MORE ENTRIES
- How to be more assertive
- Happy holidays!
- One more run at passive voice
- Staying current when you aren't paid to do so
- Who should own the company's website?
- Advice for a newbie consultant
- An active discussion about passive voice
- Generalists vs specialists in the job market
- Confidence vs arrogance
- What do you call those who report to you?
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
December 2006
Dear Bob ...
What books would you recommend on assertiveness?
- Trying to be more forceful
Dear Bibliophile ...
Regrettably, I haven't personally read any on the subject, so I'm not in a position to help ... with the book request, that is.
I presume you're asking because this has been a challenge for you, and since I'm in the advice business, what the heck - here are a few notions that might help you until you're able to track down something book length:
The situations (that come to mind, at least) that require assertiveness are conflict situations. They generally take the form of someone else asking you, with varying degrees of forcefulness, to do something you'd rather not do, refusing to do something you'd like them to do, or some variation of one or the other.
For most people, their assertiveness problem is that they don't stand up for themselves. There is a minority whose problem is that they do stand up for themselves - too much, and not skillfully. Both, I think, have the same root cause - a failure to balance personal needs with the needs of others, and to re-frame conflicts in those terms.
To be skillfully assertive, you first need to be comfortable with a syllogism many of us have been taught is of dubious morality. The major premise is that what I need is just as important as what anyone else needs. The minor premise is that I'm the only person I can count on to look out for my needs. The conclusion is that my first responsibility in any conflict is to look out for myself.
Once you recognize this, you'll recognize that assertiveness is simply another name for effective negotiation. So no matter what the conflict entails, your starting point is to recognize what you want from it and to recognize that it's perfectly okay for you to want it. Your next step is to recognize that the other person is in the exact same position, or should be.
Now you're ready to assert yourself. Say, "I think I understand what you want me to do - you want me to do x. That doesn't work for me - here's why. Let's figure out a solution so we can both get what we need most."
It doesn't always work, of course. Your boss might require you to work a weekend when you're rather not, and make it a condition of continued employment. ("You're the boss, and you do have the authority to require this of me. See you Saturday.")
You might be facing a narcissistic screamer, who still looks at the world from the perspective of a kindergarten sandbox bully. (Say, calmly, "You can yell all you want. When you're ready to have a businesslike conversation, let me know and we can pick this up where we left off. Bye.")
Usually, though, the other party will be pleased at your ability to turn a potential conflict or source of resentment into a productive conversation.
I still can't recommend any specific titles. I can, however, recommend that you stop looking for books on assertiveness and start looking at books that teach effective negotiating techniques.
You'll find them far more useful.
- Bob
At the risk of being "religiously incorrect," I'd like to wish everyone who reads Advice Line a very happy holiday season.
What you celebrate isn't important. What's important is that you celebrate.
- Bob
Following my Keep the Joint Running column on good writing that recommended avoidance of passive voice ("Sounding smarter," 11/27/2006) and the followup in this space ("An active discussion about passive voice," 12/12/2006), several correspondents asked the question, "What exactly is passive voice, how do you recognize it, and how do you rewrite sentences to get rid of it?"
Good question.
Passive voice is a construction in which the verb happens to the subject, instead of the subject making the verb happen to the object. "Projects were planned," is passive voice, as planning happens to projects. "Project managers planned projects," is active voice: Now the subject of the sentence (Project managers) are causing the verb (planned) to happen to the object (projects).
Avoiding the passive voice is pretty simple. Just make sure the subject of the sentence is the actor, not the acted upon. The hard part is avoiding overuse of the word "I" when you do so. The secret is to shift perspective from yourself to what you're interested in.
For example, "I reviewed the performance of every employee in my department ..." is active voice, but the focus is on the writer. "With few exceptions the employees in my department performed very well ..." is also active voice, only this time the writer stays out of the picture.
Another example shows how to use the imperative to avoid passive voice:
"A happy holiday should be had," is grammatically correct, but very poor construction. The imperative - "Have a happy holiday," - is much better.
So stop reading this and go have one!
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
You don't hear the term "Golden Handcuffs" used very often. The term in its narrowest sense, receiving a very high pay rate to stick to what you're doing, doesn't describe my situation perfectly. The pay is fine, but it's the relative stability of my current employment that's the constraining aspect.
I'm employed as a contractor, and this is not a contract-to-hire situation. But, I've been here two and a half years, and prospects are good for it to continue another four or five years, maybe longer. The 16-month employment chasm I struggled through before landing this position makes it that much more attractive.
The handcuff aspect comes from the technology I work with: Mainframe/COBOL systems. That's where the bulk of my twenty-plus years experience has been. I'm concerned that five, six, or seven years of additional experience will make me appear that much more disconnected from future openings when I get there.
Back to the "Golden" part of the handcuffs; I enjoy the work I do, and I like the people I work with. My work involves a full range: client contact, analysis and development. I find it very satisfying. At the same time, the work still provides new challenges that keep things interesting.
