Continuing on my previous theme of who should do the hiring, I’d like to focus for a moment on the people on the other side of the table. You know, people like me, who actually conduct the interviews. And since there have been plenty of times when I’ve also been a candidate, I have some insight into what it’s like to sit on both sides of the table.
It’s all too easy for me to get wrapped up in telling candidates what not to do when interviewing, while forgetting that interviewers also do silly things – or that many interviewers are just plain bad at interviewing. Hence I’ll describe some interviewer profiles that bother me, both as a candidate and as a fellow interviewer.
Some interviewers view the process as a battle of wits. i.e., they need to display their superiority over the candidate by asking them obscure questions or presenting bizarre puzzles, and beating them over the head when they inevitably fail to provide the right answer. Call it what you will, but I see it as a personality deficiency.
Other interviewers just love to hear the sound of their own voice and will talk on and on about themselves and their own job given the chance. As a candidate I used to like these types of interviewers, as I would sweat less when I was listening rather than talking. However, this situation is a net loss for the candidate, as they will lose the opportunity to make a positive impression on the interviewer. And so when that interviewer is asked later for a thumbs up or thumbs down on the candidate, their recollection will be murky and their response is likely to be “ehhh”, which usually equates to a thumbs down.
Some interviewers come into the interview totally unprepared. You can tell this is the case if they ask for a copy of your resume, when they should have already reviewed beforehand. It’s obvious they think they have better things to do, and don’t really want to waste their time on this exercise. Another sign is if they ask you one or two throwaway questions and then say, “Do you have any questions for me?”
Finally, perhaps the most useless interviewer is the “face time” person. This is typically a higher level manager who for organizational reasons has to be injected into the interview process, even though they’ll likely have close to zero interaction with the person after they are hired. The interview with this manager is merely a formality, as they are not really qualified to probe the candidate technically, nor can they answer the candidate’s detailed questions. Hence there is no upside to the candidate to this interview, only a downside; if the manager ends up not liking the candidate for superficial reasons, they will exercise their veto power over the candidate.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Who Should Be a Hiring Manager?
You might legitimately ask, what qualifies me (or anyone, for that matter) to be a hiring manager? Do I have some certificate from a Hiring Manager School? No, I do not. My only qualification for being a hiring manager is that I’ve been doing it for a while – which is a tautological argument.
I’ve seen lots of people conduct interviews, and usually at the start they are just as bad at running interviews as many candidates are at being interviewed. But most eventually figure out what works for them and settle down into a comfortable pattern. Of course, what works for one hiring manager doesn’t necessarily work for another manager, or even for the organization as a whole.
Ideally an organization should have clear standards on what is to be expected of the hiring manager and other interviewers. And it would be good to have a formal training regimen for such roles. Unfortunately, that is not the case at most companies, or at least the ones I’ve been at. It’s considered just another part of the job, and any training is to be gained on the battlefield.
My personal thoughts on hiring managers is that they should have the following qualifications:
1. They should have been at the company long enough to know what type of personality and skills are required to succeed there.
2. They should ideally have worked in both a development and management role, even if not at the same company.
3. They should be current on technology issues, even if only at a high level, so candidates cannot BS them.
4. They should have participated in interviews before (as interviewers, not as the ultimate decision maker).
5. They should have sat on the opposite side of the table -- i,e., as a candidate, multiple times in the past. For most people this is true, but there are those people who have worked at a single company their whole careers and don’t remember what it’s like to have to sweat bullets as a candidate.
6. Finally, the hiring manager should be the person the candidate will report to if hired. A manager should not make the decision on a hire if that person will ultimately report to another manager (you might be surprised, but this does happen!).
I’ve seen lots of people conduct interviews, and usually at the start they are just as bad at running interviews as many candidates are at being interviewed. But most eventually figure out what works for them and settle down into a comfortable pattern. Of course, what works for one hiring manager doesn’t necessarily work for another manager, or even for the organization as a whole.
Ideally an organization should have clear standards on what is to be expected of the hiring manager and other interviewers. And it would be good to have a formal training regimen for such roles. Unfortunately, that is not the case at most companies, or at least the ones I’ve been at. It’s considered just another part of the job, and any training is to be gained on the battlefield.
My personal thoughts on hiring managers is that they should have the following qualifications:
1. They should have been at the company long enough to know what type of personality and skills are required to succeed there.
2. They should ideally have worked in both a development and management role, even if not at the same company.
3. They should be current on technology issues, even if only at a high level, so candidates cannot BS them.
4. They should have participated in interviews before (as interviewers, not as the ultimate decision maker).
5. They should have sat on the opposite side of the table -- i,e., as a candidate, multiple times in the past. For most people this is true, but there are those people who have worked at a single company their whole careers and don’t remember what it’s like to have to sweat bullets as a candidate.
6. Finally, the hiring manager should be the person the candidate will report to if hired. A manager should not make the decision on a hire if that person will ultimately report to another manager (you might be surprised, but this does happen!).
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Grass Is Always Greener
You may hear disgruntled tech professionals complain about the decline of tech opportunities, and how it may be time to consider a new career. Perhaps they’re fed up with outsourcing, offshoring, H1Bs, etc., and may believe the difficulty in finding good tech jobs means that it’s time to look elsewhere.
But stop and think for a moment about that question. Presumably you’ve trained for a career in software development and have worked for most of your career in this field. What other type of work are you qualified for, which pays nearly as well?
Let’s alter the question a bit to ask what field a young person, presumably before college, should go into in this day and age. What would you recommend? The traditional answers are probably law, medicine, and business. They sound sensible at first, but things are rarely that simple.
Lawyers, despite the glamorous portrayals on TV and in the movies, generally do not make more than engineers, as a group. Sure, there are the superstar lawyers, the partners at private firms, or the chief counsels at large corporations, that make insane amounts of money. But they are a rare breed, probably as rare senior executives at top tech companies. In both professions there are countless people toiling away for moderate salaries – and the thing is, the ones working in law toil away much harder than the typical engineer. I don’t know of too many engineers, except perhaps at some startups, who regularly work 80 hour weeks like law associates often do.
Likewise, the medical field provides high salaries for top specialists, but with the rise of managed care and hard-bargaining insurance companies, a lot of doctors have to hustle to make barely six figures. Do you remember the last time you went to visit a doctor, how they had to constantly juggle several patients at once and spent only a few minutes with you? That’s what they have to do to survive on low insurance and Medicare reimbursement rates.
Then there’s the field of ‘Business’, which is quite a nebulous term. It could mean Wall Street, Corporate Finance, Banking, Sales, or any number of money-related careers. However, even in this field the number of superstars making big coin is naturally limited, and the hours can be long. And as we’ve seen with the credit crisis, this industry is also subject to major boom-and-bust cycles.
Perhaps the other route to big success is entrepreneurship. However, while the other professions above do not provide any guarantees of success, striking out on your own provides close to zero guarantees. And this is perhaps also the hardest road to take – harder than law, medicine, business, or tech. However, in some ways it can also be the most rewarding. Imagine not having a boss to report to – although effectively, your customers are now your bosses, so that’s effectively a wash.
So if we are to conclude anything from this little overview, my point is that there is no relatively easier path to success, and tech is just as good a path as any other, warts and all.
But stop and think for a moment about that question. Presumably you’ve trained for a career in software development and have worked for most of your career in this field. What other type of work are you qualified for, which pays nearly as well?
Let’s alter the question a bit to ask what field a young person, presumably before college, should go into in this day and age. What would you recommend? The traditional answers are probably law, medicine, and business. They sound sensible at first, but things are rarely that simple.
Lawyers, despite the glamorous portrayals on TV and in the movies, generally do not make more than engineers, as a group. Sure, there are the superstar lawyers, the partners at private firms, or the chief counsels at large corporations, that make insane amounts of money. But they are a rare breed, probably as rare senior executives at top tech companies. In both professions there are countless people toiling away for moderate salaries – and the thing is, the ones working in law toil away much harder than the typical engineer. I don’t know of too many engineers, except perhaps at some startups, who regularly work 80 hour weeks like law associates often do.
Likewise, the medical field provides high salaries for top specialists, but with the rise of managed care and hard-bargaining insurance companies, a lot of doctors have to hustle to make barely six figures. Do you remember the last time you went to visit a doctor, how they had to constantly juggle several patients at once and spent only a few minutes with you? That’s what they have to do to survive on low insurance and Medicare reimbursement rates.
Then there’s the field of ‘Business’, which is quite a nebulous term. It could mean Wall Street, Corporate Finance, Banking, Sales, or any number of money-related careers. However, even in this field the number of superstars making big coin is naturally limited, and the hours can be long. And as we’ve seen with the credit crisis, this industry is also subject to major boom-and-bust cycles.
Perhaps the other route to big success is entrepreneurship. However, while the other professions above do not provide any guarantees of success, striking out on your own provides close to zero guarantees. And this is perhaps also the hardest road to take – harder than law, medicine, business, or tech. However, in some ways it can also be the most rewarding. Imagine not having a boss to report to – although effectively, your customers are now your bosses, so that’s effectively a wash.
So if we are to conclude anything from this little overview, my point is that there is no relatively easier path to success, and tech is just as good a path as any other, warts and all.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Extended Unemployment
Continuing on a previous topic, some people may experience a protracted period of unemployment. In some cases it may take months, or even years before they find a suitable job. If this happens to you, try not to be discouraged. Yes, it’s easy for me to say that, but it’s still important to look at things from a clear perspective.
First of all, you should ask yourself whether the extended job search is normal. Fact is, it takes time to find a new job, and the higher you are on the salary ladder the longer it generally takes. The old rule of thumb was 1 month for each 10K of salary, and I think it still applies – more or less. Also, if your skills are more specialized, or if you live in an area that’s not a technology hotspot, you should expect an even longer job search. And finally, if the economic climate is poor, the search will naturally take longer (duh).
If your search extends even beyond what might be considered normal by these standards, you’ll need to start considering what extenuating factors might be in play. Are you getting interviews but not offers? Or are you not even getting interviews at all?
If you are not getting many interviews, it might be that there is a general tech downturn in your particular geographic area or in your particular field. In these cases, you need to ask yourself whether you should consider relocating to another part of the country (or the world). Or perhaps you should consider retooling your skill set, or even try another line of work altogether.
Personally I think relocating is a viable option for a lot of people, even those that would not normally consider it. However, it’s not a good idea to move to a new location before you have a job there, as there are no guarantees that you will land a job. Also, retraining for a new skill set sounds good in theory, but most employers will want actual hands-on experience in a technology, not just a training certificate. And changing careers to an entirely different field is definitely a last resort.
