MORE ENTRIES
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
May 2007
Comment (regarding "Manager as buffer?" Advice Line, 5/29/2007):
"buffer" is a euphemism for "linebacker."
And linebacker is an analogy for: hang on, I'll look it up in Google. Ah, 'Linebackers are members of the defensive team, and line up approximately five to seven yards behind the line of scrimmage, behind the defensive linemen.' I'll understand in a second, just look up scrimmage, linemen ad infinitum.
Ok, this is an American column written for Americans. It is deliberately obfuscated to preclude 'foreign' comprehension. I work for the world's largest audio company which happens to be American, but that company won't benefit from my understanding of your wise words.
I've commented before on your xenophobia and I'll stop commenting after this one. I'll just accept that you have chosen your audience and I'm not in the crew.
- Commenter
Bob's reply:
Dear me ... xenophobia? You're correct that I write in colloquial American English, as did Mark Twain (for shame!). I just finished a pair of novels by Tom Holt (highly recommended). I've also enjoyed work by Douglas Adams. Both employed British slang extensively. Shame on them, I guess ... the pillocks.
As does every other writer in a globalized age, I have to find the right balance between universal expression, which is inevitably bland, and livelier approaches to explication, which generally require more work on the part of readers who lie outside my core audience.
But since "right balance" is different for each reader, for everyone I please, I'll annoy another. Sorry to hear you're on the annoyed side of the equation.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
In a recent discussion, I once again heard someone refer to the manager's role as being a buffer between their direct reports and upper management.
In my experience this type of manager is creating problems for themselves and the organization. The reason is that they tend to be more of a bottleneck/barrier to communication within the organization. Over time people either find a way around the manager which means the manager is becoming detached from the real work being done, or the work suffers because people don’t have the information needed to complete it properly.
Do you have any tips for the managers out their to avoid becoming a barrier to communication and instead be a promoter of it?
- Channeling
Dear Channeling ...
Usually, when I hear this description, "buffer" is a euphemism for "linebacker." In this model, upper management is viewed more as a source of trouble than anything else, and the manager protects staff from the trouble.
The way to avoid this version of the problem is for upper management to stop causing trouble. It's easy to say but hard to achieve because it's unlikely they see their actions in this light, and if it's true they're unlikely to be receptive to the message.
The other place I hear this description is in organizations that have too many management layers. That leaves some managers with little to do beyond acting as liaisons among people who could more easily talk to each other directly. The solution to this is usually unfortunate and draconian: These middle managers lose their jobs and are either demoted into positions that create real value or are "decruited" from the company altogether.
How can managers avoid falling into this trap? The answer is to be brutally honest with themselves. It's something every employee should do on a regular basis, in fact: Take a hard look at what they do, ask whether it's important enough to justify the time and expense of their doing it, and if not figure out what else they could do instead that justifies what the company pays them.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
My manager uses meetings to give orders. She doesn't tolerate discussions. Whenever I try to make a suggestion, she cuts the meeting short, saying, "Haven't I just told you what to do? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE."
It happens regularly; it happens one-on-one only; I don't think I am confrontational, and I don't think I talk too much.
What's the best response to "Get Out"?
- Shut Out
Dear Shut Out ...
It depends. If your manager has any redeeming virtues, you might try to salvage the situation.
To do this, ask for some of her time. By doing so, you'll make that time your meeting, not hers. Then put your cards on the table. Explain that when she gives you an assignment but doesn't let you speak, it prevents you from clarifying points you find ambiguous or just don't understand, and that increases the risk of your performing the assignment incorrectly. Then ask her the best way for you to raise these points.
Prepare yourself for the meeting by focusing on being calm and professional throughout, regardless of how she behaves. Part of achieving this is anticipating likely responses on her part and how you'll deal with them. If you don't do this there's a good chance you'll become flustered somewhere along the line, which will make the meeting counterproductive.
Very important: Once you take this route, be careful to avoid phrasing anything as a suggestion (clearly a red-flag approach). Make everything like Jeopardy, where everything you say must be phrased as a question.
Only try this if there's a reason you want to continue to work for this manager, though. From your description I have to wonder why you'd want to do that.
And if you can't see why it's worthwhile, don't take the risk. Just take the initiative to find a different manager to work for.
Really, you'd just be doing what she told you to do.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
We have several very well functioning teams in our IT group. They don't all call themselves "teams" ("Systems Crew", for example), but that's what they are.
My problem is that they don't see themselves as part of a larger team with common goals. We get comments such as (from an office staff member) "Those open lab guys sit on their butts all day and then I have to help the students find rooms." Or, from an open lab person, "The systems guys think they can take down the net at any time, and don't know what misery that causes."
I can fix the immediate problem ("EVERYBODY should help students." ... "If we don't reboot that server today, the whole lab will crash"), but not the "them vs. us" problem.
We could use some resources, or suggestions, for helping these diverse teams appreciate each other’s problems and purposes.
- Managing the menagerie
Dear Menageraging ...
Ah, the old team-spirit-at-the-expense-of-the-larger-team-spirit problem. 143,456th time this month!
The dynamics of this are pretty straightforward. It's in most people's nature to divide the world into "us" - those we can trust, who understand, and who will watch my back - and "them" - the source of all that's wrong with the world. When you figure the nature of a strong team is that its members have high levels of trust and alignment of purpose, it's hard for team members to avoid disparaging everyone else - those with whom they lack a strong sense of purpose, a strong sense of alignment, or both.
You aren't, however, helpless in the face of human nature. You can exploit it to solve the problem. What you can do is to form cross-functional project teams on a regular basis, to force people who consider each other to be "them" to work together enough to start building some "us"-ness with each other. The project's objective is their shared purpose. Once they're all on board with it, they'll figure out the rest with little more required of you than some facilitation to get things started.
Oh … one very significant factor required for success: The projects have to be real. If they're nothing but pretexts for getting the people together, they'll figure it out pretty quickly.
