MORE ENTRIES
- Getting noticed by management, part 2
- Getting noticed by management
- Advice for those on the wrong end of age discrimination
- Measuring business analysts
- Information security, off the deep end
- Testing for PC competence
- Paint-by-numbers project management
- Comparing different interaction forums
- When Mr. Negative is your boss
- Making ITIL happen
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
July 2006
I'm Mr. Invisible, and I need to clarify a point: I'm an employee, not a contractor.
I have been fortunate lately in that my current manager understands what it means when her phone doesn't ring. When we discussed preparing for my review (which was far and away the best review I have ever received,) she mentioned that no one has said anything to her about me. "Trust me, that's a good thing," she informed me.
She is also a very hands-off manager, and doesn't want to hear anything from me unless I need something from her. Given my (poorly directed) style, she is a perfect match for me.
I found myself considering this question because next month there will be changes in management. I'll be getting a new manager, an unknown quantity. I can't assume that the new manager will function in the same way as the old one, and therefore it is probably time to address this issue.
Contractor or employee, though, I think you're right in that "building a relationship with the customer" is a far better solution than "blowing my own horn." I have a month to consider exactly how to do this, and I hope that beginning a relationship with the intention of building a good one will address my concern, and keep everyone happy.
- Mr. Translucent(?)
Dear Materializing ...
I'm glad you reached the right conclusion, even though I drew the wrong inference. Your reporting manager is your customer. Too many employees consider "exceeding their customer's expectations" to be synonymous with brown-nosing, and so they end up going to an opposite extreme, becoming either hostile or invisible.
With the management changes coming up, be wary. Lots of strange things can happen. I'll reinforce one piece of advice, and add one more, given the additional information.
The reinforcement is to encourage your new manager to set up a bi-weekly status meeting. If he/she is any good, you won't have to take the initiative on this. If it doesn't happen without you taking the initiative, do it. Just say something like this: "I'm pretty independent, but things do come up from time to time. And also, because I'm pretty independent, I want to make sure I'm staying on the right track."
The new piece of advice is this: From your account, you're in a pretty good situation right now. If your manager changes, it's going to mean your situation will change. Don't be nostalgic for the way it used to be. If you allow this to happen, and especially if you allow it to happen in a way that you and some of your peers commiserate about it, it will poison your new reporting relationship.
Just learn your new manager's style and embrace it as your own, to the extent you can do so, or at least find ways to accommodate to it.
- Bob
I'm hoping you can tell me, from management's perspective, what I'm doing wrong.
When I leave a job (which is happening too frequently for my tastes, lately,) I notice two things happening:
The people downstream (meaning folks who benefit from my work, not people who report to me,) become upset when I tell them I'm leaving, though they wish me well. When I call them back some time after I've been gone, they're frantic because either no one is helping them, or the help is not to their satisfaction. The fact that they feel loss when I leave tells me that I've done my job well.
Management's response, however, is different. Though they wish me well, they don't seem to care that I'm leaving. One company didn't take me up on my offer to train my replacement. (I was concerned the ball would be dropped when I left, and I found out months later that I was right.)
I suspect that the problem is that I don't "blow my own horn," which is something I've never been good at doing. The people who benefit from my work know exactly what I'm doing, because they're on the receiving end. But management might not know what I'm up to. All they know is that their phone doesn't ring, and they might not realize why.
Am I on the right track? How do I solve this problem? And how do I keep management up to date on what I'm doing without wasting their time on what is (to me, at least,) obvious?
- Mr. Invisible
Dear Mr. Invisible
You aren't giving me much to go on. Heck, I don't even know what kind of work you do. But I'll give it a try.
From your phrasing, I infer you're a contractor rather than an employee. That, and your retiscence to "blow your own horn" are suggestive.
Here's my guess: When you sign a contract you leave out the part about governance - about making it clear who it is who has the authority to declare your work successful. Whoever that individual is, he or she is your sole customer. The folks downstream are "consumers" - they make use of what you do. The company as a whole is the "wallet" - it provides the money.
Customers are the people who make the buying decision about your services. It appears you're ignoring yours.
From here on in, define governance in your contracts - a regular meeting with the individual who has the authority to decide whether your work is satisfactory, and to whom you are supposed to raise issues for resolution that are beyond your authority to decide. Provide a written status report and walk your customer through it - not because you're blowing your own horn, but because your customer has a right to understand what it is that you're doing, what decisions you're making, and what value you're providing in exchange for deciding to engage your services and pay you for them.
Business is about relationships. You're doing an outstanding job of building them with everyone except the one individual in each client company who is the most important to your success: Your customer.
- Bob
I probably should NOT comment on another InfoWorld column, but this one was just too good to pass up. I, too, am over 50. Way beyond 50. But somewhere around 42 or 43 I went independent for that very reason. Guys over 40, like Rodney Dangerfield, "don't get no respect." And we're the only ones who remember Rodney and his tie-straightening act.
So, screw up your courage, save up about two years salary (you'll need that and more) and go into business for yourself. Set up a corporation, get a good, inexpensive CPA, a good, inexpensive corporate attorney (for contracts if nothing else) and let the Devil take the hindmost. Set a good rate and don't vary from it, not even if the "Pimp-du-jour" does promise that this contract will run for years. Contracts are good for whatever the escape clause is in the contract; usually two weeks. And NEVER EVER sign a contract without a cancellation period that favors you! If you don't protect yourself, no one else will.
Finally, hmmm.... No finally. Like the Nike ad; Just Do It!
James Owen
Jim ...
I can only agree conditionally. And to fend off the sarcastic Comments: No, it isn't because I don't want any more competition.
I don't, of course, but that isn't the reason.
It's just that not everyone belongs in business. While some businesses are easier than others, there are a few basic questions anyone considering this route should ask themselves. They are:
1. Can you sell? Can you figure out who wants what you do, find ways to get their attention, and muster the solid reasons they should engage your services instead of those of your competitors?
An inability to sell is probably the most common reason people who go into business for themselves go out of business. Take it seriously, because if you're good at selling, you're probably receiving offers of employment if you want them.
2. Are you good enough at what you do to be counted in the top 20%? Consultants and contractors must be like Caesar's wife: Above reproach. To sell you need a professional demeanor. To deliver you need to provide professional results. It's a hard question to ask yourself and a harder one to answer honestly. It's also critically important, for a simple and practical reason: If you're an employee, you have to at least "meet expectations." It says so on the employee evaluation form. As an outside contractor or consultants you have to exceed them.
Every time.
3. Do you have the financial discipline to average out your earnings so you don't run short during your down times? Not everyone does, and not everyone is able to quell the feeling of panic that arises when they see their checking account dwindling and there is no work in sight.
If you can honestly give the right answer to these three questions, I agree - give it a shot. There's a lot to be said for being your own boss, although it can ruin you for anything else.
But if you can't, and are also having trouble finding employment in your chosen field due to age discrimination, I'd advise you to pursue one of two other alternatives. Either chase opportunities for which gray hairs give you credibility, or find a good staffing agency to handle the selling for you.
