developer.* Blogs - What the CIO Wants You to Know (Part III) - Comments

It's Funny Because It's True

Andy Tegethoff — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:51:19 -0800

This is just the way things are, which is something I've come to recognize (if not embrace).

As far as the CIO's perspective, that's all well and good to a certain degree. Clearly the concerns of the drones are not the concerns of the hive. This much is clear to anyone who's ever had a "corporate" job in any capacity. And that's pretty much an unavoidable fact.

But the rub comes when the CIO, paradoxically, expects the drones to keep hive concerns front-and-center, accepting that their own concerns are intrinsically less important. Great for bees, ants, Borg, Brood, Spider Guild, and those wicked bugs from Starship Troopers etc., but not so much for actual humans. So while that attitude is understandable, the CIO must also recognize the price of keeping it.

To wit: Employees may not have much power to parlez in the the context we're discussing. You can virtually never get things "fixed" if you have severe or endemic problems with your position. Moving desks is one thing. Changing job roles is another. But the chip they/we do hold, as either contract or permanent drones, is the "Exit" chip. You know, the one that comes attached to a letter of resignation.

Which is the flip side of Edward's comment. My experience of the last couple months says that chip is ready to use anytime for someone of reasonable skill. Coding gigs are pretty much a dime a dozen, again. This despite outsourcing, etc. Sure, you have be able to do more than just breathe and type (unlike the Bubble era), but that's not my problem anymore. And you may have to bide your time and ride a downturn for a while. But there are always other gigs -- assuming you're already worth your current job.

So, ultimately, I agree with Guest. If you don't like the honey they're serving, find a new hive.

Bitching and moaning

Edward G Nilges — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:09:26 -0800

One of my coworkers in the 1970s was a brilliant man with many tics such as are encountered in the programming field.

A music lover, he couldn't stand it when Mexican guest construction workers would play *disco ranchero* on the job, and he liked it even less when the drywall hangers would play country music.

The problem is that while "consultant" sounded to me like a cool job circa 1974, like one of Robert Strange McNamara's whiz kids, what it meant in Chicago by then was someone who had signed over his rights to directly negotiate, even one on one, pay and benefits to a third party.

In many such relations, the dimunition of employee power that occurs when a labor union is replaced by the one on one bargaining of the white collar is exacerbated, continued and strengthened, since the "consultant" has to negotiate through his agent. The purpose of the system of agentry, considered as an economic *telos* is lubricating the system by ensuring that the successful Hollywood screenwriter, or ace ventura whizbang programmer, is not emplaced to dictate terms from a position of real strength.

Note the qualitative as opposed to quantitative difference: we give to any man with cold hard cash an unrestricted power to bargain while the man with labor is necessarily alienated by growing chains of agentry.

The programmer's illusion is that his knowledge of Visual Basic is hard money. The trouble with this metaphor is that money is that which the government tries to hold at a fixed value, where the laissez-faire thinker defines the critical success factor of government to be "not debasing the coinage".

Whereas from Day One, the value of the deepest knowledge of Visual Basic was unfixed, a buoy at best and not a light-house.

In laissez-faire, if you CAN bargain, you DO bargain. I snagged me a real nice jacket in Wanchai yesterday during a severe cold spell, because as soon as the proprietress of the shop showed me the price-tag, I grabbed my heart and said ai-yah! I then tendered 175.00 and she said done: but my Chinese friends say this only means I should have started lower.

The problem is that there is a simple relationship between the jacket, its materials and the labor of the Guangdong seamstresses busy hands, and money, a relationship examined in Capital chapter one.

Whereas in the case of an information good, the relationship itself is subject to negotiation. Many Visual Basic experts flunk Microsoft's VB certification test the first time out (I sure as hell went down in flames the first time, to succeed the second time)...because the test tests your Goody Two-Shoes use of Microsoft's favorite approaches, and neglects the fact that I don't need no steenking grid controls, I make my own, damnit, in 15 minutes.

[Grr]

Nor is the "good" objectively good. The white collar employee vends not use value but the exchange value of perceptions and is hired based on whether the manager thinks this will please a network whose telos is not completely disclosed as in the case of Enron.

Our instinct of self-preservation causes us to think we can reify "skill" because validly, we are thieves. We want to gain experience in a job in order to get a better deal using the company's Private Property.

In the straight-shot theory of laissez-faire, this is a doomed effort to game the rules. The cybernetic system and its software remain the private bigod property of the owners and the shareholders and as such the programmer of legend is merely an incompetent safe-cracker.

Which is why I love Open Source, even though to enter this world you have to make like Coyote in the old oad Runner cartoon. You assert your ability to produce without the means of production beyond a personal computer and VB express. There's a certain majesty to Coyote in those seconds before gravity kicks in.

When I wanted To Paint, I knew that working artists in new York City would train up as electricians or plumbers as a day job. I thought computer programming was the same but it's not.

The redneck drywall hangers at Motorola could come in, play Johnny Cash (doawn doawn doawn, in a burning ring of fahr) and split: but the programmer is in our society part of management. The problem is he is a small and infinitely replaceable part.

Two perspectives

Donna L Davis — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:38:06 -0800

Guest, you're right that there are two perspectives and you have highlighted (in a vivid way) the very real gulf that exists between developers and upper management. I had in mind to post some blogs from the other perspective: "What You Want the CIO to Know." Looks like I've got some colorful inspiration to begin.

To be honest, I was a little afraid that the CIO perspective might not be wholly welcome in this forum, but I thought it might be helpful to have an inside glimpse. I do think CIOs could benefit from hearing the perspective of the non-CIO (in-the-trenches-developer) as well...and often that doesn't happen in real life due to fragile nature of job security and the possible ramifications of being as direct as you were in your comments.

If you are not happy at a

Guest — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:00:13 -0800

If you are not happy at a job you should quit. I made the mistake of staying on a job I was unhappy at because it paid well for years and I can say without reservation that it wasn't worth it.

If the CIO doesn't care about your happiness then you should definately quit. This is a sure sign that you (the development staff) will get the blame for all the stupid decisions the CIO makes.

Any corporation is like a septic tank. The really big chunks rise to the top. Most CIOs are not only political animals they are quite clueless when it comes to technology.

This one also seems clueless about how to inspire and motivate employees.

Telling your people to go fuck themselves isn't going to help your projects go faster.

What the CIO Wants You to Know (Part III)

Donna L Davis — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:20:16 -0800

"It's not my job to make you happy..." The CIO's words reverberated off the back wall, bouncing back onto stunned employees assembled for an MIS departmental meeting. I waited, thinking he might be using the statement as some sort of rhetorical device to get our attention.