Hence my advice is to stick it out and keep looking for a job in your chosen field. Perhaps you might have to take a slightly different position, such as a Project Manager or Analyst or even QA instead of a Developer. Or you might have to take a cut in pay or title. But as long as the new position is related to the work you were doing, and the step back is not a huge one, you should consider it. Spending a year working as a junior developer is far preferable to spending it unemployed and on the sidelines.
If you are getting interviews but no offers, perhaps you need to review your interviewing skills and style. Too many people think that their skills should speak for themselves, and that the interview is an objective format for discussing those skills. Not so. There are many complex factors that play into an interview, many (if not most) of them subjective. Your interview skills can definitely be improved; try going to ‘practice’ interviews with jobs you aren’t really interested in, or else engage in mock interviews with friends and colleagues if you have to.
Finally, remember that you are not your interviews. To put it another way, you should not see successful interview outcomes (i.e., offers) as a validation of your personal worth, and vice versa. They are just auditions, and auditions do not always reward the best candidates.
First of all, you should ask yourself whether the extended job search is normal. Fact is, it takes time to find a new job, and the higher you are on the salary ladder the longer it generally takes. The old rule of thumb was 1 month for each 10K of salary, and I think it still applies – more or less. Also, if your skills are more specialized, or if you live in an area that’s not a technology hotspot, you should expect an even longer job search. And finally, if the economic climate is poor, the search will naturally take longer (duh).
If your search extends even beyond what might be considered normal by these standards, you’ll need to start considering what extenuating factors might be in play. Are you getting interviews but not offers? Or are you not even getting interviews at all?
If you are not getting many interviews, it might be that there is a general tech downturn in your particular geographic area or in your particular field. In these cases, you need to ask yourself whether you should consider relocating to another part of the country (or the world). Or perhaps you should consider retooling your skill set, or even try another line of work altogether.
Personally I think relocating is a viable option for a lot of people, even those that would not normally consider it. However, it’s not a good idea to move to a new location before you have a job there, as there are no guarantees that you will land a job. Also, retraining for a new skill set sounds good in theory, but most employers will want actual hands-on experience in a technology, not just a training certificate. And changing careers to an entirely different field is definitely a last resort.
Hence my advice is to stick it out and keep looking for a job in your chosen field. Perhaps you might have to take a slightly different position, such as a Project Manager or Analyst or even QA instead of a Developer. Or you might have to take a cut in pay or title. But as long as the new position is related to the work you were doing, and the step back is not a huge one, you should consider it. Spending a year working as a junior developer is far preferable to spending it unemployed and on the sidelines.
If you are getting interviews but no offers, perhaps you need to review your interviewing skills and style. Too many people think that their skills should speak for themselves, and that the interview is an objective format for discussing those skills. Not so. There are many complex factors that play into an interview, many (if not most) of them subjective. Your interview skills can definitely be improved; try going to ‘practice’ interviews with jobs you aren’t really interested in, or else engage in mock interviews with friends and colleagues if you have to.
Finally, remember that you are not your interviews. To put it another way, you should not see successful interview outcomes (i.e., offers) as a validation of your personal worth, and vice versa. They are just auditions, and auditions do not always reward the best candidates.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Is Outsourcing to Blame?
From the comments to my last post it looks like people are concerned about the trend towards outsourcing taking away their jobs. Rightly so, but things aren’t necessarily as bleak as some might imagine.
Outsourcing, or more correctly offshoring, has become the bogeyman for the software engineering industry, and has spread to other industries as well. However, from my perspective I have seen how outsourcing has worked (or not) at several companies. So here is my observation of how the process typically goes.
First, during boom times a company finds that it needs more people to handle its growing IT needs. It discovers that it either can’t find people to hire fast enough, or else the boom market has driven up salaries beyond what it wants to pay. Either way it looks to offshoring as a source of cheap, plentiful tech labor.
So the company starts outsourcing positions, typically working with a large Indian consulting firm like InfoSys, Tata, or Wipro. The company goes out of its way to reassure its employees that no, their jobs are not at risk; the company is merely supplementing its engineering capacity with offshore talent. The employees are naturally uneasy about this, but management is happy because they are getting additional bodies at a fraction of what it would cost to hire American engineers.
After about a year though the company starts to notice that productivity with offshore engineers is not what they had hoped. Challenges in communication, issues with remote management, and a wildly variable resource pool results in poor code, lots of bugs, and misunderstood requirements. Counting rework and time lost in cleaning up mistakes, overall net productivity amounts to perhaps a half or a quarter that of domestic engineers.
At this point one of two scenarios occurs. In the first, management is so giddy about the cost savings from offshoring that they start pushing American engineers out the door and replacing them with offshore labor. They either don’t understand the implications of reduced quality and productivity, or they just don’t care. They believe that if offshore engineers’ productivity is lower, their lower cost more than makes up for it
Hence these companies throw more bodies at the problem, adding more offshore engineers to while reducing domestic headcount. Productivity, turnaround time, and time to market suffer, but the bottom line looks better… at least for a while. These companies however often get addicted to the supposed cost savings, and enter into a spiral of costcutting and poor quality and never recover.
However, in the alternate, more positive scenario, the company decides that the lower productivity and poor quality from offshoring are not worth the cost savings. Hence they start to bring the jobs back to the U.S., and reduce their reliance on undependable offshore labor.
I have seen both of these scenarios firsthand, and am hopeful that the second scenario will become more common. I believe that eventually more and more companies will begin to see the benefits of having technical resources close at hand, where they can be closely supervised and where communication is more straightforward. This will take time, but I think the tide may be (slowly) turning.
Outsourcing, or more correctly offshoring, has become the bogeyman for the software engineering industry, and has spread to other industries as well. However, from my perspective I have seen how outsourcing has worked (or not) at several companies. So here is my observation of how the process typically goes.
First, during boom times a company finds that it needs more people to handle its growing IT needs. It discovers that it either can’t find people to hire fast enough, or else the boom market has driven up salaries beyond what it wants to pay. Either way it looks to offshoring as a source of cheap, plentiful tech labor.
So the company starts outsourcing positions, typically working with a large Indian consulting firm like InfoSys, Tata, or Wipro. The company goes out of its way to reassure its employees that no, their jobs are not at risk; the company is merely supplementing its engineering capacity with offshore talent. The employees are naturally uneasy about this, but management is happy because they are getting additional bodies at a fraction of what it would cost to hire American engineers.
After about a year though the company starts to notice that productivity with offshore engineers is not what they had hoped. Challenges in communication, issues with remote management, and a wildly variable resource pool results in poor code, lots of bugs, and misunderstood requirements. Counting rework and time lost in cleaning up mistakes, overall net productivity amounts to perhaps a half or a quarter that of domestic engineers.
At this point one of two scenarios occurs. In the first, management is so giddy about the cost savings from offshoring that they start pushing American engineers out the door and replacing them with offshore labor. They either don’t understand the implications of reduced quality and productivity, or they just don’t care. They believe that if offshore engineers’ productivity is lower, their lower cost more than makes up for it
Hence these companies throw more bodies at the problem, adding more offshore engineers to while reducing domestic headcount. Productivity, turnaround time, and time to market suffer, but the bottom line looks better… at least for a while. These companies however often get addicted to the supposed cost savings, and enter into a spiral of costcutting and poor quality and never recover.
However, in the alternate, more positive scenario, the company decides that the lower productivity and poor quality from offshoring are not worth the cost savings. Hence they start to bring the jobs back to the U.S., and reduce their reliance on undependable offshore labor.
I have seen both of these scenarios firsthand, and am hopeful that the second scenario will become more common. I believe that eventually more and more companies will begin to see the benefits of having technical resources close at hand, where they can be closely supervised and where communication is more straightforward. This will take time, but I think the tide may be (slowly) turning.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Why Can’t I Land a Job?
We have all heard stories about candidates who go on interview after interview but can never land a position. Or even worse, they don’t get interviews at all. Perhaps you know of someone like this, or maybe you are in this situation yourself. And you might be asking, “What’s going on? Has the market gone completely to hell? Or maybe is there something wrong with me?”
There could be several possible answers. Perhaps there are not many jobs in your desired field. Is your specialty in Artificial Intelligence with Lisp? Certainly there will be fewer career choices for you than if you are an ASP.NET, Java, or PHP developer. Ask yourself if you would rather continue in your area of expertise or learn more general and more marketable skills.
Also, there might not be the right types of jobs in your geographic area. Are you flexible about relocation? There may not be many ASP.NET/WCF or Java/Spring positions in Great Falls, Montana. Not that there’s anything wrong with Great Falls, but it might not be the place for someone with your skill set. Consider moving to a major metropolitan area if possible.
So let’s say that you’ve learned C#/ASP.NET and relocated to the San Francisco Bay area (don’t call it ‘Frisco’, by the way). Unfortunately PHP and Ruby on Rails are far more popular than ASP.NET in the Bay area, but let’s put that aside for the moment. There should still be a fair number of ASP.NET positions in the Bay area, so why hasn’t that great position come along? You may have gone on several interviews with great companies and thought you did well, but you have yet to hear back from any of the companies you visited.
It’s possible that in this situation your skills are not strong enough for the positions you are applying to. You should consider taking a position with a less prestigious company as a stepping stone. Once there you can improve your skill set and build up a track record of achievement that you can leverage into a new position.
Keep in mind also that finding a new job is never an easy process. In the past the rule of thumb was to allow 1 month of searching for each $10K of salary. That may seem extreme, but it does make sense that as you progress further in your career, there are fewer senior and advanced level positions available. So naturally it will take longer to find that matching position.
Finally, it is always pays to be introspective. Is it possible that all the companies you’ve talked to are staffed by bumbling, incompetent idiots who fail to see your true genius? Are they all just going through the motions of interviewing before they hire their cousin or an H1B? Are you just wasting your time with these clowns?
All of these things are possible, but unlikely. Remember that companies look for more than just technical skills. Your social skills, communication skills, and yes, even your appearance can play a factor. Do you enjoy interacting with other people? Or do you just endure them? Do you enjoy chatting people up? Or do you wish people would shut up and go away so you can do your work? Are you well groomed, or do you think dress and appearance are unimportant as long as you do solid work? Your answers to these questions will likely matter more than you might think.
There could be several possible answers. Perhaps there are not many jobs in your desired field. Is your specialty in Artificial Intelligence with Lisp? Certainly there will be fewer career choices for you than if you are an ASP.NET, Java, or PHP developer. Ask yourself if you would rather continue in your area of expertise or learn more general and more marketable skills.