Good luck with it.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Are there any traditionally negative traits that a staffer should cultivate in order to make it in a typical corporate/IT climate with its usual collection of finger-pointers, knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers, users who are sure you possess the "easy" button, and over-caffeinated management that would rather talk than listen?
I'm talking about traits that our well-meaning pastors, teachers and parents might have discouraged us from developing, but which we need to dust off from time to time in order to navigate the shoals.
And I'm really asking from the point of view of a staff person, not someone who can always pull rank as a last resort.
Regards,
IT-eating grin
Dear Chewie ...
I think the starting point is a character trait that pastors, teachers and parents would traditionally approve of: empathy.
No, I'm not suggesting you get all touchy-feely. What I am suggesting is that the first step in navigating the shoals of business is getting inside the heads of those with whom you have to work.
Attaching labels like "knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers" and so on achieves the exact opposite. It creates an emotional distance between you and them that makes understanding what drives them more difficult. If you don't understand what drives someone, you've minimized your ability to influence them.
So far as traditionally negative traits are concerned (or ditching traditionally positive ones, which I'll assume fits your question as well): I'd have to say getting rid of your sense of empathy would be high on the list.
No, I'm not introducing paradox or anything literary like that. Being able to understand what makes someone tick is one thing. Being unable to do what is necessary because you "feel their pain" is something else entirely. In business, as in military situations, you sometimes have to make choices that cause harm to other individuals. This is more true in leadership capacities than in staff roles, but even where staffers sit there are times when you have to make difficult choices.
Here's what I'd put at the top of the list, though: In business, you're supposed to put your own interests first.
That doesn't mean you should become a jerk who tramples everyone else. There are plenty of reasons to avoid doing this, like (1) you still have to like the person who looks back at you from the mirror each morning; and (2) unless you're really good at it, others who are better at the game will catch on and gang up on you, trampling you so thoroughly you'll look like a cartoon character run over by a steamroller.
What it does mean is that you have every right to ask your employer and co-workers, "Why would I want to do that?" in response to requests that you undertake some action that's good for them but not for you.
Pastors, parents and teachers often extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. In many settings, self-sacrifice is the mark of a hero. Your cubicle isn't one of those settings.
So if your employer asks for self-sacrifice, your employer is trying to take advantage of you. Likewise your co-workers. That's okay - they have their best interests to look out for. Just don't fall for it. Treat interactions as negotiations, not as moral equations and you'll be fine.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I am currently in a sticky situation. I am the senior IT person in a small to mid sized company. A year ago, there was a big upper management shakeup as some of the top executives left the company.
During this change, my new boss was hired and I have never been able to get on the same page as him. This person had no real experience with IT and he rarely makes time for it. I've been trying to do the best work I can and was seen as a star by previous management, but not any more.
Morale in the entire company is low. From the vibes I'm getting and the different stories I am getting from other staff, I'm pretty sure I will be replaced. The frustrating part is that there is nothing I can do to make things right or improve my situation.
While I'm looking for other work, would it it be best for me to quit before I'm fired? Even though there have been no formal discussions of performance issues, I've seen them build cases against other people.
Since I am an "At Will" employee, is it worse for me to be fired for cause or quit. How will it affect my job search and subsequent reference/background check? I don't believe they will let me go with a severance package.
Any advice you could provide would be a big help.
- Worried
Dear Worried ...
Just my opinion - if you can, find a job from your current job. That doesn't mean you should be relaxed about your search - far from it. It means that in just about every respect you'll be better off.
There are exceptions to this guideline (of course!). One is if you're so badly overworked that you lack the time and energy to do a decent job of it. Another is if you're considering a career change and not just a change of employer. Under those circumstances you might be better off clearing the decks so you can concentrate on finding your next opportunity.
You might be able to split the difference, too. There are companies that specialize in providing temporary executives to companies that need interim leadership. If you can hook up with one of them you'll have the benefit of employment continuity without the emotional burden of a boss with whom you can't see eye to eye.
I don't recommend trying to fix your relationship with your new boss. There are times this would be exactly the right thing to do. From your description, he/she is keeping you around until your replacement shows up. The conversation you'd have to have would be all downside and no upside.
Don't worry about the impact of being fired. No company is willing to risk the liability of providing any assessment of your performance beyond confirmation of employment. This might be a bad social trend (it also might not), but regardless, it works to your advantage.
Very important: Stay in touch with your former boss. You will want to use him/her as a reference, and it's perfectly appropriate to do so. If asked, explain that the new management team had a very different style - not worse, just different, and one that's a poor fit for you (be prepared to articulate the difference in a non-judgmental way). Your old boss has a lot more insight into who you are and what you do than the new one, and is therefore the more logical reference.
This, by the way, is another reason to hunt while still employed. Nobody would expect you to be such a schlemiel that you'd use your current boss as a reference.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I've been temping as a developer for six month. The company wants me to sign up as a full-time employee.
I'm the salary negotiation stage. Have any tips or words of wisdom?
- Haggling
Dear Haggling ...
My single most important piece of advice about negotiating is to know what you want and be happy if you get it. The biggest mistake I know of is worrying that you might have been able to get more.
The second most important piece of advice is to work very hard to get the company to name the first number. Whoever names the first number is in a weaker position, because they've closed off their upside, while the other side hasn't.
If the company insists that you go first, explain that you're already billing them as a contractor so they know your contracting rate. You're looking for an offer that makes it worth your while to convert to employment.
Which means you can't agree that being an employee is, in your eyes, better. Make it clear that in some respects you consider it to be worse for you.
The third most important piece of advice is to do everything you can to keep the negotiations multidimensional as long as you possibly can. By that I mean keeping more than one compensation parameter in play at the same time, so you're in a position to give up something in order to get something.
Among the factors that could be part of a compensation negotiation are: Base salary, "variable compensation" (bonus), number of vacation days and signing bonus. You probably can't negotiate benefits, but be fair to your prospective employer in looking at these - from their perspective, benefits cost the same kind of money that salary does.
Decide in advance how hard you're willing to negotiate. The general rule is that whoever is more willing to walk away from the deal will do the best.
