Giving Thanks: where it comes from is more important than how it is shown

 

     On this day in the US, it is a holiday referred to as "Thanksgiving". There are other Thanksgiving Days around the world but, being a US citizen, our holiday is the one with which I am most familiar. Our Thanksgiving Day centers around food because the historical tale centers around a 3-day feast occurring with the Pilgrims and a local First Nation (Wampanoag) in November 1621 during a peaceful period of time. Besides the sharing of food, the Wampanoags were vital to the survival of the Pilgrims as they showed the Pilgrims methods of cultivation and fertilization to be able to grow food. Alas, that peaceful period did not persist but the Pilgrims, at the least, still had reason to be grateful and give thanks. For First Nations in the US, it is more often a Day of Remembrance rather than a celebration.

     As a feast, food was important -- as well as the fact that the harvest, and their very survival, was due to the generosity of the Wampanoags. What was eaten? Probably not pumpkin pie or turkey but the exact composition of the feast will have to be left to time-traveling anthropologists of the future.

     The central aspect of Thanksgiving, however, is not the food -- it is the giving of thanks. Acknowledgement, appreciation, and gratitude are all aspects of the process of giving thanks and, although each has a separate dictionary definition, it would be difficult to sincerely express thanks without something of all three being involved.

     Acknowledgement, or recognition, is critical. You cannot give true thanks if you don't know who they are. In a couple of the companies that I worked for, I received a fifth anniversary card in the company mail. In neither case was the card signed. In one case, the card wasn't even addressed. I joked, without feeling much humor, that I should save the card so I could use it later with someone else. This is NOT the way to acknowledge, or thank, someone. It should be personal. Preferably face-to-face but at least knowing their name, knowing what they have done, and being able to thank the person as a person.

     Appreciation stems from the awareness that, without someone (this particular person) being present to do the things for which we are thankful, that thing of interest might never have been accomplished. So, first is WHO? Second is WHAT? The third is that of gratitude -- which may be deemed HOW.

     And How seems to be something that companies and people seem to get confused about. As in my old companies, they seemed to think that a larger gift would "make up for" missing out on the first two vital aspects. They didn't know who I was and they didn't know what I had done but here's this fifth anniversary gift to mark the occasion. No, it doesn't work that way. If they had given me a signed card, addressed to me and presented by someone who knew for what they were thanking me -- that would have been wonderful and more than sufficient. (Not that I would have turned down a new Porsche <smile>.)

     The same thing is in the process when you are giving a birthday gift, anniversary gift, Christmas or Kwanzaa gift, etc. Whether the gift is forward (to another person) or as response (thanks for a gift or gifts), the acknowledgement and appreciation make the core of the thanks, or gift. Remembering to grab the dry cleaning on a regular basis is of greater thankfulness than an emerald brooch.

     So, sit down at a Thanksgiving Day meal (or any other meal -- those of us who consistently have food on our tables have much to be thankful for every day) and recognize those around us and the things they have done (not necessarily for us), and appreciate them, the food, the company, and the existence of all.

     And may everyone have even more to be thankful for, tomorrow, and the days to come.

     

Questions & Answers: Don't ask if you don't want them to tell

 

     "How are you?" "What's up?" "Howzzit going?" These aren't really questions even though they may be written with question marks at the end of the phrase. They are social interjections. There may be a response but it will probably be a standard response for the person and should not be relied upon. (As someone likely on the autism spectrum, this aspect of social dynamics was difficult for me to understand.) This does vary a bit. The more you know someone and the closer the relationship, the more likely they will take it seriously as a question and, as such, leads into the heart of this blog.

     When you seriously ask a question, then you should expect an answer. But you should not have determined what the answer "should" be before you have even asked the question. You get their attention, ask the question, and wait for the response. You should not do a "hit and run" to ask a question and then be half-way down the corridor before they start to response. Communication involves listening and this applies to both the person posing the question as well as to the person hearing the question. You cannot be listening if you are already heading off to your next item of the day.