Also, there might not be the right types of jobs in your geographic area. Are you flexible about relocation? There may not be many ASP.NET/WCF or Java/Spring positions in Great Falls, Montana. Not that there’s anything wrong with Great Falls, but it might not be the place for someone with your skill set. Consider moving to a major metropolitan area if possible.
So let’s say that you’ve learned C#/ASP.NET and relocated to the San Francisco Bay area (don’t call it ‘Frisco’, by the way). Unfortunately PHP and Ruby on Rails are far more popular than ASP.NET in the Bay area, but let’s put that aside for the moment. There should still be a fair number of ASP.NET positions in the Bay area, so why hasn’t that great position come along? You may have gone on several interviews with great companies and thought you did well, but you have yet to hear back from any of the companies you visited.
It’s possible that in this situation your skills are not strong enough for the positions you are applying to. You should consider taking a position with a less prestigious company as a stepping stone. Once there you can improve your skill set and build up a track record of achievement that you can leverage into a new position.
Keep in mind also that finding a new job is never an easy process. In the past the rule of thumb was to allow 1 month of searching for each $10K of salary. That may seem extreme, but it does make sense that as you progress further in your career, there are fewer senior and advanced level positions available. So naturally it will take longer to find that matching position.
Finally, it is always pays to be introspective. Is it possible that all the companies you’ve talked to are staffed by bumbling, incompetent idiots who fail to see your true genius? Are they all just going through the motions of interviewing before they hire their cousin or an H1B? Are you just wasting your time with these clowns?
All of these things are possible, but unlikely. Remember that companies look for more than just technical skills. Your social skills, communication skills, and yes, even your appearance can play a factor. Do you enjoy interacting with other people? Or do you just endure them? Do you enjoy chatting people up? Or do you wish people would shut up and go away so you can do your work? Are you well groomed, or do you think dress and appearance are unimportant as long as you do solid work? Your answers to these questions will likely matter more than you might think.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Hiring Freeze
What does it mean when a company is in a hiring freeze? Does it simply mean they are not hiring anyone, period? No, that’s not necessarily the case.
What a hiring freeze does mean is that managers cannot open new reqs to increase headcount. However, they can often open reqs to replace people who leave.
Also, even with a hiring freeze in place many companies make provisions for hiring essential personnel to fill key positions. In such cases the hiring freeze is a “soft” one in that each req has to be approved by senior management,
The moral? Even if you hear that a company has a hiring freeze, that shouldn’t discourage you from applying there, as there are always exceptions.
What a hiring freeze does mean is that managers cannot open new reqs to increase headcount. However, they can often open reqs to replace people who leave.
Also, even with a hiring freeze in place many companies make provisions for hiring essential personnel to fill key positions. In such cases the hiring freeze is a “soft” one in that each req has to be approved by senior management,
The moral? Even if you hear that a company has a hiring freeze, that shouldn’t discourage you from applying there, as there are always exceptions.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Handling a Layoff (or Other Involuntary Separation)
Layoffs can happen to the best of us – and yes, it has happened to me in the past. Not through any fault of my own (of course!), but as they say, sh*t happens.
There are several stages in dealing with a traumatic event like a layoff. Different sources may have slightly different lists, but for me it goes like this:
1. Shock
2. Denial
3. Anger
4. Bargaining
5. Depression
6. Acceptance
Shock means it takes a moment for the news to sink in. “What just happened here?” is what you ask yourself, and you wander around in a daze.
Denial is where you tell yourself that this can’t be happening, that it’s all just a dream (or a nightmare). Or they surely must have made a mistake, and your name should have been on the promotion list instead of the RIF list?
Anger is where you curse your employer for having the gall to lay you off, after all you’ve done for them. All that hard work, the best years of your career down the drain.
Bargaining is where you try to negotiate with the company for a second chance, or more time, or at least a better severance package.
Depression is where you feel sorry for yourself, thinking that with this stain on your record you’ll never find another good job. How long will you be unemployed? How painful will the loss of income be?
Acceptance is the part where you basically decide to deal with it and move on. This is where you start polishing your resume and posting it online. The sooner you can move to this stage, the better off you will be.
I have gone through this myself, more than once in fact. And I think it's an experience that everyone should go through if only as a learning experience. Once you are the subject of a RIF you look at the job market differently; you learn that you, and no one elsehave to actively look out for your own career and well being.
There are several stages in dealing with a traumatic event like a layoff. Different sources may have slightly different lists, but for me it goes like this:
1. Shock
2. Denial
3. Anger
4. Bargaining
5. Depression
6. Acceptance
Shock means it takes a moment for the news to sink in. “What just happened here?” is what you ask yourself, and you wander around in a daze.
Denial is where you tell yourself that this can’t be happening, that it’s all just a dream (or a nightmare). Or they surely must have made a mistake, and your name should have been on the promotion list instead of the RIF list?
Anger is where you curse your employer for having the gall to lay you off, after all you’ve done for them. All that hard work, the best years of your career down the drain.
Bargaining is where you try to negotiate with the company for a second chance, or more time, or at least a better severance package.
Depression is where you feel sorry for yourself, thinking that with this stain on your record you’ll never find another good job. How long will you be unemployed? How painful will the loss of income be?
Acceptance is the part where you basically decide to deal with it and move on. This is where you start polishing your resume and posting it online. The sooner you can move to this stage, the better off you will be.
I have gone through this myself, more than once in fact. And I think it's an experience that everyone should go through if only as a learning experience. Once you are the subject of a RIF you look at the job market differently; you learn that you, and no one elsehave to actively look out for your own career and well being.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Am I Being Pushed Out?
I noted in my last post that California is an employment “At Will” state, so it’s virtually impossible to fire someone on the spot. Whenever I’ve tried to do so, HR has always slapped my hand. Except in cases of gross misconduct companies will almost never fire anyone on short notice.
It’s basically a liability issue. The employee may find an excuse to sue the company claiming they were unfairly let go. “At Will” employment rules do have exceptions, and disgruntled terminated employees (is there any other kind?) and their lawyers have habit of exploiting these laws to the fullest.
Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn’t have become an employment lawyer. They seem to be always busy either suing companies or sitting back and counting their money. Hopefully they won’t sue me for this post.
As a result of worry over legal action, companies are quite methodical and deliberate when they want to terminate someone. The manager has to build up a strong case and document performance problems with the employee. The employee will also typically be given at least one verbal warning and then a written warning.
So what does it mean if you are presented with a written warning? Well, to begin with it shouldn’t come as a total surprise. You will most likely have received verbal warnings already, though it might not have been explicitly stated as such. You might not even have taken them seriously, dismissing them as a cantankerous boss just venting steam.
However, when it gets to the point of a written warning, it’s definitely serious. Basically this is one of those few times where you’re justified in being paranoid. Your bosses really do have it in for you, and they are building up a case file to cover their backs.
At this point you’re on borrowed time – a written warning typically gives you 30 days to shape up or ship out. And it’s a rare situation indeed where 30 days is enough for a person to show dramatic improvement, which is what it usually takes to get your neck out of the noose.
Furthermore, in many cases your bosses won’t even care if you do show improvement, as they will have already made the decision to show you the door after the 30 days. So your best bet is really to polish up your resume and start actively looking for a new job.
It’s basically a liability issue. The employee may find an excuse to sue the company claiming they were unfairly let go. “At Will” employment rules do have exceptions, and disgruntled terminated employees (is there any other kind?) and their lawyers have habit of exploiting these laws to the fullest.
Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn’t have become an employment lawyer. They seem to be always busy either suing companies or sitting back and counting their money. Hopefully they won’t sue me for this post.
As a result of worry over legal action, companies are quite methodical and deliberate when they want to terminate someone. The manager has to build up a strong case and document performance problems with the employee. The employee will also typically be given at least one verbal warning and then a written warning.
So what does it mean if you are presented with a written warning? Well, to begin with it shouldn’t come as a total surprise. You will most likely have received verbal warnings already, though it might not have been explicitly stated as such. You might not even have taken them seriously, dismissing them as a cantankerous boss just venting steam.
However, when it gets to the point of a written warning, it’s definitely serious. Basically this is one of those few times where you’re justified in being paranoid. Your bosses really do have it in for you, and they are building up a case file to cover their backs.
At this point you’re on borrowed time – a written warning typically gives you 30 days to shape up or ship out. And it’s a rare situation indeed where 30 days is enough for a person to show dramatic improvement, which is what it usually takes to get your neck out of the noose.
Furthermore, in many cases your bosses won’t even care if you do show improvement, as they will have already made the decision to show you the door after the 30 days. So your best bet is really to polish up your resume and start actively looking for a new job.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
“At-Will” Employment
What exactly does it mean when a state such as California, has an “At Will” employment law?
Before you read any further you should realize that INAL – i.e., I’m Not A Lawyer. What I’m writing here is based on my fuzzy understanding of employment law based on the management training classes I slept through.
Basically the idea is that an employee can be let go at any time for any reason, except for a few reasons that are forbidden by law. Those exceptions include things like race, age, gender, etc. Of course, the idea works both ways; you as an employee are also free to walk away from the job at any time.
In practice though, firing someone is a painfully tedious process for most companies. That’s because companies will generally document pretty thoroughly the reasons why they are letting someone go. While such documentation is not strictly required, it is a defensive measure in case the fired employee sues for wrongful termination. In most cases the employee has an uphill battle proving they have been wronged, but companies don’t like to take chances.
That means that for most companies in most situations, on the spot firings are not really an option -- unless it’s for cause. “For Cause” is usually defined as gross misconduct, but again INAL, and the definition of misconduct will vary by company.
Hence it’s much easier for companies to push someone out as part of a larger layoff. In such cases the company generally does not need significant documentation as to why they let people go. In fact, they can even adopt the line “Hey, we really would have liked to have kept you onboard, but difficult times call for difficult choices…”
Before you read any further you should realize that INAL – i.e., I’m Not A Lawyer. What I’m writing here is based on my fuzzy understanding of employment law based on the management training classes I slept through.
Basically the idea is that an employee can be let go at any time for any reason, except for a few reasons that are forbidden by law. Those exceptions include things like race, age, gender, etc. Of course, the idea works both ways; you as an employee are also free to walk away from the job at any time.
In practice though, firing someone is a painfully tedious process for most companies. That’s because companies will generally document pretty thoroughly the reasons why they are letting someone go. While such documentation is not strictly required, it is a defensive measure in case the fired employee sues for wrongful termination. In most cases the employee has an uphill battle proving they have been wronged, but companies don’t like to take chances.
