Ask Slashdot: How Do You Prove an IT Manager Is Incompetent? 331
An anonymous reader writes "I have been asked by a medium-sized business to help them come to grips with why their IT group is ineffective, loathed by all other departments, and runs at roughly twice the budget of what the CFO has deemed appropriate for the company's size and industry. After just a little scratching, it has become quite clear that the 'head of IT' has no modern technological skills, and has been parroting what his subordinates have told him without question. (This has led to countless projects that are overly complex, don't function as needed, and are incredibly expensive.) How can one objectively illustrate that a person doesn't have the knowledge sufficient to run a department? The head of IT doesn't necessarily need to know how to write code, so a coding test serves no purpose, but should be able to run a project. Are there objective methods for assessing this ability?"
Manager skills are not the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be a techie. The coding kind.
Head of IT doesn't really need to know that much tech. His blind trust in his underlings might be an issue, but lack of technical skills is not really an issue.
What they lack is manager level (paywise) position for Solution Architect - or just good old fashioned software process, like Scrum .
The same way you prove any other department head.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Take IT out of the equation. How do you prove any department head is incompetent?
The company should set specific goals for it. If the manager cannot meet them, demote him or let him go. It's really that simple. Be sure to include specific documentation requirements. If this guy or gal has bad project management skills, they won't be able to show what the department is doing. Be clear that things must improve or else. Give them a chance, but be firm.
You could also enact some form of employee survey in that department. Have folks turn them into HR with no repercussions. Have managers evaluate employees and employees evaluate their managers. This was done at a previous employer of mine and it was annoying to do but it did show upper management there were communication problems and things did improve. No one was fired, but there was significant training done with a few of the managers.
Several things (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 - Figure out what convinced you that the head of IT is the problem. If you're thoroughly convinced, present those reasons to the business. If you have any reservations about your conclusion, then ask yourself if you really should be as convinced as you are about your conclusion.
#2 - Are you an employee, or a consultant brought in to investigate? Your fear of reprisal might temper how much you say.
#3 - Consider presenting some solutions at the same time you present your analysis. It might soften the blow. It also might leave a better taste in peoples' mouths if you find some nice things to say about the head/department as well.
Hire a Consultant (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect to be downmodded into oblivion for this, but...
Your best bet it to hire a management consultant to review the practices of your IT department to see where they are failing and and how to correct it.
Not only will you receive a (relatively) unbiased review of the state of your IT department from a third party, it will be coming from an outside source, which will give the report more weight with management even if your internal report reaches the same conclusions.
Dear Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been asked to do something as part of my job, have no idea how to do it, can you help me?
Sounds to me like the dimwit submitter is just as incompetent at doing what he's been asked to do as the IT manager.
Which given that and the presupposed IT manager's incompetence suggests its actually the CEO that is the issue at the company.
B players hire C players.
I'm confused. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's your job to determine what the problem is, you should already have the skills necessary to thoroughly evaluate the situation and communicate your conclusions. If you've already determined that this person is the problem, what is left to assess? If you don't know how to objectively determine that this person is the problem, how have you concluded that this person is the problem? If you don't know how to evaluate someone's competence and can't explain your conclusions to the people who hired you, how can you be qualified to tell this company what's wrong with the department?
Are you really the one to be asked? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to come to Slashdot to ask this question, are you REALLY qualified to help the company come to grips?
While the 'head of IT' and/or some number of IT staff may indeed ill suited to perform their jobs correctly, if I was involved in the situation even if my job wasn't ultimately affected, I'd be really pissed that my department's direction was changed based on the advice of a 3rd party that had to post an Ask Slashdot.
Re:Circular logic (Score:5, Insightful)
It's how you evidence it though, but honestly I think the person posing the question answered it for themselves.
The IT department is running at double the cost of departments in equivalently sized businesses (and fields?) and that's all the evidence you need. Though if you need other objective methods for things like project delivery then simply ask if they're on time and on budget. If they're not and the justifications he provides as to why don't stack up then that's about as objective you can get in something that is semi-arbitrary in nature like project management. Other things you can measure objectively are number of outstanding support tickets, average response times, that sort of thing - make his support function adhere to a reasonable SLA and if he can't adhere to it look at the reasons why, if it's poor management again then there's some more evidence for you.