     So, you've asked a real question (it may still be "how are you?" -- but you really want to know). You have stopped, or paused, and wait for the answer. Do you have "that's good" on your tongue before they have responded? If you have already decided on your response then, once again, you are not listening. "How are you?" "My dog died yesterday and I am really sad about it." "That's good."  Nope, you don't want to do that.

     You've now gotten to the point of asking the question, waiting for the answer, and not creating a specific response. What comes next? The answer. You may have a specific expectation for an answer, a general expectation of an answer, or it may be open-ended with nothing particular in mind. "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (expecting a "yes") "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (expecting a generally positive answer but with potentially some caveats) "Do you have any plans for the weekend?" (yes, I'm going skydiving on Saturday and Sunday the whole family is going to a church picnic)

     What happens if the answer does NOT fall into the range of your expectations? "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (No, it looks like we won't meet the current goal and the long-term deadline will need to be pushed back) "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (No one has been able to get it to work and the only people who are getting anything done are the ones who held onto the old equipment when they came to take it away) "Did you have a good day at school today?" (No, I decided it would be much more fun to go fishing, so Fred and I took off and went fishing by the dam)

     How do you respond to an unexpected answer? The worst way to respond is by demonstrating that you weren't listening. "My dog died." (that's nice) While a highly positive response is good for unexpected good news ("my daughter just got a full scholarship for Kansas State University.") explosive anger to bad, or unexpected, news does not serve any positive purpose. Explosive anger can only lead to the situation where people no longer feeling free to communicate bad news to you (shot that messenger one too many times)

     If you ask a question from which you expect an answer then wait, listen, consider, and respond appropriately and constructively.

Meetings & Presentations: They aren't the same thing

 

     During my last couple of years of work, I was in 30 hours of meetings per week. Of those thirty hours, I was an active participant in perhaps six hours. I may have taken notes in another four hours of the meetings because information was presented that I did not know and which was not available from other sources. For the other 20 hours I was an additional number in the head count.

     Is this typical? I cannot really say as I have not had a wide enough spread of work within various companies. Is it unusual? Personally, I suspect that it is not unusual. Is it useful? That depends a lot on the purpose of the meetings. If it was to gather information, then 2/3 of my meetings were not useful. If it was to be seen then I guess they were useful -- including remote situations if the cameras are all on. If it was to raise the perceived status of the presenter, then I feel it was a lot less useful than the presenter thought it was. After all, would it raise your opinion of someone if you listened to them for an hour or two of your life and did not learn anything new nor felt that your presence was useful?

     Most companies have meetings that do not need to exist. The percentage may vary depending on the processes of the company and their priorities but there are usually those that exist just to exist.

     We come, therefore, to a distinction -- the distinction between a presentation and a meeting. A presentation can have "questions and answers" during, or at the end, of the gathering. During this Q&A period, information can be clarified and additional information can be obtained. The information flow is almost completely unidirectional. The presenter is passing information along to the audience.

     Within a useful meeting, information flow should be omnidirectional. There may be a moderator who makes sure everyone has a chance to provide input. There may be a recorder who keeps track of what is said, any commitments made, and any work items to be assigned. The moderator and the recorder may be the same person. If so, that will slow down the flow of the meeting which could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. It will depend on the initial purpose of the meeting. In a "brainstorming" meeting, I would suggest that it would be useful to have the two roles fulfilled by two different people in order to not put obstacles in the way of information flow. Have you ever had something you wanted to say and, following a relatively short interruption, no longer know quite what it was? I certainly have.

     The reason that I had so many meetings at which I was unneeded was that the presenter did not understand as to whether it was a presentation or a meeting. Thus, it was put forth as a meeting and there were people required to be present. As a presentation, it could have been put into a document or into a video presentation to be watched at a more convenient time. (A video also has the advantage of being able to be fast-forwarded past known information.) Questions and answers can still occur -- and can be distributed to the list of people who are sent, or notified of, the presentation.

