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.
Friday, March 13, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