If you're happy where you are and the company is driving this deal you're in much better shape than if you really, really want to become a full-time employee. If you're happy where you are, it makes perfect sense to tell that to the person on the other side of the table. "I'm happy where I am, billing you as a contractor. And it lets me keep my options open, where becoming an employee takes me out of the marketplace. The deal I'm asking for is what I need for converting to an employee to make financial sense for me."
Another point: Good negotiations require patience. Don't be driven to reach a conclusion - let that be the other side's worry as well. "You've heard my request and I've heard your offer. Why don't we both sleep on this and get back in touch tomorrow," is entirely valid.
Sometimes, a prospective employer will offer less than you want while promising a substantial increase should you pass some sort of milestone - successful completion of a project, end of a probationary period or something. If that's the case, it's okay to accept it, but make it clear you'll expect to see it described in your offer letter.
Also ... when you get a promise instead of money, make sure it's attached to completely objective criteria for success. Even if you completely trust your opposite number, he or she could be gone when you achieve the milestone.
All of this does, of course, beg the question of figuring out what you should be asking for in the first place. The salary database sites such as salary.com are the best free resource I know of for this.
Don't take them too seriously, of course. They'll provide general guidance. Once you look at them, remember point #2: The odds are low that you'll get more than you ask for. Don't ask for anything that's completely out of bounds, of course. Start with the richest deal that seems to be within reason and take it from there.
And of course, if you get it, I want 10%!
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I am enjoying your "Six Stupid" articles ("The Six Stupid methodology," Keep the Joint Running, 4/23/2007 and "Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007). I intend to share with my staff over the next few company staff meetings. I think I DO understand the ability of a team to be dumber than its dumbest member. However, I also have observed and participated in team efforts where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts...synergy.
How does one identify the team "personality" (stupid or brilliant) early and either abandon the first (stupid), or find ways to change it for the better?
Is this an identifiable problem that has no known solution, or is there hope I may learn more? I would like to be able to discern "team stupidity" early and hope that I could help change the direction a little.
- Prefers to lead a smart team
Dear Preferential ...
Thanks for the question. The answer is really quite clear - first articulated by a researcher named B.S. Tuckman in 1965.
It's like this: The difference between a group - where the aggregate is dumber than its members - and a team, where it is smarter, depends on trust and alignment. It depends, that is, on whether the relationships among the people who have to work together are strong, and on whether they have committed to a shared purpose.
Neither by itself is sufficient. When relationships are strong but alignment is weak you have a legislature. Everyone gets along just fine, but they have a hard time reaching agreement except through compromise - the weakest form of design.
When alignment is strong but relationships are weak - a very rare situation, by the way, because the only real way to achieve alignment is through a process that almost has to build trust - you end up with an inability on the part of each participant to accept what any other participant says at face value.
So ... trust and alignment. Especially alignment. Focus on building it and the team will generally figure out the trust part on its own.
That will make the team smart.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I think that Six Stupid ("Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007) makes overly broad assumptions as to who an adult is. But then, the definition of an adult varies with the profession that is trying to define it.
"They'll also figure that when whatever it is does happen, grown adults can probably figure out reasonable ways to handle the situation ... if they're encouraged to do so."
A large bureaucracy, be it government or corporate, will not give the appropriate authority or responsibility to people. There also seems to be this view that any sort of criticism is really negativity and should be discouraged so as not to "rock the boat".
Also, there is the issue of denial. If one accepts the definition of an adult as someone who accepts responsibility for one's actions, then denial (and deception) should not even enter into the picture. If this is so, then we would not need Sarbanes-Oxley, all the video and web usage monitoring security measures we seem to be embracing with much too much enthusiasm in public and private settings, as well as the data recorders that are finding their way into cars.
Should the process not only take into account the complexity of the tasks, as well as the exceptions, but the fallability of the human as well? After all, the police are trained to be suspicious of every one and they accept that people are flawed. Your six stupid is the opposite. The assumption they make is that people can't be flawed or ignorant, or worse, that the customer is flawed and ignorant and deserves what they get (Enron and the California energy market).
- Skeptical
Dear Skeptical ...
If we can't trust the majority of citizens over the age of 21 to be adults, we might as well give up on the whole concept of a democratic republic. If we trust everyone, we need neither laws nor police. As is the case with just about every subject, neither black nor white describe much of the world very well.
When leaders interact with those they lead, one of the most basic principles I know of is that most people, most of the time, will live either up or down to your expectations of them. If you make it clear that you expect employees to rob you blind when you aren't keeping an eye on them, and to slack off when you aren't riding herd on them, I can predict what you'll get: Employees who do their best to rob you blind and to slack off.
If you make it clear that you expect employees to work hard, do their best, show good judgment and take responsibility, most will do exactly that within the boundaries of their knowledge, skills and aptitudes. Some won't, and you have to deal with them accordingly, but they are the exception, not the trend.
I generally do view criticism as negativity, if it isn't accompanied by a suggestion for what will work better. That's because criticism without suggestion has no value. If you accept the premise that nothing anyone does is either perfect or perfectly bad, then everything that exists has both flaws to criticize and virtues to extol. So what is criticism, except the blinding insight that something has flaws. Big deal - if the critic can't come up with a suggestion about how to address the flaws without impinging on the virtues, there's no value to the exercise.
As to your comments about the bureaucracy, we're saying the same thing. I describe a bureaucracy as an organization that focuses on following the steps without caring about the results. You're telling me bureaucracies don't let employees focus on the results, just on the steps.
Glad we agree!
When it comes to the operation of publicly held corporations, we're dealing with a more complicated situation and one I've written about from time to time ("What corporations and spleens have in common," Keep the Joint Running, 5/5/2003): The best way to think about a publicly held corporation is that it's a different species with which we have to coexist - one we created, but a different species nonetheless. A corporation isn't simply a person only bigger. It has different motivations, drives and cognition than individual human beings, and no moral sense of its own.
