Buggish / Paradox: Windows 10 shutdown failed

This morning while shutting down my work laptop, windows failed to shutdown and gave the following error message:

:(

Your PC ran into a problem and needs to restart. We're just collecting some error info, and then we'll restart for you.

XX%

For more information about this issue and possible fixes, visit http://windows.com/stopcode

If you call a support person, give them this info: Stop Code: SYSTEM SERVICE EXCEPTION

The most amusing aspect of this experience was that the resolution to the failed shutdown was to reboot which went without any problems. So, basically windows can't safely shutdown only?

I know the system probably just killed the process to restart, but still a little amusing.

 

 

 

 

Paradox: Corporate Leadership Communication. Can it be fixed?

One of the most common issues with leadership from worker surveys is communication. I have been thinking how to resolve this issue, and feel this is somewhat of a paradox.

If leadership has communication issues with delivering and receiving communication, how would a worker communicate this properly to leadership to correct this action?

If leadership was capable of delivering and receiving communication, the workers would not be required to come up with a solution to correct fundamental communication issues.

I believe this can only be corrected by leadership on their own. Workers need to still voice their concern, but should not invest time to explain to leadership how to correct the problem. Because if leadership was able, workers do not need to explain. But if leadership was unable, no amount of explanation will fix the problem.

I am dumbfounded on why communication is so difficult with leadership. Is it because they have never worked at our level? Have they never been conned, cheated, or unfairly deprived of opportunities? Is it because of their personal greed to earn significantly more than their workers? Do they just not understand our plight?

Or is it because they have been in our position and is now taking their "fair" share to compensate for the life that we still live in? Is it an elite class where they now have to do that to fit in with the existing leadership?

Or is it that I do not understand? I suppose leadership is getting what they want out of this, so perhaps this is the real grand scheme of things. Just keep creating chaos faster than the workers' can cope with, while their value to the company is to swindle our efforts.

Then the question becomes, why can't a "fairer" company outperform a greedy company? Does power corrupt absolutely?

Leadership Pitfalls: Hearing versus Listening for Surveys

For the purpose of this article, hearing is the words you hear and listening is the meaning of the words.

I do not know how many company leaders fall into this but leaders seem to misinterpret surveys all the time. Maybe I am unlucky in the companies that wishes to hire me or perhaps I just do not understand what it takes to be a leader.

I have filled in many surveys in hopes that it will truly change how leadership leads. Every year, almost the same results are returned: 1. Communication, 2. Training/Development. So each year, I become less and less hopeful that leadership would ever change. Even after several reorgs.

Communication

Even with other companies, there always seem to be a gap in communication. And for whatever reason, leadership thinks this means to have more meetings. Why do we even pay leadership more money if they do not understand what the workers are saying to them?

Just because the workers say "We do not know what is going on?", does not mean to have more meetings. Not only more meetings, especially not meetings about how the entire corporation is doing. Why do I care we have double digit growth (ie more than 10% growth)? Then you follow that up with record profits. Yet, you do not hear the biggest question that no one will bluntly ask "why are our salaries still the same with no additional people?" So basically what we hear is "can you feel us kicking you while you are down?"

Why should we care that you are telling us what the numbers are from the survey? We told you what we think, we have some idea what we said. Tell us what you are doing about it. Tell us you are going to set up more meetings. Then we can at the very least respond with... "that is not what we really meant to say" or the main question we do not dare ask "why are you so stupid?" so that we can correct your thoughts.

High percentages with manager satisfaction yet you know there is a lot of grumbling going on. Our surveys always scored more than 85% manager satisfaction and 90% trust in leadership. This is not an indication that you are doing a good job. This is an indication that we no longer trust you. Increased employee turn-over, unable to retain top talent, superficial questions at the end of meetings, etc. are all clues that your surveys are telling a different story.

I understand there are certain level of optics that leadership should keep. But if you are going to play dumb, you are only going to keep dumb people or smart people doing status quo. For example, company employs thousands of people and many with decades of experience. Yet during innovation events, only the new graduates attend (and most strongly "encouraged" to go).

We actually had someone dare ask the question about fair compensation. If we are putting up record numbers, why are we only treated to fair market value while executives get to enjoy all the added bonuses. To add a little more background, the top employees barely reached 1% raise each year (at least that is what leadership told us). On top of that, company "perks" (which we already low standards even compared to small companies) have been slowly picked away.

