|
|
| Author | Subject | Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 5:32:29 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del All | Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
Spun off from my 48th mid life crisis thread...
Here is what needs discussion: what are the characteristics and qualities that allow one of us technical types to function in and be credible in a business context, specifically in dealing with executives? And to be happy in that role? And to not have to pretend to "be" that which we are not? And to be heard, which is what you *need* if one is to be paid for rendering advice in addition to implementation.
Dave Cressey, you threw me a curve ball as follows:
The first step is to stop thinking of them as idiots.
I disclaimed this commentary but... you are close to the truth. I think of executives and many business owners as spoiled, insulated from real life, and looking first for validation, lastly for real results. Even if they own the company themselves or their ass is on the line. This is based on observation and experience, not on an inherent personality bias alone.
You (and several others) say not. I say 'baloney' (nicely and civilly, of course).
Now, none of you "businessey" types (Janet, Tom Scott, Dave Cressey; in the past SAPConsultant, a few others) have convinced me that 1) business is conducted any more rationally than a 17 year old buying a car or 2) business influence is gained more by flattery than by providing tangible cost benefits or revenue gains.
Aussie's recommendation to kick JB's ball out of the rabbit hole is, IMO, pretty damn close to the truth of how things really work.
My own anecdotal observations on foolishness or hubris in the executive suite:
- I have witnessed an overstaffed, over engineered project crash and burn (VCs pulled out, stiffed everyone for salaries and payments) because the PMs and tech leads lived in la la land and would not acknowledge that the customer was not happy with watching fields of C++ developers diddling internals code and spending $$$$. I could see it happening and I was not even on-site. The PM was offended when I mentioned this to him on the QT.
- I have worked with one small company that has an owner that codes. (Hell on earth.) While I had a personal relationship with owners, I was used as nothing but a code pig. I could see and specifically recommend major simplifications of their product resulting in great development cost reductions and increased reliability, but my suggestions were not entertained beyond 20 min. of discussion. They are still paying the price but --- they think everything HAS to be grueling. But they make money.
- Another small firm had tried to get me to sign on perm with the patronizing admonitions that I am small time, that I lack the big picture, that I can learn from them; one of the owners had freelanced in the mid 90's doing Windows development for mid teen $/hr, if you want an idea of their demonstrated business acumen in a past life. I witnessed them lose a major contract bid because nobody was around to deal with their corporate client. Meanwhile, they continue to fund new projects for development with no game plan for marketing. But they make money.
- A few years back a client had tasked me to develop an overblown, yet in many respects unspecified, macro language processor. I recommended against it, said it would be shelfware. It became shelfware.
- A consulting firm I worked for W2 many moons ago placed several of us at a major corporation's site in order to get in bed with a new product being developed. I told the (my) home office that this product was, ah, not ready for prime time and they better find another niche. I was basically told to shut up and bill. Laid off soon after contract ended.
Look, folks... I guess what am saying is... in order to function well in the executive decision making world:
- It seems that a partial lobotomy is in order.
- You have to tell people, highly compensated executives, managers and owners, EXACTLY what they want to hear.
- Your (mine, anyone's) past technical implementation background HINDERS does not HELP acceptance with many business people. Being good technically is usually (often) regarded as "being too detail oriented". Opposite of a feelgood "airhead" presence.
Tom Scott - and also another in the last thread, in a private email discussion - recommend embracing business stuff, reading the business magazines & columns, etc to the extent of even getting an MBA, if the strategic route is what one desires. I am thinking that there are too many fundamental obstacles of style and culture to entertain such a transmogrofication seriously.
Look -- I'm not necessarily trying to start an argument or extend one... I am just trying to understand why I now deserve to be patted on the head as an idiot savant, and why, if I learn a few phrases, I can then run with the big boys... I'm almost inclined to think that "executive" is a role that one is born to and groomed for.
- Don
PS: "Bidness" is a registered trademark of JMS... used under 'fair use' stipulations... :-)
Edited by: Don Wallace at: 9/21/00 5:32:29 pm
| Bigman
Registered User
(9/21/00 11:42:01 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
First, Don great discussions.
1) You have too small of a sample set.
2) You're probably right anyway.
3) Companies make money in spite of themselves.
4) Top companies still do it better than their competitors - in spite of themselves.
Question: Are managers selected because they support the stupid program of the week, or do they start supporting the program after becoming managers? IE is the lobotomy before or after?
A friend with Price Waterhouse etal is a manager and told me once that the biggest problem they have is finding a technical person that they feel comfortable leaving alone with a client business person. Take it for what it's worth.
Repeat after me: They are not idiots, They are not idiots.
The business people may make foolish descisions but they are not fools. They understand that in their world, the correctness of the descision is only part of the equation. The empire building and politics is VERY important.
Two biggest problems I see for technical people in the situations you have described.
1) Overly detailed explaination. Bottom line, if you can't explain it so your Grandma can understand it, you aren't ready to talk to the business people. Most of them don't know and don't really care because of #2
2) Very seldom is maximum efficiency what an executive gets rewarded for.
Reread that last point. Their promotion will come only in part from how well designed the IT solution is. They are also interested in how many people in their organization. How can they get the biggest budget, the most resources, etc. They aren't interested in scalability or in ease of maintenance beyond a minimum level needed to declare the project a success.
Don, I've seen my share of boners pulled by execs in the IT world. But, they didn't lose their jobs over it, so how big of a problem was it??
Dan
| TomScott 
Moderator
(9/21/00 11:45:35 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Another [long] answer...
Succeeding in business is like succeeding in football -- you first have to define the level, and then you have to identify the rules that pertain to that level. People who hate football in general tend to lump all levels together, from little league to pro. That's no different than what we tend to do as developers. But people do succeed at every level of football, and business. They don't succeed because of blind luck, although that's always part of it; rather, they succeed because they combine physical, emotional, and intellectual endowments with an ability to understand the rules that pertain to that level.
Thus, success as an entrepreneur is very different from success in a large multi-national enterprise. That's why entrepreneurs generally can't make the transition to large corporate chieftan. There's plenty of literature out there on what makes a good entrepreneur. Unfortunately, many of these qualities are the same ones that lead to very bad software. "RAD" development very much fits into the entrepreneur's mindset; testing, on the other hand, is anathema.
At the higher corporate level, we see the opposite. That's where the requirement to get all sorts of opposing forces moving in unison tends to have a deadening effect on software.
No matter what the level, IT is still not the driving force, and properly so. IT may be the most important thing in the organization, but the successful CEO can never afford to let it take the place of what ultimately drives every modern corporation, and that is return on capital. A CEO can be nasty or generous, risk-taking or conservative, but those traits will ultimately be judged in light of ROC, and nothing else. Sure, we hear the stories about the CEO who cashed out and gave all his employees a million dollars. But they make the news precisely because they are so unusual.
Will business school help? Yes, to some degree it will. One of the best experiences in my life was getting an executive MBA. No one could get into the course unless they had at least 5 years of management experience under their belts. This was one of the reasons the course was so valuable -- your peers taught you as much as the professors, even though the professors were some of the top people in their fields.
But learning about business through an MBA program or reading lots of books is no different than proclaiming yourself a DBA by virtue of your certification exam. You stick out like a sore thumb, because your certification course cannot possibly cover all the things that real experience does.
I was an entrepreneur for 8 years and a division president in a large multi-national corporation for 8 years. The transition was hell, and to some degree, I never could reconcile it. To be a good corporate leader you have to be a combination of Thoreau and Machiavelli. You have to be comfortable with having ice run in your veins, because inevitably there will come a day when the people whose capital you are returning will demand that you do better, and in order to do so, you will have to lay people off a week before Christmas, not because you're evil, but because your fourth quarter ends in two weeks and all the paperwork has to be completed before then.
