There are some interesting threads on various internet discussion forums. Some are interesting as in "this is a thought provoking conversation with a lot of good ideas." Some are more along the lines of "this is a very odd series of disjointed thoughts where people can not even agree on what they disagree on."
One was interesting in the "What is this guy talking about?" sort of way.
His assertion was that Exploratory Testing was fine for small groups of one or two testers. However, it was unsuitable for larger or regulated environments because testing could not be controlled. He also suggested that Exploratory Testing was not as thorough as fully scripted testing because you did not need to think about it before you did it.
Take a deep breath, Pete. Can we start with this, "What is the difference between Controlling and Managing?" His response was "None. They are the same thing."
Oh dear, oh my, oh dear.
Let's see. Being too lazy to look get out one of my physical dictionaries, I turned to Google and searched for "control definition", "manage definition", "controlling definition" and "managing definition". I very scientifically grabbed the top search results (that were not paid advertisements) and found this...
Control: –verb
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
2. to hold in check; curb.
OR...
Control: -noun
1. the act or power of controlling; regulation; domination or command.
2. the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another.
Then there is this...
Manage: -verb (used with object)
1. to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship.
2. to take charge or care of.
OR...
Manage: -verb (used without object)
1. to conduct business, commercial affairs, etc.; be in charge.
2. to continue to function, progress, or succeed, usually despite hardship or difficulty; get along:
Now then, we have looked at the roots, now let us look at the -ing words in question.
Controlling: -adjective
1. inclined to control others' behavior; domineering
And...
Managing: -adjective
1. having executive or supervisory control or authority
As I sit here, I think a bit on the interesting idea that Manage and Control are the same thing. Based on these definitions, I find it interesting that there can be a serious assertion made that they mean the same thing. Having said that, I know certain boss types who firmly believe this. Me, I'm far to liberal (at least in the traditional, apolitical sense of the word) to agree with this.
Liberal: -adjective
1. open to new behavior or opinions
2. favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
Now, if you want to exercise restraint or direction over your people (whom I suspect you refer to as "resources") or to dominate your staff or to hold them in check, have a great time. Your staff probably won't.
Oh, I won't be part of that game, either.
Now, if you want to be in charge and guide and supervise your staff, no worries from me. I'd be happy to discuss exactly what that means to you and I'd also be interested in knowing how your people perceive your style of management.
Now, to be sure, there is some overlap in some of the words. If the intent of "Control" follows the defntitions I found, I am simply not interested. If the intent of "Manage" follows the definitions I found, I may be interested and would be willing to talk about it. Having said that, if your use of "manage" really means "control" - I'm not going to play along.
Managing and Controlling are far from the same concept. If you want to be a Manager, consider just what the differences are.
Showing posts with label manager stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manager stuff. Show all posts
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Through the Looking Glass or the Fear Factor of Management
I finally have a bit of time to try and catch up on some reading. I don't know how strange this is, but I tend to read the same book two or three times, particularly if I can only read small segments at a time. As I'm not the widely travelled road-warrior spending long hours waiting in airport terminals, and when I am sitting in airport terminals I tend to have a stack of day-job stuff to read/respond to, I find myself falling farther and farther behind in my reading. The result is, I sometimes get to read a paragraph or two of a book, then get called away to deal with something.
I've been working my way through two books over the Thanksgiving weekend, both on software. Which ones do not really matter. I resolved to start the smaller one over completely and see if reading entire pages at a time made it better. (It did.)
I have also been trying to catch up on my long-list of blog posts that I intended to read and see what the great ones of our craft can teach me. The answer was: "Quite a bit." One stuck out though and prompted this post.
Selena Delesie wrote some time about Yes Men and the managers who like them. I had read enough of that post to say "I need to look that up when I get a moment." That moment finally came. Toward the end of her entry, Selena wrote "Have you worked with or for someone who is a dictator-type who thrives on working with ‘Yes’ Men?" This is my response:
Yes. To make matters worse, I did not even report to that manager, either directly or indirectly. I was in a completely different reporting line than he was. My Manager was a peer with him. However, as he managed a large development group I needed to work with (as QA and BA and PM) it presented all sorts of challenges. Forget that. It was not a "challenge." It was a "pain."
Management By Intimidation was the best way I can think of to describe his approach. Really, it was un-good. People who disagreed with him or had an opinion that did not exactly match his own were belittled, often publicly, or (as I learned later in private conversation then first-hand) had their position/employment threatened. Fear was a great motivational tool.
People who did not work for him but were in meetings with him could count on having any statement challenged, any assertion questioned. "You can't prove that, you have no evidence!" Never mind that the previous 15 minutes had been laying out evidence to support the statement he was challenging (gratuitously.) And even when assertions were presented as "possibilities" you could be certain that anything that could be in conflict with what he wanted done would be publicly thrashed.
Other managers were afraid of what he would say to the VP in private. He created a mystique of "getting things done" at all costs.
In a matter of months, from the time when he first joined the company to when I needed to interact with him or his people on a daily basis, this job went from the best job that I had ever had to the absolute worst one. In truth, I learned a lot during that time.