- Bob
Do you know of any metrics for measuring the performance of a business analyst?
My wife is applying for a business analyst position at a company that's metric crazy, and they're looking for the metrics for judging someone in a business analyst role.
Now my wife and I share the same opinion - that this is pretty subjective - things like user satisfaction, effectiveness of the revised process, etc. can potentially be measured, but they more reflect on the overall project rather than just one of its members. We'd value your thoughts.
- Metriculating
Dear Metriculating ...
Well, this is cheating of course, since your wife is taking the test, and I'm providing an answer. But what the heck. Metrics are overrated anyhow.
Here's what your wife shouldn't say: You get what you measure, which means that if you can't measure you can't manage. It also means that if you mis-measure you mis-manage; that if you measure the wrong things you get the wrong things; and that anything you don't measure you don't get.
It's valid, but she shouldn't say it. She won't persuade anyone in the job interview, and it will ensure they hire someone else.
Here's how she might answer, in a way that will avoid disqualifying her:
I think the best approach is to answer a question with a question. Which is to say, whoever is hiring her presumably has some goals for the position. If they do, they should be sharing those goals with your wife, and if they aren't, then as a good business analyst she should be asking what they are ... as a way of demonstrating that she's qualified for the position, if nothing else.
The point is this: Metrics only make sense when they're a translation of goals into math. Otherwise, all they do is to establish a second, conflicting set of goals, and your wife will be faced with this: "We want you to accomplish a, b, and c, and we'll be assessing your performance using industry standard metrics for business analysts that have no connection to a, b, and c."
So the right answer to the question is to ask what they want her to accomplish, then ask how they'll know if she's succeeded. Once they answer that question, she can smile brightly and say, "I guess we both now know what the right metrics are for this position."
Or words to that effect.
- Bob
Did you happen to see Roger Grimes recent posting, "Unauthorized applications (still) a bad idea," (InfoWorld's Security Advisor, July 14, 2006)? I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.
- Curious George
Dear Curious ...
Now why did you have to go pour gas on the fire?
Well okay, here goes. Read Grimes' posting and you'll see same the same, tired, self-serving argument by assertion that's usually used by members of the Value Prevention Society (VPS) to justify their one-size-fits-nobody policy recommendations.
Unlike many who take his position, Grimes didn't even haul out the usual references to publications of the Alarming Statistics Society of America (ASSA) to justify his claim that nobody ever installs an unauthorized application that does something useful. Instead, he provides examples, like employees who install GotoMyPC and instant messaging (IM).
Grimes needs to take a trip to the clue store. Does he really think employees install GotoMyPC because they find accessing their work computer from home to be a matter of pleasure. Don't be ridiculous - they install it because they're conscientious, and sometimes need to work from home, using data that's only available on their office PC. Very often, they have to do this because their company's security team has outlawed jump drives, and configure their laptop computers so they can't carry any data out of the company ... security risk, don't you know.
So it's drive in to work on Saturday or install something that helps them get their job done, because IT is too busy locking down the joint to realize the employees need a decent work-from-home solution. If that weren't the case, employees wouldn't have to install GotoMyPC: IT would provide a solid VPN, and Citrix or something similar that provides a way to access office files from home.
As for the IM nonsense. Yes, user-installed IM does cause security problems. Unless Grimes has installed a bunch of keystroke loggers to find out what people are doing every second of their 50-hour work weeks (which is, by the way, why employees have to use office equipment for personal tasks, but that's a different discussion for another time) ... he has no idea what fraction of their use is personal and which is business. Here's a simple alternative to forbidding this very useful communications tool: Install a corporate IM solution that is secure.
Grimes' oddest assertion is this: "Denying all unauthorized software by default leads to more innovation." Huh? Unless you define "innovation" as "figuring out creative ways to bypass the lockdown," the statement is absurd on its face.
If you still think Grimes is on the right side of this argument, what I want you to do is to go back to 1980. Apply the same logic and you'd end up doing exactly what IS (the usual name back then) tried to do when faced with the PC: Forbid it. According to the IS organizations and pundits of 1980, PCs were brought in to play games and waste time in unimportant activities by irresponsible employees who ... get the idea?
I'm not going to generalize here. I've worked with too many fine information security professionals who take a balanced view of their discipline, recognizing that they are responsible for translating security policy into practical action, not to lock up the joint so tightly that nobody can breathe.
But then there's a different sort who are also drawn to the discipline: Junior G-men who divide the entire world into perps and victims, and who generally blame the victims for not spending their entire lives training to fight the perps.
Okay, I'm done now. Get the idea? Grimes appears to consider the role of Information Security to be achieving total security, not striking a balance between risk and opportunity.
Oh ... I rechecked, and I was wrong. Grimes does make use of a statistic from the ASSA: He says 99% of corporate America isn't doing enough to prevent crimeware. If "doing enough" means agreeing with his VPS-driven policies, I sure hope he's right.
- Bob
P.S. I usually post here using a program called Performancing - a Firefox plug-in. Performancing lets me set these up off-line when I have to, which is quite useful; Firefox you know about as an excellent browser.
Most companies would consider both to be unauthorized programs and I'd have to do without.
Recently I interviewed a candidate that had potential. We hired him on a conditional basis. I threw a few tasks his way so that he could get an understanding of what we do and how we do it. I soon discovered his PC skills are almost nonexistent.
Our department moved to storing almost all of our work on the company network some years ago and his lack of PC skills makes it very difficult to even determine if he understands other aspects of the job. What I need is a test of common PC skills that I could give to future candidates. Simple stuff like creating network folders, searching the network for the files from a specific project, switching between the default printer and another network printer, etc. I don't expect them to be able to assemble various Word and Excel files into a single coherent Acrobat file but it would be nice.
Do you have any experience in tests for what I assumed were common PC skills? Everything I found on Google were associated with certification tests and specific to one program, i.e. Oracle, SAP, network administration, programming, etc.
Which also brings up the question of what PC skills employers should expect a potential candidate to have when they are hired.
- Testy
Dear Testy ...
I don't know of such a test, but I imagine it must exist. But I don't know that it's worth the time you'd spend searching for it. I figure an hour of brainstorming would be excessive for figuring out what you want someone to be able to do, and to turn that into a set of instructions any applicant could take to a PC standing in a test cubicle. For example:
1. Create an MS Word document in a new folder called "WhyHireMe." Use the standard template called "CompanyStdTemplate." The document should contain three major subjects, each using the Heading 1 style; called "Work Habits," "Learning Style," and "Management Skills." In each section, list at least three bullet points that fit the subject. The document should be given a running header called "Why You Should Hire Me" and a running footer that displays the page number. Store the file under the name "BasicPersonalFacts," and print it using the network printer called "ApplicantPrinter."
2. Create an Excel spreadsheet that lays out your expectations for salary, benefits, and annual bonus over the first five years of your career here. Store it under the name ...
And so on. With instructions like these, no applicant can fake the skills but any applicant possessing them can breeze through the test in no time at all.
I imagine it would be fun to create the test, too.
