Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 04 2017, @05:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-easier-to-deal-with-computers-than-with-people dept.

The Do's and Don't's of Managing Programmers:

Why are some programmers such jerks?

Too many managers believe the problem lies with [the disgruntled programmer]. If he was a better employee, dedicated worker, or at least cared more, then this wouldn't happen. Right?

Unfortunately, no.

The first suggestions matter a lot
How you handle ideas from new programmers sends an important signal. Good or bad, it sets the stage for what they expect. This determines if they share more ideas in the future... or keep their mouth shut.

Sure, some ideas might not be feasible in your environment. Some might get put on the back burner to be discussed "when we're not busy". Some ideas seem great, but they run against unspoken cultural norms.

No matter what the reason, dismissing or devaluing your programmer's ideas — especially in the first few months — is a bad move.

Damaged by all the naysaying, he'll try a few more times to present his ideas differently, aiming for a successful outcome. If he continues to feel punished, though, he'll realize that the only way to win is not to play.

Which is exactly what you don't want your programmers learning.

He will stop presenting ideas, asking to meet customers, and genuinely trying to understand the business.

Ultimately, it's a lose lose.

If you want programmers to become mere code monkeys, treat them like code monkeys.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:11PM

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:11PM (#605873) Journal

    Do you think it makes more sense to have an economic model where people write the software for free and then try to make back the cost by selling copies, or one where users pay developers to write the software and can then make and distribute as many copies as they want?

    Personally, I think it makes the most – but different kinds of – sense to write:

    • closed source, fee-for-purchase if you want to earn from it, or...
    • true open source (meaning, completely free, not GPL, which I think is an utter travesty and won't do) if you want to be charitable.

    I think both are perfectly okay (and I do both.) I even think its okay to do GPL or some other restrictive license stuff if that's what you want to do. Whatever floats your boat. But the consequences tend ot be very predictable, because...

    There isn't actually an economic overlap that generally applies.

    If you want to make money, open source is about as likely a means to get you there as being a high paid basketball star or high paid movie star is just because you play basketball or like to act. Yeah, some very few people make it, but the odds very clearly say any particular individual almost certainly won't.

    And as for those moments of fame that recent generations seem to covet so... you can't eat fame. And fans can be really annoying. So to me, it's worthless.

    I can also say that the reason I got to choose to retire at 40 and got to do whatever I wanted since then was because I chose the closed source, for-fee software path, and my company made stuff people wanted to buy.

    This has been my experience. Times do change, and perhaps it's all different now and I am just oblivious... but I'm not really seeing that in the market.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2