MORE ENTRIES
- Can companies really compute employee value?
- When telling the truth is more immoral than not telling the truth
- Why not just put all cards on the table, face up?
- Back-and-forth on "When your boss tells you to terminate an employee"
- What really has the most impact on software quality?
- What has the most impact on software quality?
- An excellent pickle
- When your boss tells you to terminate an employee
- How twisted is the leadership scene?
- Trapped by age
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
October 2007
Dear Bob ...
Mind another comment about compensation? I'm commenting on your point that companies can figure out the value delivered by the sales force ("Comp logic," Keep the Joint Running, 10/29/2007).
Even paying sales people based on what they sell doesn't necessarily measure value! When they sell projects, for example, there is an assumed margin in the price, but you have to be careful that the assumptions underlying the costs aren't too rosy.
In our business, sales always wants the price lower, since it generates more sales. There is the thought that you wait until the project is accepted and then pay the sales person based on the actual margin, but margin deterioration may occur because somebody else screwed up, not because the sales person gave away the farm.
I agree completely with your article. The difficulties in measuring value for sales people simply add to your argument.
- Evaluator
Dear Evaluator ...
Good point about the sales force. I suppose I should have said companies can come closer to assessing the value they deliver. There are technique to address the issues you raised. The three imperfect ones I know are:
- Bob
"You're advising people to lie!" is a comment that comes up on a regular basis here at Advice Line. It came up a couple of times recently - regarding the manager who had helped an employee improve his performance but then was instructed to fire the guy anyway ("When your boss tells you to terminate an employee," 10/14/2007) and to the job seeker who wanted to stall a prospective employer who wanted him to begin immediately because he was hoping for a better offer from a more desirable employer ("An excellent pickle," 10/17/2007).
Because it's immoral, or bad business, or makes readers uncomfortable, the attitude that nobody should ever lie seems to be alive and well.
To which I say: Don't be stupid.
Actually, I don't say that. Were I the sort to be completely honest under every and all circumstances I might be tempted. That's my honest and truthful immediate reaction, until I take a moment to think. Then I reach a different conclusion and instead say: That reaction is the result of incomplete thinking."
So my first objection to "always tell the truth" is, which truth. The truth I want to immediately blurt out before I stop to think? Or the truth that only comes with reflection?
The term "lie" seems to come easily. Lying seems to me to have these boundaries: The falsehood has to be deliberate, it has to have the intent to deceive, and it has to have a malicious purpose. Many of my correspondents seem to think that the intent to deceive is enough.
So here's a situation: Your nine-year-old daughter has taken up the violin. Excited, she comes home to play for you. When she's finished, you:
That's the "honest" phrasing. What I would actually say if I wanted to be persuasive instead of "truthful" is this: If you chose any but the first option, you might want to re-think your approach to what honesty truly entails and requires.
Honesty is just one of a number of "goods." It isn't really even a "good" in and of itself. Honesty is a good idea because everything is easier for most of us when those around us take what we say at face value.
The importance of honesty competes with other goods. Allowing others to save face is one of them: Where I live, humiliating another human being for the sole reason that I need to be honest is cheesiness, not integrity.
In the world of business, in any negotiating situation, lying is still frowned upon (especially since later on it can lead to claims of breach of contract). Some level of deception is, on the other hand, part of the game, practiced by both sides. I am, of course, including the withholding of information as a form of deception. When you're negotiating, full disclosure is not required.
Sure, it would be wonderful if Oracle, Microsoft and IBM published their current internal bug list for everyone to see while evaluating their DBMSs. It isn't going to happen. Yes, you can claim that job applicants should, on their resumes, list every failure and bad decision they ever made along with their accomplishments.
You can claim it. You can go ahead and do it on your resume. That doesn't make it good business.
In a leadership role, you could tell those who report to you your exact level of agreement or disagreement with each and every decision the company makes. You could ... but you'd be a dreadful business leader. Often, if you express yourself the way many of my "never lie" correspondents do, you'd be lying, too.
Because you'd say, "The company made the wrong decision." That statement almost certainly would be untrue. The true statement would be, "I disagree with the company's decision."
Which means that as a business leader you think it's important to reveal your disagreement to those who work for you instead of maximizing the chance that the company succeeds in the course of action it has chosen.
That doesn't make you a leader, or a more moral human being.
In my book, it makes you self-indulgent.
- Bob
As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to ask Bob and the commenters who agreed with Bob, what exactly is wrong with Mr. Drowning ("An excellent pickle," Advice Line, 10/17/2007) telling the first company exactly the truth - more or less as he describes it to Bob? And for that matter, why not tell the second company the same truth at the interview?
Some "pros": since in either case he hasn't made a binding agreement with the first company, both sides can walk from the deal. But if he tells the truth they know they are walking away form someone who at least has the merit to get other interviews (the truth), whereas they might walk away thinking Mr. Drowning is an unjustified waffler (a falsehood, I assume).
The knowledge of the interview may cause the company to improve its offer.
At the interview the knowledge of the other offer almost certainly will increase Mr. Drowning's perceived value.
Both companies are 'bidding' Mr. Drowning get expect to get something closer to his real market value -- which is the fundamental principle we believe in, isn't it?
So what's wrong with telling the truth?
- Prefer the truth
Dear PtT ...
First of all, I recommended that Drowning tell the truth. Not the whole truth with full disclosure, but an honest statement nonetheless (that he had previous obligations). Full disclosure isn't an obligation for a job applicant anyway (simple example: When you disclose your current salary you weaken your ability to negotiate).
Here's why full disclosure is a bad choice. Depending on the circumstances, the organization that made the offer might decide to withdraw it - not to retaliate, but to avoid a risk.
It works like this: I've interviewed five candidates for an open position. I narrowed it down to two finalists and chose one of them as the best candidate.
In the meantime, the other four all continue their job searches. At any moment, each of them might receive an offer at which point they aren't available to be hired.
So I hear from my #1 choice who tells me he's waiting to see of another company will make him a better offer. I can:
- Bob
From the Comments about "When your boss tells you to terminate an employee," (Advice Line, 10/14/2007):
For some semblance of balance, may I lend some support to the minority side here (which appears to be the rather less than endearing Mr. GeorgeC), and try to do so without being disingenuous to the unfortunate situation Mr. "On the Horns" finds himself in.
First, Horns did not say the employee had "...risen all the way to adequate", that was Bob's editorial. Horns said the employee achieved clear performance standards. To set clear performance standards, and then fire the employee when he achieves them is indeed treating the employee as sub-human.
Second, Bob's advice is full of "management tricks" - which may or may not also be company policy. His advice is to lie to the employee (by telling him that he is firing him for any reason other than "my boss told me to"), and to form an agreement with the employee on the appropriate story (by implication, lie) to tell everyone else. That's a management trick - notwithstanding whether it is good advice or not. Note that the essence of preserving your credibility is choosing the best lies to tell. That ice strikes me as a little thin.