Sarbanes/Oxley and other regulatory requirements aren't just about keeping an eye on wayward CEOs. They're about trying to govern the behavior of this species. Not an easy task.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm not fully convinced your description ("Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007) is exactly the situation, nor the usual root cause. Stuff like six stupid does happen as part of the bigger foul up.
Corporations are trying to maximise profit - period.
If they can do that by serving 9x% of the customers adequately,
then they don't care if (100-9x%) of them get screwed over. They make up for any potential losses there by the magnitude of the number of cases where they make some profit (and which is bigger than if the processes were perfected).
It is cheaper EASIER AND FASTER to have good enough processes than to have fully proper processes.
FASTER being a key consideration. They won't take time to do the processes right even if they could. And most of them are not smart enough to do them 100% properly at all even if they did take the time.
- Systems thinker
Dear Thinker ...
Actually, corporations aren't trying to maximize profit, or at least, not all of them are.
Publicly held corporations try to "maximize shareholder value," which is about the price of a share of stock and the number of shares outstanding, not directly about profit. Different companies use different timescales when making decisions, some pay more attention to the balance sheet than the profit-and-loss statement, and some pay more attention to non-financial leading indicators like customer satisfaction or product quality.
Some privately held corporations focus on doing what it will take to cash out in an IPO. Others sacrifice immediate profit for long-term viability to a much greater extent than publicly held ones.
My point is that your generalizations mask the complexity and diverse criteria that go into corporate decision-making.
I agree that it's easier and faster to have good-enough processes. Often it's also the right answer. It makes a lot more sense to get something into production fast and then subject it to improvement cycles than to delay implementation in an attempt to achieve perfect design.
The delay means you get no business benefit instead of some benefit for an extended period of time. The attempt to achieve a perfect design is almost always fruitless anyway, which means the business ends up having to subject the supposedly perfect design to improvement cycles anyway.
Only because the process designers figure it's perfect, there's a lot more resistance to the improvement cycles.
The other problem with the slower approach is that sometimes the perfect design arrives too late to do any good. The problem it was supposed to solve has been replaced by other problems.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm in a 1,000+ employee company, focusing in Greater China. We're used to and still very much focused on product selling vs solution selling.
I'm building a team focusing on Enterprise Content Management. We've earned a little bit of success in the past 2 years. Yet, I found it very difficult to get the 50+ sales teams to sell the ECM solution.
I believe fewer than 5 are really willing to sell it. Others either don't know how to do it, or think selling ECM is just too long a selling cycle (reasons are just my guess).
I believe in ECM, but I'm not sure how to push the thing forward.
- Content-driven
Dear Driven ...
I'm hampered here by a lack of in-depth knowledge of Chinese business culture. I'll answer based on what I know of what works here in the U.S. but it might be completely inappropriate for your sales force.
If I understand the situation correctly, you have a sales force that has a variety of products to sell. They spend less time and effort selling ECM than some of the other products. My first thought is that it's time for you to stop guessing. If they aren't successfully selling ECM, sit down with each of them and ask what the problem is.
One way or another, the answer will turn out to be that the time per sale compared to the commission per sale is worse for ECM than for their alternatives. Once you know the details you'll know what you have to do to remedy the situation: Add a "spiff" (additional bonus) to their commissions for ECM sales; provide a better sales toolkit; provide additional training on how to successfully sell ECM; or provide more direct support for the sales process - perhaps you might participate more, so that they don't have to invest so much time in each sale.
Here in the U.S., at least, most sales professionals are financially driven. If you want them to sell your product, it has to generate enough income for them for it to be interesting.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
What do you think about behavioral interviewing? That's where they ask you to tell a story about the time you led development of a new marketing strategy, instead of asking how you might do it in the future.
I've always though behavioral interviewing rewards people who are good story tellers. Whether the stories are true, or not.
- Recruiting
Dear Recruiting ...
I've used behavioral interviewing. It seems to work pretty well, so long as the interviewer probes a bit. But maybe I'm peculiar. I figure that if an interviewee can make it up well enough, he/she knows how to handle the situation. Besides, there aren't that many people whose story-telling can survive a probe into the details.
I do, however, generally prefer to ask people to "do the job in the interview" (to use Nick Corcodilos' phrase). It isn't all that different when it comes to the actual conversation, except that the situations you ask about are neither hypothetical nor historical - they're what you're actually facing. Either way you have to probe to the details to make sure you aren't getting a story that only looks good in the PowerPoint, as it were.
In fact, it occurs to me that no matter what your interviewing technique, success depends more on your ability to drill into the details. Usually that means you shouldn't be the only interviewer - especially if you're hiring a position where you aren't the expert.
It's a simple principle: If you don't know enough about a subject to know what success looks like firsthand, you're unlikely to be able to recognize which candidate will be most likely to succeed.
- Bob
Maybe they had no choice.
Then again, maybe they did. Circuit City posted a first-quarter loss. It blamed poor sales in high-ticket items such as large-screen televisions.
Wall Street analysts, who rarely see a layoff they don't like, blamed the recent forced departure of 3,400 too-highly-compensated sales staff - the ones with enough skill and experience to sell high-ticket items.
I don't pretend to be an expert in running retail stores. I'm terrific at drawing convenient analogies, though, such as the parallel between this and Harold Sackman's research about programmer productivity, reported decades ago in The Mythical Man Month.
Sackman's research showed that the best programmers were more than 15 times more productive than average ones. Since companies don't pay their best programmers 15 times more than their average ones, the economics of this investment should be obvious.
I wonder what the ratio of sales productivity was between Circuit City's best sales people and its average ones?
- Bob
May 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Comment (regarding "Manager as buffer?" Advice Line, 5/29/2007):
"buffer" is a euphemism for "linebacker."
And linebacker is an analogy for: hang on, I'll look it up in Google. Ah, 'Linebackers are members of the defensive team, and line up approximately five to seven yards behind the line of scrimmage, behind the defensive linemen.' I'll understand in a second, just look up scrimmage, linemen ad infinitum.
Ok, this is an American column written for Americans. It is deliberately obfuscated to preclude 'foreign' comprehension. I work for the world's largest audio company which happens to be American, but that company won't benefit from my understanding of your wise words.