As for what to do, well a few options are common in this scenario:
1) Sack him.
2) If you can't sack him right off, reorganise - state that IT isn't performing so the company intends to split IT into two, support and operations or some such. Leave him in charge of one, bring someone in who can do the job, split the budgets taking away most of his and his responsibility to the new guy. In a year or two decide to merge the departments again eliminating one of them and removing redundant posts - guess which ones lose their jobs? the incompetent manager and his incompetent underlings, keep the good ones. Enjoy your shiny new IT department.
3) If the CEO/directors are part the problem and don't want him to go, quit and go elsewhere. It's no longer your problem.
Really it depends how much you care, how much the management above him cares, what country you're in and what the employment laws are, and how much of a shit you give about lazy/incompetent people remaining in employment, or at least, under your company's employment. These things are all highly subjective so it's no point listening to me or anyone else on but something you have to figure out for yourself.
on its face (Score:5, Insightful)
By his job description.
Are you sure it's him? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have almost no information here for a fully justified and well reasoned response. For all we know he may well have screwed the CxO's daughter at an Xmas party and he's looking for an excuse to fire the guy.
He either delivers, or he doesn't. If he delivers then he's "Working as intended" and you need to adjust his performance management criteria to better reflect what you need out of him. Hell, he may be working just to fulfil those metrics because they're so out of whack with what he actually is supposed to be doing. My Line Manager almost got me fired because she kept making idiotic decisions without asking for my input, and having to pick up the pieces made me look incompetent. We had a stern chat about "treading on my toes" and she backed off, now we're both less stressful and things work better. Costs less, too.
I started rambling; Apologies for that. I'm trying to say that you don't sound like you have enough information to make this decision. If you don't know how to get that information, you probably should hand this project on to someone who does. It's what HR department exist for.
Re:I'm confused. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's your job to determine what the problem is, you should already have the skills necessary to thoroughly evaluate the situation and communicate your conclusions.
No, it's not his/her job to determine what the problem is. In these sorts of cases it is comparatively rare that the root problem is unknown. The real problem is the office politics - maybe this useless manager happens to be golf partner with a key shareholder etc. By bringing in a 'consultant' to state the obvious, senior management is given a justification to do what they wanted to do anyway. All they really require is a professional looking document with 'IT capability gaps' included and for it to have been authored by an outsider - that way if the manager is fired he will struggle to file a claim that it was based on personal dislike / discrimination.
Re:OMG, John is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear John,
If you have been hired as a consultant to fix a companies problems with their IT department and you have to turn to /. for help; Do you really feel that you are in the place to criticize another professionals competency? /Sheldon
I Don't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
group is ineffective, loathed by all other departments, and runs at roughly twice the budget of what the CFO has deemed appropriate for the company's size and industry.
Is this not objective proof that a person doesn't have the knowledge sufficient to run a department?
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Group is ineffective: who says this? ... IT is often loathed by other departments because they don't want the compromises they have to do to keep IT secure and running smooth. This could be a general atmosphere set by the "scared of thechnology" CFO
By what standards? This is the claim that needs to be proven, not the proof
2) loathed by all other departments:
well
3) runs at roughly twice the budget of what the CFO has deemed appropriate:
This doesn't say twice the budget of a comparable company's IT. It says twice the budget of what the CFO deemd appropriate. What if the CFO is incompetent, not the IT department. This budget could be way wrong. This could be fueled by the CFO thinking that IT is useless (see point 2)
So no ... this is not objective proof.
The it department could be horrible, or maybe it's actually the CFO's fault.
Re:Circular logic (Score:5, Insightful)
There's another thing at work in IT, at least, and probably everywhere else: If you spend the effort necessary to be good at your job, you don't spend that effort in getting your next job.