Different employers expect different levels of PC competence. What should they expect? That, sadly, is too-often an entirely different question. I figure that for anyone who works at a desk, these are the basic tools of the trade. Those who haven't had the opportunity to learn them deserve sympathy. Those who have had the opportunity but refused to do so deserve to find work anyplace except where you and I work, just as a carpenter who refuses to learn to use a compound mitre saw isn't one I'd want on my construction site.
- Bob
I'm not a subscriber, but, the CEO of my company regularly sends us one of your articles, it seems you have plenty of common sense, because I usually agree with you (seems I "think" I have plenty of common sense also).
Anyway, we have a few Project Managers in our organization who have the "check the box" syndrome. It doesn't matter if the requirements handed to development cannot be measured and are thus untestable, there was a meeting and something exchanged hands – check the box, it's done. It doesn't matter that the code handed from development to test won't install, there was a meeting, and hand-off occurred – check the box, it's done.
This is always frustrating and of course, comes to a head at toward the "scheduled" deployment date.
Any thoughts?
- Afflicted with troubled projects
Dear Afflicted ...
The short version of how to solve this problem, if it's just a few among many, is to hire better project managers.
What's very likely happening, if it is just a few, is malicious obedience. It isn't at all uncommon to find some in this role who are forced to attend project management methodology training and find that it's too structured for their tastes. And I sympathize, as I've attended project management training that I've found is too structured for my tastes. The difference is that <BLATANT PLUG WARNING> I was in a position to do something about it - to develop my own version.</BLATANT PLUG WARNING>
Sorry. Anyway, here's how some of these folks respond: Rather than adopt what makes sense to them and ignore the rest, or to give it all an honest try, they follow the form while ignoring the substance. This lets them "prove" that the techniques don't work.
I don't want to suggest that this behavior is in any way conscious. More often, it doesn't quite break the surface of the brain. Instead, it's of the form of "I'll show them."
Another possibility is that these folks are simply optimists - a fatal characteristic for project managers that lets them fool themselves into believing that Everything is Just Fine. Optimists are simply not suited to the project management discipline.
They belong in Marketing.
If it's more than a few project managers, though, your company has a more systemic problem. If that's the case, it's likely that your business sponsors don't understand their role, and they, or some in the project managers' leadership chain, have created an environment that punishes project managers who raise issues and otherwise honestly report project status. So they sweep problems under the rug as long as they can.
Of course, given that you work for such a highly enlightened CEO, I doubt that's the problem.
- Bob
I have run into an interesting situation that probably is fairly common.
Actually, what makes it interesting for me is not the situation itself, but rather a possible opportunity to learn something.
I was involved in a discussion through a Yahoo discussion group in which the topic was the suitability of using a wiki to maintain a business data dictionary. One fairly common theme among the nine participants was freeing people up from the constraints of bureaucracy. One thing notably absent from the discussion was a comparison of the merits of various tools and governance methods, in spite of my effort to introduce those topics into the discussion. I also mentioned at least two requirements I am facing that I believe can't be addressed by using a wiki. Not one of the other participants addressed either of these concerns, either to agree or to disagree. It seems to me that these people were so focused on their particular agenda that other concerns didn't even register.
Now, here is what I am asking you.
Are you aware of any research that anybody has done to determine in an objective fashion how online discussion groups in general deal with issues that individuals raise, and how this compares with other approaches to seeking assistance, such as face-to-face informal meetings, facilitated meetings, etc? One issue is how likely it is that a discussion might be hijacked by someone with an ideological point of view.
Another issue is what kinds of people tend to take an active role in maintaining publicly accessible documents such as are found in Wikipedia.
How likely is it that the type of people who take it upon themselves to contribute to such repositories will also be the type of people who would introduce an ideological point of view? This could vary according to subject matter. More controversial subjects would likely attract more ideologues.
What I am really after is a way to assess whether the experience I described above is the exception or the rule. Opinion based on first-hand experience is a little helpful, but I would place much more value on the results of formal research by sociologists, cultural anthropologists, psychologists, and other qualified people.
Are you aware of any such research?
- Archie
Archie ...
I don't know of any formal research, which doesn't mean it's nonexistent, merely that I haven't run across it. Much of the comparison is straightforward and doesn't require research, though. Just list the different media (face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, on-line chat and so on) as rows in a matrix; list attributes to be considered as columns (synchronous vs asynchronous; sequential vs parallel "posting,"; impact of personality; potential for one person to dominate; potential for a group to invade and hijack ... whatever is important to the analysis). Then rate the attributes for each of the media. It becomes pretty easy to figure out where each is strong and each is challenged.
Just remember to be sufficiently fine-grained. There are open wikis and edited ones, for example; they'll have different characteristics in some of the attributes.
I'll post this to Advice Line; keep an eye on the Comments section to see if any of those posting know of the kind of study you're looking for.
As you do, take note of those posting. To date, while plenty of ideologues post, none have hijacked the blog, for the simple reason that there's no way of hijacking a blog. You can post whatever comment you like; that doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability.
What can happen to on-line discussion forums of all kinds is that a group of "loudmouths" (print version) flood them with postings that can range from pointless to annoying to offensive. Especially with an internal business forum, that's easily dealt with: Track down the offenders and say, "Don't do that anymore."
Also, you'd have the same control I do with the Comments to my blog, which is to not approve them. In my case I only delete the increasing tide of spam and commercial comments, and one or two that are clearly irrelevant and offensive. In yours, you could impose whatever guidelines seem most appropriate to the situation.
I'm less familiar with wikis. I understand that the technology does provide for editorial control when that's desirable, which is another way of referring to governance.
Just my opinion, which I'm forming soley from your account of events, so I'm doing a lot of inferring and imagining: What you experienced wasn't the influence of ideologues. It was the influence of people who had no interest in the topics you were raising. They were excited about the potential of the medium to free people from the constraints of bureaucracy. You were raising the importance of governance. But one person's governance is another person's bureaucracy. To me, it's unsurprising that none of the participants had a lot of interest in discussing it.
Again, I know of no studies. My guess is that people who contribute to forums like Wikipedia are enthusiasts - amateurs and professionals who love a particular field and want to share their knowledge. Many enthusiasts in any field also have strongly held opinions about it. If you're on the other side of those issues, you'll consider them to be ideologues.
And most likely, they'll consider you to be an ideologue for disagreeing with them.
- Bob
I am in a situation here at work. I am extremely unhappy with my boss.
Don’t get me wrong. We get along OK personally but he is like the kid in Peanuts with the dust cloud around him. I have been cleaning up after him for four years and it is getting old.
Also he is very intensely negative. I call him "Grey Cloud" from a novel I read. Every new project we get is another huge issue that gives him a “migraine.� I am usually very positive, upbeat and motivated to do new work, but his constant anger about everything is killing my spirit.
My job performance is being affected dramatically. This is something that I have always taken deep pride in, my abilities, professionalism and efficiency. I have always been upwardly mobile but now I am in a rut. My boss isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and I have no other routes to go around him without proposing a whole new position, which they will not do because our amount of constant work. I would love to stick it out, which against most people’s advice I have, but I am running on fumes. My skill set is pretty thin outside of the type of IT I am doing at this time so leaving is a scary idea. What advice can you give a guy with diminished spirit and high hopes?