That means that for most companies in most situations, on the spot firings are not really an option -- unless it’s for cause. “For Cause” is usually defined as gross misconduct, but again INAL, and the definition of misconduct will vary by company.
Hence it’s much easier for companies to push someone out as part of a larger layoff. In such cases the company generally does not need significant documentation as to why they let people go. In fact, they can even adopt the line “Hey, we really would have liked to have kept you onboard, but difficult times call for difficult choices…”
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Corporate Belt Tightening
It happens on occasion, and more often these days. Your company has a bad quarter, and senior management gets nervous and decides to trim the fat. Or the revenues don’t quite meet projections, the investors get antsy, and the burn rate needs to be reduced. Either way, you may get the sense the axe is about to fall.
At a larger company the warning signs are more evident, at least if you’re in management. The company cuts back on travel, expenses get clamped down, job reqs are trimmed, and finally a hiring freeze is put in place. Those are all pretty good signs that layoffs are just around the corner. Another is if mangers are asked to stack rank their employees when that’s never been done before in the company.
The signs are more difficult to spot at a smaller company (unless you work in sales), and the belt tightening often comes without much warning. Still, there should be clues you can pick up on to tell you whether the company might soon be downsizing.
Are the senior managers constantly huddled in all-day meetings, perhaps with outsiders? Do they avoid contact with employees and start cancelling regular staff meetings? Do the executives stop openly discussing company financials or prospects? And are key people suddenly leaving the company, voluntarily or otherwise?
If you pick up on any of these signs, it’s definitely time to polish up your resume. Of course, if you’ve been reading my blog you know that you should already have a current resume out there, anonymized if necessary. And as the financial advisors recommend, you should have at least six months of expenses saved up, more if possible. These days you really shouldn’t be surprised at all if the axe falls suddenly and without much warning.
At a larger company the warning signs are more evident, at least if you’re in management. The company cuts back on travel, expenses get clamped down, job reqs are trimmed, and finally a hiring freeze is put in place. Those are all pretty good signs that layoffs are just around the corner. Another is if mangers are asked to stack rank their employees when that’s never been done before in the company.
The signs are more difficult to spot at a smaller company (unless you work in sales), and the belt tightening often comes without much warning. Still, there should be clues you can pick up on to tell you whether the company might soon be downsizing.
Are the senior managers constantly huddled in all-day meetings, perhaps with outsiders? Do they avoid contact with employees and start cancelling regular staff meetings? Do the executives stop openly discussing company financials or prospects? And are key people suddenly leaving the company, voluntarily or otherwise?
If you pick up on any of these signs, it’s definitely time to polish up your resume. Of course, if you’ve been reading my blog you know that you should already have a current resume out there, anonymized if necessary. And as the financial advisors recommend, you should have at least six months of expenses saved up, more if possible. These days you really shouldn’t be surprised at all if the axe falls suddenly and without much warning.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Should I Re-Apply at a Company?
Some people wonder if a company turns them down after an interview, whether they should ever apply there again. Or are you Persona Non Grata forever?
Even in the extreme case most companies will have forgotten about you after a while. Turnover in the tech department and HR, along with recordkeeping difficulties, means that resumes have a half life of about a year. Much longer than that and they most likely won’t even remember that you had applied previously.
If you do decide to reapply within a year or less, you may be challenged to show that your skills have substantially improved since the last time. In most cases just another year of the same work experience won’t cut it, but some organizations may be more accommodating and let you interview again anyway.
My point? It’s perfectly okay to re-apply at a company where you’ve been turned down in the past. However, you should wait at least a year before doing so, and make sure you can demonstrate some growth in the meantime.
Even in the extreme case most companies will have forgotten about you after a while. Turnover in the tech department and HR, along with recordkeeping difficulties, means that resumes have a half life of about a year. Much longer than that and they most likely won’t even remember that you had applied previously.
If you do decide to reapply within a year or less, you may be challenged to show that your skills have substantially improved since the last time. In most cases just another year of the same work experience won’t cut it, but some organizations may be more accommodating and let you interview again anyway.
My point? It’s perfectly okay to re-apply at a company where you’ve been turned down in the past. However, you should wait at least a year before doing so, and make sure you can demonstrate some growth in the meantime.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Interviewing with Multiple Companies
If you are actively looking for a new job, it’s likely that you’ll be interviewing with several companies at the same time. You’ll also likely have a preference for some jobs over others. So how should you handle it if talks progress significantly with more than one company? Should you drop discussions with the companies you’re less interested in and focus on the ones that look more attractive?
My advice is to never do this. I can’t count the number of times when it seemed like I had several companies itching to make me offers at the same time, but then none of the leads panned out. It’s not necessarily the candidate’s fault when this happens; most often it occurs because there were other qualified candidates in the running.
Hence if you are deep into the process with multiple companies, even ones you aren’t necessarily crazy about, you need to do everything you can to get the offer(s). Once the offer is in hand you can decide whether it’s something you want to accept. But then at least then the decision is yours, not the company’s.
My advice is to never do this. I can’t count the number of times when it seemed like I had several companies itching to make me offers at the same time, but then none of the leads panned out. It’s not necessarily the candidate’s fault when this happens; most often it occurs because there were other qualified candidates in the running.
Hence if you are deep into the process with multiple companies, even ones you aren’t necessarily crazy about, you need to do everything you can to get the offer(s). Once the offer is in hand you can decide whether it’s something you want to accept. But then at least then the decision is yours, not the company’s.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Can We Talk?
This is not a reference to Joan Rivers’ favorite line, for those who can remember that far back. Instead, it refers to what happens when a recruiter calls you during the day at work.
At some companies I’ve been fortunate enough to have an office with a door I could close when I needed some privacy. Unfortunately, that has been the exception rather than the norm in my recent career. I’ve even been in so-called ‘open’ environments where there were not even any partitions between desks. Obviously in such situations you can’t freely talk with a headhunter at your desk.
So what are your options? Well, you might walk outside if that’s something you can do readily. Or you could duck into a conference room if one is available. Or you could step into a quiet hallway. And of course there’s the option of not answering the call and sending it to voicemail so you can reply at a more convenient time. That’s usually my preferred approach. The other options can make you look a bit suspicious when you rush away from your desk cradling your cell phone to your ear.
In fact when I post my resume online I usually leave out my phone number altogether. I’d much rather be contacted by e-mail so I can reply back to the recruiter at my leisure if I’m interested. Otherwise with my phone number out there in the open I’ll get lots of calls about positions I have zero interest in. If those inquiries come in via e-mail it’s easy enough to just delete them, but if I have to field a call for each one I’d quickly go crazy.
But whatever you do, I recommend that you absolutely NOT use your company phone or e-mail system for communicating with recruiters. I’ve known people who were lax and cavalier about this rule, even when they knew their phone calls and e-mails were being recorded as a matter of company policy. This policy may exist at your company as well, even if it's not explicitly stated. And as the saying goes, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
At some companies I’ve been fortunate enough to have an office with a door I could close when I needed some privacy. Unfortunately, that has been the exception rather than the norm in my recent career. I’ve even been in so-called ‘open’ environments where there were not even any partitions between desks. Obviously in such situations you can’t freely talk with a headhunter at your desk.
So what are your options? Well, you might walk outside if that’s something you can do readily. Or you could duck into a conference room if one is available. Or you could step into a quiet hallway. And of course there’s the option of not answering the call and sending it to voicemail so you can reply at a more convenient time. That’s usually my preferred approach. The other options can make you look a bit suspicious when you rush away from your desk cradling your cell phone to your ear.
In fact when I post my resume online I usually leave out my phone number altogether. I’d much rather be contacted by e-mail so I can reply back to the recruiter at my leisure if I’m interested. Otherwise with my phone number out there in the open I’ll get lots of calls about positions I have zero interest in. If those inquiries come in via e-mail it’s easy enough to just delete them, but if I have to field a call for each one I’d quickly go crazy.
But whatever you do, I recommend that you absolutely NOT use your company phone or e-mail system for communicating with recruiters. I’ve known people who were lax and cavalier about this rule, even when they knew their phone calls and e-mails were being recorded as a matter of company policy. This policy may exist at your company as well, even if it's not explicitly stated. And as the saying goes, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
When to Look for a New Job
The best time to look for a new job, or at least to be on the lookout, is when you are happily employed. The absolute worst time is when you’re being pushed out the door.
For me, the best approach is to always be open to new opportunities. That doesn’t mean you should have one foot out the door at all times, nor does it mean you should spend an hour each morning scouring the job boards. Rather, it means that you should be a passive candidate and have your resume out there, anonymized if necessary, as I discussed previously.
The next question then is when you should go from being a merely passive candidate to kicking it into high gear and going active. This decision to switch into active mode is one that each person makes deliberately by choice, and when it happens it’s pretty obvious. They mentally check out of their current job, and their focus switches to finding a new position.
Mentally checking out of your job however is not a good thing. You may tell yourself that sure, you can still do your job while keenly searching for a new position, but the reality is that your heart is no longer in your work, and the quality of your output will inevitably suffer.
Hence you need to mentally force yourself to stay focused on your current job. This is especially important since a job search can take a year or more (and considerably longer in a down economy), and you can’t stay mentally checked out of your job for that long. Your boss will definitely notice, your reviews will suffer, and it’s possible that you might end up being separated from your job – and not on your own terms.
For me, the best approach is to always be open to new opportunities. That doesn’t mean you should have one foot out the door at all times, nor does it mean you should spend an hour each morning scouring the job boards. Rather, it means that you should be a passive candidate and have your resume out there, anonymized if necessary, as I discussed previously.
The next question then is when you should go from being a merely passive candidate to kicking it into high gear and going active. This decision to switch into active mode is one that each person makes deliberately by choice, and when it happens it’s pretty obvious. They mentally check out of their current job, and their focus switches to finding a new position.
Mentally checking out of your job however is not a good thing. You may tell yourself that sure, you can still do your job while keenly searching for a new position, but the reality is that your heart is no longer in your work, and the quality of your output will inevitably suffer.
Hence you need to mentally force yourself to stay focused on your current job. This is especially important since a job search can take a year or more (and considerably longer in a down economy), and you can’t stay mentally checked out of your job for that long. Your boss will definitely notice, your reviews will suffer, and it’s possible that you might end up being separated from your job – and not on your own terms.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Employee-Company Loyalty
Does such a thing exist nowadays? Most people would say no, and they’d probably be right.
