A follow up for "The 10 most dangerous species of IT team leader" needs to the be "The 10 best qualities of IT leadership."
It is very hard to work towards improvement when you focus on the the negative. Having said that I would never steer anyone away from some healthy introspection. After a while though you need to focus on what you need to become not what you are trying to avoid. If you recognize some bad qualities about yourself don't believe the lie that "an old dog can't learn new tricks". After all were not DOGS!
At this point I'm too new to the role of IT leader to begin to pidgin-hole myself. I'm the sole IT worker in the school, I do have a team though, that being at times the students, and some of the teachers. I'm still growing into the role as it is quite new to me.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
But it has many elements of truth. I've met many of these types of people. I agree that some of the people types were funny, and yes meant to sound funny, though they were based on real leadership styles. Humour is often the best way to deliver a hard message. Yet under the joking and laughter there are lessons to be learned.
I've also noticed that many of the articles around here, especially about "soft skills," take the form of "how-not-to" manuals, and wondered why. A good reason I can think of for focusing on the negative, and on things that should be avoided rather assertions about how to "work towards improvement" as you put it, is that such statements tend to equal, or asymptotically approach, advice. And any advice, even generally sound advice, is likely to also be terrible advice in a few exceptional cases. It's safer to commiserate than to make broad recommendations, which may be totally inapplicable to one or more readers' specific situations. Lastly, it's my personal experience that those most eager to take advice are also those least inclined [or able, it's not always easy to tell which] to determine when a guideline is and isn't applicable. As a result, I would recommend giving as little advice as possible. 
Those that would best benefit from reading these "quips" would never see themselves as any of these anyway. This kind of humor is more of a "YES! Someone out there sees what I see" and is an affirmation and a release for the frustrated.
I think the self-help section is in another place.
I think the self-help section is in another place.
You completely forgot about the affirmative action trend of promoting females to team leader solely based on their gender or their race. And I'm not even going to mention if they have "extracurricular" activities with management before getting promoted.
Good article, but it seemed a bit gender "biased".
Good article, but it seemed a bit gender "biased".
"You can say what you like about Dux Dictatorialis, but under him all the calls were logged on time. He (and it usually is a he) is an obnoxious person who can?t understand that people have a life outside of work and wants the world to know that HE is in charge."
If he's never seen a woman on a power trip, he's never spent much time with women.
If he's never seen a woman on a power trip, he's never spent much time with women.
Some years ago, in the 90's I happened on a fascinating tape on a local cable channel. It was a seminar lecture given by a HR consultant who demonstrated personality traits of various worker types.
Sometimes, the "dictator" type is someone who had previously been bullied by a dictator, and now this person is being their previous TL without realizing it, acting out their revenge fantasies. Passive/aggresiveness in its purest form...
Sometimes, the "dictator" type is someone who had previously been bullied by a dictator, and now this person is being their previous TL without realizing it, acting out their revenge fantasies. Passive/aggresiveness in its purest form...
should be: He leaves the office at the end of the day and goes home to a techno cave where he spends his off-duty hours making his stock of computers, one that NASA would be proud to own, do things that they were never designed to do.
Favorite line: Even when the inevitable interview question was asked: "Why do you want this job?" the answer, "I don???t really want it," was not enough to put them off.
Least favorite: "We run a tight ship here."
This typifies the arrogance of the breed. Adopting the "Royal We" is always a sign that things are going to the bad.
Generally, the "Royal We" indicates somebody with a healthy sense of humor about their authority, especially its limits. The saying about running a tight ship would look arrogant to me only if stated as "I run a tight ship," as if the rest of the team are just jibs & things to be battened down.
Favorite line: Even when the inevitable interview question was asked: "Why do you want this job?" the answer, "I don???t really want it," was not enough to put them off.
Least favorite: "We run a tight ship here."
This typifies the arrogance of the breed. Adopting the "Royal We" is always a sign that things are going to the bad.
Generally, the "Royal We" indicates somebody with a healthy sense of humor about their authority, especially its limits. The saying about running a tight ship would look arrogant to me only if stated as "I run a tight ship," as if the rest of the team are just jibs & things to be battened down.
I worked for a company that had a Dux Dictatorialis of legendary proportion in one of their offices. Even people that worked thousands of miles away heard of him and feared him, until one fateful morning. At 3:00 AM he went looking for someone that had flown-in from the east coast only to find that the person had called it a day at 11:00 PM and went to a hotel to catch some sleep. Dux Dictatorialis flew into a rage, that the person had the gall to leave without his permission and to waste the company???s money on something as useless as a hotel room.
Dux Dictatorialis found-out the slacker???s hotel and the room number, drove there and kicked-in the door screaming. Of course, hotels being what they are called the police, who asked the slacker if, he knew who Dux Dictatorialis was? The response, ???I???ve never seen him before in my life???, made him an instant hero to anyone who ever even heard of Dux Dictatorialis.
