Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Subject: Value of management

Expand Messages
  • Kay Johansen
    A good manager will act as a communication proxy between me and the rest of the company. A good manager will get me reasonable requests to increase my
    Message 1 of 44 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      A good manager will act as a communication proxy between me and the rest of the company. A good manager will get me reasonable requests to increase my productivity - different cubicle arrangement, different keyboard, faster machine, better tools, etc. A good manager will spark my enthusiasm for a project! A good manager will coach me and point me in the direction of good books and training. A good manager will defend my (good) decisions to the higher-ups and be a valuable resource for sifting out my good decisions from bad. A good manager will protect me from endless politics and thrashing of requirements. Most importantly, a good manager will hire excellent people for me to work with.

      Yes, I think a manager can contribute *significantly* to improving the productivity of a team.

      As you see, though, it is possible I am confusing the definition of 'manager' with 'team lead.' I am not sure I yet understand the distinction you draw between the two.

      -Kay
       

      acockburn@... wrote:

      A useful disagreement is brewing here...

      Glen Alleman:
      >I have clients that have nearly cratered their companies with
      >some "bone head" ideas on how to manage the troops.

      So you agree on the possible negative value (-64, or -500 or - infinity).
      Yes, bad management can destroy any project and any company.

      (Oh, I get it.. Weinberg's words were
      "contributing to a successful project"... as in, if the management
       didn't destroy it, they contributed to its success, and if they did
       destroy it, they contributed heavily to the outcome.
       Whereas I was initially thinking in terms of *productivity*)

      >In other instances making significant changes in the infrastructure and
      > processes (not XP) we have increased the raw productivity of a small
      > group (small in my world is 16 to 25 folks) from nearly nothing to
      > many hundreds of thousands of lines of Java per year of shipped...

      Can you comment on what changed in the infrastructure and processes
      that made such a large difference?  I'm all eyes and ears for any
      such story.

      Some days I'm despondent at managers, some days I celebrate their
      value. Even on my good days I can't recall placing their value so highly,
      so I'll be happy to hear more.

      Alistair Cockburn

      To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@...

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

      Ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

    • Jim Little
      From: Dave Thomas ... Amen! I hate the building metaphor. Buildings don t change significantly after being built, software does.
      Message 44 of 44 , Dec 8, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Dave Thomas" <Dave@...>
        > In PragProg, we suggest that the building metaphor is both wrong and
        > dangerous: it implies a greater degree of control and repeatability
        > that we currently have in software. The gardening metaphor seems to be
        > more appropriate.

        Amen! I hate the building metaphor. Buildings don't change significantly
        after being built, software does. Buildings exist in space, software exists
        in time. It's a lousy metaphor and I cringe every time someone brings it
        up.

        Jim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.