Bob and John Stork delineate Mr. Horn's mistakes, whether it was failure to set the correct performance standards or failure to get the employees signed acknowledgement of his 'at-will' status. So Horn's made a mistake as a manager, but the employee gets punished? Horn should be given an opportunity to fix his mistake, which (for Bob's definition of the mistake) would mean setting higher performance standards including fixing his reputation, delighting his customers, or whatever.
Of course the employee will still be 'at-will', and can be forced to sign an acknowledgement because he can be fired if he doesn't. Though (Tom says) the company has to prove the cause if it fires him and gives a reason, but not if stays mum on why. The company can fire him just because his face doesn't fit - unless (according to Lee) his face is black or yellow or disfigured - in which case the company may have to pay hush-money to fire him. What part this does not fit "subhuman treatment" or "management tricks"?
Rich Clark suggests Mr. Horn's conscience be relieved by pushing the responsibility for the action up the line. It's called the Nuremberg Defense. But it didn't work so well for the Nazis.
I agree that Horn arguing with the boss gets him nowhere. A famous CEO called it "push-back" and had no more time for it than Saddam Hussein had. Each step up the ladder it will be worse. Common sense and experience says that at each step up the ladder the decision maker knows less about the real situation and is more driven by 'making the numbers.' "I didn't get where I am today by doing the right thing; I did what my boss told me."
I am not a Christian, but statistically most of this discussions' participants and readers are. Does it not worry you that the best advice we can come up with relies on "bearing false witness", forgiving your own sins, while letting others take the consequences of them; and on a defense we didn't let our enemies get away with?
Perhaps Mr. Horn's first mistake was trying to get better performance out of employee rather than summarily firing him (as the 'at-will' management trick permits). This episode will no doubt cure Mr. Horns of that silly mistake.
We may all be just cogs in the company wheel, but in the end the company is nothing but cogs. The company behavior is no more than the sum of the cogs' behaviors. And if you act against your principles because that's what cogs do, you are part of the problem. No doubt, Horns will follow Bob's reality-based sagely advice, but is that a reality you really want to live in? Isn't that the reality GeorgeC alludes to? It may not be a reality Mr. Horn's created, but he isn't doing anything to fix it, if he follows that advice.
My advice is to treat your commitment to the employee as golden, including that implied commitment - "meet the performance standards I set and you keep your job."- 'at-will' law, company policy and the boss notwithstanding. If you made a mistake, such as not setting the standards high enough, you fix it by setting higher standards, and you maintain that commitment if the employee meets your corrected standards. If you and the employee feel the standards are unachievable (his reputation is unrecoverable; he his incapable of delighting your customers) then help him to a mutually-agreed separation and you call it that. If you have to fire the employee because you believe he is not doing the required job, then fire him; tell him that you are firing because he's not doing the job; and tell everyone else (who needs to know) the same truth.
If this doesn't work with your boss (and it probably won't), get a new boss.
- DaveP
Bob's reply:
A few points you might, or might not have considered:
Unless, that is, you think public humiliation is an appropriate accompaniment to the employee's termination.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Developing Developer again, with a follow-up to the question you addressed in your last post ("What has the most impact on software quality?" Advice Line, 10/21/2007).
Our class has been discussing the waterfall methodology so that is where the question is coming from. I stated the requirements process has the most impact and my instructor considers the testing process contains the most impact.
My opinion is that gathering the proper information for the program is essential for the rest of the processes, similar to what you state and the description of a waterfall methodology. The instructor on the other hand believes the testing is more important because it provides the final product and cleans up the other processes. We have had a good discussion, but I am concerned the instructor is leading me astray in this instance.
- Developing Developer
Dear Developing ...
I can understand your professor's point. It's one of those questions whose answer depends on the details of "what did you mean when you asked that?"
In principle, you can throw garbage into the testing process. If the testing process is perfect it will catch every single defect and feed everything back through the other phases until it comes out clean. So from one perspective, he's right.
From the other, the less garbage you throw into it, the more efficient it will be at scrubbing what remains. As I think about it, I'd have to say the factual answer is that it's something IT organizations should keep track of. The more important the testing process, the more IT needs to look upstream to see what needs to be fixed so testing becomes less important.
The analogy between software development and a factor is far from perfect. There is one parallel that's worth drawing for this discussion: If a company manufactures something and thinks the final inspection has the most important on product quality, don't buy that company's products. Its management doesn't understand any of the basic principles of achieving quality.
So after thinking it over, I have to disagree with your professor. Although I still think the answer depends on the exact definition of "important."
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I am arguing ... wait ... having an intelligent discussion with my instructor this week regarding software development processes. The class is Fundamentals of Software Programming. I was hoping to get your opinion on the question in discrepancy.
The question is, "Drawing upon your knowledge of software development, which process - requirements, design, coding, or testing - do you think has more impact on the overall success and quality of development?"
I will give you my opinion and my instructor's after I hear back from you. I don't want to taint your response.
Thanks for weighing in.
- Developing developer
Dear Developing ...
Since I have a strong preference for iterative development methodologies, I'd say the practice of dividing development into discrete requirements, design and coding phases is what does the most to prevent development of quality software. The term for this approach is "waterfall methodology." My take on it is that decades of attempts to make it work pretty much demonstrate that it doesn't work very well.
The textbook answer would be that mistakes in each phase have an exponential impact on each succeeding phase, so that a defect in the requirements phase will cause far more problems with quality than defects in the design phase, and so on. Certainly, if you're shooting at the wrong target, the quality of your aim really doesn't matter very much. So the textbook answer has some validity, if you're going to use a waterfall methodology.
Otherwise, I'd say the question is wrong. The answer to the right question would be:
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm in a bit of a pickle -- I've just received an offer from one place, and they want me to start on Monday. However, I've got another interview on Tuesday morning with a place that I like better, and I'd rather work there (better pay, better benefits, better match for my skills and where I want to go career-wise, etc). But they haven't made me an offer yet, and if they don't, I also don't want to lose out on this one.
How should I handle this? Would it be wise for me to explain all this to the recruiter who has made me this offer, or is there a better way to deal with it? Thank you in advance for any advice you are able to give.
- Drowning in insurmountable opportunity
Dear Drowning ...
When you say you don't want to lose out on the offer you have, I'm interpreting that to mean the job, company, offer, benefits and so on are acceptable to you ... not that you'll take anything right now rather than waiting for a good opportunity.
Assuming that's the case:
The best approach I can think of would be to tell the folks who made you an offer that the earliest you can start with them is two weeks from Monday due to previous obligations (if they push hard, that lets you back off to one week from Monday).
Tuesday, if you still think you'd prefer the other company after your interview, let them know you have an offer on the table, and that while you don't want to be pushy, you have to either turn them down or start work with them within a week or two.
