Advice Line | Bob Lewis » June 2007

June 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

How to not blurt

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

In a recent KJR ("Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," 6/18/2007) you wrote "Effective communication is the result of planning, not blurting. It focuses on the audience's vocabulary and cares, not the leader's. Anything else is self-indulgence."

What is the best way to develop the skills required for effective communication? Like the ability to identify the audience's cares. Is this something I can learn from a book or do I need a personal coach?

- Blurter

Dear Blurter ...

Mostly, you need empathy - the ability to put yourself in their place and anticipate how they're likely to feel about whatever-it-is.

So if you're about to introduce a new piece of software to replace one that's cumbersome and hard to learn, put yourself in the place of the employees who have mastered the old system. They're going to:

* Feel grief over the loss of prestige. The new software will make hard-won skills they're proud of irrelevant.

* Feel anxiety regarding their ability to master the new software, and perhaps the new way of doing business that goes with it.

* Feel more anxiety over the possibility that the real reason for the project is to layoff some employees - namely, them or some of their friends.

Pretty easy, once you change your perspective.

The other tool you need is listening. Establish open lines of communication where you make it clear you're genuinely interested in what they know and what they're thinking. Once you've done that, you can explain what you're planning to do and why you're planning to do it, and ask how that strikes them.

Talk with some employees one-at-a-time and with others in small groups. Some people need the freedom of not being overheard. Others need the moral support of their peers. Doing some of each maximizes your chances of hearing what you need to hear.

Once you get in the habit you'll find it isn't very complicated. It does, however, require real effort to explore the different ways to communicate a point, in order to find the one that fits each situation best.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 30, 2007 07:44 AM

June 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Endless Vistas

TAGS: General

I had to share the latest Vista error message. After clicking on Help from within the Palm conduit software, this popped up:


Why can't I get Help from this program?

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which was used in previous versions of Windows and it is not supported in Windows Vista.

For more information, see Windows Help program (WinHlp32.exe) is no longer included with Windows on the Microsoft support website.


Now really. How hard would it have been to include support for the old help format?

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 28, 2007 07:16 AM

June 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Developing an IT strategy

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

My boss asked me to develop an 'IT Strategy' for our company. I don't really have an idea of how to start and what to include.

Can you give some advice and pointers?


- Strategizing

Dear Strategizing ...

I thought you knew - you bring in an outside consultant like me, pay a few bucks (well, more than a few) and we walk you through it.

There really is an advantage to bringing in outside help if you've never done this sort of thing before - no matter how much book-learning you acquire, some of what's required is hard to figure out without actual experience. Not everything is a purely analytical process. For some of it you have to squint at the data, turn it in several directions, and try out a number of different scenarios as part of figuring out what it all means.

If you're looking for a good book on the subject, Anita Cassidy's A Practical Guide to Information Systems Strategic Planning is better than most.

In any event, there are quite a few different formats for an IT strategy. Ours begins with a "situation analysis" - an account of what's working well and what needs improvement based on what the business currently requires. We frame that up using our "IT Effectiveness Framework" to categorize the issues.

Next, we look at the business strategy and current portfolio of major business initiatives ... including our best shot at the missing ones, which should be there except that nobody put them on the list for one reason or another.

From that list we extract the new capabilities IT will need to support the initiatives.

Finally, we define internal IT performance improvement initiatives to add the new capabilities to IT.

Whatever framework you decide to use, and whether or not you decide to bring in outside help, the most important part of an IT strategy is that you make it actionable - that you put the results on a timeline and reserve the staff time necessary to turn it into reality.

If you don't, you'll produce a lovely document that will sit on a shelf, gathering dust until you decide you need to put the three-ring binder to more productive use.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 27, 2007 05:02 AM

June 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Are values personal or universal - and why it matters

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I found lots of good insights in "Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," including some that are new to me. Thank you very much. I especially appreciated the one about planning rather than blurting.

However, I question your statement about values being personal, not universal. In fact, you show you don't believe it yourself. You appealed to the universal value of taking responsibility for ones' own moral code. You certainly didn't present that one as just a personal, subjective belief.

I've heard many people make statements such as yours, but so far have not heard anyone talk consistently as though s/he believed it.