I saw immensely stupid acts in my corporate years, but I also saw these same people succeed in building a company from $2 billion per year in sales up to $20 billion in that 8 year period. That's quite an accomplishment. As the president of a division, I found myself jumping from budgeting, to strategic planning, to consoling someone on the warehouse floor whose husband had blown his brains out with a shotgun. I did some pretty stupid things myself. The difference is, as a software developer, you get to correct things before you affect hundreds of people (hopefully!); as a corporate mucky-muck, you aren't dealing with an environment that "compiles."
Your question was, what are the characteristics and qualities that would allow us technical types to be credible with the business types? I would argue that the best thing is real life experience. However, not everyone can do that. The next best thing is a real appreciation for what these people go through, an empathy with thier problems rather than scorn for their fallacies.
So, is a "partial lobotomy" in order? Well, yes, in a sense. If you don't particularly like football, you have to excise from your brain the overwhelming prejudice that football players should not get paid so much for playing a game. To appreciate anything you don't really like, you have to "lobotomize" your prejudices against it, until you know enough about it to decide what is stupid in the context of that activity.
Do you have to tell them exactly what they want to hear? Not quite. But you do have to have a keen sense of politics. You as an outsider cannot presume to get the ocean liner to turn around on a dime just because you are the only one who sees the iceberg ahead.
Does technical implementation hurt? No, unless that's all your made of. If I'm trying to get a contract that uses my "business" abilities, I stress to them the parts of my career that used those abilities. If I'm looking at a pure development job, I stress my technical achievements. That's simply realistic marketing -- you bring out different qualities depending on the market segment you're appealing to. But if you don't have those qualities in the first place, then you're going to have some real problems.
More info on Scott Consulting, Inc.
| Geez Louise
Unregistered User
(9/21/00 5:59:06 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | 48th mid-life crisis ?
Criminy, Don, I hope you won’t feel obligated to have a separate mid-life crisis in each of the 50 states of the Union …..
:-)
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 6:13:54 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
 | Astute observations... not "what you said" but...
Comments... this is good stuff, Tom. You are provoking an intense examination of my own internal makeup.
First of all, to clarify - I am intensely skeptical of business culture. It doesn't mean that I consider the natives stupid. I simply see no point of entry for myself in the roles in which I have been. My technical ego is actually quite small in terms of how I perceive tech's role in real life (I prepared my own invoices up to a couple of years ago in MSword, for instance... ) The problem til now has been... I'm the guy nobody wants to ask, because they get specifics they usually don't want to hear. NOT information overload, I summarize well I think.
But, to get to the point, I do not have managerial background. The 'most' I have been is a technical lead, and that with many constraints placed on what I could do.
I am impatient by nature. Getting better all the time, I am told. However ... Do you have to tell them exactly what they want to hear? Not quite. But you do have to have a keen
sense of politics. ... Whenever I've been in a situation with many mixed agendas and overlapping priorities, my reaction has been to basically say "I know how to do X, what the heck am I supposed to DO about your Y and Z?" I'm probably underestimating my survival skills but I don't really have any politician's finesse.
So, my feeling, based on what you are saying, is that I am probably not in a very advantageous position to consider being a more general IT business consultant... lacking good contacts, lacking managerial background, all I have to 'show' is 20+ years of common sense based implementation success...
I have always felt that managing my OWN work would be an entree' to managing other people's tasks and being solicited for my input. No, as you have analyzed, it just doesn't count, it just doesn't compute in that dimension. Someone (as a client) has to take that leap of faith, and lacking the prior management experience out the shoot, *that* is a tall order.
Thus, success as an entrepreneur is very different from success in a large multi-national enterprise.
I am mixing together several objectives and assuming that these objectives can only be satisfied in a 'bundle', not individually. In particular, your statement above clarifies a fallacy I have been entertaining... to assume that further success as an entrepreneur 'equates' to gaining entry to corporations.
What I am hearing is:
- I had better count on being "technical" the rest of my worklife. Nobody wants to hear what a technical person thinks, no matter how superb the person's demonstrated judgement, since that past experience is considered 'toy' experience in the business work. Sic: unless they are MY business's problems, my input just doesn't and won't count except in the aggregate manner that many techie's input is weighed in most companies. This is not a self pitying statement, this is a judgement.
- Another way of putting all this is: there is no realistic point of entry into management consulting for a mid career techie, is there? I have no fancy MBA, I don't know any credible mentors, and I am not willing to work as an entry level manager in order to get such experience.
- I had better plan to not solicit my input to anyone for strategic decision making. Same reasons as above.
- The points above do not exclude continued beneficial learning about the business world. What they "do" is to frame the objectives, a few of which are just not practical for someone in mid-career. Knowing a little about a lot of subjects is always inherently good, but just don't expect the generalist understanding of business to open doors.
Am I getting the point, missing the point, or unduly pessimistic? I need a focus, this is my way of gaining the focus.
These discussions always make me feel a bit like a bug in the business world, begging to be crushed by someone's heel as a nuisance. What I do to boost my morale is to remember that I don't need to be everything to everyone, I simply need to carve out a niche that I can make money from...
Thx,
- Don
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 6:14:47 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
| I'm working on it!
| CaseyK
Registered User
(9/21/00 6:32:38 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | My 2 cents...
The biggest shock I got during my younger days was when I "sat in" for my manager at Lockheed. Manufacturing engineering (IE, planning, processes, facilities) manager just below the director. I sat in for a week. I could never understand why the jerk made such stupid, almost random decisions regarding what got done, what got purchased, who worked on what.
When I sat in I saw that things at his level were entirely different that what I saw. Where I was looking for approval on a $500 expense request, he was tryin to find $200k to fund a new machine tool. Dealing with people was the toughest. The biggest thing I learned was that each level up was a new environment, and I was not prepared for the first level yet.
I am currently dealing with 10 technical team leads for an internet company. They are coming to terms with the differences between the security of coding and the scary as hell world of having to make committments based on poor requirements and designs. Some are making the change, most are electing to run from me and keep their heads down and code. Partially from there is a need for coding, but mostly because coding is nice and contained - they don't have to deal with the other kids.
| TomScott
Moderator
(9/21/00 9:44:06 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Don't jump from the frying pan into the fire
Not being able to relate to corporate mucky-mucks is nothing to be ashamed of. There's nothing wrong with being a "technical" person, as you describe it.
One of the first things you are taught to forget as a corporate mucky-muck is that your "family" is the corporation. In fact, the corporation does everything it can to make you comfortable with that idea. There are company picnics, social events with the significant others, United Way drives to give you that sense of "community", etc.
Many a poor slob has donated their life to this "family," thinking that their gold watch really meant something, deceiving themselves that their kids really liked what they were doing. It's a very seductive environment, and it's easy to succumb to the Scylla and Charybdis of power, recognition, and an insulated corporate culture that is far more controlled than "real life."
I used to think, in my more naive days, that somehow I could help build a "different" type of corporation, a "learning environment." [Don't laugh out loud all at once, please!] If you have an ounce of humanity in you, you naturally fall into this. After all, there should be a good reason for giving up your family, your kids, your community, all for the sake of the company. There is! And you realize that when you finally accept the idea that the goal of the modern corporation is not to make money; it's really to be a "good citizen", to "provide jobs", and to "organize philanthropy."
Then you get "downsized," and reality smacks you in the face.
Be happy you are skeptical of the corporate culture! You should be! Because as long as you accept the corporation as your surrogate family, you will never realize the real truth -- that you will be remembered not for your contributions to the company, but for your contributions to your family, your friends, and the real community around you.
When you understand this, you will realize that you are far from being a "bug in the business world, begging to be crushed by someone's heel as a nuisance". In fact, when you understand yourself, unfettered by corporate illusions, you achieve true power. You cannot be squashed, because you play by a different set of rules.
I feel sorry for the millions of people who have given up their souls to the corporation. It is with a great sense of pride that, on the rare days I do work on-site, I park in the Visitor's Spot.