If the better company comes through, you call the first one, let them know what happened (another company made you an offer you simply couldn't refuse), thank them for their offer. Apologize for having to change your decision, recognizing that they had put effort into their recruiting process, wish them well, and say good-bye.
On the other hand, if the only thing the current offer has going for it is that it would provide gainful employment ... if it's a job you'd hate, a career dead-end, and a salary that would cause you to move into a studio apartment in a bad section of town ... then let the company know that after thinking things over you can't accept their offer.
Under those circumstances, be prepared to let them know what they'd need to add to make the situation work for you. You never know - they might be interested enough to offer it.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
A few months ago I became the manager of our IT group, and inherited a long-term employee with stunningly inadequate performance. I have worked with him to set clear performance standards, which are now being achieved.
Two weeks ago, my manager asked me to fire him on the basis that his long term substandard performance had destroyed all confidence in him (and by inference, our entire department, now including me), and other managers do not want to deal with him or have him handling their requests. I declined on the basis that his performance is currently satisfactory and he should be judged on that basis.
My manager has now ordered me to go ahead and fire him, because even with his improved performance, there's nothing he could ever do to regain the confidence of our users. We are in an at-will employment state, and this employee could be easily and quickly replaced.
My immediate reaction is to refuse to obey the order - this employee reports to me, and I'm rightly the one to judge his performance and fitness. He's doing the quality of work that he's been told is required, and that's all anyone needs to know.
But, the costs of disobedience of this directive would include losing on several other initiatives that are more important to me and to the company. I'm not willing to sacrifice my political capital, perhaps my job, and my plans for making this company better to save the job of someone who intentionally goofed off for years.
Conversely, firing him after he corrected his performance issues will let the rest of the department know that satisfactory performance isn't enough, and that there are times when I do not take a stand on a matter of principle. It would also let the employee know that nothing I've told him for these months mattered in the end. Either course of action would have good and bad impacts on my relationship to the rest of senior management.
What should I do?
- On the horns
Dear Impaled ...
Tough situation. I don't see any great answers, and I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Which is to say, you do have to fire the employee. The question is how you go about it so that you don't destroy your credibility with everyone else in your department.
One possibility is to tell your boss to fire the guy. I don't love it. He reports to you. It is your job. I do think it's important for you to let your manager know the impact you expect this to have. If your manager thinks the firing is worth the downsides, that takes you to the next possibility, which is …
Standing on your principles. The question is, what principle? From what you've told me, the employee, with close supervision and clearly defined performance standards, has made it all the way to adequate. Factor in the extra time you've had to invest, and will continue to have to invest, and the employee probably continues to contribute a level of productivity that nets in the negative numbers. This isn't a good investment.
I'd say the important issues are: (1) How you explain the termination in a way that doesn't make you appear to be a promise-breaker; (2) how you deal with staff reaction to the firing; and (3) how you live with yourself afterward. In order:
When you fire this employee, explain that what you were trying to do was to provide an opportunity for a fresh start. What you failed to recognize was his entrenched reputation with the end-user community.
Tell him you both should have recognized that achieving satisfactory performance wouldn't be enough. Given his history, both of you should have known
that he had to start performing strongly enough that key end-users
would start to see him as one of your strongest contributors. Bad
reputations are hard to fix; that's what it takes. It's something he
should keep in mind in his next position.
If he complains that you're going back on your word, or asks if you agree with "the company's" decision, make this clear: Your mistake was failing to require superior performance. His mistake was goofing off on the job. You have to deal with the situation as it is, which is that he isn't an effective employee, even having achieved satisfactory performance.
You should ask the soon-to-be-former employee what he'd prefer you to say about his departure, as you have no desire to embarrass him. Whatever it is, that's what you tell his co-workers, and that's what he should tell them as well.
One other point about the termination conversation: When you tell the employee he's being terminated, tell him "the company" has
decided that this is what has to be done. Don't identify yourself as
the decision-maker; don't identify your manager, either. The company
has made the decision and as his manager, your job is to make sure the
company handles the termination properly. (To that end: Consult with HR
first to make sure you do it by the numbers.)
Changes are, he'll still grouse about how badly you treated him to his friends, assuming he has any. Don't worry about it. The fact is, few employees really like slackers - they have to work extra to handle the work that isn't getting done. And if anyone asks you directly, repeat what the two of you agreed to say and leave it at that.
One more thing: When hiring his replacement, take whatever time and care are necessary to hire a strong performer. Nothing will justify your decision more than the contrast.
How you live with this is easy: You received a direct, and really a quite reasonable order from your manager. Nobody ever promised you that you'd agree with everything you're instructed to do.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Commenting on your recent series about business archetypes ("Jung at heart," Keep the Joint Running, 9/24/2007 and "More business archetypes," 10/1/2007):
Of course there are the business archetypes that never make it into leadership but are leaders themselves.
For example, there are the "Mechanics" who enter the company for one reason, but because of their knowledge and expertise - and business sense different then the leaders at the top , cut through the business politics and goal setting to streamline and improve the company processes - which ultimately ends up nose diving their careers as "leadership" doesn't understand what they are doing (it wasn't their idea in the first place) and they re-frame what just happened with less time and money by spending more time and money to make it a "corporate project" 'cause the real - un-rewarded - creator might leave at some point in time (creating a self fulfilling prophesy for the "mechanic" who's only real joy is in fixing things)
What a twisted world we live in.
- Mechanically inclined
Dear Inclined ...
Just my opinion: The world isn't twisted in the least. From before the beginning of history, those at the top of the pecking order have been those who are good at reaching the top of the pecking order, not those who do what's best for all members of society.
At least today we live in a world where leaders have to contend with some level of obligation and expectation that they act to benefit the organization they lead. Even the worst managers in corporate America recognize that they have to at least provide a convincing pretense that they are achieving something useful.
Which is to say that Idi Amin was closer to the natural order of things than Abe Lincoln.
I'm not suggesting we have to set our expectations low. Even the most egocentric leaders tend to live both up and down to the expectations of those around them.
I'm saying we should appreciate how far we've come, and recognize what a difficult journey it's been.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I work for an Heir, a Psychopath and Protégé (see "More business archetypes," Keep the Joint Running, 10/1/2007). As you can imagine, projects are interesting and can drag on forever.
I view myself as a mechanic. Mechanics rarely make it to management. They have a bad habit of telling heirs, psychopaths, and protégés what is wrong and how to fix it. They don't want to hear anything from a mechanic until the project has to be pulled out of the toilet. Once that is accomplished, the three of them line up to take credit for all of the hard work required to save the project.
It's quite a crew. I made a very poor career decision a few years ago. I'm too old now to make a move. No one is hiring 62 year old engineers. Only have to deal with them for a couple of years.
- Old
Dear Middle-aged ...
Sounds like you won the Trifecta! That's quite a "leadership" crew you have.
