MORE ENTRIES
- Finding the balance between IT prudishness and permissiveness
- When standards are "Not Invented Here"
- A security policy conundrum
- Backstabbed in the background check?
- Do I have a double standard when it comes to ridicule?
- Skills for leading a non-profit
- More about values
- Whether oneness is a cause for concern
- Where are the box's boundaries
- Unauthorized e-mail and what to do about it
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
July 2007
Dear Bob ...
I liked your article ("The new prudes," Keep the Joint Running, 7/9/2007) and in theory agree.
What do you do with larger companies? I'm sure your tools are nice and work for you, but I want another set which makes me productive:
So we have thousands of various versions of applications making us all more productive. Does this cause any extra costs (network, support, etc?) Does the productivity pay for this cost? I would argue it doesn’t. Unless productivity is reducing an expense or driving up revenue then the tools are just a convenience.
Yikes, maybe I'm a prude!
Stifling creativity is a problem, but it seems their should be some controls. I'm just trying to find the right balance.
- In the middle
Dear Middling ...
Large corporations can view themselves as monoliths, as collections of test labs, or as something in between (that would be the "balance" thing you described). I generally prefer to err on the side of test labs while avoiding the extreme of having no standards at all.
This model would say that a project team might decide to try using MySpace as a way to promote information sharing. If it works, the company, instead of punishing you for being successful, implements equivalent functionality on its intranet. Last I looked this sort of thing went under the name "online PMO," but I haven't looked recently and it might have changed.
Likewise UTube, and whatever other functionality you think would make your team more effective.
I agree that "productivity" by itself isn't likely to pay for expensive functionality … but a lot of what I'm talking about isn't expensive at all, especially when you unitize it by employee. That is to say, if a piece of software costs $29.95 per PC, it's cheap. If you have 2,000 employees who would benefit from it, you can either figure it now costs $60,000 (expensive in some circles) or $29.95 per employee - still cheap, assuming the business turns a profit from the work of its employees.
Yes, there are hidden costs associated with these experiments, such as the potential for requiring a more robust network.
There are also hidden costs for preventing these experiments, such as loss of competitiveness as other, more nimble competitors adopt the more advanced techniques.
I'd also point out that there are three basic business "goods," not two: Revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and risk management. I'd think your proposed use of MySpace would fit into the risk mitigation bucket: Promoting better team information sharing reduces the risk of project failure by reducing the potential for rework.
Make sense?
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Continuing the discussion about IT standards and what to do when people ignore them (see "Roving e-mail," Keep the Joint Running, 7/2/2007): What about the employee who admits the corporate e-mail (or phone system, or desktop, or accounting system, or whatever) does everything their "chosen," but non-standard method does, but still won't change?
In my opinion, this employee has a significant "Not Invented Here" syndrome. I have come close to terminating this employee numerous times, but keep trying to find some management method to redeem this wayward child….who is a year older than me!
The company has been carrying the division that Mr. N.I.H. is supposed to be "developing" for over 4 years. Business sense says, cut the anchor and let the rest of the ship sail. I have been too much of an optimist for too long. Perhaps I am not a talented enough captain to direct a two masted ship.
- Sailing away
Dear Cap'n ...
You could, I suppose, try sarcasm: "Would you like an answering machine to attach to your phone so you don't have to use the corporate voicemail system, too?"
If the employee works for you, say, "Since you can't give me a reason for using your non-standard alternative, it's time for you to decide whether or not you want to be an employee. The company provides a perfectly satisfactory solution for what you want to do. Your decision to do something different, just because you feel like it, isn't acceptable. So if you want to be an employee, it's time to start acting like one. If you don't, tell me now."
If the employee doesn't work for you, you might consider approaching his/her manager. Present the situation, explain that you don't want to be the standards police and would prefer to handle things informally if possible.
Or, if there really isn't any negative impact on anyone other than the employee from making the non-standard choices, take advantage of your natural right to ignore the situation entirely.
- Bob
PS: From your description, failing to follow the company standard is the smallest issue you have with this guy. If I were you (from your account it does appear you're his boss), I'd find his complete failure to produce results to be the more interesting subject for discussion.
So much of what you stated (in "Roving e-mail," Keep the Joint Running, 7/2/2007) hit home.
About a year ago, our company shutdown access to all web email interfaces to non-company mail accounts. They did it for three reasons (that I could see): 1. Personal email wastes employee time and bandwidth, 2. Much objectionable material is sent via these accounts opening up the company to sexual harassment and other related liabilities, 3. Employees were using it to circumvent the auto-encryption routine that kicks in if the auto-encryption algorithm that scans all outgoing email determines you are sending financially sensitive information.
This encryption is important because I work for a financial services company and much of our information is very sensitive - if captured it could be used for identity theft or to compromise a pending deal. Employees were compromising the system (and negligently jeopardizing their customers) because the mechanism to retrieve encrypted email was too hard for many bank customers and vendors to use - especially for first time or sporadic users, who would ask for the information to be sent another way.
After the switch there were a lot of complaints and some training on using the encryption retrieval system. I suspect that many employees switched to faxing the information rather than subject their customers to this frustrating and time wasting system.
Support for the system was cumbersome because the unsophisticated sender would have to act as intermediary between the company Help Desk and the customer as the (outsourced) Help Desk will only take calls from employees.
I am an IT mid-level manager at a regional office. I think that the three reasons to shut off access to person email accounts are valid. Does it impact me personally? Not since I installed a secret DSL line and setup an isolated network of PC's for me, my boss and his boss that we all use to access our personal email accounts during office hours.
Do I feel bad for everyone else who doesn't have this access? Not really. They would just use it to waste their time....
- Mid-level IT manager
Dear Mid ...
This is an excellent example of the conundrum. Failing to enforce the policy subjects the company and its customers to liabilities. But enforcing it is terribly difficult because the system is so difficult to use.
It's entirely parallel to the problem with enforcing strong passwords: Users can't remember them, so they write them down on Post-It notes which the security-minded put in the front drawer of their desks and the rest stick to their monitors.
The solution, of course, to the extent there is a solution, is to make the system easy enough to use that the temptation to bypass it is reduced, coupled with ongoing education … really, marketing … regarding why compliance is important.