More info on Scott Consulting, Inc.
| WebE
Unregistered User
(9/22/00 1:39:15 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Wrong path my good man
Here is what needs discussion: what are the characteristics and qualities that allow one of us technical types to function in and be credible in a business context, specifically in dealing with executives? And to be happy in that role? And to not have to pretend to "be" that which we are not? And to be heard, which is what you *need* if one is to be paid for rendering advice in addition to implementation.
Yea, I know, been there tried that, if I'm following all this correctly, but consulting to corporate types sounds like the wrong niche to me based on what I'm hearing. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, christ some of these guys use astrologers and pay lots of money for them, but your logic gets crazy when you start talking about corporate types--not wrong, just crazy. Frankly, what it sounds like is a frustrated techie who wasn't listened to. Not unusual as we all know.
As long as you are a techie this problem will exist.
The problem is that you are a techie. So what to do?
My suggestion, is that you leverage your background into something slightly different with a specific business focus. I don't know the different but everything I've read here the last year or so, doesn't sound like "paradigming the restructuring of our corporate business methodology in a quantified way." I've built 2 web sites for consultants (really only one as the second never went live--a good thing) and the BS level is a force to be reckoned with. You don't sound like a paradigming guy. A guy with a pair of dimes maybe, but not that other guy.
Find a need and go from there. I guarantee you've bumped into something over the years that just sucked, you hated it, but there it is. The question is doing something about it. There are other needs to fill besides C++ coder in the world and from my perspective, I think that is what you are after not consulting to executives, but I could be wrong.
I disclaimed this commentary but... you are close to the truth. I think of executives and many business owners as spoiled, insulated from real life, and looking first for validation, lastly for real results. Even if they own the company themselves or their ass is on the line. This is based on observation and experience, not on an inherent personality bias alone.
Executives, more commonly, if they didn't work their way to the position. Owners, in most cases, are damn serious about real results. They write the checks, see the results and deal with reality on a regular basis. It isn't until they get fat that this changes. Many, many, executives in my opinion suffer from this. But I predict that if you can make an owner's life easier, more profitable or provide them some other tangible clear business benefit many will be interested.
| David Randolph
Registered User
(9/22/00 11:01:14 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Astute observations... not "what you said" but...
I feel a need to react to this
"- I had better plan to not solicit my input to anyone for strategic decision making. Same reasons as above. "
The real reason not to provide input for strategic decision making is that you do not have the same set of values as do your clients. I do not make suggestions to my clients about their strategic business decisions simply because I can't have the same knowledge of their marketing capabilities, their funding sources, or how likely they are to actually make money by doing any specific action. My clients live and die by evaluating the risks of each of these and on comparing their own values to those risks. My input is totally irrelevent to that comparison.
"- I had better count on being "technical" the rest of my worklife. Nobody wants to hear what a technical person thinks, no matter how superb the person's demonstrated judgement, since that past experience is considered 'toy' experience in the business work. Sic: unless they are MY business's problems, my input just doesn't and won't count except in the aggregate manner that many techie's input is weighed in most companies. This is not a self pitying statement, this is a judgement."
I disagree on the reasoning. For me, once my client has made a strategic decision, then my input is quite valuable - how to achieve the strategic goals for the least cost.
I have a subcontractor who likes to complain about client's strategic decisions because they are not the ones that he would make. Those are not his calls to make. He does good work at making sure that the technical stuff works and does it for a low cost. When the client needs stuff to be reliable, he is a good person to call in. When the customer does not have the same strategic need for reliability, he is a poor fit.
Remember the basic rules of making money as a consultant:
In order for me to have a succssful consultancy, I need to find a prospective client with the following characteristics:
1. The prospect has a problem that _they_ know about
2. The prospect has the funds to spend on fixing that problem
3. The prospect has the willingness to spend those funds on fixing the problem.
4. I can fix the problem that they know about
Trying to fix problems that the customer does not know about is a sure way to fail. Trying to educate the client about the problems so that you can fix them is almost always a futile effort. I have found that it is better to let the customer learn about a problem - warn them first - so that they can know the costs of having that problem. Remember, a problem that isn't costing the customer is not a problem.
I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action.
"- Another way of putting all this is: there is no realistic point of entry into management consulting for a mid career techie, is there? I have no fancy MBA, I don't know any credible mentors, and I am not willing to work as an entry level manager in order to get such experience."
That last statement is the most troubling. Without that experience - and it doesn't need to be in business, it can be in a volunteer organization, you are not going to be able to talk the language nor to understand the client's problems. Without understanding what the client's problems really are, you will not be able to consult the client on how to solve those problems. I would suggest the first step might be to become an officer of a techy professional society and learn some of the problems as seen from the other side.
David Randolph
| HectorSosaJr 
Registered User
(9/22/00 2:10:55 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Finding overlooked "problems"
"I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action."
I think this is one that most newbie entrepreneurs/contractor miss, myself included. My question is : Do you find these problems because you're familiar with the customer's industry and general business practices within that industry?
Hector
| NickC
Registered User
(9/22/00 2:39:40 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Attitude
>>It seems that a partial lobotomy is in order...(et al)
Don,
I don't think this kind of attitude is going to get you very far with the business/executive types. People who do succeed with the business end have these kinds of thoughts:
-"Business users are smart people to be treated with respect. They have a lot of interpersonal, sales, (or whatever) skills I don't have. But since they're non technical, I have to explain things to them simply."
-"Business users have a lot of conflicting goals: Making sure the project is done well, Getting personal recognition, etc. I need to be sensitive to all of those goals."
After reading a lot of your posts, your personality/attitude seems to be that of a true heads down tech-guy. And these aren't the guys who SHOULD be communicating with executives, dealing with the business world, etc.
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/23/00 1:16:38 am)
Reply | Edit | Del
| Well, uh...
Nick,
>>After reading a lot of your posts, your personality/attitude seems to >> be that of a true heads down tech-guy.
A slam, as I read it. Frankly, you're epitomizing the 'problem' I have in some quarters of the business world with your last statement - being ghettoized and stereotyped based upon appearance or past experience, not based upon proven track record or ability to perform.
As far as opinions posted on the bbs, I'm shooting from the hip, and grossly overdramatizing my opinions ... as always.
Cost, end user needs and benefits, and maintainability, have all been high priorities I set in anything I do for clients, and have been for years. Whether anyone in proximity on the client end has the humility or insight or patience or will even listen to appreciate this, is another issue.
Could a truly heads down person form the concepts that we are discussing here?
Not seeking your approval, but please don't confuse frankness or letting one's hair down, with the small mindedness of an uber geek that believes that humans are an unnecessary biological infestation...
On the other hand, what you say indicates that no matter what perception I wish to leave with others, 'what you said' is the impression that I really do leave when all is said and done. You, Nick, appear to be a proxy for the business people I have dealt with in the past who have dealt with me rather dismissively.
Business people I have encountered tend to group people they encounter into 'roles', which is part of the frustration of any independent techie in our field.
Awaiting your response to the non heads down characteristic ramble above, if that's of interest to you (again, uncharacteristic of a heads down type - the notion that another's interests are not cognate with one's own interests).
Edited by: Don Wallace at: 9/23/00 1:16:38 am
| David Cressey 
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:33:45 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Manager's mind set
Well, I can only speak from my experience, not yours.
I worked for Digital for ten years, from 1975 to 1985. I got to see a lot of management in that time. They made a lot of decisions, some of them poor ones, but some of them good ones. If I had become a manager in that time frame, I am certain that I would have failed.
Digital's biggest problem was not that the managers were too stupid, but that there were too many of them. As a result, there were a lot of fake managers around.
Even fake managers aren't idiots. They are real good at faking it, and that takes brains.
I eventually got to where I could tell the real ones from the fake ones, sort of. Fake managers "work the issues". Real managers issue the work.