A company’s loyalty to its employees would imply a “No Layoff” policy. IBM was a famous example of this approach, at least until they started laying people off in the ‘90s. AMD is another example of a company that had to eat their words. But nowadays very few companies explicitly tout no layoff policies since they’re so difficult to uphold, especially in this economic climate.
In the absence of a company’s loyalty to its employees, is it reasonable for employees to be loyal to their employer? I think not. Loyalty has to be a two-way street; one-way loyalty is called blind faith.
So as an employee does this give you carte blanche to continuously job hob, renege on job offers, and use offers from other companies to demand raises from your boss? No, this does not justify any of those behaviors. But what it does mean is that you should not let your employer guilt you into staying due to some misplaced sense of company loyalty.
Your employer might pull the “I hired you when no one else would…” line. That only means that the company got you for a bargain, and now they realize your true value in the marketplace.
A company’s loyalty to its employees would imply a “No Layoff” policy. IBM was a famous example of this approach, at least until they started laying people off in the ‘90s. AMD is another example of a company that had to eat their words. But nowadays very few companies explicitly tout no layoff policies since they’re so difficult to uphold, especially in this economic climate.
In the absence of a company’s loyalty to its employees, is it reasonable for employees to be loyal to their employer? I think not. Loyalty has to be a two-way street; one-way loyalty is called blind faith.
So as an employee does this give you carte blanche to continuously job hob, renege on job offers, and use offers from other companies to demand raises from your boss? No, this does not justify any of those behaviors. But what it does mean is that you should not let your employer guilt you into staying due to some misplaced sense of company loyalty.
Your employer might pull the “I hired you when no one else would…” line. That only means that the company got you for a bargain, and now they realize your true value in the marketplace.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Keeping an Eye Out for New Opportunities
When should you post your resume on the job boards and when should you take them off? My advice is to always keep your current resume online. You never know when that killer opportunity might come along. And even if you are happy in your current job, you might be even happier in a new one.
If you are concerned about your current employer finding out, you can always keep your contact information anonymous. You can also list your current employer as “Major Company” or something similar and tweak your responsibility descriptions to be somewhat vague.
Also, if you are contacted by a recruiter and are not looking to make a move at the moment, don’t simply delete the e-mail or dismiss the phone call; instead reply courteously and let them know that while you are not currently looking, you may be open to other great opportunities in the future.
In addition to keeping your resume online you may want to keep other channels open. Let your friends know that you’re open to referrals for great jobs and companies. Also keep up a virtual presence online. If you have the time, write some articles or at least keep up a blog. Participate in technical message boards and discussions. Acquire lots of contacts on LinkedIn and Facebook. Eventually if your public profile is prominent enough, someone may come calling.
If you are concerned about your current employer finding out, you can always keep your contact information anonymous. You can also list your current employer as “Major Company” or something similar and tweak your responsibility descriptions to be somewhat vague.
Also, if you are contacted by a recruiter and are not looking to make a move at the moment, don’t simply delete the e-mail or dismiss the phone call; instead reply courteously and let them know that while you are not currently looking, you may be open to other great opportunities in the future.
In addition to keeping your resume online you may want to keep other channels open. Let your friends know that you’re open to referrals for great jobs and companies. Also keep up a virtual presence online. If you have the time, write some articles or at least keep up a blog. Participate in technical message boards and discussions. Acquire lots of contacts on LinkedIn and Facebook. Eventually if your public profile is prominent enough, someone may come calling.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Burnout
Burnout can be caused by your evil boss cracking the whip, asking you to do more with less in difficult times. Or it could be self-inflicted because you are so driven to accomplish your own unrealistically demanding goals.
Most of us have been in situations where we have felt burned out. It can range from feeling a bit tired after a tough project, to exhaustion after a few too many 12-hour days, all the way to a near-death experience after an extended multi-month death march. In many of these cases you can end up being an ineffective zombie who can barely crawl into work, much less do anything productive.
Management tends to avoid the term “Death March”, preferring instead inspiration terms like “a Fast Pace” or “Crunch Time”. Too often they see an either-or choice between cracking the whip and slipping dates, and without exception slipping dates is not an option. However, this is an entirely wrong way of thinking and it points to an utter failure of leadership.
If you start seeing the signs of burnout around you, such as people coming into work later and later, circles under their eyes, listlessness and general lack of enthusiasm, it’s time to consider whether it’s the environment for you. And as obvious as that may sound, it really isn’t. Some people actually thrive in death marches, as they see it as a way to show their mettle and separate themselves from the weaklings.
My recommendation is to try and avoid organizations that are prone to death marches in the first place. Some such companies may include the following:
Most of us have been in situations where we have felt burned out. It can range from feeling a bit tired after a tough project, to exhaustion after a few too many 12-hour days, all the way to a near-death experience after an extended multi-month death march. In many of these cases you can end up being an ineffective zombie who can barely crawl into work, much less do anything productive.
Management tends to avoid the term “Death March”, preferring instead inspiration terms like “a Fast Pace” or “Crunch Time”. Too often they see an either-or choice between cracking the whip and slipping dates, and without exception slipping dates is not an option. However, this is an entirely wrong way of thinking and it points to an utter failure of leadership.
If you start seeing the signs of burnout around you, such as people coming into work later and later, circles under their eyes, listlessness and general lack of enthusiasm, it’s time to consider whether it’s the environment for you. And as obvious as that may sound, it really isn’t. Some people actually thrive in death marches, as they see it as a way to show their mettle and separate themselves from the weaklings.
My recommendation is to try and avoid organizations that are prone to death marches in the first place. Some such companies may include the following:
- Large product companies that have fixed product delivery dates. Gotta ship before the fourth quarter or the stock analysts will kill us!
- Startups, especially pre-IPOs. Famous for 80 hour weeks, but they might be worthwhile if you get significant stock options.
- Consulting firms that do fixed-price contracts. The temptation to underbid to win contracts is immense, resulting in the need to accomplish more work with fewer developers.
- Any company that stresses ‘SDLC’. This usually means the Waterfall methodology, where requirements changes are inevitable thrown in at the last minute and throw the whole schedule out of whack.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Will You Happier In a New Job?
In my last post I discussed some things that influence happiness in your job. But if you are not currently happy, would you necessarily be any happier in a new position? Unfortunately the problems I discussed in that post will generally not reveal themselves for some time after you start a new job. Hence you will be engaging in a guessing game when you interview with a new company.
Still, there are some things you can investigate about the company, either during the interview process or through your own research, that may shed some light on whether it’s a place where you'd want to work. This approach is far from foolproof, but it may help you avoid making some bad decisions.
The first question is whether the team engages in CRUD development, and whether it’s a cost center or a profit center. I’ve talked about these topics before, but they're always worth keeping in mind when evaluating an employer.
Next, is the team engaged in new development, or are they maintaining an existing system?
Do the engineers that you interview with know their stuff? Do they understand the raw technology as well as architecture and design issues? Can they intelligently discuss the system they work on? Are they enthusiastic about the work?
Next, do they use source control, and have a formal team handling builds and configuration management? Do they properly use labels, branching, and merging? Some organizations may be too small to have a dedicated build team, but they should still use sound source control practices, and they should have a configuration management specialist.
The same questions apply for production, especially in a web environment. Does the company have dedicated dev, testing, and production server environments? Do they have a controlled production process with regularly scheduled releases? Avoid companies that try to do production releases on a daily basis, unless you want your hair to turn prematurely gray.
Does the company have architects? And by architects, I mean highly experienced engineers with 10+ years of experience whose job it is to advise teams rather than do coding day in and day out. If they do, it tells you two things: 1) that they take their technology seriously, and 2) that they value technical people enough to provide a purely technical career advancement path.
Does the company have product managers? It’s not necessarily the presence of product managers that results in better code, but having someone directly responsible and accountable for feature sets and requirements can help reduce uncertainty in planning.
Finally, does the company use Waterfall methodology? If they say don’t have an explicit methodology they’re probably using waterfall by default. Some organizations do actually manage to use Waterfall effectively, but chances are most Waterfall organizations will require a deathmarch as the deadline approaches.
Still, there are some things you can investigate about the company, either during the interview process or through your own research, that may shed some light on whether it’s a place where you'd want to work. This approach is far from foolproof, but it may help you avoid making some bad decisions.
The first question is whether the team engages in CRUD development, and whether it’s a cost center or a profit center. I’ve talked about these topics before, but they're always worth keeping in mind when evaluating an employer.
Next, is the team engaged in new development, or are they maintaining an existing system?
Do the engineers that you interview with know their stuff? Do they understand the raw technology as well as architecture and design issues? Can they intelligently discuss the system they work on? Are they enthusiastic about the work?
Next, do they use source control, and have a formal team handling builds and configuration management? Do they properly use labels, branching, and merging? Some organizations may be too small to have a dedicated build team, but they should still use sound source control practices, and they should have a configuration management specialist.
The same questions apply for production, especially in a web environment. Does the company have dedicated dev, testing, and production server environments? Do they have a controlled production process with regularly scheduled releases? Avoid companies that try to do production releases on a daily basis, unless you want your hair to turn prematurely gray.
Does the company have architects? And by architects, I mean highly experienced engineers with 10+ years of experience whose job it is to advise teams rather than do coding day in and day out. If they do, it tells you two things: 1) that they take their technology seriously, and 2) that they value technical people enough to provide a purely technical career advancement path.
Does the company have product managers? It’s not necessarily the presence of product managers that results in better code, but having someone directly responsible and accountable for feature sets and requirements can help reduce uncertainty in planning.
Finally, does the company use Waterfall methodology? If they say don’t have an explicit methodology they’re probably using waterfall by default. Some organizations do actually manage to use Waterfall effectively, but chances are most Waterfall organizations will require a deathmarch as the deadline approaches.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Are You Happy In Your Current Job?
Recruiters may ask you this question, and your own manager might ask it as well. It’s a simple inquiry, not a loaded or trick question. Still, you might not have a straightforward answer. After all, what exactly does it mean to be happy, anyway? Happy in a metaphysical or literal sense? Do you have to have a big grin on your face every time you walk into the office? Or does happy just mean that you are content, satisfied, glad to have a job in this economy? Here are some questions you might ponder to help answer the happiness question.
First of all, do you enjoy the work you are doing? Do you feel you are creating something of value, or accomplishing something of importance? Or do you wonder whether anyone will ever see, much less appreciate the results of your work?
Do you feel that you are uniquely qualified to do your job, or do you feel like an interchangeable cog in a big machine? Do you feel that your job is matched to your skills, or do you think that a trained monkey could do the work? Do you see a clear career path, or do you see yourself stuck in the same position years from now?