     When you are setting up a gathering, first decide upon information flow. Is it unidirectional or omnidirectional? Even if multiple people are presenting information during the session, it can still be unidirectional. If it is unidirectional, is it something you want to enforce watching/listening with a specific audience? A "captive" audience still may not understand/listen to the information but they lack excuses for not knowing the information. If it is omnidirectional, then a gathering will likely be useful -- but it could be remote or in-person.

     If it is static information -- all is known and it is meant to flow in one direction (though possibly from multiple people) then do people need to receive it at the same time? Are you aware of the exact people who should know the information? If people other than invitees may need/want to know the information then live presentations should be recorded but it may also be an argument for the lack of need for a gathering.

     In summary, meetings should be gatherings of people with omnidirectional information flow (everyone potentially has information to give as well as to receive). Presentations involve unidirectional (perhaps from more than one person) information flow. It is possible to have a presentation as part of a meeting but, in such cases, it should primarily be a meeting with information exchanged. Meetings are often useful to have as gatherings. Presentations may be more useful as documents or video recordings to allow an indeterminate group of people access to the information, allow rewatching/rereading the information, or to take in the information at a more convenient time.

Results-based evaluation: Most agree so why is it so hard?

 

     I don't know of anyone (though it is possible someone exists) who doesn't agree that the most important thing with a job is to get the results when they are needed and of the quality that is needed. This is an expansion of the phrase "results-based evaluation". Who really cares how it is done (with the caveats, of course, using only legal means and not abusing or harassing anyone) or where it is done or how the work hours are distributed as long as the assignment is completed as needed with good quality?

     That's what is said. The reality differs as I am sure most are aware. That reality is the foundation of so much conflict about remote vs. hybrid vs. RTO. It is the foundation of 4-day workweeks vs. 5-day workweeks (or 3-day or 6-day). 

     So, we have an ideal of a results-based evaluation and we have the reality of wanting control over the process. Perhaps not to the extent of micromanaging but, still, with someone making sure that a certain number of hours are worked, perhaps during certain time windows, and with the ability of the physical (or at least remote video) observation of work being done.

     In my opinion, there IS a difference between a new, inexperienced, employee's need for management versus that of an experienced person with a good track record. A new person many not know how to proceed from the beginning to the finish line. They need someone to give them a framework and to be able to make sure they are not getting lost, leaving the framework, or skewing the schedule and duties in a way that results end up being unreliable. This is not an indication of a bad employee. It is an indication of an employee who does not have the experience, and knowledge, of being able to self-manage to reach the objectives.

     But how about people who ARE experienced and have a track record that indicates they know how to get to the finish line and make their objectives? Rationalization breaks down at this point. No matter what angle a person looks at it, it ends up being a matter of TRUST. Each person's tasks are relied on by other layers who are relied upon by higher layers until it is a matter for the entire company or project. It can be scary to realize that you are being evaluated, in the greater part, based upon how well people, of whom you are responsible, perform. Fear and trust are confrontative values.

     Results-based evaluation should always be feasible -- whether the people are split in location or have to coordinate different schedules. First, the objective must be well, precisely, defined -- such that both parties know whether it has been achieved. Second, it is useful to BOTH parties to have mutually agreed-upon verifiable checkpoints such that both have confidence that progress is being made as needed. These checkpoints may be frequent for relatively inexperienced people or for complex projects. They may be very infrequent for very experienced people on projects which are testable, and deliverable, in isolation from other work.

     The various methods of dealing with pandemic isolation have proven that it can work. We know how it worked and that can work towards the future for continuing functionality. Only trust, and mutual work on synchronization, is needed.

Measure Twice, Cut Once: True in most areas

 

     In spite of having young adults in the house, I don't really know much about what language is presently active. But, for me, the phrase "measure twice, cut once" was an important phrase, and lesson, within my household.

     Of course, it directly applies to building things -- specifically cutting lumber. If you cut a piece of lumber to 11 1/8 inches and you were SUPPOSED to have cut it to 11 7/8 inches then you have just wasted a good sized length of lumber (if vice verse, then you have the situation where you now have to cut 3/4 inch off a board -- that's not much fun either). It could have been even worse -- off by inches (or centimeters for the metric world). If it gets bad enough then you may end up with lengths of board that can be used for other purposes. The point is, it is really best if you cut the board the correct length. You do that by verifying the length you need. Measure more than once, make sure you write it down (or remember it) clearly and then cut it the indicated length.