One time, about 18 years ago, my boss, a regional manager, had everybody in his group that one of those "thinking styles" quizzes, where you answer a lot of preference type questions, and they tell you how your personality fits in. One of the spectra was from "Analytical" to "Driver".
The group consisted of about 7 lower level managers, three stafff people, and a secretary.
Guess what? The managers all scored towards the "driver" end, and the staff all scored towards the "analytical" end. I scored even further towards analytical than the other two staff, a financial analyst and a marketing analyst. The marketing analyst scored pretty high on "driver". She later became a manager.
I can't speak for you, but I know where my own decision making is often flawed. I like to keep my options open, even at the expense of delaying a decision. That's a losing strategy, in competition.
Really good managers are awfully good at reading people. If your inner attitude is that "this PHB probably doesn't know the difference between a laptop and an etch-a-sketch" (reference to Dilbert here) you may think you are concealing that attitude, but the manager may be reading you like a book. Is he going to try to change your attitude? Not very likely.
He's more likely to say, "Let's have you go over and talk to Fred. I think you'll be really helpful to him." What you don't know is that Fred is a manager who really is an idiot. (apologies to all the Freds out there in cyberspace)
Now, this manager knows EXACTLY what he's doing when he sends you over to Fred.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
Edited by: David Cressey at: 9/23/00 7:33:45 am
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:43:54 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | A 17 year old buying a car.
First off, 17 year old boys a defferent from 17 year old girls.
If a 17 year old boy is buying a car, he knows what he wants: he wants to get laid.
You can talk to him till you're blue in the face about how safe Volvos are, about how fuel economy goes with low horsepower, about how money saved now will be really valuable in later life, about repair bills, etc. etc. And you can end up not making a dent in his decision making.
Does he buy the wrong car? From your point of view, probably. Are his goals mixed up? From your point of view, probably. Is he "irrational"....
....actually, not. He'll probably buy the car that advances HIS goals, whatever those goals are.
(Some readers are going to tell me that it's so easy to get laid at 17 these days that my comments are 20 years out of date. Actually, the paradigm has just shifted a little: he wants to get laid by that hot chick who only goes out with guys who have a hot car, or great abs, or both. Getting laid by the other girls doesn't count.)
So his goals may be irrational... but so are yours, in your innermost being. His pursuit of his goals may be strictly rational.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/23/00 5:00:03 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | The first step is...
Sorry if my remark about "the first step" seemed pointed at you. I think I was just reacting in general to the general attitude towards management that I read in here.
And yeah, I have had a tendency to drift into that attitude myself, from time to time. But I'm overcoming it.
As far as executives being "spoiled" and seeking "validation ahead of real results" ... gee I know LOTS of tecchies that I could apply that to. In fact, in the richest country on earth, I think that categorization fits more than half the people... including a lot of managers.
The real question I was driving at is this: do you think you could do their job better than they do? I sure don't.
I don't even want to expand my "company" beyond myself and my wife.
I think Tom Scott's remarks on this topic are really on the mark. I've especially got some food for thought on "corporate culture".
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
Edited by: David Cressey at: 9/23/00 5:00:03 pm
| Snark
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:26:58 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
Geez. If managers were all that bad, nothing would work. Somethings do work. Therefore, ipso facto, presto chango, some management must work.
Now, when we see it work, do we know what we're seeing? Just because it works, does that mean there isn't still some room (maybe lots of room) for improvement?
Managers play a different game than techies, they manage people. People are far more difficult to deal with than computers. I have a lot of respect for anyone in a managerial role who can get anything positive done.
That said, a good manager is probably as rare as a good techie. I have less respect for the average techie, than I have for the average manager. I am quite the elitist snot when it comes to techies, I think that 80%++ of those in the field, shouldn't be. Well, perhaps that's also true of managers, but I suppose even the marginally talented have to eat, and may make a contribution of some sort, given half a chance.
FWIW.
Snark
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/24/00 7:26:13 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Elitist Snot...
I'm less of an elitist than you are.
I think that 80% of the tecchies are doing a job they should not be doing. That's a bit less elitist than saying they shouldn't be in the field.
Some people should get some training, to do the job they are in. That can be as simple as reading a good book on the subject.
Some people should be migrating to a different job in the field, one that calls for different mental and personality strengths.
People change and grow over time. If you asked me to do the same job I was doing 20 years ago, I'd probably do a lousy job. The technology of that particular job has changed in ways I haven't tracked, and my interests aren't what they were.
And... 80% of the managers should be learning how to be better managers.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| Dinosaur
Registered User
(9/24/00 11:59:40 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Lowering the bar
Just as a general (tautological) rule, the 50% of anything that are below average could stand improvement.
In my general observation, it is the 50% who are above average that actually try to improve.
Over what hill? I don't remember any hill!
| mejonz
Registered User
(9/24/00 6:34:18 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Elitist Snot...
David,
My observations indicate more than 95% need to be improving themselves, unfortunately much of this to the detriment of underlings, is done on the job.
| Snark
Registered User
(9/24/00 9:46:55 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Belly up to the bar
>Just as a general (tautological) rule, the 50% of anything
>that are below average could stand improvement.
I know. There ought to be a government program to educate people so that everyone is above average. It worked in Lake Wobegone ...
OTOH is Sturgeon's rule, "80% of everything is crap."
>In my general observation, it is the 50% who are above
>average that actually try to improve.
Boy, that just about says it all in a nutshell, Dino.
Snark
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/25/00 12:01:24 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | OTJ forever
I have to differ strongly on this one.
On the job is the only place to learn how to be a better manager. All them management courses can do is prepare the
student to learn on the job.
Managers who learn from their mistakes are the good ones.
If you revisit them six months later, you'll find they are making new, and different mistakes. It's the ones who keep making the same mistakes, over and over, who are the bad ones.
And the folks who criticize from the sidelines claiming,
perhaps implicitly, that they would not make mistakes in the same situation, are utter fools. They just don't know.
If you think you could do better, go for it. Prove me wrong.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/25/00 12:04:06 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Below median wage.
< >
Do you realize that HALF of the families in the US still have incomes that are BELOW the median???
This after eight years of supposedly great economic expansion!
There oughta be a law!!!
>
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Randolph
Registered User
(9/25/00 2:56:36 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Finding overlooked "problems"
""I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action."
I think this is one that most newbie entrepreneurs/contractor miss, myself included. My question is : Do you find these problems because you're familiar with the customer's industry and general business practices within that industry?"
Yes, and no. Yes, in that most of my customers are in a retail environment. No, in that retail environments are all over the map in their requirements.
The question is "will this bug cause a problem?" Then, "how severe of a problem relative to other problems that can occur?" Basically, I need to identify (based on my experience) which problems are more likely to cause severe problems. One has to know where this software is going to be used to be able to make that judgement. For example, if a mistake causes a water valve to leak in a client's landscaping, how much of a problem is that? (Yes, there are clients who will call to have you turn it off at 3AM.) However, if your software bug causes a disaster similar to Bophal, India, that is a major problem. It is important to know about the impact of bugs. I recommend the Risks to the Public forum to learn about more of these. The important thing is to be able to see what the consequences might be.
| Hitech Hayseed
Unregistered User
(9/26/00 8:52:11 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Elitist Snot ?
Gotta see me some of that egalitarian snot then.
Probably off storming a bastille somewheres.......
| thomasamiller
Unregistered User
(1/7/01 10:59:08 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | I agreee
Tom-
I agree 100% with you. It is so funny to see how most companies talk smack about how much they care about you and get all touchy-feely. Then they will turn right around and stab you in the back. I am so happy to be back contracting. I was perm for the last year and a half. I got stock options but they will probably be worthless. Happy New Year.
|
>| Author | Subject | Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 5:32:29 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del All | Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
Spun off from my 48th mid life crisis thread...
