Emerging Commitment

Wednesday evening's TechFlash Women in Tech event didn't just shake up my sense of self. It also gave me some facts and figures bolstering a view I've long held regarding the value and importance of gender equality. My perspective is simple and boils down to wanting to maximize value more than caring that much about fairness. Tough girls can hack it and find a way to fit in - I did - but when it's a matter of a system that's sub-optimized, I'm more motivated to want to get in and fix it at that systemic level rather than rely on one-off solutions.

What emerged from that event was a picture that my rather passionate sense of the problems in gender inequality developed over the past 40 years is not wrong. There is indeed a system sub-optimization problem worth addressing. Some of the figures quoted that stood out to me:

• The majority of patents evaluated as highly innovative came from mixed gender teams but only 9% of technology patents have female contributors. Implied conclusion: get more women involved and you're likely to see more innovation.
  
  
• Women typically get 30% less than men in venture capitol funding but maintain similar output to their better-funded counterparts. Implied conclusion: get more for your money when investing in women because often they really have learned how to do more with less.
  
  
• Women are primary wage-earners in 4 out of 10 families but only 5% of tech startups are women-owned/led. Implied conclusion: Women are capable of doing the work; families and the tech sector would both benefit from increased contributions from women.
  
  
• Although women make up about half the general workforce, women make up only 24% of tech; in 1985, 37% of computer science majors were female, now it's down to 17%. Implied conclusion: instead of growing the numbers of women in tech, their ranks are actually shrinking; given the other stats, this is "key talent de-selecting itself and not coming to the table."
  
  
• Only 16% of Fortune 500 companies have women on their boards. Implied conclusions: not only do the numbers of women shrink in the higher ranks, there is a de-motivating effect on all women in tech/business because there are fewer role models and the system is again missing out on key perspectives.

And this was all just from the TechFlash event. I learned today that apparently the World Bank is of a similar mind, but from the perspective of poverty, that there is an economic advantage to investing in girls.

In my mind, these numbers paint a scary picture - fewer and fewer women in a key business sector that doesn't necessarily stop to consider the value they provide so doesn't miss them when they're gone. With fewer women available as role models, fewer girls and young women even stop to think of going into tech. With fewer women in the ranks of tech workers and no one else motivated enough to bring them into the fold, policies and attitudes that make tech a less attractive option to women remain in place and so they simply make other choices about the work they do. And the cycle continues to devolve in that way.

Considering what these numbers really mean, I can only conclude that it is in everyone's best interests - male and female, families and individuals, tech sector and general economy - for us to work together to find a way to bring more women into science and technology. It's not about devaluing men's contributions. It's not about playing the gender card or whining about what's fair (my personal favorite anti-feminism beef). It is simply about what is best for us as a society.

These numbers tell me that our system is more seriously broken than I'd realized, that we have reached a point somewhere along the way when it started to get worse instead of better. While not perfect, the laws and larger policies seem to me to be generally good enough so that's not the biggest problem right now. Where we're falling down is in day-to-day culture and implementation of those policies and in the choices that we each make. And when I stop to think about who is in a position to start to get that part fixed, I see a couple of obvious answers outright.

The first answer is we are all responsible for doing something about this collectively.

Men - find ways to listen to the challenges that women face in tech and help eliminate them, sometimes (perhaps) by taking them on as your own.

Women - don't give up on yourselves just because there are easier options available. Toughen up and do the hard work for yourselves and other younger women to follow and find a way to make women in tech a more, rather than less, common occurrence. Not everyone enjoys being a pioneer, but someone's got to do it or the path is never carved out for others to follow. We had one started and we let it get grown over.

Men and women both - encourage and support women of all ages to think of becoming involved in tech; be creative, it's not all just about the programming. It's about being cutting edge and changing the world, hopefully for the better. That last part is something a lot of women can get behind so it shouldn't be a tough sell. Remember to mentor individual women and also to actively advocate for their individual and collective success.

The second answer was a bit of a gulp for me. Between feeling I had so little in common with women for so many years, especially seeing so many of them not really push themselves to their true capacity, and feeling more drawn to men because it was easier for me to see what we had in common, it never really occurred to me to be that involved in advocating for women. And I say this as a person who has openly asserted how stupid many of our attitudes and policies are when it comes to women.

It wasn't that I thought I was better than other women; it was more (I believe now - I'm still trying to figure it all out) that I didn't realize just much of an impact the advantages I enjoyed (familial support, a genetic predisposition to stubbornness, and an unequivocal sense in key areas of my ability to provide value) really had in influencing my choices as opposed to the choices made by other women. I realize now that while I am indeed different from a lot of women, I am not, in fact entirely alone amongst my gender in those differences. Compared with that subset, the real difference is that the challenges I found difficult might seem insurmountable to others - or not worth the effort. Tough as it is to admit, this thought really hadn't occurred to me.

What I truly did not realize fully was just how troublesome it is that the women who could be doing this work, aren't. And in coming to these realizations, gulps and all, knowing my own experiences - both successful and not so much - with playing in a variety of male-dominated fields, knowing my sense of history and understanding of the playing field (as it was, is, and might be), and knowing I have the coaching skills and the leadership skills, and the general business skills to do it... I can only conclude one thing: that I too am not only capable of directly influencing the short-term and long-term outcomes with regard to women in tech, but that I have an outright responsibility to do so.

That said, I have practically zero clue at this point exactly what that looks like. I only know I have to be involved in some way. First and foremost, it occurs to me that it is important to recognize that responsibility in my sense of mission regarding what I'm trying to accomplish with my business. That means actively seeking to support women and women-owned businesses in tech with my coaching and my consulting. It means making it more clear how I can help.