     This applies to many other areas of life. How many times have you wanted to retract something you just said (or a message you just sent)? Recognizing this situation, tools have started putting in automatic delays to allow you to "take it back" when you have just sent something. But it is much better to make certain that you want to say something BEFORE you say it. Think it over (and read it over -- making sure that "autocorrect" has not changed anything critical). Consider how it could be interpreted -- what you mean to say is not always what many people will hear. Consider privacy issues. If this message was intercepted, or heard, or even ended up in subpoenaed information, does it say what you want it to and is it something you want people, other than those addressed, to hear in this manner?

     The principal applies to working with programs. I am presently learning a language (Español) using the Duolingo application. I am often working "under deadline" when I have bonus points available during a timed interval. I try to hurry and -- oops -- I hit the "Check" button when I really wanted to hit the backspace, or delete, key. (I do this on my iPad.) There goes my 100% for the exercise.

     It also applies to products. Check, test, check again, test again. Have acceptance criteria and follow them -- enhance when something slips through. For physical products, never have anything head out the door unless at least a good sampling has been checked (and check that sample twice).  Quality problems are expensive, embarrassing, and hurt reputations (which are easy to destroy and hard to build). 

     Double measuring is the antithesis of hurrying. There are other clichés and phrases about hurrying but they usually amount to the same thing. It is a lot harder (often impossible) to undo something, or make amends for something, or clean up a mess than it is to not make the error in the first place. But most of us will find ourselves in situations where we act before we think. In such cases, take a deep breath and ponder the reality "no one is perfect".

     Then try to clean up the mess.

The ever changing work week; history and technological change

 

     Once upon a time, long long ago, people did not divide their time between work and non-work. People spent the time needed to survive and did whatever they wanted the rest of the time. In certain "tropical paradises" with ample food and few dangers, most of the time was spent doing sports, enjoying flowers or doing crafts, building monuments, or whatever. In less amenable environments, most of the time was spent trying to survive and the only non-work time was during winter months when activity was severely restricted (but, often, the time was still allocated to doing activities to prepare for the warmer periods).

     As humans developed technology, including agricultural, animal husbandry, and environmental adaptive technologies, the less hospitable areas had less time required for survival. Society moved in two directions to make use of this non-work time. One direction was social stratification -- some had lots of leisure while others lost their leisure to perform labor for the higher social layers. The other direction was religious and familial development which provided more structured activities for use of non-survival time.

     Societies which had developed in the less stressful areas did not shift as much -- continuing to spend most of their time at leisure activities. In the other areas, a dynamic developed between the two directions of the shift of people's time with some wanting to do less and less for themselves and the others wanting more time to develop leisure activities. This dynamic continues unto today.

     But technology continued to develop and this push towards reallocation of survival labor time to non-work changed. This was buffered, in part, by continued population increases. The more people, with the greater strain on resources, the more efforts needed to survive -- but technology changes have continued to move somewhat ahead of those needs.

     In some areas, bolstered by religious mandates, the working people started having times, and days, where mandated activities could be forgotten. Children started to be seen as developing people rather than just another labor resource. Days were allocated for worship. Lastly, the work day was shortened to allow non-work time before and after the work day.

     In our present time, between automation and AI, we find our society entering a new period when the amount of work hours needed is becoming a smaller, and smaller, part of the total number of hours available to be produced by people. And, with automation and AI, the training and abilities needed by people who do work becomes more difficult to achieve.

     This leaves us with many hours not needed to be worked. It is no longer a survival situation -- it is a political and economic problem. If we reduce population then all of our production, and economic flow, will be at overcapacity (more than we can use). If we do NOT reduce population then there is not enough work for everyone. One possibility is to have each working person work fewer hours. Shorter days or fewer days? With commuting, fewer days means less overhead and more efficient labor movement.