Thanks for sharing this. There's a lot of arguing from pure principle on this topic. Day-to-day experience of what happens in real work environments ought to have a place in the discussion as well.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
This is a followup to a question I asked you last year ("Dealing with a backstabber," Advice Line, 2/28/2006).
Finally, in February of this year, I was asked to leave. The cause was no performance improvement. The separation code was, I believe, 001 = job abolished. However, I received a package.
After many interviews with other companies I am finding it difficult to land a job.
I have had several interviews for up to three rounds, then I never hear from them.
Do you think the organization that terminated me has some information on record which is showing up on my background check and preventing me from landing a job?
I am really confused as to why I am not hearing from these organizations after three rounds of interviews. I am also running out of time on my un-employment insurance.
Please also enlighten me on the background check process.
- Might still be backstabbed
Dear Stillettoed ...
It's highly unlikely that your previous employer is providing any information beyond confirmation of employment. That's more or less the industry standard these days. So unless individuals you're supplying as references are expressing concerns about you that you aren't aware of, I'd rest easy on that score.
If you're applying for positions that require a background check, we're in different territory. Background checks include credit checks, searches for criminal indictments and convictions, general Internet searches to determine whether (for example) an applicant has operated a blog that has included negative or private information about previous employers, and so on.
If there's anything in your background that could cause a prospective employer concern, you should probably restrict your job search to positions where background checks are less likely.
If nothing else, Google your name and see what you find, unless your name is as generic as mine.
If you've been asked back for as many as three rounds of interviews on several occasions, I'd say the most likely explanation is bad luck: You're doing well but competing against other applicants who did a bit better. Focus your attention on your interviewing techniques. Make sure you:
* Appear relaxed and confident, but not arrogant
* Know how you're going to handle "disqualifying questions" - the ones that won't get you hired but can create doubts. The key to these is to provide responses that are short, unthreatening, and to the point.
* Look for opportunities to redirect the interview so you have the only discussion that really matters: How you're going to solve the hiring manager's problems.
In the meantime, don't be shy. Contact those companies that brought you back three times, and by "those companies" I don't mean the HR recruiters. Call the hiring manager, express your appreciation for the time everyone spent with you, and say something like, "I understand you chose someone else for the position we discussed. I just wanted you to know that based on our conversations, I'm still interested in opportunities in your company. Do you know of any I might be suited for? And if not, would you mind if I check in with you periodically?"
After all - if you're the only one looking for a job for you, your chances are lower than if others are thinking about you as well.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
In this week's Keep the Joint Running, "The value of a little failure here and there," (7/16/2007) you said this:
Ridicule is fun, persuasive, and best of all demonizes the group of people called them. It's the more emotionally satisfying alternative to understanding what's really going on. It combines scapegoating and ad hominem argument -- two of the most trod upon paving stones in the road to becoming an idiot.
Interesting that you should choose to make this statement so closely on the heels of your discussion of prudes ("The new prudes," 7/9/2007).
- Sensitive to double standards
Dear Sensitive ...
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Okay, that isn't good enough, is it?
There's no question, I'm small enough to enjoy poking fun at those with whom I disagree. It's one of those small, guilty pleasures, like eating a few Oreo cookies when my wife can't see me, that I have no intention of giving up.
The question is whether I'm being a hypocrite in doing so. I don't think so.
I'd be a hypocrite if, instead of presenting a logical, evidence-based position, I relied on the ridicule to persuade readers by scapegoating and ad hominem argument. This would take some form of, "Don't bother listening to those prudes. It's their fault your PCs are so annoying - you can't trust 'em anyway."
A point I missed, by the way, when explaining the problem with ridicule is that frequently it also relies on strawman arguments. So I might also have said, "The prudes want to take us all back to the days when you had to beg the high priests of IT for a few lines of COBOL code if you wanted to do anything at all."
They don't of course, but by putting ludicrous words in the mouths of the other side and then demonstrating how ludicrous they are, I'd have had an easy time of it.
So I confess: I succumbed to a guilty pleasure in using the word "prudes." It was less graceful than saying, "I disagree with those respectable IT experts and processionals who favor highly restrictive computing environments."
It was also, arguably, less drab. I'm not going to ask everyone in the world, when referring to those with whom they disagree, to avoid the use of any and all terms that might be considered pejorative in any way.
That would be prudish.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Again, Bob, even though I starred your June 25th column ( A leadership list in reverse) to read sometime later, it always gets me that your topics have relevance to whatever I'm doing on the day I read them!
Today, for instance, I was wandering the shelves of a local bookstore on my day off. I'm so busy managing the non-profit I'm responsible for that I rarely have time to look for words of wisdom on the shelves to assist me with my latest quest, which does have to do with learning about leadership.
For years, I was just part of the pack, free to do my job and criticize how the managers ran the place, keeping a mental list of what I'd do differently if I ran the show. And now, here I am doing just that. I know now, it's not easy, and I can see how so many of my previous managers just resorted to a totalitarian management style, probably more out of frustration than anything else.
In any case, I'm trying to learn not only how to lead this new organization, but to be an accountable, effective, and visionary consultant for the elected trustees to whom I am responsible. I guess what I'm trying to learn is how to work well with boards. It's a different relationship than when I was part of the team, and worked with management. With boards, you are at the same time their consultant, and also at times, their witness to cross-examine!
After working with these people for a few years, I believe we've established mutual trust and respect, but it's the dynamic workings of such groups that leaves me at a loss to understand how best to operate in some circumstances. I think I have a tendency to be reactive. (This is probably the sentence you'll zero right in on, and rightly so. Recognizing something is a problem is usually considered the first step towards fixing it, right?).
I would consider myself an open and direct person, but I have the feeling I could benefit from some coaching in 'persuasion.' Was it you who mentioned the 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene? I knew how to take his tongue-in-cheek rulebook, but it's amazing how, since reading that book, I can see his principles, tactics and strategies in the behavior of others!
So some of the titles I jotted down today: How to Talk so People Will Listen, Covert Persuasion, Crucial Conversations, How to have Confidence and Power in Dealing with People, Secrets of Power Persuasion (and forgive me) The Art of War for Women. What I bought? Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion.