Do you look forward to coming into work in the morning to fix those problems left over from the previous day, and to take on new challenges? Or do you find it difficult to pull yourself out of bed in the morning and deal with the dreaded commute in to work? Do you rush through lunch at your desk so you can get back to work, or do you take long lunch breaks to escape from the oppressive office environment?
Is management receptive to feedback and new ideas? Do they listen to the developers, or just pretend to do so? Do you respect your bosses for their knowledge, experience, and wisdom? Or do you wonder how those clueless morons ever got their jobs? Are you inspired by their leadership, or do you roll your eyes every time they issue a silly directive?
If you need something done, can you talk to someone and be confident it will be taken care of? Or do people try to shift responsibility and give you the runaround? Do managers avoid making decisions and not respond to your e-mails? And are there people who try to insert themselves into the decision making process for no good reason?
Do you respect the people you work with? Are they are as smart as or smarter than yourself? Or are they idiots to whom you have to explain things over and over again? Do you find yourself learning new things from your colleagues, or do you have to show them how to perform the most basic of tasks?
Does your company provide rewards for performance? And are the rewards fairly distributed, and individuals properly credited for their contributions? Or are the rewards and kudos handed out only to a select few, the “golden boys”, while everyone else is neglected and left to stew?
Does your company provide you with the tools you need to do your job? Is it easy to order technical books and software with a minimum of hassle? Do you get regular upgrades of your computer? Do you get large or multiple monitors? Or does any procurement request have to get multiple signoffs and require lengthy forms to be completed?
Do you have a positive work environment conducive to productivity? Do you have enough conference rooms and gathering places? Does your company have any silly and arbitrary regulations? Do you have flex hours, or do you have to be in at exactly 9 am and stay until at least 6 pm? Is unpaid overtime mandatory? Can you telecommute?
All these things, though perhaps trivial individually, combine to determine your level of happiness at work.
First of all, do you enjoy the work you are doing? Do you feel you are creating something of value, or accomplishing something of importance? Or do you wonder whether anyone will ever see, much less appreciate the results of your work?
Do you feel that you are uniquely qualified to do your job, or do you feel like an interchangeable cog in a big machine? Do you feel that your job is matched to your skills, or do you think that a trained monkey could do the work? Do you see a clear career path, or do you see yourself stuck in the same position years from now?
Do you look forward to coming into work in the morning to fix those problems left over from the previous day, and to take on new challenges? Or do you find it difficult to pull yourself out of bed in the morning and deal with the dreaded commute in to work? Do you rush through lunch at your desk so you can get back to work, or do you take long lunch breaks to escape from the oppressive office environment?
Is management receptive to feedback and new ideas? Do they listen to the developers, or just pretend to do so? Do you respect your bosses for their knowledge, experience, and wisdom? Or do you wonder how those clueless morons ever got their jobs? Are you inspired by their leadership, or do you roll your eyes every time they issue a silly directive?
If you need something done, can you talk to someone and be confident it will be taken care of? Or do people try to shift responsibility and give you the runaround? Do managers avoid making decisions and not respond to your e-mails? And are there people who try to insert themselves into the decision making process for no good reason?
Do you respect the people you work with? Are they are as smart as or smarter than yourself? Or are they idiots to whom you have to explain things over and over again? Do you find yourself learning new things from your colleagues, or do you have to show them how to perform the most basic of tasks?
Does your company provide rewards for performance? And are the rewards fairly distributed, and individuals properly credited for their contributions? Or are the rewards and kudos handed out only to a select few, the “golden boys”, while everyone else is neglected and left to stew?
Does your company provide you with the tools you need to do your job? Is it easy to order technical books and software with a minimum of hassle? Do you get regular upgrades of your computer? Do you get large or multiple monitors? Or does any procurement request have to get multiple signoffs and require lengthy forms to be completed?
Do you have a positive work environment conducive to productivity? Do you have enough conference rooms and gathering places? Does your company have any silly and arbitrary regulations? Do you have flex hours, or do you have to be in at exactly 9 am and stay until at least 6 pm? Is unpaid overtime mandatory? Can you telecommute?
All these things, though perhaps trivial individually, combine to determine your level of happiness at work.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Random Re-Orgs
If you’ve been in a decent sized organization for a number of years, you’ve seen it – the (roughly) annual random re-org. It happens with clockwork regularity at some companies; in the name of improved operating efficiency and productivity, people and boxes are moved around the organization chart like checkerboard pieces. And yet somehow it seems the organization inevitably ends up more cumbersome than before.
Senior Management often turns to reorgs because it’s their favorite tool for (seemingly) changing the organization’s direction. It’s a blunt instrument, but it’s a lot easier than sitting down and actually figuring out a real corporate strategy.
Reorgs are also sometimes seen as a solution for low morale. When you see signs of low morale, such as people coming into work later, leaving earlier, and taking longer lunches, you know something needs to change. Sometimes there will be sweeping e-mails from senior management that seem detached from all reality, describing new directions and bold initiatives. You inevitably yawn and move on to the next e-mail, but these e-mails are often followed by a random reorg.
You may be affected in one of two ways by a random re-org: negatively, or not at all. Negative results may include being moved into a position with less interesting work or less responsibility, or placed under a boss from hell, or even being RIF’ed. In the name of efficiency, strategic maneuvering, or realignment to core values (or some other such management phrase) you may end up in a new role that makes little sense.
In 99% of cases however, the shuffling will occur well above your level and there will be little to no direct impact on your day to day activities. Life just goes on as before.
Senior Management often turns to reorgs because it’s their favorite tool for (seemingly) changing the organization’s direction. It’s a blunt instrument, but it’s a lot easier than sitting down and actually figuring out a real corporate strategy.
Reorgs are also sometimes seen as a solution for low morale. When you see signs of low morale, such as people coming into work later, leaving earlier, and taking longer lunches, you know something needs to change. Sometimes there will be sweeping e-mails from senior management that seem detached from all reality, describing new directions and bold initiatives. You inevitably yawn and move on to the next e-mail, but these e-mails are often followed by a random reorg.
You may be affected in one of two ways by a random re-org: negatively, or not at all. Negative results may include being moved into a position with less interesting work or less responsibility, or placed under a boss from hell, or even being RIF’ed. In the name of efficiency, strategic maneuvering, or realignment to core values (or some other such management phrase) you may end up in a new role that makes little sense.
In 99% of cases however, the shuffling will occur well above your level and there will be little to no direct impact on your day to day activities. Life just goes on as before.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Management by Crisis
I once worked at a company (only briefly, thankfully) where the dominant mode of management was firefighting. I like to call it “Management by Crisis”. Management’s attention was continually shifting from one priority to another, literally on a daily basis. The developers were being jerked one way and then another, always being pulled off of what they were doing to work on something else. Needless to say, this was terrible for productivity as well as morale.
How can you tell that a company suffers form this kind of dysfunction? One clue is if the company has high turnover, which is often associated with high-stress crisis environments. This may be the case if the hiring manager speaks ill of previous employees. Just as you as a candidate should never talk badly about previous employers, it should be a red flag if the hiring manager criticizes his current or former employees.
More specifically, check whether you are interviewing for a job that is vacant because the hiring manager has just fired the previous employee in that position. Of course people are regularly fired for legitimate purposes, but it may behoove you to inquire why the last person in the position was let go. It’s not a comfortable question to ask, but it might shed some light on what kind of a manager the interviewer is, and what expectations they have for the person in the position that needs to be filled. It’s better to understand the job requirements before you start rather than to find out later that the hiring manager had totally unrealistic expectations.
How can you tell that a company suffers form this kind of dysfunction? One clue is if the company has high turnover, which is often associated with high-stress crisis environments. This may be the case if the hiring manager speaks ill of previous employees. Just as you as a candidate should never talk badly about previous employers, it should be a red flag if the hiring manager criticizes his current or former employees.
More specifically, check whether you are interviewing for a job that is vacant because the hiring manager has just fired the previous employee in that position. Of course people are regularly fired for legitimate purposes, but it may behoove you to inquire why the last person in the position was let go. It’s not a comfortable question to ask, but it might shed some light on what kind of a manager the interviewer is, and what expectations they have for the person in the position that needs to be filled. It’s better to understand the job requirements before you start rather than to find out later that the hiring manager had totally unrealistic expectations.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Types of Bosses
You’re likely to work for a number of different bosses over the course of your career. And as the saying goes, it takes all kinds. Here are a few:
• Micro-managers
• Hands-Off bosses
• Perpetual crisis bosses
• Bullies
• Passive Aggressive bosses
• Bosses who organize everything into bullet points
Micro-managers are the ones who are constantly looking over your shoulder or asking for constant status reports on everything. That can get annoying real fast.
Hands off bosses can be great in that they let you do your work. However, when you boss takes three hour lunches or leaves early for his weekly round of golf, you may be expected to take up the slack.
Perpetual crisis managers act like everything is a top priority that has to be handled right away; they run back and forth from one crisis to another. Most people around them are jaded enough that they give lip service to addressing the crisis and then go back about their real work. The fact is that most of these so-called crises really are not crises at all, as evidenced by the fact the managers forget about each one as new ones crop up.
Even worse than the perpetual crisis manager is the bully, who revels in conflict and in belittling their employees. Some are just sadistic, but others actually think that yelling at and stressing out their people is a great motivator -- “Toughen ‘em up” is their motto. Think Steve Ballmer.
Then there are the passive-aggressive bosses who do not provide you with the information or support you need, and express disappointment at your poor performance. It doesn’t matter that you weren’t told or consulted about the issues leading to failure; you are still responsible. After all, you're an adult and you don't need to be constantly told what to do, right?
I will discuss these managers and some of their management styles in upcoming articles. Oh, and about those bosses who have a penchant for bulleted lists? Avoid them at all costs.
• Micro-managers
• Hands-Off bosses
• Perpetual crisis bosses
• Bullies
• Passive Aggressive bosses
• Bosses who organize everything into bullet points
Micro-managers are the ones who are constantly looking over your shoulder or asking for constant status reports on everything. That can get annoying real fast.
Hands off bosses can be great in that they let you do your work. However, when you boss takes three hour lunches or leaves early for his weekly round of golf, you may be expected to take up the slack.
Perpetual crisis managers act like everything is a top priority that has to be handled right away; they run back and forth from one crisis to another. Most people around them are jaded enough that they give lip service to addressing the crisis and then go back about their real work. The fact is that most of these so-called crises really are not crises at all, as evidenced by the fact the managers forget about each one as new ones crop up.
