How To Manage Geeks | Hacker News Reader

How To Manage Geeks

wikihow.com

70 pointstrueduke30 comments

Maybe it's time people stopped thinking of "geeks" as a homogenous, broadly categorizable group of people. IMO, that worldview is as much a part of the problem as anything else.

I wouldn't assume a random set of 10 doctors are all going to have the same personalities, the same motivators, and the same quirks. I wouldn't assume 10 randomly grouped MBAs are identical, either. Perhaps non-technical managers would do well to stop thinking of all technical employees as interchangeable. That's the first step toward being a better manager -- be it of engineers, of marketers, of financial analysts, or of sales staff.

A lot of the principles on this list are great, but honestly, the list could just as easily be rebadged as "How to Manage People." And perhaps that's what makes it a good list.

Labeling and classifying folks with common educational backgrounds and career "orientation" is a common error when managing people. Technically oriented people can be marginal programmers but excellent team/project leaders or managers. Marginalizing staff - thinking they can't manage people - because they have a technology affinity, however, is a common bias. Good managers don't buy into stereotypes.

There's also the fact that tech geeks compulsively analyze systems.

If your insufficient, stagnant incentive/communication/empowerment systems are all out of whack it's going to be extremely demoralizing to the people who see them for what they are.

employees as interchangeable

That's baked into alot of management thinking/training, e.g. referring to people as "X resources" where X is some particular language or technology. "We need 5 database resources for this project!" etc etc.

I think some level of this is ok, just as long as one is clear about the difference between a generalization and a stereotype. IE, "Geeks tend to want X" isn't necessarily bad, but "Geeks always want X" is probably bad.

I mean, it's somewhat naive to assume that there are absolutely no common threads between people of the same profession. The problem begins when you start treating these ideas as rigid rules: "Geeks know nothing about the business side of things. They need us managers to tell them how to build a good product."

"it's somewhat naive to assume that there are absolutely no common threads between people of the same profession"

Absolutely. There are certainly some commonalities among groups of people -- especially among groups of people who self-select into the same profession or skill set. And, as a geek, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of the stereotypes about people like me are at least grounded in some observable shade of reality.

But underneath my geek layer, I've also got a personality layer. And a motivations layer. And a background layer. Etc. I may share the same external, readily observable, surface-level traits as many of my peers. But that doesn't mean my peers and I are the same people.

Are there general principles that apply to managing geeks? Yes. Are there things that geeks, as a set, will pick up on or respond to more readily than other sets of people? Yes. But a good manager shouldn't stop there.

Also:

- Don't bother the crap out of your geeks for things outside work.

It's not ok to have your geeks routinely fix and do market research for anything computer-related (or even electricity-powered!) for your whole family and friends. Especially outside work schedule. Just because it involves stuff that someone happens to know his way around, it is foolish to assume that he also enjoys doing the laundry of people that he doesn't personally care about. It is stupid to think that geeks enjoy anything computer/technology related and it is offensive to think that their time is any less valuable than yours. If anything, the typical geek has many interesting personal side-projects and ideas, unlike the typical manager, so his time is a thousand times more important.

- Do not force your geeks to implement ugly workarounds and cut corners if you don't understand the consequences and, in case you do, don't force the responsibility for these on your geeks. If you demand that something that normally takes x time is done in x/2 time, your geek will try to explain to you why this is not a good idea. Your geek will gladly analyze the possible consequences of the compromises that would have to be made, but it's not possible to give you i.e. a real-world estimate on how long you are going to get away with them, and in the end, it's not his job to tell you if the risk is really worth it, only to help you understand the risk. In any case, if your geek warns you and you chose to ignore his advice, don't hold him responsible if the exact same thing that he warned you about happens.

- If you say something is really, really important, your geek can manage to work day and night to make it possible. He may even fail to make it clear that he had to, as he wants to believe it was a rare occasion, a real emergency. That doesn't mean this is the norm and you can keep rushing the next projects in advance.

- Your geek will most likely have a list of things that are not working well that he wants to optimize. Those things may appear to be working just fine on the outside, while in fact they are ticking bombs or time-sinks -routine manual procedures begging automation. Do not think that if there are not current projects running you need to fill the time of your geeks with just any chores you can think about, chances are they could have done more valuable thinks on their own.

I found the books by Tom DeMarco (who became famous for his novel "The Deadline") to be very insightful as well as instructive on that topic.

In particular, his book "Slack" (2001) has a chapter "Managing Eve" where he describes how to manage exactly that kind of great employees we use to call "geeks". He doesn't mention the word "geek", though. Instead, he calls those people "Eve" ... for quite interesting reasons!

> He doesn't mention the word "geek", though. Instead, he calls those people "Eve" ... for quite interesting reasons!

You asshole, now I have to go out and buy the book :)

Well, it's just the way he interprets the bible. He says that Eve was a courageous person. She ate from the tree of knowledge, thus breaking a rule that would otherwise have prevented her personal development.

But feel free to buy the book anyway. :-)

Isn't Wikihow one of those content farms...

Indeed. Seems like not all of their content is extremely bad. (Though this wasn't too enlightening, either.)

Even though I agree with most of this list, I still can't help but feel a little put-off by all the geek-this and geek-that speak. There seemed to be a basic point that "geeks" usually have a low tolerance for the stereotypical business world and speak. Cheap awards, cheap prizes, pointless meetings, the word "synergy"? No thanks.

Don't manage. Lead them.

Yes. But few can or know how to.

Exactly. And my bet is that the people that need to read this the most won't read past the headline or first paragraph.

Either that or they will over focus on #14.

"It says here you geeks need my help not overengineering things. I think you guys can get this done in a week without any of your fancy testing or requirements."

Yes, assume they all fit a stereotype and treat them as such. What could possible go wrong with that?

Is it just me or does anyone else find the words geek and nerd to be simply offensive?

I find the word geek to be a compliment. Nerd sounds offensive though.

It's all a matter of context to me. "Without our geeks, we'd be out of business, so we give them fridays off" vs. "Hey geek, ever seen a breast that wasn't a jpeg?"

I hate the assumption that an entire industry of people follow a narrow derogatory stereotype.

It is often used as an offense, but at least in my case, it's simply an insult backfire (thanks for the compliment). I assume it's the same way for quite a lot of other people.

> The word geek in this article is not intended in a derogatory manner

Pretty sure this type of "C.Y.A." sentence qualifies as management-speak.

That seems like a pretty sane list... has anyone here ever worked for a place like that? I didn't even manage that way when I was my own boss.

I like how this made it sound like geeks were not humans, but something completely different.

How about don't refer to it as IT?

"How to manage G-R-eeks" is more important a question really.

It's usually

  -"how much free reign should I give him? am i smothering his talent?"
  -"how does this personnel manage emotional integrity - how does this person fund his expertise internally?"
  -"what are the 'distastes' this person have grown up to this point in his life?"
  -"does this person have secure mental integrity/health points or whatever is required to do the deed?"

First thing I thought when I read this headline was: Be a geek.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com