MORE ENTRIES
- When you find you've joined a bureaucracy
- Overcoming barriers to vision
- The owner/boss is headed in the wrong direction.
- Achieving employee adulthood
- Handling accidental rudeness
- Another take on age discrimination
- Comments on fairness and envy
- File sharing policy
- The right questions to ask when selecting CRM software
- Handling a non-delegating boss
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
August 2006
Dear Bob ...
I believe that I am coming to a fork in the road regarding my career. Here is the situation. I work for a large multi-national Fortune 500 company. A few years ago our company reorganized IT, moving from a decentralized model to a centralized model. In the process, I was offered a position with the central IT organization despite working at an outlying facility. I was excited about the opportunity. Unfortunately, I have found that the central organization is bogged down in process and bureaucracy.
Activities that took 6 weeks now take 6 months. Micro-management is the norm and the answer to every question is "We need to schedule another meeting" with the explanation "We need to get everyone on board". What's worse is that the people at the central office reinforce each other, complimenting one another on the "progress" they've made by grinding software development and hardware acquisition to a halt. There is no concept of leadership and no true vision for where this is going. I feel like I have moved to the "dark side", a talented young IT padawan who has switched sides and now works for the emperor.
Criticism of the central IT organization is not taken well. If you do point out areas for improvement you are labeled as disloyal and a complainer. It is assumed that what you want is the decentralized model and that you are some sort of anarchist. When I point to problems with delivery times for services in the team I am in, I am grouped in with those that don't understand the big picture and are disloyal to the cause. I have held my tongue to a certain extent but don't know that I can do that much longer. The IT organization is corrupt from the top down so there isn't any hope of going to someone higher in the IT organization for help. Upper IT management is filled with "yes" men who say whatever will save their skin.
Opportunities exist that would put me back with the remote location. Unfortunately there are rumors of shutting down this location and moving the site to somewhere else in the country. Not wanting to relocate my family I thought that I was safe by taking a job with central IT. Now it seems as if my choices are bending my knee to the "evil empire" and biting my tongue, staying in my current position and being a solitary voice for improvement risking alienation or getting fired, or going back to the local IT group and potentially going down with the ship and facing relocation. Any thoughts?
- Am I a Sithy?
Dear Sithy ...
Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that in the entire history of our species, nobody has ever once been persuaded of anything by an outsider.
Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. I'm sure it has happened, just as poker players do fill an inside straight from time to time, and penny stocks sometimes do grow to huge multiples of their purchase prices.
I just wouldn't place my money on any of the above, and especially not on your chances of persuading anyone in central IT at the moment.
Conclusion: If you want to continue your career with this company, and want to have some influence, you first have to become an insider. Your first step down this path is to stop viewing central IT as "them" and start viewing everyone there as "we." The second is to do everything you can to understand the world from the perspective of central IT, and in particular of the CIO.
These folks aren't evil. Chances are good they aren't incompetent bowbs, either. They are, however, dealing with situations the best way they can, and you don't yet know what those situations are. Until you do, you'll be worse than just a voice in the wilderness. You'll be a source of irrelevant noise ... to the people you're trying to convince, that is.
You might not want to go down this road. It's treacherous; in particular, the risk of "going native" is high.
Which brings me to the second thought: If you don't like the way things are going, start looking. There's no lock on the door to prevent you from exiting under your own power.
I sure wouldn't recommend placing your hopes on the remote location. From what you say, that's a high-risk, low payoff play.
You're better off trying to fill an inside straight.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Regarding your recent article, "Barriers to Vision," (Keep the Joint Running, 8/21/2006): So I'm guessing you are not sponsored by Toro or Carnival Cruise lines ...
It is interesting to read your article/comments and think about how it relates ... another quote I like "In the end, a vision without the ability to execute is probably an hallucination" – Stephen M. Case, Former Chairman, AOL Time Warner ... I wonder if execute should be modified to "execute effectively".
Side note – The gap I find in the article is that once you point out the various "vision faults" ... then what do you do with it. Say you have seen one or more of the items listed ... how do you either adapt to it, work with it, change it, coach around it ... etc ... the easy part is identifying the "types" ... the difficult part is working with it and helping others work with it that are impacted by it further. Make sense?
- Looking for Guidance
Dear Looking ...
Sponsored? That would imply revenue. An intriguing concept. I'll have to pursue it one of these days.
First of all, Mr. Case - probably unknowingly - borrowed his insight from Ainsley Throckmorton, President, Bangor Seminary, who said, "First management had plans, and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination." It's a favorite quote of mine.
But to your comment:
You're right that I didn't pursue what to do about it. I generally write with business leaders in mind as the target audience, so the point of this column was, "Don't do that." If you're on the receiving end of this sort of genius, the answer is long, complex and uncertain. Book-length, in fact, and I'm not entirely qualified to write it since it involves such subjects as psychopathology.
The short version is, figure out how to manipulate them by learning their hot buttons, massaging their egos, filtering the information they receive, and otherwise putting to use some of the ideas Machiavelli wrote about. But be careful as you do so - many of these characters achieved their current status by knowing how to learn hot buttons, massage egos, filtering the information they provide, and otherwise put to use the ideas Machiavelli wrote about. If they recognize what you're up to, they're more likely to view you as a danger than to admire your technique.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Here is one for your book:
This company has been using sendmail on Linux for over 15 years, I have been administering it for over 5. Part of my job is to keep up to date on the software applications involved with email and groupware. Using various opensource applications, I have cut down email virii reaching end users to nill and spam 99% with a false positive about once a quarter. Have I mentioned that this running under RedHat9 on a pc that is a PIII 650mhz with 386Meg and a 4G harddrive? The owner/boss is extremely frugal (our file servers and PDC are running NT4 and the hardware is not much younger).
The spam has been cut down to almost nill for all users except the owner/boss and one of the managers who both insisted when I was setting up the filters and traps that they wanted to see all the email. I offered to capture all the spam to a folder they could check but they said no.
Last week I asked the owner/boss for @1500 to update the OS to RHEL3 and to upgrade the pc to something 2 generations old instead of 5 and so that I could setup a functional group discussion system (ie: Zimbra).
The response: He is considering going to MSExchange and maybe even outsourcing the email! Why? Because he and the manager who wanted all the email are dissatisfied with the performance and want more group features.
Keep in mind that part of my job is to keep up on all these things and do evaluations of the various products out there. I had absolutely no clue that the O/B had his own skunk project going, though since he doesn't understand opensource he did not even consider any of that type solutions.
So instead of spending $1500 he is willing to spend over $20G upfront and lord-only-knows how much in upkeep for msExchange, which is really just a vanity on his part.
- Boggled
Dear Boggled ...
Go figure. But if I were you I'd be exploring my options. Underneath his apparent distrust or ignorance of open source is another possible message: He doesn't want to be dependent on your expertise.
Look at the business from his perspective. If you decide to leave he has to find someone else who can assemble a dirt-cheap open-source environment out of obsolete parts. If he migrates to Exchange, he has to find an experienced Exchange administrator.
I'd take one other lesson away from this: Somehow, you got seriously out of sync with the owner/boss. According to the leadership book, that's his failing. But according to the career management book, it's yours.