On top of that, the response was (paraphrasing) "we understand because aren't we all here for the money?" WOW! Not even a hint of sarcasm in there. Clearly only heard, "we are greedy and want more money." Listen carefully and you might hear, "we just want our fair share (going forward for what we clearly did for you for the past several years)". Of course, this come the day after the CEO just sold some shares for millions of dollars.

Yes, surveys do say something but are you really listening or just hearing what you want to hear? All I know is that things have not changed one iota since I started except now we have more company meetings that just seem to waste more of my time. The saddest part for me is that I have actually spent a lot of time writing a response to most of these meetings but have never sent it out to anyone. Why? Because I do not trust anyone. What have you done to earn my trust in you?

Training/Development

Every year, they say they try to add more budget to train people. Yet the only people who seem to get training, or have time for training, or go to interesting events, are the new graduates. Then we slowly watch as each one slowly move on to other companies.

What do you think that communicates to all your veterans? More promises, and more broken promises. There was one time a group got their training, then got replaced by interns because the interns couldn't fix the legacy stuff (or at least were not interested in it). On top of that, they were expected to make use of the little training they got.... a year later. No practice, not even a small project.

Why is HR in charge of training? HR should be in charge of making directors or managers to create time for training for their direct reports. HR barely knows enough to hire the person. You think they know what specialists how to improve on their existing skillsets? The manager/supervisor will barely know that.

I have yet to ever receive any sort of training. They say I need to be more pro-active about it. Yet when I ask questions, I seem to be dumped with more work. Even if I find something interesting, they will ask if there is a cheaper (ie freer) option. If I knew, wouldn't I just request that one?! After a while, I just do not care anymore. I just do my own training now and pay for it myself.

Company has been around for decades and they do not know where my position should grow into. Yet they say they are all about career growth. They should already know what I should move into... they clearly care when it comes to our salary.

The Truth

But in all actuality, the real truth is that corporate leadership really (really, really, really) does not care about their employees. Oh, they'll promise you the world. At the end of the day, they get to return home with their payday. They care so little and they have so much of a monopoly over your life that they do not even care to create a fake optic to make you feel better. Just bribe a few people with a 2% raise or a fancy title just to make it look some people are happy. Which they probably are because they are friends of the leader and are not doing much work.

The company has let go of people with vast experience, yet the company still employs a person who does absolutely nothing. Literally, nothing. Who knows, maybe she's the making of a future leader. It is the only real explanation.

But just in case there is actually a "good" manager/leader somewhere out there that just happened to read this... people are complex, most people are good people, and they won't say directly what is needed. One, they may not actually know how to phrase it. Two, they also want to save your ego by not saying you're dumb to your face. Three, spending a little bit of time with all (or most) of your directs will at least open the opportunity for someone like myself to trust you.

From personal experience, there was on CEO of a company of hundred. He remembered my name a year later (randomly in the hallway) and only after meeting me once. You cannot imagine how much more I did if something came from him after that. Now, a director (not my director) that sits about 15 feet away has no clue that I even exist. She won some national award... and no one here even cared.

You may not have to believe in all the things I say. But if enough people say the same thing, there ought to be some pattern worth investigating.... just saying...

Reference

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page30.shtml

Leadership Pitfalls: Working hard is the path to success

"Work hard, work hard, and work even harder."

Some leaders who are asked to give a lesson on their success to their legacy typically gives this speech. But in my opinion, this is one of the most demoralizing things to say.

First, are they saying those around them did not work hard? What about those who actually did work harder? They also typically add that they are first in, first out. And, they truly believe that.

This claim is very detrimental to morale. Whether you do work harder than everyone else, not everyone may believe that you do. Even the worst employees truly believe they work hard. It is equivalent to asking a person if they are a good person.

Somehow, I sit near these people (at different companies) who say these kinds of things. They rarely are even close to being the first or last people in the office. Not only are they not staying late, they are out the door very quickly. I am not saying that they don't work hard, but don't be claiming to be working more hours than you are. Also, I am typically the last person out the office. I have never been recognized for work effort.

Second, they appear to not understand how success works. Most of us know that success is not only hard work, but also being in the right place at the right time (and many other things). Those who feel that they were passed on a raise or promotion will feel more jilted listening to this speech. These people are now more likely to move on as their talents appear to be not recognized.

Alternative

If given the opportunity to give a speech, leaders should focus on how the company has opened opportunities for people like him to contribute more to the group. Then follow up that the company is working on recognizing current talents and finding new opportunities.