     There is probably no universally "correct" solution but, unless civilization does a "reset" due to societal collapse, we need to face the problem of not enough hours of work for the number of people we have. Many object strongly to people not working but, if that is to not be the case, there must be better distribution (and better education) to spread the number of work hours among the many people.

Getting it done: The three lodgepoles of Agile

 

     Back in 2001, when the 17 developers gathered around and argued and discussed and came up with the "Agile Manifesto", there were a lot of things that they didn't agree upon and a few things that they did agree on. Certainly those 17 people, and those they have trained, can talk more in depth about Agile specifically than I can. Although I have taken "Product Owner" and "ScrumMaster" courses my own experience of Agile comes more from trying to ride herd on groups of developers (and managers) trying to make the transition from waterfall to Agile (SCRUM, as the specific variant goal). And some of their discussion and points are rooted in some of the things that I was exposed to starting 25 years before their gathering.

     Be aware that, although the Agile Manifesto was done in conjunction with software engineering, it can apply to any project -- including home remodeling or building that paper maché model for high school or putting together an anniversary party.

     One of the things that they used in discussion at, and I tried to learn from prior to their gathering, was the experiences of "The Mythical Man Month". Although the technologies used within may be considered prehistoric by many, the approaches and mistakes have certainly continued to the present day with Agile approaches attempting to divert people, and projects, away from such catastrophic results. Within this project, as relayed in the book, there was a mad, accelerating, scramble to try to bring a project back onto a schedule with proper quality and without bankrupting the company.

     There are three major aspects of projects -- resources, time, and quality. Resources can include the number of people, the amount of equipment, square footage, shoot -- basically anything that has a limitation but can be expanded (resources can extend to mental/specific expertise availability and limitations). Time is rather straight-forward (thought the general topic has been thrashed out for centuries by philosophers and scientists). Quality is a slippery object but it is usually defined at the end by agreeing whether it came out as useful as desired. (Defining acceptance criteria will almost always help to determine whether the quality goals have been met.) Although (as far as I know) they never called these aspects the "three lodgepoles", I think that it is a good description. 

     Lodgepoles are really just long, straight, sturdy poles. However, if three or more are bound together, they can form a sturdy structure for support of other things (potentially a habitation as was done with the First Nations of the Americas). They can be used to support a kettle over a campfire to cook a soup in. Three will succeed. Two, or one, will not be able to be sufficiently sturdy to hold that kettle or structure.

     So it is with "the three lodgepoles of Agile". You have these three aspects that provide the support for a project -- but you can only try to control two of them. If you try to control time and quality then you cannot control resources (the primary discovery within the Mythical Man Month). If you try to control quality and resources, then time is unknown (this happens with projects that never arrive at their goal). Or, if you try to control time and resources then achieving desired quality may be an illusion (note that most of the time what happens is, as the illusion of quality fades away then the time and/or resource restrictions start being revisited and expanded).

     When moving over to an Agile structure, this limitation is very difficult for management to understand -- and overly frustrating to other workers who are doing their very best to satisfy.

     Take a "typical" project. You decide what you want to do, how many people are available (or you can afford) to do it, and say when you want to have it done. OK, the date arrives and it isn't the way you wanted it to be -- quality has given way. Or you are continuing to work on the project and keep saying "it will be ready in just another two weeks ..." (over and over) -- time has given way. Or the quality isn't where you want it to be and that anniversary date is coming up fast (difficult to change an anniversary date), and you start calling everyone you know to see if they can help -- resources have gone out of control.

     In our conversion process towards Agile, that "time" component kept being a problem. In part, this was because the marketing and sales division was NOT moving towards "Agile" (for marketing and sales, there really needs to be some type of ongoing delivery system with steadily moving different dates with features -- such as a subscription model for software). So, huge amounts of resources kept being used to keep track of "time" -- although everyone participating knew that they couldn't really control all three lodgepoles. Delivery dates, software completion dates, etc. And that brings us back to that Mythical Man Month -- resources were allocated to doing what couldn't really be done -- which leads us back to the frustrations of the 17 people at the Agile meeting.

     Life is interesting.