It's time to figure out how it happened, and whether you can repair the damage. Assuming the two of you have a basically productive working relationship, I'd advise you to sit down with him, apologize for having missed his interest in investing more heavily in IT, and offer to be part of the solution. If the conversation goes in the right direction and you think some of the more advanced open-source groupware solutions might be a good fit, give him the option of a demo of some of the more interesting alternatives.
Is he making the right choice for the business? Beats me. "Right" depends on the values you apply to a variety of intangibles.
Or else it is defined as, "What the owner/boss wants to do."
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Your recent columns about nailing down everyone's computers at work got me thinking about something tangentially related: just how much do people goof off at work?
Apart from alleged security issues, of course, one of the reasons often given for (for example) not allowing users to install their own software is that, if we do, everyone will spend all day long on chat clients. Opponents of this viewpoint tend to say things like, "We can't expect our employees to behave like responsible adults if we treat them like irresponsible children." I freely admit that they've got a point, but even so...
I've been in only two companies thus far where my duties required me to review network usage for inappropriate activity, my current one being the second. Not long ago, we took a sample of one days' usage statistics and found that the top 15 sites visited accounted for about 97% of all site visits -- and not a single one of them had to do with work (if I recall correctly, YouTube alone accounted for about one-fourth of all visits).
Is this the exception or the rule? And if it's the rule, doesn't it kind of undermine the idea that management has to treat employees like adults to get them to behave as adults?
I'm just pondering this as I make plans for later in the day, after everyone has left, to go to the computer of a user who insisted she needed administrative privileges for her work, so I can uninstall Google Talk and demote her access privileges (a policy I have no role in creating but am responsible for enforcing).
- Feeling parental
Dear Concerned Parent ...
But what percentage of the workday did visiting those sites represent?
Your letter raises some serious and valid issues. And I have no doubt at all that treating employees as adults is merely a necessary condition for their behaving that way, not a sufficient one. Among the others is making the expectation clear.
Then there's structuring the work and communications so employees recognize how they contribute to the company's overall success, and making them feel like they have a stake in the success.
Sometimes managers also have to recognize when they have an employee who isn't capable of adulthood, and replacing him or her with a different employee who is. Failing to do so communicates very loudly that childish behavior is okay.
And there's a last piece: Many employers encroach heavily on personal time, requiring many more than 40 hours and five days per week of work. Those who do have an ethical obligation (in my view) to allow those employees to spend a modest amount of time on personal business during work hours.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Here's one that may be a bit out of your league, but I thought I'd float it past you nevertheless, since you've been talking about ill- mannered coworkers.
I work at a DC-based non-profit organization that has employees (both short and long term) from all over the world. The other day, I was troubleshooting a laptop problem for one of our international employees, a very polite and deferential young man (the type who still refer to you as "sir", which no one does anymore, of course).
As we were working on the problem together, he blithely said, "Sir, I've been wondering. Have you tried any medications or treatments for your hair loss?" Needless to say, I was pretty startled and didn't know how to respond; coming from an American, this kind of inquiry would be unspeakably rude, of course, but I can only assume (considering how he otherwise behaves) that societal standards for this kind of thing are different in Eastern European/Middle Eastern countries, although I don't know for sure.
My tolerance for cultural differences only extends so far, and questions like that are *way* past my limit. On the other hand, I don't want to hurt the poor kid's feelings, either... he's all of about 20 years old and, likely as not, this is his first experience traveling any significant distance from his homeland (as is usually the case for foreign interns here).
- Gleamer
Dear Gleamer ...
I don't know what you decided to say. I'd have said something like this:
"Since my hair loss was caused by my two teen-aged daughters, the only medication that would help would be tranquilizers and I'm not ready for those just yet. By the way, you probably aren't aware of this, but a lot of American guys who are hair-challenged are sensitive about it. Your question didn't bother me, but I figured you'd want to know."
- Bob
Dear Bob,
I am over 55 with two graduate degrees. One is in Computer Science. I have had two careers, one in the field of each degree. I am being vague to give me some deniability if someone in the company reads this. Currently I am working as a Software Engineer for a medium sized manufacturing company with plants in several countries. During the ten years I have worked here, I have written or managed the writing of all the production software and as well as administrating the production computers at all the plants. I have managed from 0 to 10 people as the company grew and shrank depending on the economic climate. At the moment, the survival of the company is in doubt and I need to move on.
My problem is that I keep sending out resumes for jobs that match my background and interest using both web searches and human networking. I have not gotten one interview. I thought it might be my resume, but the feedback I have gotten is that I make too much money, even though no one has ever asked me what my salary range is. What am I doing wrong?
- Old Man and feeling it.
Dear Feeling it ...
It's hard to say exactly what you're doing wrong. My guess, unencumbered by facts, is that you're either applying for jobs that are stereotypically for younger IT professionals, or are just doing a very poor job of selling. I'm guessing it's the latter.
That you're getting no response from your resumes is unsurprising. Sending resumes to posted positions is a low-likelihood strategy, akin to mailing a brochure when you're selling an expensive product. (The main reason to even have a resume is that not having one raises too many red flags.)
The personal networking is more troubling, but you say you're sending resumes there, too, which leads me to believe that you're using your personal network to find openings, not to provide introductions.
What you ought to be doing is to ask people you know to introduce you to others (and so on) in order to be able to name-drop when asking, by telephone, for an introductory meeting. Name-dropping someone the hiring manager knows and trusts helps you bypass all of the barriers managers erect to keep out the riffraff (sales representatives and low-likelihood applicants).
Don't be shy. Get on the telephone, ask for face-to-face meetings. Ask those referring you what the big issues are that the hiring manager is facing. In your meetings, talk about what you can do to help the hiring manager and company, not about your skills, accomplishments, or anything else (except as anecdotes to illustrate how you'll address various situations).
Put yourself in the hiring manager's situation. Which would you rather do - find out from someone you trust about a potential hire that can handle what's needed? Or sift through a large pile of brochures (resumes) to try to figure out which product (applicant and total stranger) is the right person.
- Bob
In "Nailing IT Governance," (Keep the Joint Running, August 7, 2006) you said,
> So it is with IT governance. Give the members of the executive
> committee a similar choice -- everyone gets the same small benefit, or
> everyone gets more benefit, but it's distributed unequally -- and most
> will prefer the former.
Is this a special case? Studies show that most people believe themselves to be above average. It follows that most people would believe that they will be the recipient of the larger share of the benefit.
Or would people believe out of suspicion that they would be more likely to receive the smaller share of the benefit?
And am I abnormal for thinking that benefit could possibly be allocated fairly based upon the value of the unit to the company, its mission and goals, and the bottom line?
- Fair and balanced
Dear Foxy ...
Most people think they're above average. For that matter, 2/3 of CEOs think their IT department is above average. Go figure.
That doesn't mean most people think they're being treated fairly. Quite the opposite, I'd say. In my non-random-sample experience, lots of people say something along the lines of, "I bust my hump every day, and my PHB has no idea of what I deliver to the organization."
It's right in line with the well-publicized findings a few years ago that there's an inverse correlation between self-assessments and objective assessments.
Last thought: Who said anyone wants a system that's fair? I want a system that gives the advantage to me!
