IT managers vs managers

managers who had a background in IT but since becoming managers, they have lost even the skills to run a defrag on the HDD.
I have had few problems with them, and they have always supported me and the department in general. But, we often dont get a lot of the things that we want without a definitive need for it...

I have also worked for a manager who had no IT background, but tried to constantly be a part of everything. It was more than annoying, and we clashed always (I usually backed down from confrontations). That job lasted 2 months, as I could not handle it well at all.

And answer to non IT managers. It can be a struggle sometimes as I have to manage my team in one manner and manage to my seniors in a completely different manner.

I get frustrated sometimes trying to validate IT requirements in a way that Finance and others understand. I think that the trick is to learn to translate "technese" into "busnese". That can be a challenge sometimes.

I worked for one though who was completely non technical but strongly valued and supported his team. You had to be able to clearly validate your position with him but he would support you.

I think that at some point, it comes down to the value of the manager- if you are a good manager, you manage.

into these categories. Today regardless of the industry you work in - everyone has some level of IT knowledge. That is what happened with the explosion of IT into the home or personal arena.

I have however worked with both types and though never officially an IT manager, have done the work. I find that it doesn't matter whether you come from IT or come from business as long as you have very good communication skills, know your strengths and weaknesses and know how to work with teams.

Now that is a pretty short list and I could add a lot more to it, but those are the primary things to being a manager in any area. I have found both technical and non-technical managers to be both good and bad. Again the difference was how they worked with people and communicated not how much they knew.

I do believe that to be a manager at any level, you need a strong enough foundation of the organization, its core business, and the technology that supports that core business. But that is what I believe and what my research is starting to show.

Just to make things worse though. He thinks he is technical, keeps using big phrases when clients ring and get to him before a techie answers the phone, phrases like

"So, have you tried a traceroute to see if that helps your routing issues?".

When what the client asked for was to have a DNS entry changed.

oh well.....

I went from an IT manager that tried to be involved/do/control everything to a manager of IT who believes in tasking me and leaving me alone. I personally am much happier completing tasks as requested instead of fixing all the errors generated by someone with an out dated skill set and trying to do the original task.
I prefer a Manager of IT.

Yes I have been in two cases where one of managers who was in charge of the jobs and projects we did weren't that technical. All the technicians including me were clashing all the time, but we all got around it, just ended up the converstation going around in circles then the manager will finally work it out or makes out he worked it out, or we would just go along with his plan, do it the way we know is right. It was all good.

Regards,
Jim

A good manager can usually do well in almost any arena. The best manager I ever worked for had no specific IT knowledge, but a good general grip on the role of IT in business. If I remember correctly, he convinced corporate that they should think of IT as a utility, not as a cost center by asking them what they needed every day to do the job, no matter what the job was.

Building, lights, toilets, supplies, computers, network...

I think in order to properly manage IT, you have to have specific IT knowledge. The comment that the implosion of home PCs has caused most people to have "IT knowledge" is a tad far fetched. There are about 100 people in my office, 90% have home PCs and related technologies, but none have any real IT knowledge. They know how to use their favorite apps, some know how to use task manager (big woop, my 7-year-old knows that too), and for the most part they all know how to operate their most useful business app. But get any of them in front of a PC to troubleshoot, or a server to buildout, and they wouldn't even know where to begin. Anyway, good IT managers are usually able to best grasp the tech needs of a business, then translate that into solutions that work. Or at least be able to translate that into solution requirements, then weed through solution recommendations from their team. My current manager is an experienced developer and infrastructure man. He understands our business needs and usually translates them into requirements for us to search for solutions. When we return with those solutions, we can usually explain the technical aspects and then he translates that into "bus-neese" for Upper management. That takes alot of weight off us from having to deal with all the business units and making a solution make sense to multiple areas. Not to say that a "manager" can't do it, I just haven't found one that can.

I share my boss with the administrative department, his main responsibility, the human resources, the general services and the buyer department.
Being of old age and burdened by so many responsibilities his knowledge and interest in IT, at best, is restricted to the managing of complaints of the top users...

Back before the PC became we had managers (only) managing IT Managers (then called systems managers) and the manager knew where the line was and how to support who they manage. Over the last twenty years or so the management situation has "morfed" due to the PC being in the hands of many wannabee techies and included in this group are the managers. Now all the wannabees can be managers AND techie simply because they have a pc at home.

Ok, fine, whatever. I've found it a very good tool to casually and consistantly remind the said manager that he isn't a technical member in any sense. Using the it's-not-what-you-say it's-how-you-say-it mentality that is drilled into the heads of the non-technical management you then have the upper hand if you are a silver tongued sort.