I also sense an importance in figuring out how I can help younger girls when they are first electing to move toward or away from tech, even though I have a son instead of a daughter. On that front, if you have suggestions, I'd love to hear them. One of things I like about being female is an increased willingness to take the crowdsourcing approach.

Feel free to also enter into dialog on the matter. Your own thoughts and observations, suggestions and conclusions. This is a big one and we'll all have to get behind it to be able to move the ball in any significant way. As they say, though, awareness is the first step.

What conclusions can you draw from the evidence around you about what responsibilities you now (or no longer) have?

Still True

Everything I wrote about Startup Weekend Seattle 2 from last February is still true this time around, participating in Startup Weekend Redmond.

As we move into Sunday afternoon, my involvement seems to be slowing up a bit, allowing some time for reflection. I like that this time I felt able and willing to get in and get my hands dirty, actively working on a project. And just like last time, some additional lessons have emerged.

Know Your Business
I'm going to go out on a limb here - even developers should have a sense of what the business is, and that includes the business model. It impacts what you build, and unless you want to give up all possibility of autonomy and subject yourself completely to someone else telling you what to code, like some trained monkey, then you need to understand what you're selling, why, to whom, for how much, and at what cost.

And if you developers wriggle out of that one - for some understandable reasons - then be darned sure that someone you trust to have a good head for the subject takes care of that for you. And then follow their lead.

If no one is handling this part of your startup, or are doing it badly, you could well be thinking you're running a business when in fact, what you have is a hobby instead. And sometimes hobbies get quite expensive.

Listen to Feedback
Are your people tracking with your vision? Are they perhaps wanting to head a direction you should consider? Maybe the people working on your project have information about the viability of your business that must be heeded to be successful. If you're too caught up in what you want to build, you could be headed for the rocks because of individuals abandoning the project or because you're not as aware of your own blind spots as you could be.

Take Full Advantage of Available Resources
At Startup Weekend Redmond, we've had a startling array of resources available to us - BizSpark accounts with access to code, 'virtual CTO' humans to consult about architecture, various knowledgeable speakers presenting on topics relevant to our work this weekend, and of course the individuals on our respective teams and other folks working on other teams entirely. It's a mistake to walk away from help that so readily available. It also helps to pause a moment and think about what sort of help is not quite so visible. Making use of available resources is just plain smart.

Don't Force-Fit Tools
While making use of available resources is smart, there certainly are times when what is available really doesn't fit your needs. When that happens, it's smarter to walk away and find something else that works better - or take what's available now, knowing that you'll trade out as soon as it makes sense.


Keep Talking
Do you know what the other members of your team are doing and what problems they're trying solve? Do they know these things about you? Without good communication, you risk redundant efforts or worse than that, gaps in what gets done. This can be easier in small teams but there are ways of dealing with communication issues in large ones and no team is immune.

Shut Up
Once you all know what you're doing, how, and why, sometimes it's important just to shut your mouth and let everyone work. I was certainly guilty of not abiding by this one last night but that just highlights a corollary - other people often have different needs than you do. Talk about how you can best try to meet them all.

Build on Success
If you develop a good working relationship, achieve some success with an approach, follow up and build on it. Continuing to move the ball toward your goals is almost always more important than any single run.

Find Something to Do
If you're fully engaged, you'll probably have no trouble finding ways to help move the ball forward. If you've found yourself a bit less engaged, that might be a bit more problematic. Just know that a) the team can't succeed unless everyone is working to move the ball forward and b) acting engaged can help you become more engaged in what you're doing.

And just to re-iterate - Enjoy it - it's important to enjoy what you're doing or find another way to create joy in your life.

What resources are available to help you succeed?

Pay Attention or Pay the Piper

Some people don't take the time to pay attention, and it can really cost them. Don't be one of those people, especially when it comes to social media and networking.

I feel genuinely fortunate to have had a long and varied career. Even more fortunate that I've now lived a long enough life to make it seem possible that I've done all the things that I have. And that I've gotten over worrying whether I seem 'scattered', but that's beside the point.

The point is, that with so much past life experience and a genuine desire to help people out, I regularly contribute to conversations about a wide variety of topics when I feel like I have something worthwhile to offer. In an era of social media as business development platform, this has yielded some interesting if, in my opinion, rather moronic, results.

Although it's been nearly 20 years since I last worked in television, where I used to be a reporter and a weather anchor, I figure my experience in the TV industry and my expertise as a career management coach is occasionally useful to people. When a recent college graduate wanted some ideas from other LinkedIn professionals for how to land her first TV gig, I joined in with some thoughts of my own.

Sadly, someone else in the group apparently uses it primarily to harvest contact information with little to no thought about whether the individuals attached to that information are in any way her target market. The fact that we're part of the group is apparently qualification enough.

Because of that, soon after my contribution to the job search discussion, I received an email that claimed not to be a pitch (then later allowed that it might indeed be that) and then went on to pitch me on some product or technology for which I have zero use or interest personally. Because I no longer work in television, and haven't for nearly 20 years.

What's really too bad about this, though, is that if she'd paid any attention at all, it needn't have been a waste of her time or mine. Although truthfully, my 90-second investment did lead to this post and it probably took all of 10 seconds for her to launch her automated pre-written email, so maybe that's why she doesn't care. Again, however, I digress.