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'd like your comments on this:
Historically our company policy on mainframe systems (MVS and VM) was such that user's were responsible for granting permission to others to access their files (read/write/execute/delete). When LAN's started proliferating this task seemed to be only accomplished by IT (I think it was a lack of tool issue). This worked in the beginning, but as the LAN environment grew it would take quite a while to get access changes made, and then of course it also required management approval. And, as things progressed we sent this task off-shore, now even trying to get reports or fixing access issues is a monumental task on the LAN's. For some reason, since this is working so well, the latest policy coming down is that even the mainframe environment is going to use the same model as the LAN's and individual user's can no longer control access to their own files.
The main issue here is that IT seems to feel user's are incompetent and unable to be responsible for their own data. Personally I think IT needs to understand that ownership of the data and responsibility of handling the data is really the owner's responsibility and that their job is to supply the platform, tools and training to enable the user's to accomplish what they need to do for their business purposes.
- Wants to share
Dear Sharer ...
I forget the name of the logical fallacy that this is an example of, but it is an example of a logical fallacy - namely, that a change in technology warrants a change in philosophy.
Forget the mainframe. When managers and employees used typewriters and copiers, EDP (what we called ourselves back then) wouldn't have dreamed of intruding on the decision of who an employee could share documents with. The technology has changed. That doesn't mean IT should have anything more to say about it.
Nor can we, since when we fail to let end-users share folders, all they'll do is share files as e-mail attachments, or put them on jump drives.
To be fair, the threat level has changed since the era of typewriters and copiers, and changing threats do warrant changing tactics in response. But when the only real impacts of the response are to (1) create inconvenience without improving security, and (2) add to IT's workload, it does seem rather pointless, doesn't it?
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I greatly enjoyed your column on controlling the behavior of end users ("Revisiting the End-User Computing Manifesto, 10 years later," Keep the Joint Running, July 31, 2006). You and I are pretty much of one mind, for the most part.
I would add one good practice that can take the form of an obligation for users:
1. When a new type of application is needed, end users will work together to develop a consensus as to what application comes closest to meeting their needs, and will work with IT to determine if and how it can be supported by IT;
2. Once consensus is reached and appropriate budgetary/ROI tests are met, IT will prepare to support the application, and the application will be provided through normal channels.
3. Once the application is provided and supported, users wanting to use other apps of that type are subject to your "Where IT has established a standard, end-users must accept it" rule.
Your closing line about Act! hit close to home. We desperately need a CRM, and we are trying to get our users to agree on one. We hope it's not Act!, but if that's what they ultimately demand, that's what we'll ultimately support.
Thanks!
- Act!ing out
Dear Act!ing ...
I agree with you, to the extent that an application is beyond what's reasonable and appropriate for end-users to develop for themselves, or so long as the IT governance process includes what they need as a priority. The fact is, in most companies, IT's bandwidth is far more limited than the list of opportunities for automation. End-user-developed or installed applications are an important tactic in closing that gap.
Regarding your need for CRM software ...
What you're asking of your users is the wrong question, I think. The right question is, of the sales force, "How do you want to sell better?" The right questions of sales management are, "What selling process do you want to encourage the sales force to follow?" and "How do you want to manage the selling process?"
With answers to those three questions, you're in a far better position to find software that (1) will satisfy sales management, and (2) the sales force will actually use, instead of ignoring it and using Act! instead.
A lot of our consulting attempts to refocus both IT and business management on the difference between IT installing software and IT helping the business improve what it does. It isn't necessarily easy to cajole everyone into trying it. I promise you that once you do get everyone into this habit, they'll never willingly to go back.
- Bob
Dear Bob,
In general I have a good relationship with my boss. She is competent, hardworking, and intelligent; I respect her as a professional and I would also consider us friends outside of work. In general, she's an ideal boss. With one exception that continues to tug at me... she is a terrible delegator!
She works long hours, insists on making the final decision on even the most insignificant matters, and keeps everyone else out of the loop on any high level projects and tasks. She keeps all of her work on her personal hard drive rather than in the department's shared directory where we could access it, even though it is not sensitive information (we get paper copies). Her paperwork is either in random piles on her desk or filed in her office, where nobody has easy-access. On many occasions this controlling behavior has left me looking rather inept. As her "second in command" people often come to me when she is not available and expect me to have answers for them. Unfortunately, I am usually unable to help them with even the simplest of questions.
I have addressed the issue politely with her many times... offering my help both in general and with specific tasks. I have lightly chided her on her need to delegate and spend less nights and weekends in the office. I have expressed my desire to "grow" in my career. The last time I brought up the subject she got defensive and seemed quite offended. Her superiors have also suggested better delegation. Nothing seems to work.
I honestly don't think she does these things out of a sense of insecurity about her position... it seems more that she feels that only she can perform these tasks adequately and correctly, and that training another person and working through their learning curve would be time wasted. It's the typical "I-can-do-it-faster-myself" mentality.
This would otherwise be my "dream job", but lately, because of this issue, it seems to be lacking a lot of intangibles. I have been feeling inadequate and unchallenged. Even though I hold a title and salary of "manager" I really do not feel my responsibilities are any greater than most staff members. Should I just cash my check and be happy as an overpaid worker-bee... or is there a way to take on more without stepping on her toes?
- Figure Head
Dear Figure Head
I think it's time to join "Have-A-Bad-Boss Anonymous." That would entitle you to make use of the serenity prayer, and you need it, because one of the things you can't influence, let alone change, is your manager's behavior.
Apparently, nobody can.
This isn't a situation that's going to change, unless upper management finally tires of having a manager who doesn't know how to lead or manage effectively. I don't recommend going over her head on an issue like this either. It isn't as if she's creating a hostile, threatening, or discriminatory work environment. She's simply an awful manager, but because she works like a fiend, she delivers the results her management is looking for - at least enough that the risks associated with replacing her appear to be greater than the risks associated with keeping her where she is.
If she were a close friend you could close the door, look her in the eye, become exasperated, and give it to her straight: "Unless you start delegating some authority so my job is more than being bossed around on a task-by-task basis, I'm going to be open to the first good offer that comes along. And before you get offended - you have no idea how offended I am that you don't trust me to make a decision more significant than what I'm going to have for lunch."
She'd have to be a very good friend, and open to outside views besides, for this to have even a chance of working. Even then, the chance isn't good enough to outweigh the risks.
So you have two choices - find another opportunity, or RIP (which of course stands for "Retire In Place"). The problem with RIP, of course, is that unless you're near the career finish line, nearly ready to fish and play golf for the rest of your life, it will ruin you for useful work in the future.
Which leaves you with one choice.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Thanks for your response to my question about how to handle an unpredictable peer ("Handling an unpredictable personality," Advice Line, 7/6/2006). There's one aspect of the situation I didn't make clear, which might change your advice: My peer (call him "Ralph") regularly bypasses me and chews out people who report to me, or report to people who report to me. He also gives them assignments; one reason he'll chew people out is for not getting them finished on time.
How does that affect things?
- Still living among mood disorders
Dear Still living ...
Well, you could ask him to a meeting, close the door, and scream, at the top of your lungs, "What the BLEEP do you think you're doing! You want to mess up my organization? I'll show you what messing up an organization looks like! From now on it's open season on your staff."
You could, but it would be wrong. Even worse, it would be counterproductive, because there's no way you could do this discreetly. You could deny the conversation, but if you carried out the threat, too many people would know about this.