- Universalist

Dear Universalist ...

There is no such thing as opinion without underlying premises, which are, by definition, a form of belief. It's true in mathematics; it's just as true any other time someone has to develop a position through logic. I've never said otherwise. The problem comes when someone presents a personal belief as though it is an objective truth.

My opinion regarding the importance of taking personal responsibility for one's values is the practical result of years of observation, and is restricted to business leaders.

Those who have gone the "do the right thing" route generally invoked a general-purpose deity as the authority that justifies their values, imagining that all religions teach the same values. This is a notion that is emphatically not the case. Worse, their invocation of their deity (and denomination) can and sometimes did offend those who worship differently.

In business, "these are our values and we live by them," followed by a consistent demonstration that they really are the values through which the leader guides the organization, seems to be most effective.

That's in business. Whatever my preference might be, we seem to be living in an age in which political leaders succeed by being the best at proclaiming how devout they are.

My personal preference, not that it's relevant to the discussion, would be that instead of the Pledge of Allegiance we taught kids the Preamble to the Constitution, and instead of pointing to the Bible, political leaders pointed to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and said, "These are the values through which I will lead this country."

Maybe next year.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 24, 2007 02:10 PM

June 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Common sense isn't necessarily good sense

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

In this week's Keep the Joint Running ("Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," 6/18/2007) you said this about common sense:

Oh, dear. Whether you call it common sense, good instincts, or trusting your gut, the notion is a dangerous one. Too often, "common sense" is nothing more than personal bias, and prevents the very openness to new ideas Iacocca values.

I think you missed the boat on this one. Common sense is not about instinct or trusting your gut. It's about the ability to tell reality from fantasy. I think that the Clinton quote really speaks to that.

Take something out of one your clients as an example. You talked about how every system has constraints and the constraints affect each other. So, performance, stability and cost are three constraints that have to balance each other. Fantasy tells you that you can have a high speed, high stability system at a great cost. Common sense tells you that, as with most things in the real world, that's not happening. If you are lucky, you can get two out of the three.

Yes, sometimes your gut gives you common sense answers, but that's not the point. What is important is the ability to cut through the fluff, whether you do it consciously (better) or not.

- Commonsensical

Dear Commonsensical ...

Thanks for making my point for me. Common sense told you that you can't get a system with high speed, strong stability and a low price. Your common sense is wrong, because you can.

All you have to do is to sacrifice on features and functionality, and accept only limited scalability. Also, when deciding on "speed" you might have to choose between a system that delivers fast response time and another that delivers high throughput rates, instead of getting both.

None of us is born with an understanding of systems optimization. I'm willing to bet you didn't figure out "quicker, cheaper, better - pick two" on your own. I'm pretty sure someone explained it to you early in your career. You learned it and made it part of your worldview.

Calling book learning "common sense" is a peculiar use of the term.

One reason I'm confident you didn't figure this out on your own is that had you done so you'd have figured out that quicker, cheaper, and better each consist of two separate and independent parameters - the other three optimization dimensions I offered above.

For a quick tutorial on the subject, here are three KJR's that cover the ground: "Quicker isn't as simple as it looks," (5/19/2003) "Of costs and thermostats," (5/26/2003), and "Quality matters. How you define quality matters even more," (6/7/2003).

I know this approach is important because I once watched a process re-engineering effort severely damage a company through a dramatic improvement in cycle time (throughput, sadly went through the floor). I know it isn't common sense because I know professional process re-engineering consultants (and one former physicist) who haven't yet built it into their thought processes.

A friend pointed out to me that there is a valid use for "common sense" - situations like driving in the rain and recognizing that slowing down and turning on your windshield wipers might be a good thought.

Yup. Just like they taught us in Driver's Education.

Last nail in the coffin: Imagine someone whirling a ball on a string above their head. They let go of the string. Describe the ball's horizontal trajectory.

Even in this day and age, many expect the ball to follow a curved path. Three centuries ago, Newton gave the world the correct answer with his three laws of motion.

Many of those who know the right answer will explain that it's just common sense.

So will those who don't. The funny thing is, those who don't are the ones who really are using their common sense.