The next morning, before Dux Dictatorialis made bail, he flew home a much happier man. As for Dux Dictatorialis, he was dismissed when word of his nocturnal exploits, in the form of newspaper columns and hotel repair bills, reached upper management.
Dux Dictatorialis found-out the slacker???s hotel and the room number, drove there and kicked-in the door screaming. Of course, hotels being what they are called the police, who asked the slacker if, he knew who Dux Dictatorialis was? The response, ???I???ve never seen him before in my life???, made him an instant hero to anyone who ever even heard of Dux Dictatorialis.
The next morning, before Dux Dictatorialis made bail, he flew home a much happier man. As for Dux Dictatorialis, he was dismissed when word of his nocturnal exploits, in the form of newspaper columns and hotel repair bills, reached upper management.
I can't believe that there can actually be people like this who hold managerial/leadership positions. (I say that tongue in check of course)
Companies need to wake up and realize that people who can take charge aren't always leaders. Sometimes they're just obnoxious. True leaders are few, but we can't just hire some warm body who seems to fit the bill. Leadership roles are the most important roles to hire properly for.
Companies need to wake up and realize that people who can take charge aren't always leaders. Sometimes they're just obnoxious. True leaders are few, but we can't just hire some warm body who seems to fit the bill. Leadership roles are the most important roles to hire properly for.
We forget is that it is only thirty or forty years ago that managers like this were almost the norm and not the exception.
The worst ones by far were those who used physical threats or violence as a FIRST resort. - Do that once almost anywhere now and you get sacked instantly. --- In reality a lot of the old-school 'dictators' were really ex-soldiers - people like Sargent majors, often with huge chips on their shoulders. They were part of a corperate philosophy thats gone forever. (Thank the PC Gods.)
The worst ones by far were those who used physical threats or violence as a FIRST resort. - Do that once almost anywhere now and you get sacked instantly. --- In reality a lot of the old-school 'dictators' were really ex-soldiers - people like Sargent majors, often with huge chips on their shoulders. They were part of a corperate philosophy thats gone forever. (Thank the PC Gods.)
Jody, I find your writings very interesting and thanks for sharing. In regards to
your #4: Dux Trogloditica, I am part of an IT group which provides technical
service to NASA. I am curious have ever worked for NASA? Perhaps I am
considering not sending out any more referring links from Tech Republic to my
coworkers. Another question about #4, did you mean to use the word deigned
in this sentence?
Thanks
your #4: Dux Trogloditica, I am part of an IT group which provides technical
service to NASA. I am curious have ever worked for NASA? Perhaps I am
considering not sending out any more referring links from Tech Republic to my
coworkers. Another question about #4, did you mean to use the word deigned
in this sentence?
Thanks
I had the misfortune to work for one more type, who was promoted only on the basis of seniority. That type feels threatened by anyone who knows more than he does. And its hard to find anyone who knows less.
And that type knows he has been promoted far beyond his ability and will hang onto his job as if his life depended on it, knowing he will never be able to get another job at that level.
And that type knows he has been promoted far beyond his ability and will hang onto his job as if his life depended on it, knowing he will never be able to get another job at that level.
Isn't it funny how people who work hard seem to always get stuck where they are, yet people who are blatantly incompetent seem to rise through the ranks with the greatest of ease? Well, it's possible we notice those rare cases and think they are the norm, but still... It's also possible those "incompetent" ones are better at shmoozing than working, and that may actually work better for them in a leadership position. Ironic, isn't it?
The individual promoted to Group Leader and then (a few months later) to Department Head had only one major duty. He was in charge of keeping a list of IP addresses in use on the internal network, and insisted everyone get his approval before using any other IP address. This left him with lots of time, so he attended every possible meeting where anyone above him was attending.
That made him very visible.
Everyone else had actual work to do, and didn't have time to attend endless meetings.
That made him very visible.
Everyone else had actual work to do, and didn't have time to attend endless meetings.
1. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
2. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
3. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
4. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
5. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
6. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
7. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
8. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
9. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
10. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
2. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
3. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
4. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
5. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
6. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
7. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
8. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
9. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
10. Those that use "hilarious" faux-Latin names for items in their top 10 list.
Great, that made me understand. what I am doing wrong as a lead. Appriciate your efforts
It has been my experience that those who want to be promoted to lead\supervisory\managerial positions the most are precisely those that should never hold those positions. Once they do acheive a promotion they tend to become so inflexible for fear of looking bad that they end up alienating those whose cooperation they are supposed to be getting as well as being such obvious suckups to those they report to that their higher ups lose respect for them too!
You missed a few:
1. Mr. Know it all (NOT)
This person does not know what he dosn't know. He/she reads the trade rags and thought he is the ultimate technical genius, and master of all sciences. Unconstrained now as a leader, he decided he can make all the important, crucial and earth shaking technical decisions while knowing nothing about the business nor what he/she was about to unleash. And, being the only one who knows anything in town, he decided that he should not listen to anyone else about what's the problem with his decision.
2. Idea thief
This person knows a bit about what he doesn't know, but has to pretend otherwise. He is a good listener to your ideas. Take them and make it their own, and come back to ridicule you for not coming up with the idea.
