For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
HM Innovation Solutions -
Oliver Bennet -
Chirag Aggarwal -
Egor Kaleynik -
Top comments (18)
If done right, management is letting programmers do code while someone else acts as a buffer zone between client and code. Even if it involves a few senior devs, the idea is that most devs can go on with their work.
If done badly it's just time-wasting office politics.
The reality is that you need it for any sizeable project, or for juggling multiple projects.
That means that management is client-facing person.
Yes, but there's a lot to that:
To name a few, off the top of my head.
Is that project management? The eight management area specified in pmp?
I think you need to further define this because it can mean many things, to many people. "Management" to me means someone who leads, and that could be anything from a Project Manager, Team Leader, or a Group Leader. They all manage in their own way.
Speaking as a former Manager of a department of people (QA and RE in my case) the one thing missing from what I am seeing as a Manager is someone who gives a path to growth. Your Manager should be looking out to keep your skills up to date, focused on the project, of interest to you, and provide you a path to fulfill and complete your career objectives. That is the hardest part, because not everyone knows where they want to be in a few years, so giving multiple paths to growth is necessary but often hard to keep on track.
Managers, just as everyone and everything, can be good or bad. Some want it for resume fodder, and some see it as some brass ring to find and grab but have a hard time keeping the people in their section of the organizational chart under control. It takes skill, diplomacy, and tact to be able to get people to where you want them to go, while letting them fulfill their goals and dreams. Some people have it, and some don't, the ones who don't you should avoid and its clear soon on who they are, the ones who do always have a team with them that can accomplish much because the know the leaders who stand behind them will always be with them.
My question may be too vague.
I would try to define a very common situation I think.
A person whose title is a manager is leading a team of five people for software development.
There may be a few question I would like to ask.
That's more direct and sort of covered by my previous comment. Someone who would be managing that team is hired to do so, though most Development teams except in small companies tend to be larger. Still, you want someone who has led teams before, risen through the ranks from being part of the team to leading one through a project. Or maybe, someone from the team has shown the capability to lead and mentor others, and through promotion is then leading the team by taking over all the Personal Growth tasks and has the ability to generate reviews and advocate for raises.
A good manager listens. Builds a team that as a whole is a composite of strengths, no one member can do everything. Also goes to bat for the team, promoting them to upper management and sticking up for them when needed either when projects get out of control, or need additional resources. For more see any good book on management. I find the best managers know the team, the people and what drives them, and gets them what is needed to grow.
I am a manager of developers (and in the past sys admins, network admins, and a mix thereof).
I define it as this:
It is my responsibility to elevate my team and to be a force multiplier for them. I am there to encourage, mentor, defend, follow, lead, and set an example.
My goal is to make myself redundant by bringing my team up to my skillset level (and beyond!), while also continuing to learn myself. So they have a fun chase trying to keep up with me.
I wholeheartedly feel like it is my responsibility to teach them all the skills they need to go to any other job they want, but treat them well enough (with respect, responsibilities, engagement, compensation, and training) that they don't want to go elsewhere.
Management is a mixture of responsibilities, a big one is everyone on your team - you’re liable for them, if they make a mistake it’s on your head still - not theirs.
If done right, management should engage, respond, and assist - without angering the developers
That means that management is to take responsibility and mentor developers
Unlike supervision, which can be done by anyone in position, management is specific to an objective. Not everyone knows how to manage a project like those familiar with how to accomplish it.
That means that management is to setup objective.
Would you provide a bit more context for the word
management?Would it be in terms of programming(project managers) or in entrepreneurial sense?
Why not both? Project, functional, top and enterprise manager.
I will talk about management in the context of project management.
Managing "developers" turns people into resources (worse yet combined with micro management) thus I believe "management" should be seldom used and use "leadership" instead.
Project/product Managers should only deal with "what" and leave "how" to developers and shield developers from being told how to implement a certain feature (unless required 👈 which is another grey area...).
I think that would be called bad management so I ask for what is management.
Đứng Trên Cao Không Vui Sướng Thoải Mái Như Những gì Các Bạn Nhìn Bề Ngoài Đâu .
Tôi Cũng Hy Vọng Mọi Ngưòi Không Nên Tạo Áp Lực cho Him , Nhiều Cái him không tiện
nói .