skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (06/19/88)
During the debate, I mentioned the term "technical core." Some people didn't know what I meant by that. In this posting, I want to define that term and talk about why it's an interesting issue in regard to women in computing. This article moves a little fast, but I didn't want it to be too long, so please bear with me. Organizational theorists talk about the "technical core" of complex organizations. Theorists suggest that: "Under norms of rationality, organizations seek to seal off their core technologies from environmental influences." (Thompson, _Organizations In Action_) That "sealed off" area is buffered from as much as possible so that those people in the core can work on technical cause-effect problems (does this program have that bug) and not worry about the marketing, legality, or any other kind of question. Other layers of the organization take care of those questions. Traditionally, the technical core is isolated as much as possible, often even physically. There might be little personnel interchange between the layers of an organization; sometimes, managerial positions are filled from outside the organization (people with MBAs) rather than from people who have moved through the technical core. The idea is that MBAs (or whatever) are trained in the specific skills of management, or economics, or marketing, or whatever--training an engineer or a doctor or a computer scientist doesn't have. Some have argued that women don't like to be in the technical cores of companies because 1) they don't like the isolation; 2) women are socialized to enjoy helping people more and, therefore, like to be involved in those layers of an organization which are involved in mediation. This organization is a direct result of Americans' infatuation with German methods of bureaucracy and "rational organization." When some computer firms like Apple got rolling, they were, supposedly, throwing a lot of doubt on this organization schema. Apple, and other groups, were organized so that few people were purely management. Instead, the organization was broken into clusters which were managed by someone who continued to contribute technical know-how. This kind of organization was supposed to work better because: it would prevent the kind of policy catastrophe that can happen when the technical core is not listened to (the Pinto or Corvair cases, for example;) it would be more interesting for people; it was necessary in the field of computers because the field changes so fast that if someone stays out of technical work for any length of time they are left far behind; it is possible in the field of computers because the "technical" knowledge is not so different from the managerial knowledge (does this program work is a major factor in deciding whether or not the program should be marketed--more important, say, than the issue of whether or not a car runs matters in the final decision.) I know this is moving a little fast, but this is the point I think is interesting. If all these various theorists are right--if women don't want to be in the technical core because it is isolated, if computer firms do better with this different kind of organization, then, possibly, computer firms could be the best kind of place for women to work. So, keeping that point in mind, are the theorists right? -Trish usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (06/20/88)
Andy Freeman has taken exception to the Corvair and Pinto examples. He points out that the Challenger is an example more to the point. -Trish usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
regard@ttidca.TTI.COM (Adrienne Regard) (06/20/88)
Re your technical core and women in computing: I studied something of a tangent in "Leadership, Motivation and Power" at UCLA during my MBA studies there. We read, among other things THE ORGANIZATION TRAP and THE INVISIBLE WAR, both written by Sam Culbert (the instructor) and John McDonough. Basically, their arguments are for a more "human" workplace, and how one can design a work environment one can survive in while allowing the corporate entity to thrive. However, I went up to Sam after one class and pointed out that many of the changes he was advocating are the same kind of 'human' values that women have been socialized to value. Therefore it would make sense for him to investigate the changes that _can_ come about when women infiltrate a heretofor all (or almost all) male organization. He looked at me blankly for a moment -- the idea had obviously never crossed his mind. . .such an enormous resource, overlooked. In large organizations, it is obviously 'easier' to deal with a bunch of John Does than to deal with individuals. It is also easier to deal with specialized, well defined problems than whole complex systems. The isolation of the technical core is one manifestation of a drive for economy. But, as most organizations have discovered, this much isolation is not reflected in the world they hope to sell to, and the strain of moving from a disintegrated production environment to an integrated market is often too great for the organization to overcome, and the products are overlooked by the customers, and the company fails. It is, of course, a chicken-or-egg problem. Which comes first? The inte- gration or the integrators? And what is success? Teaching integrators to become specialists? Or benefitting, unwittingly, from their integration of issues before the company manages to mold them into the wrong thing? ====================================================================== For submissions, please use: usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
rsp@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Steve Price) (06/20/88)
In article <11101@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > Some have argued that women don't like to be in the technical cores > of companies because 1) they don't like the isolation; 2) women > are socialized to enjoy helping people more and, therefore, like to > be involved in those layers of an organization which are involved in > mediation. > I have been a computer programmer/analyst since 1981 and have worked in both a tiny start-up software house and in a large ISO (Information Systems Organization) of a major corporation. Based on that experience, I think Trish's general discussion of the technical core and the usual style of software management is 100% on target. But the "isolation" refered to should not be thought of as some sort of lonely solitary confinement. The isolation is not from other humans but from certain business questions or problems, such as how to market, price, sell, deliver, etc. (It can be argued that this is a bad formal arrangement of people and talent. Sometimes I think it is very bad that the people who build things are supposed to be incapable of designing or marketing them. I especially get annoyed when nontechnical managers independently make feature & delivery deadline promises.) However, whether this is good or bad organization, women (and men) should know that programming usually is a very human and humane GROUP effort. Very little can be accomplished by truly isolated geniuses. Much satisifaction can be had while designing and coding with friends who enjoy the challenges and who share everything to improve the product and the group's performance. Before becoming a programmer, I spent 8 years teaching high school and college English. I feel no more isolated now then I did then. I still have plenty of chances to "teach" others and to be taught by them in turn. In short, my experience leads me to state that no one should avoid programming as a field of endeavor through fear of being cut off from human contact. (You may may not like the humans you'll contact as a programmer, but that is a different topic 8-). ) Steve Price pacbell!pbhyf!rsp (415) 823-1951 usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (06/21/88)