Those who are right are making use of what they studied in school.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 23, 2007 02:45 PM

June 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Lessons from smoke jumpers

TAGS: General

In response to this week's Keep the Joint Running ("Iacocca's alliterative leadership list,") Ned Horvath sent me the following, excellent analysis. I thought it well worth sharing, and he was kind enough to give me permission to do so.

- Bob

Nice observation on crises - I've identified a personality type (and confess to being in recovery myself) I call "smoke jumpers", after the guys who parachute into a forest fire area to do rapid response, in an effort to contain the blaze while it's still small enough to be contained. They are typically few in number, very highly trained, and do very dangerous work under difficult conditions.

In short, they are very effective in crises. In the workplace, they are invaluable when the [excrement] hits the fan. The dark side is that
- they tend to leave messes that need to be cleaned up, and
- they tend to become addicted to the adrenaline.

They also tend to inflict collateral damage, and they are often praised by management - "these guys saved our bacon with that customer." No surprise that last - stuff happens to any organization, but it happens more often when the management isn't farsighted enough to minimize it. This can set up a dangerous co-dependency: management doesn't have to learn fire prevention, the smokejumpers will bail 'em out, and the smokejumpers love the praise and the adrenaline. A dangerous secondary effect is that when things are quiet, smokejumpers start playing with matches - letting routine situations deteriorate until they become crises.

I realize this is looking pretty negative - not my intention. Every organization has crises, and you need some people who are cool and effective under pressure. But good management will follow up by figuring out how to make the next occurrence routine, and will visibly reward the process improvement too.

For adrenaline addiction, try soccer or rugby...

Oh, and for an amazing book on smokejumpers, look for "Young Men and Fire," by Norman McLean. McLean painstakingly reconstructs a dangerous (and fatal) fire in Montana. A great read for anyone regardless of interest in fires!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 20, 2007 05:35 AM

June 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Choosing an MBA specialty

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I am working as a Management Representative in an IT hardware rental company. My job responsibility is to monitor employee performance, improve systems of operation like marketing, service, etc., and conduct IS internal audits.

Please suggest the specialization I should go for if I go for a MBA course.


- Seeking direction

Dear Seeking ...

If you've read many past postings on this subject, you'll know I won't be able to answer the question you asked. That's because you asked the wrong question.

Ask yourself what you're good at - what your aptitudes are. Ask what you enjoy doing. And what your experience has prepared you for already. Then you'll be ready to think about an MBA specialization.

As an alternative, if you can't come to a confident answer: Don't worry about it. Not all MBA programs require you to identify your intended specialty before you begin, nor should they, any more than a medical school should require applicants to explain that they want to be radiologists or surgeons before taking their first class.

Go in as a generalist, and expose yourself to a variety of possible specialties. Inevitably you'll find that some of the classes you take will interest you a great deal while others will bore the daylights out of you.

That should provide a pretty good hint.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 19, 2007 06:02 PM

June 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Dialing things down

TAGS: General

It's a subject that comes up from time to time: In a recent set of exchanges far too lengthy to reproduce here in detail, a correspondent complained about such unethical practices as used car salesmen knowingly selling lemons at inflated prices, politicians "stealing our wages" and wasting them on boondoggles, and IT using service level measures to deceive the business as to its true performance.

As I responded it occurred to me just how many of our conversations are turned into arguments through the use of value-laden terms that aren't justified by the speaker's knowledge of the situation, or that are only justified by the speaker's personal position in a transaction.

So: A used car salesman knowingly sells lemons at inflated prices. True, or does the saleman sell a car at a negotiated price, to a buyer who hasn't properly prepared for the negotiation? I'd guess the used car salesman believes strongly in the responsibility of the buyer to ask for an independent mechanical evaluation, and to research Blue Book value before dickering over the price.

Politicians make a convenient target. Shame on them, doing exactly what the voters they represent want them to do. How dare they! And ... "steal" our wages? I don't think so. We're the owners of government, not its customers, and it's past time for us to recognize our responsibility as owners and live up to it.

Not that I'm a huge fan of how Congress operates. I still have to acknowledge that it's faced with a very difficult task. Pretend for a moment that every single member of Congress honestly wanted to do what's best for the United States of America. What would happen that's different? Very little, because with more than 400 members, each elected by a different regional electorate and each with a different set of life experiences, "what's best for the U.S.A." won't be a simple consensus to reach.