The point is that had she taken a bit more time and approached me as an individual and customized her message to target me, not some generic me from 20 years ago who still would have felt slimed, I could perhaps have helped her out. Because I genuinely like helping people out and because I still have a number of contacts in the industry. And I probably could have given her some advice about how to better pitch her whateveritis (I immediate sent the message to the bit bucket, so I don't even know anymore what it was). Some of the advice might even have been useful.

But because of not paying attention and the fact that one of the things for which I have very little tolerance is acting stupider than you are, I don't really feel like helping her out anymore. Should she happen to discover this post and realize it's about her, the advice here should be at least as worthwhile as anything else I could have done. And look, the rest of you get it for free! You don't have to have made the mistake to learn from it!

Paying attention to where people are, what they really want, and looking to see whether and how you fit is important. Paying attention to your own mistakes (and others) and learning from them is important. If you don't pay attention, you'll pay the price.

If you're lucky, the Piper's fee will only be 30 lashes with a wet noodle. Sometimes, though, it's worse. Sometimes it's not just a pitch that didn't land; sometimes it's a whole host of missed opportunities - or more disastrously, several potential clients or markets entirely closed to you if you happen to annoy the wrong person. Just hope they don't mention you by name if they're going to go public with their annoyance!

If you've been slimed via social media, do share. If you want help figuring out how not to slime people but still get your point across, I might be able to help. Frankly, though, Havi (with her duck, Selma) and Pistachio can probably help you out even more. I highly recommend them.

What new things have you noticed lately?

LinkedIn Job-hunting Tips

For those of you who caught the KCTS show, About the Money, tonight with a story on using LinkedIn to improve your job-hunting chances, I sure hope you got something useful out of it. If you didn't see the show, you can already find the story online so you can still pick up some quick tips if you're so inclined.

Even in 4 1/2 minutes (a lifetime by TV journalism standards) you can't really get all the information squeezed in that you might want, so my thought is to expand the list here on Survival Strategies for Techies and provide some additional detail as a companion to the story that aired.

If you've got some questions about using LinkedIn (or other social networking sites) for job-hunting, let me know and I'll make sure I address them in that post. Questions you hear from other people, or things you notice other people don't do right (even me!) on LinkedIn count too.

As another thought - if you think there might be some folks who would find a short class helpful, I'd certainly consider that as well.

In the meantime, I want to make sure to thank Krista Canfield from LinkedIn for connecting me with the KCTS crew, to Terry Murphy, the producer of the story, to Greg Davis, one of the videographers and to Tim Griffis, the other videographer and the editor for making us look and sound so good.

I also want to thank Jeanne Cost for agreeing to be a much more involved interview subject than was originally explained and to each and every one of my friends and neighbors (and their friends) who were kind enough to take my calls and return them when I was in the challenging position of having to seek someone out at the last minute. There's nothing like saying "I understand you can't help, thanks so much for considering it - do you know anyone else who could?" to make me feel like a reporter again!

For that matter, there's nothing like saying a heartfelt, "Thanks!" for making you feel pretty good about life.

Who can you thank for helping you?

Why It Matters

There are two things I appreciate about Brad's post on disgusting sexism. One is the focus on what's in it for business and for men - not just what's in it for women. That's just a smart approach for a whole lot of reasons.

Along those lines, I submit the following supporting arguments, one oriented toward competitiveness in business and one toward what's in it for the guys so they understand where there might be some benefit amidst the perceived threats:

1. During my flight training, I was in the top five of my class. In fact, half of the top ten were women and we only had ten women out of 100 in the class. When debating the subject (way back when it was almost pure fiction) of women pilots in the military, I always contended that if similar statistics were to apply across the board (and because of the type of program I was in, there was no reason to think they wouldn't), why in the world would you put ten guys into ten very expensive planes if it meant passing over five women who were better?
   
   In other words, if you had a top-notch female pilot and a mediocre male pilot, why would you put him in the plane and have her fly the desk? I'm sure it doesn't take above-average critical thinking skills to apply this argument to IT.
   
   
2. As more men strive for some kind of work/life balance of their own, more involvement with kids or aging parents, want more money, more flexible time, etc to start businesses and venture capital funds and that sort of thing, how do you suppose that happens? One good way for it to happen in the context of couples and families is for improved gender pay equity.
   
   If there are two adults in a household, one male and one female, and she's able to make as much money as he can, then they BOTH have more choices about who does what, for how much of the day, and for how long. As long as he makes significantly more money than she does, the financial equation will almost always push him out the door. And if there are more than two children, that same equation will lock the door with her inside and him stuck on the outside. Personally, I prefer that everyone have more choices.
   

The second thing that I appreciate is pointing out just how backward societal thinking still is sometimes. It is beyond me how people of both genders still see women (as a group) as different, a threat, or in any way unfit for the wide variety of work that we do. Comments like those made by Brad's email guy make it clear why it's still important to pay attention to the matter and not assume that it's already solved.

Notice I don't say enacting any special laws or providing any special privileges.

What I don't appreciate is whining. I find it interesting that even while this guy accuses an entire gender of complaining, his post is effectively one big 'poor me' and I'm not even clear why he cares that much or feels the way he does!

Go ahead - comment. It's a big subject and I can handle the truth, whatever kind you have to offer.

What's important enough to make you want to speak up?

So Easy, Even a Fifth Grader Can Get It

Call him idealistic, but even Short Person 'gets' compassion at a fundamental and practical level. My own experience with compassion in the workplace is that it works far better than the alternatives and it's not just some 'more flies with honey than vinegar' platitude from your grandmother.

First of all, whether in the form of pyramid, circle, or chain, screaming just doesn't work very well. It raises blood pressure - yours and theirs - and it tends to not bring out the best in people. Measure 'best' however you like. Productivity and quality both suffer, as does any kind of loyalty.