In article <11101@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > >Some have argued that women don't like to be in the technical cores >of companies because 1) they don't like the isolation; 2) women >are socialized to enjoy helping people more and, therefore, like to >be involved in those layers of an organization which are involved in >mediation. > >............ If all these various theorists are right--if women don't >want to be in the technical core because it is isolated, if computer >firms do better with this different kind of organization, then, possibly, >computer firms could be the best kind of place for women to work. > >So, keeping that point in mind, are the theorists right? >-Trish If "women don't like to be in the tech cores of companies" I think it is because women don't like to be where they aren't welcome, and we were never welcome in tech cores until recently (recent decades, maybe). I work in the tech core of Sun and I love it, including the isolation. (Where else could I take a break to practice juggling in the hallway?) I think that software engineering is one of the best fields for women to work in because it is easy to penetrate without a degree in the 'proper' field. I would bet that the percentage of working software engineers without a degree in Computer Science, EE, or Math, is higher than the percentage of other-degree engineers in any other tech field. Furthermore, if you compare the properly degreed SE's to the other-degree SE's, I expect that the percentage of SE's who are an asset to their company (i.e. they're good) would be about the same. Some of the people who switch into software aren't any good, but neither are the many fools who major in CS just because they want a good salary, not because they like it or are any good at it. Some properly degreed SE's look down on the other-degreed transfers into this field (many of whom are women), and also claim that the right stuff for software engineering is rare stuff indeed. I disagree. I think it is very common. It is just the art & science of problem solving. All of the science/math college graduates can do it if they choose to, and many of the lit & arts grads can, too (yet how many of them know this or would be willing to try?). What matters, and what all these potential SE's should consider when deciding whether or not to pursue a carreer in software, is whether or not they *like* it. The practical aspects of how to switch from being an unemployed history graduate to an employed software engineer are another matter altogether, one that I know nothing about. Tech writer->tech support->engineering seems to work for some people, but maybe someone who has transferred into software from a different field could write about how to do this. Marla Parker {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!marla marla@sun.com usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu
rcj@moss.ATT.COM (06/21/88)
In article <11165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: }If "women don't like to be in the tech cores of companies" I think it is }because women don't like to be where they aren't welcome, and we were }never welcome in tech cores until recently (recent decades, maybe). I I wouldn't put the plural on "decades" -- I have a good friend who joined Bell Labs 15 years ago and she could not legally be a Member of Technical Staff (the usual designation for someone with a Master's) because she was a woman. Also, my little sister is finishing her MSEE right now at Mississippi State University, and she can tell you some wonderful modern- day horror stories about sexual discrimination and harrassment in today's engineering college environment. TAs threatening to fail her if she didn't sleep with them, long-tenured untouchable professors starting the first day's course lecture by explicitly saying they don't believe women should be in engineering, the whole nine yards. And, ironically enough, the main reason she stayed for the Master's was because, despite *incredible* success as a co-op with the Navy, her self-confidence has been eroded quite a bit by her college experience. She wants to be "more solid" in her field before going out into the real world. }Furthermore, if you compare the properly degreed SE's to the other-degree }SE's, I expect that the percentage of SE's who are an asset to their }company (i.e. they're good) would be about the same. Some of the }people who switch into software aren't any good, but neither are the many }fools who major in CS just because they want a good salary, not because }they like it or are any good at it. Women got a bum rap at my school for switching from marketing and management majors to CS just to get jobs. The unqualified people who did this were uniformly despised, but it just so happened that 5 out of every 6 of them were women at my school around 1980. Thus it was "these damned women diluting the field" when actually it was "these damned unqualified money-grubbing marketing/management-type people diluting the field". It was easy for those already predisposed against women to use this as just another weapon against them. }for software engineering is rare stuff indeed. I disagree. I think it }is very common. It is just the art & science of problem solving. All of Amen! }The practical aspects of how to switch from being an unemployed history }graduate to an employed software engineer are another matter altogether, }one that I know nothing about. Tech writer->tech support->engineering }seems to work for some people, but maybe someone who has transferred }into software from a different field could write about how to do this. I know someone who went from teaching "special education" for many years to her current employ as a very talented microcoder on my project. She took a computer course at a local college (in Oregon) to help keep her teaching certificate current, found she had a knack and a yen for programming, and ended up getting her BSCS in night school. She entered the software field as a microprogrammer right from the start at age 37. Curtis Jackson -- moss!rcj 201-386-6409 (CORNET 232) ...![ att ulysses ucbvax allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ att ucbvax akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
pag00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Pria Graves) (06/24/88)
In article <11165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: > >The practical aspects of how to switch from being an unemployed history >graduate to an employed software engineer are another matter altogether, >one that I know nothing about. Tech writer->tech support->engineering >seems to work for some people, but maybe someone who has transferred >into software from a different field could write about how to do this. Actually, I found it easy. When I first started looking for work in '75, there were no jobs around here (electronics industry recession) so I took my BA in philosophy and got a job as a secretary/office manager. After three years I got fed up with being paid nothing for lots of responsibility (signatory power on both payroll and general checking accounts etc.) so I started calling customers who knew and respected me. One said "how would you like to be a network technician?" and I responded "what's that?" So I went to visit, and he explained about the business of keeping a data network running and I thought it would be interesting so I gave it a try. Later I shifted into system maintenance, data network design, network operations management and finally into software engineering. At all phases the key has been a willingness to learn and people who were willing to bank on that. Somewhere along the way I got an MBA but I don't think it ever helped me much. The main thing was jumping in and learning fast! -- Pria ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amdcad,nsc}!amdahl!pag00 (408) 746 7539 (Disclaimer: even I don't necessarily agree!)