So I'm not sure there was a question here, Bob, but if you have anything to recommend, I would sure listen.
- Learning the Ropes
Dear Learning ...
That's the problem with books about leadership: There are so many of them; each looks at the problem from a different angle; and so few offer actual, practical advice.
What's saddest of all is how few books by successful leaders provide anything of value. Too often they're chest-thumping exercises in ego-gratification.
That is, by the way, the reason I wrote my own.
Of the titles you mentioned, I think you chose the right one.
Anyway, I'd say you took the most important step when you recognized the peculiar relationship you have with the board(s?) with whom you work. It is as you say, only more so: Sometimes you're a consultant. Sometimes you're a scapegoat. When you feel like you're being interrogated, what's usually going on is that one or more board members figure they could have done the job better had they only had the time and inclination. Their questions are usually of the "didja" variety ("Didja think of this? Didja do that?") and are seemingly designed to put you on the defensive.
But really, they're designed to impress you with the expertise and acumen of the questioner.
More than anything else, someone running a non-profit enterprise has to master just a few key skills. The ones that occur to me at the moment are:
1. Time management, which is the polite way of saying, make sure you keep control of your calendar. My guess is that you're working with volunteers, including a volunteer board, and that means most of the people you're dealing with are in the game for two reasons - a desire to do good works, and an equally strong need for ego-gratification. They aren't going to get it unless you give it to them. For most, part of it is getting enough of your time to feel like a member of the "inner circle."
And so, you'll often feel like you're the rope in a game of tug o' war.
Keep control of your calendar.
2. Become very good at the game of ego-gratification. Sometimes it takes nothing more than remembering to say, "That's an excellent point," whether you think it's an excellent point, a point that's correct but so obvious that only the stalest slice in the loaf would bother to make it, or a remarkable example of the Unverbalized Stupidity Uncertainty Principle - the principle that when stupid people keep their mouths shut you're less certain they're idiots.
3. Become even better at recognizing the talents each volunteer brings to you. Among your volunteers you'll find an amazing array of useful skills. If you can figure out how to assemble them into working groups that buy into assignments you can get a lot done.
4. Your board: Theoretically it's there to provide direction, governance, oversight and guidance. It's really there to support your fund-raising efforts. The more you're willing to allow the former, the more you'll get the latter - especially if you remind them of it from time to time.
You'll also find some truly important talent and skills on your board. Take advantage of them. Especially between board meetings. Cultivate each board member, asking one-on-one advice of each. That will make you appear smart to each of them; also a team player.
One of the skills you're unlikely to find on your board is knowledge of how to effectively delegate - to you, that is. So you'll constantly find yourself in the position of those who are on the receiving end of poor delegation everywhere. The solution: Excel in the science of reverse delegation.
Which means, help those delegating to you delegate better by spotting what they failed to do and making sure they do it. If they delegate something without assigning a deadline, ask what the deadline is. If they don't make it clear whether you have the authority to decide or just to recommend, ask. If they don't establish regular checkpoints, suggest them.
When you decide to take the initiative, be careful to put your initiatives in front of the board and say, "Here's what I'm planning to do over the next six months. I want to make sure it's the right list before the staff, our volunteers and I get too far along on it all."
5. Make your paid staff the true inner circle. Volunteers come and go; so do board members. Your paid staff are, or should be, your additional eyes and ears, to help you know What's Going On Out There, whether it's how patrons are reacting, which board members get along with which other board members, which volunteers have become romantically involved (it happens; you need to know when it does), which can't stand each other or view each other as rivals.
I'm sure there's a lot more I'm not thinking of. That's okay. You'll figure it out.
- Bob
My recent post, "Are values personal or universal - and why it matters," (Advice Line, June 24, 2007) generated a great deal of commentary. It's worth your time to read.
I thought two of the comments warranted direct responses. One said this:
Wow, had no idea you were so anti-religion. I can quit reading now; that's a help, actually, since I already don't have time to read everything I would like to.
[Btw, the constitution is a magnificent document, but it's for structuring a gov't, not one's life.]
For the record, I'm not anti-religion. As a source of personal values it can be a marvelous force. Or a dreadful one, depending on the religion and its interpretation, of course.
I'm against religion as the imposition of one person's values, or those of a group, on others. I'm against this use of religion whether the imposition is through the passage of religion-driven laws, direct oppression, or a boss using his/her authority to impose religious values on employees as an implied condition of work.
And no, I'm not overstating things. I've heard of managers conducting prayer sessions with employees. Those who attend inevitably are viewed more favorably than the rest. Among other reasons: They clearly have stronger values (in the eyes of their manager).
The other question was tougher:
Hmmm, there are no ethical absolutes?
Is it right for me to:
- Kill baby humans for sport?
- Take anything I want that without paying?
- Rape women?
- Cheat on my wife?
- Tell others you do all the above?
Now you may find those who would say yes to some, but not if it was done to them.
These challenges are common ones when discussing ethical relativism. I've thought long and hard about this, and have come to these conclusions:
Are baby killing and the other practices on the list okay with me? No. They aren't, and I prefer to live in a society where they aren't considered acceptable. That isn't the question, though. The question is whether I consider myself to be "right," or whether I figure I've chosen sides. I think the only honest answer is that I've chosen sides.
Throughout human history there have been those who have considered one or more of these to be entirely acceptable behavior, especially when practiced by conquerors among the conquered.
I have two choices. The first is to consider myself morally superior to them. As evidence for my moral superiority I have this: Mom raised me better.
Of course, they would have considered themselves superior to me. As evidence, they'd have crushed my skull with their clubs or whatever, demonstrating that their gods were more powerful than my gods ... and therefore their morals were superior to mine by definition.
Or, I can consider myself morally different from them and consider their behavior to be unacceptable to me. As evidence I have this: That's how I feel about it, and I'll do what I have to in order to make sure that sort of behavior isn't practiced in the society I live in.
Many moral absolutists figure ethical relativism means accepting whatever anyone decides they want to do. That isn't the case. Moral relativism means acknowledging that what is and isn't moral changes with one's point of view. That means each of us has to accept responsibility for the moral code we practice, and for deciding where the boundaries have to be in the societies we live in.