My Sentiments

Most companies have backfilled my role with multiple positions. Also in almost all my roles, I have been the go-to person to backup almost everyone within my team. Basically, I am able to more than my roles but few are able to cover mine (even when I am the most junior on the team). I say this because I can personally say that hard work will not get you anywhere.

If anything, hard work will detriment your success. Working smart also will not help with your success, but it is required. Luck and abusing the system will increase your chances to be "successful". I have talked to quite a few peers of leaders mentioned above. Most of the "success" or break-through achievements are usually based on lies and the ignorance (true or turning a blind eye to save face) of those evaluating their performance.

This appear to be most obvious with government contracts. The strategy for one past company was to simply over-promise knowing they will not be able to deliver most of the items. Once they win the contract, they simply prolong and find excuses by blaming other groups. In my opinion, this was super easy to do because most people do not know how to manage a project. Most people fail to simply just respond to emails. When renegotiating contracts, they simply say that people don't follow up and that is why the project is behind. Also to save face, it is very difficult for clients to change to another vendor unless something went beyond obviously wrong.

Maybe I have warped the definition of success for this article but I hope most readers will understand where I am coming from. I still believe in my values, and still hope I will find a decent group to build my career. I am still in a good place to support myself and those around me. I still wish I can have the opportunity to be promoted to be a leader someday because I believe I can contribute more than other leaders, not because of the status of being a leader. My belief as a leader/manager is to work myself out of the role so that the team will be self-sustaining. If miraculously all leaders are deserving of their roles, I have no problems staying at the "bottom".

Leadership Pitfalls: Don't eat/take your subordinate's treats/food/etc

Do you have people at the office that have bowls of snacks or candies to share for the office?

It's a trap

This is not an intentional trap. This is not the intentions of the givers (unless it's me). But you will have people like me who witness those who take things.

The trap is not a single incident infraction. The problem is when you abuse the (unspoken) system... the peer judgment of others. The main problem starts when you take a larger portion of the goods.

Lack of Compassion

The goods are not free. Out of the goodness of the giver, they are sharing to help those around them. But when the taker starts to feel entitled, this just hits the wrong nerve in me.

For example, there is a lady who always keep a variety of sweets in her area. Several people enjoy the treats. But each day after she's gone, a group of people takes a noticeable amount of sweets from her desk. Because I am usually one of the last people out of the office, I notice this group.

Although she does not mind, this action by that group is just wrong to me. I have also heard the same from others. Some of them have also started to use more racial biases because of this.

So not only does this make it appear poorly for those who take too much, but it also also reflects poorly on whatever prejudicial group the observer makes.

Unfairness

I am one that occasionally leave sweets/snacks on my desk to share. As a person who has bought food to share and even though I am not poor, these foods are not cheap. 

Because I am further back in the office, I do not get as many visitors. I do regularly get a director who is very friendly with a colleague who sits next to me.

Although I am ok with those who take a treat each time they visit, his visits started to irk me when he said (somewhat playfully) that I need to restock my treats (when I haven't restocked for a while). Not only restock but a specific request of candy that I brought in once. I don't mind when someone at least at the same corporate level as me does this because they never do. Yes, that sounds odd but there is an unspoken understanding that these are treats, not entitlements.

I also know this director eats other's treats. And there are similar complaints from those people as I have in my mind. We are the bottom of the hierarchy. A director is 2-3 levels above us, so easily makes twice as much as us (which means he has the potential to save way more than double). Over 5 years, he has never given anything back... not even a thank you. 

If it were just me, I would just chalk it up to my bad luck. But for others, the very least he can do is do something nice (and something unselfish) in return. Even if we have poor directors (I work for a fortune 10 company so extremely unlikely), he could at the very least "promote" them in some ways. I do not even mean a professional promotion. A simple this is a great person, kind person, or if I even have to drudge the bottom of the barrel.... a very simple thank you. Or even, even lower.... at least do not criticize (like not enough plates, utensils, etc). 

Optics

Ultimately, there is nothing technically wrong with taking or even accepting treats. But because the visual is very subjective, this is just not worth the optics that this behavior projects for a manager or executive.

If anything, I even give back to those that share their kindness even if I do not take any or much. This does not have to be food or materials. I have assisted or aided in other ways, although food is the simplest way. 

People see, people judge, but they won't share their thoughts especially if you are in a leadership position. In my opinion, those who cannot even balance simple human compassion do not deserve my respect for there position. And if his peers cannot at least recognize this, I also have lowered respect for all of leadership.

Reference

Personal experience