Even with the best of intentions, the members of Congress would still disagree about nearly everything. Having to find a path forward regardless, they would still make the same sorts of difficult and messy compromises they do right now.

Do some of those compromises squander our money? It depends what you mean by squander - in the end, most of that money goes to employing people. Do they steal our money? Of course not. Stealing is, by definition, illegal. Taxation is, by definition, both legal and necessary in any society not governed by anarchy.

So discussions about how much taxation is optimal and where government intervention is most appropriate are made impossible by loaded language.

Which leaves service levels and IT's use of them to lie to the corporation. Having known any number of IT managers, I've yet to meet any who come to work every day asking themselves, "What new and innovative way will I discover today to fool the corporation?"

Many are unsure of their priorities - perhaps because management doesn't make their priorities clear; perhaps because they have too small a staff chasing too many problems; perhaps because they aren't qualified to hold their jobs.

That's different.

So here's today's challenge, from the old Advice-meister: For the next week, every time you find yourself in a conversation about nearly anything that starts to get heated, listen to everyone involved - starting with yourself - and identify the loaded language that distorts honest communication.

Then, actively replace it with an unloaded alternative and suggest it as a better way to think about the subject.

You'll be surprised at how productive it can make even the most initially dysfunctional discussion.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 16, 2007 10:16 AM

June 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Outside the inner circle

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I am working in an IT related field with SW and with people. We have a small team of less then 10 people and good communication skills are essential to do our job. Good "team spirit" is not a bad thing either, considering that we are just a small part of a huge organization of +10 000 employees globally, and we have to stand up for ourselves to keep our small group important and alive on a larger scale.

My problem is that recently I have started to notice that I am drifting away from my teammates for some reason. I don't know how it happened that way, but suddenly I started to hear that they are having free time activities together and I was not invited. Furthermore, suddenly it looks also that another newer guy (who is included in those activities) has passed me in the promotion line, although I of course feel that I have been doing my job better than he has been doing his and, I have been here longer.

To put it in a nutshell, I suddenly noticed that I am not part of the inner circle in our small group anymore (if I ever was, but now even further from it), and it is not fun at all, since my boss seems to favor people in that "circle." I understand that this is a though question to answer, without knowing more about our group dynamics and personalities, but I'll ask anyway. Any advice on how to get back in to the popular gang?


- Outsider

Dear Outsider ...

I have no great answer for this. I'm not even sure my answer will rate "good." For whatever it's worth:

Start by doing as much close observing as you can without it becoming creepy. One question you need to answer is whether inner-circlism is the result of perceived ability or interpersonal chemistry.

If what's going on is that others on your team don't trust your ability or judgment, start paying attention to how those who are most respected act in group settings and compare that to your own habits. You might, inadvertently, be sending out cues that suggest poorer performance than you are, in fact, delivering. The hard part will be recognizing which behavior patterns on your part aren't working with this group of people. The not-quite-so-hard part will be avoiding them in the future.

If the problem is lack of trust, though, the best solution I know of is to ask for help. Most people, most of the time, are flattered at this and will provide it, so long as the request is sincere and doesn't make you out to be a bowb. ("I'm trying to decide what to have for lunch - can you help?" makes you a bowb. "I'm working on some recommendations for our future server environment and I'm stuck on a point - can you give me ten minutes to talk it through?" makes you a professional.)

Be judicious in this - there's a point where asking for help turns you into a pest. The point of the exercise is to act as an ice breaker, to re-establish the habit of interacting with you casually among your erstwhile teammates.

If, however, the problem is purely interpersonal chemistry, you're probably best off resorting to professionalism. Recognize that you aren't going to get the emotional satisfaction you'd prefer from work, and look for it elsewhere instead. Make sure all of your dealings with your colleagues are completely pleasant and professional and leave it at that.

There's one more if, though: If the situation degrades further, so that instead of your merely feeling like you're outside the inner circle you instead start to feel devalued and marginalized, it's time to either have a heart-to-heart talk with your manager or find a different opportunity in a more congenial environment.