It's more complicated than moral absolutism. But then, relativity makes physics more complicated, too. That isn't a reason to discount it.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Over the past six months or so I have run across several companies, including my most recent and current employers, who have mottoes on their sites along these lines: One Company, One Vision, One Source.
Among those that I remember seeing with this oneness thing going on are Wachovia and Saks Fifth Ave. This all sounds too much like Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer for my taste.
Which nut case consulting company is selling everyone their own unique sense of ONE? And please don't tell me it's some guy from Brazil!
- Counting higher
Dear Counting ...
Well .. (ahem) … consultants like me, I'm afraid.
Nothing is the right answer for everyone. Some companies are best served following an "amoeba strategy" where business units, divisions, departments or even individual employees do whatever seems promising. When a pseudopod finds food, the amoeba flows protoplasm into it.
Many companies, though, can't afford to divide their efforts in such an unplanned way. More, many companies find themselves divided into organizational "castles" with high thick walls and moats (to borrow Mike Hammer's metaphor).
They're political quagmires. To use a different metaphor, they're ecologies rather than organisms.
I don't much go in for mottoes and printed missions statements. I do often help clients figure out how to move from operating as an ecology to operating as an organism. It's a radical change in mindset - moving from everyone doing their own thing to the company operating according to a single, shared purpose.
What made the Reich evil, in my opinion, wasn't that it had a single purpose. It was the nature of that purpose.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm responding to your recent Keep the Joint Running, "Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," (6/18/2007) where you discuss the importance of "out-of-the-box" thinking.
I believe the value of "new ideas" or (groan) "thinking outside the box" is highly over-rated. There's always a notion and even a conceit that says that what an organization needs is new ideas, specifically my new ideas. That's what politicians campaign on. The difficulty is not coming up with new ideas. I would wager in any organization that you could get 5 - 10 people from anywhere in the organization and they could come up with 10 - 20 valid new ideas if they sat down and discussed it for an hour. The problem is not the dearth of ideas; it's the planning, organizing and execution of ideas.
Most of the ideas I have heard are high level "concepts" that have value and you can't argue with. Let's streamline this operation, someone might say. Who could argue? But assembling a team of capable people to analyze and actually do the planning is hard to do. Then making a plan and obtaining the resources to support the plan and the "streamlining" can be damn near impossible.
Good idea, yes. But just try doing it without staff, without funding and doing it on some ridiculous schedule that’s pulled from the sky. I blame at least part of this on previous cut-backs which largely eliminated true staff people who didn't have production responsibilities but looked ahead, tried to do the planning necessary and the strategic thinking. Staff people are among the first to go during all the cut-back of "fat". Now operational managers have to do a lot of staff or administrative duties in addition to keeping the place running. Then someone comes up with a good idea and they have to spend more time trying to analyze data and identify roadblocks, obstacles, or whatever to make operations move even faster. Ironically, this usually increases their work load.
In summary, good ideas are plentiful; it's the planning, organizing and execution that’s the trick.
- Executioner
Dear Executioner ...
Vague goals are commonplace. Truly innovative ideas are another matter. "Streamline this operation" is hardly thinking outside the box, after all. "Instead of setting reorder points, restocking levels and estimating delivery time we could just let our selected vendor monitor our inventory and keep it within contractually established boundaries," is a different matter.
Thinking outside the box is a matter of spotting the hidden assumptions that are built into a solution for reasons that once were important but no longer are, and figuring out what you can do now that they no longer constrain you.
At least, that's how I define the phrase.
We are, by the way, in complete agreement that compared to the challenges of execution, developing useful ideas is relatively easy. In my estimation, a healthy organization should generate at least an order of magnitude more good ideas than it's in a position to pursue. It's the organizations that have shut off the spigot that concern me.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
With respect to this week's KJR ("Roving e-mail," 7/1/2007):
Not that they ever would give this answer on the record but what do you do if your users tell you they are using an external system in order to evade legal requirements on the official system?
- Dodger
Dear Dodger ...
You tell your users that you didn't hear them, and could they please not repeat it.
No matter what your retention policies, employees will err on the side of self-protection, which means that if nothing else they'll mail themselves copies of any e-mail they think will help them if the company tries to scapegoat them on a legally troubling issue.
This is one of those situations where everyone is better off pretending. Asking employees to accept a scapegoat role is a non-starter. Trying to prevent their forwarding dangerous e-mails to their home accounts is impossible. Doing nothing is equally impossible.
So don't ask and don't tell. It's best for everyone concerned.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
In your recent Keep the Joint Running, "Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," you made the point that leadership is easiest in a crisis.
This comment leads me to a point I don't see covered: I view an essential part of true leadership to be that your curiosity makes you so plugged into the task you're leading that nothing is ever allowed to become a crisis, but is dealt with when it is small enough to not require the expenditure of all of your resources (and maybe somebody else's).
Crisis is prima facie evidence of poor planning or environmental awareness, not an opportunity to "show your stuff". Poor Richard's "a stitch in time saves nine" comment comes to mind.
- Jim Trawick
Dear Jim ...
Your discussion of crisis struck a chord. Space limitations prevent my exploring all of the ideas I'd like in each column (I set myself a limit of 800 words to prevent the tendency to ramble interminably, which seems to be commonplace on-line). I wish I could use that as an excuse.
The fact is, I'd missed the strong inverse correlation between competence and crisis. I don't agree that all crises are foreseeable and avoidable. It certainly is the case that most of them are.
- Bob
July 31, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Finding the balance between IT prudishness and permissiveness
Dear Bob ...
I liked your article ("The new prudes," Keep the Joint Running, 7/9/2007) and in theory agree.
What do you do with larger companies? I'm sure your tools are nice and work for you, but I want another set which makes me productive:
- I'd like a MySpace page to set up for my global team. It's the best way to gain consensus and keep everyone up to speed. It's controlled so only my team can view.
- I'd like to have Utube so I can show my presentation to my team, I want to use a video as it's cheaper than video conferencing and not each person who works remote has this functionality. Everyone with a phone can create a video.