In fact, learning new things is one thing I like about working in IT. I read books, article, and columns to keep touch with what's going on. I take classes. I've used over 50 languages to develop applications on platforms varying from PDA's to mainframes. BUT, when the time comes, I don't have a strategy for getting around the label "old fart with arcane skills."
Your thoughts?
- Cuffed
Dear Cuffed ...
You aren't the first and you won't be the last: You've identified one of the two biggest challenges for all of us who hire out our skills without having a large organization behind us. (The other, of course, is the near-impossibility of keeping a presence in the marketplace while supporting a current client.)
You're smart to be thinking about this now. I knew a guy in a similar situation, and the result was Biblical: Seven fat years followed by seven lean years. And then more lean years after than - I'm not sure he ever really recovered.
If anyone has figured out a silver-bullet solution to this, I'm unaware of it. Here's the best I know of in the way of a solution. It has two parts.
The first is also Biblical: Put as much of your current earnings into storage as you can. Pretend you're earning just half of what you're really making, or, failing that, 75 percent tops. Invest the rest. That gives you some cushion when this engagement runs out, so you don't have to panic and do have the time to overcome the more difficult sales situation you'll be facing.
The second will require some negotiation with your current client - scale your involvement back to three weeks out of four, or four days out of five. Use the rest to develop other client relationships that are smaller in scale but that keep your skills and references current with respect to more modern technologies.
This isn't as unreasonable as it might seem, by the way. Many smaller companies need help but can't afford what you'd charge them for full-time involvement. With some creativity you should be able to develop some support offerings that fit perfectly into a one-day-a-week or one-week-a-month schedule.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I find myself in the midst of a turf war. The president of the company is battling the CIO over the issue of who should control the website. The president says it belongs in the Marketing department, the CIO says it belongs in IT.
Personally, I'm more than happy to leave control of the website in the hands of marketing (where it's been since 1996) - but the CIO sees this as an encroachment on IT's territory.
The president's argument is that IT, and specifically this CIO, is so bound up in procedures and risk avoidance, that IT cannot be responsive enough to the flexibility needed in current web site design changes.
I have a very good relationship with the company president, and a not very good relationship with the CIO (I'm hoping his is a short reign). Unfortunately, the CIO is part of the parent company (we were purchased a couple of years ago), and has influence on my career path.
Do you have any insight on this issue?
- Turfbound
Dear Turfbound ...
Several thoughts occur to me. The first is, what on earth is the CIO thinking? Engaging in a turf issue with the president is politically foolish, even if he is part of corporate. If he calls the question back at headquarters, he's asking the CEO to override a business-unit head to support the head of a service function.
Not smart.
And anyway, the whole turf issue is a perfect example of a false dichotomy - an argument based on the wrong premise that if the answer isn't one thing, it's the other.
Here's how it should work (forgive me if I'm pointing out what's painfully obvious): IT is responsible for web technology - its overall architecture, operations, data design and coding. Marketing is responsible for the web strategy, scope, design, publishing workflow, and marketing content.
To the extent that the scope of the website encompasses areas beyond marketing, other areas also have content responsibilities - shareholder relations and recruiting being two of the most common.
Another thought, that stems from the first, is that your president's thought process also worries me. He/she is making a common mistake - making a decision about organizational alignment based on the existence of a performance problem instead of fixing the problem.
What I'm trying to say is that If IT isn't performing, keeping the website away from it still leaves the company with an IT organization that isn't performing.
One more, partially self-serving thought: If, for political reasons, this is too tough a nut to crack through internal decision-making processes, encourage the president to bring in an outside consulting company to help (mine, for instance). Unless the company has some issues that seriously complicate the question, any competent organization consultant should be able to bring something like this to closure pretty quickly.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
After a 10-year career as a staff employee (application developer) at various organizations (from tiny to mega), I am about to start a consulting contract. This is my first foray into the contracting arena, although I have been in a consultant role before. Initially it is short-term, but the potential for extension is great.
Other than the typical blurbs that are regurgitated ad nauseum, do you have any gems of advice to offer someone entering this game?
Thanks,
- Eager but Uncertain
Dear Eager ...
A lot depends on whether you're selling your effort or your wisdom ... whether, that is, you're going to be a contractor or a consultant.
If you're going to be a contractor - a developer-for-hire, for example - it's a simpler proposition. The typical blurbs that are repeated ad nauseum pretty much cover the ground. One point that isn't repeated ad nauseum is that satisfying the terms of your contract isn't enough. It isn't even what's most important.
What's most important is to make sure they like you. If they do, you'll never get into serious trouble, you will get renewals, and you'll get good references and referrals. If not, the quality of your work won't matter very much.
If you're planning to be a consultant ... someone who is hired to provide advice and guidance rather than effort as an alternative to hiring another employee ... all of the same ad nauseum advice still matters, as does the advice I just provided.
But wait! There's more!
Of all the advice I could give, one issue stand out. The first is that you'll be bringing your intellectual property (IP) into each engagement. You'll refine it while on the clock, and you'll develop new intellectual property as well. Which brings up the question of who owns it when you're done.
