"Poor management can increase software costs more rapidly than any other factor." (Barry Boehm)

Last year, a friend of mine was caught up in a corporate re-organization. The company president brought in a new guy to get costs under control and improve profits.

Let's call my friend Lori and the new guy Len.

Len was a very bottom line kind of guy and he took his job seriously. He analyzed the process and the outputs of the company, and identified cost reductions targets.

He decided to cut down on waste by establishing a piecework system. His theory was that when people were paid a set amount for producing a particular product (or part of a product), they'd buckle down, stop wasting time, get more done, improve profitability (a curious Theory X notion, but we won't go into that here.)

Len drew a little chart with each person's "products" and allocated time/pay next to it. According to Len's chart, some people where working 40 or more hours a week. Other people weren't. Lori was one of the people who came up short.

"Prove to me you're worth your salary," Len said.

Lori called me.

Lori had specific responsibilities, which she performed well. She also made many less tangible contributions.

Lori is one of those people who works in the white space. A big part of her contribution will never show up on a functional org chart or a piece work chart like Lens.

Lori greases the skids... She smoothes ruffled feathers, brings people together ...Things just seem to run more smoothly when she's around.

We worked on a bunch of ways to explain the work she did and how she added value.

Well. Timothy Butler and James Waldroop have an article, Understanding "People" People, in the most recent HBR (June 2004) that explains the kind of work that people like Lori do. Butler and Waldroop researched it and found there are four dimensions of "white space" work, which they call "relational work" :

Influence - negotiation, persuasion

Interpersonal Facilitation - keeping people engaged

Relational Creativity - connecting with groups of people through visual and verbal imagery

Team Leadership - interacting and working through a group

unfortunately, as Butler and Waldroop point out, "...much relational work, especially interpersonal facilitation, goes completely unnoticed....out of sight, out of the reward chain."

If you want to understand more about how "people" people work their magic, and maybe develop your own skills in that arena, check out the article. It's available on-line to HBR subscribers... and may show up gratis at some point.

Oh, and BTW, (this will come as a big surprise, I'm sure) B & W have this to say about science and technology managers, as a group (probably holds true through for non-managers as a group, too): "...managers in science and technology in our sample had a lower average score in the influence dimension than did business professionals as a whole. None of the other three relational dimensions is notably elevated for this group, either." [sigh] We gotta work on this.

And a post-script: Lori is still at the company. Len is gone.

Update: The article I refer to is excerpted here.

posted by Esther Derby at 3:30:00 PM  

|

Michael Harmer (via Clarke Ching) has two posts that illustrate Jerry Weinberg's idea that "quality is value to some person."

When customer priorities aren't explicit, developers will (naturally enough) fill in the blanks based on their own values.

Diana Larsen talks about creating that understanding up front in the project charter by defining management tests. Johanna Rothman uses Release Criteria to do the same thing.

However you choose to do it, understanding the value proposition for the customer will improve the ROI for the software you're building.

posted by Esther Derby at 6:15:00 AM  

|

[rant]

Last week I heard someone espousing a new form of project review called a Retrospective. Here's what she advised:

Anonymous feedback via survey or questionnaire
Ranking of questionnaire results
Functional groups discussing questionnaire results in isolation
Tightly controlled discussion of topics selected by the facilitator
Limited participation (enforced by the facilitator)
Lists of "good" and "bad" practices
Formal improvement projects

No! No! No!

The process above may be something, but it ain't a Retrospective, and it ain't going to promote individual or group learning.

The value of Retrospectives comes from:

seeing the project in a different way

people understanding other's points of view

hearing the story of the project from many perspectives

reflecting on experiences

cross-functional pollination

open discussion of tough issues

team members identifying what they feel worked well and what to do differently

team members choosing what's important to talk about

team members choosing what to work on going forward

[/rant]

posted by Esther Derby at 7:09:00 AM  

|

I've been thinking a lot about two conversations I had about bosses. Both of women I talked to were experienced managers in a software organization.

The first woman, Susan, has a reputation as a solid manager who produces results. She's spent the last 10 years building solid teams, mentoring the people in her group, and producing software that is considered top-of-the-line in her industry.

Susan described her boss as very smart, but personally cold and manipulative. During the year she reported to that executive, the executive changed directions frequently and ignored her results. His criteria for evaluating Susan's performance were never very clear. Toward the end of their reporting relationship, the executive told Susan she was incompetent ... and then within a week expanded Susan's responsibilities.


Lois has held a series of management positions in the same organization over the last 10 years. She described her boss as the best manager she's ever had. When I asked what made her manager a great boss, she told me that her boss left her alone when she was feeling strong, and gave her help when she asked for it. And her manager didn't ask her to do anything he wasn't also doing.

Lois feels like she's at the top of her game and would willingly follow her boss to another company.

Susan feels that she suffered psychological damage during the time she reported to the cold, manipulative executive. She found a different job.

That's the kind of difference having a good boss can make.

The funny thing is that Lois and Susan are describing the same person.

Now, I know Susan, and Lois, and the mutual boss. (And I have my own observations about all three, which I may go into at another time.)

Buckingham and Coffman state that the relationship between an employee and his direct supervisor is one of the most important factors job satisfaction and whether employees stick around (First, Break All the Rules).

There are some things that great bosses have in common, and the rest is about a good fit. A good boss for Lois was a disastrous boss for Susan.

When you start with a new boss – through an organizational shuffle or a new job -- find out what your boss expects and how he/she views your role. Find out what you’re really being paid to do, and whether that fits with how you want to spend a big chunk of your life energy.

Here are some questions you can ask:

What are the major objectives for which you are responsible?

What are the two or three things I must accomplish to be successful in this job?

What is the work environment you want to create? (if you get a blank stare on this one, watch out…)

When do you look to your staff for input?

What do you want to know when you start working for a new boss? What questions would you ask?

(Also see Interviewing Your Next Boss.)

posted by Esther Derby at 7:02:00 AM  

|

Once upon a time I worked for a large corporation. One of the managers there prided herself on being on the go. She was a constant whirlwind and ran between meetings (literally). She felt busy and important.

If effective management were measured by busy-ness, she would have been the queen. But it isn't and she wasn't.

Let's face it we all have to much to do. Here are two articles that will help you make a "Not To Do" list and get out of the busy-ness trap.

From HBR on "slow management," The Trap of Overwhelming Demands.
And Setting Clear Priorities.

posted by Esther Derby at 5:12:00 PM  

|

In response to my post on shared commitment, Effern posted this comment: ..."leaving early when everyone was made to work OT is a fantastic way to bring down team morale."

Effern's comment got me thinking. I suspect that the low morale isn't simply the result of one person leaving early, but stems from something more complicated. I've been thinking about this all week, and I'm having a hard time putting this all in words. I'll give it a start anyway:

Long ago and far away, I worked on a project that was falling behind. When the manager announced we'd be working overtime, everyone acquiesced. Everyone, that is, but Bob, one of the old hands (he was probably 40, which seemed ancient at the time).

As we toiled long into the evening and came in on weekends, we did grumble about Bob.

We worked crazy hours, got stressed out, tired, burned out, and ill. We missed out on family and social activities. We speculated that Bob just didn't care, and complained that it wasn't fair.

Nothing bad happened to Bob because he didn't work overtime. He wasn't fired or demoted. He also wasn't stressed and tired. He was just Bob as he'd always been, even if the rest of the team turned a cool shoulder. He did his work conscientiously, was pleasant to his co-workers, and left in time to catch his bus at 5:11 PM.

So. Sometimes when I'm driving, I don't notice that the windshield is dirty until I drive into the sun. The sun isn't making the windshield dirty, it's just creating the conditions where I can see the dirt.

We each chose, and Bob chose differently. Bob illuminated a different possibility. Resenting Bob made as much sense as resenting the sun causing a dirty windshield ...We got mad at Bob, but I suspect we were really mad at ourselves for making a bad bargain.

Not logical, but very human.

So what can we learn from this cautionary tale?

Focus on "commitment" is a poor proxy for focus on results.

You can't tell whether someone from external behavior how "committed" someone is.

When results aren't visible, it's easy to play the commitment card.

Each person must decide for her/himself how much is too much, how much time they will spend at work and the sacrifices they will make.

When we give more than feels right to us, we're placating...essentially saying "What I need/feel/think doesn't matter."

Sometimes we don't realize that we're placating, perhaps because of ingrained habits or attitudes towards authority.

Placating leads to giving too much. When people give too much, they often feel resentment... but the resentment usually isn't focused where the responsibility lies.

If you notice you are feeling resentment towards someone on your team because they are not "committed," look inside. What does the situation reveal about your own choices and assumptions?

Thanks for sparking this reflection, Effern. :-)

posted by Esther Derby at 8:46:00 PM  

|

I'm back from Austria (with a side trip to Budapest -- many thanks to Istvan Fay for showing us the highlights of Buda). It was a fabulous trip! I'll be posting bits as I sort through and integrate.

I was stuck by something Diana Larsen said in her talk on self-organizing teams at the Scrum Gathering: One of the characteristics of a self-organizing team is shared commitment to a goal.

Agreed. But what happens when team members have different ideas of what "commitment" looks like? What if one team member derides another for not being committed?

Consider three team members:

Jarred comes in at 8 AM and frequently works until 9 or 10 PM. During crunch periods, he works even longer. He doesn't waste time going out for a meal, instead he eats pizza, Doritos, and Mountain Dew at his desk.

Deena leaves the office everyday promptly at 5:25. Once in a great while she comes in on a Saturday when the office is quite and she can organize her work to get ahead of the curve.

Steve is almost always late for meetings.

So who in this group is committed, and who isn't?

Jarred -- who lives alone and finds his identity in work -- looks at Deena and says, "She always leaves at 5:25, even when we've got a deadline or we're working on a big problem. She's not committed."

Deena -- who keeps a clear boundary between work time and family time-- looks at Steve and says, "He's always late. He's not committed."

Steve -- who sometimes becomes so immersed in helping a co-worker that forgets the time -- looks at Jarred and says, "He expects us all to work the same hours he does, but he doesn't help other people. He's not committed."

Jarred, Deena, and Steve are each judging others from their own definition of what commitment looks like -- the standard of their own behavior. But no one can assess commitment from external behavior.

Try this. Have your group brainstorm a list of what commitment looks like. Most likely, the list will be a range of behaviors, some of which contradict each other. Use the list to have a conversation what commitment means, and about how you want to work on your team.

Remember to make a generous interpretation and drop the comparisons. There are lots of ways to show commitment and shared commitment doesn't mean that each person expresses their commitment the same way. Each of us needs to find a level of commitment that fits for us. Giving more than feel right leads to resentment sets off a spiral of imbalance between work and outside-of-work life.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:56:00 AM  

|