(note: do not be sarcastic; just as any comedian knows it is your delivery that is most important).

I've have worked as an IT manager and I now report to a manager (in a project mgmt role). I have worked in technical positions as a network admin, dba, network infrastructure, etc. In each of my technical positions I have worked for non-IT managers (mostly financial) and managers with a technical background. A technical manager is always better in my view. But a technical manager needs to understand the business side too.

I have three opinions on this question.

1 - As a technician I hated working for someone that didn't understand the "big picture" of what I did. I didn't expect my manager to know RMAN, Cisco IOS, shell scripting, etc. but I do expect a general idea of technology (what is a VPN, database, cluster, SAN, firewall, router, project fundamentals, Unix, Linux, Java, .NET, and so on) Example - one project I ran had a North American MPLS network - this was delayed several months because the financial executive who managed IT couldn't understand why Cisco routers were different from $50 linksys routers and refused to listen to IT advice and refused to learn anything about the technology on his own. Ugh. It was like a living Dilbert cartoon. As you can imagine his attitude crushed morale on the project.

2 - A company is making a major mistake by running IT without someone who has a background in IT. A company has a fiduciary responsibility to its owners and stockholders to implement technology in the same respect as sales, marketing, etc. IT is expensive, however it can be extremely expensive when operated by novices. Consider the manager who buys only based on vendor advice, sets staff levels incorrectly, etc.

3 - A manager of IT is not a technician. He or she is a manager who has a technical background. One of the major hurdles for me was letting go of doing the technical work and managing a team. But understanding what you are managing is critical to a smooth operation. For example - One of the major problems I had was some AS400 staff (not all AS400 folks are this way!) who refused to learn new technology - they had excuses, roadblocks, etc. If I had not had a technology background they would have continued to retard the company progress. A non-technical manager may not have recognized the problem and continuous harm to the company.

My boss is the VP Marketing.

Yes, that makes no sense. I'm a DBA, I design, build, maintain and support a CRM/ERP/BI application, but I'm in the marketing department.

It's very interesting to read the opnions of those who've had IT savy bosses, as well as those in IT who have moved into management positions. I've always worked for non-IT bosses, so can't say which I prefer. I know that I've gotten better at using analogies to explain technology, and I make sure I fully understand a product before making recommendations to my boss. Probably the biggest frustration I've had is getting them to use the right terminology so I understand what they mean--for example, saying something is in a database when it's actually in a spreadsheet.

I do think that a truly competent manager will be able to successfully lead any group. Part of being competent is gaining at least some level of understanding of the jobs your employees perform, though! My previous boss was fabulous--he believed in giving me the tools I needed to do my job, as well as the support I needed from others.

I will say, though, that I think many IT people forget that the purpose of the business is seldom IT related. IT is a tool, just like anything else, and while it's important, it's not worthy of any more respect than any other service. I've always said that if my boss couldn't do his job because his computer wasn't working, then clearly I hadn't done my job correctly.

i have to report to COO
he understands how to use IT, but is in no way a technical person.

i like this because, an understanding of what is needed and what can be done can easily be communicated between us.

I am blessed by the opportunity to work for a boss that really knows IT AND has great management skills. My boss has the ability to see from many different vantage points. He has been in the trenches so he knows our end of things and appreciates the issues we have to deal with. He also has the ability to see the "big" picture and is not short-sited like managers without much IT experience. He is great with people and is a true team builder/leader. He leads by example and does not ask us to do anything that he would not be willing to do. Even though he is management...you always feel like he is on your side and is ready to back you up and support you. All this...and he works in state government. What more can I say.

I have worked for both types and prefer the IT Managers because if your customers have a complaint the Manager can tell them that they don't know what they are talking about as a manager of IT whould probally have to say I will check it to it. The best Manager is the ones that can and will back up thier employees.

I currently report to a director who has no technical
experience...literally. She is a computer user, but outside of that,
stuff like AD, ipconfig, GPO, differential backup might as well be
Klingon. Don't get me wrong, she is a great person and director,
but she tries too hard to have hands-on particpation in the IT
side of the shop, not realizing that it can be a hinderance. It
wouldn't be bad if her hands-on involvement was to learn the
technology, but it is more just to make the final decision without
a full understanding of the technology.

For example, she feels that I am taking security awareness and
prevention "too seriously" because there has not been a major
security issue within our department, but I try to explain to her
that you don't wait for something to happen and then react to it
if you can avoid doing so. I spend most of my time
translating "techanese" into "businessnese" and then trying to
sell it.