Most large companies these days have onerous IP clauses in their contracts. I've personally run across quite a few companies that try to reassign ownership of my IP, so that once I include it in a work product I no longer have the right to use it anymore. I've run across it enough to be pretty sure it's a trend.
So here's my advice: Read the contract carefully. Especially, look for clauses that should be mutual but are, instead, one sided - the non-disclosure agreement is a frequent culprit, and one place the IP issue frequently raises its ugly head.
And don't be afraid to negotiate. The individual who wants to bring you in will generally take one look at this sort of thing, recognize that you'd be either an idiot to sign it, or desperate, and tell you that "this is something you'll have to work out directly with Legal."
So long as you remain good-natured while negotiating, you won't offend anyone who can affect the decision to engage your services.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I understand the point you are making with the rule about avoiding the passive voice in business writing (in "Sounding smarter," Keep the Joint Running, 11/27/2006). I also believe it is a powerful tool for consultants in the correct circumstances. The key is assessing the goal of the communication.
Consultants often have to get work done through a client's resources.
That means the consultant's success is measured by the ability to get client resources to produce what is needed. The stick of the project's Executive Sponsor is always available but is a last resort. The carrot is getting the client resource to want to do what is needed. The passive voice can be used maintain the client resources desire to work with the consultant when things go wrong.
The passive voice's power is identifying a problem without assigning blame. This allows the problem to be addressed without having to deal with blame game issues. That often allows for the resolution of a problem faster.
Take an example of a software project where software must be installed by a client administrator. The installation is completed incorrectly because the administrator didn't follow the installation instructions. The consultant discovers the problem, but only the client administrator has the access rights to correct the problem.
The consultant could write or say to the client administrator, "You set the permissions wrong so the software can't access all the files it needs. You need to reset the permissions." That is the active voice all the way but could cause the administrator to focus on defending the installation rather than fixing the problem.
The alternative is to write or say to the client administrator, "The file permissions have become set so the software can't access all the files it needs. Please reset the permissions and let me know when you're finished so I can retest." In this case, the passive voice states the problem without addressing who caused the problem. The action needed is stated in the active voice to emphasize who does the remediation.
Either scenario may be correct depending on the situation. If the relationship is good or there is a need to address the cause of the problem so it doesn't happen again, use the active voice all the way. If the relationship or political environment is such that addressing who caused the issue will take time away from addressing the issue and knowing the responsible party provides no value, use the passive voice to state the problem and the active voice to state the resolution.
The key is to decide what the sentence is to accomplish and how the likely emotional reaction will affect that goal. Don't rule out the passive voice when it is useful. Use it when you don't want to assign ownership. If ownership is needed to accomplish the goal, use the active voice.
- Passive Aggressive
Dear Passive ...
While no rule is absolute, I don't see your example as a valid instance. If your goal is to avoid assigning blame, the solution is to pay no attention at all to how the mess was created. Just say (or write), "To get the software to work, just reset the permissions - that should take care of the symptoms we're seeing. Please let me know when you're done so I can re-test."
I also have an unsolicited suggestion: Stop calling the men and women who are responsible for doing your clients' important work "resources." While it's certainly better than calling them "liabilities" it's still a dehumanizing term.
If you're looking for an alternative, I generally use either "staff" or "employees."
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
The down side to the "knowledge" that most people have, that a confident person can be relied on, is that someone like myself, who knows that there is always a better way of doing something, gets ignored even when right (even my wife does a lot of that).
As an always-seeking generalist, it is very hard to find a reasonable (non-clerical level) job since everyone seems to be searching for the most "focused" person for what they are having problems with, rather than someone who can look at the entire situation and possibly remove the source of the problem rather that "fix" it.
- Generalist in a Specialist's World
Dear General ...
I'll leave alone the confidence question (at least for now) and focus on your complaint about the industry preference for specialists over generalists.
I think the market for generalists is increasing, only it isn't called that. It's for business-savvy IT specialists, project managers and so on. Being a generalist is, perhaps, a new specialty.
Another side to this question: For the most part, I think that when it comes to contractors and consultants, companies tend to like specialists - experts in a particular field who can bring in knowledge and experience not available internally for a short period of time.
When it comes to choosing employees, smart employers hire people who will make excellent employees, not "sacks o'skills" who might fit a particular specialized short-term need right now but who won't be able to adapt to the next situation and assignment.
Not all employers are smart, of course - companies fit a bell curve, just like the rest of us. Some are, though. Your challenge is to explain why you'd make a great employee.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I thoroughly enjoyed your column on Confidence ("Apologies, confessions, and critiques," Keep the Joint Running, 11/20/2006). As one who has been accused at various times of both Confidence and Arrogance, I feel that my perspective on the issue is that to a person who has no history with a particular individual, it is difficult to tell the difference between the two because they masquerade themselves with similar outward appearances. It is the experience that we have with the individual that would turn what would seem like arrogance into a more "healthy" confidence. I'm sure you got similar perspective from the reading of the books that you mentioned, but confidence to me is based upon being able to deliver as shown by experience, versus thinking that they can deliver based solely upon hubris. True confidence tends to be tempered by increased alertness and earnest effort, while arrogance tends to be more absolute and unthinking.