Even worse than the perpetual crisis manager is the bully, who revels in conflict and in belittling their employees. Some are just sadistic, but others actually think that yelling at and stressing out their people is a great motivator -- “Toughen ‘em up” is their motto. Think Steve Ballmer.
Then there are the passive-aggressive bosses who do not provide you with the information or support you need, and express disappointment at your poor performance. It doesn’t matter that you weren’t told or consulted about the issues leading to failure; you are still responsible. After all, you're an adult and you don't need to be constantly told what to do, right?
I will discuss these managers and some of their management styles in upcoming articles. Oh, and about those bosses who have a penchant for bulleted lists? Avoid them at all costs.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Boredom at Work
We all have days when things are a bit slow. Perhaps your job requires you to run around nonstop for 8-10 hours every single day, but most people have periods when they’re sitting on their hands for a variety of reasons.
Personally I’d rather be too busy than too lightly loaded. Usually when I’m busy I feel like I‘m accomplishing something important, as long as it’s not just busy work. But when I’m bored twiddling my thumbs I feel like I’m wasting my time as well as the company’s, and not adding any value. And then there’s that nagging feeling that upper management is also aware of it, much to my detriment.
So at what point does boredom become a serious issue? If it’s a chronic problem, ask yourself why you don’t have more work assigned to you. Are you truly blocked in your work due to forces beyond your control, or does your manager not assign tasks to you?
If you are idle because of external factors, you should try to make effective use of your downtime. Perhaps the most productive thing you can do is to read technical books or browse technical web sites. Your employer may not be willing to spend money to send you to training, but by leveraging your downtime you can still learn new skills on the company’s dime.
If on the other hand you find yourself asking your boss for more work, and your boss pushes back, then you might want to be concerned. Perhaps your manager fears that you might not be able to handle important or complex assignments. In such cases it’s important that you go out of your way to earn your manager’s trust, by demonstrating whenever you get the chance that that you are reliable and can accomplish demanding tasks.
Personally I’d rather be too busy than too lightly loaded. Usually when I’m busy I feel like I‘m accomplishing something important, as long as it’s not just busy work. But when I’m bored twiddling my thumbs I feel like I’m wasting my time as well as the company’s, and not adding any value. And then there’s that nagging feeling that upper management is also aware of it, much to my detriment.
So at what point does boredom become a serious issue? If it’s a chronic problem, ask yourself why you don’t have more work assigned to you. Are you truly blocked in your work due to forces beyond your control, or does your manager not assign tasks to you?
If you are idle because of external factors, you should try to make effective use of your downtime. Perhaps the most productive thing you can do is to read technical books or browse technical web sites. Your employer may not be willing to spend money to send you to training, but by leveraging your downtime you can still learn new skills on the company’s dime.
If on the other hand you find yourself asking your boss for more work, and your boss pushes back, then you might want to be concerned. Perhaps your manager fears that you might not be able to handle important or complex assignments. In such cases it’s important that you go out of your way to earn your manager’s trust, by demonstrating whenever you get the chance that that you are reliable and can accomplish demanding tasks.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Probationary Hiring
Some people claim that the traditional interviewing model is broken, that it is inefficient and has a poor track record of identifying top candidates. They advocate the idea of probationary hiring. i.e., try a person out for 30 days, and if they don’t work out, just say good bye.
Another way this idea is presented is as a “Contract to Hire” position. The employee works as a contractor for the first X days, and then are presumably converted to perm status if the company finds it agreeable.
Personally I think this is a terrible idea regardless of how you label it. First of all, you could argue that pretty much all hiring is already probationary, especially in an “Employment at will” state like California. Under such conditions a company can let an employee go at any time for any reason (aside from those reasons barred by law, of course). Hence having a 30-day probationary period is just a fig leaf.
Secondly, 30 days is hardly enough time for someone to prove their worth. Unless a person comes into a job with exactly the skills and experience needed for the position, there will inevitably be a ramp-up time involved, which can take from a few weeks to a few months. Plus the person will need to establish a rapport with the team and other stakeholders. This is not something that can be done overnight, and it’s questionable whether 30 days, or even 90 days, is enough.
My advice? Give a new employee at least six months to settle in and prove themselves. That’s enough time for them to learn the ropes and make a real contribution. And if they are still struggling at the six month point, make it clear to them they need to shape up or ship out. And if they still have not improved by a few months after that, there is sufficient justification then to show them the door.
Another way this idea is presented is as a “Contract to Hire” position. The employee works as a contractor for the first X days, and then are presumably converted to perm status if the company finds it agreeable.
Personally I think this is a terrible idea regardless of how you label it. First of all, you could argue that pretty much all hiring is already probationary, especially in an “Employment at will” state like California. Under such conditions a company can let an employee go at any time for any reason (aside from those reasons barred by law, of course). Hence having a 30-day probationary period is just a fig leaf.
Secondly, 30 days is hardly enough time for someone to prove their worth. Unless a person comes into a job with exactly the skills and experience needed for the position, there will inevitably be a ramp-up time involved, which can take from a few weeks to a few months. Plus the person will need to establish a rapport with the team and other stakeholders. This is not something that can be done overnight, and it’s questionable whether 30 days, or even 90 days, is enough.
My advice? Give a new employee at least six months to settle in and prove themselves. That’s enough time for them to learn the ropes and make a real contribution. And if they are still struggling at the six month point, make it clear to them they need to shape up or ship out. And if they still have not improved by a few months after that, there is sufficient justification then to show them the door.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Stuck at Above Market Pay?
Believe it or not, if you find yourself making above market pay for your position, that may not necessarily be such a good thing.
For instance, we’ve all heard stories about college seniors receiving six-figure offers straight out of college. Personally I’ve never seen this happen, but it’s not inconceivable. Still, it does point out that for whatever reason salaries can sometimes get out of whack.
Perhaps you’re really good at what you do, and perhaps you have a deep knowledge and understanding of your company’s systems that no one else has. Either way, your company has seen fit to reward you with generous raises. And now you think of yourself as having decent, but necessarily stellar pay.
So when you realize that your company doesn’t want you to grow beyond your currently very essential role, what happens? You’re surprised when you talk to recruiters and they only mention jobs with significantly lower pay than yours. And the jobs that do pay in your salary range are ones you’re not qualified for.
So what do you do in this case? It just so happened that while the great raises have fattened your wallet, they have also limited your career mobility. If your pay is too big for your britches at this stage in your career you have relatively few options. You could stay at your job, where your pay will eventually plateau and the market will catch up with your pay. Or else you could make a lateral move to another job that pays less than what you’re making, in the hopes that you’ll grow in that position and catch up to and exceed your previous pay level.
In my case, I once had a great job where I got double-digit % raises for several years in a row. Unfortunately all good things had to come to an end, and this company enacted a pay freeze (probably to make up for being so overly generous before). So when I decided to look around for new opportunities, I found that my pay was around 20% over market. I was a bit miffed, but there was not much I could do about it.
After much soul searching, I ended up taking a new job that paid about 10% less than what I had been making. And I did eventually catch up to my old pay level, but it took a couple of years.
For instance, we’ve all heard stories about college seniors receiving six-figure offers straight out of college. Personally I’ve never seen this happen, but it’s not inconceivable. Still, it does point out that for whatever reason salaries can sometimes get out of whack.
Perhaps you’re really good at what you do, and perhaps you have a deep knowledge and understanding of your company’s systems that no one else has. Either way, your company has seen fit to reward you with generous raises. And now you think of yourself as having decent, but necessarily stellar pay.
So when you realize that your company doesn’t want you to grow beyond your currently very essential role, what happens? You’re surprised when you talk to recruiters and they only mention jobs with significantly lower pay than yours. And the jobs that do pay in your salary range are ones you’re not qualified for.
So what do you do in this case? It just so happened that while the great raises have fattened your wallet, they have also limited your career mobility. If your pay is too big for your britches at this stage in your career you have relatively few options. You could stay at your job, where your pay will eventually plateau and the market will catch up with your pay. Or else you could make a lateral move to another job that pays less than what you’re making, in the hopes that you’ll grow in that position and catch up to and exceed your previous pay level.
In my case, I once had a great job where I got double-digit % raises for several years in a row. Unfortunately all good things had to come to an end, and this company enacted a pay freeze (probably to make up for being so overly generous before). So when I decided to look around for new opportunities, I found that my pay was around 20% over market. I was a bit miffed, but there was not much I could do about it.
After much soul searching, I ended up taking a new job that paid about 10% less than what I had been making. And I did eventually catch up to my old pay level, but it took a couple of years.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Pay Disparities
The person sitting in the next cube over from you may be doing the same type of work, perhaps even working on the exact same code that you are. However, she may be making 20% or 30% more than you. Sometimes the pay disparities are even greater. Of course, in most cases you won’t be aware of this since salary information is closely guarded.
Such disparities exist for a number of reasons. Technical skill sets, negotiating skills, etc. factor in, but often it’s just a matter of experience, or tenure if you will. The longer a person is at a job the more raises they’ll get. And even if those are just modest cost of living raises they can add up. If someone has the same job as you but they’ve been in that position for 10 years longer, with a 3% annual raise they could be earning 35% more. And with 4% annual raises the difference would be 48%.
But what if the other person has comparable levels of experience, or worse, less experience than what you have? What would explain the pay disparity then?
It’s possible that the other person may just better at their job. They could be more productive, writing more code with fewer bugs. They may be better at estimation and meeting their dates, and they may have more significant accomplishments. They may also work in a more high profile area and be more visible to management. They may also be better at advertising their accomplishments, as distasteful as that idea may be to some.
If you have accounted for all of these possibilities and still feel that you are underpaid, you need to look inward. Is there a reason why you might be underpaid? Or in fact, are you really underpaid at all? The only true way to tell is to test the job markets. You can probably get a feel for your market value from recruiters, or from doing a few interviews. You might very well find that you are already at market pay. And if not -- well, you already have a head start on finding new job options.
Such disparities exist for a number of reasons. Technical skill sets, negotiating skills, etc. factor in, but often it’s just a matter of experience, or tenure if you will. The longer a person is at a job the more raises they’ll get. And even if those are just modest cost of living raises they can add up. If someone has the same job as you but they’ve been in that position for 10 years longer, with a 3% annual raise they could be earning 35% more. And with 4% annual raises the difference would be 48%.
But what if the other person has comparable levels of experience, or worse, less experience than what you have? What would explain the pay disparity then?
