4 ms·

A good manager in a software company should have a decent grasp of project complexity and output quality of his subordinates. The examples listed seem to appea

A good manager in a software company should have a decent grasp of project complexity and output quality of his subordinates. The examples listed seem to appear at companies that have in-house developers, but don't really think of IT as an area they should focus on. Similarly, I often found my ex ad-agency co-workers have trouble understanding why I have to browse blogs/manuals, take time to think things through, sketch graphs and sometimes just start over instead of refactoring. Really, software managers should have no trouble noticing a 10:1 skill difference between devs.

kls 15y ago
Really, software managers should have no trouble noticing a 10:1 skill difference between devs. I absolutly agree with you, and on HN many of us are in a filter bubble in which the companies we are surounded my have a good deal of people that know software and creativity. The reality out in the real word though is much different. Many companies have managers that have never worked on software in their life, there is a school of thought that management is management, and for some disciplines it is true management is transferable, those of us in technology know this to be idiotic but if you came from a traditional enterprise and have seen multiple manager move from inventory to shipping and be successful you would believe the converse to be true. Years of observation reinforce this to those individuals and create cultures in which management is management.
mgkimsal 15y ago
How many people are "software managers" in a company, vs "managers" who happen to have people doing software in their dept? I worked someplace where they proudly stated "we're not a software shop!". They had 100+ software engineers working on stuff that managed billions of dollars in money for the company. But "they're not a software shop". OK. They really weren't as bad as that statement makes them seem, and I think it was more a misguided "rah rah" statement than a core mentality, but there were days when I couldn't quite tell.
dmethvin 15y ago
There are very few good managers, and when you think about it very few programmers work in software companies. Instead they work for trading firms, utilities, banks, government agencies, etc. When the business of the company isn't software, there is a good chance that the manager won't be a software developer. The criteria the developer is judged by will have nothing to do with the complexity of the software or the time it takes to create. Instead, their work will be judged and compensated by the value it delivers to the organization. Even if it's crappy software.
- anamax 15y ago
  > The criteria the developer is judged by will have nothing to do with the complexity of the software or the time it takes to create. Instead, their work will be judged and compensated by the value it delivers to the organization. You say that like it's different, or should be, at a software company. I disagree. I think that all work for an organization should be judged and compensated by the value said work delivers to said organization, regardless of the organization type, regardless of the work type. > Even if it's crappy software. Surely you're not suggesting that crappy software is always wrong/bad. Good software is often more expensive than crappy software. That added expense doesn't necessarily produce more value. Good programmers know that they're trying to maximize benefits-costs, not maximize the former, not minimize the latter. Worse can be better.

kls 15y ago

Really, software managers should have no trouble noticing a 10:1 skill difference between devs. I absolutly agree with you, and on HN many of us are in a filter bubble in which the companies we are surounded my have a good deal of people that know software and creativity. The reality out in the real word though is much different. Many companies have managers that have never worked on software in their life, there is a school of thought that management is management, and for some disciplines it is true management is transferable, those of us in technology know this to be idiotic but if you came from a traditional enterprise and have seen multiple manager move from inventory to shipping and be successful you would believe the converse to be true. Years of observation reinforce this to those individuals and create cultures in which management is management.

mgkimsal 15y ago

How many people are "software managers" in a company, vs "managers" who happen to have people doing software in their dept? I worked someplace where they proudly stated "we're not a software shop!". They had 100+ software engineers working on stuff that managed billions of dollars in money for the company. But "they're not a software shop". OK. They really weren't as bad as that statement makes them seem, and I think it was more a misguided "rah rah" statement than a core mentality, but there were days when I couldn't quite tell.

dmethvin 15y ago

There are very few good managers, and when you think about it very few programmers work in software companies. Instead they work for trading firms, utilities, banks, government agencies, etc. When the business of the company isn't software, there is a good chance that the manager won't be a software developer. The criteria the developer is judged by will have nothing to do with the complexity of the software or the time it takes to create. Instead, their work will be judged and compensated by the value it delivers to the organization. Even if it's crappy software.

anamax 15y ago
> The criteria the developer is judged by will have nothing to do with the complexity of the software or the time it takes to create. Instead, their work will be judged and compensated by the value it delivers to the organization. You say that like it's different, or should be, at a software company. I disagree. I think that all work for an organization should be judged and compensated by the value said work delivers to said organization, regardless of the organization type, regardless of the work type. > Even if it's crappy software. Surely you're not suggesting that crappy software is always wrong/bad. Good software is often more expensive than crappy software. That added expense doesn't necessarily produce more value. Good programmers know that they're trying to maximize benefits-costs, not maximize the former, not minimize the latter. Worse can be better.