Assuming your CEO has no interest in intervening (if he/she did, this wouldn't be happening in the first place) I'd suggest a different approach. No guarantees - it's hard to overcome a weak or wrong-headed CEO - but it has a chance. That is:
In the next executive team meeting, raise it as an issue, without naming names. "We have a choice to make in terms of how we work together. Either each of us can directly approach the employees working in each others' organizations, assign them work, and criticize the results, or we can respect each other. As things stand, two things are happening. First, lots of employees are receiving assignments from at least two directions, creating overwork and confused priorities. And second, many of mine are becoming demoralized because some of you who are doing this have a very different, harsher leadership style than mine.
"Starting today, I'm going to authorize everyone in my organization to refuse any requests that aren't made through the proper channels, and to refer anyone who doesn't like it, no matter who they are and no matter how loud they yell, to me. It's the only way I can run things without the situation turning into complete chaos. Will that work for you?"
You'll get blank looks, as everyone pretends they have no idea what you're talking about. That's okay. Tell them you aren't going to name names, and that those who engage in the practice know who they are.
There are some risks associated with this, but I don't have any better ideas, and there are plenty of risks associated with doing nothing.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm the CIO in a mid-sized company - small enough that we should be focused and agile; more than big enough that our executives should know how to behave professionally.
Emphasis on should. Another executive - a peer of mine on the organizational chart - is mercurial (I think that's the right word). His moods are unpredictable. One day he wants to be my best buddy, the next he explodes over trivial matters, and in very public settings. It isn't just me either - he's the same way with his direct reports, the employees in his division, and anyone else in the company.
Except the CEO, needless to say. With the CEO he's nothing but charming.
I don't know that I'm looking for advice as much as commentary. I'm already pretty sure I know how I should handle this guy - by ignoring him to the extent that I'm able, by acting professionally when we interact, and by blowing him off when he loses his temper, walking away until he's calmed down and we can have a productive conversation.
Anything else occur to you?
- Living among mood disorders
Dear Living ...
It's tempting to play junior shrink and diagnose a classic case of bipolar disorder. It's tempting, except that I don't think that's what's going on here.
A long time ago, Carlos Casteneda described "warriors." Among their character traits is unpredictability. The idea is that if nobody can predict what you're going to do next, you keep them off-balance and they'll be less likely to defeat you in battle.
I doubt this character was literate enough to read any Casteneda, but he probably didn't have to. Many corporate executives achieved their status through a single core competency - the ability to get their way. Most would be astonished if either of us was to suggest that this isn't the only goal that matters, in fact.
My guess is that your buddy discovered, long ago in his formative years, that being unpredictable is a terrific way to get whatever you want. Most people, most of the time, are uncomfortable around anger and will take steps to placate whoever is expressing it, so long as they have a reasonable expectation that the steps they take will be effective.
When your buddy gets angry, they placate him. The next day he's their best buddy. It worked!
It's behavior modification at its finest.
So long as you continue working in the nut-house, it sounds to me like you have the right strategy. If you feel a bit of game playing, you might want to add one more tactic to the ones you listed: Whenever you interact with him, regardless of how he's behaving at the moment, scowl at him in distaste. Don't be obvious enough for him to raise it as an issue - be subtle.
But be noticeable. Relent only when he does something to try to please you, and then only briefly.
Sure, it's a bit unsavory. But if anyone deserves it, this guy does.
- Bob
Dear Bob,
I am currently looking for a job and was wondering if you could list 5-10 companies that you have been really impressed with. Companies that make correct principles a part of their culture.
So that you know a little more about me, for the past 10 years I have worked as the only computer guy for a company that has grown from just over 100 employees to about 400 employees. The company does therapy and education for troubled youth. I have repaired all the computers and laptops, installed and configured all the software, setup and configured the file servers, networked the computers, managed the email server and a few other things.
Being the only computer guy, I feel like I have missed out on some great opportunities to learn from my peers. I also think that I need some help developing my interpersonal and communication skills.
Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated.
- Interest in principle
Dear Principled ...
I'm afraid I can't help you with your first question, for a few reasons. First, there's no such thing as a company that fits what everyone is looking for, so what impresses me won't necessarily impress you. Second, I don't have much in the way of inside information about any company other than my clients. Certainly, a company's "Values Statement" isn't going to help, since I'm pretty sure there is an inverse correlation (albeit not a perfect one - I'd estimate the correlation coefficient to be approximately .5326) between printing a Values Statement and adhering to actual values.
And third, the last I looked, 70% of all hiring is done by companies that don't make the Fortune list - ones I'll never have heard of. So if you want to leave the non-profit world, there is no substitute for old-fashioned research. For any company you think you might want to work for, search for news stories and current legal actions that could give you a hint (but note that there are plenty of bottom-feeding law firms that file nuisance suits, so these are far from perfect indicators).
When you interview, remember that you're interviewing the company, too: Explain to the hiring manager that a company's principles are important to you, and ask for examples of situations where the company made a hard choice because its leaders considered it to be the proper course of action.
If I were in your situation, though, I think I'd head down to the nearest United Way headquarters, explain my situation, and ask if they know of any agencies that fit what you're looking for: An IT organization that's more than just two or three people, but that needs an IT professional experienced in working for a non-profit.
Or, recognize that not everyone is capable of being a one-person show, and take advantage of it: Ask if they know of any agencies that are looking for what you, and not that many others, can do.
- Bob
I can't go into details on this, because quite a few people in my company read Advice Line. I hope you can help, even though my description is going to have to be pretty generic.
I'm one of the top-ranking executives in my company. Not long ago, I got a call from a department head. Due to a slip on the part of someone in his department, he needed my help to get something accomplished outside the normal procedures, in order to make a hard deadline. What he asked made good business sense, so I took care of it over my signature.
Two days later, a member of his staff sent me an e-mail that I can only describe as snippy, copying several others in the company. It complained that when I bypassed the standard procedure I didn't notify her, and in the future, if anyone in the company does this, could I please make sure she is notified.
My tongue still hurts from how hard I bit it.
What I did do was send the department head a note, suggesting that he has a teachable moment and should coach his staff member on the value of (a) getting her facts straight before drawing a conclusion; and (b) being polite to a member of the executive management team ... and everyone else in the company too.
What I wanted to do is considered a felony in this state.
What do you think I should have done?
- Seething
Dear Seething ...
I think you left out just a couple of important steps. The first is that, as part of the teachable moment, the department head should also mention the importance of only making requests that can be taken care of. The notion that this individual should delegate to you the responsibility for personally ensuring that the entire company follows procedure is laughable.
Second, the department head clearly owes you an apology, since he should have informed his staff member that this had taken place. He should also point this out to her, and suggest that since he was the one who goofed, she should now make a similar request of him, to see what the result will be.
And third, you might have considered a stiff jolt of bourbon. I've found that one or two can sometimes take the edge off the pain of dealing with idiots.
- Bob
August 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
When you find you've joined a bureaucracy
Dear Bob ...
I believe that I am coming to a fork in the road regarding my career. Here is the situation. I work for a large multi-national Fortune 500 company. A few years ago our company reorganized IT, moving from a decentralized model to a centralized model. In the process, I was offered a position with the central IT organization despite working at an outlying facility. I was excited about the opportunity. Unfortunately, I have found that the central organization is bogged down in process and bureaucracy.