Oh, by the way - this is for your manager and not for you: An inner circle in a group of nine? What's that about? In some organizations, nine would be an inner circle.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 13, 2007 06:37 AM

June 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Selling a rewrite

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

We (the developers) are once again being put in the position of needing to "sell the rewrite" to CEO. The current system started as an Access database, and has now metastasized into a classic ASP / VB com / SQL monstrosity that is becoming increasingly hard to maintain and even harder to extend. We're being asked to implement features which are made difficult -- if not impossible -- by the current implementation (e.g. lots of 1 to 1 relationships). And of course we're being asked to do it in 1/4 of the time that we think we'll need for a proper job.

On top of that, phrases like "10 year old technology", "object oriented", and "best coding practices" don't mean anything to the guy who holds the purse strings...he wants it all in terms of "return on investment", "new features", and "how can I sell it". (I don't necessarily think this is unreasonable, after all it's HIS money and HIS company...he's a salesman, not a techie.)

How best to make this sale? Shouldn't the considered, unanimous judgment of his IT department be sufficient? How do you put a dollar value on things like "morale", "extensibility", etc?

Thanks!

- Selling Technology by the Pound

Dear Seller ...

While it isn't clear whether you're talking about an in-house system or a product your company sells, the only real difference is how sharply the problems will become apparent to the company.

First of all, I agree that phrases like "10-year-old technology," "OO," and so on aren't relevant to the discussion. Even less so is the abused phrase "best practices." Your CEO will hear these and think, "Smoke, smoke and more smoke."

The unanimous judgment of his IT department should count for something. The ability of the IT department to explain its unanimous judgment in clear, businesslike terms will count for a lot more, and will do a lot to enhance IT's persuasiveness in the next important conversation. To that end:

You're better off explaining that over the years, too many design decisions were made without enough of an eye to the future, sometimes because the developer was only solving today's problem today, other times because the company wasn't willing to invest the extra time and money required.

Regardless of the reason, the result is that you're now pretty much painted into a corner, which means each additional change and enhancement takes more time and money than is necessary.

If the discussion is about your company's product, you should also mention that smart customers pay close attention to a solution's internal architecture, and yours won't pass inspection - you'll lose business to competitors because of the design problems with the current system.

Acknowledge that this is a big decision. If at all possible, chart an incremental migration path as well - big rewrites very often turn into big fiascos. Even if the incremental path requires "scaffoldware," that's better than trying to create a complete replacement all at once. Most CEOs care a lot about risk, and this approach will go a long way to provide reassurance.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 11, 2007 05:19 AM

June 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)

More Microsoft Mishegoss

TAGS: General

Microsoft seems to have left Earth and moved to the bizarro planet where people walk backward and talk in Tonto English.

Well, okay, maybe that's a bit strong. Or maybe not.

Awhile back I complained here about Microsoft removing one of the best-designed and most useful features in Access - offline database synchronization.

It appears this removal is an example of the pygmy white elephant theory: If you find a pygmy white elephant, most likely there are more of them.

And so it was that today I tried to publish a project plan, developed in MS Project, in HTML format. It was a nice little feature in the previous version of Project. Now it's gone.

But never fear, because ... Project's Help system says it best:

Microsoft Office Project 2007 does not support the ability to save a project file as a Web page. Instead, you can save a project as a more flexible XML file. This enables you to apply any style sheet to the XML file.

Got that? One problem: Unless you're willing to program one of these style sheets, you can't do anything useful with the XML file, like sharing it with other people so they can view it in their browsers.

That's right: Internet Explorer (for example) won't even open the file for viewing.

Aside from that it's a Great Leap Forward.

Okay, I lied ... there's one more bit o' nonsense to mention. Office 2007 includes a pretty decent integrated PDF writer. Even though the new release of MS Project is officially part of Office 2007, it can't make use of it.

The good news about the bad news: PDF995 works just fine with Vista. But really, is this any way to manage a product line?