I have had more than my share of toxic, and even bullying bosses in the past. We used to say it was 'normal' or 'just the way they are'. These days, we're starting to notice a difference between 'tough' bosses and bosses who are bullies or simply too toxic to have to tolerate.

What it comes down to is that tough bosses ensure work gets done. Toxic bosses claim that's what they're doing but they're actually impeding effective work. As far as I can tell, the difference is the existence or lack of compassion. As a result, some of the toughest bosses I've ever had are the ones that have earned my greatest respect and loyalty and I'm sure others feel the same way.

In any case, it's a hot topic. Search on bully bosses or toxic bosses, and you'll come up with more material than you can read in a single sitting. And in Canada, it's going beyond talk - we're now starting to see some legal liability for bullying in the workplace.

The more I read, the more I come back to the notion that compassion makes the difference between tough and toxic. High expectations and the ability to understand where someone else is coming from are not mutually exclusive capabilities.

Still, there seems to be many who somehow believe that success not only justifies toxic behavior - that being a jerk is, in fact, actually a prerequisite for success. Watching the outcome of the first season of Celebrity Apprentice leads me to believe that Piers Morgan and Donald Trump fall into that category. I take it as proof of shifting standards for good leadership that both of Trump's kids seem to think otherwise.

I agree with Ivanka Trump when she calls into question Piers Morgan's tactics during the Celebrity Apprentice finale. Her argument was that it shouldn't be necessary to be a jerk in order to be successful. Donald Jr. had his say too, pushing Piers to answer for his behavior, implying there are dimensions to success beyond just making money.

Throughout it all, Piers' sole defense was that he brought in the most money - never answering either the question of whether he might still have brought in that much money without alienating the people working with him or the question of whether his methods might have reflected badly on the charity his work was meant to support.

In fact that whole boardroom meeting can be boiled down to three basic points:

1. Being an a$$hole is not (or shouldn't be) a requirement for success
   Corollary - It is (or should be) possible to be successful without being an a$$hole
2. There is more to success than making money
3. Making money does not justify bad behavior
   

Just because The Donald ultimately ignored every one of these points in choosing Piers over Trace as the Celebrity Apprentice winner doesn't mean it was the right choice to make. I personally can't recommend using his logic to justify poor behavior in the real world, even if it did make for great TV.

What I can recommend is a book called The No A$$hole Rule - Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't by Bob Sutton, which also provides great information on the true costs to the organization that I've only hinted at here. Or you could just try incorporating a bit more compassion at work. Surely if a fifth grader can comprehend the importance of compassion, so can the rest of us.

If you have thoughts or questions about toxic work environments because of bosses behaving badly or co-workers masquerading as jerks, please leave a comment. This is one of those areas where we're still struggling to find a new normal, which means there is a lot more gray than black and white. We'll need a lot of discussion to fully understand and shape that new normal.

How can compassion support and advance success?

Found It!

For quite some time now, I've been asking Jobster for a widget that would let me display job postings on my website and blog that might be of interest to all three people who visit. It seems my friend Nathan at nPost has beat them to it, creating a widget that displays jobs at startups.

To see it in action, check out the sidebar over on the right. I like it, this is exactly what I was looking for - a way to connect geeks with jobs that might interest them and help entrepreneurs find great talent.

Hopefully it will help you find what you're looking for. Of course, if you don't know yet what that is - or you think you might need help succeeding in your new role - I'm certainly available to work with you to sort that out too!

What work keeps you engaged?

Yes, It IS Big News

It's interesting watching the comments fly about Microsoft purchasing a stake in Facebook... and now just a couple days later, Google announcing OpenSocial. Despite some cynics, I contend that this is a big deal.

Social networking technology is finally catching up to a pent-up demand to satisfy the desire to connect with other people, despite living in a harried and fractured world. Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and others have each addressed part of that need while at the same time, segmenting our lives further by remaining as entirely separate silos.

I'm not alone in feeling like it's crazy-making to keep up profiles across several different networks... or to choose to focus on just one or two to the exclusion of others.

People of all demographics want to feel connected. The younger folks, the young at heart, people who want to stay connected with them, and people who don't want to be left behind while the hiring game changes, all want to use technology to do this. That's a pretty sizeable group of people when you start to add it all up.

Most importantly, these people want social networking to make life easier and better, not harder, and the technology is finally beginning to catch up to that.

Of course, it mostly starts out with forging virtual connections with people we already know and care about in real life. As that capability matures, however, there is the capacity to learn more about each other than we often learn IRL, and to learn more about people we didn't even know before. So yes, these kinds of moves by the giants of the industry definitely could have an impact on quality of life and understanding fellow humans.

More than a decade ago, back when most of the folks I knew didn't even know what the internet was (including many of the geeks I worked with), and only a handful were just starting to get the idea about email, and the best form of electronic connectedness most of us had was through electronic bulletin boards of which only a handful were connected to each other... Way back then, Howard Rheingold wrote The Virtual Community, and it really spoke to me. I tried speaking to him too, but that didn't really go anywhere at the time.

Between then and now, the Internet became more widely accessible (and I only had to suffer through ten years' or so worth of withdrawal, after leaving school), started to offer more to the average person, and connecting electronically has become second nature to most of us. Between then and now, I and about 150 other women and some of their partners came together through the internet in support of one another throughout the duration of our pregancies - and our group was just one of many.

Though I can't speak to the others, I can say that our group is still going strong nearly a dozen years later, and I'm sure that between us, we can name every one of the people who was ever part of our clan (plus most of their kids and partners and a lot of other relevant details about their lives), even if they're not still an integral part of our thriving community today.

