do (manage) and gave us more time to do our work.
I would assume that your boss knows that he isn't nearly as gifted as the rest of your team, which is why he doesn't meddle like some managers do. Be thankful for that, and try giving him a point here or there on easier stuff so he can try doing those things better. Since he doesn't sound like a bad guy, just deal with it. The benefits of you not having to do management tasks (budgets, taking heat when something goes wrong, dealing with higher management, managing losers like his workers) are a fair tradeoff.
I'm an IT manager (Score:5, Insightful)
Get over it. You don't want an IT manager who knows more about technology than you do. You want an IT manager who trusts you to be more knowledgeable, and knows how to manage. Knows how to keep upper management out of your goddamn face so you can get your work done, knows how to motivate you, and is smart enough to make the understand that if he's busy managing he can't keep up with technology.
I basically had to give up being tops in my field anymore, because I can't recreationally pursue pure technology any more. Just the facts of the job, and I'm a better manager for it.
However, having an IT manager who can't use his computer is a problem. The question I have is it because he is incapable, or because he is stretched to thin to deal with it any more? My boss has trouble with FrontPage for god's sake, which (having never used the program in my life) I fixed in less than a minute.
Of course, this was the same guy who built all of the core technology our company is built on from scratch 7 years ago. He's just too busy managing money, manageing resources, and generally being a CEO to focus all his brain power on the problem in front of him
Never, ever, work for a family business... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus Christ... I can't believe you guys (Score:5, Funny)
Oh and hey my DHCP is DNSing again.
ha...you don't know the half of it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Our office's IT person yanked QuickTime off my desktop computer because according to her, it was a security problem because "QuickTime goes across the net to check the time...you know...that's why they call it Quick Time."
She also denied me the right to install Mozilla FireFox because according to her, "Mozilla has more security holes in it than IE." If anyone wonders why IE ranks so highly in visits to Slashdot, its probably because so many employers have wankers for IT staff that won't allow any other type of browser installed on the office machines.
The same IT person tried to claim that our office had to buy a new license for a copy of Microsoft Visio that was installed on a machine that nobody used anymore instead of uninstalling it from that particular machine and reinstall the program on the computer of the employee who requested the program. Management wouldn't listen to my protests on this until I produced an email from Microsoft directly indicating the extra license purchase was unnecessary.
Yet another case of bonehead government IT staff justifying their knowledge and position with an MCSE certification.
Great Question (Score:5, Insightful)
First thing to realize is that unless your boss is a technical lead who's a developer/tech, he is hired to things which are different from what you're hired to do.
I have no clue how to fix a computer, I don't even know what version of Windows I am writing this on. But I do know how to keep a few hundred developer from programming our company out of business. We have guys whose job it is to keep my PC running. I can't do what they do, and they sure as hell can't do what I do!
Second thing: How does your manager measure success? Since I know I can't develop the whole product myself, the only way I know to succeed is to make sure my developers succeed. That's the only thing I can shoot towards which will produce net gain for the company. If your manager measures himself the same way, you're golden. If he realizes he's not a tech and lets techs do their job, what more can you ask for? Would you preffer a tech manager who was convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he could do the job better than his underlings?
Third: I heard people complain about their bosses this way (I am often the target) Usually its sourgrapes whose root cause has zero to do with management's technical ability. Sometimes the manager's personality clashes with the employees, or the employee is jelous of the status and money. If these are the true causes of your discontent, look within yourself for a resolution.
Fourth: all other things being equal, a good manager who also posesses an understanding of what his people do is more valuable than a manager lacking that understanding. In other words, if you can learn all the non-technical stuff your boss does and he doesn't learn the tech stuff you do, you will soon become more valuable to the firm than he is. If this is your ambition, go for it.
Finally, you'll be better off if you learn what it is that your managers are held accountable for by THEIR bosses. You bet your ass your boss isn't measured by how well he can fix the computer, but only by how many computers you as a department fix in the year (or some metric along the same lines).
The Secret to Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
I have come to learn something in my life...
Ignore your job. Remember, it is just a means to an end. My manager makes stupid decisions. My co-workers are all stupid and spend hours each day congratulating themselves on a job "well done".
The secret is to care just enough to keep your job and do it well. Forget about all of the other crap.
You work to feed your family and your children. Your company will never thank you for all of the hard work you put in. They will never recognize you for your talents.
Just do your job... and go home to what realy counts....
Your family.
And Half-Life 2...
YEAH, BABY, YEAH!!!!!!!