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 8, 2007 07:37 PM

June 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Corporate amorality revisited

TAGS: General

A correspondent was rankled by some of my comments in "Choosing between the bird in your hand and the two in the bush," (Advice Line, 4/25/2007). His comments:

"All companies aren't amoral and all hiring managers aren't heartless bastards. As someone who manages a staff and is responsible for hiring decisions I think it is very important for candidates be as honest and upfront with me as possible. I try my best to do the same for them.

I would categorize an individual who accepted a position knowing that he was going to turn around and interview for another as a poor long-term prospect. Knowing that the candidate handled this situation in that way would set a pretty low expectation for similar future circumstances. On the other hand, if the person contacted me and said a much better offer was on the table and he would like time to evaluate it I would consider that much more positively. It would give me time to discuss the situation with the candidate, I might be able to add information to his decision making process, and it might even cause me to reconsider my offer.

I think it's a pretty simple test. Put yourself in the other person's position and ask yourself how you would handle the situation. If you aren't handling it in that way then you should rethink what you are doing.

Finally if right out of the box you take the position that you can't trust the other party then what's the point? You are predisposing yourself to a pretty poor working relationship. To put it more directly, if either party can't trust the other then working relationship is doomed from the start. If you don't have an expectation that the other party will act in a manner you find reasonable then don't go there."

These are strongly made points, and worthy of consideration, so let's take them one at a time:

* Are all corporations amoral? No. All publicly held corporations are, by definition amoral. The privately held ones are a different matter since their owners are materially involved in their day-to-day decision-making.

It's easy to demonstrate that amorality is a legal requirement of publicly held corporations. Imagine a situation in which a company has an opportunity to add 20% in profits to its bottom line. The opportunity is entirely legal. It's also unethical by most commonly accepted measures.

Should the company's management and board of directors decide to forgo this opportunity and shareholders found out about it, they'd have every right to sue or fire the lot of them for failing to maximize shareholder value - the alpha and omega of management responsibility in a publicly held corporation.

* Are all hiring managers heartless? Of course not, nor did I suggest this in my response. Hiring managers run the gamut, and as I said, the world of business is a network of personal relationships. Damaging these is generally a bad idea.

* Should the candidate inform the hiring manager that he's also considering another opportunity? This is questionable. The hiring manager might respond as my correspondent suggests. He or she might also, quite reasonably, view the situation as banks view mortgage applications: Once you lock in, the deal is done.

Many would consider the act of continuing to consider a different position to be an act of betrayal - a violation of a commitment. Or, the hiring manager might view this is a negotiating ploy to try to squeeze out more compensation - something that would leave a bad taste, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Putting yourself in the other person's position is of limited value as an ethical test here. Apply that guidance to any other negotiation and you'll see its limitations: If you put yourself in the other person's position you'd never be able to negotiate at all.

Here's another reason it provides the wrong guidance: Imagine you, as a hiring manager, knew your company was strongly considering a hiring freeze. You still have an open position, and the freeze isn't in place yet. Do you continue to recruit, knowing you might have to pull the plug at the last minute? Do you inform candidates of the possibility?

Of course you continue to recruit, and of course you don't inform applicants that there might be a freeze (doing so could, and should get you fired for revealing confidential information).

* How about the last point - that if the two parties can't trust each other then the working relationship is doomed from the start? My own view is that "trust" isn't a binary value - that it covers a broad range of values, from the interaction of "soul mates" on one end of the continuum to how U.S. diplomats need to interact with Vladimir Putin on the other.

When you start a working relationship you owe your manager the benefit of the doubt, but not absolute trust. The relationship will evolve from there.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 6, 2007 04:44 AM

June 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)

A smooth transition from one employer to another

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I've been working in the same job, same boss for the last 12 years. I'm well liked both personally and professionally by boss, his boss's; co-workers, non-IT stuff and a few external customers that I support.

We've got a major change coming that might mean my job isn't needed in years to come. In short, migrating off the software I develop and support to one provided by an external company. I can see work for the next year or so but beyond that, not sure. These are my thoughts not the companies.

About 6 months ago (6 months after change was announced) I expressed a desire to work 1 day a week at my church. A bit of negotiation but all went well.

Now, i've handed in my notice to current employer saying that I want to work with church full time. But the way it works, I could still work one day a week here; could do after hours stuff from home; and, with the blessing of the church, when major things occur over the next year or so with migration I can come back for a few weeks at a time or as the case may be.

