Do Non-Technical Managers Add Value? 249
New submitter Kimomaru writes "Ars Technica asks, 'How does a non-technical manager add value to a team of self-motivated software developers?' IT Managers have come some way in the past decade (for some). Often derided as being, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, a complete waste of budgetary resources, managers in technology today can add significant value by shielding developers and systems engineers from political nonsense and red tape. From the article: 'Don't underestimate the amount of interaction your manager does with other departments. They handle budgets, training plans, HR paperwork. They protect the developers from getting sucked into meetings with other departments and provide a unified front for your group.'" Has that been your experience?
Two Flavors (Score:5, Insightful)
Project managers come in two flavors:
Those who put check-marks next to items on SOWs, and those who can bring people of dissimilar skill-sets together to complete a complex project.
Those in the former should be shot.
Those in the later should be praised.
Managers (Score:5, Insightful)
A good manager deals with the paperwork (Score:5, Insightful)
A good manager deals with the paperwork of requisitions, financing, and getting "buy in" from "customer" departments and management.
A good manager makes sure your projects have visibility, and that their successes and ROI are broadcast through the company so your department doesn't end up downsized.
Having technical knowledge is good for a manager to understand what their team is doing and what they're saying in meetings, but "technical knowledge" is not and never has been what the manager's job is about. A good manager doesn't need to understand the details, because they're not micro-managing their staff.
TPS reports / middle man / just reading a script (Score:2, Insightful)
TPS reports / middle man / just reading a script (getting in the way of one team talking to an other team) / micro managing people even when they are waiting for some other team to do there part so you can do you next step.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're necessary, yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
My current non-technical manager is my first stop when I need corporate permission to do something, or if I need a resource that isn't directly given to me. He manages most of the non-technical aspects of being employed here, so I can do my job without wasting my own time on the paperwork.
Since I'm currently working in a very large company, it's very valuable to have someone who knows and understands the full layout of the corporate hierarchy, and has the rapport with all the "friends in high places" to call immediately and get things done.
How non technical? (Score:4, Insightful)
Managers that know nothing of programming, may have extensive industry experience.
But a truly 'non-technical' manager brings nothing but lack of understanding to the the table. What use is a TPS report reader?
Again though; Project management is a skill. Someone with no programming knowledge can still recognize when something is on critical path. Having no programming knowledge they might be tempted to split the critical path workload by assigning some of it to an air thief.
OP Has It (Score:5, Insightful)
"shielding developers and systems engineers from political nonsense and red tape"
Yup, plus shielding users and clients from those of us whose interpersonal skills aren't as great as we think they are.
Sometimes, though, this same role can be filled by a Team Leader who actually does have great people skills.
ObAnecdote: I had a coworker and friend who was a great developer but who always managed to get people mad at him. He was so oblivious to this fact that he'd occasionally comment about how well he got along with users and customers. One day, he came in laughing about the previous night's Big Bang Theory, telling us how clueless Sheldon was because he pissed everyone off and had no idea he was doing it. Yeah, he was that oblivious. And our manager protected many users from him.
Re:Two Flavors (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without acting as a bridge to external people, simply having an educate but non-technical resource on hand is useful.
If you can't explain your project to your manager in terms they can understand, you have no hope of explaining it to the end-users, upper management, budget committees, etc. If your non-technical manager sees through your bullshit, its your clue you are doing it wrong.
Just as the act of merely explaining a problem to another programmer will often yield insight into the solution (without the other programmer saying a single word, or perhaps paying all that much attention), explaining stuff to a non-technical manager often helps with the design and implementation. The questions they ask will also be asked by others.
Good managers allow for code mode (Score:5, Insightful)
You ever duck your head down, put the earphones on, and cut a swath through the feature list, barely realizing that you've missed lunch and it's already 7pm? You'd leave but you've just thought of a really elegant optimization routine and it's so obvious, but you need to see it work before you go?
A good manager can provide coordination between project members, act as an insulating buffer between customers/requirements and devs, fight for resources, push back against poor requests and push forward agendas like refactoring, internal tool development, or library updates (ie, the Good Fight). Really though, this boils down to the simple goal of letting the devs do their job.
Without all the other context switching, we're free to descend into code mode, shut out the outside world, and make beautiful code that we're proud of. In practical terms, that means less bugs, better security, efficient code, lower cost of maintenance, and so on. That's the biggest thing a manager can really provide; an environment where we're free to excel.
That doesn't require any sort of technical chops.
new respect for good managers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a good manager or even just a not-bad manager let them know. It's a difficult position to do well and lots of folks who you respect see you as worthless.