I know it's been said, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, a good manager does not have to be good at the job of his employees. In fact, more often than not it's preferable that he's not. The reason for this is that managers (good managers at any rate) need to deal with stuff that technical guys find wearing or even bullshit. Stuff like project planning, resource allocation, and generally playing the "politics game". If you're a technical guy in a management position, there's an almost natural tendency to presume that you're better than your employees. That leads to a presumption that you know the answer when they do not, and thus that you can do their job better than they can. It then irrevocably leads to a manager who micro-manages his employees. This makes him a lousy manager.
I personally went into the management job and knew this was a risk. As a result I made a conscious effort to seperate myself from the technology even to the point that I requested my rights to the system be taken away (I was granted admin privileges when I started). This forced me to go to my employees and look to them for solutions. As such, when we had a problem I usually sat down with them, explained the problem and asked them to give me a BRIEF overview of their proposed solution. I always told them to avoid technical details as I didn't need them. Then I usually asked for a timeline for a fix and walked away. I could then go back to the manager / business owner / department head who reported the problem and give them my take on the problem and give them a timeline (usually plus a few hours or days depending upon the extent of the problem). I never told them who was working the problem or how it was going to get fixed. That's how a manager works. This way I showed trust in my employees abilities, kept the heat off their back and set the expectations of the reporter that the problem was being diligently worked on and thus would be fixed.
I'd say 80% of my job was "public-relations" based. To me, my technical knowledge was somewhat of a liability. I ended up looking at solutions to problems and sometimes over-analyzing the solution my employees had come up with. I had my own ideas about solutions more often than not but had to keep them to myself. I couldn't test or implement because I had no access, and if I were to try then I would be showing my employees that I didn't trust their judgement. This undermines the entire department and thus turns you again into a bad manager.
Eventually I quit. Not because I wasn't wanted in the position (I had great working relationships with my employees that I enjoyed and still stay in touch with some of them), but because I had found my "geek-karma" to be a liability to my direction as a manager. I wasn't comfortable being the "general", I found I much preferred being "in the trenches". Besides, honestly I find that I can be much more flexible with my schedule as a techie than I ever could as a manager. Even though I have the occasional evening and weekend work I need to do, I prefer it over the constant 11 and 12 hour days I needed to get all my stuff done as a manager, the interminable meetings and the absolute hard-and-fast requirement that I be in the office between the hours of 8am and 5pm every day... even if I'd been there until 2am dealing with paperwork.
And as for those who comment that a manager will take your "thunder" as a "hot-shot", think about this. When you f**k up, a good manager will also take the hit. I can't count the number of times I had a screw up in my ranks that I had to go to my management and say, "A member of my group dropped the ball. They're diligently working on a solution and I will take full responsibility for it." I got on the wrong side of a few upper managers because I refused to state who on my group screwed up. I always told them I would deal with it in
Re:Get him fired. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can he assign resource well? Does he understand how an increase or decrease in FTEs impacts the team? Can he assign priorities? does he tell his boss when the teams work load in too much?
If this person can do all that, then do not fire him, just relize he is there to MANAGE technical resources, not perform technical duties.
Contrary to the
Parent
Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Semi-unrelated, but I've also noticed that my best managers were women, can anyone else comment on that?
Parent
Re:Get him fired. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
WHOA, VERY WRONG, MOD DOWN! Re:Get him fired. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so wrong I just have to chime in.
First, a technical manager without technical experience is worthless.
Second, managers with no industry knowledge other than first year MBA knowledge, (your quote), are worthless.
Third, anyone who does NOT understand that handling both people AND systems requires insight into both is not woth your time.
Parent
Re:fire him! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:fire him! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never worked at a real job, have you?
Parent
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Long answer: Hell yes.
I disagree.
One of the best things very rich people do is delegate crap to subordinates.
Henry Ford said that he needs 100% of his brain to think about things that others can not. He assigned everything else to other people. He simply did not have the time to deal with the bullshit. Even if he took 1 hour a day to deal with crap that someone else can do, that is 1 hour less of innovative thought.
So what if the IT Manager has spyware on his computer and does not know how to get rid of it. And so what if the IT Manager can't use the internet wizard to connect to the internet? That is not his job. His job is to manage.
If I was him, I would fire my IT staff and find people that don't need to be hand held every step of the way.
This is like if a Janator asked "Should the office manager know about heavy duty plastic garbage bags? I mean, how many times must these thin bags tear open, and how often must I clean up the mess?". The anwser is shut your mouth and clean the shit up.
