How Technical Does an IT Manager Need to Be?
|
I think the answer on how technical an IT manager should have to be is dependent on a whole slew of issues, and open to a lot of discussion. But it also depends on the actual management the job requires as well as the state of your company in these challenging business times. Many managers are being thrown back into the ranks to help get things done and manage. And, really, what are we talking about when we say a "technology manager" anyway? Someone who leads meetings, teams and projects? Someone who manages a budget, deals with HR issues and other departments wanting something from yours? Someone who takes responsibility and accountability for your group, outside contractors, clients and business metrics? Is the manager also on call, or is he/she out of the on-call pool of resources? It could be all of these things, or none of them at all. It's an interesting dilemma and one I imagine many of you in the rank and file wonder what is required. A recent CIO.com article delves into these questions, and there are a host of answers that staff members of a variety of IT organizations responded with. The following are a few snippets of differing opinion. This one says IT managers need to be technical: "The untechnical management I've had just wasn't as effective in getting things done," says Donna MacLeod, a systems analyst at a medical diagnostic company. "The lack of understanding for technical matters meant that a lot of projects which really, really needed funding never took off because there was no one both technical enough and business-savvy enough to sell it to the board." The lack of tech knowledge coupled with a lack of business know-how sounds like a recipe for chaos. This person is less adamant: "A technical manager should know enough to understand what the technologies we use do, to be able to participate intelligently in meetings," says Jeanne Steinback, a software project manager for Redbox, a provider of automated DVD rental kiosks. She elaborates: "... where we are in the lifecycle of a technology, beta, new, used and ancient, just to be able to make sure we don't stray too far onto the bleeding edge or the technical graveyard." And, this person doesn't need management; he needs someone to deal with work barriers: "If my supervisor needs to manage me, then s/he needs to fire me," says Gary Brown, extreme programming coach for Carfax. "I depend on my manager to be politically savvy, to understand technical issues at the been-there-done-that level and to remove barriers to progress." And in similar vein to the last comment, Ken Boucher, a former Smalltalk developer for First Data Corporation says: "I need a manager to handle all that HR stuff or find out why the DB2 department can't run a simple table creation without six weeks' advance notice. I need a manager who can explain to the Six Sigma folks what we do in their language and why it isn't what they seem to think we do. I don't need a manager to manage me. I need one to manage them." If you manage a team of Web developers who are generally programming projects on deadline, is that manager also developing code or is he managing the people in the project? There are job descriptions that specifically ask for Technical Project Managers or Technical Leads--those who manage and develop at the same time. It obviously depends on the situation and job at hand. In IT management below the line of business VP, CIO and CTO, there is always a mix of hands-on work and staff and departmental management to be found. Obviously, this depends on the size of your organization, but for mid- to large-sized companies, this is the norm. But is it now? With the economy, layoffs and depleted IT budgets, what are you seeing from technical managers these days? Are they back more in the ranks, or are they pushing more work in your direction? How savvy are they at managing your team, the groups you have to work with and the technology you use? |
For more IT Careers and Workplace News, check out eWeek Careers
Comments (6)
The technical manager needs enough technical smarts (either from degree or experience) to ask the right questions and restate the answers into words understood by finance, marketing, etc. But the technical manager doesn't need to replicate the skillset of the technical employee, just be able to set direction and check results, all the while keeping the bean-counters at bay, and HR primed to hand out performance bonuses.
Posted by Mike | June 16, 2009 1:08 PM
I so totally agree that the "tech" manager must have the technical savvy to manage technicians of all levels. These are not your regular managers that deal with the day to day operational issues such as HR, budgets and so forth. IT managers must also have a sound foundational experience in the technical field which gives them the ability to provide direction, ideas and guidance wrapped up in the specialty of technology. No tech manager sits there coding but really needs to understand what it takes to do that coding, how long, best methods, what frameworks to use, work arounds, etc.
Some years ago I worked in a small shop where the "tech manager" was actually the Finance guy who was a super user and it showed. The organization eventually failed because they could not keep competitive in the ever changing markets. Understanding how IT and technology can support the business needs is far more important than knowing how to do formulas in a spreadsheet.
