Advice Line | Bob Lewis » April 2007

April 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Isn't the future supposed to be in front of us?

TAGS: General

Now I'm mad.

Until now, the changes from "upgrading" to Office 2007 were merely annoying. And even there, I have to admit to one advantage. So far as I can tell, the Ribbon is hard-coded, and while that eliminates customization, it does result in a much snappier interface than one where every mouse click triggers interpreted VBA code.

At IT Catalysts we use an application we call our "Engagement Management System" (EMS). It's a place to log all interview notes, process parameters and characteristics, hypotheses, and possible recommendations.

It's how we operate.

It relies on one of the best-designed features of Microsoft Access - its database replication and synchronization feature. It lets us operate independently as we enter our notes in airplanes, hotel rooms and other disconnected locales, merging our entries later on when we're plugged into the same network again.

Now that we've moved to Office 2007 we figured it was time to migrate the application to the new Access database format.

That's when I discovered: Access no longer supports database replication and synchronization. Or rather, it does so long as you don't convert a database to the new format.

Who makes these design decisions? Doesn't anyone at Microsoft understand anymore that when you go forward, you're supposed to end up ahead of where you started?

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 30, 2007 06:43 PM

April 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Re-entering the job market

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I am the IT Director at a midsize company. I've been with the same organization my entire career and it's been a great ride. But it has become obvious recently that the time has come for me to move on to bigger and better challenges.

My question has to do with how to enter and succeed in the recruiting process. I haven't searched for a job since college. And my understanding is that the popular online job boards might not be the vehicle for the type of position I'm looking for. I don't have a great sense of where to start and how to really be effective in this search.
Any brilliance you could share would be greatly appreciated.

- Back on the market

Dear Marketable ...

I'm really not the best person to answer this question. The last time I faced a similar situation I started my own consulting company instead.

The short answer, which you'll get from everyone you ask, is to "network" - to take advantage of the six degrees of separation that is the maximum theoretical distance separating you from the CEO who wants to hire you but doesn't realize it yet.

The problem with the short answer is that it leaves all of the important stuff - the actual techniques - for you to figure out.

But before you take this step, there's a question you didn't address in your e-mail, which is what you want your next challenge to be. The answer can be multiple choice (I'd be interested in pursuing any of these three directions), but shouldn't be infinite choice (I'll take whatever comes along and looks interesting).

If that's a false assumption, take some time to think it through. Use the "three circles" technique to home in on it: The three circles are what you're good at, what you enjoy doing, and what someone is willing to pay for. Whatever falls into the area the three circles overlap is what you should be looking to do next.

How to start networking: Talk to people you know and trust. Let them know what you're looking for - the type of person you want to meet - and ask if they can help. And if they don't know them, do they know someone who might who they'd be willing to introduce you to.

It's pretty basic, but that's how it works.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 29, 2007 09:44 AM

April 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Choosing between the bird in your hand and the two in the bush

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I'm facing a possible major career dilemma.

I was recently offered two jobs out of state, which dictated a relocation, and before I accepted either, I was contacted out of the blue by a third location, also out of state. This was on a Friday. The new contact wanted to set up a personal interview, and disclosed details about the position, especially salary, that made it much more enticing (double both of the other offers), that I consented to the interview.

The original offers wanted a decision by the following Monday. The original offers had been on the table for over two weeks, and I didn't want to string them along any further, and risk losing one or both of the offers. I was informed I was the clear choice in both offers.

On that following Monday, I turned down one offer and accepted the other, to make sure I had a definite offer in hand. Both were sent to me in writing. Three days later, on a Thursday, I interviewed for the latest position, and after a very positive interview, was told by the hiring person that she would recommend me for a 2nd interview with the board of directors very soon.

I know I was hedging my bet by accepting one of the original offers, knowing I was interviewing for another position. Two days ago, the latest position contacted me about a delay in the hiring process that couldn't be avoided (personal issue), and told me she'd contact me soon.

As stated above, the potential compensation is double the offer I accepted. I know there are ethical and professional considerations, but I need some logical advice on how to proceed. Without a firm offer from the latest position, I'm committed to the original acceptance. I won't be starting the original offer until early June, 2007, so please help me with your thoughts.

- Surrounded by opportunity

Dear Surrounded ...

You've asked a quite complicated question with no simple, satisfactory answer. Here are some bits and pieces of analysis that might help you reach a decision:

• Those running businesses have, over the past few decades, rewritten the implied employment contract. Companies are "at-will" employers. Many have been known to do what you're thinking of doing in reverse: Hiring someone they know won't work out as a placeholder until the right candidate comes along. This doesn't make doing so ethical, merely prevalent.
  