I've commented before on your xenophobia and I'll stop commenting after this one. I'll just accept that you have chosen your audience and I'm not in the crew.
- Commenter
Bob's reply:
Dear me ... xenophobia? You're correct that I write in colloquial American English, as did Mark Twain (for shame!). I just finished a pair of novels by Tom Holt (highly recommended). I've also enjoyed work by Douglas Adams. Both employed British slang extensively. Shame on them, I guess ... the pillocks.
As does every other writer in a globalized age, I have to find the right balance between universal expression, which is inevitably bland, and livelier approaches to explication, which generally require more work on the part of readers who lie outside my core audience.
But since "right balance" is different for each reader, for everyone I please, I'll annoy another. Sorry to hear you're on the annoyed side of the equation.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 30, 2007 05:43 AM
May 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
In a recent discussion, I once again heard someone refer to the manager's role as being a buffer between their direct reports and upper management.
In my experience this type of manager is creating problems for themselves and the organization. The reason is that they tend to be more of a bottleneck/barrier to communication within the organization. Over time people either find a way around the manager which means the manager is becoming detached from the real work being done, or the work suffers because people don’t have the information needed to complete it properly.
Do you have any tips for the managers out their to avoid becoming a barrier to communication and instead be a promoter of it?
- Channeling
Dear Channeling ...
Usually, when I hear this description, "buffer" is a euphemism for "linebacker." In this model, upper management is viewed more as a source of trouble than anything else, and the manager protects staff from the trouble.
The way to avoid this version of the problem is for upper management to stop causing trouble. It's easy to say but hard to achieve because it's unlikely they see their actions in this light, and if it's true they're unlikely to be receptive to the message.
The other place I hear this description is in organizations that have too many management layers. That leaves some managers with little to do beyond acting as liaisons among people who could more easily talk to each other directly. The solution to this is usually unfortunate and draconian: These middle managers lose their jobs and are either demoted into positions that create real value or are "decruited" from the company altogether.
How can managers avoid falling into this trap? The answer is to be brutally honest with themselves. It's something every employee should do on a regular basis, in fact: Take a hard look at what they do, ask whether it's important enough to justify the time and expense of their doing it, and if not figure out what else they could do instead that justifies what the company pays them.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 29, 2007 02:51 PM
May 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
When you're supposed to take unquestioning orders
Dear Bob ...
My manager uses meetings to give orders. She doesn't tolerate discussions. Whenever I try to make a suggestion, she cuts the meeting short, saying, "Haven't I just told you what to do? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE."
It happens regularly; it happens one-on-one only; I don't think I am confrontational, and I don't think I talk too much.
What's the best response to "Get Out"?
- Shut Out
Dear Shut Out ...
It depends. If your manager has any redeeming virtues, you might try to salvage the situation.
To do this, ask for some of her time. By doing so, you'll make that time your meeting, not hers. Then put your cards on the table. Explain that when she gives you an assignment but doesn't let you speak, it prevents you from clarifying points you find ambiguous or just don't understand, and that increases the risk of your performing the assignment incorrectly. Then ask her the best way for you to raise these points.
Prepare yourself for the meeting by focusing on being calm and professional throughout, regardless of how she behaves. Part of achieving this is anticipating likely responses on her part and how you'll deal with them. If you don't do this there's a good chance you'll become flustered somewhere along the line, which will make the meeting counterproductive.
Very important: Once you take this route, be careful to avoid phrasing anything as a suggestion (clearly a red-flag approach). Make everything like Jeopardy, where everything you say must be phrased as a question.
Only try this if there's a reason you want to continue to work for this manager, though. From your description I have to wonder why you'd want to do that.
And if you can't see why it's worthwhile, don't take the risk. Just take the initiative to find a different manager to work for.
Really, you'd just be doing what she told you to do.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 28, 2007 05:12 PM
May 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Creating teamwork among the teams
Dear Bob ...
We have several very well functioning teams in our IT group. They don't all call themselves "teams" ("Systems Crew", for example), but that's what they are.
My problem is that they don't see themselves as part of a larger team with common goals. We get comments such as (from an office staff member) "Those open lab guys sit on their butts all day and then I have to help the students find rooms." Or, from an open lab person, "The systems guys think they can take down the net at any time, and don't know what misery that causes."
I can fix the immediate problem ("EVERYBODY should help students." ... "If we don't reboot that server today, the whole lab will crash"), but not the "them vs. us" problem.
We could use some resources, or suggestions, for helping these diverse teams appreciate each other’s problems and purposes.
- Managing the menagerie
Dear Menageraging ...
Ah, the old team-spirit-at-the-expense-of-the-larger-team-spirit problem. 143,456th time this month!
The dynamics of this are pretty straightforward. It's in most people's nature to divide the world into "us" - those we can trust, who understand, and who will watch my back - and "them" - the source of all that's wrong with the world. When you figure the nature of a strong team is that its members have high levels of trust and alignment of purpose, it's hard for team members to avoid disparaging everyone else - those with whom they lack a strong sense of purpose, a strong sense of alignment, or both.
You aren't, however, helpless in the face of human nature. You can exploit it to solve the problem. What you can do is to form cross-functional project teams on a regular basis, to force people who consider each other to be "them" to work together enough to start building some "us"-ness with each other. The project's objective is their shared purpose. Once they're all on board with it, they'll figure out the rest with little more required of you than some facilitation to get things started.
Oh … one very significant factor required for success: The projects have to be real. If they're nothing but pretexts for getting the people together, they'll figure it out pretty quickly.
Good luck with it.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 22, 2007 03:56 PM
May 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Are there any traditionally negative traits that a staffer should cultivate in order to make it in a typical corporate/IT climate with its usual collection of finger-pointers, knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers, users who are sure you possess the "easy" button, and over-caffeinated management that would rather talk than listen?
I'm talking about traits that our well-meaning pastors, teachers and parents might have discouraged us from developing, but which we need to dust off from time to time in order to navigate the shoals.