Vacations: They don't work the same for everyone

 

     My father, having only a 9th grade education, had a series of low level positions -- sometimes called "blue collar". He worked hard but, at the end of eight or nine hours of work, when he came home he did not think about work. It didn't matter if the job was delivering soda (pop) to stores, lathing parts for Boeing, or cooking donuts. Work was left solely at work. This characteristic applies to most people in "blue collar" positions. My son, working at a local grocery store, does not come home and think about whether the onions will need to be moved to make room for a new crop of peaches. Having made it to the label of "coordinator" he does find himself thinking about what the personnel situation will be when he arrives -- but, not being in charge of scheduling, he doesn't really worry about it (he just tries to mentally prepare himself for possibilities).

     Besides salaries and benefits, this may be one of the primary differences between "blue" and "white" collar work. When you get to the manager level, or as a "professional", then you have responsibilities and duties that can be, and often are, worked on after leaving the actual work environment (assuming that you are not remote -- if remote, they extend past the theoretical work hour boundaries). Among other reasons, that is why "Members of Technical Staff" at Bell Labs were considered to be "managers".

     These are factors of life on a daily basis but they apply even more strongly to vacations. A blue-collar worker in the US (this differs considerably between different countries in the world) may, or may not, get a vacation. And that vacation, if given, may be paid leave or unpaid leave. Assuming that they have gotten a vacation -- once they have left work there are likely no thoughts about work until that day occurs when they have to think about going BACK to work.

     This is not the situation for most white collar workers. The situation varies a lot -- from the situation being very similar to that of a blue collar worker to the situation where it would be very difficult to recognize that they were on a vacation (perhaps a different locale). The "vacation spectrum" is somewhat designated by the position but mostly determined by the interactions between workers and the next levels "up" from their position (whether they be a VP, line manager, supervisor, department head, or whatever).

     We are split between the "ideal" vacation, the "optimal" vacation, and the "minimal" vacation. There are a lot of articles about the benefits of clean breaks from work -- an "ideal" vacation where the person no longer needs to think about work. They are able to allow the mental work grooves to fade and let those furrows rest so that they will be prepared for new crops to be planted when they return to work.

     Work situations often do not allow such "ideal" situations. This is an inherent part of the position. If you are a salesperson, your clients still may need you and your potential clients must not feel neglected. If you are a technical person, then your tasks and projects continue towards some future goal and the less you pay attention to that progress, while on vacation, the more difficult it is to resume work upon return. If you are in a managerial position, you should be able to feel comfortable that you have set things up, and delegated, such that all will continue without your intervention -- but that "should" very often does not crystalize -- in part because others doing tasks want to make sure they are doing them "right". Working with these inherent parts allows one to hit an "optimal" vacation. You get as much rest on average such that, when you return, work can continue without having to "catch up" and do two weeks worth of work during that first week of return.

     Which leads us to that "minimal" vacation (that looks almost identical to a work period) which we want to avoid. We can do a lot to avoid the "minimal" and approach the "optimal".

• Learn to delegate and make sure that they have the knowledge, and abilities, such that you can be comfortable trusting them.
  
  
• Organize, and document, the needs to be taken care of while you are absent.
  
  
• Make sure that all information (file access, customer names and numbers/email addresses, passwords if absolutely needed, ...) is known to those who have need of such.
  
  
• AND leave contact information such that they can contact you if NEEDED within a reasonable period (say 3-hours).

     Note that you should not, and should not have to, be able to be contacted every single minute. If so, then you need to work on preparation better next time. The potential to check in, or be contacted, every few hours is reasonable -- being "on call" 24/7 is not.

     You may not have the "ideal" vacation but, with proper preparation (and attitude), you can have a vacation that you can enjoy and give you a respite from, and readiness to return to, work.

Going where you aren't looking: nature's triage?

 

     Once upon a time, I was driving along and allowed myself to be distracted. I took my eyes off of the road and got into my most severe driving accident. No doubt it was my fault, and responsibility, as it is the responsibility of the driver to keep their eyes, and other senses, on what is going on outside the car -- the road, the people, deer, and so forth. But, even more so than before that accident, I became hyper aware of people going one direction while their attention is going another direction.