• Ethics in the workplace is somewhat slippery in the by-definition-amoral world of market-based capitalism. We are all supposed to do what's best for ourselves. It's the bedrock assumption that makes our economic system work. By that measure you should do whatever you consider to be in your own best interests.
  

• That capitalism is amoral by definition doesn't mean there is no such thing as business ethics. Codes of conduct are that much more important, as a counterbalance to the natural amorality of the core system. Business isn't simply about cash flows. It's also a network of personal relationships. Among the factors you should take into account is the impact each of your alternatives will have on your network of relationships, and on your reputation.

• The whole question of what is right and what is wrong is slippery - more so than most give it credit for. You aren't required to be altruistic to act ethically. On the other hand, you aren't allowed to take only your own interests into account and never mind anyone else, either. You have to find some balance between taking care of yourself and not doing harm to others. This isn't, that is, a black-and-white question.

I'm left with this: You should go forward with the interviewing process for the best opportunity. If you can complete the process before you actually start work with the one whose offer you've accepted, I see no problem with calling the company whose offer you accepted to withdraw your acceptance. Just be candid when you do so: You liked the company and were looking forward to working there, but the opportunity you ended up accepting involved so much more compensation that you wouldn't have been fair to yourself to ignore it.

If the process hasn't completed by June, withdraw your name from consideration, for three reasons. First, there's a high likelihood they're stringing you along. Second, once you've started work, the ethical challenges are compounded: You'll have to be absent from work from time to time to continue interviewing and negotiating compensation. You can't be honest about the reasons, which means you'll have to lie about why you're absent - not the best way to work with a new employer.

And finally, from the moment you start your new job you'll be thinking about the desirability of a different job, which will take your focus away from the one you're supposed to be succeeding at.

If you don't get the new one, you'll have a hard time recovering an attitude that you want the one you have. And this is a terrible way to go to work every day.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 25, 2007 06:19 AM

April 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The difference between policies and guidelines

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

One of the "levers" you mentioned in "How to make change happen" (Keep the Joint Running, 4/9/2007) is fixing the policy manual, a project which I am intent on seeing happen in my organization.

I think the concept of establishing guidelines, when possible, rather than a policy has a lot of merit. The issue I am struggling with is coming up with an understandable criterion or set of criteria that tells people when a guideline is appropriate and when we need a policy.

I am, admittedly, a control freak. I’ve also been through law school, which means I can make anything into a legal issue with potentially horrendous consequences if something goes wrong.

Any thoughts?

- Case Loader

Dear Loader ...

My opinion is that if you try to establish criteria for when a guideline does and does not apply, you've created a policy. I'd advise taking a different approach:

"These are guidelines. They are designed to fit a wide range of situations, but not all of them. We expect you to use good judgment in deciding whether they apply to the specific circumstances you are dealing with.

If you find yourself ignoring them most of the time, either your judgment is faulty or we need to change our guidelines. If you find yourself following them all of the time, you're treating them as policies rather than as guidelines, and need to apply your judgment to the situations you face, which is why we hired you instead of placing a robot in your chair."

Do I have any thoughts about your being a control freak who has been through law school? Yes -- don't give in to temptation!

Start by recognizing the difference between employees doing things right and not doing things wrong. They aren't the same. If you try to manage an organization through rules and consequences, you'll create a population of turtles -- employees who keep their heads inside their shells, never sticking their necks out unless they're absolutely certain it's safe.

They won't do anything wrong, because they won’t do anything.

Employees who do things right take risks, knowing they won't get their heads chopped off every time they do something in a way that's different than what you would have done.

If the difference isn't clear, recall the last time you dealt with a company that wouldn't take care of a problem you had, because the person on the other end of the phone said, "I can't help you with that sir. It's against our policy."

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 22, 2007 03:29 PM

April 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Strategic planning frameworks

TAGS: General

Dear Bob

Would you briefly describe what the BCG and TOWS matrices are. Then briefly tell me which might be more useful to:-

(a) A new company which has just been set up to supply domestic cleaning services. (b) A company which employs 500 people and which only makes Christmas decorations. (c)The Managing Director of a large company which has been in business for 7 years and which manufactures frozen "complete meals" for busy people.

Thanks a lot,

- Planning

Dear Planning ...

BCG is named after the Boston Consulting Group. It directs businesses to go after opportunities where they can dominate fast-growing marketplaces.