Criticizing other people's work is an easy, although occasionally necessary way of stating a perspective. What you usually do is offer a better solution to examine, which is the best form of intellectual debate, which allows the reader to get the "aha" moment within their own mind, which will be much more powerful, than in your own mind, where it will produce less of a lasting impact.
- Confident
Dear Confident ...
I'm not sure I could arrive at a crisp and clear dividing line between the two. In general, I figure confident people are comfortable acknowledging the good ideas and insights of others, where arrogant people, never being wrong, rarely acknowledge that anyone with a different perspective is ever right ... and usually won't have any basis for evaluation, since they rarely waste their time listening to anyone else.
Try this on for size: Confidant people figure they're one of the capable people in the room. Arrogant people each figure he or she is the only capable person in the room.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I've shared many of your articles with my "direct reports."
There's a thought: "direct reports". In our insanely politically correct world, we've gone out of our way to avoid calling them "subordinates". I prefer to call them "the folks I work with" but that doesn't convey the relationship to strangers that they might need. Got any thoughts on that?
- Word challenged
Dear Challenged ...
I've always liked "the men and women who report to me," although it's a bit long. "My team" and "my staff" work too, although I know people who find my use of the possessive form disconcerting.
It really is a bit of a challenge, because while there are plenty of versions I dislike ("rank and file" and "great unwashed" are particularly offensive while "troops" suggests they're faceless and interchangeable), simple, appropriate alternatives are hard to come by.
I personally don't like "subordinates," primarily because I don't want those reporting to me to think of themselves that way.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I need advice on how to deal with backstabbers at work. Here goes (this is really long, sorry).
At one time in the very recent past, my boss relied on my opinions related to work because of my experience.
She told me many negative things about certain people in our staff (I assumed in confidence, of course). She said some staff were being underhanded toward her (a backstabbing story of its own) -- the outcome of which would have caused serious questions about her credibility, resulting in major ramifications for her. At the time, I was most curious why she was not discussing this matter with someone at her level, given its seriousness. I have never broken that confidence and will not.
Presently, I'm out, and she has developed confidences with those same individuals (backstabbers-by her definition), assigning them choice and confidential projects. I found this out -- inadvertently, not directly -- from an employee who has recently transferred out of our unit.
I sent the boss a brief and non-threatening e-mail inquiring about one of the assignments. Her answer was indirect and reassuring -- and later I found out it was an untruth. Now I am questioning everything. I must surely be in the Twilight Zone.
I'm also feeling passed over and left out, the rug pulled out from under me. Are there now three backstabbers?
My plans for handling this sitution: Lay low, try to smile, don't show emotion or hurt feelings, and don't be surprised by anything. Maybe my boss lacks confidence in her abilities, maybe subconsciously her decisions, maybe does not want to take responsibility and somehow has connected with something the trouble-making individuals have offered.
I also feel when she confided in me, she should not have and that she should not be making unit decisions with those particular staff members. I don't and won't get involved in gossip or office politics and don't promote religion at work (the three of them discuss religion frequently, e-mailing the entire staff verses and quotes).
I truly feel you cannot outsmart a backstabber. This is how they have maneuvered in their world from the first time they discovered they could get what they wanted. Their behavior is very destructive, not only to them, but to everyone they are in contact with. Personally, I feel it cannot possibly work for them each time they use it, but they have been rewarded enough to have developed a lifestyle of it and are very seasoned, and a novice cannot beat them at it.
I feel greatly disappointed in my boss. I really liked her, or I guess I liked the person I thought she was. Disappointment stinks.
Any advice?
- Stilettoed
Dear Stilettoed ...
Your first clue should have been that your boss was confiding in you. Nothing has changed except who is in the confidant's seat.
Managers shouldn't play favorites. Those who do inadvertently encourage backstabbing. Those who do and who aren't a good judge of character pretty much ensure it.
And, at the risk of getting a lot of people mad ad me, those who use religion or religiousity as a way of determining who is most worthy of their confidences are among the most likely to be poor judges of character. That someone quotes verses of the Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavat Ghita says nothing at all about how they behave in the workplace.
Now that you know, your choices are simple: Leave your department, leave the company, or wait it out. Leaving the department is probably the best of them.
In a large company it's actually quite likely that those in charge have no idea something like this is going on - they rely on people reporting to people reporting to them to keep this sort of thing under control. The bad news is, it happens. The good news is, it probably isn't happening everywhere. Somewhere in the company you'll find opportunities without having to to change employers.
What's probably the losing strategy is to wait it out. Unless your boss isn't delivering results, that is. You can infer this from knowing, first-hand, that this is how your boss has been managing all along.
- Bob
December 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
What books would you recommend on assertiveness?
- Trying to be more forceful
Dear Bibliophile ...
Regrettably, I haven't personally read any on the subject, so I'm not in a position to help ... with the book request, that is.