Not at IBM (Score:1, Insightful)
At IBM, the manager's job is to figure out a way to keep their developers from being laid off, or to aid in that process. The employees are pitted against each other, so that instead of working as a team, they work to keep their job over their teammate. The manager has to divide the group into 3 levels of "performance" where the bottom tier is in danger of going on "a plan." If a manager likes his/her whole team, they rotate everyone in and out of the bottom tier. If there is someone they don't think is performing well, instead of realizing it's probably due to their poor management skills and the toxic environment of pitting employees against one another, they flounder about instead of finding work that would interest the person and end up having to let them go.
So, to sum it up, at IBM you don't need management or technical skills to be a manager, as neither skill is used.
Re:Two Flavors (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with both you and the GP.
A good manager without a technical background can be a boon simply because it forces you to examine the project from another angle, and can thus increase the likelihood of spotting pitfalls etc.
Also, in terms of skills and abilities, there's a skill and a personal knack good managers have that is WAY more important technical skill: The understanding of logistics and planning ahead. Especially since it's a trait many developers themselves lack.
Working as a freelancer, in many projects I have to do the logistics, time management, all the paperwork etc myself, which is quite complicated, and makes me value managers even more. It's often a thankless task even when the manager is good but events are beyond their control(Such as "I ordered that shipment a month ago, it arrived in-country a week ago, but it's still stuck in customs...").
Re:Two Flavors (Score:3, Insightful)
Where oh where are my mod points.
In the end it is all about communication. A person who makes communication easier is an asset to any project. If they are called a manager, whatever. I know I will listen to colleagues as they discuss their issues, and watch the light bulb moments as people answer their own questions by listening to themselves.
A good manager will run interference for the team and make sure they are supplied with what they need to get the task done.
Re:Two Flavors (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I also believe that management at every level is at least as obligated to the people lower on the reporting hierarchy as they are to him/her, so I might be in the minority in saying that your internal customers include people who report to you.
Re:Two Flavors (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end it is all about communication. A person who makes communication easier is an asset to any project. If they are called a manager, whatever.
Yeah - usually these people are called "project managers" - and they generally manage the project rather than the people. Though hopefully they are at least technically conversant, if not technically trained. It's hard to explain how useful a project manager can really be to a project until you actually work with someone truly competent in the role (because that seems to be a minority of the project managers out there - at least in my experience - so there are probably many more developers who have had only bad experiences).
If your *personnel* manager is non-technical, on the other hand, then good luck on your reviews and career advancement, as it's just going to be a crap shoot as they make shit up...
Re:Maybe, maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the most important work for a manager is to :
a) Find, Recognize and Hire talented people.
b) Make sure that the talented people figure out how to work together.
c) Improve and optimize the processes and the organisation ( continuously and in small steps.)
d) Arbitrate discussions and help making decisions, but do not take them on your own
e) Especially in larger organisations, evangelise about skills and every good thing that has been done by your teams.
f) Have an eye on the horizon now and then. Engage the teams in strategic discussions and long term planning.
To do these things well a deep knowledge about software development is required. ( Or about teaching, or medicine, or whatever it is the organisation is doing.)
It's not possible to get this sort of insight without having practiced the trade for some time. Yes, it possible to manage without, but then there is a high risk that things go wrong in some - and then maybe all - of the above areas, simply because it is easy to misunderstand some things and fail to recognise others.
Another risk is that the important things are replaced with less important things:
v) Make sure that everyone is aware of deadlines, project plans, priorities. ...or even : Handle and approve vacation requests
x) Order stuff that is needed.
y) Make budgets, and report progress.
z)
Sure, these things must be done, but it isn't exactly rocket science and everyone and their dog is capable of handling these tasks.
Less knowledgeable managers and project managers tend to focus a lot on status reports and reminding of deadlines,
sadly adding about as much value as an automated mail could have done (I'm looking at YOU tick-box-guys) while missing the important stuff.
One problem with non-technical managers is that they may 'accidentally' accept unfortunate (technological) decisions made outside the team without challenging them, or even worse make their own, perhaps because they fail to see the implications. They will then end up defending senseless decisions or policies against the team, generally having to revert to "just because" arguments, and since the decision may not be easy to back from once committed, everyone involved will become angry or whiny and the team will become generally obstructive and unhappy.
Re:Two Flavors (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're doing actual work, you're on the bottom of the corporate hierarchy. The only thing that's really valued is the ability to lead.
Not entirely true - at least not where I work (a giant, soulless telecom megacorporation). On the non-technical side (where I work), yes, you need to become a manager of more and more people to progress "up the ladder" in terms of pay and perks. But in our technical organization, it's well recognized that there are people who have increasingly valuable skills and insight who have no interest in management (or, frankly, should not be allowed within 100 feet of managing others). There is a whole separate track of Individual Contributor titles on our technical teams (lead architect, principal member of technical staff, distinguished member of technical staff, etc.) which run "parallel" to management titles and allows technical staff to progress in pay and perks while not technically being managers of other employees. It seems to work out well for everyone involved.