Just my opinion: Nobody is trapped, except people with too little talent. You might have fewer alternatives - there are companies that practice age discrimination - but that still leaves a whole lot of potential employers who would jump at the chance to hire an experienced engineer/project manager.
I'd say this is one of the two key points to make when selling yourself - that you're an experienced engineer and project manager. The other is that you haven't run out of appetite for new challenges. The biggest risk some employers are concerned about when interviewing someone more senior is that they're talking to someone who wants a comfortable place to coast to until retirement.
Make it clear that this isn't you.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Your first paragraph (in "More business archetypes," Keep the Joint Running, 10/1/2007) caught my eye. I think people who have never been in the military haven't a clue what it really like.
Most people confuse the word 'militaristic' with 'authoritarian'.
The most authoritarian organizations to which I have ever belonged were a package delivery service in Memphis, TN, and a chip design firm in Addison, TX. The least authoritarian organization to which I've ever belonged was the U. S. Air Force.
In the civilian organizations, mindless adherence to orders was lauded and expected. I have been told "when a director tells you to do something, you do it. I don't care if it breaks every machine in the place, you do it." On the contrary, when asked by a Full Bird Colonel what I thought of an idea, my response was "it sucks." After telling me it was his idea, he asked me to explain to him why it sucked. I did and within five minutes, his idea was history and it affected the way maintenance was done on a large Air Force installation.
I have found the military to be the most Demming-like organization for which I've ever worked. A close second was organizations run by ex-military officers.
Sadly, many organizations tend to promote people who are very good at producing revenue for the company. In a chip design company, this means chip engineers. Often, the traits which make a good chip designer are anathema to being a "people person". What you wind up with is a guy who has to interact with people who is happiest in a dark room behind a closed door with pizza slid under the door from time to time.
On the contrary, I had a squadron commander in the Air Force. Col. White was his name. He made it a point to come into work on every shift at least once a month. He would chat with everyone in the place. Half the conversation would be about work, the other half about hobbies, family, and idle chatter. The next time he spoke to folks, typically a month later, he'd pick up the conversation exactly where he'd left off.
Managers should never underestimate the power of such a practice. There is no clearer indication of "you matter" than such an exhibit of interest in the individual. However, if it lacks sincerity, it will backfire. This person came to the squadron as a major and left less than 18 months later with a promotion number to bird colonel.
I learned a lot about management from Col. White. (And others in the military).
- Air Force Guy
Dear Air Force Guy ...
I've lost track of the number of letters I've received over the years that cite military practice as justification for authoritarianism, all from armchair officers who I'm sure have less military experience than I have (two years contracting at the Naval Military Personnel Command).
Which is why I was delighted to have the chance to clarify the point I'd made about the General archetype in the previous KJR ("Jung at heart," 9/24/2007), and chagrined that it needed clarification.
This is just my impression: Military leadership training before and during the Vietnam War was quite bad. Following the fiasco, the military figured out what it needed to do differently and implemented deep and substantive changes in how it trains officers. Those I met and worked with in the early 1980s exhibited a wide range of leadership qualities, from excellent to dreadful. Over the past fifteen years or so, I can't think of one who wasn't a first-rate leader.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
When I hear the broad statement: "If an employee is irreplaceable you should immediately fire that employee," (as cited in your recent article, "The causes of greatness," Keep the Joint Running, 9/10/2007) it hits a sore spot, since I am unfortunately in that category. I am not in that category by choice; instead my management (second line and up) has consistently sabotaged my ability to make myself replaceable.
The problem is that we use a very complex piece of software on which I was the lead developer. We inherited this from a prior company following a number of spin-offs, mergers and acquisitions, and I am the only original developer remaining. Over the years I have trained several people (a costly process) who have then either left the company du jour or been the victims of downsizing; I have also lobbied to remove this from our products, and although I have gotten agreements that this should be done, resources have never been allocated.
I am certainly not alone in this regard. Now changing the statement to "If an employee insists on being irreplaceable...." as the fault lies with the employee; however, if an employer forces the employee to be in that position, firing him or her would be to blame the victim.
- Call me Irreplaceable
Dear Irreplaceable ...
I certainly understand the sore spot. The question is whether there's anything else you can do about it, now that you've already used the most common tactics of training replacements and making your unique skill irrelevant.
If there's a third tactic to pursue, I'm unaware of it. That leaves becoming more persuasive with the company's decision-makers regarding the two that are available to you.
I don't know if you're willing to try a higher-risk approach (or if you already have). It's a modification of the what-if-I-was-hit-by-a-bus argument. It goes like this: "I need your help. Right now I'm in career jail, which means I have a strong financial and career incentive to find another opportunity in another company. I really don't want to do this - I like working here. What can we do so I can go on to my next opportunity here instead of someplace else?"
Anyone with any brains who hears this will recognize it for what it is - a veiled threat. On the other hand it's an honest statement of a real risk to the business, stated in businesslike terms, so it shouldn't offend a businesslike manager.
The risk to you, of course, is that not all managers are businesslike when the chips are down . You'll have to judge for yourself whether a conversation like this can work with the people you'll be dealing with.
- Bob
October 31, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Can companies really compute employee value?
Dear Bob ...
Mind another comment about compensation? I'm commenting on your point that companies can figure out the value delivered by the sales force ("Comp logic," Keep the Joint Running, 10/29/2007).
Even paying sales people based on what they sell doesn't necessarily measure value! When they sell projects, for example, there is an assumed margin in the price, but you have to be careful that the assumptions underlying the costs aren't too rosy.
In our business, sales always wants the price lower, since it generates more sales. There is the thought that you wait until the project is accepted and then pay the sales person based on the actual margin, but margin deterioration may occur because somebody else screwed up, not because the sales person gave away the farm.
I agree completely with your article. The difficulties in measuring value for sales people simply add to your argument.
- Evaluator
Dear Evaluator ...
Good point about the sales force. I suppose I should have said companies can come closer to assessing the value they deliver. There are technique to address the issues you raised. The three imperfect ones I know are:
- Always base commission on net, not gross. I think there are still companies that get this wrong, although I can't imagine why.
- For complex sales, especially services sales with a long delivery time, subject every deal to a red-team/green-team review. Companies should put quite a few eyes on deals that can easily blow up to look for the gotchas (the red team) and also should put several eyeball-pairs on it to look for opportunities for additional follow-up sales, to make sure the company knows when to invest in the account.
- Involve the delivery manager in price negotiations, to make sure the contract isn't so thin that adherence to the contract isn't in conflict with profitability.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 31, 2007 05:27 AM
October 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
When telling the truth is more immoral than not telling the truth
"You're advising people to lie!" is a comment that comes up on a regular basis here at Advice Line. It came up a couple of times recently - regarding the manager who had helped an employee improve his performance but then was instructed to fire the guy anyway ("When your boss tells you to terminate an employee," 10/14/2007) and to the job seeker who wanted to stall a prospective employer who wanted him to begin immediately because he was hoping for a better offer from a more desirable employer ("An excellent pickle," 10/17/2007).