- Down In the Dumps
Dear Downer ...
I can think of a few possible causes for this, but I don't know that having a better understanding will help you at all. It might be that your boss:
* Has a self-image of "hard-boiled manager." Maybe he saw The Front Page too many times in his formative years or something; anyway, his self-image is bound up in never cracking a smile and spreading the negative energy around.
* Suffers from mild depression. Managers are in no way immune from this malady.
* Was long-ago promoted to his level of incompetence and spends every day knowing, deep down, that he's in over his head and faking it.
The only one of these you can do anything at all about is the possibility of mild depression, and even here you'd have to stick your neck out. If you think this might really be the issue, you could discuss the situation, discreetly, with someone you trust in Human Resources. In the more enlightened companies, this might lead to some exploratory work that leads to your manager getting the help he needs.
You'll have to judge your company and it's HR department. Overall, I'd say the odds aren't very good.
In the end, to me, this looks like one of those times where you can't fix the situation, but you can fix your circumstances. You're overdue to start looking for a better boss.
Oh, about that "thin skillset" - don't worry about it. But do re-think your skills. If you've been succeeding at what you've been doing, you have skills lots of employers will want. You might not be a perfect fit with your next employer's technical environment, but stop thinking in such self-defeating terms. They're just a symptom of what you've been living with. Get past that, and start envisioning yourself in the business environment you want to find instead.
- Bob
About a year ago I launched a serious attempt to institute ITIL throughout the IT organization I lead (to give you a sense of scale, we have about 250 associates). The short version: We've had a very hard time making it stick. Employees give it lip service, but that's about it, and our front-line managers haven't been much better.
When I'm able to get anyone to talk about the situation candidly, I get some variation on, "We don't need ITIL to tell us how to build a server." And to be fair, they don't - like most IT organizations, ours is made up of a lot of highly skilled individuals who know how to do their work. What that means is that on top of everything else I'm having trouble articulating the benefits.
Got any magic bullets?
- Proponent of ITILigent design
Dear Proponent ...
No magic here. Besides, I'm ambivalent about ITIL for a couple of reasons - skepticism about the concepts of internal customers and service level agreements in particular, which are core premises for ITIL so far as I can tell.
But that doesn't help you. What might is to explain a change in how we're handling process consulting at my consulting company, IT Catalysts. We used to approach it in the standard fashion - by documenting the current state, designing the future state, plotting a migration path, and chartering one or more projects to follow it.
The results were sometimes successful, but always like trying to play pool with a rope.
What we finally figured out is that the last thing most organizations need is improved process design. Literally. What they need first are two linked changes. The first is for managers to change their perspective - from managing the work to managing the process that manages the work. The second is a change in culture on the part of all employees, so they think in terms of solving every problem once - that is, figuring out how to do each job the best way possible, then doing it that way every time. Which is to say, instituting a "culture of process" throughout the organization.
If your managers think of their responsibility as managing processes and organize their time and effort accordingly, and employees think of their responsibility in terms of "this is how we do things around here," you've won the battle - they'll figure out the rest, with our without ITIL to guide them.
- Bob
"Al" is one of my best employees. He's a top-notch engineer, very responsible, and handles anything I throw at him with a high degree of professionalism. If I could find three more just like him I'd hire every one of them in a heartbeat.
Except for one thing.
Al is a malcontent, especially about compensation. I've checked, and between his salary and annual bonus, we pay him at the top of what his job category is worth in the marketplace. So I'm pretty sure he'd have a hard time finding a job that pays him more. I also want to emphasize that I personally pay close attention to the intangibles, to make sure every employee, including Al, receives respect, challenging and rewarding work, and appreciation for what they achieve for the company. So does my boss.
I've talked this over with Al on several occasions, and showed him the numbers. Each time he grudgingly admits that he receives a pretty good salary for someone with his responsibilities (we don't do the phony job title trick - we use consultants who have a formula based on actual work performed). But that only makes him grumpier.
I can't afford to lose an employee this good. But Al's constant complaining is public, which means it affects everyone else's morale. It's getting to me, and it's starting to affect my interactions with him, which over time might give him something legitimate to gripe about - me.
Any ideas on how I can defuse this situation?
- Going nuts
Dear Nuts ...
Before getting to the fix, it's important to first recognize that for some people, complaining is just a way of making conversation. If they didn't have something to complain about they'd fall silent. Worse, some employees figure that saying anything complimentary about their employer will make them sound like a Goody Two Shoes, turning them into social pariahs in the process.
So once something like this gets started it can be surprisingly hard to stop, even in as good a work situation as you portray. I don't have any surefire remedies. Here are a few ideas you can try:
* Ask Al, point blank, what salary and bonus combination would be enough that he'd stop complaining. Chances are fifty/fifty that he'll give you a pole-axed look and splutter a bit uncertain of how to respond. If he does, let him know, in no uncertain terms, that he's complaining for the sake of complaining, and you'd appreciate it if he'd find something more appropriate to complain about, like the quality of food in the cafeteria, or the location of his parking place.
This would also be a good time to suggest that his underlying financial concerns aren't a matter of his compensation - they're a matter of how he's managing his compensation. From what you describe, Al could easily retire a multimillionaire, simply by investing the maximum amount in the company's 401(k) program every year, then putting his bonus into indexed mutual funds.
* If Al does give you a number, tell him what positions in the company are in that range, and let him know you'll provide whatever support you can to help him get there. Yes, you'll lose his services along the way, but if he's serious about wanting to earn a significantly higher salary, you'll lose him anyway. Make sure the company doesn't lose a valuable employee when that happens.
* Assuming HR will go along with this, offer Al a deal. For every dollar he's willing to relinquish in salary, you'll add $1.33 to the maximum bonus he can earn for outstanding performance. The one catch is that you're going to include his attitude in the computation - if he continues to complain, he won't get all of his bonus.
This works for the company because a bonus is a one-time payout where salary goes on forever. So through the magic of discounted cash flows, $1.33 in bonus is roughly the same as $1 in salary.
* In one of your staff meetings, make the issue public without singling Al out by name. Let everyone know you've heard some concerns about compensation, so here are the facts about how the company decides how much to pay its employees. It won't stop Al from complaining, but will help inoculate your organization from it, preventing it from spreading.
One other avenue you might choose to pursue is the possibility that Al suffers from a low level of depression. Talk it over with an expert in HR to determine what you are and aren't allowed to say to Al in this regard. If it seems like a possibility, getting him some help would be the best thing you could do for both of you.
- Bob
July 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Getting noticed by management, part 2
Dear Bob ...I'm Mr. Invisible, and I need to clarify a point: I'm an employee, not a contractor.
I have been fortunate lately in that my current manager understands what it means when her phone doesn't ring. When we discussed preparing for my review (which was far and away the best review I have ever received,) she mentioned that no one has said anything to her about me. "Trust me, that's a good thing," she informed me.
She is also a very hands-off manager, and doesn't want to hear anything from me unless I need something from her. Given my (poorly directed) style, she is a perfect match for me.
