This is going to sound insulting and I don't mean it that way, but does anyone ever wonder about the fact that managers are frequently considerably less intelligent than the people they manage? I think that's what drives the frustration a lot of the time. The thing is, just because they're less intelligent doesn't mean they're not good managers, but it think it certainly makes it a lot harder for programmers, who are usually very bright, to accept the choices their managers make when they don't particularly agree with them.
Having said that, I think a good compromise would be to make sure that the people who get assigned to managerial positions have formerly had the job of the people they manage. That way they're likely to understand the pinpoints and the frustrations and be motivated to eliminate them. Obviously not all programmers will qualify for this job, but some certainly will.
I guess that you are still a novice. Usually managers did the work of their underlings. However seldomly a competent person gets promoted - as you need someone to do the work. And since the less competent person will be relatively better manager than producer in comparison to the competent person, the less competent guy gets the promotion.
I strongly advise everyone to read the Putt's Law, where this phenomena is broken down in great depth.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of technical people who are geniuses technically do not have the qualities necessary to be good managers. Good managing requires ability to communicate up, down, and across the corporate hierarchy and the political minefield that comes with it.
Good managers will balance out good technical people in terms of skillset, and help their team to do their job, while also coaching them in the areas where they are weak (and if the manager is weak technically, then obviously technical coaching is not in scope). Good managers will filter what reaches inside their team from the outside and protect their team from crap while captaining the ship forward. They know their weaknesses and also know that good leadership requires hiring people who are smarter than you are, and then helping to facilitate the magic that can happen when good people get together.
Having managers who are strong both technically and in a business sense is rare. There are only so many Elon Musks in the world. But when you work with one, your work becomes very enjoyable.
At the end of the day, team members don't have visibility as to what managers do every day. This blog is great for understanding this stuff: http://randsinrepose.com
I'm just trying to say that just because one may not have experienced them or seen them does not mean they don't exist. I've worked for a few and with a few. They helped me grow.
It's a popular saying around these parts (as in the startup community) that you should hire people smarter than you. It seems like having managers less intelligent than their direct reports would be a sign that the company is applyig that rule well...
Completely agree, a manger without a technical (coding, sysadmin, etc.) background has a weak foundation: how can they make decisions without knowing the domain itself?
Not so sure coders trump managers in the intelligence dept. After all, managers tend to earn more, and do less; I'd say they're brilliant in this respect ;-)
I don't think that works because if management is incompetent enough to neglect problems they are creating, do you think they are competent enough to realize they are causing them?
But, for example, if you keep telling your management (as in writing e-mails with CC to higher management or have it written in the meeting minutes) that we need more file servers because we might run out of space and they ignore it, then when it happens and you're not around to fix this next time they may think twice before ignoring your advice. On the other hand if you resolve the issue yourself it can happen that no-one will notice.
Very true. My client was always talking about how much better development could move forward if we worked with a bigger agency, so I stopped stalling it and let him spend a bit of his money to learn firsthand how much "better" everything gets. Afterwards I fixed everything they broke (paid by the hour of course) and haven't heard complaints since.
By planning your holidays.
1) Identify issue and alert manager that it needs addressing - say ew say clock changes for summertime as a poor obvious example.
2) manager ignores it with it will be fine mentality as nothing is on fire at the time
3) you book holiday when you expect shit to hit fan
Shit hits fan, you have issue documented as you alerted your manager and got response not an issue so you booked holiday and not there. With that you can not be blamed. Also ALL IT people worth there salt work above and beyond what there contract states - so if your contract is for DBA work, that is not sys admin work, that is not crawling under desks networking or desktop support - but you help out and do those things. So with that if it is outside your scope of your work contract then again you have the ability to ignore it as well. But the holiday approach is the best.
But there are 3 types of managers - those that can do your job, those that think they can do your job and those that will admit they have no idea. Then ontop of that there are those that can balance dealing with you and sheilding you from HR and the other crap and then there are those that just look after themselfs and smile to your face and say all sorts behind your back. As a rule a manager that can do your job is one you will get on with, ones that can not do your job are less likely to be good managers I have found, though have met some that are and there is no hard and fast rule or way to single the good from the bad sadly until your few months into a job.
I agree to that. If management doesn't feel pain of its mistakes it does not have an incentive to improve.