I presume you're asking because this has been a challenge for you, and since I'm in the advice business, what the heck - here are a few notions that might help you until you're able to track down something book length:
The situations (that come to mind, at least) that require assertiveness are conflict situations. They generally take the form of someone else asking you, with varying degrees of forcefulness, to do something you'd rather not do, refusing to do something you'd like them to do, or some variation of one or the other.
For most people, their assertiveness problem is that they don't stand up for themselves. There is a minority whose problem is that they do stand up for themselves - too much, and not skillfully. Both, I think, have the same root cause - a failure to balance personal needs with the needs of others, and to re-frame conflicts in those terms.
To be skillfully assertive, you first need to be comfortable with a syllogism many of us have been taught is of dubious morality. The major premise is that what I need is just as important as what anyone else needs. The minor premise is that I'm the only person I can count on to look out for my needs. The conclusion is that my first responsibility in any conflict is to look out for myself.
Once you recognize this, you'll recognize that assertiveness is simply another name for effective negotiation. So no matter what the conflict entails, your starting point is to recognize what you want from it and to recognize that it's perfectly okay for you to want it. Your next step is to recognize that the other person is in the exact same position, or should be.
Now you're ready to assert yourself. Say, "I think I understand what you want me to do - you want me to do x. That doesn't work for me - here's why. Let's figure out a solution so we can both get what we need most."
It doesn't always work, of course. Your boss might require you to work a weekend when you're rather not, and make it a condition of continued employment. ("You're the boss, and you do have the authority to require this of me. See you Saturday.")
You might be facing a narcissistic screamer, who still looks at the world from the perspective of a kindergarten sandbox bully. (Say, calmly, "You can yell all you want. When you're ready to have a businesslike conversation, let me know and we can pick this up where we left off. Bye.")
Usually, though, the other party will be pleased at your ability to turn a potential conflict or source of resentment into a productive conversation.
I still can't recommend any specific titles. I can, however, recommend that you stop looking for books on assertiveness and start looking at books that teach effective negotiating techniques.
You'll find them far more useful.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 27, 2006 06:14 AM
December 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
At the risk of being "religiously incorrect," I'd like to wish everyone who reads Advice Line a very happy holiday season.
What you celebrate isn't important. What's important is that you celebrate.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 24, 2006 10:43 AM
December 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Following my Keep the Joint Running column on good writing that recommended avoidance of passive voice ("Sounding smarter," 11/27/2006) and the followup in this space ("An active discussion about passive voice," 12/12/2006), several correspondents asked the question, "What exactly is passive voice, how do you recognize it, and how do you rewrite sentences to get rid of it?"
Good question.
Passive voice is a construction in which the verb happens to the subject, instead of the subject making the verb happen to the object. "Projects were planned," is passive voice, as planning happens to projects. "Project managers planned projects," is active voice: Now the subject of the sentence (Project managers) are causing the verb (planned) to happen to the object (projects).
Avoiding the passive voice is pretty simple. Just make sure the subject of the sentence is the actor, not the acted upon. The hard part is avoiding overuse of the word "I" when you do so. The secret is to shift perspective from yourself to what you're interested in.
For example, "I reviewed the performance of every employee in my department ..." is active voice, but the focus is on the writer. "With few exceptions the employees in my department performed very well ..." is also active voice, only this time the writer stays out of the picture.
Another example shows how to use the imperative to avoid passive voice:
"A happy holiday should be had," is grammatically correct, but very poor construction. The imperative - "Have a happy holiday," - is much better.
So stop reading this and go have one!
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 22, 2006 09:22 AM
December 18, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Staying current when you aren't paid to do so
Dear Bob ...
You don't hear the term "Golden Handcuffs" used very often. The term in its narrowest sense, receiving a very high pay rate to stick to what you're doing, doesn't describe my situation perfectly. The pay is fine, but it's the relative stability of my current employment that's the constraining aspect.
I'm employed as a contractor, and this is not a contract-to-hire situation. But, I've been here two and a half years, and prospects are good for it to continue another four or five years, maybe longer. The 16-month employment chasm I struggled through before landing this position makes it that much more attractive.
The handcuff aspect comes from the technology I work with: Mainframe/COBOL systems. That's where the bulk of my twenty-plus years experience has been. I'm concerned that five, six, or seven years of additional experience will make me appear that much more disconnected from future openings when I get there.
Back to the "Golden" part of the handcuffs; I enjoy the work I do, and I like the people I work with. My work involves a full range: client contact, analysis and development. I find it very satisfying. At the same time, the work still provides new challenges that keep things interesting.
In fact, learning new things is one thing I like about working in IT. I read books, article, and columns to keep touch with what's going on. I take classes. I've used over 50 languages to develop applications on platforms varying from PDA's to mainframes. BUT, when the time comes, I don't have a strategy for getting around the label "old fart with arcane skills."
Your thoughts?
- Cuffed
Dear Cuffed ...
You aren't the first and you won't be the last: You've identified one of the two biggest challenges for all of us who hire out our skills without having a large organization behind us. (The other, of course, is the near-impossibility of keeping a presence in the marketplace while supporting a current client.)