Because it's immoral, or bad business, or makes readers uncomfortable, the attitude that nobody should ever lie seems to be alive and well.
To which I say: Don't be stupid.
Actually, I don't say that. Were I the sort to be completely honest under every and all circumstances I might be tempted. That's my honest and truthful immediate reaction, until I take a moment to think. Then I reach a different conclusion and instead say: That reaction is the result of incomplete thinking."
So my first objection to "always tell the truth" is, which truth. The truth I want to immediately blurt out before I stop to think? Or the truth that only comes with reflection?
The term "lie" seems to come easily. Lying seems to me to have these boundaries: The falsehood has to be deliberate, it has to have the intent to deceive, and it has to have a malicious purpose. Many of my correspondents seem to think that the intent to deceive is enough.
So here's a situation: Your nine-year-old daughter has taken up the violin. Excited, she comes home to play for you. When she's finished, you:
- Applaud, and tell her what a wonderful job she did.
- Tell her, patiently, that she needs more practice but that you're confident that someday she'll be worth listening to.
- Tell her she sounded awful.
That's the "honest" phrasing. What I would actually say if I wanted to be persuasive instead of "truthful" is this: If you chose any but the first option, you might want to re-think your approach to what honesty truly entails and requires.
Honesty is just one of a number of "goods." It isn't really even a "good" in and of itself. Honesty is a good idea because everything is easier for most of us when those around us take what we say at face value.
The importance of honesty competes with other goods. Allowing others to save face is one of them: Where I live, humiliating another human being for the sole reason that I need to be honest is cheesiness, not integrity.
In the world of business, in any negotiating situation, lying is still frowned upon (especially since later on it can lead to claims of breach of contract). Some level of deception is, on the other hand, part of the game, practiced by both sides. I am, of course, including the withholding of information as a form of deception. When you're negotiating, full disclosure is not required.
Sure, it would be wonderful if Oracle, Microsoft and IBM published their current internal bug list for everyone to see while evaluating their DBMSs. It isn't going to happen. Yes, you can claim that job applicants should, on their resumes, list every failure and bad decision they ever made along with their accomplishments.
You can claim it. You can go ahead and do it on your resume. That doesn't make it good business.
In a leadership role, you could tell those who report to you your exact level of agreement or disagreement with each and every decision the company makes. You could ... but you'd be a dreadful business leader. Often, if you express yourself the way many of my "never lie" correspondents do, you'd be lying, too.
Because you'd say, "The company made the wrong decision." That statement almost certainly would be untrue. The true statement would be, "I disagree with the company's decision."
Which means that as a business leader you think it's important to reveal your disagreement to those who work for you instead of maximizing the chance that the company succeeds in the course of action it has chosen.
That doesn't make you a leader, or a more moral human being.
In my book, it makes you self-indulgent.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 29, 2007 06:28 AM
October 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Why not just put all cards on the table, face up?
More from the Comments:As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to ask Bob and the commenters who agreed with Bob, what exactly is wrong with Mr. Drowning ("An excellent pickle," Advice Line, 10/17/2007) telling the first company exactly the truth - more or less as he describes it to Bob? And for that matter, why not tell the second company the same truth at the interview?
Some "pros": since in either case he hasn't made a binding agreement with the first company, both sides can walk from the deal. But if he tells the truth they know they are walking away form someone who at least has the merit to get other interviews (the truth), whereas they might walk away thinking Mr. Drowning is an unjustified waffler (a falsehood, I assume).
The knowledge of the interview may cause the company to improve its offer.
At the interview the knowledge of the other offer almost certainly will increase Mr. Drowning's perceived value.
Both companies are 'bidding' Mr. Drowning get expect to get something closer to his real market value -- which is the fundamental principle we believe in, isn't it?
So what's wrong with telling the truth?
- Prefer the truth
Dear PtT ...
First of all, I recommended that Drowning tell the truth. Not the whole truth with full disclosure, but an honest statement nonetheless (that he had previous obligations). Full disclosure isn't an obligation for a job applicant anyway (simple example: When you disclose your current salary you weaken your ability to negotiate).
Here's why full disclosure is a bad choice. Depending on the circumstances, the organization that made the offer might decide to withdraw it - not to retaliate, but to avoid a risk.
It works like this: I've interviewed five candidates for an open position. I narrowed it down to two finalists and chose one of them as the best candidate.
In the meantime, the other four all continue their job searches. At any moment, each of them might receive an offer at which point they aren't available to be hired.
So I hear from my #1 choice who tells me he's waiting to see of another company will make him a better offer. I can:
- Offer him more in exchange for an immediate decision.
- Call #2 and offer the job, can-you-start-immediately? for the originally planned compensation.
- Wait for #1 to make the decision, possibly losing both him and the #2 candidate.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 27, 2007 12:39 PM
October 24, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Back-and-forth on "When your boss tells you to terminate an employee"
From the Comments about "When your boss tells you to terminate an employee," (Advice Line, 10/14/2007):
For some semblance of balance, may I lend some support to the minority side here (which appears to be the rather less than endearing Mr. GeorgeC), and try to do so without being disingenuous to the unfortunate situation Mr. "On the Horns" finds himself in.
First, Horns did not say the employee had "...risen all the way to adequate", that was Bob's editorial. Horns said the employee achieved clear performance standards. To set clear performance standards, and then fire the employee when he achieves them is indeed treating the employee as sub-human.
Second, Bob's advice is full of "management tricks" - which may or may not also be company policy. His advice is to lie to the employee (by telling him that he is firing him for any reason other than "my boss told me to"), and to form an agreement with the employee on the appropriate story (by implication, lie) to tell everyone else. That's a management trick - notwithstanding whether it is good advice or not. Note that the essence of preserving your credibility is choosing the best lies to tell. That ice strikes me as a little thin.
Bob and John Stork delineate Mr. Horn's mistakes, whether it was failure to set the correct performance standards or failure to get the employees signed acknowledgement of his 'at-will' status. So Horn's made a mistake as a manager, but the employee gets punished? Horn should be given an opportunity to fix his mistake, which (for Bob's definition of the mistake) would mean setting higher performance standards including fixing his reputation, delighting his customers, or whatever.
Of course the employee will still be 'at-will', and can be forced to sign an acknowledgement because he can be fired if he doesn't. Though (Tom says) the company has to prove the cause if it fires him and gives a reason, but not if stays mum on why. The company can fire him just because his face doesn't fit - unless (according to Lee) his face is black or yellow or disfigured - in which case the company may have to pay hush-money to fire him. What part this does not fit "subhuman treatment" or "management tricks"?
