Archive for February, 2016
The vast majority of company training I’ve taken over my 36 year career has been a pretty big waste of time. However, every once in a while you run across a teacher you connect with and the take-aways really stick.
One such class was a an all day management class required by Tektronix by Dr. Ralph Katz. It’s been so many years ago, I don’t recall what the name of the class, but he basically took us through the main points of his book The Human Side of Managing Technical Innovation.
Dr. Katz’s main points were all centered around managing uncertainty where;
uncertainty == bad
This point resonated with me personally, especially as it related to my years in the High Tech Industry prior to management. High Tech is cyclical. Today’s Google is tomorrow’s AOL. You are never ‘set’ because change is happening so fast. Combine this general trend with being in aerospace and printers while trying to provide stability for a family of 5, and what you get is a fairly stressful situation because you’re always looking over your shoulder for the next round of cuts – wondering if you should’ve signed up for that 30 year mortgage or not. Sleepless nights and overtime are a way of life.
I was a new manager at the time I took this class. I was eager to try to be a good one in the sense of understanding the human side of the job and getting the most out of people because they were motivated as a team, not because of fear tactics.
When people are worried about their jobs on a daily basis and uncertainty is a way of life, some powers that be seem to think this is a good thing as far as squeezing more productivity out of people. So what if they are scared, we got more done and met our goals. What I’ve experienced is the opposite.
For 12 years at Xerox from 2000-20012, we were under constant pressure of cuts. This is not the fault of management. It had more to do with industry trends and decline of the printed page, but it was the hand we were dealt. Senior management did make some horrendous mistakes along the way, but in general, it was just being in the wrong industry at the wrong time.
Be that as it may, Xerox is a big company. They are spread over multiple continents and management chose a ‘distributed’ model for software development, which brings its own set of challenges. In my role I had to collaborate with teams in Rochester, NY as well as Welwyn Garden City, UK, as well as 2 sites in India. Apart of the time-zone challenges, the biggest challenges was, as Dr. Katz so adeptly pointed out in his book, managing uncertainty across these sites.
What management failed to recognize was that ‘team’ collaboration across sites in different organization was a recipe for territorial battles. And we had them in spades. Because of the back-drop of uncertainty in the workplace, peoples’ actions aligned first with protecting their site, and second towards team. Oftentimes this was hidden in very subtle ways, but nevertheless, it explained a lot of behaviors I saw.
Here’s where Dr. Katz’s message could have been employed for much better results, but it was not. Management failed to recognize the very existence of the territorial battles because they were worried about them themselves. I often wondered what different results would have been possible had a Sr. Manager sent one email , genuine in nature, that set peoples’ minds at ease on the uncertainty question, and motivated everyone to work as a true team without the worry of territorial loss.
I do not think this was asking management to promise people that their jobs were certain. Everyone knew they were not. But a simple e-mail to let everyone know that hey, we need you to get these 3 things done as soon as possible, and nobody is going anywhere for the next 6 months for sure. Let’s work hard together and get it done. It’s not a message of relaxation, or promising things not possible.
Instead the rumor mill was always in full force, often at times when there was nothing to worry about. This is not when people able to be their most productive selves.
I remember one time in particular when a rumor mill was hot for 3 months about an upcoming layoff. The rumor was true, but at the end of the day they only laid off 10 people from our site of 1500 people. That’s less than 1%. There didn’t need to be that much fear and loathing over a < 1% cut. I’m actually of the belief that most companies should go through and trim out the bottom 5% of performers as a matter of course, just to get rid of the dead weight. Addition by subtraction and it’s good for business and morale. But because they chose to be poor communicators and run a major clandestine operation of much-ado-about-nothing, a bunch of people ran scared who didn’t need to.
Another of Dr. Katz’s messages had to do with ‘what goes around comes around’. For the better part of the last 2 decades, a poor economy has given corporations the upper hand when it comes to employee retention. It’s not like we had a ton of options to move around for higher salaries, so attrition has remained relatively low. That’s how it is right now, but it’s not always that way.
I remember in the 1990’s having an extremely difficult time getting the right people hired. They simply had too many offers on the table. In my 36 years at this, I’ve only was one time in the late 1990’s where the management team had to huddle up with HR and have a serious discussion about retention. People were leaving for startups and the impact was large. Schedules were being missed. But it can happen and the tides may be shifting. I’m starting to see more movement now than in previous years and funny enough, it’s not always about money. A big factor is work environment and indirectly, level of certainty.