I found myself considering this question because next month there will be changes in management. I'll be getting a new manager, an unknown quantity. I can't assume that the new manager will function in the same way as the old one, and therefore it is probably time to address this issue.
Contractor or employee, though, I think you're right in that "building a relationship with the customer" is a far better solution than "blowing my own horn." I have a month to consider exactly how to do this, and I hope that beginning a relationship with the intention of building a good one will address my concern, and keep everyone happy.
- Mr. Translucent(?)
Dear Materializing ...
I'm glad you reached the right conclusion, even though I drew the wrong inference. Your reporting manager is your customer. Too many employees consider "exceeding their customer's expectations" to be synonymous with brown-nosing, and so they end up going to an opposite extreme, becoming either hostile or invisible.
With the management changes coming up, be wary. Lots of strange things can happen. I'll reinforce one piece of advice, and add one more, given the additional information.
The reinforcement is to encourage your new manager to set up a bi-weekly status meeting. If he/she is any good, you won't have to take the initiative on this. If it doesn't happen without you taking the initiative, do it. Just say something like this: "I'm pretty independent, but things do come up from time to time. And also, because I'm pretty independent, I want to make sure I'm staying on the right track."
The new piece of advice is this: From your account, you're in a pretty good situation right now. If your manager changes, it's going to mean your situation will change. Don't be nostalgic for the way it used to be. If you allow this to happen, and especially if you allow it to happen in a way that you and some of your peers commiserate about it, it will poison your new reporting relationship.
Just learn your new manager's style and embrace it as your own, to the extent you can do so, or at least find ways to accommodate to it.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 30, 2006 08:53 AM
July 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...I'm hoping you can tell me, from management's perspective, what I'm doing wrong.
When I leave a job (which is happening too frequently for my tastes, lately,) I notice two things happening:
The people downstream (meaning folks who benefit from my work, not people who report to me,) become upset when I tell them I'm leaving, though they wish me well. When I call them back some time after I've been gone, they're frantic because either no one is helping them, or the help is not to their satisfaction. The fact that they feel loss when I leave tells me that I've done my job well.
Management's response, however, is different. Though they wish me well, they don't seem to care that I'm leaving. One company didn't take me up on my offer to train my replacement. (I was concerned the ball would be dropped when I left, and I found out months later that I was right.)
I suspect that the problem is that I don't "blow my own horn," which is something I've never been good at doing. The people who benefit from my work know exactly what I'm doing, because they're on the receiving end. But management might not know what I'm up to. All they know is that their phone doesn't ring, and they might not realize why.
Am I on the right track? How do I solve this problem? And how do I keep management up to date on what I'm doing without wasting their time on what is (to me, at least,) obvious?
- Mr. Invisible
Dear Mr. Invisible
You aren't giving me much to go on. Heck, I don't even know what kind of work you do. But I'll give it a try.
From your phrasing, I infer you're a contractor rather than an employee. That, and your retiscence to "blow your own horn" are suggestive.
Here's my guess: When you sign a contract you leave out the part about governance - about making it clear who it is who has the authority to declare your work successful. Whoever that individual is, he or she is your sole customer. The folks downstream are "consumers" - they make use of what you do. The company as a whole is the "wallet" - it provides the money.
Customers are the people who make the buying decision about your services. It appears you're ignoring yours.
From here on in, define governance in your contracts - a regular meeting with the individual who has the authority to decide whether your work is satisfactory, and to whom you are supposed to raise issues for resolution that are beyond your authority to decide. Provide a written status report and walk your customer through it - not because you're blowing your own horn, but because your customer has a right to understand what it is that you're doing, what decisions you're making, and what value you're providing in exchange for deciding to engage your services and pay you for them.
Business is about relationships. You're doing an outstanding job of building them with everyone except the one individual in each client company who is the most important to your success: Your customer.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 26, 2006 04:39 AM
July 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Advice for those on the wrong end of age discrimination
Dear Bob and "Frustrated" ...I probably should NOT comment on another InfoWorld column, but this one was just too good to pass up. I, too, am over 50. Way beyond 50. But somewhere around 42 or 43 I went independent for that very reason. Guys over 40, like Rodney Dangerfield, "don't get no respect." And we're the only ones who remember Rodney and his tie-straightening act.
So, screw up your courage, save up about two years salary (you'll need that and more) and go into business for yourself. Set up a corporation, get a good, inexpensive CPA, a good, inexpensive corporate attorney (for contracts if nothing else) and let the Devil take the hindmost. Set a good rate and don't vary from it, not even if the "Pimp-du-jour" does promise that this contract will run for years. Contracts are good for whatever the escape clause is in the contract; usually two weeks. And NEVER EVER sign a contract without a cancellation period that favors you! If you don't protect yourself, no one else will.
Finally, hmmm.... No finally. Like the Nike ad; Just Do It!
James Owen
Jim ...
I can only agree conditionally. And to fend off the sarcastic Comments: No, it isn't because I don't want any more competition.
I don't, of course, but that isn't the reason.
It's just that not everyone belongs in business. While some businesses are easier than others, there are a few basic questions anyone considering this route should ask themselves. They are:
1. Can you sell? Can you figure out who wants what you do, find ways to get their attention, and muster the solid reasons they should engage your services instead of those of your competitors?
An inability to sell is probably the most common reason people who go into business for themselves go out of business. Take it seriously, because if you're good at selling, you're probably receiving offers of employment if you want them.
2. Are you good enough at what you do to be counted in the top 20%? Consultants and contractors must be like Caesar's wife: Above reproach. To sell you need a professional demeanor. To deliver you need to provide professional results. It's a hard question to ask yourself and a harder one to answer honestly. It's also critically important, for a simple and practical reason: If you're an employee, you have to at least "meet expectations." It says so on the employee evaluation form. As an outside contractor or consultants you have to exceed them.
Every time.
3. Do you have the financial discipline to average out your earnings so you don't run short during your down times? Not everyone does, and not everyone is able to quell the feeling of panic that arises when they see their checking account dwindling and there is no work in sight.
If you can honestly give the right answer to these three questions, I agree - give it a shot. There's a lot to be said for being your own boss, although it can ruin you for anything else.
But if you can't, and are also having trouble finding employment in your chosen field due to age discrimination, I'd advise you to pursue one of two other alternatives. Either chase opportunities for which gray hairs give you credibility, or find a good staffing agency to handle the selling for you.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 25, 2006 04:27 AM
July 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...Do you know of any metrics for measuring the performance of a business analyst?
My wife is applying for a business analyst position at a company that's metric crazy, and they're looking for the metrics for judging someone in a business analyst role.
Now my wife and I share the same opinion - that this is pretty subjective - things like user satisfaction, effectiveness of the revised process, etc. can potentially be measured, but they more reflect on the overall project rather than just one of its members. We'd value your thoughts.
- Metriculating
Dear Metriculating ...
Well, this is cheating of course, since your wife is taking the test, and I'm providing an answer. But what the heck. Metrics are overrated anyhow.