Boss took the news well; he'd prefer me to stay but acknowledges why i'm leaving and the opportunities that my current place can't offer. He's supportive.

Bottom line: Church is willing to be flexible, I'm willing, and by the looks of it, so is my boss and his bosses.

My question comes down to salary.

Currently I get the usual conditions for my area; paid holiday, paid sick, public holidays, superannuation. Presently i'm paid 4/5 of my normal salary given that i'm working 4 days a week here.

If I go to one day a week, i'm thinking that 1/5 is probably not the right rate to go for. I'd get 1/5 the holidays, 1/5 the sick; but not really 1/5 the public holidays 'cause it would depend on when they occur.

Plus, I'm thinking that you're really wanting to keep me on for my skills for migration; that's worth something and is probably more than 1/5.

Should I go for a "pay rise" on the basis that you're actually saving a pile of money with me not being here; not replacing me as such; but still getting the benefit ?

This is actually a separate consideration to how I get paid; I could stay on as an employee, I could become a contractor. For the latter I'd definately do the sums with superannuation, sick, holiday etc; but so will they and they will know if i'm asking for more than the current rate.

Any advice?

- Moving on

Dear Moving ...

First of all, congratulations for engineering a first-class transition. This is the way to leave a company when you see your role evaporating: Good feelings all around, no time spent moping about the unfairness of it all, and you're working in a great situation for an employer you like.

Well done!

To answer your question: Your new role at your old place of employment sounds a lot more like a 1099 relationship than a W2 relationship. There is never any guarantee of how the IRS will look at the situation, of course. My advice on that front would be to let the company's HR department worry about it.

So I think you should suggest to your boss that he hire you as a contractor rather than keep you on as a part-time employee. Base your rates on local contracting rates rather than on your old salary, but fiddle and adjust with your old salary in mind. You want to avoid creating sticker shock. It could damage a relationship that right now is remarkably positive.

If, no matter how much you fiddle and adjust, you still end up with a consulting rate that's a multiple of your salary rather than an increment over it, it's time for a conversation with your old boss about applied theoretical microeconomics. It goes like this: If you only charge a rate equivalent to your old salary, but could easily make double that amount contracting with any other company in town, you have a serious financial incentive to do so.

You want to support your old employer through the transition, and to do so it's important for both sides that you don't have a powerful economic incentive to find a more lucrative client.

You want to do what's fair - what does he think makes sense for both of you?

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 5, 2007 08:14 AM

June 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The ability to say no

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

Thanks for the advice in "Positive traits to unlearn," Advice Line, 5/21/2007).

Unfortunately for me (professionally and personally), I've not been able to put my own interests first. After 50 years that's unlikely to change. And I'm paying the price; overloaded, impossible assignments, trips to the hospital with heart attack like symptoms.

Last week I drew the line with my boss: he resurrected a project that has no chance of success and asked me if we should make it a goal for next year. It's been tried three times; I was in charge of the last two. There was no positive result, it collapsed badly. My final response this time was "If you want to put me in the hospital, then I guess we'll do it".

Luckily another party who's seen these attempts intervened and told my boss this is an impossible project.

- Can't say no

Dear Won't ...

I don't think I've ever given this advice before, but I'm going to give it now: Seek professional help.

If you told your boss, "If you want to put me in the hospital, then I guess we'll do it," and you consider it to be drawing the line, I really do think you should ask someone with a deeper knowledge of psychology than me why you'd be willing to accept a near-certainty of physical harm because your employer asked you to do so.

If, on the other hand, it was a rhetorical ploy intended to stop the request because of the consequent guilt ... first, it didn't work (someone else had to intervene), and second, why impose guilt instead of simply saying, "The last two times we did tried this it failed and I nearly ended up in the hospital. Why would either of us want to try it again? Not a chance - if you're going to resurrect this you'll have to find someone else to run it this time. Life's too short and I value mine too much."

Among combat troops it's understood that some missions are going to be very risky. In exchange, soldiers have the right to expect that these missions are important enough that they should be willing to accept the risks.

It's rare that a business project could have the same level of impact and importance.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on June 3, 2007 06:27 PM