Continual Improvement

As someone who has performed in various leadership roles over the years, one career killer remains evident year after year: The Specialization Ambush. When did this fundamental requirement for capitalism become obsolete you may be asking yourself. As someone who has spent years learning about computers and software, I would have argued a strong case for learning every bit and byte there is to know, but now, I propose a different position.

The Specialization Ambush is a trap that workers of all occupations are lured into by exploiting existing skills at the cost of learning new skills for the future, and doing so will likely result in major distress at some point in time. Triggers for detecting too much specialization are the thoughts: “that’s not my job” or “I’m not trained for that”. As employers look for employees to do more with less, it’s worthwhile to consider learning more about other parts of the business, even if little bits at a time, because today’s craft is tomorrow’s bygone.

Early in my career, I spent a lot of time collecting all the emails I had sent or received. I would have backups of 1000’s of emails lying around on servers, encrypted with compression passwords. Occasionally, I would perform a massive search on these GB’s of data to uncover a few emails discussing a topic, which had recently resurfaced. In many of these cases, the true purpose of finding one of these emails was to prove my rightness in a disagreement or occasionally show my innocence in some controversial situation (i.e. CYA – Cover Your Behind).

Nowadays, this all seems silly, and here’s why. First, if you are thinking you need to CYA something, there’s a good chance the decision should be reconsidered or handled in a different way. In other words, if your gut is not feeling good about the course of action being taken, those actions need to be changed. This sounds easy to say but often much harder to implement due to politics or other confounding aspects of the situation. Unfortunately, the career ladder is littered with those who just followed, but most of those at the top took the initiative to do something others weren’t willing to do.

Second, pulling out the old piece of “evidence” to slam your work nemesis rarely gains anything but a short pride swell and a couple of enemies. For instance, pulling out the email that says ‘I said this was a bad idea’ is not much more than documentation of your self-incrimination. If it was such a bad idea the time, a simple email documenting a stance isn’t a worthwhile method of exoneration. Other options would have included escalation to a higher authority or complete removal of oneself from the process. In this case, pulling out the old CYA email has just shown a desire to track all disagreements with your peers as well as an inability to take a stand. In the end, neither of these will create healthy business relationships nor help with career progression.

For all those loyal readers of my old blog, I decided to bring back the Bar of Gold Theory, but this time with a slightly more positive twist aimed at improving the situation. Simply put, the infamous Bar of Gold Theory:

If a person starts handing free bars of gold to anyone who asks, someone will complain.

Again with the disclaimers/assumptions:

• There is plenty of gold.
• The value of gold does not decrease relative to its existing monetary value. No violence ensues due to a mad rush on the gold stand.
• Each person only gets one bar of gold.
• Forget any other silly notions; it’s a metaphorical situation equal to many other proverbs, so ‘bar of gold’ can be easily replaced with just about any perk.

Granted it’s a subtle twist on the old saying ‘you can’t please everyone’, but in this case those who are complaining have gained something they did not have before. So, the question as a leader or peer is how to deal with this circumstance. Here are some proposals in dealing with those smitten with this dilemma:

1. Ask if the situation is better than it was before the reward. (Sometimes a simple reminder of one’s benefits can resuscitate the optimism within a person.)
2. Ask for a detailed scenario in which the situation would be better. (Mentally working out problems can help some see what’s there.)
3. Ask for an outline of changes potentially implemented by trading roles, often referred to as the ‘What would you do differently if you were in my shoes?’ question. (Similar in nature to #2, this allows venting to occur which can calm down a heated situation.)
4. Last but most importantly not least, ask for the reward back, and be courageous enough to take it back, if it would help. (This is the defibrillator method meant to shock someone into realizing their gain by showing what an equal loss would be like. In extreme situations, the overall outcome may be better by removing the reward as it has no longer retained its benefactive effect.)