Well, sure, although it doesn't do much to guide action. It's a magic quadrant approach useful for comparing competing ideas. I'm skeptical that it's of much real value.

TOWS isn't a matrix approach. It's my variation on the old SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). I prefer TOWS because it begins with the business model - how a company faces its marketplace and works to bring revenue in the door.

I'm not going to answer your questions directly. It sounds like I might be writing a term paper for you. If not, please forgive my suspicious nature. I will provide a bit of guidance, though: TOWS (and SWOT) are useful for established businesses that are clear about which buttons they have to push and levers they have to pull for success to happen. TOWS helps them make sense of what's changing that might affect their success.

It isn't well-suited to newer companies that are still trying to figure it out.

I hope that helps.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 20, 2007 07:46 AM

April 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)

While we're on the subject of Vista ...

TAGS: General

I'll be the first to admit that I'm figuring this out as I go along. So I might be wrong.

On the other hand, I'm going through exactly what you'll go through when you switch to Vista and Office 2007. So here's what I want to know:

Why is it that when you're using PowerPoint and want to apply a template to a new presentation, it's called a "Template" in the Help system, but when you want to apply the exact same template to an existing presentation it's suddenly called a "Theme"?

More generally, why did Microsoft decide to radically change the user interface on its entire Office suite?

You could make the case that the old interface was too confusing. You could, but you'd be unconvincing, because confusing or not, it was familiar to tens of millions of experienced users. By definition, a change as radical as the one we're facing is much more confusing, and to no good purpose: Changing File, Edit, Format and so on to Home, Insert, Design and so on really doesn't make much difference. Microsoft could just as easily have applied its "Ribbon" interface to the old menus (I'm assuming it's the Ribbon that's supposed to be the big deal in confusion reduction).

My guess: In moving from closed, proprietary document formats to XML, Microsoft is taking a huge risk. Where previously, Office's critical mass created a de facto standard that prevented effective competition, the new docx format is open and accessible - in relative terms, easy for competitors (primarily OpenOffice) to offer in their own office suites.

The old Office user interface held to the same basic conventions as those used in OpenOffice, which meant that supporting a mixed environment ... especially during a transition ... might be feasible for less-conservative customers.

Once a company makes a commitment to Office's new and radically different interface, though, the picture changes. Acclimating employees to Home/Insert/Design menus accompanied by the dreaded Ribbon is plenty of change to take on. Doing so, only to then acclimate them to a different suite's File/Edit/View menus is a different matter.

So I'm guessing the new interface is Microsoft's way of trying to preserve lock-in without the proprietary file formats that used to make it easy.

But of course, it's only a guess. Regardless, Microsoft is in a risky position right now - in much the same place Novell was way back when, when it moved from the Bindery to NDS (Network Directory Services, the predecessor to eDirectory). In both cases, the change from migration was sufficiently large that it encouraged customers to look at alternatives from other vendors as being no more painful than the upgrade itself.

Which brings us to you. If you're ever going to be open to alternatives to Office, now's the time.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 17, 2007 09:55 AM

April 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)

More about C-level roles

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

You described the CFO position as one of providing information ("C-level," Advice Line, 3/14/2007). That actually sounds like a good description for a CIO, so I'll assume you meant that the CFO provides information about the financials.

I suspect CFO is a bigger strategic player in a financial services company, more like a COO of a manufacturing company. In the same way, a CIO could act more as a COO at a (non-financial) information services company.

Do you see any patterns to whether there is a COO or not? And how is that guilded by, or how does it influence, the roles of the CIO and CFO?

- Just curious

Dear Curious ...

Here's how I see it, not that I have any access to eternal truth:

CIOs aren't providers of information. At best they're responsible for the tools and technology used to provide sufficient levels of assurance that the information a company maintains is accurate and secure. CIOs have little or no role in providing the information itself.

I don't think CFOs play much of a different role in a financial services company. Depending on the company, other roles (actuaries, investment managers and brokerage services, to give three examples) drive the products-and-services end of things. I'm sure it depends on the individual company, though. In some, one or more of these might report to the CFO although I doubt it's typical.

I know of two factors that tend to determine whether a company has a COO. The first is the focus and temperament of the CEO. The second is whether the company is centralized or decentralized.

CEOs who have a strong external, market focus (and who are smart enough to recognize that their focus doesn't define the limits of importance) value strong COOs to make sure the company can deliver what they envision and promise to the marketplace. Decentralized companies rarely have a place for a COO, because all of the operational action is in the independent business units (IBUs).