Here is what needs discussion: what are the characteristics and qualities that allow one of us technical types to function in and be credible in a business context, specifically in dealing with executives? And to be happy in that role? And to not have to pretend to "be" that which we are not? And to be heard, which is what you *need* if one is to be paid for rendering advice in addition to implementation.
Dave Cressey, you threw me a curve ball as follows:
The first step is to stop thinking of them as idiots.
I disclaimed this commentary but... you are close to the truth. I think of executives and many business owners as spoiled, insulated from real life, and looking first for validation, lastly for real results. Even if they own the company themselves or their ass is on the line. This is based on observation and experience, not on an inherent personality bias alone.
You (and several others) say not. I say 'baloney' (nicely and civilly, of course).
Now, none of you "businessey" types (Janet, Tom Scott, Dave Cressey; in the past SAPConsultant, a few others) have convinced me that 1) business is conducted any more rationally than a 17 year old buying a car or 2) business influence is gained more by flattery than by providing tangible cost benefits or revenue gains.
Aussie's recommendation to kick JB's ball out of the rabbit hole is, IMO, pretty damn close to the truth of how things really work.
My own anecdotal observations on foolishness or hubris in the executive suite:
- I have witnessed an overstaffed, over engineered project crash and burn (VCs pulled out, stiffed everyone for salaries and payments) because the PMs and tech leads lived in la la land and would not acknowledge that the customer was not happy with watching fields of C++ developers diddling internals code and spending $$$$. I could see it happening and I was not even on-site. The PM was offended when I mentioned this to him on the QT.
- I have worked with one small company that has an owner that codes. (Hell on earth.) While I had a personal relationship with owners, I was used as nothing but a code pig. I could see and specifically recommend major simplifications of their product resulting in great development cost reductions and increased reliability, but my suggestions were not entertained beyond 20 min. of discussion. They are still paying the price but --- they think everything HAS to be grueling. But they make money.
- Another small firm had tried to get me to sign on perm with the patronizing admonitions that I am small time, that I lack the big picture, that I can learn from them; one of the owners had freelanced in the mid 90's doing Windows development for mid teen $/hr, if you want an idea of their demonstrated business acumen in a past life. I witnessed them lose a major contract bid because nobody was around to deal with their corporate client. Meanwhile, they continue to fund new projects for development with no game plan for marketing. But they make money.
- A few years back a client had tasked me to develop an overblown, yet in many respects unspecified, macro language processor. I recommended against it, said it would be shelfware. It became shelfware.
- A consulting firm I worked for W2 many moons ago placed several of us at a major corporation's site in order to get in bed with a new product being developed. I told the (my) home office that this product was, ah, not ready for prime time and they better find another niche. I was basically told to shut up and bill. Laid off soon after contract ended.
Look, folks... I guess what am saying is... in order to function well in the executive decision making world:
- It seems that a partial lobotomy is in order.
- You have to tell people, highly compensated executives, managers and owners, EXACTLY what they want to hear.
- Your (mine, anyone's) past technical implementation background HINDERS does not HELP acceptance with many business people. Being good technically is usually (often) regarded as "being too detail oriented". Opposite of a feelgood "airhead" presence.
Tom Scott - and also another in the last thread, in a private email discussion - recommend embracing business stuff, reading the business magazines & columns, etc to the extent of even getting an MBA, if the strategic route is what one desires. I am thinking that there are too many fundamental obstacles of style and culture to entertain such a transmogrofication seriously.
Look -- I'm not necessarily trying to start an argument or extend one... I am just trying to understand why I now deserve to be patted on the head as an idiot savant, and why, if I learn a few phrases, I can then run with the big boys... I'm almost inclined to think that "executive" is a role that one is born to and groomed for.
- Don
PS: "Bidness" is a registered trademark of JMS... used under 'fair use' stipulations... :-)
Edited by: Don Wallace at: 9/21/00 5:32:29 pm
| Bigman
Registered User
(9/21/00 11:42:01 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
First, Don great discussions.
1) You have too small of a sample set.
2) You're probably right anyway.
3) Companies make money in spite of themselves.
4) Top companies still do it better than their competitors - in spite of themselves.
Question: Are managers selected because they support the stupid program of the week, or do they start supporting the program after becoming managers? IE is the lobotomy before or after?
A friend with Price Waterhouse etal is a manager and told me once that the biggest problem they have is finding a technical person that they feel comfortable leaving alone with a client business person. Take it for what it's worth.
Repeat after me: They are not idiots, They are not idiots.
The business people may make foolish descisions but they are not fools. They understand that in their world, the correctness of the descision is only part of the equation. The empire building and politics is VERY important.
Two biggest problems I see for technical people in the situations you have described.
1) Overly detailed explaination. Bottom line, if you can't explain it so your Grandma can understand it, you aren't ready to talk to the business people. Most of them don't know and don't really care because of #2
2) Very seldom is maximum efficiency what an executive gets rewarded for.
Reread that last point. Their promotion will come only in part from how well designed the IT solution is. They are also interested in how many people in their organization. How can they get the biggest budget, the most resources, etc. They aren't interested in scalability or in ease of maintenance beyond a minimum level needed to declare the project a success.
Don, I've seen my share of boners pulled by execs in the IT world. But, they didn't lose their jobs over it, so how big of a problem was it??
Dan
| TomScott
Moderator
(9/21/00 11:45:35 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Another [long] answer...
Succeeding in business is like succeeding in football -- you first have to define the level, and then you have to identify the rules that pertain to that level. People who hate football in general tend to lump all levels together, from little league to pro. That's no different than what we tend to do as developers. But people do succeed at every level of football, and business. They don't succeed because of blind luck, although that's always part of it; rather, they succeed because they combine physical, emotional, and intellectual endowments with an ability to understand the rules that pertain to that level.
Thus, success as an entrepreneur is very different from success in a large multi-national enterprise. That's why entrepreneurs generally can't make the transition to large corporate chieftan. There's plenty of literature out there on what makes a good entrepreneur. Unfortunately, many of these qualities are the same ones that lead to very bad software. "RAD" development very much fits into the entrepreneur's mindset; testing, on the other hand, is anathema.
At the higher corporate level, we see the opposite. That's where the requirement to get all sorts of opposing forces moving in unison tends to have a deadening effect on software.
No matter what the level, IT is still not the driving force, and properly so. IT may be the most important thing in the organization, but the successful CEO can never afford to let it take the place of what ultimately drives every modern corporation, and that is return on capital. A CEO can be nasty or generous, risk-taking or conservative, but those traits will ultimately be judged in light of ROC, and nothing else. Sure, we hear the stories about the CEO who cashed out and gave all his employees a million dollars. But they make the news precisely because they are so unusual.
Will business school help? Yes, to some degree it will. One of the best experiences in my life was getting an executive MBA. No one could get into the course unless they had at least 5 years of management experience under their belts. This was one of the reasons the course was so valuable -- your peers taught you as much as the professors, even though the professors were some of the top people in their fields.
But learning about business through an MBA program or reading lots of books is no different than proclaiming yourself a DBA by virtue of your certification exam. You stick out like a sore thumb, because your certification course cannot possibly cover all the things that real experience does.
I was an entrepreneur for 8 years and a division president in a large multi-national corporation for 8 years. The transition was hell, and to some degree, I never could reconcile it. To be a good corporate leader you have to be a combination of Thoreau and Machiavelli. You have to be comfortable with having ice run in your veins, because inevitably there will come a day when the people whose capital you are returning will demand that you do better, and in order to do so, you will have to lay people off a week before Christmas, not because you're evil, but because your fourth quarter ends in two weeks and all the paperwork has to be completed before then.
I saw immensely stupid acts in my corporate years, but I also saw these same people succeed in building a company from $2 billion per year in sales up to $20 billion in that 8 year period. That's quite an accomplishment. As the president of a division, I found myself jumping from budgeting, to strategic planning, to consoling someone on the warehouse floor whose husband had blown his brains out with a shotgun. I did some pretty stupid things myself. The difference is, as a software developer, you get to correct things before you affect hundreds of people (hopefully!); as a corporate mucky-muck, you aren't dealing with an environment that "compiles."