Here's what your wife shouldn't say: You get what you measure, which means that if you can't measure you can't manage. It also means that if you mis-measure you mis-manage; that if you measure the wrong things you get the wrong things; and that anything you don't measure you don't get.
It's valid, but she shouldn't say it. She won't persuade anyone in the job interview, and it will ensure they hire someone else.
Here's how she might answer, in a way that will avoid disqualifying her:
I think the best approach is to answer a question with a question. Which is to say, whoever is hiring her presumably has some goals for the position. If they do, they should be sharing those goals with your wife, and if they aren't, then as a good business analyst she should be asking what they are ... as a way of demonstrating that she's qualified for the position, if nothing else.
The point is this: Metrics only make sense when they're a translation of goals into math. Otherwise, all they do is to establish a second, conflicting set of goals, and your wife will be faced with this: "We want you to accomplish a, b, and c, and we'll be assessing your performance using industry standard metrics for business analysts that have no connection to a, b, and c."
So the right answer to the question is to ask what they want her to accomplish, then ask how they'll know if she's succeeded. Once they answer that question, she can smile brightly and say, "I guess we both now know what the right metrics are for this position."
Or words to that effect.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 23, 2006 01:18 PM
July 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Information security, off the deep end
Dear Bob ...Did you happen to see Roger Grimes recent posting, "Unauthorized applications (still) a bad idea," (InfoWorld's Security Advisor, July 14, 2006)? I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.
- Curious George
Dear Curious ...
Now why did you have to go pour gas on the fire?
Well okay, here goes. Read Grimes' posting and you'll see same the same, tired, self-serving argument by assertion that's usually used by members of the Value Prevention Society (VPS) to justify their one-size-fits-nobody policy recommendations.
Unlike many who take his position, Grimes didn't even haul out the usual references to publications of the Alarming Statistics Society of America (ASSA) to justify his claim that nobody ever installs an unauthorized application that does something useful. Instead, he provides examples, like employees who install GotoMyPC and instant messaging (IM).
Grimes needs to take a trip to the clue store. Does he really think employees install GotoMyPC because they find accessing their work computer from home to be a matter of pleasure. Don't be ridiculous - they install it because they're conscientious, and sometimes need to work from home, using data that's only available on their office PC. Very often, they have to do this because their company's security team has outlawed jump drives, and configure their laptop computers so they can't carry any data out of the company ... security risk, don't you know.
So it's drive in to work on Saturday or install something that helps them get their job done, because IT is too busy locking down the joint to realize the employees need a decent work-from-home solution. If that weren't the case, employees wouldn't have to install GotoMyPC: IT would provide a solid VPN, and Citrix or something similar that provides a way to access office files from home.
As for the IM nonsense. Yes, user-installed IM does cause security problems. Unless Grimes has installed a bunch of keystroke loggers to find out what people are doing every second of their 50-hour work weeks (which is, by the way, why employees have to use office equipment for personal tasks, but that's a different discussion for another time) ... he has no idea what fraction of their use is personal and which is business. Here's a simple alternative to forbidding this very useful communications tool: Install a corporate IM solution that is secure.
Grimes' oddest assertion is this: "Denying all unauthorized software by default leads to more innovation." Huh? Unless you define "innovation" as "figuring out creative ways to bypass the lockdown," the statement is absurd on its face.
If you still think Grimes is on the right side of this argument, what I want you to do is to go back to 1980. Apply the same logic and you'd end up doing exactly what IS (the usual name back then) tried to do when faced with the PC: Forbid it. According to the IS organizations and pundits of 1980, PCs were brought in to play games and waste time in unimportant activities by irresponsible employees who ... get the idea?
I'm not going to generalize here. I've worked with too many fine information security professionals who take a balanced view of their discipline, recognizing that they are responsible for translating security policy into practical action, not to lock up the joint so tightly that nobody can breathe.
But then there's a different sort who are also drawn to the discipline: Junior G-men who divide the entire world into perps and victims, and who generally blame the victims for not spending their entire lives training to fight the perps.
Okay, I'm done now. Get the idea? Grimes appears to consider the role of Information Security to be achieving total security, not striking a balance between risk and opportunity.
Oh ... I rechecked, and I was wrong. Grimes does make use of a statistic from the ASSA: He says 99% of corporate America isn't doing enough to prevent crimeware. If "doing enough" means agreeing with his VPS-driven policies, I sure hope he's right.
- Bob
P.S. I usually post here using a program called Performancing - a Firefox plug-in. Performancing lets me set these up off-line when I have to, which is quite useful; Firefox you know about as an excellent browser.
Most companies would consider both to be unauthorized programs and I'd have to do without.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 19, 2006 04:49 AM
July 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...Recently I interviewed a candidate that had potential. We hired him on a conditional basis. I threw a few tasks his way so that he could get an understanding of what we do and how we do it. I soon discovered his PC skills are almost nonexistent.
Our department moved to storing almost all of our work on the company network some years ago and his lack of PC skills makes it very difficult to even determine if he understands other aspects of the job. What I need is a test of common PC skills that I could give to future candidates. Simple stuff like creating network folders, searching the network for the files from a specific project, switching between the default printer and another network printer, etc. I don't expect them to be able to assemble various Word and Excel files into a single coherent Acrobat file but it would be nice.
Do you have any experience in tests for what I assumed were common PC skills? Everything I found on Google were associated with certification tests and specific to one program, i.e. Oracle, SAP, network administration, programming, etc.
Which also brings up the question of what PC skills employers should expect a potential candidate to have when they are hired.
- Testy
Dear Testy ...
I don't know of such a test, but I imagine it must exist. But I don't know that it's worth the time you'd spend searching for it. I figure an hour of brainstorming would be excessive for figuring out what you want someone to be able to do, and to turn that into a set of instructions any applicant could take to a PC standing in a test cubicle. For example:
1. Create an MS Word document in a new folder called "WhyHireMe." Use the standard template called "CompanyStdTemplate." The document should contain three major subjects, each using the Heading 1 style; called "Work Habits," "Learning Style," and "Management Skills." In each section, list at least three bullet points that fit the subject. The document should be given a running header called "Why You Should Hire Me" and a running footer that displays the page number. Store the file under the name "BasicPersonalFacts," and print it using the network printer called "ApplicantPrinter."
2. Create an Excel spreadsheet that lays out your expectations for salary, benefits, and annual bonus over the first five years of your career here. Store it under the name ...
And so on. With instructions like these, no applicant can fake the skills but any applicant possessing them can breeze through the test in no time at all.
I imagine it would be fun to create the test, too.
Different employers expect different levels of PC competence. What should they expect? That, sadly, is too-often an entirely different question. I figure that for anyone who works at a desk, these are the basic tools of the trade. Those who haven't had the opportunity to learn them deserve sympathy. Those who have had the opportunity but refused to do so deserve to find work anyplace except where you and I work, just as a carpenter who refuses to learn to use a compound mitre saw isn't one I'd want on my construction site.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 17, 2006 08:19 PM
July 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Paint-by-numbers project management
Dear Bob ...I'm not a subscriber, but, the CEO of my company regularly sends us one of your articles, it seems you have plenty of common sense, because I usually agree with you (seems I "think" I have plenty of common sense also).
