Top Signs Your ERP Manager is a Corporate Political Hack

Working in the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) space can be a challenging yet rewarding experience for software developers. However, not all management styles contribute positively to a healthy work environment and successful project outcomes. In some cases, managers may exhibit signs of being more interested in corporate politics and personal gains than in fostering a productive and technically sound development process. Here are ten signs that your manager in the ERP space might be a fraudulent corporate political hack.

1. Cost Over Value Obsession

A significant red flag is a relentless focus on minimizing costs without considering the long-term value of the software. Managers who consistently prioritize cost-cutting measures over investing in quality development may be driven more by short-term political gains than the overall success of the ERP project.

2: Outsourcing Critical Project Work

If your manager frequently outsources critical project work, especially core development tasks, it could indicate a short-sighted approach to meeting immediate deadlines without considering the long-term consequences. Outsourcing may lead to quick deliverables, but it often results in technical debt that can accumulate and impede future progress.

When a manager consistently outsources critical project work, it sends a clear message to the in-house development team – that their skills and expertise are not valued or trusted enough to handle essential tasks. This can lead to a significant blow to team morale, fostering a sense of disengagement and diminishing the enthusiasm of developers who may feel sidelined in their own projects.

Diminishing Self-Actualization

Self-actualization, a concept from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, refers to the realization of one's full potential and capabilities. When crucial project work is consistently outsourced, the development team is deprived of opportunities to fully utilize and enhance their skills. This deprivation diminishes the sense of self-actualization among team members, as they are relegated to a secondary role, hindering their professional growth and satisfaction.

Incurring Additional Technical Debt

Outsourcing, especially when done hastily or without careful consideration, often results in the accumulation of technical debt. External teams typically employ their preferred frameworks, technologies, or coding practices that are not aligned with the in-house team's expertise. This ultimately leads to a fragmented codebase, making maintenance and future development more challenging.

Rush to Buy Instead of Build

Outsourcing decisions can sometimes be driven by a rush to meet immediate deadlines, resulting in a preference for buying solutions rather than engaging in healthy discussions around buy vs. build scenarios. While buying solutions may offer quick deliverables, it often comes at the cost of ignoring the long-term consequences and potential benefits of building in-house capabilities.

Impact on Talent Retention

The rush to buy solutions without considering the in-house team's capabilities and preferences can contribute to talent retention challenges. Skilled developers who seek a sense of ownership and meaningful contributions to projects may feel disillusioned in an environment where critical work is consistently outsourced. This can lead to high turnover rates as developers seek opportunities where their skills and expertise are valued and utilized.

3. Short-Term Deliverables at the Expense of Long-Term Success

Managers who push for quick wins and short-term deliverables without considering the broader project goals may be more concerned with appearing successful in the short term rather than ensuring the ERP system's sustainability and effectiveness in the long run.

4. Accumulation of Technical Debt

A clear sign of a manager focused on immediate gains is the accumulation of technical debt. If corners are consistently cut to meet deadlines, it can lead to a system burdened with unresolved issues, inefficiencies, and a higher likelihood of project failure down the line.

5. Lack of Focus on Quality Assurance

A manager who neglects or minimizes the importance of quality assurance processes is likely more interested in pushing through deliverables than ensuring the software meets high standards. This approach can result in a system riddled with bugs and vulnerabilities.

6. Resistance to Necessary Upgrades and Maintenance

Managers who resist investing time and resources in necessary upgrades and maintenance may be trying to avoid the costs associated with these activities. However, neglecting updates can lead to security vulnerabilities and performance issues that may be more costly in the long term.

7. Overemphasis on Smooth Talking

A manager who relies heavily on smooth talking and persuasive communication, but lacks substantive technical knowledge, may be compensating for a lack of expertise. This can be a tactic to navigate corporate politics and maintain a facade of competence.

Smooth talkers in managerial roles often excel in using persuasive language to navigate corporate waters. However, a distinct and cringe-worthy aspect of their communication style is the incorporation of specific key proprietary words aligned with business strategy, even when they lack a genuine understanding of the associated subject matter.

Proprietary Buzzwords without Substance

These managers are adept at sprinkling their conversations with industry-specific jargon and proprietary buzzwords, giving the illusion of expertise. They may reference terms that are currently in vogue or align with the company's business strategy, creating an impression of being well-versed in the intricacies of the field. The reality, however, is that these buzzwords are often deployed as a smokescreen to conceal a lack of genuine knowledge.

Cringeworthy Recitation

What sets these managers apart is their cringeworthy recitation of these buzzwords, often in a rehearsed and predictable manner. Whether in meetings, presentations, or casual conversations, they consistently rely on these terms as if the mere utterance of such words is sufficient to convey authority and competence.

Lack of Substance and Understanding

Behind the smooth facade lies a significant gap in understanding. These managers may struggle to provide coherent explanations or delve into the nuances of the buzzwords they so frequently employ. The dissonance becomes glaring when team members or subject matter experts probe deeper into these concepts, only to find the manager evading meaningful discussion.