So we have thousands of various versions of applications making us all more productive. Does this cause any extra costs (network, support, etc?) Does the productivity pay for this cost? I would argue it doesn’t. Unless productivity is reducing an expense or driving up revenue then the tools are just a convenience.
Yikes, maybe I'm a prude!
Stifling creativity is a problem, but it seems their should be some controls. I'm just trying to find the right balance.
- In the middle
Dear Middling ...
Large corporations can view themselves as monoliths, as collections of test labs, or as something in between (that would be the "balance" thing you described). I generally prefer to err on the side of test labs while avoiding the extreme of having no standards at all.
This model would say that a project team might decide to try using MySpace as a way to promote information sharing. If it works, the company, instead of punishing you for being successful, implements equivalent functionality on its intranet. Last I looked this sort of thing went under the name "online PMO," but I haven't looked recently and it might have changed.
Likewise UTube, and whatever other functionality you think would make your team more effective.
I agree that "productivity" by itself isn't likely to pay for expensive functionality … but a lot of what I'm talking about isn't expensive at all, especially when you unitize it by employee. That is to say, if a piece of software costs $29.95 per PC, it's cheap. If you have 2,000 employees who would benefit from it, you can either figure it now costs $60,000 (expensive in some circles) or $29.95 per employee - still cheap, assuming the business turns a profit from the work of its employees.
Yes, there are hidden costs associated with these experiments, such as the potential for requiring a more robust network.
There are also hidden costs for preventing these experiments, such as loss of competitiveness as other, more nimble competitors adopt the more advanced techniques.
I'd also point out that there are three basic business "goods," not two: Revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and risk management. I'd think your proposed use of MySpace would fit into the risk mitigation bucket: Promoting better team information sharing reduces the risk of project failure by reducing the potential for rework.
Make sense?
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 31, 2007 05:12 AM
July 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
When standards are "Not Invented Here"
Dear Bob ...
Continuing the discussion about IT standards and what to do when people ignore them (see "Roving e-mail," Keep the Joint Running, 7/2/2007): What about the employee who admits the corporate e-mail (or phone system, or desktop, or accounting system, or whatever) does everything their "chosen," but non-standard method does, but still won't change?
In my opinion, this employee has a significant "Not Invented Here" syndrome. I have come close to terminating this employee numerous times, but keep trying to find some management method to redeem this wayward child….who is a year older than me!
The company has been carrying the division that Mr. N.I.H. is supposed to be "developing" for over 4 years. Business sense says, cut the anchor and let the rest of the ship sail. I have been too much of an optimist for too long. Perhaps I am not a talented enough captain to direct a two masted ship.
- Sailing away
Dear Cap'n ...
You could, I suppose, try sarcasm: "Would you like an answering machine to attach to your phone so you don't have to use the corporate voicemail system, too?"
If the employee works for you, say, "Since you can't give me a reason for using your non-standard alternative, it's time for you to decide whether or not you want to be an employee. The company provides a perfectly satisfactory solution for what you want to do. Your decision to do something different, just because you feel like it, isn't acceptable. So if you want to be an employee, it's time to start acting like one. If you don't, tell me now."
If the employee doesn't work for you, you might consider approaching his/her manager. Present the situation, explain that you don't want to be the standards police and would prefer to handle things informally if possible.
Or, if there really isn't any negative impact on anyone other than the employee from making the non-standard choices, take advantage of your natural right to ignore the situation entirely.
- Bob
PS: From your description, failing to follow the company standard is the smallest issue you have with this guy. If I were you (from your account it does appear you're his boss), I'd find his complete failure to produce results to be the more interesting subject for discussion.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 27, 2007 12:56 PM
July 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...So much of what you stated (in "Roving e-mail," Keep the Joint Running, 7/2/2007) hit home.
About a year ago, our company shutdown access to all web email interfaces to non-company mail accounts. They did it for three reasons (that I could see): 1. Personal email wastes employee time and bandwidth, 2. Much objectionable material is sent via these accounts opening up the company to sexual harassment and other related liabilities, 3. Employees were using it to circumvent the auto-encryption routine that kicks in if the auto-encryption algorithm that scans all outgoing email determines you are sending financially sensitive information.
This encryption is important because I work for a financial services company and much of our information is very sensitive - if captured it could be used for identity theft or to compromise a pending deal. Employees were compromising the system (and negligently jeopardizing their customers) because the mechanism to retrieve encrypted email was too hard for many bank customers and vendors to use - especially for first time or sporadic users, who would ask for the information to be sent another way.
After the switch there were a lot of complaints and some training on using the encryption retrieval system. I suspect that many employees switched to faxing the information rather than subject their customers to this frustrating and time wasting system.
Support for the system was cumbersome because the unsophisticated sender would have to act as intermediary between the company Help Desk and the customer as the (outsourced) Help Desk will only take calls from employees.
I am an IT mid-level manager at a regional office. I think that the three reasons to shut off access to person email accounts are valid. Does it impact me personally? Not since I installed a secret DSL line and setup an isolated network of PC's for me, my boss and his boss that we all use to access our personal email accounts during office hours.
Do I feel bad for everyone else who doesn't have this access? Not really. They would just use it to waste their time....
- Mid-level IT manager
Dear Mid ...
This is an excellent example of the conundrum. Failing to enforce the policy subjects the company and its customers to liabilities. But enforcing it is terribly difficult because the system is so difficult to use.
It's entirely parallel to the problem with enforcing strong passwords: Users can't remember them, so they write them down on Post-It notes which the security-minded put in the front drawer of their desks and the rest stick to their monitors.
The solution, of course, to the extent there is a solution, is to make the system easy enough to use that the temptation to bypass it is reduced, coupled with ongoing education … really, marketing … regarding why compliance is important.
Thanks for sharing this. There's a lot of arguing from pure principle on this topic. Day-to-day experience of what happens in real work environments ought to have a place in the discussion as well.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 25, 2007 05:56 AM
July 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Backstabbed in the background check?
Dear Bob ...
This is a followup to a question I asked you last year ("Dealing with a backstabber," Advice Line, 2/28/2006).
Finally, in February of this year, I was asked to leave. The cause was no performance improvement. The separation code was, I believe, 001 = job abolished. However, I received a package.