The most effective way I've noticed to be promoted in IT is to be incompetant at IT, then you spend all your time appearing to be doing something, and you seek the paperwork tasks involving lots of emailing and nagging, and checking off what is done and not done. You always appear more concientious than the guy who ignores emails for an hour so they can code.
Really any idiot can do this sort of thing, though it is stressfuli - you're lying for a living, and lies breed more lies - it becomes harder and harder to spackle things over so it's good to move around.
People gain the opportunity to try their hat at faking it ( which is all managers do as they can't really know the details they are in charge of managing ) by fooling someone into thinking they can code ( or do job x ) ( another fake it test ).
If you don't want a job, just suck at it. If you want a better job fake it till you make it ( which is a certain form of sucking at it ). But accept the fact that you'll be stressed out all the time. It's probably no worse than the alternative because shit rolls downhill, and there's plenty of shit to go around when everyone is an incompetant liar. You're gonna be stressed no matter what. Higher ups are not all Zapp Branigan having let their success go to their heads, ( though some are ). Some of them probably know exactly what they are. Kudos to them.
Re:OMG, John is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Circular logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Ehhhhhh, I agree with you, the very fact that the department is obviously dysfunctional is prima-facie evidence of the IT manager's inadequacy. However, in most cases its necessary either politically or legally to have some real concrete data. My advice to the OP would be to recommend the initiation of improved methods. These can be drawn directly from CMM/CMMI principles. In other words recommend the capturing of metrics. If there is a help desk function then recommend the use of a ticketing system. For development projects, etc formal project management should be initiated with concrete deliverables, goals, and measures in place. If and when the incompetent manager cannot manage these functions or the data they return demonstrates where improvements are needed and said manager is incapable of making those improvements then upper management will be in a position to change things.
Don't suggest sacking people etc. Simply point out where the dept seems to be deficient, problem areas. Relate them to CMM recommended measurement and management processes which are not in place and recommend THOSE measures. Don't make it personal. In fact you should frame the entire thing as simply a management improvement process which will improve the performance of the company. If the existing manager can carry out those improvements and produce good results GREAT! If not then his ultimate departure/lateral movement will be inevitable. If upper management STILL does nothing? Well, that's OK, you are getting paid and you can only lead the horse to the water. Simply make sure you provide everyone with your recommendations and reasoning in a nice report so they won't feel like you didn't earn your pay.
I'd look at this as a good opportunity. Business management consulting is MUCH more lucrative than low-level tech consulting. If you can actually help these people you can get into a whole area of business that can be quite lucrative and rewarding.
It takes two to tango (Score:4, Insightful)
How Do You Prove an IT Manager Is Incompetent?
You don't. You walk away. That has always been my suggestion whenever someone has to come to a point of having to prove his/her manager is incompetent. OTH, your situation is quite unique because you have been tasked with root-causing an IT department's woes. That is quite a pickle you have there.
"I have been asked by a medium-sized business to help them come to grips with why their IT group is ineffective, loathed by all other departments, and runs at roughly twice the budget of what the CFO has deemed appropriate for the company's size and industry.
Based on what? Your description of the situation hints to some very interesting, poisonous dynamics within that company. Sounds more like scapegoating that problem solving to me.
After just a little scratching, it has become quite clear that the 'head of IT' has no modern technological skills, and has been parroting what his subordinates have told him without question. (This has led to countless projects that are overly complex, don't function as needed, and are incredibly expensive.)
Well, this will also tell me that the subordinates are incompetent either. Subordinates should be competent enough to provide sound technical advice. They might not have the middle-to-upper company view to make IT and enterprise architecture decisions (which can lead to unnecessary complexity at the "macro" level.)
However, and barring significant managerial interference and politics, they should be competent enough to keep things efficient, workable and sufficiently simple within their own silos. Rarely you will ever see a situation as the one described being solely the result of an incompetent IT manager.
One could argue that the "parroting" was in essence supporting what his subordinates were passing to him. True that a manager of IT should be capable to tell from the technical factual to the bullshit, at least from a 10k foot view. But he is also expected to rely on his (supposedly) trustworthy subordinates.