Activities that took 6 weeks now take 6 months. Micro-management is the norm and the answer to every question is "We need to schedule another meeting" with the explanation "We need to get everyone on board". What's worse is that the people at the central office reinforce each other, complimenting one another on the "progress" they've made by grinding software development and hardware acquisition to a halt. There is no concept of leadership and no true vision for where this is going. I feel like I have moved to the "dark side", a talented young IT padawan who has switched sides and now works for the emperor.
Criticism of the central IT organization is not taken well. If you do point out areas for improvement you are labeled as disloyal and a complainer. It is assumed that what you want is the decentralized model and that you are some sort of anarchist. When I point to problems with delivery times for services in the team I am in, I am grouped in with those that don't understand the big picture and are disloyal to the cause. I have held my tongue to a certain extent but don't know that I can do that much longer. The IT organization is corrupt from the top down so there isn't any hope of going to someone higher in the IT organization for help. Upper IT management is filled with "yes" men who say whatever will save their skin.
Opportunities exist that would put me back with the remote location. Unfortunately there are rumors of shutting down this location and moving the site to somewhere else in the country. Not wanting to relocate my family I thought that I was safe by taking a job with central IT. Now it seems as if my choices are bending my knee to the "evil empire" and biting my tongue, staying in my current position and being a solitary voice for improvement risking alienation or getting fired, or going back to the local IT group and potentially going down with the ship and facing relocation. Any thoughts?
- Am I a Sithy?
Dear Sithy ...
Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that in the entire history of our species, nobody has ever once been persuaded of anything by an outsider.
Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. I'm sure it has happened, just as poker players do fill an inside straight from time to time, and penny stocks sometimes do grow to huge multiples of their purchase prices.
I just wouldn't place my money on any of the above, and especially not on your chances of persuading anyone in central IT at the moment.
Conclusion: If you want to continue your career with this company, and want to have some influence, you first have to become an insider. Your first step down this path is to stop viewing central IT as "them" and start viewing everyone there as "we." The second is to do everything you can to understand the world from the perspective of central IT, and in particular of the CIO.
These folks aren't evil. Chances are good they aren't incompetent bowbs, either. They are, however, dealing with situations the best way they can, and you don't yet know what those situations are. Until you do, you'll be worse than just a voice in the wilderness. You'll be a source of irrelevant noise ... to the people you're trying to convince, that is.
You might not want to go down this road. It's treacherous; in particular, the risk of "going native" is high.
Which brings me to the second thought: If you don't like the way things are going, start looking. There's no lock on the door to prevent you from exiting under your own power.
I sure wouldn't recommend placing your hopes on the remote location. From what you say, that's a high-risk, low payoff play.
You're better off trying to fill an inside straight.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 30, 2006 07:06 AM
August 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Regarding your recent article, "Barriers to Vision," (Keep the Joint Running, 8/21/2006): So I'm guessing you are not sponsored by Toro or Carnival Cruise lines ...
It is interesting to read your article/comments and think about how it relates ... another quote I like "In the end, a vision without the ability to execute is probably an hallucination" – Stephen M. Case, Former Chairman, AOL Time Warner ... I wonder if execute should be modified to "execute effectively".
Side note – The gap I find in the article is that once you point out the various "vision faults" ... then what do you do with it. Say you have seen one or more of the items listed ... how do you either adapt to it, work with it, change it, coach around it ... etc ... the easy part is identifying the "types" ... the difficult part is working with it and helping others work with it that are impacted by it further. Make sense?
- Looking for Guidance
Dear Looking ...
Sponsored? That would imply revenue. An intriguing concept. I'll have to pursue it one of these days.
First of all, Mr. Case - probably unknowingly - borrowed his insight from Ainsley Throckmorton, President, Bangor Seminary, who said, "First management had plans, and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination." It's a favorite quote of mine.
But to your comment:
You're right that I didn't pursue what to do about it. I generally write with business leaders in mind as the target audience, so the point of this column was, "Don't do that." If you're on the receiving end of this sort of genius, the answer is long, complex and uncertain. Book-length, in fact, and I'm not entirely qualified to write it since it involves such subjects as psychopathology.
The short version is, figure out how to manipulate them by learning their hot buttons, massaging their egos, filtering the information they receive, and otherwise putting to use some of the ideas Machiavelli wrote about. But be careful as you do so - many of these characters achieved their current status by knowing how to learn hot buttons, massage egos, filtering the information they provide, and otherwise put to use the ideas Machiavelli wrote about. If they recognize what you're up to, they're more likely to view you as a danger than to admire your technique.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 29, 2006 11:17 AM
August 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The owner/boss is headed in the wrong direction.
Dear Bob ...
Here is one for your book:
This company has been using sendmail on Linux for over 15 years, I have been administering it for over 5. Part of my job is to keep up to date on the software applications involved with email and groupware. Using various opensource applications, I have cut down email virii reaching end users to nill and spam 99% with a false positive about once a quarter. Have I mentioned that this running under RedHat9 on a pc that is a PIII 650mhz with 386Meg and a 4G harddrive? The owner/boss is extremely frugal (our file servers and PDC are running NT4 and the hardware is not much younger).
The spam has been cut down to almost nill for all users except the owner/boss and one of the managers who both insisted when I was setting up the filters and traps that they wanted to see all the email. I offered to capture all the spam to a folder they could check but they said no.
Last week I asked the owner/boss for @1500 to update the OS to RHEL3 and to upgrade the pc to something 2 generations old instead of 5 and so that I could setup a functional group discussion system (ie: Zimbra).
The response: He is considering going to MSExchange and maybe even outsourcing the email! Why? Because he and the manager who wanted all the email are dissatisfied with the performance and want more group features.
Keep in mind that part of my job is to keep up on all these things and do evaluations of the various products out there. I had absolutely no clue that the O/B had his own skunk project going, though since he doesn't understand opensource he did not even consider any of that type solutions.
So instead of spending $1500 he is willing to spend over $20G upfront and lord-only-knows how much in upkeep for msExchange, which is really just a vanity on his part.
- Boggled
Dear Boggled ...
Go figure. But if I were you I'd be exploring my options. Underneath his apparent distrust or ignorance of open source is another possible message: He doesn't want to be dependent on your expertise.
Look at the business from his perspective. If you decide to leave he has to find someone else who can assemble a dirt-cheap open-source environment out of obsolete parts. If he migrates to Exchange, he has to find an experienced Exchange administrator.
I'd take one other lesson away from this: Somehow, you got seriously out of sync with the owner/boss. According to the leadership book, that's his failing. But according to the career management book, it's yours.
It's time to figure out how it happened, and whether you can repair the damage. Assuming the two of you have a basically productive working relationship, I'd advise you to sit down with him, apologize for having missed his interest in investing more heavily in IT, and offer to be part of the solution. If the conversation goes in the right direction and you think some of the more advanced open-source groupware solutions might be a good fit, give him the option of a demo of some of the more interesting alternatives.
Is he making the right choice for the business? Beats me. "Right" depends on the values you apply to a variety of intangibles.
Or else it is defined as, "What the owner/boss wants to do."
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 27, 2006 09:15 AM
August 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Your recent columns about nailing down everyone's computers at work got me thinking about something tangentially related: just how much do people goof off at work?