After many interviews with other companies I am finding it difficult to land a job.
I have had several interviews for up to three rounds, then I never hear from them.
Do you think the organization that terminated me has some information on record which is showing up on my background check and preventing me from landing a job?
I am really confused as to why I am not hearing from these organizations after three rounds of interviews. I am also running out of time on my un-employment insurance.
Please also enlighten me on the background check process.
- Might still be backstabbed
Dear Stillettoed ...
It's highly unlikely that your previous employer is providing any information beyond confirmation of employment. That's more or less the industry standard these days. So unless individuals you're supplying as references are expressing concerns about you that you aren't aware of, I'd rest easy on that score.
If you're applying for positions that require a background check, we're in different territory. Background checks include credit checks, searches for criminal indictments and convictions, general Internet searches to determine whether (for example) an applicant has operated a blog that has included negative or private information about previous employers, and so on.
If there's anything in your background that could cause a prospective employer concern, you should probably restrict your job search to positions where background checks are less likely.
If nothing else, Google your name and see what you find, unless your name is as generic as mine.
If you've been asked back for as many as three rounds of interviews on several occasions, I'd say the most likely explanation is bad luck: You're doing well but competing against other applicants who did a bit better. Focus your attention on your interviewing techniques. Make sure you:
* Appear relaxed and confident, but not arrogant
* Know how you're going to handle "disqualifying questions" - the ones that won't get you hired but can create doubts. The key to these is to provide responses that are short, unthreatening, and to the point.
* Look for opportunities to redirect the interview so you have the only discussion that really matters: How you're going to solve the hiring manager's problems.
In the meantime, don't be shy. Contact those companies that brought you back three times, and by "those companies" I don't mean the HR recruiters. Call the hiring manager, express your appreciation for the time everyone spent with you, and say something like, "I understand you chose someone else for the position we discussed. I just wanted you to know that based on our conversations, I'm still interested in opportunities in your company. Do you know of any I might be suited for? And if not, would you mind if I check in with you periodically?"
After all - if you're the only one looking for a job for you, your chances are lower than if others are thinking about you as well.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 21, 2007 03:18 PM
July 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Do I have a double standard when it comes to ridicule?
Dear Bob ...
In this week's Keep the Joint Running, "The value of a little failure here and there," (7/16/2007) you said this:
Ridicule is fun, persuasive, and best of all demonizes the group of people called them. It's the more emotionally satisfying alternative to understanding what's really going on. It combines scapegoating and ad hominem argument -- two of the most trod upon paving stones in the road to becoming an idiot.
Interesting that you should choose to make this statement so closely on the heels of your discussion of prudes ("The new prudes," 7/9/2007).
- Sensitive to double standards
Dear Sensitive ...
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Okay, that isn't good enough, is it?
There's no question, I'm small enough to enjoy poking fun at those with whom I disagree. It's one of those small, guilty pleasures, like eating a few Oreo cookies when my wife can't see me, that I have no intention of giving up.
The question is whether I'm being a hypocrite in doing so. I don't think so.
I'd be a hypocrite if, instead of presenting a logical, evidence-based position, I relied on the ridicule to persuade readers by scapegoating and ad hominem argument. This would take some form of, "Don't bother listening to those prudes. It's their fault your PCs are so annoying - you can't trust 'em anyway."
A point I missed, by the way, when explaining the problem with ridicule is that frequently it also relies on strawman arguments. So I might also have said, "The prudes want to take us all back to the days when you had to beg the high priests of IT for a few lines of COBOL code if you wanted to do anything at all."
They don't of course, but by putting ludicrous words in the mouths of the other side and then demonstrating how ludicrous they are, I'd have had an easy time of it.
So I confess: I succumbed to a guilty pleasure in using the word "prudes." It was less graceful than saying, "I disagree with those respectable IT experts and processionals who favor highly restrictive computing environments."
It was also, arguably, less drab. I'm not going to ask everyone in the world, when referring to those with whom they disagree, to avoid the use of any and all terms that might be considered pejorative in any way.
That would be prudish.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 19, 2007 06:28 AM
July 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Skills for leading a non-profit
Dear Bob ...
Again, Bob, even though I starred your June 25th column ( A leadership list in reverse) to read sometime later, it always gets me that your topics have relevance to whatever I'm doing on the day I read them!
Today, for instance, I was wandering the shelves of a local bookstore on my day off. I'm so busy managing the non-profit I'm responsible for that I rarely have time to look for words of wisdom on the shelves to assist me with my latest quest, which does have to do with learning about leadership.
For years, I was just part of the pack, free to do my job and criticize how the managers ran the place, keeping a mental list of what I'd do differently if I ran the show. And now, here I am doing just that. I know now, it's not easy, and I can see how so many of my previous managers just resorted to a totalitarian management style, probably more out of frustration than anything else.
In any case, I'm trying to learn not only how to lead this new organization, but to be an accountable, effective, and visionary consultant for the elected trustees to whom I am responsible. I guess what I'm trying to learn is how to work well with boards. It's a different relationship than when I was part of the team, and worked with management. With boards, you are at the same time their consultant, and also at times, their witness to cross-examine!
After working with these people for a few years, I believe we've established mutual trust and respect, but it's the dynamic workings of such groups that leaves me at a loss to understand how best to operate in some circumstances. I think I have a tendency to be reactive. (This is probably the sentence you'll zero right in on, and rightly so. Recognizing something is a problem is usually considered the first step towards fixing it, right?).
I would consider myself an open and direct person, but I have the feeling I could benefit from some coaching in 'persuasion.' Was it you who mentioned the 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene? I knew how to take his tongue-in-cheek rulebook, but it's amazing how, since reading that book, I can see his principles, tactics and strategies in the behavior of others!
So some of the titles I jotted down today: How to Talk so People Will Listen, Covert Persuasion, Crucial Conversations, How to have Confidence and Power in Dealing with People, Secrets of Power Persuasion (and forgive me) The Art of War for Women. What I bought? Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion.
So I'm not sure there was a question here, Bob, but if you have anything to recommend, I would sure listen.
- Learning the Ropes
Dear Learning ...
That's the problem with books about leadership: There are so many of them; each looks at the problem from a different angle; and so few offer actual, practical advice.
