Tech-Talk

"Talk to Frank. He is our resident computer guru." That is how the conversation started that got me thinking about how managers evaluate and utilize technical personnel in their companies.

The reason that I started thinking about it is that Frank got on the telephone and proceeded to give me a paragraph of pure "bunk" about the computer system problem they were having. Not only was it apparent that Frank didn't know much about computer systems (including the one he was supposed to service), it was clear that he had fooled his employer into thinking that he did.

Frank's manager holds an administrative position in Frank's company, and does not have a computer background. Judging from the quantity of fake tech-talk that Frank gave to me, I could easily imagine the volumes of "techno-baloney" that he heaps upon his manager every week.

This is a much more extreme example than what you generally find. But it does suggest that a review of the way we evaluate and manage technical personnel would put us in a position to obtain much better results from our efforts.

Our own in-house personnel would benefit, and so would our customers and others with whom our technical personnel come in contact. A poor impression created as part of a sales, service, or telephone tech support effort can be costly. As a popular business inspirational poster states: "It takes months to win a customer, but only minutes to lose one." Business partner relationships can also be negatively impacted.

Technical Proficiency

There are a number of elements that contribute to a person's technical proficiency. They are listed in the sidebar entitled Ingredients for Technical Proficiency. (Click for sidebar...) Different jobs or roles in a company or activity can require varying combinations and amounts of these ingredients.

Too many or too much of the ingredients results in a person who is over-qualified for the job, and who will have difficulty in obtaining satisfaction on the job because his abilities are underutilized.

Too few or too little of the right ingredients results in a person who doesn't or can't perform satisfactorily on the job. The individual is put in a losing position. Those who depend upon his or her performance become frustrated and dissatisfied, and are sometimes prevented from performing their own jobs fully or easily.

Evaluating Technical Positions

If we clearly define our classifications for technical positions, and determine which ingredients for proficiency are required, desired and optional, we can shed sufficient light on technical personnel requirements to increase our ability to fill positions successfully.

Rather than invent new terms, let's examine the ones we already use everyday: Novice, Nerd, Techie, Specialist, Mentor, Expert, Guru and Genius. See the sidebar entitled From Novice to Genius. (Click for sidebar...)

Novice

A novice or beginner is a person who has learned the basics of a subject, and who has enough knowledge in one or more areas to be able to work effectively in them. A novice will require guidance and supervision, because he is lacking in experience.

There are many reasons for employing a novice. A novice starts at the beginning pay rate. As a novice progresses in knowledge he can learn company-specific methods and practices along the way. He won't have to "un-learn" contrary or bad methods and practices learned elsewhere. Novices come fresh out of school, or are educated through on-the-job training programs.

A novice should have a personal plan to advance to a higher level. The plan should be in accordance with company opportunities and can include company-provided or company-sponsored education. The plan should also be known to his immediate manager, who can help synchronize his work responsibilities and assignments with his studies.

Techie

A techie has moderate or better skill in one or more areas of a technical subject. He usually also has an observably high interest in the subject, and is a reliable source of information about the subject.

A real techie does not "put on airs" or pretend knowledge that he doesn't have. Although a techie may have some difficulty putting information into layman's terms, he doesn't intentionally baffle people with technical jargon.

A techie can usually work well both alone or with others. If he can't work well with others, he's actually classifiable as a nerd.

A techie is solution-oriented. If he balks at problems, or brings them to his manager without first researching or attempting to find a solution, he should be reclassified as an advanced novice.

Nerd

A nerd manifests a single-mindedness towards his chosen technical subject, and may range from being a novice to being quite accomplished in it. The subject occupies his thoughts continuously, and is usually the sole topic of his conversation. His lack of interest in the rest of the world's activities makes him somewhat of a social misfit. He also has a tendency to wander off down technical "alleys" unrelated to the job at hand, and so usually requires clear instructions and close supervision.

Too many nerds in one technical activity can have a "cross-pollenization" effect, where they keep distracting each other with interesting technical information that does not advance the work at hand.

Nerds will often work at the low end of the pay range for their skill level, in order to have the opportunity to be "hands-on" with advanced technical equipment, or to get exposure to advanced technical information. Nerds will often put in extra time on their own to tackle an interesting technical problem. The reverse can be true for uninteresting problems, where attention must be enforced to get the job done.