Rich Clark suggests Mr. Horn's conscience be relieved by pushing the responsibility for the action up the line. It's called the Nuremberg Defense. But it didn't work so well for the Nazis.
I agree that Horn arguing with the boss gets him nowhere. A famous CEO called it "push-back" and had no more time for it than Saddam Hussein had. Each step up the ladder it will be worse. Common sense and experience says that at each step up the ladder the decision maker knows less about the real situation and is more driven by 'making the numbers.' "I didn't get where I am today by doing the right thing; I did what my boss told me."
I am not a Christian, but statistically most of this discussions' participants and readers are. Does it not worry you that the best advice we can come up with relies on "bearing false witness", forgiving your own sins, while letting others take the consequences of them; and on a defense we didn't let our enemies get away with?
Perhaps Mr. Horn's first mistake was trying to get better performance out of employee rather than summarily firing him (as the 'at-will' management trick permits). This episode will no doubt cure Mr. Horns of that silly mistake.
We may all be just cogs in the company wheel, but in the end the company is nothing but cogs. The company behavior is no more than the sum of the cogs' behaviors. And if you act against your principles because that's what cogs do, you are part of the problem. No doubt, Horns will follow Bob's reality-based sagely advice, but is that a reality you really want to live in? Isn't that the reality GeorgeC alludes to? It may not be a reality Mr. Horn's created, but he isn't doing anything to fix it, if he follows that advice.
My advice is to treat your commitment to the employee as golden, including that implied commitment - "meet the performance standards I set and you keep your job."- 'at-will' law, company policy and the boss notwithstanding. If you made a mistake, such as not setting the standards high enough, you fix it by setting higher standards, and you maintain that commitment if the employee meets your corrected standards. If you and the employee feel the standards are unachievable (his reputation is unrecoverable; he his incapable of delighting your customers) then help him to a mutually-agreed separation and you call it that. If you have to fire the employee because you believe he is not doing the required job, then fire him; tell him that you are firing because he's not doing the job; and tell everyone else (who needs to know) the same truth.
If this doesn't work with your boss (and it probably won't), get a new boss.
- DaveP
Bob's reply:
A few points you might, or might not have considered:
- The difference between a "trick" and a "technique" is in the emotional payload, not in the behavior. Managers have a job to do. The good ones learn techniques that are effective in helping them do it. You could call the setting of clear performance standards a "management trick" if you chose to.
- Management confers a set of responsibilities. One of them is living in a more morally complicated world. If you are faced with two choices - one adheres to the average person's intuitive sense of right and wrong and leaves the world worse off than it was before; the other seems to violate our collective sense of what is right and leaves the world better off ... people in leadership roles face this sort of decision on a regular basis. Staff-level employees rarely do.
- Mr. Horn made the mistake. The employee pays the price. That's always the case - it's in the nature of leadership. In war, when officers make mistakes, soldiers take the casualties. Unless you want to make every mistake a capital crime (or, at a minimum, a firing offense), it's something leaders have to live with.
- For clarity: "Adequate" was more than my editorial spin. It's a reasonable synonym for "satisfactory," which is how Mr. Horn described the employee's improved performance. A point your analysis fails to deal with is that the employee's salary continues to be a bad investment for the company. When you bring morality into these discussions, you ought to consider whether or not the employee has a moral obligation to deliver as much or more value to his employer than the employer invests in him in the form of salary, benefits, and facilities.
- Promises aren't, and shouldn't be absolute. Situations change, and a promise that seemed like a good idea when made might be harmful when the time comes to deliver. Since Mr. Horn has no choice regarding the employee's continued employment, keeping the promise isn't an alternative available to him. The question is, now what?
- When I advised Mr. Horn to "agree on a story" I was advising a courtesy. Please consider the alternative to my advice: Either saying, "I can't discuss the reasons for this employee's departure," or "The company decided to fire him for non-performance," which is how the average employee would interpret the first sentence. I'd advise sticking with the advice I provided.
Unless, that is, you think public humiliation is an appropriate accompaniment to the employee's termination.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 24, 2007 06:09 AM
October 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)
What really has the most impact on software quality?
Dear Bob ...
Developing Developer again, with a follow-up to the question you addressed in your last post ("What has the most impact on software quality?" Advice Line, 10/21/2007).
Our class has been discussing the waterfall methodology so that is where the question is coming from. I stated the requirements process has the most impact and my instructor considers the testing process contains the most impact.
My opinion is that gathering the proper information for the program is essential for the rest of the processes, similar to what you state and the description of a waterfall methodology. The instructor on the other hand believes the testing is more important because it provides the final product and cleans up the other processes. We have had a good discussion, but I am concerned the instructor is leading me astray in this instance.
- Developing Developer
Dear Developing ...
I can understand your professor's point. It's one of those questions whose answer depends on the details of "what did you mean when you asked that?"
In principle, you can throw garbage into the testing process. If the testing process is perfect it will catch every single defect and feed everything back through the other phases until it comes out clean. So from one perspective, he's right.
From the other, the less garbage you throw into it, the more efficient it will be at scrubbing what remains. As I think about it, I'd have to say the factual answer is that it's something IT organizations should keep track of. The more important the testing process, the more IT needs to look upstream to see what needs to be fixed so testing becomes less important.
The analogy between software development and a factor is far from perfect. There is one parallel that's worth drawing for this discussion: If a company manufactures something and thinks the final inspection has the most important on product quality, don't buy that company's products. Its management doesn't understand any of the basic principles of achieving quality.
So after thinking it over, I have to disagree with your professor. Although I still think the answer depends on the exact definition of "important."
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 22, 2007 06:21 AM
October 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
What has the most impact on software quality?
Dear Bob ...
I am arguing ... wait ... having an intelligent discussion with my instructor this week regarding software development processes. The class is Fundamentals of Software Programming. I was hoping to get your opinion on the question in discrepancy.
The question is, "Drawing upon your knowledge of software development, which process - requirements, design, coding, or testing - do you think has more impact on the overall success and quality of development?"
I will give you my opinion and my instructor's after I hear back from you. I don't want to taint your response.
Thanks for weighing in.
- Developing developer
Dear Developing ...
Since I have a strong preference for iterative development methodologies, I'd say the practice of dividing development into discrete requirements, design and coding phases is what does the most to prevent development of quality software. The term for this approach is "waterfall methodology." My take on it is that decades of attempts to make it work pretty much demonstrate that it doesn't work very well.
The textbook answer would be that mistakes in each phase have an exponential impact on each succeeding phase, so that a defect in the requirements phase will cause far more problems with quality than defects in the design phase, and so on. Certainly, if you're shooting at the wrong target, the quality of your aim really doesn't matter very much. So the textbook answer has some validity, if you're going to use a waterfall methodology.
Otherwise, I'd say the question is wrong. The answer to the right question would be:
- Employing programmer/analysts instead of dividing analysis and programming into separate jobs.