Your question was, what are the characteristics and qualities that would allow us technical types to be credible with the business types? I would argue that the best thing is real life experience. However, not everyone can do that. The next best thing is a real appreciation for what these people go through, an empathy with thier problems rather than scorn for their fallacies.
So, is a "partial lobotomy" in order? Well, yes, in a sense. If you don't particularly like football, you have to excise from your brain the overwhelming prejudice that football players should not get paid so much for playing a game. To appreciate anything you don't really like, you have to "lobotomize" your prejudices against it, until you know enough about it to decide what is stupid in the context of that activity.
Do you have to tell them exactly what they want to hear? Not quite. But you do have to have a keen sense of politics. You as an outsider cannot presume to get the ocean liner to turn around on a dime just because you are the only one who sees the iceberg ahead.
Does technical implementation hurt? No, unless that's all your made of. If I'm trying to get a contract that uses my "business" abilities, I stress to them the parts of my career that used those abilities. If I'm looking at a pure development job, I stress my technical achievements. That's simply realistic marketing -- you bring out different qualities depending on the market segment you're appealing to. But if you don't have those qualities in the first place, then you're going to have some real problems.
More info on Scott Consulting, Inc.
| Geez Louise
Unregistered User
(9/21/00 5:59:06 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | 48th mid-life crisis ?
Criminy, Don, I hope you won’t feel obligated to have a separate mid-life crisis in each of the 50 states of the Union …..
:-)
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 6:13:54 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
| Astute observations... not "what you said" but...
Comments... this is good stuff, Tom. You are provoking an intense examination of my own internal makeup.
First of all, to clarify - I am intensely skeptical of business culture. It doesn't mean that I consider the natives stupid. I simply see no point of entry for myself in the roles in which I have been. My technical ego is actually quite small in terms of how I perceive tech's role in real life (I prepared my own invoices up to a couple of years ago in MSword, for instance... ) The problem til now has been... I'm the guy nobody wants to ask, because they get specifics they usually don't want to hear. NOT information overload, I summarize well I think.
But, to get to the point, I do not have managerial background. The 'most' I have been is a technical lead, and that with many constraints placed on what I could do.
I am impatient by nature. Getting better all the time, I am told. However ... Do you have to tell them exactly what they want to hear? Not quite. But you do have to have a keen
sense of politics. ... Whenever I've been in a situation with many mixed agendas and overlapping priorities, my reaction has been to basically say "I know how to do X, what the heck am I supposed to DO about your Y and Z?" I'm probably underestimating my survival skills but I don't really have any politician's finesse.
So, my feeling, based on what you are saying, is that I am probably not in a very advantageous position to consider being a more general IT business consultant... lacking good contacts, lacking managerial background, all I have to 'show' is 20+ years of common sense based implementation success...
I have always felt that managing my OWN work would be an entree' to managing other people's tasks and being solicited for my input. No, as you have analyzed, it just doesn't count, it just doesn't compute in that dimension. Someone (as a client) has to take that leap of faith, and lacking the prior management experience out the shoot, *that* is a tall order.
Thus, success as an entrepreneur is very different from success in a large multi-national enterprise.
I am mixing together several objectives and assuming that these objectives can only be satisfied in a 'bundle', not individually. In particular, your statement above clarifies a fallacy I have been entertaining... to assume that further success as an entrepreneur 'equates' to gaining entry to corporations.
What I am hearing is:
- I had better count on being "technical" the rest of my worklife. Nobody wants to hear what a technical person thinks, no matter how superb the person's demonstrated judgement, since that past experience is considered 'toy' experience in the business work. Sic: unless they are MY business's problems, my input just doesn't and won't count except in the aggregate manner that many techie's input is weighed in most companies. This is not a self pitying statement, this is a judgement.
- Another way of putting all this is: there is no realistic point of entry into management consulting for a mid career techie, is there? I have no fancy MBA, I don't know any credible mentors, and I am not willing to work as an entry level manager in order to get such experience.
- I had better plan to not solicit my input to anyone for strategic decision making. Same reasons as above.
- The points above do not exclude continued beneficial learning about the business world. What they "do" is to frame the objectives, a few of which are just not practical for someone in mid-career. Knowing a little about a lot of subjects is always inherently good, but just don't expect the generalist understanding of business to open doors.
Am I getting the point, missing the point, or unduly pessimistic? I need a focus, this is my way of gaining the focus.
These discussions always make me feel a bit like a bug in the business world, begging to be crushed by someone's heel as a nuisance. What I do to boost my morale is to remember that I don't need to be everything to everyone, I simply need to carve out a niche that I can make money from...
Thx,
- Don
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/21/00 6:14:47 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
| I'm working on it!
| CaseyK
Registered User
(9/21/00 6:32:38 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | My 2 cents...
The biggest shock I got during my younger days was when I "sat in" for my manager at Lockheed. Manufacturing engineering (IE, planning, processes, facilities) manager just below the director. I sat in for a week. I could never understand why the jerk made such stupid, almost random decisions regarding what got done, what got purchased, who worked on what.
When I sat in I saw that things at his level were entirely different that what I saw. Where I was looking for approval on a $500 expense request, he was tryin to find $200k to fund a new machine tool. Dealing with people was the toughest. The biggest thing I learned was that each level up was a new environment, and I was not prepared for the first level yet.
I am currently dealing with 10 technical team leads for an internet company. They are coming to terms with the differences between the security of coding and the scary as hell world of having to make committments based on poor requirements and designs. Some are making the change, most are electing to run from me and keep their heads down and code. Partially from there is a need for coding, but mostly because coding is nice and contained - they don't have to deal with the other kids.
| TomScott
Moderator
(9/21/00 9:44:06 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Don't jump from the frying pan into the fire
Not being able to relate to corporate mucky-mucks is nothing to be ashamed of. There's nothing wrong with being a "technical" person, as you describe it.
One of the first things you are taught to forget as a corporate mucky-muck is that your "family" is the corporation. In fact, the corporation does everything it can to make you comfortable with that idea. There are company picnics, social events with the significant others, United Way drives to give you that sense of "community", etc.
Many a poor slob has donated their life to this "family," thinking that their gold watch really meant something, deceiving themselves that their kids really liked what they were doing. It's a very seductive environment, and it's easy to succumb to the Scylla and Charybdis of power, recognition, and an insulated corporate culture that is far more controlled than "real life."
I used to think, in my more naive days, that somehow I could help build a "different" type of corporation, a "learning environment." [Don't laugh out loud all at once, please!] If you have an ounce of humanity in you, you naturally fall into this. After all, there should be a good reason for giving up your family, your kids, your community, all for the sake of the company. There is! And you realize that when you finally accept the idea that the goal of the modern corporation is not to make money; it's really to be a "good citizen", to "provide jobs", and to "organize philanthropy."
Then you get "downsized," and reality smacks you in the face.
Be happy you are skeptical of the corporate culture! You should be! Because as long as you accept the corporation as your surrogate family, you will never realize the real truth -- that you will be remembered not for your contributions to the company, but for your contributions to your family, your friends, and the real community around you.
When you understand this, you will realize that you are far from being a "bug in the business world, begging to be crushed by someone's heel as a nuisance". In fact, when you understand yourself, unfettered by corporate illusions, you achieve true power. You cannot be squashed, because you play by a different set of rules.
I feel sorry for the millions of people who have given up their souls to the corporation. It is with a great sense of pride that, on the rare days I do work on-site, I park in the Visitor's Spot.