You're smart to be thinking about this now. I knew a guy in a similar situation, and the result was Biblical: Seven fat years followed by seven lean years. And then more lean years after than - I'm not sure he ever really recovered.
If anyone has figured out a silver-bullet solution to this, I'm unaware of it. Here's the best I know of in the way of a solution. It has two parts.
The first is also Biblical: Put as much of your current earnings into storage as you can. Pretend you're earning just half of what you're really making, or, failing that, 75 percent tops. Invest the rest. That gives you some cushion when this engagement runs out, so you don't have to panic and do have the time to overcome the more difficult sales situation you'll be facing.
The second will require some negotiation with your current client - scale your involvement back to three weeks out of four, or four days out of five. Use the rest to develop other client relationships that are smaller in scale but that keep your skills and references current with respect to more modern technologies.
This isn't as unreasonable as it might seem, by the way. Many smaller companies need help but can't afford what you'd charge them for full-time involvement. With some creativity you should be able to develop some support offerings that fit perfectly into a one-day-a-week or one-week-a-month schedule.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 18, 2006 08:05 PM
December 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Who should own the company's website?
Dear Bob ...
I find myself in the midst of a turf war. The president of the company is battling the CIO over the issue of who should control the website. The president says it belongs in the Marketing department, the CIO says it belongs in IT.
Personally, I'm more than happy to leave control of the website in the hands of marketing (where it's been since 1996) - but the CIO sees this as an encroachment on IT's territory.
The president's argument is that IT, and specifically this CIO, is so bound up in procedures and risk avoidance, that IT cannot be responsive enough to the flexibility needed in current web site design changes.
I have a very good relationship with the company president, and a not very good relationship with the CIO (I'm hoping his is a short reign). Unfortunately, the CIO is part of the parent company (we were purchased a couple of years ago), and has influence on my career path.
Do you have any insight on this issue?
- Turfbound
Dear Turfbound ...
Several thoughts occur to me. The first is, what on earth is the CIO thinking? Engaging in a turf issue with the president is politically foolish, even if he is part of corporate. If he calls the question back at headquarters, he's asking the CEO to override a business-unit head to support the head of a service function.
Not smart.
And anyway, the whole turf issue is a perfect example of a false dichotomy - an argument based on the wrong premise that if the answer isn't one thing, it's the other.
Here's how it should work (forgive me if I'm pointing out what's painfully obvious): IT is responsible for web technology - its overall architecture, operations, data design and coding. Marketing is responsible for the web strategy, scope, design, publishing workflow, and marketing content.
To the extent that the scope of the website encompasses areas beyond marketing, other areas also have content responsibilities - shareholder relations and recruiting being two of the most common.
Another thought, that stems from the first, is that your president's thought process also worries me. He/she is making a common mistake - making a decision about organizational alignment based on the existence of a performance problem instead of fixing the problem.
What I'm trying to say is that If IT isn't performing, keeping the website away from it still leaves the company with an IT organization that isn't performing.
One more, partially self-serving thought: If, for political reasons, this is too tough a nut to crack through internal decision-making processes, encourage the president to bring in an outside consulting company to help (mine, for instance). Unless the company has some issues that seriously complicate the question, any competent organization consultant should be able to bring something like this to closure pretty quickly.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 16, 2006 08:02 AM
December 13, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Advice for a newbie consultant
Dear Bob ...
After a 10-year career as a staff employee (application developer) at various organizations (from tiny to mega), I am about to start a consulting contract. This is my first foray into the contracting arena, although I have been in a consultant role before. Initially it is short-term, but the potential for extension is great.
Other than the typical blurbs that are regurgitated ad nauseum, do you have any gems of advice to offer someone entering this game?
Thanks,
- Eager but Uncertain
Dear Eager ...
A lot depends on whether you're selling your effort or your wisdom ... whether, that is, you're going to be a contractor or a consultant.
If you're going to be a contractor - a developer-for-hire, for example - it's a simpler proposition. The typical blurbs that are repeated ad nauseum pretty much cover the ground. One point that isn't repeated ad nauseum is that satisfying the terms of your contract isn't enough. It isn't even what's most important.
What's most important is to make sure they like you. If they do, you'll never get into serious trouble, you will get renewals, and you'll get good references and referrals. If not, the quality of your work won't matter very much.
If you're planning to be a consultant ... someone who is hired to provide advice and guidance rather than effort as an alternative to hiring another employee ... all of the same ad nauseum advice still matters, as does the advice I just provided.
But wait! There's more!
Of all the advice I could give, one issue stand out. The first is that you'll be bringing your intellectual property (IP) into each engagement. You'll refine it while on the clock, and you'll develop new intellectual property as well. Which brings up the question of who owns it when you're done.
Most large companies these days have onerous IP clauses in their contracts. I've personally run across quite a few companies that try to reassign ownership of my IP, so that once I include it in a work product I no longer have the right to use it anymore. I've run across it enough to be pretty sure it's a trend.