The author of True to Our Roots provides a great story about the power of motivation in the workplace. The context of the story revolves around the power of creating the right environment where people feel they are obtaining much more than a paycheck. (I plan to write some more on this topic after I’m finished with True to Our Roots.) Here’s a paraphrased version of the story.

A management consultant has been brought into a hospital to look for ways to improve processes, productivity, etc. The consultant interviews all the doctors, nurses, HR staff, and etcetera for weeks. As he’s leaving one Friday, he notices a janitor mopping the floors near the elevator. Debating whether to even talk to the janitor, the consultant stops and asks him the opening question that he has used with all of the other staff. The question is simply to explain what role the person plays at the hospital. The janitor stops and thinks for a moment, and then says, “I help Doctor Johnson save lives.”

While a much more animated version of the story is described by the author, the point is incredibly clear, almost inspirational. It also provides a sharp reminder that we should look for things like this in our own work routines or find other means to accomplish what’s important to us as individuals.

I was recently asked for some ways to determine team fit during the interview process. It’s a good question because there is a grey area between having a “gut feel” about someone based on previous management experience and the purely objective qualities that someone could be measured against during the interview. In order to keep this post brief, I’ve listed some of the more important questions that should be answered to determine team fit.

How relevant are this person’s skills, and what is their ability to learn new skills? While this may seem obvious in the technology world, I predict it’s vastly important to know the domain in which the person will be working in any field. One very good technique in determining technical prowess is to ask the person to solve more than one relevant technical problem while explaining his/her thought process for deriving a solution. This and many other methods like this tend to weed out someone who has memorized a bunch of technical jargon and acronyms but can’t apply them. It also exposes the person’s analytical skills and quickness in learning while under pressure.

Assuming there is a team interview, which is highly recommended, what are the opinions of the existing team members? While there’s always a chance that one person on the team will be opposed to the most qualified candidate, it’s very important to know whether major personality conflicts will occur down the road.

What are the skill sets of the other team members? Many times a resume review will suffice in answering this; however, having a team of all junior members or vice versa is typically not desired. In many cases, a true skill set comparison cannot be made until some direct contact is made with the candidate.

What are the person’s previous work environments? Some people prefer large corporate environments, while others only want to work in a completely flat organization. Getting an honest assessment from the person can be tricky, as they will most likely know what type of organization exists for the job in which they are interviewing.

Can the person say, “I don’t know” when an unfamiliar question arises? Knowing the answers is sometimes not as important as admitting that you don’t know the answers.

Performing well on any single item is not good enough to base an offer, but almost any one item, if bad enough, could warrant a veto. These conditions make the interview process interesting/unpredictable for the hiring manager as well as for the candidate. While I’m sure this isn’t a complete list, I’d love to hear other’s opinions on the matter.

Over the years, I’ve heard many a person grumble about having to change managers, either due to organizational changes or natural attrition. I found it interesting that the author of The Fiefdom Syndrome actually promotes the systematic changing of managers and directors at periodic intervals. Using a system such as this prevents people from hiding within an organization and allows fresh eyes to look at old problems. As the title suggests, it also decreases the possibility that fiefdoms will occur within an organization and base their actions on self-survival while costing the company as a whole.

When I first heard this, I was somewhat opposed to this idea, but after thinking about it more, I can see certain situations where this might make sense. A lot of employee surveys I’ve seen state the number one reason for quitting was due to a bad manager, and this option might help while improving the business in other ways. At a minimum, organizations, large and small, should be on the lookout for situations where groups have taken on a “life of their own” within the larger organization and consider this as one possible option.

• The McKinsey Quarterly: The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co.
  Some of these articles look interesting. As much as these guys make in consulting, they must be doing something right.
  (tags: career management)
• Companies increase use of employee screening – Jul. 19, 2006
  Technology is making transparency a reality – like it or not. After reading this article, one might be inclined to do regular checkups on other background checks in addition to a credit report.
  (tags: career management)