Anyway, we have a few Project Managers in our organization who have the "check the box" syndrome. It doesn't matter if the requirements handed to development cannot be measured and are thus untestable, there was a meeting and something exchanged hands – check the box, it's done. It doesn't matter that the code handed from development to test won't install, there was a meeting, and hand-off occurred – check the box, it's done.
This is always frustrating and of course, comes to a head at toward the "scheduled" deployment date.
Any thoughts?
- Afflicted with troubled projects
Dear Afflicted ...
The short version of how to solve this problem, if it's just a few among many, is to hire better project managers.
What's very likely happening, if it is just a few, is malicious obedience. It isn't at all uncommon to find some in this role who are forced to attend project management methodology training and find that it's too structured for their tastes. And I sympathize, as I've attended project management training that I've found is too structured for my tastes. The difference is that <BLATANT PLUG WARNING> I was in a position to do something about it - to develop my own version.</BLATANT PLUG WARNING>
Sorry. Anyway, here's how some of these folks respond: Rather than adopt what makes sense to them and ignore the rest, or to give it all an honest try, they follow the form while ignoring the substance. This lets them "prove" that the techniques don't work.
I don't want to suggest that this behavior is in any way conscious. More often, it doesn't quite break the surface of the brain. Instead, it's of the form of "I'll show them."
Another possibility is that these folks are simply optimists - a fatal characteristic for project managers that lets them fool themselves into believing that Everything is Just Fine. Optimists are simply not suited to the project management discipline.
They belong in Marketing.
If it's more than a few project managers, though, your company has a more systemic problem. If that's the case, it's likely that your business sponsors don't understand their role, and they, or some in the project managers' leadership chain, have created an environment that punishes project managers who raise issues and otherwise honestly report project status. So they sweep problems under the rug as long as they can.
Of course, given that you work for such a highly enlightened CEO, I doubt that's the problem.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 16, 2006 07:01 AM
July 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Comparing different interaction forums
Dear Bob ...I have run into an interesting situation that probably is fairly common.
Actually, what makes it interesting for me is not the situation itself, but rather a possible opportunity to learn something.
I was involved in a discussion through a Yahoo discussion group in which the topic was the suitability of using a wiki to maintain a business data dictionary. One fairly common theme among the nine participants was freeing people up from the constraints of bureaucracy. One thing notably absent from the discussion was a comparison of the merits of various tools and governance methods, in spite of my effort to introduce those topics into the discussion. I also mentioned at least two requirements I am facing that I believe can't be addressed by using a wiki. Not one of the other participants addressed either of these concerns, either to agree or to disagree. It seems to me that these people were so focused on their particular agenda that other concerns didn't even register.
Now, here is what I am asking you.
Are you aware of any research that anybody has done to determine in an objective fashion how online discussion groups in general deal with issues that individuals raise, and how this compares with other approaches to seeking assistance, such as face-to-face informal meetings, facilitated meetings, etc? One issue is how likely it is that a discussion might be hijacked by someone with an ideological point of view.
Another issue is what kinds of people tend to take an active role in maintaining publicly accessible documents such as are found in Wikipedia.
How likely is it that the type of people who take it upon themselves to contribute to such repositories will also be the type of people who would introduce an ideological point of view? This could vary according to subject matter. More controversial subjects would likely attract more ideologues.
What I am really after is a way to assess whether the experience I described above is the exception or the rule. Opinion based on first-hand experience is a little helpful, but I would place much more value on the results of formal research by sociologists, cultural anthropologists, psychologists, and other qualified people.
Are you aware of any such research?
- Archie
Archie ...
I don't know of any formal research, which doesn't mean it's nonexistent, merely that I haven't run across it. Much of the comparison is straightforward and doesn't require research, though. Just list the different media (face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, on-line chat and so on) as rows in a matrix; list attributes to be considered as columns (synchronous vs asynchronous; sequential vs parallel "posting,"; impact of personality; potential for one person to dominate; potential for a group to invade and hijack ... whatever is important to the analysis). Then rate the attributes for each of the media. It becomes pretty easy to figure out where each is strong and each is challenged.
Just remember to be sufficiently fine-grained. There are open wikis and edited ones, for example; they'll have different characteristics in some of the attributes.
I'll post this to Advice Line; keep an eye on the Comments section to see if any of those posting know of the kind of study you're looking for.
As you do, take note of those posting. To date, while plenty of ideologues post, none have hijacked the blog, for the simple reason that there's no way of hijacking a blog. You can post whatever comment you like; that doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability.
What can happen to on-line discussion forums of all kinds is that a group of "loudmouths" (print version) flood them with postings that can range from pointless to annoying to offensive. Especially with an internal business forum, that's easily dealt with: Track down the offenders and say, "Don't do that anymore."
Also, you'd have the same control I do with the Comments to my blog, which is to not approve them. In my case I only delete the increasing tide of spam and commercial comments, and one or two that are clearly irrelevant and offensive. In yours, you could impose whatever guidelines seem most appropriate to the situation.
I'm less familiar with wikis. I understand that the technology does provide for editorial control when that's desirable, which is another way of referring to governance.
Just my opinion, which I'm forming soley from your account of events, so I'm doing a lot of inferring and imagining: What you experienced wasn't the influence of ideologues. It was the influence of people who had no interest in the topics you were raising. They were excited about the potential of the medium to free people from the constraints of bureaucracy. You were raising the importance of governance. But one person's governance is another person's bureaucracy. To me, it's unsurprising that none of the participants had a lot of interest in discussing it.
Again, I know of no studies. My guess is that people who contribute to forums like Wikipedia are enthusiasts - amateurs and professionals who love a particular field and want to share their knowledge. Many enthusiasts in any field also have strongly held opinions about it. If you're on the other side of those issues, you'll consider them to be ideologues.
And most likely, they'll consider you to be an ideologue for disagreeing with them.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 12, 2006 04:58 AM
July 07, 2006 | Comments: (0)
When Mr. Negative is your boss
Dear Bob ...I am in a situation here at work. I am extremely unhappy with my boss.
Don’t get me wrong. We get along OK personally but he is like the kid in Peanuts with the dust cloud around him. I have been cleaning up after him for four years and it is getting old.
Also he is very intensely negative. I call him "Grey Cloud" from a novel I read. Every new project we get is another huge issue that gives him a “migraine.� I am usually very positive, upbeat and motivated to do new work, but his constant anger about everything is killing my spirit.
My job performance is being affected dramatically. This is something that I have always taken deep pride in, my abilities, professionalism and efficiency. I have always been upwardly mobile but now I am in a rut. My boss isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and I have no other routes to go around him without proposing a whole new position, which they will not do because our amount of constant work. I would love to stick it out, which against most people’s advice I have, but I am running on fumes. My skill set is pretty thin outside of the type of IT I am doing at this time so leaving is a scary idea. What advice can you give a guy with diminished spirit and high hopes?
- Down In the Dumps
Dear Downer ...