Nerds generally don't handle customer contact and front-line technical support well. They have little patience with those who demonstrate less technical knowledge. However, they can provide excellent technical backup to customer support activities, when there is sufficient challenge involved in solving technical problems. If the pros and cons of a nerd fit the technical position, a nerd can make valuable technical contributions to the activity.

The Troublemakers

The next capability level up from the nerd is the specialist. However, there are two categories of troublemaker (pretender and hero) that reside in between. As much as they don't deserve the attention, it is important to take a close look at them because they can be difficult to recognize. The trouble they bring seems never to come from them but from the circumstances, problems or people they "have to deal with". These categories are not included in the "Novice to Genius" list, because they are of low or negative value to the group or organization, especially in comparison to the productive categories.

Pretender

I began this article with a discussion of Frank—a pretender. Pretender is not a commonly used term but definitely fits the situation where a person pretends to have technical knowledge and skills at a certain level but simply doesn't. Regardless of how little or how much knowledge this individual has, he always pretends to have more. Thus you can find pretenders anywhere from the lowest to the highest of technical positions.

There are two common denominators for pretenders: lack of good results and failure to improve over time. Anyone can be put into a situation that is above their level of understanding or experience. It is how they react to it—honestly or dishonestly—that makes the difference.

Pretenders can only exist for long in an environment in which the people senior to them are not technologically savvy. The pretender is an excellent actor, as long as the audience is non-technical. Good technical people can see right through the false excuses pretenders use for lack of results. However, when a pretender is the boss over a group of programmers or engineers, his subordinates may keep their knowledge of his shortcomings to themselves for fear of losing their jobs. Unless circumstances permit the subordinate to communicate safely to someone higher up, or unless circumstances are dire (such as a project or program about to be cancelled), there are likely to be no serious complaints lodged. If there are suitable job opportunities elsewhere within the company, subordinates are likely to transfer out as soon as they recognize their boss for who he is.

Performance and morale are likely to be low among those who work for a pretender, unless the subordinates are entirely self-managed and the pretender has no real influence over them. Nepotism (favoritism granted to relatives or friends without merit) can install a pretender in a position where the complaints of subordinates will be ignored.

Where a good personnel department exists, a pretender's subordinates may "open up" to the personnel manager and explain the situation. When multiple subordinates provide similar reports, it is wise to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with company policy.

Pretenders in supervisory or managerial positions usually cause good personnel to leave the group or company. Where the subordinates have been mistreated, they can feel justified in taking company tools, equipment or proprietary information with them as compensation for mistreatment. Furthermore, former colleagues and subordinates of the pretender can "spread the word" both inside and outside the company, making it hard to staff an area back up once the good personnel have left. Pretenders drive good personnel away, and if allowed will tend to accumulate bad personnel, as their poor performance can be used as an excuse for the pretender's lack of results.

Most pretenders are highly skilled in memorization, and some are even "walking encyclopedias" of technical information. This can allow them to accumulate technical certifications and degrees because many technical education programs only require the regurgitation of technical material studied, and don't test the actual ability to apply it to produce good results. This apparent knowledge can be intimidating to non-technical people, and pretenders play on that.

Experienced pretenders who are good self-promoters can make allies out of people higher up in the organization, and usually seek to do so. This is often accompanied by slyly-done badmouthing of the people immediately above the pretender, as an advance counter-move to anticipated complaints about the pretender from those he reports to. When fired, the pretender will leave the allies with the impression that it was just an "understandable reaction" from people who were threatened by the pretender's great knowledge or experience. Thus pretenders can move from company to company by providing such allies as reference contacts.

It can be hard to remove a pretender from a high position when the pretender can wave certifications around and spout a lot of technical talk, or has well-placed allies. It can also be difficult to remove a pretender even in a low organizational position, if the pretender appears to be "working really hard", has borderline performance, and commits to improvement. The sympathy of well-intentioned people will often keep the pretender in place.

It can sometimes require calling in outside expertise—from elsewhere within the company or from an outside firm—to effectively assess and document the situation. Pretenders can protest quite strongly, as they fear someone who actually is knowledgeable and competent. Often the pretender will threaten to quit, and many do, when the outsider is actually brought in.

No one knows better than the pretender how unqualified he is for his position. Thus pretenders are usually under great stress, whether it shows or not, and find great relief in the departure.

Hero

A hero is hampered by compulsions to be seen as a heroic problem solver in the eyes of others. Even highly capable people can be found in this category. What differentiates a hero from other people is that he "doesn't play well with others". A hero will often be found solving problem after problem, but almost always through tremendous personal effort rather than through a group or organizational solution. Although purporting to be a team player, he's not.

Unfortunately the hero's "problem-fix, problem-fix" approach rarely advances the organization. Often the hero's solutions are not sustainable. They can even end up making the organization highly vulnerable, as the individual tends to become a single point of failure for many of the solutions.

A good technologist who is increasingly given too much work and responsibility, and too little budget and support, can be put in a position of being "indispensable" through no fault or intention of his or her own. It is important to differentiate between this person and the hero, who gravitates to solutions that make him indispensable.

Although unlikely to admit it, the hero believes that "being indispensable" provides job security in addition to self-satisfaction. Such an individual may be successful in becoming "the only one" who can solve certain types of problems or perform certain functions. Where needs are critical and resources are few, anyone can become indispensable easily enough. Most people are more than willing to shed the burden at the first opportunity. Not the hero, who amplifies the indispensability factor through lack of information sharing, self-serving solutions, and in the worst cases even outright lies and manipulation or bullying. When forced to shed responsibilities, the hero will do so and dramatically welcome the "long overdue" change. However, the hero will rarely initiate such moves.

Help and support are usually refused or minimized by the hero, all for seemingly the best of reasons. Suggestions are a waste of time because the hero "has already thought of that". While openly rejecting a good idea or recommendation, the hero may very well secretly take it up so that if group consensus later mandates it, the hero can quickly "pull the rabbit out of the hat".

The hero will usually be found, either overtly or covertly, to be continually promoting his capabilities and expertise. Typically professing a high level of skill, even the good work product of such an individual will usually fall short of professional standards in one way or another, especially with regard to teamwork and information sharing. On close inspection, the quality of work is usually merely adequate, although if done quickly in a burst of activity even an average result can still be impressive and thus contribute to the apparent value of the hero.

With a hero, what should be mutual collaboration becomes one-way information sharing. "Status updates" provide little technical insight, and are usually intended to keep others at bay and keep the hero's options open. Regardless of the amount of information obtained from others, little information of value is shared, and colleagues often remark that the hero "plays cards close to the vest". After all, the less others know, the more valuable the hero's information becomes, at least from the hero's perspective.

When such compulsions are strong, the hero can be intimidating to others, and may resort to displays of temper or "being offended" to deflect attempts to gain insight into the hero's activities. Such tactics are usually most effective on non-technical people. Truly competent technologists find such behavior personally abhorrent, although they may openly tolerate it in the well-intentioned effort to "get along".

A hero finds it very troubling to be seen as wrong or having made a mistake, and can become very upset at such a suggestion.

Without strong technical knowledge it is nearly impossible to effectively manage such a person.

In the long run, if unable or unwilling to achieve self-improvement, such a person tends to be more of a liability than an asset to the group or organization, even when capable of doing good work.

When you have a person who appears to be indispensable, and who manifests some or all of the hero characteristics above, what you really need is a true specialist, and the contrast between a hero and a specialist is easily seen.

Specialist

A specialist is highly skilled in, and is devoted to (at least on the job), a particular occupation or subject. He has full personal command of the subject. He communicates clearly and accurately in both verbal and written form.

Often a specialist can learn to be an excellent project manager, and as such will not be fooled by technical double-talk from project members. A specialist who likes working with people can make an excellent trainer. Specialists usually have many non-technical attributes which help to maximize their value, such as high initiative, good work habits, and the ability to see the long-term situation.

Invest in your specialists to get even better results for your company.

Make sure you have appropriate time and funds budgeted for seminars, professional meetings, pertinent publications and knowledge-sharing activities.

Allow time for a specialist to share some of his knowledge in your industry through authoring technical articles, if he is so inclined. (You don't have to wait for your specialist to attain expert status to do this.) If the majority of your specialist's technical knowledge is proprietary to your company, there are still non-proprietary things of value that he can write about, such as best practices and industry trends.

A specialist can become so valuable to your company, especially if the company grows in size, that the demands on his time and talents become exorbitant. If this happens, it's time to make him a mentor and create more specialists like him.

Mentor

A mentor is a specialist who passes his knowledge on to others. They look to him as a counselor or teacher. Mentoring usually occurs as part of an on-the-job working relationship, although a person's mentor can be someone outside of the day-to-day work environment.

Mentors love their field and the people in it. They take personal satisfaction in the success of others, whether or not they get public credit for their part in it.

Mentors usually pass on more than technical knowledge, and inspire others by their own good example.

Expert

Experts can exist inside and outside of your company. Experts are very often independent consultants or part of a consulting group or company. An expert has mastered his subject and has extensive experience in it. He can quickly analyze or assess technical situations, and can provide accurate advice to others. When the advice is extensive, it takes the form of a plan, study, design or technical paper. It takes planning and preparation to effectively utilize an expert's time, especially when that expert is within your own company.

When you have an expert in-house, get him an assistant. If your expert is also a manager, the assistant should be an assistant manager. The last thing you want to do is bog down your expert in handling matters or situations that don't really require his expertise.

If you have an in-house expert, your company has special opportunities available to it. Your expert should serve on industry standards committees and be active in shaping the future direction of the fields in which your company operates. Your in-house expert can advise local community groups or help with local government programs if appropriate.

Don't stagnate an expert. Whatever programs and actions brought him up to expert level, don't discontinue them. No areas of expertise stand still. The forefront of knowledge advances and your expert must continue to advance as well.

If he operates as an expert long enough, and continues to expand his knowledge of his field, he may very well become a guru.

Guru

There are industry gurus, local gurus, and resident (in-house) gurus. A guru is more than an expert. He is a trusted expert and a leader. He is someone who understands and can apply the philosophy and concepts of a subject to a wide range of circumstances, including new circumstances when they arise. He not only advises others technically, but enhances their understanding of the subject in the process. He is a teacher.

Most people equate "guru" with "expert" or even "techie". That's not correct.

The objective of an expert is to solve the problem, to address the technical issue. The objective of a guru is the technical enlightenment of others. He understands the technical subjects, but also understands the people involved in those subjects. He knows that people apply technology, and that it's the people side of the equation that makes it all work.

A guru inspires people with his knowledge. By increasing their understanding, he makes them feel bigger, not smaller.

Gurus write inspiring and clearly understandable material and often initiate widespread advances in their companies and in their fields by virtue of communicating breakthroughs clearly to others.

If you have an in-house guru, it's he who should address your board of directors on technical issues. Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." A guru does understand it well enough to make such explanations without losing accuracy or perspective in the translation, and without "talking down" to his audience. His vitality for the subject comes across in an understandable way, and makes the subject that much more "real" to his audience.

Gurus and experts both can be subject to attacks occasioned by the jealousy or fear of those less knowledgeable. If it happens, make a note of the detractor and the incident. Here is someone who is trying to destroy, in whole or in part, a valuable asset of your company. Don't ignore such actions or be too quick to write them off as "personality conflicts". No one is perfect. Anyone has faults that can be criticized. But excessive criticism of a guru or expert is a sign of someone with a personal agenda that is greatly at odds with your company's best interests. Your gurus and experts deserve defense when their expertise and helpfulness is under siege. Be eager to defend or help them.

Genius

A genius is a person of extraordinary intellect and talent. When that intellect and talent are applied to a particular field or subject, the result is usually one or more contributions of singular magnitude. A genius does not have to be a specialist in a particular field to be a genius, but this is often the case.

The word "genius" is often associated with "eccentric", but a genius does not have to be eccentric. If he is, he is forgiven for it due to the high value of his original contributions to his field or to those who work or associate with him.

An eccentric expert is not a genius, although such persons are often regarded that way by non-technical people. A real genius will be interested more in his subject or field than in how he is regarded by others.

An eccentric expert can fall victim to misplaced admiration and may for a while carry on with an exaggerated sense of self-worth. Real value lies in advancing your field or your company's activities as well as your own abilities, not in advancing yourself through exhibition or pretense.

A genius is way beyond being an expert in a subject, but may or may not have guru qualities. When he does, the benefits of his work and knowledge are much more immediate.

A genius's technical writings and spoken words may be understood by only a few technically advanced persons. It takes time for the ideas to be understood, and to be clearly communicated to others. Sometimes the genius's view and perspective of technology or society gives rise to visions of the future. These visions seem to the genius to be the inevitable extension of current and past situations, although they are often met with incredulity by those with a lesser perspective. For these reasons many geniuses are said to be "ahead of their time."

One or more persons of genius caliber can often be found at the center of a company's advanced technical development.

When you have a genius, you will benefit the most by surrounding him with gurus and experts. The gurus are needed to grasp and translate the visionary and philosophical aspects of the technology. The experts are needed to apply them to obtain the technical benefits which advance the company's purpose. Teams of incredible value and power have been built this way.

From Security Technology and Design Magazine, April 1997.