We're very close-knit and the connection we share electronically has been a real important part of our day-to-day support through pregnancy, child-rearing, trying to being good partners in our relationships and how we show up in life and work in the broadest possible terms. We help each other maintain sanity, offer differing points of view for consideration, celebrate successes and provide plenty of {{virtual hugs}} during times of grief and challenge.

If you want an example of how people can use virtual communities to improve quality of life and understanding of fellow human beings, just ask me about the November Moms of '96. And make sure you have a lot of time to stay and get the answer.

How will this new wave of technology-aided and abetted community shake out? I'm not all that sure yet - but I can tell you that I'm mostly excited about it. The news of the past week makes a lot of new things possible. That's great news for those of us with social networking on the brain. It's also great news for Startup Weekend participants or anyone else tapping into the value of community on the web.

In the meantime it's probably a good idea to go back and read some of Howard's thoughts on the downside of virtual communities - while the examples are perhaps dated, he accurately predicted a lot of what we've seen since his original writing of it all and the risks that haven't already been realized are still out there. It's probably a good idea to spend at least some time thinking about how to mitigate those risks and to keep thinking about how to realize the full potential of this notion of a virtual community that complements, not replaces, the real thing.

You probably have thoughts on the matter. I'd love to hear stories, predictions, concerns - whatever. Send them to me at techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com and help design the future.

What does community mean to me and how do I express that in my life and work?

Whattaya Call It

Sometimes a person's knowledge of terminology is indicative of their level of expertise. Sometimes it's not. I once advocated against hiring a person partly because his level of understanding of token ring functionality amounted to the belief that the system would "ring like a telephone" for the intended device. Umm, not quite. The notion of passing the token around to each device in turn was completely beyond him and he didn't have the other skills we were looking for to be able to make up for that lack.

Then there was the owner of Key Largo Airport Marina back in the 80's - where I believe the Port Largo / Marina del Mar / Ocean Cay complex is today. This guy had extensive flying experience and, if I recall correctly, had run a MAC airbase somewhere in the northeast. He knew aviation and therefore understood both charts and airfoils. Everything he knew about sailing, he explained once, came from understanding that sails are just vertical airfoils and from keeping in mind that nautical charts are very similar to aeronautical charts.

That's not to say that sailing with the guy was particularly easy or comfortable. He had almost zero knowledge of nautical terms, so it was pretty common to hear instructions such as, "grab that thing-y and pull it over and tighten it" - which led to a fair amount of confusion at times when the desired results weren't entirely obvious.

On top of that, his knowledge of knots was limited to the two or three most commonly used in flying - a number far short of the half-dozen or more that are most useful in sailing. Still, his knots usually held well enough to do what they really had to do. A bowline is a decent enough all-purpose knot. And he was always able to make the boat do what he wanted it to. In that, I grew to have a great deal of confidence though it helped too that I understood sailing pretty well myself. Overall, his was a case where ignorance does not necessarily translate to incompetence.

When I'm hiring, I have to be careful to take the time to make that distinction. Once or twice (at least - and one of these was even this year) I've been on the other side of that equation and I've noticed that not everyone knows how to assess competence separately from use of the local jargon. When you can't always hire for experience in every single skill you really want for a position, it's imperative to be able to assess the level of competence an individual can bring to the role anyway.

The corollary to this situation is that at least some hiring managers are probably fooled into believing a candidate is competent simply because they seem to know the nomenclature and I'm sure that is not always a valid assumption. Personally, I don't much like to see people get where they do simply through their ability to regurgitate buzz words or mimic language meant to describe underlying principles that they don't really understand. All hat and no cattle, as they say.

Here's what knowledge of the language is good for - when the terminology is tightly defined and broadly agreed upon, it speeds communication and makes the process more accurate as well more efficient. This is, of course, the trouble with buzzwords. More people believe they know what these words mean or are intended to mean than really do. Effective communication is undermined, not enhanced, in such cases.

"Drop the jib" and "Ready about" mean very specific actions that are readily comprehended by anyone in the know. Just as important, these are the kinds of terms a person must know to be of any real help on board a sailboat - though clearly knowing the terms is not a pre-requisite for knowing what you want or how to get it. It just makes it easier to be understood.

On the other hand, "What tools do you use in project management" could refer to software applications and other actual 'tools' used to support the work of managing projects or it also could refer to the cognitive approach or methodology used in the work itself. Actually talking about what it is that you want is an important step in establishing the context and even then, the context isn't the whole story.

Many competent individuals can be reasonably expected to use, or at least readily understand, many of the variously identified project management methodologies without necessarily knowing the specific nomenclature arbitrarily assigned to them. While I'm all for identifying good skills (project management and otherwise), I also like to be able to differentiate between that and marketing hype.

This is just a bias I have and I realize it's not shared by everyone. Feel free to disagree. Either make a comment or send a message to techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com - you wouldn't be the first and I happen to believe it leads to better understanding all the way around.

How do I show my expertise and capabilities?

Rocky

A lot of summer mornings, I love to get up early while the world is still quiet and just enjoy the stillness. Sometimes it's nice just to sleep in. Today would have been the latter except that after a while, I realized I was hearing a noise that didn't quite fit. There was too much regularity to the sound to be the wind in some shrub near the house. Curiosity (of course) forced me awake to investigate.