I can think of a few possible causes for this, but I don't know that having a better understanding will help you at all. It might be that your boss:
* Has a self-image of "hard-boiled manager." Maybe he saw The Front Page too many times in his formative years or something; anyway, his self-image is bound up in never cracking a smile and spreading the negative energy around.
* Suffers from mild depression. Managers are in no way immune from this malady.
* Was long-ago promoted to his level of incompetence and spends every day knowing, deep down, that he's in over his head and faking it.
The only one of these you can do anything at all about is the possibility of mild depression, and even here you'd have to stick your neck out. If you think this might really be the issue, you could discuss the situation, discreetly, with someone you trust in Human Resources. In the more enlightened companies, this might lead to some exploratory work that leads to your manager getting the help he needs.
You'll have to judge your company and it's HR department. Overall, I'd say the odds aren't very good.
In the end, to me, this looks like one of those times where you can't fix the situation, but you can fix your circumstances. You're overdue to start looking for a better boss.
Oh, about that "thin skillset" - don't worry about it. But do re-think your skills. If you've been succeeding at what you've been doing, you have skills lots of employers will want. You might not be a perfect fit with your next employer's technical environment, but stop thinking in such self-defeating terms. They're just a symptom of what you've been living with. Get past that, and start envisioning yourself in the business environment you want to find instead.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 7, 2006 06:55 AM
July 04, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...About a year ago I launched a serious attempt to institute ITIL throughout the IT organization I lead (to give you a sense of scale, we have about 250 associates). The short version: We've had a very hard time making it stick. Employees give it lip service, but that's about it, and our front-line managers haven't been much better.
When I'm able to get anyone to talk about the situation candidly, I get some variation on, "We don't need ITIL to tell us how to build a server." And to be fair, they don't - like most IT organizations, ours is made up of a lot of highly skilled individuals who know how to do their work. What that means is that on top of everything else I'm having trouble articulating the benefits.
Got any magic bullets?
- Proponent of ITILigent design
Dear Proponent ...
No magic here. Besides, I'm ambivalent about ITIL for a couple of reasons - skepticism about the concepts of internal customers and service level agreements in particular, which are core premises for ITIL so far as I can tell.
But that doesn't help you. What might is to explain a change in how we're handling process consulting at my consulting company, IT Catalysts. We used to approach it in the standard fashion - by documenting the current state, designing the future state, plotting a migration path, and chartering one or more projects to follow it.
The results were sometimes successful, but always like trying to play pool with a rope.
What we finally figured out is that the last thing most organizations need is improved process design. Literally. What they need first are two linked changes. The first is for managers to change their perspective - from managing the work to managing the process that manages the work. The second is a change in culture on the part of all employees, so they think in terms of solving every problem once - that is, figuring out how to do each job the best way possible, then doing it that way every time. Which is to say, instituting a "culture of process" throughout the organization.
If your managers think of their responsibility as managing processes and organize their time and effort accordingly, and employees think of their responsibility in terms of "this is how we do things around here," you've won the battle - they'll figure out the rest, with our without ITIL to guide them.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 4, 2006 10:24 AM
July 04, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dealing with salary complaints
Dear Bob ..."Al" is one of my best employees. He's a top-notch engineer, very responsible, and handles anything I throw at him with a high degree of professionalism. If I could find three more just like him I'd hire every one of them in a heartbeat.
Except for one thing.
Al is a malcontent, especially about compensation. I've checked, and between his salary and annual bonus, we pay him at the top of what his job category is worth in the marketplace. So I'm pretty sure he'd have a hard time finding a job that pays him more. I also want to emphasize that I personally pay close attention to the intangibles, to make sure every employee, including Al, receives respect, challenging and rewarding work, and appreciation for what they achieve for the company. So does my boss.
I've talked this over with Al on several occasions, and showed him the numbers. Each time he grudgingly admits that he receives a pretty good salary for someone with his responsibilities (we don't do the phony job title trick - we use consultants who have a formula based on actual work performed). But that only makes him grumpier.
I can't afford to lose an employee this good. But Al's constant complaining is public, which means it affects everyone else's morale. It's getting to me, and it's starting to affect my interactions with him, which over time might give him something legitimate to gripe about - me.
Any ideas on how I can defuse this situation?
- Going nuts
Dear Nuts ...
Before getting to the fix, it's important to first recognize that for some people, complaining is just a way of making conversation. If they didn't have something to complain about they'd fall silent. Worse, some employees figure that saying anything complimentary about their employer will make them sound like a Goody Two Shoes, turning them into social pariahs in the process.
So once something like this gets started it can be surprisingly hard to stop, even in as good a work situation as you portray. I don't have any surefire remedies. Here are a few ideas you can try:
* Ask Al, point blank, what salary and bonus combination would be enough that he'd stop complaining. Chances are fifty/fifty that he'll give you a pole-axed look and splutter a bit uncertain of how to respond. If he does, let him know, in no uncertain terms, that he's complaining for the sake of complaining, and you'd appreciate it if he'd find something more appropriate to complain about, like the quality of food in the cafeteria, or the location of his parking place.
This would also be a good time to suggest that his underlying financial concerns aren't a matter of his compensation - they're a matter of how he's managing his compensation. From what you describe, Al could easily retire a multimillionaire, simply by investing the maximum amount in the company's 401(k) program every year, then putting his bonus into indexed mutual funds.
* If Al does give you a number, tell him what positions in the company are in that range, and let him know you'll provide whatever support you can to help him get there. Yes, you'll lose his services along the way, but if he's serious about wanting to earn a significantly higher salary, you'll lose him anyway. Make sure the company doesn't lose a valuable employee when that happens.
* Assuming HR will go along with this, offer Al a deal. For every dollar he's willing to relinquish in salary, you'll add $1.33 to the maximum bonus he can earn for outstanding performance. The one catch is that you're going to include his attitude in the computation - if he continues to complain, he won't get all of his bonus.
This works for the company because a bonus is a one-time payout where salary goes on forever. So through the magic of discounted cash flows, $1.33 in bonus is roughly the same as $1 in salary.
* In one of your staff meetings, make the issue public without singling Al out by name. Let everyone know you've heard some concerns about compensation, so here are the facts about how the company decides how much to pay its employees. It won't stop Al from complaining, but will help inoculate your organization from it, preventing it from spreading.
One other avenue you might choose to pursue is the possibility that Al suffers from a low level of depression. Talk it over with an expert in HR to determine what you are and aren't allowed to say to Al in this regard. If it seems like a possibility, getting him some help would be the best thing you could do for both of you.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 4, 2006 10:04 AM
|
Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account. Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them. Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline. ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings. Order your copies today! |
TOP STORIES
Sun exec on OpenSolaris, LinuxAT&T: No free iPhone Wi-Fi info
MS to appeal E.U. fine
XP SP3 causes endless reboots
Vista as insecure as Win 2000
Apple slammed on climate change
Java ubiquity an edge in RIA battle
Google grilled on human rights
MS' post-Yahoo options
The InfoWorld news quiz
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization
- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure
- Improve Resource Utilization and Lower Operating Costs
- Protect Your Data with SSL