I have worked with so many people in IT who are plain out stupid, except that they know something about computers. And they think that makes them smart in other things. That is not true. How about if tech staff took 4 years to get a buisness degree, then worked 2 or 3 years in a low level management position, then went back for 2 more years to get a MBA? And then after 8 or 9 years of preparing, they get the IT Manager position and have the burden of managing millions of dollars, and making choices that determine the growth of the company. Hopefully the IT Manager will be smart enough to find good IT staff and not have to worry about office politics or people who are "too good" to do work they consider beneath them.
Parent
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude that someone can hop out of MBA school, hop into a chemical engineering company, and be fine, is crazy. The idea that they can hop out of that company and over to a software engineering company and have basically the exactly same job is equally crazy.
There's all sorts of managerial-level decisions that have to be made about quality, risk, deadlines, effort estimates, what mitigation procedures are effective and which aren't, how to make sure the people at the bottom actually know what the heck they're doing and aren't just a bunch of unexperienced unmotivated people just out of college. And these quality/risk/staffing balances can vary greatly from field to field, and important decisions like this do sometimes require field-specific knowledge.
If you don't know anything about the field you're managing, how are you going to make sure you have people under you who know what they're doing? Yes, it might be remotely possible with a ton of work, but most managers that I'm familiar with have done a very poor job at this.
Parent
NASA / Challenger / Management's Fault (Score:5, Interesting)
By and large, the engineers did their jobs to the best of their ability. They were aware of the O-ring problems, having been warned by the manufacturer and they knew the O-rings had never been tested or launched at the low temperatures that day. They repeatedly voiced their concerns to management. They even refused to sign off on the launch.
The management, on the other hand, didn't take any of it as a serious problem. Of the group directly involved with the launch, only one had a technical background, and he caved almost immediately from the pressure of the majority. The managers were under political pressure to make the launch a go, and that was their only concern.
An engineer by the name of Boisjoly blew the whistle* on what happened knowing full well that by doing so, he would probably ruin his career. No one hires whistleblowers. Otherwise, we might have heard a very different story.
What was the point I was going to make... Ah. Management never seems to have much use for professional ethics, too little understanding of what they are managing, and always seem to think their MBAs are advanced degrees that somehow trump a "lowly" B.S. in Engineering.
I think one of my old professors summed it up best.
Engineers:
The A students go into teaching/academia
The B students get most of the jobs.
The C students go into / switch to management.
*he was later awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the AAAS [aaas.org] for doing everything in his power at the time to halt the launch and exemplifying professional behavior
Parent
Re:Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
What every boss needs to be able to do is oversee the work of those who report to him and determine whether they did a good job, where there's room for improvement and all that. If you're a manager who has other managers reporting to you, then you don't actually need to have computer skills (or whatever it is that your company does), true; but if you supervise people who directly work on the products, then sorry, but yes, you have to have some insight into what they're actually doing.
You may not need to know every little detail, like how to best apply this or that design pattern in your code, but if you're not even able to clean spyware of your windows pc (which really requires nothing more than running a program that does the job for you), then you're not suited for this kind of job - you should get promoted as soon as possible before you can do any harm.
Parent
Seriously: (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes.
Seriously: You misunderstand his job.
His job is NOT to drive the tech. (If he's knowlegable it's a bonus, but it's not required.)
His job is:
- to keep upper management (and himself!) off your back
- to get you the resources you need to do YOUR job
- to set policy for the department
- to evaluate your performance and assist you in improving it
- to settle disputes and allocate resources and tasks among the department's members
Many of these are helped somewhat by technical knowlege. Some are actually hindered.
In particular, if he knows too much or rose from the ranks, he is likely to try to do some of the work himself (and neglect his other, more important functions) or worse yet try to micro-manage YOUR work, making decisions for you and otherwise getting in the way.
In a VERY small company or a startup he might also "wear the hat" of an individual contributor and spend part (ONLY part) of his time as a member of the team. But this is dangerous for a number of reasons (starting with you judging his managerial competence by his individual-contributor competence). And in even a moderately-sized department it's impossible: If he's doing it, he should be out hiring another hand (or fighting for a req to enable that).
Don't think of him as a more-expert team member: That's the Tech Lead's job. Don't even think of him as Captain Kirk to your team's Spock, Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, Checkov, and Bones (though that's much closer.)
Think of him as your stereotypical congressman - out doing political battle and deal-wheeling to bring home some pork and change the laws in your town's favor.
Meanwhile: His job is not to BE a star: His job is to make it possible for MORE THAN ONE of you to be stars. Your job is to make him, you, and your co-workers look good to those above him, by keeping his promises to them and feeding him good information.
Parent