What I had decided must be chewing (and pretty big chewing at that) turned out to be a mid-sized raccoon (maybe 25-30lb), probably enjoying the apples that have started dropping from our tree. Mind you, although I enjoy a fabulous mountain view from my back patio, the downtown Bellevue skyscrapers I can see through the trees are walking distance away, so the fact that there are raccoons in my suburban backyard always strikes me as funny. I know they live here. I just don't always expect to see them.

I don't know if it's the same one or not but a while back, we actually had a bit of a raccoon problem. For a long time, I just thought our two cats really were eating 2-3 bowls of cat food a day from the self-filling dish I put out for them in the garage. Then one evening, tall person noticed a bandit face and little paws peering through our patio door from the dark. At that moment, we both realized that "Rocky" was getting into the garage through the cat door and was responsible for eating much of the cat food so I moved the dish indoors.

I didn't move the large container of food though, and so Rocky pretty quickly adapted to lifting the lid off of the storage container. Our next move was to lock the lid in place with bungie cords. A couple of mornings later, I found the entire 20lb container moved from the doorway to between the cars, tipped over on its side. Thankfully, the bungie cords were still in place but it was clear that Rocky was not only motivated and persistent, he was pretty clever too. I didn't want to give him another chance to figure out how to open the storage bin, so we moved it indoors and hoped he wouldn't be interested in looking inside for it.

As far as I know, Rocky hasn't been in our garage lately, so having him enjoy some of our fallen apples outdoors isn't such a bad trade-off. I'll probably be back to sleeping in when I want since I won't feel such a compelling need to get up and investigate now that I know what's making that noise. And next time I want to hire a tech support rep or a QA tester, I'll know where to find a character with the kind of ingenuity and persistence I like to see in those roles.

Send your stories of close brushes with nature or thoughts on hiring practices to me at techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com.

Which critter embodies your best/worst traits?

You Sneeze, You Lose

Twenty some-odd years ago, I can remember clearly being way too sick to work. Unfortunately, I was waiting tables at the time, so not going to work meant not getting paid and I definitely did want to get paid. Worse, if I really was so sick that it was worth being even more broke than I was, it was up to me to find someone to cover my shift. My feeling at the time was that if I was well enough to be dialing for coverage, I was well enough to get my behind into work, sniffly nose and all.

This is not to say I was heedless of public health. Back when "cover your cough" still meant nothing more than using one's bare hands, I raced to the back sidestation every time I felt a cough or a sneeze coming on and aimed under my arm for the garbage can, dishes held high - especially if they were full of food I was on my way to deliver to patrons. In fact, it was more because of how pressured I felt to wantonly endanger the health of others that I felt so much anger toward a system that did them and me such disservice. It would have been nice to not worry about the money so much too.

You'd think that in the corporate world where we have paid sick leave available to us that the situation would be better, but it's not. Within weeks of starting a new job as a senior manager, I can remember coming down with a nasty respiratory flu. In a world where my boss was sending out messages at 2am, I wanted to prove I was serious about my work and so I showed up even though resting horizontally sounded much more appealing. The truth is, that even when they tell you to stay home, the realistic workplace expectations of today are that you'll be there anyway.

During one meeting, I started feeling worse and worse and without realizing it, began to slump down in my chair just so I could rest my head on the back. I was completely mortified when my boss noticed and told me I should go home - whether he meant it this way or not, my sense was that I had been caught slacking.

This isn't just me with a higher-than-normal sense of responsibility either. Another more recent flu that knocked me flat on my butt and kept me on the couch for nearly a week this spring, hit the spousal unit a few weeks later. He wasn't so inclined to rest up and get well though - he had a major project happening at work with a deadline that was out of his control and no one there to pick up the slack. So he dragged his sorry butt to work day in, day out for the entire week he was sick. I hope he remembered to sneeze into his armpit or the trashcan.

Variations on this theme are endless. More companies than I can count send out notices in advance of bad weather reminding employees of their inclement weather policy - often stating that all employees are "essential" and so while they won't go so far as to tell you what you should do if getting to work is truly dangerous, they do expect everyone to be there, (quite literally at times) come hell or high water. If you simply can't make it to work, they'll be happy to dock you a vacation day.

In all of these situations - because we want to get paid, our employers consider our presence to be vital (and they're tired of dealing with people who are slackers, wimps or simply have poor judgment), our sense of duty and responsibility in showing up and contributing our share is strong - especially when there are deadlines looming - all of this is understandable and even laudable much of the time. However, usually when we do this, we're also missing critical information that shows this can be truly stupid thinking and really, it has got to stop. Really... before it gets people killed.

Anyone pushing themselves to get work done because of a deadline has forgotten the dual lessons that a) no one is indispensable and b) a few hours sleep almost always means we'll get more work done at higher quality than we will in the "all-nighter" world of diminishing returns.

Managers who work late at night or work when they are sick are only role modeling poor behavior for the workplace and setting the bar inappropriately high for their employees in the process. We'd all be better off if managers worked harder at having a balanced life themselves and expecting and helping their employees to do the same. If we can get that far, we'll probably at least see a reduction in the number of heart attacks in overstressed workers just living for their jobs.

Don't believe this is a better option than working at all costs? Check out this Cornell study that exposes the previously hidden costs of "presenteeism". I bet most managers and business owners don't take these costs into account when they're writing their absenteeism policies.

We also have to take responsibility for ourselves, no matter what our employers are saying. When we push to get ourselves on the road when we shouldn't be, we're letting outside factors that have little to do with reason cloud our own judgment - the only judgment that really matters when it comes right down to it. I remember making a flight one pre-dawn morning that I should never have made. Although I was fully capable of flying in the clouds that were scattered around that morning, the plane I was flying was not certified for instrument flight rules and it was too dark to see where the clouds were to avoid them.

