I've seen occasional articles about how to manage programmers. Really there should be two articles: one about what to do if you are yourself a programmer, and one about what to do if you're not. And the second could probably be condensed into two words: give up.
I call bullshit. There are many, many examples of successful technical teams organized by people without deep relevant technical expertise.
All this PHB stereotyping around here is just arrogant vanity.
For example, you could be primarily business with a little hacking, and that would make you qualified enough to hire good hackers.
On the other side, I'd love to see an article about hackers hiring salespeople. I somehow doubt most hackers would see themselves as absolute idiots at finding a good salesperson, they would just be new to it the first couple times.
Its not how you categorize yourself, its how you approach the problem, and your ability to research/network/analyze. This should be true REGARDLESS of what you are hiring for.
Which ones were you thinking of when you wrote this?
WTF. Is this some sort of playground?
> There are many, many examples of successful technical teams organized by people without deep relevant technical expertise.
And there are many many more that are complete disasters. As they say, a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
> All this PHB stereotyping around here is just arrogant vanity.
Actually, it's experience.
The interesting difference is that technical folk don't claim any particular skill in the domain of PHBs but the PHBs claim incredible skill in technical domains.
If both are correct, there's something interesting going on, but let's see some evidence.
> WTF. Is this some sort of playground?
Calling people out is an important part of a healthy, critical discussion focused on the exchange of ideas. I might not share someone's opionion, but I aplaud fighting against groupthink.
>> All this PHB stereotyping around here is just arrogant vanity.
> Actually, it's experience.
Both sides of this discussion have pointed to ethereal "examples", "experience" without giving any meat. Show the evidence - empirical or anecdotal - to support your opinion.
> Let's see some evidence.
Let's see some evidence from your side too.
>> WTF. Is this some sort of playground?
>Calling people out ,
Now you're escalating to a physical challenge. Like I said, playground.
> is an important part of a healthy, critical discussion
Actually, it isn't. In fact, calling someone out is one of the best indicators that "healty, critical discussion" isn't anywhere near.
>>> All this PHB stereotyping around here is just arrogant vanity.
>> Actually, it's experience.
>Show the evidence - empirical or anecdotal - to support your opinion.
If you haven't read the other posts, citing them won't make any difference. If you have and still think that there's no evidence, citing them won't make any difference.
>> Let's see some evidence.
>Let's see some evidence from your side too.
For what? I wrote that technical people don't believe that they're good at evaluating biz people. Which part of that is under dispute?
You seem to believe that biz people are good at evaluating technical people. The sole piece of evidence is that there are successful teams "led" by biz people, but that doesn't imply that said biz people evaluated the technical people.
EA - Trip Hawkins was a business guy, but somehow they dominate software.
eHarmony - A good sized web based business with a doc at the helm.
McDonalds - Everytime you order a big mac anywhere in the world a bun, patty, slice of cheese, two pickles and a squirt of ketchup come out of inventory.
All of the airlines - May not lead to great business results, but they certainly know software.
And of course these from my earlier comment:
Walmart
FedEx
Disney
Bank of America
For all the people who think it is impossible for non-hackers to hire a hacker, why don't you comb through the Fortune 500 and prove your point, or write a program to do so.
What's silly is the strawmen that are being thrown around. No one is arguing that biz types can't start/lead tech biz.
The claim is that the vast majority of non-tech people can't usefully evaluate tech people in time to do any good.
It's not unlike the complementary situation, technical people evaluating non-technical people.
As I pointed out, if tech people can't evaluate non-tech and non-tech can evaluate tech, something interesting is going on.
But, let's ask the question - do non-tech people think that tech people can evaluate non-tech people? If so, why do tech people think otherwise? If not, but non-tech can evaluate tech people, why the difference?
> EA - Trip Hawkins was a business guy, but somehow they dominate software.
Hawkins also always has a tech partner.
The same can be said for every other company on the list.