Each IBU, though, might easily need a COO, depending on the focus and temperament of the head of the IBU.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 16, 2007 03:29 PM

April 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)

How to handle an exit interview

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

About four weeks ago, I gave six weeks notice at my job. Since that time, the company put out an employee survey. One of the major deficiencies they discovered was a big part of my decision to leave. Company communications since then appear to take the issue very seriously. I'm still 90% sure I want to leave. It makes me wonder how I should conduct myself in the exit interview, though.

A former employee at this company used to sit in on exit interviews. When he left, I asked him if he would raise certain issues since he was leaving anyway and had nothing to lose. He told me that a hidden objective of the exit interviews was to make sure no bad news got passed up the chain. If somebody was leaving because they wanted more money, then they were characterized as greedy and they didn't understand the non-financial benefits the company offered. His plan was to be very nice, present his reasons for leaving as all personal and nothing to do with the company.

I have two very good friends with the company who will soon be in a similar situation to the one I was in six months ago, and I would like to advise my company to handle it differently. Is the exit interview the proper forum to bring this up?

- Moving on

Dear Moving ...

There are companies that take exit interviews seriously, analyze them for trends, and take corrective action based on what they learn.

There are such companies, but they are the exception, not the rule. More often, HR departments conduct exit interviews because it’s something they’re supposed to do. The exit interviewers do what they’re supposed to do and write reports for the HR director to look at. Most often, the HR director will take action if it’s (a) politically safe, and (b) within the purview of HR.

Exit interviews are mostly window dressing.

My best advice is to treat the exit interview as if it was an entirely legitimate activity, but without saying anything that would be unwise to say if you were planning to continue as an employee the next day. Bring up whatever points you think are essential, doing so as diplomatically as you can and without any sense of acrimony at all. If one of the subjects is a political hot potato, you stand much more to lose than you stand to gain.

What you stand to lose is that the business community in most cities is small, and you might find yourself wanting to work at this company again sometime in the not-all-that-distant future. What you stand to gain is nothing at all. Duck it.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 10, 2007 09:06 AM

April 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Choosing an MBA program

TAGS: General

Dear Bob, and Bob's readers ...

I just came across this blog, and actually need an answer to a question at the moment - which MBA program to pick.

I have been accepted into Emory, Georgetown & Babson - from which I am seriously looking at Emory and Babson. Emory has a great leadership program and Babson, though not high up in rankings, is the top entrepreneurship school. Entrepreneurship is the field I want to focus on, however I am extremely impressed with Emory's program as well.

In addition, I am an international student and am going to return home to work in the family business afterward.

Any advice on which school I should attend or any advice on how to come up with a solution? Thanks!

- Trying to choose

Dear Choosy ...

If you're interested in entrepreneurship, the cynical answer is that your best choice is whichever school will provide the best personal network after you graduate. The knowledge is useful. Easier access to private investment money, personal introductions to potential customers and so on are far more useful.

So while I have no knowledge of the schools themselves, I'd advise choosing a school based on who else you would expect to attend. My guess is that in the long run, Emory would provide a more useful set of connections than Babson.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 9, 2007 08:54 PM

April 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The saga continues

TAGS: General

Perhaps I was too unkind in my remarks about HP in a recent posting about Vista and HP's lack of preparedness for it. It isn't like I know how to write printer drivers, after all. And anyway, HP does have a Vista-compatible driver for my multifunction unit ... or it would if I was willing to connect it using a USB cable instead of working through my network.

Sadly, I'm not.

Anyway, HP isn't in my cross-hairs anymore, largely because Palm is, due to providing a Catch-22 so good I've concluded Palm must have hired Joseph Heller for the sole purpose of designing it.

The problem? The software for my Treo 700P is only partially Vista compatible. In particular, the piece necessary for installing new Palm applications doesn't work.

But it syncs just fine ... if you're using Office 2003. If you're using Office 2007, Palm has an upgraded conduit that handles it which you can freely download.

The only problem is, you can't install it, because the software can't install new Palm applications ...

At this point the evidence is circumstantial but clear. With so many different software vendors playing catch-up, it's unlikely that every single one was remiss. Which leads to a hard-to-avoid conclusion: Microsoft seriously bobbled the ball on this one. You'd think it would have at least included an XP compatibility mode in Vista if it's as different as it seems to be.

Heck, even Windows 3.1 had a DOS compatibility box.