- Programmer/analyst skill level.
- Using adaptive, iterative techniques that include heavy end-user involvement.
- Having a pre-established software architecture and coding standards, and adhering to them.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 21, 2007 05:47 AM
October 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I'm in a bit of a pickle -- I've just received an offer from one place, and they want me to start on Monday. However, I've got another interview on Tuesday morning with a place that I like better, and I'd rather work there (better pay, better benefits, better match for my skills and where I want to go career-wise, etc). But they haven't made me an offer yet, and if they don't, I also don't want to lose out on this one.
How should I handle this? Would it be wise for me to explain all this to the recruiter who has made me this offer, or is there a better way to deal with it? Thank you in advance for any advice you are able to give.
- Drowning in insurmountable opportunity
Dear Drowning ...
When you say you don't want to lose out on the offer you have, I'm interpreting that to mean the job, company, offer, benefits and so on are acceptable to you ... not that you'll take anything right now rather than waiting for a good opportunity.
Assuming that's the case:
The best approach I can think of would be to tell the folks who made you an offer that the earliest you can start with them is two weeks from Monday due to previous obligations (if they push hard, that lets you back off to one week from Monday).
Tuesday, if you still think you'd prefer the other company after your interview, let them know you have an offer on the table, and that while you don't want to be pushy, you have to either turn them down or start work with them within a week or two.
If the better company comes through, you call the first one, let them know what happened (another company made you an offer you simply couldn't refuse), thank them for their offer. Apologize for having to change your decision, recognizing that they had put effort into their recruiting process, wish them well, and say good-bye.
On the other hand, if the only thing the current offer has going for it is that it would provide gainful employment ... if it's a job you'd hate, a career dead-end, and a salary that would cause you to move into a studio apartment in a bad section of town ... then let the company know that after thinking things over you can't accept their offer.
Under those circumstances, be prepared to let them know what they'd need to add to make the situation work for you. You never know - they might be interested enough to offer it.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 17, 2007 05:26 AM
October 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
When your boss tells you to terminate an employee
Dear Bob ...
A few months ago I became the manager of our IT group, and inherited a long-term employee with stunningly inadequate performance. I have worked with him to set clear performance standards, which are now being achieved.
Two weeks ago, my manager asked me to fire him on the basis that his long term substandard performance had destroyed all confidence in him (and by inference, our entire department, now including me), and other managers do not want to deal with him or have him handling their requests. I declined on the basis that his performance is currently satisfactory and he should be judged on that basis.
My manager has now ordered me to go ahead and fire him, because even with his improved performance, there's nothing he could ever do to regain the confidence of our users. We are in an at-will employment state, and this employee could be easily and quickly replaced.
My immediate reaction is to refuse to obey the order - this employee reports to me, and I'm rightly the one to judge his performance and fitness. He's doing the quality of work that he's been told is required, and that's all anyone needs to know.
But, the costs of disobedience of this directive would include losing on several other initiatives that are more important to me and to the company. I'm not willing to sacrifice my political capital, perhaps my job, and my plans for making this company better to save the job of someone who intentionally goofed off for years.
Conversely, firing him after he corrected his performance issues will let the rest of the department know that satisfactory performance isn't enough, and that there are times when I do not take a stand on a matter of principle. It would also let the employee know that nothing I've told him for these months mattered in the end. Either course of action would have good and bad impacts on my relationship to the rest of senior management.
What should I do?
- On the horns
Dear Impaled ...
Tough situation. I don't see any great answers, and I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Which is to say, you do have to fire the employee. The question is how you go about it so that you don't destroy your credibility with everyone else in your department.
One possibility is to tell your boss to fire the guy. I don't love it. He reports to you. It is your job. I do think it's important for you to let your manager know the impact you expect this to have. If your manager thinks the firing is worth the downsides, that takes you to the next possibility, which is …
Standing on your principles. The question is, what principle? From what you've told me, the employee, with close supervision and clearly defined performance standards, has made it all the way to adequate. Factor in the extra time you've had to invest, and will continue to have to invest, and the employee probably continues to contribute a level of productivity that nets in the negative numbers. This isn't a good investment.
I'd say the important issues are: (1) How you explain the termination in a way that doesn't make you appear to be a promise-breaker; (2) how you deal with staff reaction to the firing; and (3) how you live with yourself afterward. In order:
When you fire this employee, explain that what you were trying to do was to provide an opportunity for a fresh start. What you failed to recognize was his entrenched reputation with the end-user community.
Tell him you both should have recognized that achieving satisfactory performance wouldn't be enough. Given his history, both of you should have known
that he had to start performing strongly enough that key end-users
would start to see him as one of your strongest contributors. Bad
reputations are hard to fix; that's what it takes. It's something he
should keep in mind in his next position.
If he complains that you're going back on your word, or asks if you agree with "the company's" decision, make this clear: Your mistake was failing to require superior performance. His mistake was goofing off on the job. You have to deal with the situation as it is, which is that he isn't an effective employee, even having achieved satisfactory performance.
You should ask the soon-to-be-former employee what he'd prefer you to say about his departure, as you have no desire to embarrass him. Whatever it is, that's what you tell his co-workers, and that's what he should tell them as well.
One other point about the termination conversation: When you tell the employee he's being terminated, tell him "the company" has
decided that this is what has to be done. Don't identify yourself as
the decision-maker; don't identify your manager, either. The company
has made the decision and as his manager, your job is to make sure the
company handles the termination properly. (To that end: Consult with HR
first to make sure you do it by the numbers.)
Changes are, he'll still grouse about how badly you treated him to his friends, assuming he has any. Don't worry about it. The fact is, few employees really like slackers - they have to work extra to handle the work that isn't getting done. And if anyone asks you directly, repeat what the two of you agreed to say and leave it at that.
One more thing: When hiring his replacement, take whatever time and care are necessary to hire a strong performer. Nothing will justify your decision more than the contrast.
How you live with this is easy: You received a direct, and really a quite reasonable order from your manager. Nobody ever promised you that you'd agree with everything you're instructed to do.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 14, 2007 06:25 PM
October 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
How twisted is the leadership scene?
Dear Bob ...
Commenting on your recent series about business archetypes ("Jung at heart," Keep the Joint Running, 9/24/2007 and "More business archetypes," 10/1/2007):
Of course there are the business archetypes that never make it into leadership but are leaders themselves.
For example, there are the "Mechanics" who enter the company for one reason, but because of their knowledge and expertise - and business sense different then the leaders at the top , cut through the business politics and goal setting to streamline and improve the company processes - which ultimately ends up nose diving their careers as "leadership" doesn't understand what they are doing (it wasn't their idea in the first place) and they re-frame what just happened with less time and money by spending more time and money to make it a "corporate project" 'cause the real - un-rewarded - creator might leave at some point in time (creating a self fulfilling prophesy for the "mechanic" who's only real joy is in fixing things)
What a twisted world we live in.
