May 6, 2014 at 9:56 pm
I always thought a compensation structure modeled after sports teams made sense in the context of high-performing development teams. The manager ("coach") makes a good salary, but it's the star players making the real money (team owners not withstanding). Better still if a good chunk of the "players'" compensation is tied to performance (individual and team). The better the team does, the better everyone does.
May 6, 2014 at 11:17 pm
There is always a difference between a good technical resource and a good leader, its the most common mistake, its just like R-BAR in Sql Server, 🙂 and i cant understand why this always happen.
Most of the time all the people know which one should be the manager, but Employer always think otherwise.
factory-like mentalities where managers needed to oversee workers and give them little leeway or choice in how they perform their jobs
Steve Just nailed this.
May 7, 2014 at 1:42 am
[Managers should] Help them get delays, issues, and problems not related to their tasks out of the way and let them get work done.
I agree with this, and said as much to one of our directors when he suggested that my manager would only pass a task to me (it was to do with office safety or something similar). I believe I phrased it as "No, that's managers work, why keep a dog and bark yourself? It's not like we keep him around for his good looks!" This got a very bemused look from said director, who obviously assumed that the manager employed us, and not the other way around.
May 7, 2014 at 2:00 am
Unfortunately ambition plays too large a part.
One perfect example I know was of a graduate with an IT bachelors degree took less than 5 years to become a manager. Not through a graduate management scheme but though the technical route. The scary thing was that he had worked only in two firms which, in my opinion, were/are both poorly run (both being very political and not very smart when it came to hard project choices e.g. one knowingly delayed a whole programme of work by an additional five months by pretending to achieve the completion milestone in two months when it need a further 6-8 weeks - project management cowardice!!!). He does not have the depth nor breadth of experience and not enough training either. Nor has he had a mentor.
The team is miserable, underperforms and is creating technical debt on a daily basis. Trouble is that it is looking good to upper management whilst he can paint over the cracks and the team can polyfiller the rest but ask a plasterer and he will tell you that in not too long a time it will all come off the wall (and never at a convenient moment).
I fear that this will burn him out. He seems to be coping last time I saw him but I did perceive a few cracks appearing which I think are down to inexperience both in execution of the job and how to deal with it. I wish him well (although I doubt that he would believe it if he read this).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 7, 2014 at 2:06 am
It is all about corporate politics that a person who should be ideal manager does not get the post while others get it :angry:
--rhythmk
------------------------------------------------------------------
To post your question use below link
https://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/forum-etiquette-how-to-post-datacode-on-a-forum-to-get-the-best-help
🙂
May 7, 2014 at 2:10 am
Mostly I like my managers to sort out the financial side of things too. I don't like to be grubbing around customers for invoices or whatever, seems to spoil relationships somewhat. I'm kind of a manager myself to be fair but only in terms of technical leadership.
What I don't like is managers that think it's their job to point at gantt charts and grunt about what you need to be doing. If they are doing their job they'll know what's going on and why we are where we are and not be trying to push you around.
May 7, 2014 at 2:14 am
Hopefully someone can assist with the relevant citation for me, but I recall reading Mythical Man Month and thinking about the insights Brooks had from IBM(?) where they had two tracks managerial and technical. Generally you were expected to be an expert in one and not both, based on the belief that that you can't spend enough time on both to be more than mediocre at both.
I've had the fortune to lead a small team and be responsible for junior analysts and whilst it was neat to be able to train them and form an effective team, I got really bored being away from technical challenges. I personally wouldn't want to be a manager but I really value good managers for being able to handle all the politics, team interactions, meetings, project prioritisations and all the other stuff that is needed.
The proposition that managers should be de facto paid less than technical experts isn't something I agree with. I'd suggest the amount of management a particularly strong set of technical experts needs is actually significantly higher and more complex than a team of mediocre techies as they will need interactions with folks higher up the company and the pressures are greater. Such a person needs to be very skilled at management and their pay should reflect that.