3. Mafia in the office
This person has his own favourite gang around himself and plays favoritism to the nth degree. Only golf buddies need apply.
4. Cold fish
This person doesn't care about whether his staff have the tools, time, skills, the wherewithall to do their assignment, especial staff and time. He just assigns tasks and expects it to be done, on time, with no budget. What's worse, when confronted, he would make it your "skill improvement objective", or brush it off as "challenge of the job". You need to be able to walk on water to work for this guy.
5 the micromanager
This person wants to oversee everything in every details. You spend 10 folds of time telling him what, how, where, when and why things are done than to do the job.
1. Mr. Know it all (NOT)
This person does not know what he dosn't know. He/she reads the trade rags and thought he is the ultimate technical genius, and master of all sciences. Unconstrained now as a leader, he decided he can make all the important, crucial and earth shaking technical decisions while knowing nothing about the business nor what he/she was about to unleash. And, being the only one who knows anything in town, he decided that he should not listen to anyone else about what's the problem with his decision.
2. Idea thief
This person knows a bit about what he doesn't know, but has to pretend otherwise. He is a good listener to your ideas. Take them and make it their own, and come back to ridicule you for not coming up with the idea.
3. Mafia in the office
This person has his own favourite gang around himself and plays favoritism to the nth degree. Only golf buddies need apply.
4. Cold fish
This person doesn't care about whether his staff have the tools, time, skills, the wherewithall to do their assignment, especial staff and time. He just assigns tasks and expects it to be done, on time, with no budget. What's worse, when confronted, he would make it your "skill improvement objective", or brush it off as "challenge of the job". You need to be able to walk on water to work for this guy.
5 the micromanager
This person wants to oversee everything in every details. You spend 10 folds of time telling him what, how, where, when and why things are done than to do the job.
You forgot the political appointee who can barely spell "PC", but has not yet managed to spell "computer" correctly. This is pretty much the same species as family member hired by the boss in a non-government organization.
As a retired manager whos was considered radicle in my time for holding staff meetings and against the trend at the time,engaging all my staf in the job at hand,I had a staff of some 25 people men women.Our peformance was always excellent we hit targets and achieved our goals as a team.It worked as felt sure it would.My grandson has just been "made up"and I was so saddened to hear him giving me his attitude to management He is without doubt one of the above.What a shame it was this out of date attitude that cost this country dearly in the past.I thought this way of thinking was killed off years ago.Like the clas system it still survives ...shame
Great article and so true
Great article and so true
Well they nailed the 10 dangerous ones - Now can the author please point out the 1 non dangerous IT Leader?
Being a leader of an IT group is a thankless job. You have to deal with the various troglodytes that never want change. You have the thankless job of justifying every penny spent. You have junior IT'ers who only want the latest gadgets for "coolness" factor, but fail to implement what they have already. You have IT staff that can't communicate beyond text messaging, and only can speak a sentence with a minimum of 10-20 'ummm's.
Then you have the old silo's of information which horde all the knowledge in there head, but will never document one iota of a system config.
The list goes on, and on and on.... The fallacy here is there is no perfect Boss or Employee.
If you can get your staff to accomplish the baseline goals of stability, predictability, scalablity,and standards consider yourself to be part of the elite IT leaders.
But if you walk into your data-center and it looks like a spaghetti factory, or you can barely keep a 80%-90% availability to your systems, and the corporate groups all hate IT...you have my sympathies.
As a consultant I see this more times that I care to count. Is it fixable yes, is it an easy process - No. It is painful for all involved, some by staying some by going.
I have always seem the abbreviation of IT to be "I" am responsible and accountable, yet I am part of a "T" team and must work my team be the best.
Being a leader of an IT group is a thankless job. You have to deal with the various troglodytes that never want change. You have the thankless job of justifying every penny spent. You have junior IT'ers who only want the latest gadgets for "coolness" factor, but fail to implement what they have already. You have IT staff that can't communicate beyond text messaging, and only can speak a sentence with a minimum of 10-20 'ummm's.
Then you have the old silo's of information which horde all the knowledge in there head, but will never document one iota of a system config.
The list goes on, and on and on.... The fallacy here is there is no perfect Boss or Employee.
If you can get your staff to accomplish the baseline goals of stability, predictability, scalablity,and standards consider yourself to be part of the elite IT leaders.
But if you walk into your data-center and it looks like a spaghetti factory, or you can barely keep a 80%-90% availability to your systems, and the corporate groups all hate IT...you have my sympathies.
As a consultant I see this more times that I care to count. Is it fixable yes, is it an easy process - No. It is painful for all involved, some by staying some by going.
I have always seem the abbreviation of IT to be "I" am responsible and accountable, yet I am part of a "T" team and must work my team be the best.
Hi Porter,
I find your comment to be most practical offering a different perspective.. especially your definition of IT is very nice indeed!!
I find your comment to be most practical offering a different perspective.. especially your definition of IT is very nice indeed!!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