Managers in the business units were frustrated. When speaking with them, you know, doing my job, about needs and business function, several actually hung their heads and said "It doesn't really matter, Pete. No matter what I say, he's going to do what he wants to do and tell me this is the way it has to be." When I asked why they did not go to their leadership and look for support, to a man (they really all were males) the response was "If I don't put up with this, he won't have his people do what I really need to have done."
One interesting thing was if you did not have to interact with him to get your job done, and he needed you, you were the best buddy he had. Pals for life! Until there was a change or he did not get something he wanted.
This guy was also a huge believer in bell-curves. Particularly when they were applied to people. He also loved metrics. There was never a metric he did not proclaim the great value of, then manipulate to his own ends. Flagrantly. He also knew that no one would call him on it.
Finally, I did. Publicly. In a manager meeting. With the VP present. Hell hath no fury like a bully and a liar who is called on behavior. I knew it would cost me. I did not care. In the end, I could not work in an environment like that where people were truly afraid of the consequences of speaking out. I would no longer be complacent in an environment where the cost of taking a stand on the moral high-ground was more fearsome than what the toxic environment did to the person as a person.
I landed a new position. I did not realize how the toxicity of the last one lingered on me and I made some mistakes there. Nothing huge, but enough where my outlook had been changed to be more confrontational that it needed to be. I learned from that, too. That's another blog post though.
I said I learned a lot there. I did. Here's part of what I learned:
I've been working my way through two books over the Thanksgiving weekend, both on software. Which ones do not really matter. I resolved to start the smaller one over completely and see if reading entire pages at a time made it better. (It did.)
I have also been trying to catch up on my long-list of blog posts that I intended to read and see what the great ones of our craft can teach me. The answer was: "Quite a bit." One stuck out though and prompted this post.
Selena Delesie wrote some time about Yes Men and the managers who like them. I had read enough of that post to say "I need to look that up when I get a moment." That moment finally came. Toward the end of her entry, Selena wrote "Have you worked with or for someone who is a dictator-type who thrives on working with ‘Yes’ Men?" This is my response:
Yes. To make matters worse, I did not even report to that manager, either directly or indirectly. I was in a completely different reporting line than he was. My Manager was a peer with him. However, as he managed a large development group I needed to work with (as QA and BA and PM) it presented all sorts of challenges. Forget that. It was not a "challenge." It was a "pain."
Management By Intimidation was the best way I can think of to describe his approach. Really, it was un-good. People who disagreed with him or had an opinion that did not exactly match his own were belittled, often publicly, or (as I learned later in private conversation then first-hand) had their position/employment threatened. Fear was a great motivational tool.
People who did not work for him but were in meetings with him could count on having any statement challenged, any assertion questioned. "You can't prove that, you have no evidence!" Never mind that the previous 15 minutes had been laying out evidence to support the statement he was challenging (gratuitously.) And even when assertions were presented as "possibilities" you could be certain that anything that could be in conflict with what he wanted done would be publicly thrashed.
Other managers were afraid of what he would say to the VP in private. He created a mystique of "getting things done" at all costs.
In a matter of months, from the time when he first joined the company to when I needed to interact with him or his people on a daily basis, this job went from the best job that I had ever had to the absolute worst one. In truth, I learned a lot during that time.
Managers in the business units were frustrated. When speaking with them, you know, doing my job, about needs and business function, several actually hung their heads and said "It doesn't really matter, Pete. No matter what I say, he's going to do what he wants to do and tell me this is the way it has to be." When I asked why they did not go to their leadership and look for support, to a man (they really all were males) the response was "If I don't put up with this, he won't have his people do what I really need to have done."
One interesting thing was if you did not have to interact with him to get your job done, and he needed you, you were the best buddy he had. Pals for life! Until there was a change or he did not get something he wanted.
This guy was also a huge believer in bell-curves. Particularly when they were applied to people. He also loved metrics. There was never a metric he did not proclaim the great value of, then manipulate to his own ends. Flagrantly. He also knew that no one would call him on it.
Finally, I did. Publicly. In a manager meeting. With the VP present. Hell hath no fury like a bully and a liar who is called on behavior. I knew it would cost me. I did not care. In the end, I could not work in an environment like that where people were truly afraid of the consequences of speaking out. I would no longer be complacent in an environment where the cost of taking a stand on the moral high-ground was more fearsome than what the toxic environment did to the person as a person.
I landed a new position. I did not realize how the toxicity of the last one lingered on me and I made some mistakes there. Nothing huge, but enough where my outlook had been changed to be more confrontational that it needed to be. I learned from that, too. That's another blog post though.
I said I learned a lot there. I did. Here's part of what I learned:
- Managers may not be leaders, but they need to manage well;
- Human Mistakes are learning opportunities, not something whose outcomes should be dreaded;
- Intimidation only works if one is willing to be intimidated;
- Sometimes in the office, just like in the schoolyard, bullies will collapse when confronted by a united opposition;
- Make sure you are not the bully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
