I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

I’ll get straight to the point.  Why should companies invest more in management training?  Here are 10 simple reasons.

1) An employee’s relationship with his or her direct manager is the most important single factor in employee engagement.

2) Engaged employees are happier and more productive.  Disengaged employees are frustrated and more disruptive.

3) Because there’s no widely agreed-on skillset for management (good managers come in all shapes and sizes), there’s an assumption everyone knows how to do it.  This is akin to someone who’s never driven before being given keys to a car and told: “Drive.”  (Many many years ago, this is how I first learned to manage.  I blundered my way through it.  Trial and error.  It wasn’t pretty.)

The world of technology moves faster than the speed of light it seems. Devices are updated and software upgraded annually and sometimes more frequent than that.  Society wants to be able to function and be as productive as they can be as well as be entertained “now”.

Software companies must be ready to meet the demands of their loyal customers while increasing their market share among new customers. These companies are always looking to the ingenuity and creativity of their colleagues to keep them in the consumer’s focus. But, who are these “colleagues”? Are they required to be young, twenty-somethings that are fresh out of college with a host of ideas and energy about software and hardware that the consumer may enjoy? Or can they be more mature with a little more experience in the working world and may know a bit more about the consumer’s needs and some knowledge of today’s devices?

Older candidates for IT positions face many challenges when competing with their younger counterparts. The primary challenge that most will face is the ability to prove their knowledge of current hardware and the development and application of software used by consumers. Candidates will have to prove that although they may be older, their knowledge and experience is very current. They will have to make more of an effort to show that they are on pace with the younger candidates.

Another challenge will be marketing what should be considered prized assets; maturity and work experience. More mature candidates bring along a history of work experience and a level of maturity that can be utilized as a resource for most companies. They are more experienced with time management, organization and communication skills as well as balancing home and work. They can quickly become role models for younger colleagues within the company.

Unfortunately, some mature candidates can be seen as a threat to existing leadership, especially if that leadership is younger. Younger members of a leadership team may be concerned that the older candidate may be able to move them out of their position. If the candidate has a considerably robust technological background this will be a special concern and could cause the candidate to lose the opportunity.

Demonstrating that their knowledge or training is current, marketing their experience and maturity, and not being seen as a threat to existing leadership make job hunting an even more daunting task for the mature candidate. There are often times that they are overlooked for positions for these very reasons. But, software companies who know what they need and how to utilize talent will not pass up the opportunity to hire these jewels.

 Related:

H-1B Visas, the Dance Between Large Corporations and the Local IT Professional

Is a period of free consulting an effective way to acquire new business with a potential client?