More info on Scott Consulting, Inc.
| WebE
Unregistered User
(9/22/00 1:39:15 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Wrong path my good man
Here is what needs discussion: what are the characteristics and qualities that allow one of us technical types to function in and be credible in a business context, specifically in dealing with executives? And to be happy in that role? And to not have to pretend to "be" that which we are not? And to be heard, which is what you *need* if one is to be paid for rendering advice in addition to implementation.
Yea, I know, been there tried that, if I'm following all this correctly, but consulting to corporate types sounds like the wrong niche to me based on what I'm hearing. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, christ some of these guys use astrologers and pay lots of money for them, but your logic gets crazy when you start talking about corporate types--not wrong, just crazy. Frankly, what it sounds like is a frustrated techie who wasn't listened to. Not unusual as we all know.
As long as you are a techie this problem will exist.
The problem is that you are a techie. So what to do?
My suggestion, is that you leverage your background into something slightly different with a specific business focus. I don't know the different but everything I've read here the last year or so, doesn't sound like "paradigming the restructuring of our corporate business methodology in a quantified way." I've built 2 web sites for consultants (really only one as the second never went live--a good thing) and the BS level is a force to be reckoned with. You don't sound like a paradigming guy. A guy with a pair of dimes maybe, but not that other guy.
Find a need and go from there. I guarantee you've bumped into something over the years that just sucked, you hated it, but there it is. The question is doing something about it. There are other needs to fill besides C++ coder in the world and from my perspective, I think that is what you are after not consulting to executives, but I could be wrong.
I disclaimed this commentary but... you are close to the truth. I think of executives and many business owners as spoiled, insulated from real life, and looking first for validation, lastly for real results. Even if they own the company themselves or their ass is on the line. This is based on observation and experience, not on an inherent personality bias alone.
Executives, more commonly, if they didn't work their way to the position. Owners, in most cases, are damn serious about real results. They write the checks, see the results and deal with reality on a regular basis. It isn't until they get fat that this changes. Many, many, executives in my opinion suffer from this. But I predict that if you can make an owner's life easier, more profitable or provide them some other tangible clear business benefit many will be interested.
| David Randolph
Registered User
(9/22/00 11:01:14 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Astute observations... not "what you said" but...
I feel a need to react to this
"- I had better plan to not solicit my input to anyone for strategic decision making. Same reasons as above. "
The real reason not to provide input for strategic decision making is that you do not have the same set of values as do your clients. I do not make suggestions to my clients about their strategic business decisions simply because I can't have the same knowledge of their marketing capabilities, their funding sources, or how likely they are to actually make money by doing any specific action. My clients live and die by evaluating the risks of each of these and on comparing their own values to those risks. My input is totally irrelevent to that comparison.
"- I had better count on being "technical" the rest of my worklife. Nobody wants to hear what a technical person thinks, no matter how superb the person's demonstrated judgement, since that past experience is considered 'toy' experience in the business work. Sic: unless they are MY business's problems, my input just doesn't and won't count except in the aggregate manner that many techie's input is weighed in most companies. This is not a self pitying statement, this is a judgement."
I disagree on the reasoning. For me, once my client has made a strategic decision, then my input is quite valuable - how to achieve the strategic goals for the least cost.
I have a subcontractor who likes to complain about client's strategic decisions because they are not the ones that he would make. Those are not his calls to make. He does good work at making sure that the technical stuff works and does it for a low cost. When the client needs stuff to be reliable, he is a good person to call in. When the customer does not have the same strategic need for reliability, he is a poor fit.
Remember the basic rules of making money as a consultant:
In order for me to have a succssful consultancy, I need to find a prospective client with the following characteristics:
1. The prospect has a problem that _they_ know about
2. The prospect has the funds to spend on fixing that problem
3. The prospect has the willingness to spend those funds on fixing the problem.
4. I can fix the problem that they know about
Trying to fix problems that the customer does not know about is a sure way to fail. Trying to educate the client about the problems so that you can fix them is almost always a futile effort. I have found that it is better to let the customer learn about a problem - warn them first - so that they can know the costs of having that problem. Remember, a problem that isn't costing the customer is not a problem.
I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action.
"- Another way of putting all this is: there is no realistic point of entry into management consulting for a mid career techie, is there? I have no fancy MBA, I don't know any credible mentors, and I am not willing to work as an entry level manager in order to get such experience."
That last statement is the most troubling. Without that experience - and it doesn't need to be in business, it can be in a volunteer organization, you are not going to be able to talk the language nor to understand the client's problems. Without understanding what the client's problems really are, you will not be able to consult the client on how to solve those problems. I would suggest the first step might be to become an officer of a techy professional society and learn some of the problems as seen from the other side.
David Randolph
| HectorSosaJr
Registered User
(9/22/00 2:10:55 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Finding overlooked "problems"
"I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action."
I think this is one that most newbie entrepreneurs/contractor miss, myself included. My question is : Do you find these problems because you're familiar with the customer's industry and general business practices within that industry?
Hector
| NickC
Registered User
(9/22/00 2:39:40 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Attitude
>>It seems that a partial lobotomy is in order...(et al)
Don,
I don't think this kind of attitude is going to get you very far with the business/executive types. People who do succeed with the business end have these kinds of thoughts:
-"Business users are smart people to be treated with respect. They have a lot of interpersonal, sales, (or whatever) skills I don't have. But since they're non technical, I have to explain things to them simply."
-"Business users have a lot of conflicting goals: Making sure the project is done well, Getting personal recognition, etc. I need to be sensitive to all of those goals."
After reading a lot of your posts, your personality/attitude seems to be that of a true heads down tech-guy. And these aren't the guys who SHOULD be communicating with executives, dealing with the business world, etc.
| Don Wallace
Moderator
(9/23/00 1:16:38 am)
Reply | Edit | Del
| Well, uh...
Nick,
>>After reading a lot of your posts, your personality/attitude seems to >> be that of a true heads down tech-guy.
A slam, as I read it. Frankly, you're epitomizing the 'problem' I have in some quarters of the business world with your last statement - being ghettoized and stereotyped based upon appearance or past experience, not based upon proven track record or ability to perform.
As far as opinions posted on the bbs, I'm shooting from the hip, and grossly overdramatizing my opinions ... as always.
Cost, end user needs and benefits, and maintainability, have all been high priorities I set in anything I do for clients, and have been for years. Whether anyone in proximity on the client end has the humility or insight or patience or will even listen to appreciate this, is another issue.
Could a truly heads down person form the concepts that we are discussing here?
Not seeking your approval, but please don't confuse frankness or letting one's hair down, with the small mindedness of an uber geek that believes that humans are an unnecessary biological infestation...
On the other hand, what you say indicates that no matter what perception I wish to leave with others, 'what you said' is the impression that I really do leave when all is said and done. You, Nick, appear to be a proxy for the business people I have dealt with in the past who have dealt with me rather dismissively.
Business people I have encountered tend to group people they encounter into 'roles', which is part of the frustration of any independent techie in our field.
Awaiting your response to the non heads down characteristic ramble above, if that's of interest to you (again, uncharacteristic of a heads down type - the notion that another's interests are not cognate with one's own interests).
Edited by: Don Wallace at: 9/23/00 1:16:38 am
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:33:45 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Manager's mind set
Well, I can only speak from my experience, not yours.
I worked for Digital for ten years, from 1975 to 1985. I got to see a lot of management in that time. They made a lot of decisions, some of them poor ones, but some of them good ones. If I had become a manager in that time frame, I am certain that I would have failed.
Digital's biggest problem was not that the managers were too stupid, but that there were too many of them. As a result, there were a lot of fake managers around.
Even fake managers aren't idiots. They are real good at faking it, and that takes brains.
I eventually got to where I could tell the real ones from the fake ones, sort of. Fake managers "work the issues". Real managers issue the work.
One time, about 18 years ago, my boss, a regional manager, had everybody in his group that one of those "thinking styles" quizzes, where you answer a lot of preference type questions, and they tell you how your personality fits in. One of the spectra was from "Analytical" to "Driver".