What's saddest of all is how few books by successful leaders provide anything of value. Too often they're chest-thumping exercises in ego-gratification.
That is, by the way, the reason I wrote my own.
Of the titles you mentioned, I think you chose the right one.
Anyway, I'd say you took the most important step when you recognized the peculiar relationship you have with the board(s?) with whom you work. It is as you say, only more so: Sometimes you're a consultant. Sometimes you're a scapegoat. When you feel like you're being interrogated, what's usually going on is that one or more board members figure they could have done the job better had they only had the time and inclination. Their questions are usually of the "didja" variety ("Didja think of this? Didja do that?") and are seemingly designed to put you on the defensive.
But really, they're designed to impress you with the expertise and acumen of the questioner.
More than anything else, someone running a non-profit enterprise has to master just a few key skills. The ones that occur to me at the moment are:
1. Time management, which is the polite way of saying, make sure you keep control of your calendar. My guess is that you're working with volunteers, including a volunteer board, and that means most of the people you're dealing with are in the game for two reasons - a desire to do good works, and an equally strong need for ego-gratification. They aren't going to get it unless you give it to them. For most, part of it is getting enough of your time to feel like a member of the "inner circle."
And so, you'll often feel like you're the rope in a game of tug o' war.
Keep control of your calendar.
2. Become very good at the game of ego-gratification. Sometimes it takes nothing more than remembering to say, "That's an excellent point," whether you think it's an excellent point, a point that's correct but so obvious that only the stalest slice in the loaf would bother to make it, or a remarkable example of the Unverbalized Stupidity Uncertainty Principle - the principle that when stupid people keep their mouths shut you're less certain they're idiots.
3. Become even better at recognizing the talents each volunteer brings to you. Among your volunteers you'll find an amazing array of useful skills. If you can figure out how to assemble them into working groups that buy into assignments you can get a lot done.
4. Your board: Theoretically it's there to provide direction, governance, oversight and guidance. It's really there to support your fund-raising efforts. The more you're willing to allow the former, the more you'll get the latter - especially if you remind them of it from time to time.
You'll also find some truly important talent and skills on your board. Take advantage of them. Especially between board meetings. Cultivate each board member, asking one-on-one advice of each. That will make you appear smart to each of them; also a team player.
One of the skills you're unlikely to find on your board is knowledge of how to effectively delegate - to you, that is. So you'll constantly find yourself in the position of those who are on the receiving end of poor delegation everywhere. The solution: Excel in the science of reverse delegation.
Which means, help those delegating to you delegate better by spotting what they failed to do and making sure they do it. If they delegate something without assigning a deadline, ask what the deadline is. If they don't make it clear whether you have the authority to decide or just to recommend, ask. If they don't establish regular checkpoints, suggest them.
When you decide to take the initiative, be careful to put your initiatives in front of the board and say, "Here's what I'm planning to do over the next six months. I want to make sure it's the right list before the staff, our volunteers and I get too far along on it all."
5. Make your paid staff the true inner circle. Volunteers come and go; so do board members. Your paid staff are, or should be, your additional eyes and ears, to help you know What's Going On Out There, whether it's how patrons are reacting, which board members get along with which other board members, which volunteers have become romantically involved (it happens; you need to know when it does), which can't stand each other or view each other as rivals.
I'm sure there's a lot more I'm not thinking of. That's okay. You'll figure it out.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 17, 2007 08:16 PM
July 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
My recent post, "Are values personal or universal - and why it matters," (Advice Line, June 24, 2007) generated a great deal of commentary. It's worth your time to read.
I thought two of the comments warranted direct responses. One said this:
Wow, had no idea you were so anti-religion. I can quit reading now; that's a help, actually, since I already don't have time to read everything I would like to.
[Btw, the constitution is a magnificent document, but it's for structuring a gov't, not one's life.]
For the record, I'm not anti-religion. As a source of personal values it can be a marvelous force. Or a dreadful one, depending on the religion and its interpretation, of course.
I'm against religion as the imposition of one person's values, or those of a group, on others. I'm against this use of religion whether the imposition is through the passage of religion-driven laws, direct oppression, or a boss using his/her authority to impose religious values on employees as an implied condition of work.
And no, I'm not overstating things. I've heard of managers conducting prayer sessions with employees. Those who attend inevitably are viewed more favorably than the rest. Among other reasons: They clearly have stronger values (in the eyes of their manager).
The other question was tougher:
Hmmm, there are no ethical absolutes?
Is it right for me to:
- Kill baby humans for sport?
- Take anything I want that without paying?
- Rape women?
- Cheat on my wife?
- Tell others you do all the above?
Now you may find those who would say yes to some, but not if it was done to them.
These challenges are common ones when discussing ethical relativism. I've thought long and hard about this, and have come to these conclusions:
Are baby killing and the other practices on the list okay with me? No. They aren't, and I prefer to live in a society where they aren't considered acceptable. That isn't the question, though. The question is whether I consider myself to be "right," or whether I figure I've chosen sides. I think the only honest answer is that I've chosen sides.
Throughout human history there have been those who have considered one or more of these to be entirely acceptable behavior, especially when practiced by conquerors among the conquered.
I have two choices. The first is to consider myself morally superior to them. As evidence for my moral superiority I have this: Mom raised me better.
Of course, they would have considered themselves superior to me. As evidence, they'd have crushed my skull with their clubs or whatever, demonstrating that their gods were more powerful than my gods ... and therefore their morals were superior to mine by definition.
Or, I can consider myself morally different from them and consider their behavior to be unacceptable to me. As evidence I have this: That's how I feel about it, and I'll do what I have to in order to make sure that sort of behavior isn't practiced in the society I live in.
Many moral absolutists figure ethical relativism means accepting whatever anyone decides they want to do. That isn't the case. Moral relativism means acknowledging that what is and isn't moral changes with one's point of view. That means each of us has to accept responsibility for the moral code we practice, and for deciding where the boundaries have to be in the societies we live in.
It's more complicated than moral absolutism. But then, relativity makes physics more complicated, too. That isn't a reason to discount it.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 16, 2007 09:34 AM
July 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Whether oneness is a cause for concern
Dear Bob ...
