|
Lets assume you have boss that does code. When he is your boss he does not only manage you but also many other technical experts. I talk here about a boss who manages at least 10 or more coders. He will never be able to understand all these techie things in such great detail to go down to the code level. Nobodies brain can store so much information this is simply not possible. In consequence he has to rely on his team. The coders tell him what they do at a rougher level so they enable him to make directional (e.g. architectural) decisions. As manager he must be able to trust his people and the coders must trust him that he makes the right decisions based on the info of the coders. I am really surprised that so many think that it is a good idea that the a manager can code. The point is that he cannot write good code if he takes his job seriously. A manager has to look after you and asks you if you have enough test PCs the required software licenses, a good chair, .... He (a good one) cares for his people and the people really believe him that the cares about you. This trust is achieved by hard work, management morale, values and dedication to his work. If you see stupid managers making the (technically) wrong decisions you as a coder should ask you: Did I provide my boss with the information he needed in an understandable way so he was able to get the idea? Would you as non coder have been able to make from your input to the manager an important decision that makes sense? If your answer is no you (and perhaps your manager) should think about getting a communication training to make the situation better.
-- modified at 17:51 Monday 27th March, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
One of the best project managers I ever worked with split his time between coding and (well) managing. He wasn't the best developer in the world but was good and productive, his dev team respected him, he picked a top notch team of developers and he delegated well.
So all his team members knew exactley what needed to be done, by when, how and so on, leaving him ample time to do some coding.
Phil Harding.
myBlog [^] | mySite [^]
|
|
|
|
|
I want to build an application that do something like this:
- give to an ordinary user more rights over a directory or a registry key that is not intend to have normally
- when the application ends the rights are retiered
The need is to hide certain information from the user
|
|
|
|
|
You are clearly in the wrong spot to ask these questions.
I suggest you use the messageboards for a question like this.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they were going to use atomic weapons to carve tunnels through mountains, but there was this slight problem with radiation you see ... 
People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
|
|
|
|
|
A boss is supposed to manage, not produce. I agree that a manager can maintain an Architect/Designer role, but NOT as a straight-up coder. It may work in small groups or for a period of time. But, once the workload increases, the manager will quickly find himself scrambling for resources and begin to mismanage based on conflicting responsibilities.
Let the manager manage and then move on. The coder will finish the job.
---
Shawn Poulson
spoulson@explodingcoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a good experience and a bad experience with a boss who codes. I've also had the same with bosses who didn't code.
The 'bad boss who coded' was Always Right. Even the time he changed my code behind my back, and then bitched at me when it didn't work. The only reason I didn't quit right then and there was that we were at a customer site and I didn't have the cash to pay my transportation home (I was in college at the time).
My current boss is ideal. He used to code a lot, but has been managing for the last several years. He has the background to understand what is going on, and the character to not micro-manage.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. It would depend on the boss. Ideally, I think a boss should code and manage at the same time. Now the coding he does shouldn't necessarily have to be on the project he's managing. But understanding both (1) the challenges of developers and (2) the current technologies and practices helps a lot.
My current boss does code on our current project, but only seldom. When resources are stretched, he jumps in:
* to fix bugs when we are approaching a deadline
* to help reproduce bugs reported by customers
* produce sample code
I appreciate that he tries to stay away from coding and focus on managament. But I'm also grateful that he's willing to jump in when resources are stretched. It gives him a good balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you have the ideal geek-boss! Anyone else agree?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree.
When I have to interface with the non-tehcnical' manager, they can't understand why a particular aspect of the project will take 4 weeks and something else will take 2 days. The two items seem 'simialr enough' to them, then they want to discuss my estimates.
On the other hand a manger who codes too much is probably not 'pulling for the team' at the management/project/resource aquisition level.
I like the 'geek manager' model here, codes when necessary, manages otherwise, and understands your estimates and tehcnical issues. Couldn't be much better than that.
People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the university where I study at we have development teams working of 6 people and guess what: They all manage a part of the project, this managing is according to the method TSP (Team software process). We learn to work using TSP, which is in my opinion a method that is a little to young and doesnt offer the structure you can expect from Prince 2 and other models.
We noticed that with TSP we got less productive and cant do as much technical challenging stuff as we would with another method with a manager that doesnt code.
So I agree with you, no manager should code. This slows down the whole proces of building good software and it lowers productivity of the whole team.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Because then neither gets done right.
Agreed. Having a boss that nitpicks over stupid sh*t because they want to "pretend developer" when they just barely know enough to get them into trouble just wastes time IMO.
I've had more than one boss where I'd be in a meeting discussing things like "the button should be over here" kinda crap. It would be one thing if they had a technical reason to say stuff like that but they didn't (I followed the Windows UI guidlines, they didn't know it existed). That kinda crap is just a waste of time.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
This (coding as well as managing) will work for Agile model but for other it will be difficult.
Manish Agarwal
manish.k.agarwal @ gmail DOT com
|
|
|
|
|
only a person who codes can have an idea of how to manage it in the right way.
he would be well prepared for all kinds of the obstacles he may have to face in his future because of his codings.
if any other person is appointed,it is true that 100% output for that particular code would not be obtained.
I think this message is clear enough.
if you find anything argumentry with my message you can very well reply me quoting ur queries.
regards
Anu
|
|
|
|
|
Mixing coding and managing is a bad idea, because it results in compromisses in the software.
But if the boss has no experience with coding you`ll get bad managment.
Greeting from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I think the point here is that a technical manager who spends his time coding isn't spending time on project management (essential) or architecting (often gets left out).
It's *essential* to have a technical manager who intimately understands the project's architecture, since major design changes are often required as a project progresses, which is why a boss who's in amongst the "trees" with the developers can all too easily lose sight of the "forest"...
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely true 
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! but it's always nice to know that your boss has an idea on what you do!
Therefore he or she has an understanding on the complexities involved in programming?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course even a non-coding boss still needs to be a coder - she MUST understand what the geeks working for her are up to, down to the minutest detail!
|
|
|
|
|
FatGeek wrote: It's essential to have a technical manager who intimately understands the project's architecture
I agree 100% with what you have written, but would note the following... Understanding the architecture is important, but understanding the technology behind it is pretty damn important as well - you cannot be an effective leader if you do not really know what is going on (and how).
Also, if your architecture is changing too much, especially later in the project, maybe the wrong people are at the top.
Peace!
-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I guess this is exactly the point I was trying to make. We're in violent agreement here, my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
Its not good boss to be coder + manager.
Its ok if boss/leader to be coder but not management
becoz a boss who understands the issues intimately, but if he is manager to he always give complex solution which in turn creates more cobwebs
If 1=5,2=25,3=125,4=625, then whats 5=???? ?
Jetli
Constant Thing In World Is Change.
|
|
|
|
|
If 1=5, then the universe we live in is really screwed up! 
perhaps you wanted:
5=1 obviously. You stated it earlier. 
But most surely you couldn't possibly expect 3125!
|
|
|
|
|
If the boss is the lead dev and project manager, you breaking the chain of responsibility. Same principle as auditing.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