IT manager -> strategy.
subordinate -> tactical.
Doesn't matter how good an IT manager is. If the subordinates are shit, no manager will ever be able to compensate for that (and viceversa.) I'm not saying that the IT manager in question is worthless. I'm saying that if the inherent complexity is due to him parroting what his subordinates passed to him, then the subordinates are shit as well.
SORRY. IT. TAKES. TWO. TO. TANGO.
How can one objectively illustrate that a person doesn't have the knowledge sufficient to run a department?
You are going to have to prove that key (and yet poor) decisions have been made by this person consistently and continuously. Decisions that are/were self-evidently poor ones. Passing/parroting poor decisions all the way up should be enough to illustrate that. The corollary of this, however, is that you will also be demonstrating that incompetence runs vertically deep.
How can you salvage that. I don't know. But if you lay the blame sorely on the IT manager, then you are not solving, you are scape goating.
The head of IT doesn't necessarily need to know how to write code, so a coding test serves no purpose,
No. If you think that, I don't believe you are technically competent to make these kind of evaluations. You might not need to know to develop software with the specific stacks being used. But you have to have some type of development knowledge (either from direct experience as a developer or indirectly as, say, a DBA or network administratior, for example.)
but should be able to run a project.
Here we are conflating the role of head of IT with the one of a project manager. This is ok for small companies, but for mid-size companies and up, you better separate the two. If this mid-size company does n
Re: The Peter Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
The Peter Principle is a proposition that states that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability
Hm, interesting. I like the characterization, and perhaps it explains my current employer's angle on promotions: step one is to excel and display mastery of your current responsibilities (the Peter Principle [wikipedia.org]) while step two is to successfully operate at the level the promotion would award. This is especially useful to the employer in that they have such candidates working (or trying to work) at a higher level than they are paid. I don't think this works without step two.
It works even better when the promotion comes with a bonus to compensate for the time the worker "should" have been in the new position (so s/he doesn't feel taken advantage of).
(Interestingly, this step two isn't mentioned on the wikipedia article. Instead, its second corollary, which is basically the beginning of step two, states that training should happen before the promotion. Close, but not necessarily strong enough; knowing duties and being able to satisfactorily perform them are two different things.)
Some more info: (From the submitting Coward) (Score:2, Insightful)
The CEO and management are all aware that this guy has to go, but have a problem. IT was ignored as an inefficient and overly priced group for many years, but it was accepted as there were more pressing items in need of attention, or profitability made it easier to accept. Now that they have time to properly address the situation, the problem became clear immediately, but they are saddled by a decade of acceptance of the norm and a lack of specific documentation of each failure along the way. Wanting to avoid any chance of a lawsuit, new failures have been well documented and dissatisfaction has been communicated, but there is still a long period of "favorable" reviews for what were unfavorable results. Broken deadlines, missing features, and cost overruns are all objective measures that show current problems. Are there other metrics, or procedures, that can show that a lack of aptitude will lead to future failures, and that the most recent failures aren't unique? (Again, on paper, there were no failures for a very long time. Months could be spent on digging up old contracts, invoices, and emails that may exist, but that is clearly not ideal.) As always, there have been some great commenters from Slashdotters below. Any more would be appreciated.
Re:Circular logic (Score:4, Insightful)
na, if you suck at your job but have the right kind of personality, then its easy to succeed [dilbert.com]
That said, if the boss is failing at running the dept, because he "just parrots what his subordinates tell him", then that suggests the subordinates need to go - if they were competent, they'd be giving him good advice after all.
Don't fight the boss (Score:4, Insightful)
Chances are this IT boss is being protected somehow.
I know of one guy who got a new car every time he got a complaint of sexual harassment. He basically bullied the company into coughing up a car by threatening a lawsuit for slander/libel if they didn't make it go away. He gets a new car and the complainer gets fired.
As a consultant you should be thankful you're not in the chain of command.
Please, use your position of safety to be candid and ruthless in your evaluation. Document whatever you can and leave it in the hands of whoever hired you. This director needs sacked.