The trouble was, I was scheduled to take some doctors east of the mountains for the day and while my boss at the time told me to call if I couldn't make the flight, the unspoken understanding was that I was not to call. Just like in many bush flying operations, I'm sure he'd tell you differently, but they have ways of making these things clear while keeping themselves out of trouble.

There were definitely some scary moments for me that morning, trying to figure out where the clouds were and how to keep out of them.

If I'd had an accident or if I'd been found to have busted any regulations, I'd have been the only one blamed. My prediction though is that only when we recognize the culpability of the employers in pressuring employees to do things that they shouldn't be doing, will we begin to see meaningful change in that regard. Workplace policies that make it financially difficult to stay at home, or create other pressure to be at work when there is good reason not to be, effectively force people to act against their own best interests and quite often the best interests of others too.

Alone, these ought to be compelling arguments. Stop for a moment, though, and think about one more element to this issue that is looming on the horizon.

How are our present practices setting ourselves up for failure in the event of some kind of flu pandemic? Whether it's a return of some extra nasty fatal version of the flu or whether bird flu mutates to a form that humans can pass to one another, the possibility is out there. And if that comes to pass, as it's been predicted by health officials, that would not be the best time to expect we'll all be at work even if we're sick.

In fact, now would be a really good time to prepare for a pandemic by practicing getting work done even when some people are unwell and better off at home. After all, if you can't do without a handful of people now, what makes you think you'll be able to do without an officeful when things get really difficult?

And why not practice that when earthquakes and windstorms and blizzards and hurricanes hit too? It's called business continuity and because of all the ways that businesses can be impacted, it makes sense that we should reevaluate our workforce policies and the ways in which we might be able to use newer technologies to our advantage in the face of various situations that could arise.

Perhaps as we think more comprehensively about these issues, we can get to the point where going home sick doesn't have to mean a loss of face or, worse, a loss of a paycheck. Perhaps then we can also enjoy a nice dinner out without having to wonder if the server sneezed on our food.

Send your thoughts about workforce policies to me at techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com and let's explore how changes to those policies might improve the results we see.

What are the possible unintended consequences of today's decisions?

~~.~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kimm Viebrock is an ICF-credentialed Associate Certified Coach who helps technology professionals and service-oriented technology groups develop and use their skills more effectively and increase their value within the larger organization, allowing them to do more, do it better and have more fun doing it. Kimm is devoted to finding the connectedness in life.

Got Satisfaction?

It seems we care about employee turnover again - on an international basis, no less. Finally. Frankly, I never stopped. In an ideal world, managers would always care about employee turnover, no matter what the market; and employees would always recognize they have a choice about where they work - again, no matter what the market.

I'm sure I've said before that treating employees badly just because you know they feel trapped isn't good leadership. Well, neither is jumping onto the keep-them-satisfied-at-all-costs bandwagon, especially if you don't know what you're doing or what you're really trying to accomplish. Good leadership means truly understanding employees and looking for ways to help them meet their goals in a way that's aligned with the goals of the business. Good leadership means finding creative ways to make this happen without overspending... so that you have the money to spend when it's the dollars that really count.

And if you have a manager who doesn't get it, then maybe that person isn't a pointy-haired idiot or a ruthless climber... maybe your boss just needs help seeing the bigger picture. Although I have seen plenty of managers attempt to rein in employee turnover by blocking promotions, and others who have offered lame perks in place of raises, and still more who do their best to 'do right' by staff to the exclusion of sound business practices, I've only rarely seen this done out of malicious intent. Usually it's just cluelessness and often that can be fixed.

Talk with each other; a cup of coffee or hot chocolate together is one of those low-cost, high-gain tactics that good leaders favor. Identify what the real needs are on both sides and look for opportunities to meet them. And if you find you need a roadmap or directions, you can always chat with me.

I'm curious; send a message to me at techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com and share the most interesting retention strategy you've ever used or had offered to you. I'd like to know what people really find useful and motivating as opposed to what just makes you want to roll your eyes (or worse).

What really makes you want to do well in your work?

~~.~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kimm Viebrock is an ICF-credentialed Associate Certified Coach who helps technology professionals and service-oriented technology groups develop and use their skills more effectively and increase their value within the larger organization, allowing them to do more, do it better and have more fun doing it. Kimm is devoted to finding the connectedness in life.

Sick of Work

I asked a programmer once what his interests were outside of work. He looked at me like I was completely crazy. He had no other interests and spent nearly all of his waking hours at work. In his case, I think he's genuinely happy to have his life be that way. I'm not so sure it works as well for the rest of us.

During the tech boom, employees were happy devoting their lives to the cause of the corporation because there was something in it for them - the promise that if they worked hard enough and hung in there long enough for their options to vest, they'd be rich. Many did become millionaires (at least on paper), though most did not.

These days, hardly anyone expects to suddenly come into the big bucks simply by donating every waking hour to work, especially when the question for many is not how much their options will be worth when they're vested but rather, whether they'll have a chance to vest at all before more layoffs hit.

Some may think this is a particularly pessimistic view. I choose to think of it as an opportunity.

When the financial prospects were huge, the promise of money for many people drowned out every other thought about what else might be important. Now it's easier - and even more crucial - to pay attention to the other priorities in our lives because it's clearer that the money will never be enough to make up for what we lose by not pursuing what's most important to us.