Apart from alleged security issues, of course, one of the reasons often given for (for example) not allowing users to install their own software is that, if we do, everyone will spend all day long on chat clients. Opponents of this viewpoint tend to say things like, "We can't expect our employees to behave like responsible adults if we treat them like irresponsible children." I freely admit that they've got a point, but even so...
I've been in only two companies thus far where my duties required me to review network usage for inappropriate activity, my current one being the second. Not long ago, we took a sample of one days' usage statistics and found that the top 15 sites visited accounted for about 97% of all site visits -- and not a single one of them had to do with work (if I recall correctly, YouTube alone accounted for about one-fourth of all visits).
Is this the exception or the rule? And if it's the rule, doesn't it kind of undermine the idea that management has to treat employees like adults to get them to behave as adults?
I'm just pondering this as I make plans for later in the day, after everyone has left, to go to the computer of a user who insisted she needed administrative privileges for her work, so I can uninstall Google Talk and demote her access privileges (a policy I have no role in creating but am responsible for enforcing).
- Feeling parental
Dear Concerned Parent ...
But what percentage of the workday did visiting those sites represent?
Your letter raises some serious and valid issues. And I have no doubt at all that treating employees as adults is merely a necessary condition for their behaving that way, not a sufficient one. Among the others is making the expectation clear.
Then there's structuring the work and communications so employees recognize how they contribute to the company's overall success, and making them feel like they have a stake in the success.
Sometimes managers also have to recognize when they have an employee who isn't capable of adulthood, and replacing him or her with a different employee who is. Failing to do so communicates very loudly that childish behavior is okay.
And there's a last piece: Many employers encroach heavily on personal time, requiring many more than 40 hours and five days per week of work. Those who do have an ethical obligation (in my view) to allow those employees to spend a modest amount of time on personal business during work hours.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 23, 2006 04:47 AM
August 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Here's one that may be a bit out of your league, but I thought I'd float it past you nevertheless, since you've been talking about ill- mannered coworkers.
I work at a DC-based non-profit organization that has employees (both short and long term) from all over the world. The other day, I was troubleshooting a laptop problem for one of our international employees, a very polite and deferential young man (the type who still refer to you as "sir", which no one does anymore, of course).
As we were working on the problem together, he blithely said, "Sir, I've been wondering. Have you tried any medications or treatments for your hair loss?" Needless to say, I was pretty startled and didn't know how to respond; coming from an American, this kind of inquiry would be unspeakably rude, of course, but I can only assume (considering how he otherwise behaves) that societal standards for this kind of thing are different in Eastern European/Middle Eastern countries, although I don't know for sure.
My tolerance for cultural differences only extends so far, and questions like that are *way* past my limit. On the other hand, I don't want to hurt the poor kid's feelings, either... he's all of about 20 years old and, likely as not, this is his first experience traveling any significant distance from his homeland (as is usually the case for foreign interns here).
- Gleamer
Dear Gleamer ...
I don't know what you decided to say. I'd have said something like this:
"Since my hair loss was caused by my two teen-aged daughters, the only medication that would help would be tranquilizers and I'm not ready for those just yet. By the way, you probably aren't aware of this, but a lot of American guys who are hair-challenged are sensitive about it. Your question didn't bother me, but I figured you'd want to know."
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 22, 2006 05:56 AM
August 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Another take on age discrimination
Dear Bob,
I am over 55 with two graduate degrees. One is in Computer Science. I have had two careers, one in the field of each degree. I am being vague to give me some deniability if someone in the company reads this. Currently I am working as a Software Engineer for a medium sized manufacturing company with plants in several countries. During the ten years I have worked here, I have written or managed the writing of all the production software and as well as administrating the production computers at all the plants. I have managed from 0 to 10 people as the company grew and shrank depending on the economic climate. At the moment, the survival of the company is in doubt and I need to move on.
My problem is that I keep sending out resumes for jobs that match my background and interest using both web searches and human networking. I have not gotten one interview. I thought it might be my resume, but the feedback I have gotten is that I make too much money, even though no one has ever asked me what my salary range is. What am I doing wrong?
- Old Man and feeling it.
Dear Feeling it ...
It's hard to say exactly what you're doing wrong. My guess, unencumbered by facts, is that you're either applying for jobs that are stereotypically for younger IT professionals, or are just doing a very poor job of selling. I'm guessing it's the latter.
That you're getting no response from your resumes is unsurprising. Sending resumes to posted positions is a low-likelihood strategy, akin to mailing a brochure when you're selling an expensive product. (The main reason to even have a resume is that not having one raises too many red flags.)
The personal networking is more troubling, but you say you're sending resumes there, too, which leads me to believe that you're using your personal network to find openings, not to provide introductions.
What you ought to be doing is to ask people you know to introduce you to others (and so on) in order to be able to name-drop when asking, by telephone, for an introductory meeting. Name-dropping someone the hiring manager knows and trusts helps you bypass all of the barriers managers erect to keep out the riffraff (sales representatives and low-likelihood applicants).
Don't be shy. Get on the telephone, ask for face-to-face meetings. Ask those referring you what the big issues are that the hiring manager is facing. In your meetings, talk about what you can do to help the hiring manager and company, not about your skills, accomplishments, or anything else (except as anecdotes to illustrate how you'll address various situations).
Put yourself in the hiring manager's situation. Which would you rather do - find out from someone you trust about a potential hire that can handle what's needed? Or sift through a large pile of brochures (resumes) to try to figure out which product (applicant and total stranger) is the right person.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 21, 2006 08:09 PM
August 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...In "Nailing IT Governance," (Keep the Joint Running, August 7, 2006) you said,
> So it is with IT governance. Give the members of the executive
> committee a similar choice -- everyone gets the same small benefit, or
> everyone gets more benefit, but it's distributed unequally -- and most
> will prefer the former.
Is this a special case? Studies show that most people believe themselves to be above average. It follows that most people would believe that they will be the recipient of the larger share of the benefit.
Or would people believe out of suspicion that they would be more likely to receive the smaller share of the benefit?
And am I abnormal for thinking that benefit could possibly be allocated fairly based upon the value of the unit to the company, its mission and goals, and the bottom line?
- Fair and balanced
Dear Foxy ...
Most people think they're above average. For that matter, 2/3 of CEOs think their IT department is above average. Go figure.
That doesn't mean most people think they're being treated fairly. Quite the opposite, I'd say. In my non-random-sample experience, lots of people say something along the lines of, "I bust my hump every day, and my PHB has no idea of what I deliver to the organization."
It's right in line with the well-publicized findings a few years ago that there's an inverse correlation between self-assessments and objective assessments.
Last thought: Who said anyone wants a system that's fair? I want a system that gives the advantage to me!
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 16, 2006 04:43 AM
August 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I'd like your comments on this:
Historically our company policy on mainframe systems (MVS and VM) was such that user's were responsible for granting permission to others to access their files (read/write/execute/delete). When LAN's started proliferating this task seemed to be only accomplished by IT (I think it was a lack of tool issue). This worked in the beginning, but as the LAN environment grew it would take quite a while to get access changes made, and then of course it also required management approval. And, as things progressed we sent this task off-shore, now even trying to get reports or fixing access issues is a monumental task on the LAN's. For some reason, since this is working so well, the latest policy coming down is that even the mainframe environment is going to use the same model as the LAN's and individual user's can no longer control access to their own files.