     In my situation, this only happened for a few seconds -- but that was too long. How many times have you watched a scene in a movie where the driver turns their attention away from the road and talks with their passenger for ten seconds, twenty seconds, maybe thirty seconds without ever looking back at the road? We all know that that just isn't real -- people can NOT do that without severe, perhaps fatal, problems. But, that's just part of the movie offset from reality. It's very similar to the fact that restroom breaks never seem to happen even though we know they must.

     This is the phenomenon behind the greatly increased accident, and fatality, rates of people who text or use a phone hands-on while driving. Driving a 3000 lb. moving object requires focused attention. Any distraction must be kept firmly in the background. In computer science jargon, they must be kept as low priority interrupts. AFTER all necessary items, needed for safe driving, have received attention then some time and attention can be diverted elsewhere.

     This doesn't happen only while driving, of course, though it is thankful that it is rarely fatal or even very serious when not driving. How many people have run into you when they are walking while looking over to the right or left while still walking forward? Perhaps you have even done such. Except when you are crossing the street while doing this, it is usually not too dangerous -- but still can be awkward and embarrassing.

     This also happens within the business world. The business plan has us working towards a particular objective and that objective has specific needs to be handled in a timely way. How often does something else divert us and has us continuing on automatic concerning what we have chosen to be our most pressing focus? Much more often than we would like to acknowledge. We "walk" one direction while looking elsewhere. Note that this is different than recognizing an emergency or a needed change of direction -- it is a matter of not paying attention to the "most important now" task.

     And the longer that attention is diverted from the "most important now" tasks, the more likely there will be problems. Perhaps even fatal ones.

Percentages: A desire to claim authority

 

     Stereotypes often have a grain of truth within. How large of a grain? It varies a lot. Any time that you find yourself saying -- Xs do this or Ys do that -- you know that there are those who don't fit that criterion. Many males do not like to ask for directions (in my household, my wife is the one who doesn't like to ask). Women, in general, have faster reflexes and higher pain thresholds. Much of the time, such statements are stated as absolutes. "Men don't ask for directions." This is true even when we are quite aware of exceptions -- with either men asking for directions or other genders not wanting to ask.

     But yet another generalization which doesn't fit everyone -- people (especially men) want to be perceived as being an authority -- knowing what they are talking about. "70% of all men have dandruff." "93% of all drivers don't come to a complete stop at stop signs." People could easily say "most drivers don't come to a complete stop" but which sounds more as if the person has done their research and knows what they are talking about -- "most drivers ..." or "93% of all drivers ..."?

     How do such percentages come about? Occasionally, the person may have read a paper stating some percentage. That percentage may, or may not, have been accurate and the person may, or may not, have remembered the percentage correctly. But there WAS some percentage associated with the event so recreate it.

    "Most becomes 70%." "Almost all becomes 94%." "Almost no one become 1%." You may have some favorite numbers that you use.

     This doesn't happen just in everyday life. It also happens in studies. Each study has a statistical range for all numbers and there is a general recognition that there may be constraints that have been omitted from the study or aspects of the population pool might make a difference with other followup studies. Yet, the results don't get summarized as "35% chance with a +/- error range of 5% under specific conditions."

     Finally, there is sloppy usage of well-defined words. The word "cause" is an oft-misused one. Somehow, in the summaries, "correlates to" or "seems to usually be present" becomes "causes". If A causes B then EVERY time A exists then B happens. There aren't a lot of absolutes in life. Even doses of arsenic will not necessarily cause death (though it certainly can raise the likelihood -- botox or plutonium have even smaller likelihoods of not being fatal). Each time I read of a study that indicates causation, I say to myself "uh-huh. How about under this condition? How about this 'exception' that I read about? ..."

     Does this apply to you? Will at least 82.5% of you read this and think about how it may apply within your life?

A good manager? What makes a good manager?

