3 ms·

> The worst case comes when the stated objectives of the company or organization (what it does to make money) are very different to those of the employee's skil

> The worst case comes when the stated objectives of the company or organization (what it does to make money) are very different to those of the employee's skills. For instance, the employee is employed in some technical area of a company that has nothing to do with technology such as banking, finance, the arts and various government bureaucracies. > My worst job was working for a government bureaucracy that had nothing to do with technology, it was soul destroying and horrible. As head of a technical department I found myself continually embroiled in matters that had nothing to do with what my department actually did, and trying to explain what my staff actually did in ways senior management could understand was a fruitless exercises—one may as well have tried to teach a dog calculus. In my opinion, for such a situation it would make sense for the management to apply a more hands-off approach with respect to managing the technical employees. If you don't understand what they are doing, employ great people that you trust and let them do their technical things in a rather hands-off way.

hilbert42 3y ago
Trouble is tech services are needed by such organizations, in my case it was IT and electronics. It's when things go wrong as they sometimes do, and mainly when users screw up using the services—no matter how much has been plowed into training—that it comes unstuck. Management wants assurances that services will be more reliable but they don't have the interest or understanding to be helpful, this lack of understanding manifests as insufficient budgets and etc. So what does one do? Well aware of C.P. Snows' two cultures problem, I hire consultants who are at arm's length to (a) check my operation is working efficiently (and it passes AOK), and (b) to explain matters to management (it's more detailed than that but you get the gist). Did that help? Well, essentially no it didn't, if management isn't really interested in resolving matters and or takes precious little interest in what its technical departments and staff do then one is essentially stymied. One either puts up with matters or gets out. I opted for the latter.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway2037 3y ago
> In my opinion, for such a situation it would make sense for the management to apply a more hands-off approach with respect to managing the technical employees. If you don't understand what they are doing, employ great people that you trust and let them do their technical things in a rather hands-off way. This never works. I work in a place with a bunch of very competent people (not perfect, but good), and there are still so many people trying to "dig the moat" -- own a project where they can do whatever stupid shit they want. They leave years later and senior managers are told about the mess they left behind. Can you imagine what happens where most people are average or less?

hilbert42 3y ago

Trouble is tech services are needed by such organizations, in my case it was IT and electronics. It's when things go wrong as they sometimes do, and mainly when users screw up using the services—no matter how much has been plowed into training—that it comes unstuck. Management wants assurances that services will be more reliable but they don't have the interest or understanding to be helpful, this lack of understanding manifests as insufficient budgets and etc. So what does one do? Well aware of C.P. Snows' two cultures problem, I hire consultants who are at arm's length to (a) check my operation is working efficiently (and it passes AOK), and (b) to explain matters to management (it's more detailed than that but you get the gist). Did that help? Well, essentially no it didn't, if management isn't really interested in resolving matters and or takes precious little interest in what its technical departments and staff do then one is essentially stymied. One either puts up with matters or gets out. I opted for the latter.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwaway2037 3y ago

> In my opinion, for such a situation it would make sense for the management to apply a more hands-off approach with respect to managing the technical employees. If you don't understand what they are doing, employ great people that you trust and let them do their technical things in a rather hands-off way. This never works. I work in a place with a bunch of very competent people (not perfect, but good), and there are still so many people trying to "dig the moat" -- own a project where they can do whatever stupid shit they want. They leave years later and senior managers are told about the mess they left behind. Can you imagine what happens where most people are average or less?