- Mechanically inclined
Dear Inclined ...
Just my opinion: The world isn't twisted in the least. From before the beginning of history, those at the top of the pecking order have been those who are good at reaching the top of the pecking order, not those who do what's best for all members of society.
At least today we live in a world where leaders have to contend with some level of obligation and expectation that they act to benefit the organization they lead. Even the worst managers in corporate America recognize that they have to at least provide a convincing pretense that they are achieving something useful.
Which is to say that Idi Amin was closer to the natural order of things than Abe Lincoln.
I'm not suggesting we have to set our expectations low. Even the most egocentric leaders tend to live both up and down to the expectations of those around them.
I'm saying we should appreciate how far we've come, and recognize what a difficult journey it's been.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 12, 2007 05:24 AM
October 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I work for an Heir, a Psychopath and Protégé (see "More business archetypes," Keep the Joint Running, 10/1/2007). As you can imagine, projects are interesting and can drag on forever.
I view myself as a mechanic. Mechanics rarely make it to management. They have a bad habit of telling heirs, psychopaths, and protégés what is wrong and how to fix it. They don't want to hear anything from a mechanic until the project has to be pulled out of the toilet. Once that is accomplished, the three of them line up to take credit for all of the hard work required to save the project.
It's quite a crew. I made a very poor career decision a few years ago. I'm too old now to make a move. No one is hiring 62 year old engineers. Only have to deal with them for a couple of years.
- Old
Dear Middle-aged ...
Sounds like you won the Trifecta! That's quite a "leadership" crew you have.
Just my opinion: Nobody is trapped, except people with too little talent. You might have fewer alternatives - there are companies that practice age discrimination - but that still leaves a whole lot of potential employers who would jump at the chance to hire an experienced engineer/project manager.
I'd say this is one of the two key points to make when selling yourself - that you're an experienced engineer and project manager. The other is that you haven't run out of appetite for new challenges. The biggest risk some employers are concerned about when interviewing someone more senior is that they're talking to someone who wants a comfortable place to coast to until retirement.
Make it clear that this isn't you.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 8, 2007 06:46 PM
October 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)
What militaristic management is really like
Dear Bob ...
Your first paragraph (in "More business archetypes," Keep the Joint Running, 10/1/2007) caught my eye. I think people who have never been in the military haven't a clue what it really like.
Most people confuse the word 'militaristic' with 'authoritarian'.
The most authoritarian organizations to which I have ever belonged were a package delivery service in Memphis, TN, and a chip design firm in Addison, TX. The least authoritarian organization to which I've ever belonged was the U. S. Air Force.
In the civilian organizations, mindless adherence to orders was lauded and expected. I have been told "when a director tells you to do something, you do it. I don't care if it breaks every machine in the place, you do it." On the contrary, when asked by a Full Bird Colonel what I thought of an idea, my response was "it sucks." After telling me it was his idea, he asked me to explain to him why it sucked. I did and within five minutes, his idea was history and it affected the way maintenance was done on a large Air Force installation.
I have found the military to be the most Demming-like organization for which I've ever worked. A close second was organizations run by ex-military officers.
Sadly, many organizations tend to promote people who are very good at producing revenue for the company. In a chip design company, this means chip engineers. Often, the traits which make a good chip designer are anathema to being a "people person". What you wind up with is a guy who has to interact with people who is happiest in a dark room behind a closed door with pizza slid under the door from time to time.
On the contrary, I had a squadron commander in the Air Force. Col. White was his name. He made it a point to come into work on every shift at least once a month. He would chat with everyone in the place. Half the conversation would be about work, the other half about hobbies, family, and idle chatter. The next time he spoke to folks, typically a month later, he'd pick up the conversation exactly where he'd left off.
Managers should never underestimate the power of such a practice. There is no clearer indication of "you matter" than such an exhibit of interest in the individual. However, if it lacks sincerity, it will backfire. This person came to the squadron as a major and left less than 18 months later with a promotion number to bird colonel.
I learned a lot about management from Col. White. (And others in the military).
- Air Force Guy
Dear Air Force Guy ...
I've lost track of the number of letters I've received over the years that cite military practice as justification for authoritarianism, all from armchair officers who I'm sure have less military experience than I have (two years contracting at the Naval Military Personnel Command).
Which is why I was delighted to have the chance to clarify the point I'd made about the General archetype in the previous KJR ("Jung at heart," 9/24/2007), and chagrined that it needed clarification.
This is just my impression: Military leadership training before and during the Vietnam War was quite bad. Following the fiasco, the military figured out what it needed to do differently and implemented deep and substantive changes in how it trains officers. Those I met and worked with in the early 1980s exhibited a wide range of leadership qualities, from excellent to dreadful. Over the past fifteen years or so, I can't think of one who wasn't a first-rate leader.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 6, 2007 09:45 PM
October 01, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
When I hear the broad statement: "If an employee is irreplaceable you should immediately fire that employee," (as cited in your recent article, "The causes of greatness," Keep the Joint Running, 9/10/2007) it hits a sore spot, since I am unfortunately in that category. I am not in that category by choice; instead my management (second line and up) has consistently sabotaged my ability to make myself replaceable.
The problem is that we use a very complex piece of software on which I was the lead developer. We inherited this from a prior company following a number of spin-offs, mergers and acquisitions, and I am the only original developer remaining. Over the years I have trained several people (a costly process) who have then either left the company du jour or been the victims of downsizing; I have also lobbied to remove this from our products, and although I have gotten agreements that this should be done, resources have never been allocated.
I am certainly not alone in this regard. Now changing the statement to "If an employee insists on being irreplaceable...." as the fault lies with the employee; however, if an employer forces the employee to be in that position, firing him or her would be to blame the victim.
- Call me Irreplaceable
Dear Irreplaceable ...
I certainly understand the sore spot. The question is whether there's anything else you can do about it, now that you've already used the most common tactics of training replacements and making your unique skill irrelevant.
If there's a third tactic to pursue, I'm unaware of it. That leaves becoming more persuasive with the company's decision-makers regarding the two that are available to you.
I don't know if you're willing to try a higher-risk approach (or if you already have). It's a modification of the what-if-I-was-hit-by-a-bus argument. It goes like this: "I need your help. Right now I'm in career jail, which means I have a strong financial and career incentive to find another opportunity in another company. I really don't want to do this - I like working here. What can we do so I can go on to my next opportunity here instead of someplace else?"
Anyone with any brains who hears this will recognize it for what it is - a veiled threat. On the other hand it's an honest statement of a real risk to the business, stated in businesslike terms, so it shouldn't offend a businesslike manager.
The risk to you, of course, is that not all managers are businesslike when the chips are down . You'll have to judge for yourself whether a conversation like this can work with the people you'll be dealing with.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on October 1, 2007 08:00 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