And I'm really asking from the point of view of a staff person, not someone who can always pull rank as a last resort.
Regards,
IT-eating grin
Dear Chewie ...
I think the starting point is a character trait that pastors, teachers and parents would traditionally approve of: empathy.
No, I'm not suggesting you get all touchy-feely. What I am suggesting is that the first step in navigating the shoals of business is getting inside the heads of those with whom you have to work.
Attaching labels like "knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers" and so on achieves the exact opposite. It creates an emotional distance between you and them that makes understanding what drives them more difficult. If you don't understand what drives someone, you've minimized your ability to influence them.
So far as traditionally negative traits are concerned (or ditching traditionally positive ones, which I'll assume fits your question as well): I'd have to say getting rid of your sense of empathy would be high on the list.
No, I'm not introducing paradox or anything literary like that. Being able to understand what makes someone tick is one thing. Being unable to do what is necessary because you "feel their pain" is something else entirely. In business, as in military situations, you sometimes have to make choices that cause harm to other individuals. This is more true in leadership capacities than in staff roles, but even where staffers sit there are times when you have to make difficult choices.
Here's what I'd put at the top of the list, though: In business, you're supposed to put your own interests first.
That doesn't mean you should become a jerk who tramples everyone else. There are plenty of reasons to avoid doing this, like (1) you still have to like the person who looks back at you from the mirror each morning; and (2) unless you're really good at it, others who are better at the game will catch on and gang up on you, trampling you so thoroughly you'll look like a cartoon character run over by a steamroller.
What it does mean is that you have every right to ask your employer and co-workers, "Why would I want to do that?" in response to requests that you undertake some action that's good for them but not for you.
Pastors, parents and teachers often extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. In many settings, self-sacrifice is the mark of a hero. Your cubicle isn't one of those settings.
So if your employer asks for self-sacrifice, your employer is trying to take advantage of you. Likewise your co-workers. That's okay - they have their best interests to look out for. Just don't fall for it. Treat interactions as negotiations, not as moral equations and you'll be fine.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 21, 2007 07:38 AM
May 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I am currently in a sticky situation. I am the senior IT person in a small to mid sized company. A year ago, there was a big upper management shakeup as some of the top executives left the company.
During this change, my new boss was hired and I have never been able to get on the same page as him. This person had no real experience with IT and he rarely makes time for it. I've been trying to do the best work I can and was seen as a star by previous management, but not any more.
Morale in the entire company is low. From the vibes I'm getting and the different stories I am getting from other staff, I'm pretty sure I will be replaced. The frustrating part is that there is nothing I can do to make things right or improve my situation.
While I'm looking for other work, would it it be best for me to quit before I'm fired? Even though there have been no formal discussions of performance issues, I've seen them build cases against other people.
Since I am an "At Will" employee, is it worse for me to be fired for cause or quit. How will it affect my job search and subsequent reference/background check? I don't believe they will let me go with a severance package.
Any advice you could provide would be a big help.
- Worried
Dear Worried ...
Just my opinion - if you can, find a job from your current job. That doesn't mean you should be relaxed about your search - far from it. It means that in just about every respect you'll be better off.
There are exceptions to this guideline (of course!). One is if you're so badly overworked that you lack the time and energy to do a decent job of it. Another is if you're considering a career change and not just a change of employer. Under those circumstances you might be better off clearing the decks so you can concentrate on finding your next opportunity.
You might be able to split the difference, too. There are companies that specialize in providing temporary executives to companies that need interim leadership. If you can hook up with one of them you'll have the benefit of employment continuity without the emotional burden of a boss with whom you can't see eye to eye.
I don't recommend trying to fix your relationship with your new boss. There are times this would be exactly the right thing to do. From your description, he/she is keeping you around until your replacement shows up. The conversation you'd have to have would be all downside and no upside.
Don't worry about the impact of being fired. No company is willing to risk the liability of providing any assessment of your performance beyond confirmation of employment. This might be a bad social trend (it also might not), but regardless, it works to your advantage.
Very important: Stay in touch with your former boss. You will want to use him/her as a reference, and it's perfectly appropriate to do so. If asked, explain that the new management team had a very different style - not worse, just different, and one that's a poor fit for you (be prepared to articulate the difference in a non-judgmental way). Your old boss has a lot more insight into who you are and what you do than the new one, and is therefore the more logical reference.
This, by the way, is another reason to hunt while still employed. Nobody would expect you to be such a schlemiel that you'd use your current boss as a reference.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 18, 2007 09:15 AM
May 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I've been temping as a developer for six month. The company wants me to sign up as a full-time employee.
I'm the salary negotiation stage. Have any tips or words of wisdom?
- Haggling
Dear Haggling ...
My single most important piece of advice about negotiating is to know what you want and be happy if you get it. The biggest mistake I know of is worrying that you might have been able to get more.
The second most important piece of advice is to work very hard to get the company to name the first number. Whoever names the first number is in a weaker position, because they've closed off their upside, while the other side hasn't.
If the company insists that you go first, explain that you're already billing them as a contractor so they know your contracting rate. You're looking for an offer that makes it worth your while to convert to employment.
Which means you can't agree that being an employee is, in your eyes, better. Make it clear that in some respects you consider it to be worse for you.
The third most important piece of advice is to do everything you can to keep the negotiations multidimensional as long as you possibly can. By that I mean keeping more than one compensation parameter in play at the same time, so you're in a position to give up something in order to get something.
Among the factors that could be part of a compensation negotiation are: Base salary, "variable compensation" (bonus), number of vacation days and signing bonus. You probably can't negotiate benefits, but be fair to your prospective employer in looking at these - from their perspective, benefits cost the same kind of money that salary does.
Decide in advance how hard you're willing to negotiate. The general rule is that whoever is more willing to walk away from the deal will do the best.
If you're happy where you are and the company is driving this deal you're in much better shape than if you really, really want to become a full-time employee. If you're happy where you are, it makes perfect sense to tell that to the person on the other side of the table. "I'm happy where I am, billing you as a contractor. And it lets me keep my options open, where becoming an employee takes me out of the marketplace. The deal I'm asking for is what I need for converting to an employee to make financial sense for me."
Another point: Good negotiations require patience. Don't be driven to reach a conclusion - let that be the other side's worry as well. "You've heard my request and I've heard your offer. Why don't we both sleep on this and get back in touch tomorrow," is entirely valid.
Sometimes, a prospective employer will offer less than you want while promising a substantial increase should you pass some sort of milestone - successful completion of a project, end of a probationary period or something. If that's the case, it's okay to accept it, but make it clear you'll expect to see it described in your offer letter.
Also ... when you get a promise instead of money, make sure it's attached to completely objective criteria for success. Even if you completely trust your opposite number, he or she could be gone when you achieve the milestone.
All of this does, of course, beg the question of figuring out what you should be asking for in the first place. The salary database sites such as salary.com are the best free resource I know of for this.
Don't take them too seriously, of course. They'll provide general guidance. Once you look at them, remember point #2: The odds are low that you'll get more than you ask for. Don't ask for anything that's completely out of bounds, of course. Start with the richest deal that seems to be within reason and take it from there.
And of course, if you get it, I want 10%!
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 16, 2007 05:31 AM
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I am enjoying your "Six Stupid" articles ("The Six Stupid methodology," Keep the Joint Running, 4/23/2007 and "Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007). I intend to share with my staff over the next few company staff meetings. I think I DO understand the ability of a team to be dumber than its dumbest member. However, I also have observed and participated in team efforts where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts...synergy.
How does one identify the team "personality" (stupid or brilliant) early and either abandon the first (stupid), or find ways to change it for the better?
Is this an identifiable problem that has no known solution, or is there hope I may learn more? I would like to be able to discern "team stupidity" early and hope that I could help change the direction a little.
- Prefers to lead a smart team
Dear Preferential ...
Thanks for the question. The answer is really quite clear - first articulated by a researcher named B.S. Tuckman in 1965.
It's like this: The difference between a group - where the aggregate is dumber than its members - and a team, where it is smarter, depends on trust and alignment. It depends, that is, on whether the relationships among the people who have to work together are strong, and on whether they have committed to a shared purpose.
Neither by itself is sufficient. When relationships are strong but alignment is weak you have a legislature. Everyone gets along just fine, but they have a hard time reaching agreement except through compromise - the weakest form of design.
When alignment is strong but relationships are weak - a very rare situation, by the way, because the only real way to achieve alignment is through a process that almost has to build trust - you end up with an inability on the part of each participant to accept what any other participant says at face value.
So ... trust and alignment. Especially alignment. Focus on building it and the team will generally figure out the trust part on its own.
That will make the team smart.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 15, 2007 06:29 AM
May 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Six Stupid and the nature of adulthood
Dear Bob ...
I think that Six Stupid ("Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007) makes overly broad assumptions as to who an adult is. But then, the definition of an adult varies with the profession that is trying to define it.
"They'll also figure that when whatever it is does happen, grown adults can probably figure out reasonable ways to handle the situation ... if they're encouraged to do so."
A large bureaucracy, be it government or corporate, will not give the appropriate authority or responsibility to people. There also seems to be this view that any sort of criticism is really negativity and should be discouraged so as not to "rock the boat".
Also, there is the issue of denial. If one accepts the definition of an adult as someone who accepts responsibility for one's actions, then denial (and deception) should not even enter into the picture. If this is so, then we would not need Sarbanes-Oxley, all the video and web usage monitoring security measures we seem to be embracing with much too much enthusiasm in public and private settings, as well as the data recorders that are finding their way into cars.
Should the process not only take into account the complexity of the tasks, as well as the exceptions, but the fallability of the human as well? After all, the police are trained to be suspicious of every one and they accept that people are flawed. Your six stupid is the opposite. The assumption they make is that people can't be flawed or ignorant, or worse, that the customer is flawed and ignorant and deserves what they get (Enron and the California energy market).
- Skeptical
Dear Skeptical ...
If we can't trust the majority of citizens over the age of 21 to be adults, we might as well give up on the whole concept of a democratic republic. If we trust everyone, we need neither laws nor police. As is the case with just about every subject, neither black nor white describe much of the world very well.
When leaders interact with those they lead, one of the most basic principles I know of is that most people, most of the time, will live either up or down to your expectations of them. If you make it clear that you expect employees to rob you blind when you aren't keeping an eye on them, and to slack off when you aren't riding herd on them, I can predict what you'll get: Employees who do their best to rob you blind and to slack off.
If you make it clear that you expect employees to work hard, do their best, show good judgment and take responsibility, most will do exactly that within the boundaries of their knowledge, skills and aptitudes. Some won't, and you have to deal with them accordingly, but they are the exception, not the trend.
I generally do view criticism as negativity, if it isn't accompanied by a suggestion for what will work better. That's because criticism without suggestion has no value. If you accept the premise that nothing anyone does is either perfect or perfectly bad, then everything that exists has both flaws to criticize and virtues to extol. So what is criticism, except the blinding insight that something has flaws. Big deal - if the critic can't come up with a suggestion about how to address the flaws without impinging on the virtues, there's no value to the exercise.
As to your comments about the bureaucracy, we're saying the same thing. I describe a bureaucracy as an organization that focuses on following the steps without caring about the results. You're telling me bureaucracies don't let employees focus on the results, just on the steps.
Glad we agree!
When it comes to the operation of publicly held corporations, we're dealing with a more complicated situation and one I've written about from time to time ("What corporations and spleens have in common," Keep the Joint Running, 5/5/2003): The best way to think about a publicly held corporation is that it's a different species with which we have to coexist - one we created, but a different species nonetheless. A corporation isn't simply a person only bigger. It has different motivations, drives and cognition than individual human beings, and no moral sense of its own.
Sarbanes/Oxley and other regulatory requirements aren't just about keeping an eye on wayward CEOs. They're about trying to govern the behavior of this species. Not an easy task.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 14, 2007 05:14 AM
May 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I'm not fully convinced your description ("Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007) is exactly the situation, nor the usual root cause. Stuff like six stupid does happen as part of the bigger foul up.