Impact on the Team and Projects

This reliance on buzzwords without substance can have detrimental effects on the team and project outcomes. Team members may feel disillusioned as they discover the gap between the manager's words and actual understanding. It can lead to confusion, misalignment of goals, and, in some cases, the implementation of strategies that lack a solid foundation.

8. Lack of Transparency and Open Communication

Fraudulent managers often shy away from transparent communication about project challenges, risks, and decisions. If your manager avoids open discussions about the project's status and issues, it could be a sign of a lack of integrity.

One of the key characteristics of a slimeball manager is the deliberate lack of transparency and open communication. While transparency is a cornerstone of healthy workplace dynamics, these managers often view it as a threat to their hidden agendas of self-promotion, narrative control, and maintaining an environment where information is strictly on a need-to-know basis.

Hidden Agendas and Self-Promotion

Slimeball managers thrive in environments where they can carefully craft and control the narrative surrounding their actions and decisions. Transparent communication poses a risk to their hidden agendas, as it might bring additional viewpoints into the fold and reveal aspects of their decision-making process that could be questioned.

Maintaining Control over Information

These managers prefer to keep a tight grip on information, selectively disclosing details to team members on a need-to-know basis. By doing so, they ensure that they remain the central figure in the narrative, controlling the flow of information and presenting it in a way that aligns with their self-promotion objectives.

Preventing Contrarian Thoughts

A key motive behind the lack of transparency is the desire to prevent the emergence of contrarian thoughts or dissenting opinions. Slimeball managers fear that open communication could lead to team members questioning their decisions or proposing alternative ideas that might appear to trump their perceived intelligence or steal their glory.

Focus on the Manager, Not the Team

By fostering an environment of secrecy, these managers shift the focus away from collaborative teamwork and shared success. The emphasis becomes centered on the manager's actions and decisions, creating a dynamic where the team operates more as an extension of the manager's will rather than as a collective force with diverse perspectives.

9. Favoritism and Nepotism

Corporate political hacks may engage in favoritism, promoting individuals based on personal relationships rather than merit. This can undermine the team's morale and hinder the overall success of the ERP project.

In an environment where favoritism and nepotism thrive, there's often another layer of concern known as cronyism. This occurs when the manager displays a marked preference for individuals or entities that maintain close personal or political ties. The consequences can be dire when this favoritism extends to the stubborn defense of an entity, even in the face of glaring shortcomings.

Cronyism and Stubborn Defense

Managers engaged in cronyism may extend preferential treatment to individuals or external entities due to personal relationships or shared interests. This preferential treatment can manifest in various forms, such as awarding lucrative contracts, providing unwarranted promotions, or shielding an entity from accountability for subpar performance.

A particularly troubling aspect of cronyism is the manager's stubborn defense of the favored entity, irrespective of its actual performance. Any attempts to shed light on deficiencies or raise awareness about the entity's shortcomings may be met with staunch resistance. This defensive posture often stems from a fear that acknowledging these issues could tarnish the manager's reputation or reflect poorly on their decision-making.

Detrimental to Managerial Reputation

The manager may perceive any criticism or scrutiny of his/her cronies as a personal attack on their judgment and integrity. This defensive stance not only obstructs transparency but also hinders any constructive efforts to address and rectify the issues at hand.

In such cases, the manager may go to great lengths to shield his/her cronies from scrutiny, even if it means turning a blind eye to project failures, missed deadlines, or substandard deliverables. This behavior is driven by the misguided belief that protecting the reputation of the favored entity is synonymous with safeguarding their own standing within the organization.

Impact on the Team

This form of cronyism not only creates an uneven playing field within the team but can also demoralize other team members who may feel their hard work and dedication go unrecognized. The resulting lack of trust and motivation can have a cascading effect on the overall productivity and cohesion of the development team.

When favoritism and nepotism evolve into cronyism with a defensive posture, it poses a severe threat to the project's success. Recognizing these signs is crucial for the development team to navigate the challenges posed by such managerial behavior and work towards fostering a fair and merit-based work environment.

10. Resistance to Feedback and Improvement

A manager who consistently dismisses constructive feedback and resists process improvements may be more interested in maintaining the status quo to protect their own interests. This resistance can impede the team's growth and hinder the project's success.

Navigating the Corporate Minefield: Spotting and Defeating the Political Hack Invasion

Being aware of these signs can help software developers navigate challenging work environments and identify when their manager's priorities may be misaligned with the long-term success of the ERP project. It's crucial for developers to advocate for best practices, quality development, and transparent communication to ensure the success of their projects despite potential challenges posed by a fraudulent corporate political hack. 

The moment that you see your managers starting to slip and inherit these toxic traits, it unfortunately is time to update your resume and look for your exit as relying on the same political hack job that promoted the manager to fix it is highly unlikely.