It’s possible that the other person may just better at their job. They could be more productive, writing more code with fewer bugs. They may be better at estimation and meeting their dates, and they may have more significant accomplishments. They may also work in a more high profile area and be more visible to management. They may also be better at advertising their accomplishments, as distasteful as that idea may be to some.
If you have accounted for all of these possibilities and still feel that you are underpaid, you need to look inward. Is there a reason why you might be underpaid? Or in fact, are you really underpaid at all? The only true way to tell is to test the job markets. You can probably get a feel for your market value from recruiters, or from doing a few interviews. You might very well find that you are already at market pay. And if not -- well, you already have a head start on finding new job options.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Performance: Perception vs. Reality
When providing feedback to employees, you will often find that employees respond to negative feedback with surprise. It’s inconceivable to them that anyone could fail to recognize the brilliance of their work. And if there were any problems with their work, it was due to someone else’s mistakes.
Of course I’m exaggerating, but not by much. Fact is, most people have a fairly high opinion of themselves (and I suppose that would include me as well). Most people like to think of themselves as stars, or at the very least above average.
And yet, it’s been shown (sorry, no link handy at the moment) that the true stars tend to rate themselves more modestly than the less stellar performers. Why is this? Perhaps it’s because the top people are well aware of their limits and acknowledge them, whereas the lower performers have no idea just how limited their skills are. And when confronted with those limits, they often deny the charge, blame others for their failures, or deem those limits not important.
So as a manager, how do you reconcile an employee’s inflated sense of self with your somewhat less flattering assessment? You need hard facts: metrics, examples, data points. The employee will typically try and shift the blame, and you need to be prepared for that with hard evidence that is undeniable.
Of course I’m exaggerating, but not by much. Fact is, most people have a fairly high opinion of themselves (and I suppose that would include me as well). Most people like to think of themselves as stars, or at the very least above average.
And yet, it’s been shown (sorry, no link handy at the moment) that the true stars tend to rate themselves more modestly than the less stellar performers. Why is this? Perhaps it’s because the top people are well aware of their limits and acknowledge them, whereas the lower performers have no idea just how limited their skills are. And when confronted with those limits, they often deny the charge, blame others for their failures, or deem those limits not important.
So as a manager, how do you reconcile an employee’s inflated sense of self with your somewhat less flattering assessment? You need hard facts: metrics, examples, data points. The employee will typically try and shift the blame, and you need to be prepared for that with hard evidence that is undeniable.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Providing Feedback
Far too many managers fail to provide any meaningful performance feedback until it’s time for a review. It’s no surprise then that many employees are sometimes taken aback by critical reviews, as they never see it coming.
In an ideal world managers would provide continuous feedback and course corrections to their employees. However, most people, managers included, hate giving negative feedback. They worry about a conflict that may arise, where the employee takes the news badly, gets defensive, or becomes argumentative.
Perhaps these people have read Dale Carnegie’s seminal book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. In it he urged readers to never engage in criticism, which some equate with giving negative feedback. They interpret the advice to mean that if a manager has only negative feedback, they shouldn’t provide any sort of feedback at all. i.e., if you can’t say something nice about a person…
However, this is poor advice, or at least a bad interpretation of what Carnegie meant. Most employees in fact would appreciate feedback -- any kind of feedback, even negative -- over getting no feedback at all. At least with negative feedback they know where they stand with their manager.
As an employee, you should welcome feedback of any kind. Good feedback is always nice, of course, but aside from the ego stoking it’s not particularly valuable. More useful is negative feedback, as long as it’s constructive. In other words, what you want is feedback on what you’re doing poorly, and how you can improve your performance.
If you do receive negative feedback, it’s important that you not become defensive. If you do become defensive, your manager may also become defensive, and it can turn into a “He said, she said” type of blame game. Instead, you should take the criticism to heart, even if it seems unwarranted. Even if the criticism seems totally off base, you should take time to think about why your manager sees things in that way. It might just be a matter of perception, for instance, which might be remedied by keeping your manager better informed and engaging in a little proactive PR.
In an ideal world managers would provide continuous feedback and course corrections to their employees. However, most people, managers included, hate giving negative feedback. They worry about a conflict that may arise, where the employee takes the news badly, gets defensive, or becomes argumentative.
Perhaps these people have read Dale Carnegie’s seminal book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. In it he urged readers to never engage in criticism, which some equate with giving negative feedback. They interpret the advice to mean that if a manager has only negative feedback, they shouldn’t provide any sort of feedback at all. i.e., if you can’t say something nice about a person…
However, this is poor advice, or at least a bad interpretation of what Carnegie meant. Most employees in fact would appreciate feedback -- any kind of feedback, even negative -- over getting no feedback at all. At least with negative feedback they know where they stand with their manager.
As an employee, you should welcome feedback of any kind. Good feedback is always nice, of course, but aside from the ego stoking it’s not particularly valuable. More useful is negative feedback, as long as it’s constructive. In other words, what you want is feedback on what you’re doing poorly, and how you can improve your performance.
If you do receive negative feedback, it’s important that you not become defensive. If you do become defensive, your manager may also become defensive, and it can turn into a “He said, she said” type of blame game. Instead, you should take the criticism to heart, even if it seems unwarranted. Even if the criticism seems totally off base, you should take time to think about why your manager sees things in that way. It might just be a matter of perception, for instance, which might be remedied by keeping your manager better informed and engaging in a little proactive PR.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Productivity Ratios and Negative Producers
Numerous management studies have found there can be a 10-to-1 ratio difference in productivity between engineers.
Of course, the widest performance spread can be greater than 10-to-1 if you take into account your worst engineers. Technically it could be 100-to-1, or infinity. In fact, the math can break down if your worst engineer is a net negative producer.
How does an engineer exhibit negative productivity? Typically they write awful code that causes breakages and which have to be cleaned up by teammates. Or they may waste time in meetings arguing contrarian positions just because they like to yank peoples’ chains.
As a manager it is your job to isolate these negative producers and insulate your team from them. Ideally you’d show these people out the door, but there are usually complicating factors that keep them at their jobs longer than you’d like.
Also, it’s important not to blind yourself to the possibility that it might not be the individual that’s at fault for negative productivity. It could be the environment, or the team chemistry, or the nature of the technical problem being tackled. As I mentioned previously, a person can be a star in one realm and flounder in another environment. It’s up to the manager to spot these problems and do everything possible to mitigate them.
Of course, the widest performance spread can be greater than 10-to-1 if you take into account your worst engineers. Technically it could be 100-to-1, or infinity. In fact, the math can break down if your worst engineer is a net negative producer.
How does an engineer exhibit negative productivity? Typically they write awful code that causes breakages and which have to be cleaned up by teammates. Or they may waste time in meetings arguing contrarian positions just because they like to yank peoples’ chains.
As a manager it is your job to isolate these negative producers and insulate your team from them. Ideally you’d show these people out the door, but there are usually complicating factors that keep them at their jobs longer than you’d like.
Also, it’s important not to blind yourself to the possibility that it might not be the individual that’s at fault for negative productivity. It could be the environment, or the team chemistry, or the nature of the technical problem being tackled. As I mentioned previously, a person can be a star in one realm and flounder in another environment. It’s up to the manager to spot these problems and do everything possible to mitigate them.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Writing Software is a Lot Like, Well, Writing
Continuing on the prior post’s theme of skills used in software development -- there are many analogies and comparisons between creating software and other endeavors. Putting up a skyscraper and designing an automobile are a couple of examples.
My favorite analogy for writing software however is writing a book. What type of book, specifically? Well, it would be easy to compare software to a nonfictional reference work. But I’ll compare writing a program to writing a novel, a piece of fiction.
In both software development and writing you have multiple threads or storylines that have to converge at certain specific points and in certain ways; otherwise the results could be disastrous for your characters and your application. Your characters might miss important developments in the story, and your program can end up deadlocked or crash.
There are differences, of course; with a novel the author may start writing freely without a predefined notion of where the story will end up. Sometimes the storyline works, and other times they may (figuratively) rip the page out of the typewriter and crumple it up, tossing it into a wastebasket that is already overflowing with crumpled up pieces of paper.
You generally can’t adopt such a haphazard approach to software development. In most cases you’ll start with a pretty good idea of what the finished product should look like. Still, some approaches to software development advocate the idea of ‘throwaway’ prototypes, or at least iterative methods of development where each iteration gets you closer to your ultimate goal.
There are other similarities I can think of between the two endeavors, tortured as the analogy might be. Authors of books need to flesh out the characters sufficiently so that readers can visualize them in their minds. Software developers also need to put a UI or ‘face’ on their applications, one that users can react to positive and productive ways.
Perhaps my favorite part of this metaphor is that both a book and software (say a website) are guided experiences. You have to anticipate and plan out what the user will see, and make sure the experience is a coherent and pleasant one. Of course, on a website a user may click anywhere and navigate at their leisure, while a book reader is unlikely to skip ahead. That just means the guided experience with software is more difficult to create, but it still remains a guided experience, as with a good book.
My point? Software is much more of a creative process than people recognize.
My favorite analogy for writing software however is writing a book. What type of book, specifically? Well, it would be easy to compare software to a nonfictional reference work. But I’ll compare writing a program to writing a novel, a piece of fiction.
In both software development and writing you have multiple threads or storylines that have to converge at certain specific points and in certain ways; otherwise the results could be disastrous for your characters and your application. Your characters might miss important developments in the story, and your program can end up deadlocked or crash.
There are differences, of course; with a novel the author may start writing freely without a predefined notion of where the story will end up. Sometimes the storyline works, and other times they may (figuratively) rip the page out of the typewriter and crumple it up, tossing it into a wastebasket that is already overflowing with crumpled up pieces of paper.
You generally can’t adopt such a haphazard approach to software development. In most cases you’ll start with a pretty good idea of what the finished product should look like. Still, some approaches to software development advocate the idea of ‘throwaway’ prototypes, or at least iterative methods of development where each iteration gets you closer to your ultimate goal.
There are other similarities I can think of between the two endeavors, tortured as the analogy might be. Authors of books need to flesh out the characters sufficiently so that readers can visualize them in their minds. Software developers also need to put a UI or ‘face’ on their applications, one that users can react to positive and productive ways.
Perhaps my favorite part of this metaphor is that both a book and software (say a website) are guided experiences. You have to anticipate and plan out what the user will see, and make sure the experience is a coherent and pleasant one. Of course, on a website a user may click anywhere and navigate at their leisure, while a book reader is unlikely to skip ahead. That just means the guided experience with software is more difficult to create, but it still remains a guided experience, as with a good book.
My point? Software is much more of a creative process than people recognize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