So here's my advice: Read the contract carefully. Especially, look for clauses that should be mutual but are, instead, one sided - the non-disclosure agreement is a frequent culprit, and one place the IP issue frequently raises its ugly head.
And don't be afraid to negotiate. The individual who wants to bring you in will generally take one look at this sort of thing, recognize that you'd be either an idiot to sign it, or desperate, and tell you that "this is something you'll have to work out directly with Legal."
So long as you remain good-natured while negotiating, you won't offend anyone who can affect the decision to engage your services.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 13, 2006 04:48 AM
December 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
An active discussion about passive voice
Dear Bob ...
I understand the point you are making with the rule about avoiding the passive voice in business writing (in "Sounding smarter," Keep the Joint Running, 11/27/2006). I also believe it is a powerful tool for consultants in the correct circumstances. The key is assessing the goal of the communication.
Consultants often have to get work done through a client's resources.
That means the consultant's success is measured by the ability to get client resources to produce what is needed. The stick of the project's Executive Sponsor is always available but is a last resort. The carrot is getting the client resource to want to do what is needed. The passive voice can be used maintain the client resources desire to work with the consultant when things go wrong.
The passive voice's power is identifying a problem without assigning blame. This allows the problem to be addressed without having to deal with blame game issues. That often allows for the resolution of a problem faster.
Take an example of a software project where software must be installed by a client administrator. The installation is completed incorrectly because the administrator didn't follow the installation instructions. The consultant discovers the problem, but only the client administrator has the access rights to correct the problem.
The consultant could write or say to the client administrator, "You set the permissions wrong so the software can't access all the files it needs. You need to reset the permissions." That is the active voice all the way but could cause the administrator to focus on defending the installation rather than fixing the problem.
The alternative is to write or say to the client administrator, "The file permissions have become set so the software can't access all the files it needs. Please reset the permissions and let me know when you're finished so I can retest." In this case, the passive voice states the problem without addressing who caused the problem. The action needed is stated in the active voice to emphasize who does the remediation.
Either scenario may be correct depending on the situation. If the relationship is good or there is a need to address the cause of the problem so it doesn't happen again, use the active voice all the way. If the relationship or political environment is such that addressing who caused the issue will take time away from addressing the issue and knowing the responsible party provides no value, use the passive voice to state the problem and the active voice to state the resolution.
The key is to decide what the sentence is to accomplish and how the likely emotional reaction will affect that goal. Don't rule out the passive voice when it is useful. Use it when you don't want to assign ownership. If ownership is needed to accomplish the goal, use the active voice.
- Passive Aggressive
Dear Passive ...
While no rule is absolute, I don't see your example as a valid instance. If your goal is to avoid assigning blame, the solution is to pay no attention at all to how the mess was created. Just say (or write), "To get the software to work, just reset the permissions - that should take care of the symptoms we're seeing. Please let me know when you're done so I can re-test."
I also have an unsolicited suggestion: Stop calling the men and women who are responsible for doing your clients' important work "resources." While it's certainly better than calling them "liabilities" it's still a dehumanizing term.
If you're looking for an alternative, I generally use either "staff" or "employees."
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 12, 2006 08:10 AM
December 08, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Generalists vs specialists in the job market
Dear Bob ...
The down side to the "knowledge" that most people have, that a confident person can be relied on, is that someone like myself, who knows that there is always a better way of doing something, gets ignored even when right (even my wife does a lot of that).
As an always-seeking generalist, it is very hard to find a reasonable (non-clerical level) job since everyone seems to be searching for the most "focused" person for what they are having problems with, rather than someone who can look at the entire situation and possibly remove the source of the problem rather that "fix" it.
- Generalist in a Specialist's World
Dear General ...
I'll leave alone the confidence question (at least for now) and focus on your complaint about the industry preference for specialists over generalists.
I think the market for generalists is increasing, only it isn't called that. It's for business-savvy IT specialists, project managers and so on. Being a generalist is, perhaps, a new specialty.
Another side to this question: For the most part, I think that when it comes to contractors and consultants, companies tend to like specialists - experts in a particular field who can bring in knowledge and experience not available internally for a short period of time.
When it comes to choosing employees, smart employers hire people who will make excellent employees, not "sacks o'skills" who might fit a particular specialized short-term need right now but who won't be able to adapt to the next situation and assignment.
Not all employers are smart, of course - companies fit a bell curve, just like the rest of us. Some are, though. Your challenge is to explain why you'd make a great employee.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 8, 2006 05:11 AM
December 06, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I thoroughly enjoyed your column on Confidence ("Apologies, confessions, and critiques," Keep the Joint Running, 11/20/2006). As one who has been accused at various times of both Confidence and Arrogance, I feel that my perspective on the issue is that to a person who has no history with a particular individual, it is difficult to tell the difference between the two because they masquerade themselves with similar outward appearances. It is the experience that we have with the individual that would turn what would seem like arrogance into a more "healthy" confidence. I'm sure you got similar perspective from the reading of the books that you mentioned, but confidence to me is based upon being able to deliver as shown by experience, versus thinking that they can deliver based solely upon hubris. True confidence tends to be tempered by increased alertness and earnest effort, while arrogance tends to be more absolute and unthinking.