 

     LinkedIn is a place for lots of polled surveys. A recent survey asked (more or less) -- "what percentage of your managers have been good managers?". This brought up two questions within me. First, of course, is how would I answer the question? Second is "what IS a good manager?" Each person knows whether or not they believe that their manager is a good one but is there some set of criteria that most people would agree upon?

     Managerial duties will, in part, depend upon development methodology. If an Agile methodology is in use, then the managers (and I will use the same term for whatever level one may be working at) have much less input into task assignments and routing of requirements. For SCRUM, those duties will spread to the product owner, scrum master, and development team. Since a manager is responsible for primary evaluation as to how someone is performing, they do have to monitor team and individual developer progress and bug rates -- but not for assigning.

     Since titles and processes will change names depending on the development and managerial methodology being followed, I will present my views on evaluation of managers in a more generic fashion.

     There is one task that is required of all people fulfilling a managerial role -- ensuring that information about needed tasks are distributed to those who will be doing them and making sure that the tasks are done and results reported. Visually, this is a horizontal spread of information. Although tasks are likely to come from an "upward" direction, this may be hidden in some organizations. This set of tasks also includes evaluation and passing along information needed for individual improvement.

     If a person is NOT doing this task then, in my opinion, they are NOT being a manager. If they are supposed to be a manager then they are a very bad one if they don't perform these tasks. It is also possible they have a poorly chosen title and they are not meant to follow the requirements of being a manager. Perhaps their title SHOULD be something like "function coordinator"?

     Beyond the foundation of horizontal information movement, there is vertical movement. Note that some organizations consider themselves to have a "flat" organization -- but few, if any, are completely "flat". In the downward direction, tasks are involved with productivity and career growth and development of individuals. Minimal tasks are for the company. Optimal tasks extend to doing things to work with the employee. Such actions often also provide benefits to the company as a whole.

     The other vertical direction is towards "upper" layers. This is movement of product and corporate ideas. Some movement may return from upper layers but ideas, suggestions, product and methodology improvements, and other items to improve the company as a whole may use the manager as a conduit. The manager's job is to keep the information in motion and to make sure appropriate groups, or individuals, retain history and credit for such improvements.

     I started off this blog with the notice of a survey. What were the general results of such? What were my answers? I'm not certain that the survey is closed but, at the time that I last looked at results, it seemed that people felt that only less than 25% of their managers had been good managers. Their definitions of good managers may not be in sync with my thoughts above but such a viewpoint should be very sobering. It does, however, seem to be in agreement with other surveys concerning morale and employment work commitment.

     As for me, I have had six (6) managers over my career. It is a low number because a large part was spent as an independent contractor (without a manager) and as the co-founder and co-owner of my own company in which I had no manager. Nonetheless, there were six people who acted as managers. I had one who was great, one who was good, two who were mediocre, and two who were awful. So, this would give me an "above average" amount of 33% of my managers being "good" managers.

      My great manager performed all basic and proactive functions of a manager very well. Note that -- probably not coincidentally -- they continued to do very well with promotions and expansion of responsibilities and duties as their career has progressed. The good manager performed the horizontal tasks very well with vertical tasks done when thought of -- not proactive but still responsive. I have lost touch with that person so I do not know current status.

     The two mediocre managers took care of the basic horizontal tasks but really ignored both their employees as developing people as well as corporate directions and projects. Ah, but the two awful ones. They didn't even fulfill basic horizontal tasks. They were bothered by a disability of mine which did not affect my work but did create embarrassment for them. Unable to do anything directly since it was protected by the U.S. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), they chose the routes of passive-aggressive refusal to assign work and mark it on reviews as my not doing work while failing to mention their refusal to assign work. Their actions did not do the primary aspect of setting tasks and distributing them. They certainly did no improvement upon my path. And they failed the company in deliberately not making use of my experiences and capabilities.

     People have their own stories. They will not necessarily match up with the categories which I have listed above. There will be awful managers -- perhaps basing their actions out of various -isms (sexism, racism, ethnicism, ...) Or just having reached just a little bit past their level of competency. The best reaction is often to "vote with the feet" but hope springs eternal.

     What stories do you have?