May 7, 2014 at 2:21 am
I've had a few bad managers over the years, but mostly they were NOT the ones promoted from the technical ranks. The technical ones have known what I'm doing and what I'm up against, and have been an incredible support by going to the meetings, extracting decisions from them, and trying to shelter me from all the political stuff that gets in the way of my job. I'd HATE to have to do that, so I think they deserve every penny of extra income! Working for a good person has been top priority for me for many years now: thanks to Roger, Melvin, and Gary who have fit the bill!
May 7, 2014 at 2:24 am
In certain instances I could see that paying managers less might be an option.
I would also like for groups to elect their own managers. Like everyone says generally most groups know who would be best in charge.
I've been in several setups where the managers are the nuttiest people but they are the ones with their houses in the company and risking everything sometimes even using their credit cards as bridging loans. I have generally had sympathy for these individuals even if not totally agreeing with their management techniques.
May 7, 2014 at 2:53 am
An ignorance of IT seems to be a pre-requisite for management positions where I work. That would be okay if they were good managers...
May 7, 2014 at 4:12 am
paul s-306273 (5/7/2014)
An ignorance of IT seems to be a pre-requisite for management positions where I work. That would be okay if they were good managers...
In "The Art of Management" Richard Templer says that you don't need to be able to do the job of the people that you are managing, because it is not your job to do theirs if they are absent. If you do, who is managing? But he does say that you should understand what they do, which might entail learning the basics (but don't let upper management know, or they may expect the above).
This struck me as obvious, but difficult to achieve. Then again balancing these two opposing pressures is part of the managers job.
May 7, 2014 at 4:20 am
Alex Gay (5/7/2014)
paul s-306273 (5/7/2014)
An ignorance of IT seems to be a pre-requisite for management positions where I work. That would be okay if they were good managers...In "The Art of Management" Richard Templer says that you don't need to be able to do the job of the people that you are managing, because it is not your job to do theirs if they are absent. If you do, who is managing? But he does say that you should understand what they do, which might entail learning the basics (but don't let upper management know, or they may expect the above).
This struck me as obvious, but difficult to achieve. Then again balancing these two opposing pressures is part of the managers job.
Thus is often true but then they can fall into the trap of thinking that they are experts at your job too so question every detail of everything that they are told.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 7, 2014 at 5:58 am
Steve Jones is generally speaking on track with what he said. Having spent 15 years in management roles and 35 years in technical roles I can say I have seen both sides of the issue. That being said, the editorial yesterday relative to career vs. vocation makes all the difference in the world. When I was young and relatively stupid in the ways of the corporate world, I thought moving into management was the best thing for my career. I did well in some environments and poorly in others but it was always career focused. During that 15 years I was miserable as a person.
Nineteen years ago I changed hats and went back to technical work, my vocation. I have never regretted it.
Managers receive better compensation than their technical people for the simple reason they are accountable to senior management to meet the goals and objectives of the business organization. Technical people are the tools/resources they use to achieve that. Our work is not in a sports arena but rather an manufacturing organization. Yes, we are the talent but our talent does not bring in revenue for most companies; normally we reduce costs; sports team talent brings in the bucks. There is a reason sales people get paid so much; they bring in the revenue.
We as technical talent can steer the manager in the right direction through constant feedback in a one-on-one meeting. By this I do not mean being obsequious but rather providing sufficient information to help the manager succeed. Managers hate surprises; we can keep them informed and prevent issues by providing feedback.
I was on a project where a deadline was set by upper management but the UI designers took three months longer to get the design to us than planned. Senior management was never told of this delay until it was used as a reason for not delivering on time. Team leadership never told the development management team of the delay and as a result everyone had egg on their face.
May 7, 2014 at 6:06 am
We don't have managers. We use the "Group System" where everyone is a member of one or more groups. Each group reports to another group in a hierarchy. There is a group leader, but he is not above any of the members. People in our company are expected to know what to do and do it. We have six month peer reviews, and if someone isn't working out it is obvious.
I've been here four years and love it. I am in a product development group and a product support group. For the first group I develop new features. For the second group I fix bugs.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply