5 ms·

I think the real management myth is the implicit mental model most managers out there (in my experience) make use of, based on ideas of what a worker is, source

I think the real management myth is the implicit mental model most managers out there (in my experience) make use of, based on ideas of what a worker is, sourced from the 18th/19th century - i.e. that they are a. doing an unpleasant job they'd rather not do and b. are likely to try to cop off as much as possible. This works well for factory jobs, but not so great for software development. From this derives all the stuff about dressing in uniform, good timekeeping (introduces discipline and routine), the need to see the workers doing what the manager understands to be work (i.e. coding window open, typing out code), it's what smacks down on anything perceived to be procrastination from a distance, what maintains a level of suspicion that the staff will, where possible, do as little work as they can get away with. This whole model seems to be (though almost always not quite consciously) the universally accepted approach most everywhere. That, combined with the fact that many IT managers are not technical themselves, results in a lot of the stupidities within the industry I think (especially so in internal IT). Software development is extremely sensitive to ability level and environment I feel, so the typical suspicion and focus on things utterly unimportant to the job itself really, really take away from the task itself. What is especially pernicious is the desire to see work as the manager defines it done, i.e. sitting down and coding. Software development consists of many things other than coding including planning, thinking about the problem, etc. and that attitude not only takes away from the process which actually results in good software, it promotes those developers who just sit there coding out crap and punishes those coders who want to think things through more clearly.

dalore 16y ago
The funny thing at our work is that we want to code and do our software development but the managers are the ones getting in the way, with things such as meetings, interruptions etc. If they actually left us alone we would get more done.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  There is little doubt in my mind more would get done. The question I have is would the right stuff get done? I'm a coder by background. I know how interesting those pesky little problems can become, until they subsume the important things like getting a product delivered. A good manager realizes the (limited) meetings are to ensure everybody is clear and focused on the same goal. A bad managers thinks meetings help achieve that goal.
protomyth 16y ago
I always wanted to see if people who do management for films (producers / directors) would do better managing software than MBAs.
samps 16y ago
I couldn't agree more -- especially when the job is a more researchy role. Right now, I'm at my first "real job", a research internship during my PhD program, and the contrast between my productivity at school and here is shocking. The need to clock in and out and the desire to "look busy" all the time actually end up hurting my productivity, I think, much more than helping it. When my responsibility is creative thinking and new research, much of my productive time is spend doodling in a notebook or staring into space. While sitting and coding is important too, I don't feel like the normal metrics for the appearance of productivity apply. So, paradoxically, I get paid for the time I sit in my office and begrudgingly hammer out code; the time I spend at home coming up with the important ideas to drive the research goes pro bono. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I really think that sitting in a windowless office for eight or nine hours a day is not the way to encourage maximum output. Personally, I find myself thinking I'd be much more productive if I just "worked" a little less.
philwelch 16y ago
"i.e. that they are a. doing an unpleasant job they'd rather not do and b. are likely to try to cop off as much as possible" If you make the mistake of taking management classes, you learn that this is one of two possible theories. I think they're called the "x" and "y" theories--one is the one you just cited, and one is the theory that people like to work, and are intrinsically motivated to do a good job. Of course, business culture does seem centered around the more pessimistic theory which you outlined.
- raganwald 16y ago
  And if you make the mistake of believing what you read in blogs, you learn that there are two theories around managing software development: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/06/which-theory-first-evidence.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/06/which-theory-first-evide... What is it about bifurcation that appeals so readily to our minds?

dalore 16y ago

The funny thing at our work is that we want to code and do our software development but the managers are the ones getting in the way, with things such as meetings, interruptions etc. If they actually left us alone we would get more done.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
There is little doubt in my mind more would get done. The question I have is would the right stuff get done? I'm a coder by background. I know how interesting those pesky little problems can become, until they subsume the important things like getting a product delivered. A good manager realizes the (limited) meetings are to ensure everybody is clear and focused on the same goal. A bad managers thinks meetings help achieve that goal.

protomyth 16y ago

I always wanted to see if people who do management for films (producers / directors) would do better managing software than MBAs.

samps 16y ago

I couldn't agree more -- especially when the job is a more researchy role. Right now, I'm at my first "real job", a research internship during my PhD program, and the contrast between my productivity at school and here is shocking. The need to clock in and out and the desire to "look busy" all the time actually end up hurting my productivity, I think, much more than helping it. When my responsibility is creative thinking and new research, much of my productive time is spend doodling in a notebook or staring into space. While sitting and coding is important too, I don't feel like the normal metrics for the appearance of productivity apply. So, paradoxically, I get paid for the time I sit in my office and begrudgingly hammer out code; the time I spend at home coming up with the important ideas to drive the research goes pro bono. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I really think that sitting in a windowless office for eight or nine hours a day is not the way to encourage maximum output. Personally, I find myself thinking I'd be much more productive if I just "worked" a little less.

philwelch 16y ago

"i.e. that they are a. doing an unpleasant job they'd rather not do and b. are likely to try to cop off as much as possible" If you make the mistake of taking management classes, you learn that this is one of two possible theories. I think they're called the "x" and "y" theories--one is the one you just cited, and one is the theory that people like to work, and are intrinsically motivated to do a good job. Of course, business culture does seem centered around the more pessimistic theory which you outlined.

raganwald 16y ago
And if you make the mistake of believing what you read in blogs, you learn that there are two theories around managing software development: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/06/which-theory-first-evidence.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/06/which-theory-first-evide... What is it about bifurcation that appeals so readily to our minds?