The group consisted of about 7 lower level managers, three stafff people, and a secretary.
Guess what? The managers all scored towards the "driver" end, and the staff all scored towards the "analytical" end. I scored even further towards analytical than the other two staff, a financial analyst and a marketing analyst. The marketing analyst scored pretty high on "driver". She later became a manager.
I can't speak for you, but I know where my own decision making is often flawed. I like to keep my options open, even at the expense of delaying a decision. That's a losing strategy, in competition.
Really good managers are awfully good at reading people. If your inner attitude is that "this PHB probably doesn't know the difference between a laptop and an etch-a-sketch" (reference to Dilbert here) you may think you are concealing that attitude, but the manager may be reading you like a book. Is he going to try to change your attitude? Not very likely.
He's more likely to say, "Let's have you go over and talk to Fred. I think you'll be really helpful to him." What you don't know is that Fred is a manager who really is an idiot. (apologies to all the Freds out there in cyberspace)
Now, this manager knows EXACTLY what he's doing when he sends you over to Fred.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
Edited by: David Cressey at: 9/23/00 7:33:45 am
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:43:54 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | A 17 year old buying a car.
First off, 17 year old boys a defferent from 17 year old girls.
If a 17 year old boy is buying a car, he knows what he wants: he wants to get laid.
You can talk to him till you're blue in the face about how safe Volvos are, about how fuel economy goes with low horsepower, about how money saved now will be really valuable in later life, about repair bills, etc. etc. And you can end up not making a dent in his decision making.
Does he buy the wrong car? From your point of view, probably. Are his goals mixed up? From your point of view, probably. Is he "irrational"....
....actually, not. He'll probably buy the car that advances HIS goals, whatever those goals are.
(Some readers are going to tell me that it's so easy to get laid at 17 these days that my comments are 20 years out of date. Actually, the paradigm has just shifted a little: he wants to get laid by that hot chick who only goes out with guys who have a hot car, or great abs, or both. Getting laid by the other girls doesn't count.)
So his goals may be irrational... but so are yours, in your innermost being. His pursuit of his goals may be strictly rational.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/23/00 5:00:03 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | The first step is...
Sorry if my remark about "the first step" seemed pointed at you. I think I was just reacting in general to the general attitude towards management that I read in here.
And yeah, I have had a tendency to drift into that attitude myself, from time to time. But I'm overcoming it.
As far as executives being "spoiled" and seeking "validation ahead of real results" ... gee I know LOTS of tecchies that I could apply that to. In fact, in the richest country on earth, I think that categorization fits more than half the people... including a lot of managers.
The real question I was driving at is this: do you think you could do their job better than they do? I sure don't.
I don't even want to expand my "company" beyond myself and my wife.
I think Tom Scott's remarks on this topic are really on the mark. I've especially got some food for thought on "corporate culture".
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
Edited by: David Cressey at: 9/23/00 5:00:03 pm
| Snark
Registered User
(9/23/00 7:26:58 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Functioning in the Bidness (tm) World...
Geez. If managers were all that bad, nothing would work. Somethings do work. Therefore, ipso facto, presto chango, some management must work.
Now, when we see it work, do we know what we're seeing? Just because it works, does that mean there isn't still some room (maybe lots of room) for improvement?
Managers play a different game than techies, they manage people. People are far more difficult to deal with than computers. I have a lot of respect for anyone in a managerial role who can get anything positive done.
That said, a good manager is probably as rare as a good techie. I have less respect for the average techie, than I have for the average manager. I am quite the elitist snot when it comes to techies, I think that 80%++ of those in the field, shouldn't be. Well, perhaps that's also true of managers, but I suppose even the marginally talented have to eat, and may make a contribution of some sort, given half a chance.
FWIW.
Snark
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/24/00 7:26:13 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Elitist Snot...
I'm less of an elitist than you are.
I think that 80% of the tecchies are doing a job they should not be doing. That's a bit less elitist than saying they shouldn't be in the field.
Some people should get some training, to do the job they are in. That can be as simple as reading a good book on the subject.
Some people should be migrating to a different job in the field, one that calls for different mental and personality strengths.
People change and grow over time. If you asked me to do the same job I was doing 20 years ago, I'd probably do a lousy job. The technology of that particular job has changed in ways I haven't tracked, and my interests aren't what they were.
And... 80% of the managers should be learning how to be better managers.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| Dinosaur
Registered User
(9/24/00 11:59:40 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Lowering the bar
Just as a general (tautological) rule, the 50% of anything that are below average could stand improvement.
In my general observation, it is the 50% who are above average that actually try to improve.
Over what hill? I don't remember any hill!
| mejonz
Registered User
(9/24/00 6:34:18 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Elitist Snot...
David,
My observations indicate more than 95% need to be improving themselves, unfortunately much of this to the detriment of underlings, is done on the job.
| Snark
Registered User
(9/24/00 9:46:55 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Belly up to the bar
>Just as a general (tautological) rule, the 50% of anything
>that are below average could stand improvement.
I know. There ought to be a government program to educate people so that everyone is above average. It worked in Lake Wobegone ...
OTOH is Sturgeon's rule, "80% of everything is crap."
>In my general observation, it is the 50% who are above
>average that actually try to improve.
Boy, that just about says it all in a nutshell, Dino.
Snark
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/25/00 12:01:24 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | OTJ forever
I have to differ strongly on this one.
On the job is the only place to learn how to be a better manager. All them management courses can do is prepare the
student to learn on the job.
Managers who learn from their mistakes are the good ones.
If you revisit them six months later, you'll find they are making new, and different mistakes. It's the ones who keep making the same mistakes, over and over, who are the bad ones.
And the folks who criticize from the sidelines claiming,
perhaps implicitly, that they would not make mistakes in the same situation, are utter fools. They just don't know.
If you think you could do better, go for it. Prove me wrong.
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Cressey
Registered User
(9/25/00 12:04:06 am)
Reply | Edit | Del | Below median wage.
< >
Do you realize that HALF of the families in the US still have incomes that are BELOW the median???
This after eight years of supposedly great economic expansion!
There oughta be a law!!!
>
Regards,
David Cressey
Not all those who wander are lost.
| David Randolph
Registered User
(9/25/00 2:56:36 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Re: Finding overlooked "problems"
""I have found that one way to sell a client on something is to show how not fixing it will cause someone to call at 3AM demanding immediate action."
I think this is one that most newbie entrepreneurs/contractor miss, myself included. My question is : Do you find these problems because you're familiar with the customer's industry and general business practices within that industry?"
Yes, and no. Yes, in that most of my customers are in a retail environment. No, in that retail environments are all over the map in their requirements.
The question is "will this bug cause a problem?" Then, "how severe of a problem relative to other problems that can occur?" Basically, I need to identify (based on my experience) which problems are more likely to cause severe problems. One has to know where this software is going to be used to be able to make that judgement. For example, if a mistake causes a water valve to leak in a client's landscaping, how much of a problem is that? (Yes, there are clients who will call to have you turn it off at 3AM.) However, if your software bug causes a disaster similar to Bophal, India, that is a major problem. It is important to know about the impact of bugs. I recommend the Risks to the Public forum to learn about more of these. The important thing is to be able to see what the consequences might be.
| Hitech Hayseed
Unregistered User
(9/26/00 8:52:11 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | Elitist Snot ?
Gotta see me some of that egalitarian snot then.
Probably off storming a bastille somewheres.......
| thomasamiller
Unregistered User
(1/7/01 10:59:08 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del | I agreee
Tom-
I agree 100% with you. It is so funny to see how most companies talk smack about how much they care about you and get all touchy-feely. Then they will turn right around and stab you in the back. I am so happy to be back contracting. I was perm for the last year and a half. I got stock options but they will probably be worthless. Happy New Year.
|
|