The main issue here is that IT seems to feel user's are incompetent and unable to be responsible for their own data. Personally I think IT needs to understand that ownership of the data and responsibility of handling the data is really the owner's responsibility and that their job is to supply the platform, tools and training to enable the user's to accomplish what they need to do for their business purposes.
- Wants to share
Dear Sharer ...
I forget the name of the logical fallacy that this is an example of, but it is an example of a logical fallacy - namely, that a change in technology warrants a change in philosophy.
Forget the mainframe. When managers and employees used typewriters and copiers, EDP (what we called ourselves back then) wouldn't have dreamed of intruding on the decision of who an employee could share documents with. The technology has changed. That doesn't mean IT should have anything more to say about it.
Nor can we, since when we fail to let end-users share folders, all they'll do is share files as e-mail attachments, or put them on jump drives.
To be fair, the threat level has changed since the era of typewriters and copiers, and changing threats do warrant changing tactics in response. But when the only real impacts of the response are to (1) create inconvenience without improving security, and (2) add to IT's workload, it does seem rather pointless, doesn't it?
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 15, 2006 08:36 PM
August 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The right questions to ask when selecting CRM software
Dear Bob ...
I greatly enjoyed your column on controlling the behavior of end users ("Revisiting the End-User Computing Manifesto, 10 years later," Keep the Joint Running, July 31, 2006). You and I are pretty much of one mind, for the most part.
I would add one good practice that can take the form of an obligation for users:
1. When a new type of application is needed, end users will work together to develop a consensus as to what application comes closest to meeting their needs, and will work with IT to determine if and how it can be supported by IT;
2. Once consensus is reached and appropriate budgetary/ROI tests are met, IT will prepare to support the application, and the application will be provided through normal channels.
3. Once the application is provided and supported, users wanting to use other apps of that type are subject to your "Where IT has established a standard, end-users must accept it" rule.
Your closing line about Act! hit close to home. We desperately need a CRM, and we are trying to get our users to agree on one. We hope it's not Act!, but if that's what they ultimately demand, that's what we'll ultimately support.
Thanks!
- Act!ing out
Dear Act!ing ...
I agree with you, to the extent that an application is beyond what's reasonable and appropriate for end-users to develop for themselves, or so long as the IT governance process includes what they need as a priority. The fact is, in most companies, IT's bandwidth is far more limited than the list of opportunities for automation. End-user-developed or installed applications are an important tactic in closing that gap.
Regarding your need for CRM software ...
What you're asking of your users is the wrong question, I think. The right question is, of the sales force, "How do you want to sell better?" The right questions of sales management are, "What selling process do you want to encourage the sales force to follow?" and "How do you want to manage the selling process?"
With answers to those three questions, you're in a far better position to find software that (1) will satisfy sales management, and (2) the sales force will actually use, instead of ignoring it and using Act! instead.
A lot of our consulting attempts to refocus both IT and business management on the difference between IT installing software and IT helping the business improve what it does. It isn't necessarily easy to cajole everyone into trying it. I promise you that once you do get everyone into this habit, they'll never willingly to go back.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 15, 2006 04:24 AM
August 09, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Handling a non-delegating boss
Dear Bob,
In general I have a good relationship with my boss. She is competent, hardworking, and intelligent; I respect her as a professional and I would also consider us friends outside of work. In general, she's an ideal boss. With one exception that continues to tug at me... she is a terrible delegator!
She works long hours, insists on making the final decision on even the most insignificant matters, and keeps everyone else out of the loop on any high level projects and tasks. She keeps all of her work on her personal hard drive rather than in the department's shared directory where we could access it, even though it is not sensitive information (we get paper copies). Her paperwork is either in random piles on her desk or filed in her office, where nobody has easy-access. On many occasions this controlling behavior has left me looking rather inept. As her "second in command" people often come to me when she is not available and expect me to have answers for them. Unfortunately, I am usually unable to help them with even the simplest of questions.
I have addressed the issue politely with her many times... offering my help both in general and with specific tasks. I have lightly chided her on her need to delegate and spend less nights and weekends in the office. I have expressed my desire to "grow" in my career. The last time I brought up the subject she got defensive and seemed quite offended. Her superiors have also suggested better delegation. Nothing seems to work.
I honestly don't think she does these things out of a sense of insecurity about her position... it seems more that she feels that only she can perform these tasks adequately and correctly, and that training another person and working through their learning curve would be time wasted. It's the typical "I-can-do-it-faster-myself" mentality.
This would otherwise be my "dream job", but lately, because of this issue, it seems to be lacking a lot of intangibles. I have been feeling inadequate and unchallenged. Even though I hold a title and salary of "manager" I really do not feel my responsibilities are any greater than most staff members. Should I just cash my check and be happy as an overpaid worker-bee... or is there a way to take on more without stepping on her toes?
- Figure Head
Dear Figure Head
I think it's time to join "Have-A-Bad-Boss Anonymous." That would entitle you to make use of the serenity prayer, and you need it, because one of the things you can't influence, let alone change, is your manager's behavior.
Apparently, nobody can.
This isn't a situation that's going to change, unless upper management finally tires of having a manager who doesn't know how to lead or manage effectively. I don't recommend going over her head on an issue like this either. It isn't as if she's creating a hostile, threatening, or discriminatory work environment. She's simply an awful manager, but because she works like a fiend, she delivers the results her management is looking for - at least enough that the risks associated with replacing her appear to be greater than the risks associated with keeping her where she is.
If she were a close friend you could close the door, look her in the eye, become exasperated, and give it to her straight: "Unless you start delegating some authority so my job is more than being bossed around on a task-by-task basis, I'm going to be open to the first good offer that comes along. And before you get offended - you have no idea how offended I am that you don't trust me to make a decision more significant than what I'm going to have for lunch."
She'd have to be a very good friend, and open to outside views besides, for this to have even a chance of working. Even then, the chance isn't good enough to outweigh the risks.
So you have two choices - find another opportunity, or RIP (which of course stands for "Retire In Place"). The problem with RIP, of course, is that unless you're near the career finish line, nearly ready to fish and play golf for the rest of your life, it will ruin you for useful work in the future.
Which leaves you with one choice.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 9, 2006 04:59 AM
August 08, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Handling an unpredictable, intrusive personality
Dear Bob ...
Thanks for your response to my question about how to handle an unpredictable peer ("Handling an unpredictable personality," Advice Line, 7/6/2006). There's one aspect of the situation I didn't make clear, which might change your advice: My peer (call him "Ralph") regularly bypasses me and chews out people who report to me, or report to people who report to me. He also gives them assignments; one reason he'll chew people out is for not getting them finished on time.
How does that affect things?
- Still living among mood disorders
Dear Still living ...
Well, you could ask him to a meeting, close the door, and scream, at the top of your lungs, "What the BLEEP do you think you're doing! You want to mess up my organization? I'll show you what messing up an organization looks like! From now on it's open season on your staff."
You could, but it would be wrong. Even worse, it would be counterproductive, because there's no way you could do this discreetly. You could deny the conversation, but if you carried out the threat, too many people would know about this.
