Published on 12, July, 2020
So i've been thinking about an issue that I think is dificult for STEM employees and especially autistic ones in companies. And that is that there offten isn't a path to career progresion that doesn't involve transitioning, even if gradually, from a technical to a people manament role. The issue is a lot of stem personel don't want to do this. And for autistic personel it may not be within their capabilities. That isn't to say autistic people are bad at managing tasks, planing projects, just not nessiceraly good at handeling the people working on those tasks and projects. So my proposal in a nutshell is let the two aspects of managment be seperated. Let the task manager and the line manager be two seperat people. Let the people persons specialise in line mangment and the probblem solvers specialise in task managment. Lots of orgonisations already do matrix managment where one person may answer to multiplu project heads but generally only has one line manager (who is also a project head or who is line managed by one) So why not have line managers who are not project managers, they just look after people. Training, vacations, sicknesses, absences, complaints etc, all that stuff. but not actual bread and butter work which they leave to the project managers. That way people can bepromoted from technical roles into technical roles or even promoted in place as they get more expert so the orgonisation can keep that acumulated skill.
The way I see it as things stand autistic people get stuck in junior roles, leave for other companies or go into roles that don't realy suit them. Also if you get really great people persons as line managers they can mange more people. And freed of the red tape project managers can project manage more people. And do it better.
What do people think?
My family taught me to have no interest in going into management ,as they were proud Trade Unionists.
Red82 (Formerly Mellowjian) said:My family taught me to have no interest in going into management ,as they were proud Trade Unionists.
I am curious as to the logic behind this choice.
It would seem more logical for someone with experience of working with the people at the sharp end of things and understanding of the roles to be the logical choice to manage the teams.
To demonise management like by saying you would never be one is creating a them an us system when you have a chance to make a difference for your fellow workers.
That was always my approach - I understood the individuals and their challenges (some obviously autistic themselves) and would regularly walk in their shoes to take the customer calls, fix the problems, prepare the laptops for new starters, test new versions of software and script them for release etc.
It meant they knew I appeciated their concerns, would defend them to management when justified and sort out the disputes (sometimes with customers) while having a fair approach to the situations.
To say you would never want to be able to do this seems like trying to leave yourself as the eternal victim to bad management to me.
Can you explain if I have got it wrong or the logic behind your choice of this approach please?
This a very wounded response to my one sentence.The idea that one individual can reform a beast as wild as capitalism by going into management is a bit of stretch for me.
Martin said:Senior management seem to often become 'Teflon coated', and go from one senior position to another, serially wrecking each entity they manage.
From my exposure to senior IT management (I've worked closely with Heads of IT and Director of IT in large companies) it has been my experience that most consider this a stepping stone on the way to board level roles so they just need experience, not success.
Look at Silicon Valley ethics around this - failure is a more valuable lesson than success for most so they don't care if you fail, just that you learn from it.
The sort of managers who really care about the little people under them are few and far between as the dog-eat-dog workd of senior management doesn't have much time for this. It is all about progress and money.
I know a few directors in the Civil Service still from my time saving them from high profile pojects that were failing and they were better than most, but still bound by the games of politics there.
The sums of money wasted to save face on some projects was staggering - I saw over £20 million get blown on re-wording a project brief that was highly over promised and under resourced but failure wasn't an option. This was far from a rarity.
The point is - at this level of management the rules are different and I don't see autists surviving at all there. Lower management would seem as far as we are able to aspire to.
Senior management seem to often become 'Teflon coated', and go from one senior position to another, serially wrecking each entity they manage. I really do not understand how this happens. At Manchester University, they hired a head of IT support who had just ruined IT at the Co-op Bank. With attempts to outsource to commercial firms with no experience of computers that ran complex scientific instruments, such as mass spectrometers and nuclear-magnetic resonance machines, he came very close to ruining IT support at the university. No doubt he walked into another highly paid job after that debacle also.
Red82 (Formerly Mellowjian) said:You act like you've never encountered a socialist before
Actually I have - I worked for a University with a team of 26 staff under me and I was hired to restore their levels of service following very high levels of absence from staff.
I was able to do this within 4 months and then was given a rather unpleasant task of cutting 10 staff from the team as the ways of working I introduced were efficient enough that the headcount was surplus to requirements.
Here I got to see the unpleasant side of management. Job descriptions were written with the specific intention of eliminating those who were either trade union shop stewards or were militant about taking action on behalf of perceived slights to the unions. I had to write the job descriptions in a way that excluded these people through their skills and aptitudes so their colleagues could legally be given the fewer remaining roles.
This was part of my contract so I was legally obliged to do it, but I used the time there to work with the "survivors" and make them better able to survive with less stress though applying relaxation techniques, task prioritation, checklists, automation and updating their skills.
It was not pleasant to go through but the trade unions were actively encouraging the staff to take long term sick leave because of stress and leaving the few who remained under greater stress.
Job cuts were coming across the board anyway as the uni was struggling for funding so this task was going to happen whether I participated or not, but I was at least able to remove trouiblemakers, improve the departments efficiently significantly and help those who were willing to work and make their lives better.
At the end of the layoffs I was of course "sacked" myself (ie end of contract) so that the management could blame me for what happened and be seen to be the good guys, but they paid me well for this duty.
Just thought I would share this experience as it seems relevant to the discussion.
Red82 (Formerly Mellowjian) said:You act like you've never encountered a socialist before.
I wanted your perspective on it - not the textbook socialist response. Why do you not want to make a difference etc.
I hoped that by trying to make a difference (not completely reforming the "system" as that is impractical) in the area you potentially had some control over then it would be worth considering.
My experience of doing just this has been a positive one for my team in several medium sized corporations so I wanted to share it with those here.
However, if you are not willing to explain your rather extreme position then I will respect this and not impose any further.