As managers, it makes sense to promote that way of thinking because guess what - it costs an organization money to have employees who are stressed out. Stressed employees use employee assistance programs more and get sick more often. Taking the productivity hit and paying for health care, plus making other employees more stressed when they have to take up the slack, all come at a price. And don't think that firing all the stressed out folks will make the problem go away.

If you're a manager, you can help your company's bottom line by doing everything in your power to make or keep your organization a reasonable place to work. Sure, you have work that needs doing. Understand that forcefeeding to your staff isn't necessarily the most expedient or cost-effective way of getting it done. Make it possible for employees to set personal boundaries that work for themselves as well as for the company. Set a good example yourself by establishing your own healthy work/life balance.

If you're an employee, make it your own responsiblity to keep yourself healthy while doing the work that's expected of you. Manage up if necessary, to help this happen in a positive way; sometimes the person you report to simply doesn't understand all of the ramifications of a particular request. And if the company culture is so toxic that this isn't possible, go somewhere else and let somebody new be their cannon fodder.

Yeah, I realize all too well this is easier said than done. Frankly, figuring out the how of it & actually getting it done is part of what keeps me in business.

What workplace issues do you face and how are you addressing them? Send your thoughts to techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com - if you have new ideas, I'm interested in hearing your approach; if you're fresh out, maybe we can brainstorm together.

Pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it any less real.

Thinking Broadly

I took this past week off - I started a new job, building a tech support organization for a startup. I'm excited about the prospect - the building of a way of doing things, supporting product again and that sort of thing.

I was going to add "while still getting to exercise a broader way of looking at things and having my ideas heard", then I realized that was very limiting. Yes, it's been easier as a manager. AND I've always believed strongly that my ability to think broadly and find ways to get my ideas heard (usually through some form of 'marketing', not force) was what led me to management and allowed me to grow into that role & flourish. Not the other way around.

As people who report to others, I think it furthers our common goals and our individual interests to think at the level of the people we report to as much as possible - not that we think LIKE them (we have to think like ourselves) but that we take into consideration the same things that they do. It helps them do their jobs more easily (which helps us out in the long run) and it makes our own jobs "taller", more interesting.

The reverse is true of managers - I believe I make a better manager by understanding and taking into consideration the same things that people who report to me do. Right now, I don't have anyone reporting to me. I'm doing all of it. And when there comes the opportunity to share that load, I expect I'll have a better understanding of the issues at hand. And you can bet I'll be looking to hire someone who also has the capability to think broadly.

Not the Game; Just the Ticket to Play

We all like to be the "go-to" person. I didn't fully realize this was a fairly universal tech-geek condition until I became a manager and started interviewing people for tech support-type jobs. In response to the common question, "So... what it is it you like (or would like) about this role?" nearly everyone has responded with some version of, "I like being the 'go-to' person."

Surprisingly, it's nearly always worded exactly like that!

Connecting with what I was writing last night about value you provide to your company, it makes sense here to investigate what that really means, to be the "go-to person". Why would people want to come to you for help? What would make them want to come to you more? And how does that tie in with technical knowlege not being your primary asset?

To draw an analogy, let's take a look at your favorite coffee stand, auto parts store, grocery store, etc. Let's say they carry what you want, at least most of the time. Life is good, eh? You go to the store, you get what you want & you go on your way. Now, let's say they carry what you want (most of the time) but they are complete and utter jerks every time you visit. They make it a hassle to get what you want. It takes more time, they take you too literally and screw up your request or they give you crap for interrupting their break, etc. and hey, they're the only game in town so they can do that. And you keep going back. Not that you like it of course, but they've got what you need and you don't feel like going out of your way to get it somewhere else. Yet. Every time you go, though, you wish there was a better alternative and you grumble all the way there and you badmouth the joint to all your friends, right?

Let's turn the tables. Let's say that another coffee stand, auto parts store, grocery store, etc. opens up just down the street. Or maybe it's not even quite as convenient as the other one. And maybe they don't usually carry your PREFERRED coffee, brand of parts, sugar cereal, etc. but they carry something that's a close second. What they might be missing on availability, however, they more than make up for in how easy it is to go there. They let you use your debit card so you don't always have to remember to keep cash on hand, they get you through check-out quickly and easily & don't give you any hassles... and they remembered that last week you asked about a particular item and think to tell you today that they're carrying it now for a trial period. In short, they treat you well, like another human being, and they listen to you.

Now which coffee stand, auto parts store, grocery store, etc. are you going to go to? There comes a point when service will outweigh availability and even quality to some degree. Yes, there is a bare minimum that you've got to provide (whatever it is, from auto parts to technical knowledge) to play the game. That bare minimimum, however, is lower than you think and after that, that's NOT what counts. It's how we feel after interacting with the organization that matters. It's the customer service we get.

What the heck does this have to do with being a "go-to" person"? Each and every day, we market what we have to offer to the people around us. They accept that offer with the terms provided (they "buy" our "product"), or they choose to accept someone else's offer (take their business somewhere else). This is true regardless of the consumer/provider pair you are talking about. Customer/company, customer/tech support agent, co-worker/co-worker, company/employee. Over time, you are building or eroding your standing with the people who are your "customers".

The question is, do you have the minimum "product" availability to play the game? And if so, are you easy enough to work with and do you listen well enough that people want to come back to you. Do they WANT you to be their "go-to person"? If not, then just as soon as they have another choice, they'll make it & you won't be "the one" anymore. Something to think about the next time you figure it's someone else's problem if they don't like working with you.

We are a business of one and and every day we market our skills, talents and services to our customers, co-workers, and the companies we work for.

If you have questions about this, or related topics, feel free to send me an email at techsurvivor@soaringmountain.com.