I don't know any IT group that can function respectfully when the manager has less knowledge than they, it's human behavior. IT management is not simply HR or budgets, it's how to promote the application of technology to achieve the business goals. Having the ability to "talk tech" with staff and to "talk business" with other lines of business is a very valuable skill indeed.
Posted by Sheeva | June 16, 2009 1:41 PM
My last boss as a non-programmer [since he did some of that with some very OLD technology] probably would be considered a borderline novice when it comes to Windows technologies. he took at least one course in Server 2003 but knows nothing in administration. Could not change a group policy because he doesn't know how to get into the MSC.
In general, he didn't keep himself [and his staff] up to date because he was anti-Windows to start off with. At one point he said something about switching all desktops over to Linux - this from someone who knows little about Linux and can you imagine teaching a new OS to 90% of the company who are computer novices and 99% who never touched Linux before?
He waited to the last moment to announce any project thinking it could be done very easily - without consulting anyone on a time frame - thus killing any time to do some preparation and testing. so when there was an issue with with an application, guess who got blamed? Even after he ["Mr. Know It All"] couldn't figure it out himself. It was someone else [another programmer] who figured out the problem. [I'm sure my ex-boss took the credit for the fix.]
Posted by Gis Bun | June 16, 2009 2:25 PM
If the manager isn't technically competent, the technical staff won't respect him/her when it comes to decision making on technical issues.
This isn't just about I.T., either. I once worked for a golf club company. They brought in a manufacturing manager who knew a lot about manufacturing and a very little about golfing. In a company meeting, someone asked him about a shortage in golf club inventory with a certain swing weight. His answer, "Oh, don't worry, we have plenty of swing weights!" He lost a lot of cred with the staff right there. (Swing weights are a measurement)
Posted by Jon | June 16, 2009 4:31 PM
Just having experience in general makes for a better manager than not having any. Technology management is all about managing people and projects. Even though developers will disagree, all staff need to have managers, developers and managers included. The difference is that poor managers get complaints of being typical managers and are hated for it. That is they will be seen as an overhead to development, micromanagers, and control freaks. On the other hand, good managers are those who are perceived as facilitators and partners in the development effort. Someone who is watching, but not micromanaging. Someone who forces you to think how to develop, rather than telling you develop. Someone who has been through what you're going through and can offer advice. These managers are flexible in their approach to management, using the necessary tools and skills according to the developer and the situation. In theory, you don't need to have a technical background to manage technical people if you have the right skills. However, in my history, its been harder for managers without a development background to really understand the developer and his predicament, his concerns, and what is his future can be. These people often have unrealistic expectations of technology, the people who work in technology, and often use traditional manager tactics to assert their authority since they have nothing to offer in guidance. They often intimidate, keep developers off balance, can't really offer career advice or lessons from experience, and will try to instill fear in you and a dependency on them. The more you need them, they safer their job is. This may not be the case in small environments, but anytime you have more than 2 projects the worst thing to do is have the manager program. By nature, programming is a job well done in isolation, while management is all about interaction. That means he will be in meetings all day, and then program in the evenings. This can result in 2 possible outcomes: his both tasks will be mediocre, or he will burn out and quit. In short, the ideal manager is one who had been a developer, or can still develop, but doesn't develop.
Posted by Zawar Sheikh | June 16, 2009 4:40 PM
I have been in mid-sized to very large scaled IT shops for over 35 years. I am technically literate, but not a technical expert. I have been everything from a computer operator to a CIO for a large sized, global manufacturing operation. I was a fantastic Systems Analyst - but I could write a lick of Cobol code. The very best IT managers I have ever seen are those who remain above the 'pride of ownership' detail level. When changes are needed I have seen it works best for those who lead in IT not to be defensive about the apps they have personally built that are being replaced, or the code they personally wrote that is being criticized and replaced. They need to be objectuive about how their IT tools are performing and what would make them better.
Technical people tend to create solutions and then look for a problem it could solve.
Non-technical, yet competent IT managers realize that IT is there to solve a business problem. They understand the business needs intimately and are able to match the best IT solution with the problem. And they can communiocate with both the business staff and the IT staff.
IT is nothing more than a resource for the business to use as a strategic and tactical edge for the business. It's a simple as that!
Posted by Mr. Data | June 17, 2009 8:58 AM