Criticizing other people's work is an easy, although occasionally necessary way of stating a perspective. What you usually do is offer a better solution to examine, which is the best form of intellectual debate, which allows the reader to get the "aha" moment within their own mind, which will be much more powerful, than in your own mind, where it will produce less of a lasting impact.
- Confident
Dear Confident ...
I'm not sure I could arrive at a crisp and clear dividing line between the two. In general, I figure confident people are comfortable acknowledging the good ideas and insights of others, where arrogant people, never being wrong, rarely acknowledge that anyone with a different perspective is ever right ... and usually won't have any basis for evaluation, since they rarely waste their time listening to anyone else.
Try this on for size: Confidant people figure they're one of the capable people in the room. Arrogant people each figure he or she is the only capable person in the room.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 6, 2006 04:41 AM
December 05, 2006 | Comments: (0)
What do you call those who report to you?
Dear Bob ...
I've shared many of your articles with my "direct reports."
There's a thought: "direct reports". In our insanely politically correct world, we've gone out of our way to avoid calling them "subordinates". I prefer to call them "the folks I work with" but that doesn't convey the relationship to strangers that they might need. Got any thoughts on that?
- Word challenged
Dear Challenged ...
I've always liked "the men and women who report to me," although it's a bit long. "My team" and "my staff" work too, although I know people who find my use of the possessive form disconcerting.
It really is a bit of a challenge, because while there are plenty of versions I dislike ("rank and file" and "great unwashed" are particularly offensive while "troops" suggests they're faceless and interchangeable), simple, appropriate alternatives are hard to come by.
I personally don't like "subordinates," primarily because I don't want those reporting to me to think of themselves that way.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 5, 2006 05:16 AM
December 03, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I need advice on how to deal with backstabbers at work. Here goes (this is really long, sorry).
At one time in the very recent past, my boss relied on my opinions related to work because of my experience.
She told me many negative things about certain people in our staff (I assumed in confidence, of course). She said some staff were being underhanded toward her (a backstabbing story of its own) -- the outcome of which would have caused serious questions about her credibility, resulting in major ramifications for her. At the time, I was most curious why she was not discussing this matter with someone at her level, given its seriousness. I have never broken that confidence and will not.
Presently, I'm out, and she has developed confidences with those same individuals (backstabbers-by her definition), assigning them choice and confidential projects. I found this out -- inadvertently, not directly -- from an employee who has recently transferred out of our unit.
I sent the boss a brief and non-threatening e-mail inquiring about one of the assignments. Her answer was indirect and reassuring -- and later I found out it was an untruth. Now I am questioning everything. I must surely be in the Twilight Zone.
I'm also feeling passed over and left out, the rug pulled out from under me. Are there now three backstabbers?
My plans for handling this sitution: Lay low, try to smile, don't show emotion or hurt feelings, and don't be surprised by anything. Maybe my boss lacks confidence in her abilities, maybe subconsciously her decisions, maybe does not want to take responsibility and somehow has connected with something the trouble-making individuals have offered.
I also feel when she confided in me, she should not have and that she should not be making unit decisions with those particular staff members. I don't and won't get involved in gossip or office politics and don't promote religion at work (the three of them discuss religion frequently, e-mailing the entire staff verses and quotes).
I truly feel you cannot outsmart a backstabber. This is how they have maneuvered in their world from the first time they discovered they could get what they wanted. Their behavior is very destructive, not only to them, but to everyone they are in contact with. Personally, I feel it cannot possibly work for them each time they use it, but they have been rewarded enough to have developed a lifestyle of it and are very seasoned, and a novice cannot beat them at it.
I feel greatly disappointed in my boss. I really liked her, or I guess I liked the person I thought she was. Disappointment stinks.
Any advice?
- Stilettoed
Dear Stilettoed ...
Your first clue should have been that your boss was confiding in you. Nothing has changed except who is in the confidant's seat.
Managers shouldn't play favorites. Those who do inadvertently encourage backstabbing. Those who do and who aren't a good judge of character pretty much ensure it.
And, at the risk of getting a lot of people mad ad me, those who use religion or religiousity as a way of determining who is most worthy of their confidences are among the most likely to be poor judges of character. That someone quotes verses of the Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavat Ghita says nothing at all about how they behave in the workplace.
Now that you know, your choices are simple: Leave your department, leave the company, or wait it out. Leaving the department is probably the best of them.
In a large company it's actually quite likely that those in charge have no idea something like this is going on - they rely on people reporting to people reporting to them to keep this sort of thing under control. The bad news is, it happens. The good news is, it probably isn't happening everywhere. Somewhere in the company you'll find opportunities without having to to change employers.
What's probably the losing strategy is to wait it out. Unless your boss isn't delivering results, that is. You can infer this from knowing, first-hand, that this is how your boss has been managing all along.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on December 3, 2006 06:42 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