I exited management about 3 1/2 years ago and I do not miss it. My favorite aspect of it for the 15 years I was in it was college recruiting, and there’s so little hiring that even that is not much of an attraction to get back in. But I can’t help but remember Dr. Katz’s message as I see managers attempt to rule by intimidation and employ fear tactics.
At the end of the day, high tech workers don’t like to be treated like employees of U.S. Steele. Often times when we do, what management gets is clock-punchers who aren’t motivated to care about their project beyond work hours.
I have this friend Mike, who aligns himself with conservatives. Good guy, just has different ideas than I do about what will work in politics. A while back I made a sarcastic post on Facebook – something to do with the GOP and he replied “Don’t be a hater!”
You see that a lot of comments like this on web from both sides. “Haters suck.” Well, he’s right, they do.
I got him back today when he posted a comment about how entertaining it will be to watch Hillary get prosecuted. Touché. I only mention this because this post isn’t intended to be about hating on Republicans. Nah, haters suck. I agree.
This is more of a general observation about logic that escapes me.
I must admit one of my favorite television viewing experiences was right after the 2012 election when the pundits who predicted a GOP landslide were caught with their pants down on live TV. As a result, some aren’t even welcome to opine on Fox anymore. Dick Morris for example, has moved on to history documentaries and is nowhere to be seen. Karl Rove’s “…but, but, but, it’s not over yet in Ohio” while Megyn Kelly held the microphone in his face was well, just too much entertainment to ask for. I believe the word for this is schadenfreude. Not one of my better traits, but at least I’m honest about it.
After a week or so came the GOP post-mortem. I remember it clearly. The failure to attract a higher percentage of the Latino vote was key to Romney’s loss. Obama won the Latino vote 71% to 27% and worse for the GOP, this is a growing demographic they have to deal with in future elections.
We heard a lot of talk about “making a wider tent” and having policies that will attract Latinos to the Republican party as the strategy that will be addressed for 2016.
Well, that didn’t last long.
Enter the increasing influence of talk radio on the electorate. Hosts like Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are inside the Tea Partiers’ heads. The post-mortem strategy lasted about 5 minutes before the rally cries for deporting 14 million illegals back to Mexico! That should play well with Latinos.
Now the top 2 delegate winners in Iowa are non-establishment candidates who signed on to this philosophy. The establishment is cringing because Rove and Priebus both know that this is a disaster waiting to happen and there’s nothing they can do about it. The religious right and tea partiers have hijacked the Republican party.
Perhaps the best part is, it doesn’t stop there. Donald Trump throws insults at women and Muslims as if he can win the general election with the white-male vote. How does someone who is so poor at math become a billionaire? Curious minds want to know.
As far as I can tell, the adjusted strategy, instead of luring the Latino vote, the GOP is now focused on placing tighter restrictions on voter registration and gerrymandering. We’ll see how this turns out.
I became an Independent right after we entered the first Gulf War and I witnessed the US and Iraqi governments rounding up Baath party members for a visit to the slammer ( or worse ). After that I decided, who needs a party? I don’t want my name on that card. What if the guy ( or gal ) does something really stupid? Like drop an atomic bomb on a foreign county? Guilty by association? Maybe.
I say this because I, like a lot of people have grown weary from the political dynasties of Clinton and Bush. Apart from their legal troubles which I opined on here, I like Hillary as a candidate. She’s a very smart woman. And I think she’d fight for the middle class far more than anyone on the GOP side would. But she’s too cozy with the super pac donors and I think that taints any candidate. That’s why I’m rooting for Bernie Sanders in this election. The biggest selling point for me is the average donation of $27, and not taking money from super pacs.
Bernie is seen as about as far left as you can get, but just because I support his candidacy doesn’t mean that I endorse massive government spending. On the contrary. I’d like to see all departments reviewed annually for places to tighten up. There’s a ton of wasteful spending, there’s no doubt about that. There’s plenty of blame to go around for this on both sides of the aisle. Democrats for allowing too many handouts unchecked, and Republicans for not closing loop-holes that ensure the rich get richer while the rest of us battle for the crumbs.
I’m not hating on Republicans here, just pointing out the irony of the post-mortem analysis from 2012 and wondering where it went.
There really isn’t much point spending a lot of energy debating whether Donald Trump is qualified or deserving of the GOP nomination. Of course he won’t be the nominee. Any sane person can see this.
What I know about the media tells me that they love to build people up and then watch them come crashing down. Let’s face it, the media has never seen a candidate with an ego this big. Never. It’s a once in a lifetime event.
So far this primary has been about giving Trump ample opportunity to put his enormous ego on display so that when he gets beaten in the primaries, the networks will win the ratings game again by being able to air Trump pounding sand at his loss. Looking forward to an entertaining show.