Assuming your CEO has no interest in intervening (if he/she did, this wouldn't be happening in the first place) I'd suggest a different approach. No guarantees - it's hard to overcome a weak or wrong-headed CEO - but it has a chance. That is:
In the next executive team meeting, raise it as an issue, without naming names. "We have a choice to make in terms of how we work together. Either each of us can directly approach the employees working in each others' organizations, assign them work, and criticize the results, or we can respect each other. As things stand, two things are happening. First, lots of employees are receiving assignments from at least two directions, creating overwork and confused priorities. And second, many of mine are becoming demoralized because some of you who are doing this have a very different, harsher leadership style than mine.
"Starting today, I'm going to authorize everyone in my organization to refuse any requests that aren't made through the proper channels, and to refer anyone who doesn't like it, no matter who they are and no matter how loud they yell, to me. It's the only way I can run things without the situation turning into complete chaos. Will that work for you?"
You'll get blank looks, as everyone pretends they have no idea what you're talking about. That's okay. Tell them you aren't going to name names, and that those who engage in the practice know who they are.
There are some risks associated with this, but I don't have any better ideas, and there are plenty of risks associated with doing nothing.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 8, 2006 05:21 AM
August 06, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Handling an unpredictable personality
Dear Bob ...
I'm the CIO in a mid-sized company - small enough that we should be focused and agile; more than big enough that our executives should know how to behave professionally.
Emphasis on should. Another executive - a peer of mine on the organizational chart - is mercurial (I think that's the right word). His moods are unpredictable. One day he wants to be my best buddy, the next he explodes over trivial matters, and in very public settings. It isn't just me either - he's the same way with his direct reports, the employees in his division, and anyone else in the company.
Except the CEO, needless to say. With the CEO he's nothing but charming.
I don't know that I'm looking for advice as much as commentary. I'm already pretty sure I know how I should handle this guy - by ignoring him to the extent that I'm able, by acting professionally when we interact, and by blowing him off when he loses his temper, walking away until he's calmed down and we can have a productive conversation.
Anything else occur to you?
- Living among mood disorders
Dear Living ...
It's tempting to play junior shrink and diagnose a classic case of bipolar disorder. It's tempting, except that I don't think that's what's going on here.
A long time ago, Carlos Casteneda described "warriors." Among their character traits is unpredictability. The idea is that if nobody can predict what you're going to do next, you keep them off-balance and they'll be less likely to defeat you in battle.
I doubt this character was literate enough to read any Casteneda, but he probably didn't have to. Many corporate executives achieved their status through a single core competency - the ability to get their way. Most would be astonished if either of us was to suggest that this isn't the only goal that matters, in fact.
My guess is that your buddy discovered, long ago in his formative years, that being unpredictable is a terrific way to get whatever you want. Most people, most of the time, are uncomfortable around anger and will take steps to placate whoever is expressing it, so long as they have a reasonable expectation that the steps they take will be effective.
When your buddy gets angry, they placate him. The next day he's their best buddy. It worked!
It's behavior modification at its finest.
So long as you continue working in the nut-house, it sounds to me like you have the right strategy. If you feel a bit of game playing, you might want to add one more tactic to the ones you listed: Whenever you interact with him, regardless of how he's behaving at the moment, scowl at him in distaste. Don't be obvious enough for him to raise it as an issue - be subtle.
But be noticeable. Relent only when he does something to try to please you, and then only briefly.
Sure, it's a bit unsavory. But if anyone deserves it, this guy does.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 6, 2006 04:06 PM
August 02, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Looking for an employer with good principles
Dear Bob,
I am currently looking for a job and was wondering if you could list 5-10 companies that you have been really impressed with. Companies that make correct principles a part of their culture.
So that you know a little more about me, for the past 10 years I have worked as the only computer guy for a company that has grown from just over 100 employees to about 400 employees. The company does therapy and education for troubled youth. I have repaired all the computers and laptops, installed and configured all the software, setup and configured the file servers, networked the computers, managed the email server and a few other things.
Being the only computer guy, I feel like I have missed out on some great opportunities to learn from my peers. I also think that I need some help developing my interpersonal and communication skills.
Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated.
- Interest in principle
Dear Principled ...
I'm afraid I can't help you with your first question, for a few reasons. First, there's no such thing as a company that fits what everyone is looking for, so what impresses me won't necessarily impress you. Second, I don't have much in the way of inside information about any company other than my clients. Certainly, a company's "Values Statement" isn't going to help, since I'm pretty sure there is an inverse correlation (albeit not a perfect one - I'd estimate the correlation coefficient to be approximately .5326) between printing a Values Statement and adhering to actual values.
And third, the last I looked, 70% of all hiring is done by companies that don't make the Fortune list - ones I'll never have heard of. So if you want to leave the non-profit world, there is no substitute for old-fashioned research. For any company you think you might want to work for, search for news stories and current legal actions that could give you a hint (but note that there are plenty of bottom-feeding law firms that file nuisance suits, so these are far from perfect indicators).
When you interview, remember that you're interviewing the company, too: Explain to the hiring manager that a company's principles are important to you, and ask for examples of situations where the company made a hard choice because its leaders considered it to be the proper course of action.
If I were in your situation, though, I think I'd head down to the nearest United Way headquarters, explain my situation, and ask if they know of any agencies that fit what you're looking for: An IT organization that's more than just two or three people, but that needs an IT professional experienced in working for a non-profit.
Or, recognize that not everyone is capable of being a one-person show, and take advantage of it: Ask if they know of any agencies that are looking for what you, and not that many others, can do.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 2, 2006 04:53 AM
August 01, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...I can't go into details on this, because quite a few people in my company read Advice Line. I hope you can help, even though my description is going to have to be pretty generic.
I'm one of the top-ranking executives in my company. Not long ago, I got a call from a department head. Due to a slip on the part of someone in his department, he needed my help to get something accomplished outside the normal procedures, in order to make a hard deadline. What he asked made good business sense, so I took care of it over my signature.
Two days later, a member of his staff sent me an e-mail that I can only describe as snippy, copying several others in the company. It complained that when I bypassed the standard procedure I didn't notify her, and in the future, if anyone in the company does this, could I please make sure she is notified.
My tongue still hurts from how hard I bit it.
What I did do was send the department head a note, suggesting that he has a teachable moment and should coach his staff member on the value of (a) getting her facts straight before drawing a conclusion; and (b) being polite to a member of the executive management team ... and everyone else in the company too.
What I wanted to do is considered a felony in this state.
What do you think I should have done?
- Seething
Dear Seething ...
I think you left out just a couple of important steps. The first is that, as part of the teachable moment, the department head should also mention the importance of only making requests that can be taken care of. The notion that this individual should delegate to you the responsibility for personally ensuring that the entire company follows procedure is laughable.
Second, the department head clearly owes you an apology, since he should have informed his staff member that this had taken place. He should also point this out to her, and suggest that since he was the one who goofed, she should now make a similar request of him, to see what the result will be.
And third, you might have considered a stiff jolt of bourbon. I've found that one or two can sometimes take the edge off the pain of dealing with idiots.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on August 1, 2006 04:28 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
Top 10 stories of the weekA new place to hide rootkits
Sun exec on OpenSolaris, Linux
AT&T: No free iPhone Wi-Fi info
MS to appeal E.U. fine
XP SP3 causes endless reboots
Vista as insecure as Win 2000
Google grilled on human rights
Java ubiquity an edge in RIA battle
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