Corporations are trying to maximise profit - period.
If they can do that by serving 9x% of the customers adequately,
then they don't care if (100-9x%) of them get screwed over. They make up for any potential losses there by the magnitude of the number of cases where they make some profit (and which is bigger than if the processes were perfected).
It is cheaper EASIER AND FASTER to have good enough processes than to have fully proper processes.
FASTER being a key consideration. They won't take time to do the processes right even if they could. And most of them are not smart enough to do them 100% properly at all even if they did take the time.
- Systems thinker
Dear Thinker ...
Actually, corporations aren't trying to maximize profit, or at least, not all of them are.
Publicly held corporations try to "maximize shareholder value," which is about the price of a share of stock and the number of shares outstanding, not directly about profit. Different companies use different timescales when making decisions, some pay more attention to the balance sheet than the profit-and-loss statement, and some pay more attention to non-financial leading indicators like customer satisfaction or product quality.
Some privately held corporations focus on doing what it will take to cash out in an IPO. Others sacrifice immediate profit for long-term viability to a much greater extent than publicly held ones.
My point is that your generalizations mask the complexity and diverse criteria that go into corporate decision-making.
I agree that it's easier and faster to have good-enough processes. Often it's also the right answer. It makes a lot more sense to get something into production fast and then subject it to improvement cycles than to delay implementation in an attempt to achieve perfect design.
The delay means you get no business benefit instead of some benefit for an extended period of time. The attempt to achieve a perfect design is almost always fruitless anyway, which means the business ends up having to subject the supposedly perfect design to improvement cycles anyway.
Only because the process designers figure it's perfect, there's a lot more resistance to the improvement cycles.
The other problem with the slower approach is that sometimes the perfect design arrives too late to do any good. The problem it was supposed to solve has been replaced by other problems.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 9, 2007 03:55 AM
May 07, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I'm in a 1,000+ employee company, focusing in Greater China. We're used to and still very much focused on product selling vs solution selling.
I'm building a team focusing on Enterprise Content Management. We've earned a little bit of success in the past 2 years. Yet, I found it very difficult to get the 50+ sales teams to sell the ECM solution.
I believe fewer than 5 are really willing to sell it. Others either don't know how to do it, or think selling ECM is just too long a selling cycle (reasons are just my guess).
I believe in ECM, but I'm not sure how to push the thing forward.
- Content-driven
Dear Driven ...
I'm hampered here by a lack of in-depth knowledge of Chinese business culture. I'll answer based on what I know of what works here in the U.S. but it might be completely inappropriate for your sales force.
If I understand the situation correctly, you have a sales force that has a variety of products to sell. They spend less time and effort selling ECM than some of the other products. My first thought is that it's time for you to stop guessing. If they aren't successfully selling ECM, sit down with each of them and ask what the problem is.
One way or another, the answer will turn out to be that the time per sale compared to the commission per sale is worse for ECM than for their alternatives. Once you know the details you'll know what you have to do to remedy the situation: Add a "spiff" (additional bonus) to their commissions for ECM sales; provide a better sales toolkit; provide additional training on how to successfully sell ECM; or provide more direct support for the sales process - perhaps you might participate more, so that they don't have to invest so much time in each sale.
Here in the U.S., at least, most sales professionals are financially driven. If you want them to sell your product, it has to generate enough income for them for it to be interesting.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 7, 2007 05:12 PM
May 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
What do you think about behavioral interviewing? That's where they ask you to tell a story about the time you led development of a new marketing strategy, instead of asking how you might do it in the future.
I've always though behavioral interviewing rewards people who are good story tellers. Whether the stories are true, or not.
- Recruiting
Dear Recruiting ...
I've used behavioral interviewing. It seems to work pretty well, so long as the interviewer probes a bit. But maybe I'm peculiar. I figure that if an interviewee can make it up well enough, he/she knows how to handle the situation. Besides, there aren't that many people whose story-telling can survive a probe into the details.
I do, however, generally prefer to ask people to "do the job in the interview" (to use Nick Corcodilos' phrase). It isn't all that different when it comes to the actual conversation, except that the situations you ask about are neither hypothetical nor historical - they're what you're actually facing. Either way you have to probe to the details to make sure you aren't getting a story that only looks good in the PowerPoint, as it were.
In fact, it occurs to me that no matter what your interviewing technique, success depends more on your ability to drill into the details. Usually that means you shouldn't be the only interviewer - especially if you're hiring a position where you aren't the expert.
It's a simple principle: If you don't know enough about a subject to know what success looks like firsthand, you're unlikely to be able to recognize which candidate will be most likely to succeed.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 6, 2007 09:31 AM
May 02, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Maybe they had no choice.
Then again, maybe they did. Circuit City posted a first-quarter loss. It blamed poor sales in high-ticket items such as large-screen televisions.
Wall Street analysts, who rarely see a layoff they don't like, blamed the recent forced departure of 3,400 too-highly-compensated sales staff - the ones with enough skill and experience to sell high-ticket items.
I don't pretend to be an expert in running retail stores. I'm terrific at drawing convenient analogies, though, such as the parallel between this and Harold Sackman's research about programmer productivity, reported decades ago in The Mythical Man Month.
Sackman's research showed that the best programmers were more than 15 times more productive than average ones. Since companies don't pay their best programmers 15 times more than their average ones, the economics of this investment should be obvious.
I wonder what the ratio of sales productivity was between Circuit City's best sales people and its average ones?
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 2, 2007 04:48 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
Agile mgmnt for small teamsWhy developers avoid Vista
CBS to buy CNET Networks
Icahn's letter to Roy Bostock
Yahoo opens up Search Monkey
AT&T limits iPhone purchases
Silverlight gets put on Linux
IBM boosts BlackBerry access
Intel to develop PC with Alibaba
Cybercriminals can rent a botnet
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
- Is your smaller organization ready for High Availability?
- Is system maintenance doing more harm than good?
- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure
