2444203
submission
HangingChad writes:
Hang around Slashdot for five minutes and you'll discover that many in the tech field have strong opinions, frequently coupled with equally strong personalities and seasoned with a dash of ego. As a tech manager you frequently have to balance application changes management wants with difficult programmer and designer personalities who sometimes react like you're attacking their baby. What makes it tricky is sometimes both sides have a point. At times the changes management is asking for really are a poor choice. My attitude is they're paying the bills and I'll make the best counter-argument I can, but if they remain determined then give it to them, even if I personally disagree. Then I wind up getting it from the programmers and designers. These aren't necessarily issues related to ethics or security, sometimes the most vitriol arises from things as simple as a difference of opinion about a page layout.
I've consulted with a few companies in the recent past that have actually outsourced development because they had difficulty finding and retaining quality programmers and then found them difficult to work with.
One of the challenges of being a tech manager is refereeing between opposing viewpoints bumping into large egos. Replacing quality programmers is not always easy, even if they're being annoying. Productivity suffers. My questions for the other managers here, what tricks do you have for managing difficult personalities and where do you draw the line? For programmers, when you feel management doesn't appreciate your masterpiece of development, how could your managers frame communication so the topic is less threatening? There has to be some means of compromise that doesn't let developers dictate to management which is the tail wagging the dog, or being brutish and insensitive, sending valuable but bitter employees home to polish their collection of assault rifles. And is the vitriol and clash of egos we take for granted here at Slashdot discouraging some companies from in-house development?
474922
submission
HangingChad writes:
According to Fortune, there are reports that Microsoft is trying to strong arm startups to give preferential treatment to MSN Messenger and are using account information as leverage. "If the company wants to offer other IM services (from Yahoo, Google or AOL, say), Messenger must get top billing. And if the startup wants to offer any other IM service, it must pay Microsoft 25 cents a user per year for a site license." Of course, if the company is willing to use Messenger exclusively "fee will be discounted 100 percent." Getting detailed information is difficult as many of the companies being approached are afraid of reprisals.