Maybe it's time I stopped griping and started providing useful advice. So here goes:

Vista is a beautiful object lesson for what happens when you make dates sacrosanct. When software isn't ready to go into production, you'd better be very sure every stakeholder buys into the need to roll it out anyway.

If they don't recognize the risk, tell them the story of the three little software vendors and the Big Bad Vista.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 5, 2007 08:55 PM

April 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Circuit City

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

What's your opinion of Circuit City's move to cut 3,400 "overpaid" sales staff, replacing them with lower-paid equivalents?

- Curious

Dear Curious ...

Without any inside information, I'd still guess that Circuit City's situation is both desperate and complex. I haven't seen their numbers; I have heard that Circuit City did very poorly last year.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that this happened on the heels of a successful turnaround. So maybe this is a pure financial play after all.

You might recall that once upon a time, Circuit City paid its sales people commission. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Circuit City decided to do its best to keep its sales people whole with respect to total income. That would have been a major factor in their now being paid significantly more than market rates.

That this is a suicidal move is also difficult to dispute: It's doubtful that the new hires will sell at anywhere near the rate the ones being let go do. I have no idea whether Circuit City had any decent alternatives - whether this move was discretionary and strategic, or mandatory as an alternative to measures even more severe were it to try to avoid doing this.

But then, it's always been like this: Generals make mistakes and troops get shot to pieces.

- Bob

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 4, 2007 08:49 AM

April 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Vista log, continued

TAGS: General

I sure hope nobody thought I was singling out Zone Labs and Microsoft's Outlook team as being more worthy of criticism as anyone else. Far from it - they were simply the two whose software irritated me earliest.

That was before I tried to install the .Net-driven printer software provided by HP to accompany its 2840-series all-in-one color laserjet devices.

Yes, that's right - the software isn't Vista-compatible, and there are no updates available that would make it so.

What does exist is a universal printer driver. It's a fine idea, which answers a question I've had for some time: How is it that every time HP (or any other printer manufacturer) delivers a new printer it needs a new printer driver? The features are exactly the same in every one of these things, after all.

HP's universal printer driver demonstrates that no matter how fine the concept, execution is everything. It demonstrates it through remarkably awful execution.

First of all, the universal driver covers print functions only. So I can't scan.

And second of all, the universal driver only prints in black and white. Hey, if I'd wanted nothing but black and white pages I'd have bought a black and white printer.

You can say what you like about Vista. I'm not yet all that fond of it. Maybe it's because I installed the business version and haven't found where Microsoft hid the eye candy in it.

But whatever else you say about Vista, Microsoft made no secret of the ship date, and then showed the remarkable courtesy of delaying it to make sure everyone was in a position to ship updated software.

Well, okay, courtesy wasn't the reason. It's still true that everyone had plenty of advance notice.

I wonder why they didn't take advantage of it?

- Bob

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 3, 2007 08:30 PM

April 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Whole new Vistas

TAGS: General

And they say computers aren't sentient ...

It was time to move into a new laptop. This meant deciding between Vista and XP, and between staying with Office 2003 or moving on to 2007.

I'm well past the stage when new versions of software are exciting. Mostly they're aggravating, hiding the same old familiar capabilities behind a new set of buttons, menu trees and so on. And of course, there's all the data to move besides.

And then there's that sentience thing. My old Sony Viao noticed that I'd bought a new system and chose that exact moment to become unbootable. It wasn't a hardware failure, either, because I could get it to boot into safe mode and the "last version that worked" mode.

But it wouldn't restore to any of the many checkpoints I'd set.

And, of course, taxes are due, only now, before I can install TurboTax, I have to get something working and stable.

So for awhile, instead of the normal format, I'll also intermittently intersperse various expressions of aggravation or admiration.

First, aggravation: Zone Labs, which sells my preferred firewall, antivirus, antispyware and anti-spam suite, appears to have been caught off-guard by Vista. Didn't see it coming, I guess, because its Vista solution is still in beta.

More aggravation: Microsoft still hasn't fixed all-day appointments in Outlook. In Outlook 2007, as with its predecessors, once you change time zones Independence Day will occur in part on either July 3rd or July 5th.

Maybe I'm just crabby. And I probably shouldn't be. Vista provides decent tools for migrating from an older system, including the ability to import application configurations. The Viao system recovery utility, while scary, seems to be doing a decent job as well.

And I did have all of my data backed up.

Nonetheless, I have a question, both for Zone Labs and for the Outlook team: WHAT WERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING?!?!?!

- Bob

Posted by Bob Lewis on April 3, 2007 08:19 AM