Over the past six months or so I have run across several companies, including my most recent and current employers, who have mottoes on their sites along these lines: One Company, One Vision, One Source.
Among those that I remember seeing with this oneness thing going on are Wachovia and Saks Fifth Ave. This all sounds too much like Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer for my taste.
Which nut case consulting company is selling everyone their own unique sense of ONE? And please don't tell me it's some guy from Brazil!
- Counting higher
Dear Counting ...
Well .. (ahem) … consultants like me, I'm afraid.
Nothing is the right answer for everyone. Some companies are best served following an "amoeba strategy" where business units, divisions, departments or even individual employees do whatever seems promising. When a pseudopod finds food, the amoeba flows protoplasm into it.
Many companies, though, can't afford to divide their efforts in such an unplanned way. More, many companies find themselves divided into organizational "castles" with high thick walls and moats (to borrow Mike Hammer's metaphor).
They're political quagmires. To use a different metaphor, they're ecologies rather than organisms.
I don't much go in for mottoes and printed missions statements. I do often help clients figure out how to move from operating as an ecology to operating as an organism. It's a radical change in mindset - moving from everyone doing their own thing to the company operating according to a single, shared purpose.
What made the Reich evil, in my opinion, wasn't that it had a single purpose. It was the nature of that purpose.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 11, 2007 03:48 AM
July 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Where are the box's boundaries
Dear Bob ...
I'm responding to your recent Keep the Joint Running, "Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," (6/18/2007) where you discuss the importance of "out-of-the-box" thinking.
I believe the value of "new ideas" or (groan) "thinking outside the box" is highly over-rated. There's always a notion and even a conceit that says that what an organization needs is new ideas, specifically my new ideas. That's what politicians campaign on. The difficulty is not coming up with new ideas. I would wager in any organization that you could get 5 - 10 people from anywhere in the organization and they could come up with 10 - 20 valid new ideas if they sat down and discussed it for an hour. The problem is not the dearth of ideas; it's the planning, organizing and execution of ideas.
Most of the ideas I have heard are high level "concepts" that have value and you can't argue with. Let's streamline this operation, someone might say. Who could argue? But assembling a team of capable people to analyze and actually do the planning is hard to do. Then making a plan and obtaining the resources to support the plan and the "streamlining" can be damn near impossible.
Good idea, yes. But just try doing it without staff, without funding and doing it on some ridiculous schedule that’s pulled from the sky. I blame at least part of this on previous cut-backs which largely eliminated true staff people who didn't have production responsibilities but looked ahead, tried to do the planning necessary and the strategic thinking. Staff people are among the first to go during all the cut-back of "fat". Now operational managers have to do a lot of staff or administrative duties in addition to keeping the place running. Then someone comes up with a good idea and they have to spend more time trying to analyze data and identify roadblocks, obstacles, or whatever to make operations move even faster. Ironically, this usually increases their work load.
In summary, good ideas are plentiful; it's the planning, organizing and execution that’s the trick.
- Executioner
Dear Executioner ...
Vague goals are commonplace. Truly innovative ideas are another matter. "Streamline this operation" is hardly thinking outside the box, after all. "Instead of setting reorder points, restocking levels and estimating delivery time we could just let our selected vendor monitor our inventory and keep it within contractually established boundaries," is a different matter.
Thinking outside the box is a matter of spotting the hidden assumptions that are built into a solution for reasons that once were important but no longer are, and figuring out what you can do now that they no longer constrain you.
At least, that's how I define the phrase.
We are, by the way, in complete agreement that compared to the challenges of execution, developing useful ideas is relatively easy. In my estimation, a healthy organization should generate at least an order of magnitude more good ideas than it's in a position to pursue. It's the organizations that have shut off the spigot that concern me.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 8, 2007 04:12 PM
July 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Unauthorized e-mail and what to do about it
Dear Bob ...
With respect to this week's KJR ("Roving e-mail," 7/1/2007):
Not that they ever would give this answer on the record but what do you do if your users tell you they are using an external system in order to evade legal requirements on the official system?
- Dodger
Dear Dodger ...
You tell your users that you didn't hear them, and could they please not repeat it.
No matter what your retention policies, employees will err on the side of self-protection, which means that if nothing else they'll mail themselves copies of any e-mail they think will help them if the company tries to scapegoat them on a legally troubling issue.
This is one of those situations where everyone is better off pretending. Asking employees to accept a scapegoat role is a non-starter. Trying to prevent their forwarding dangerous e-mails to their home accounts is impossible. Doing nothing is equally impossible.
So don't ask and don't tell. It's best for everyone concerned.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 5, 2007 09:30 AM
July 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Crisis and competence - an inverse correlation
Dear Bob ...
In your recent Keep the Joint Running, "Iacocca's alliterative leadership list," you made the point that leadership is easiest in a crisis.
This comment leads me to a point I don't see covered: I view an essential part of true leadership to be that your curiosity makes you so plugged into the task you're leading that nothing is ever allowed to become a crisis, but is dealt with when it is small enough to not require the expenditure of all of your resources (and maybe somebody else's).
Crisis is prima facie evidence of poor planning or environmental awareness, not an opportunity to "show your stuff". Poor Richard's "a stitch in time saves nine" comment comes to mind.
- Jim Trawick
Dear Jim ...
Your discussion of crisis struck a chord. Space limitations prevent my exploring all of the ideas I'd like in each column (I set myself a limit of 800 words to prevent the tendency to ramble interminably, which seems to be commonplace on-line). I wish I could use that as an excuse.
The fact is, I'd missed the strong inverse correlation between competence and crisis. I don't agree that all crises are foreseeable and avoidable. It certainly is the case that most of them are.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on July 3, 2007 03:01 PM
|
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
Microsoft's post-Yahoo optionsNet neutrality bill introduced
MS adds $3 million to Big Easy
AMD's Java improvement efforts
Leopard at 6 months
Intel still investing in WiMax
Yahoo tests aggregated search
Developers vs designers
Sun defends JavaFX Script
Botnet spams 60B a day
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization
- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure
- Improve Resource Utilization and Lower Operating Costs
- Protect Your Data with SSL
