Work Life: Pros of Working with Terrible Developers

Ignoring the several hours troubleshooting terrible developer work (my role is change management, not developer), I have been thinking there have been some benefits to working with such troublesome developers.

I learn a lot. I learned about the history of text encoding. I knew about UTF-8 and Unicode which helped me go down that route. Guiltily, I did go down a rabbit hole and probably didn't need to know the wikipedia version of its history. Surprisingly, there is no easy way to identify when text encoding a file uses. I ended up just using notepad and the open as option. I had to guess and hope I can read the file. There are some apps that I could download, but my work laptop is annoyingly locked down where I didn't want to spend time working around that.

I learn how underpaid I have been for so many years as a developer. Sometimes I wish I had a mentor but life can always be better. I feel fortunate that I was born smart enough to figure things on my own.... eventually. I have to teach our developers about file encoding. How did some of them figure out how to mess that up? I may never know but at least I know there is such an option. Also how do they do that in between version? The files were not even brand new. You open, you modify the one line, save, and commit. Yet, they managed to mess that up and not know why.

While on that note... how did they figure out how to change the configuration to change all EOL characters? When I review the git diff, I see a wall of changes for something that should be a line or two. I can even see the visible text being the same. Initially, I threw this over the wall to the developers to figure it out. A month later, still an issue. Because I was already looking into why git would think files were binary, I thought this would be related.

Having a hex editor would have saved me so much time on both these issues... but I simply just did a diff to ignore white spaces and suddenly only the one line is highlighted. 5 minutes of my time and paid developers couldn't figure it out for a month.

It is also interesting to learn how the value of just having the bare minimum work is financially positive. We just went through a layoff and lost about half our staff. The next couple months, they backfilled with cheaper developers. The remaining staff basically just spends their time fixing all the bugs, reviewing their codes where they basically rewrite about 80% of them. They all complain that they no longer just code. Yet, it seems we are doing well. The senior developers seem to be more stressed but that doesn't impact me. With more changes due to poor code and misunderstood requirements, my job is even more secure.

I have gained more experience on how much people are willing to lie and deceive about their work when there is so much evidence to show otherwise. And how unwilling management to action on these reports turn so many employees into quite drones yet wonder why no one says anything.

So in conclusion, it has been kind of good to me personally to work with such poor workmanship. I am continuously learning how to manage all the developers who don't want to do things properly, learning how much time is wasted yet still profitable, and learning how to remain positive throughout the entire turmoil.

Leadership Pitfalls: Corporate Town Halls Lacking Message

Many times I wonder why I even bother going to town halls. I never seem to get much out of them. They always just seem a waste of time. Smaller companies have been ok, but then they aren't really town halls.

Know Your Audience

When a CEO, President, or Sr VP hosts an all-employee town hall, do you even realize who they are talking to or what they are trying to say? I feel like this is just a task they are trying to fulfill. "Just say some stuff, fill the time, let everyone praise me, check."

The most common issue I have is all the talks about corporate numbers:

• Double-digit growth
• Increased revenue
• New acquisitions

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Why should I care about these numbers? Oh, did you want to say that the company has hit record numbers, record profits, keeping all salaries stagnant so that I can maximize my year-end bonus? Seriously, how am I supposed to break down those numbers besides the only number that I know that matters to you?

Realize that I am at least 4 levels below you. I have a manager, then sometimes a director, then a vp, then maybe another senior vp. Or even structurally, I have my team, then application, then line of business, then department, then maybe a child-company. Is the growth in another group, another team, another app, just your wallet?

Drill Down

Fine, those numbers are important and you cannot drill it down. I do care about topics of training, compensation, social responsibility, retention but those are all too high level.

I do not expect you to provide the low level details that pertains directly to me. I do expect your directs to break it down appropriately, who then expects their directs to break it down, until it reaches me.

Fake Impacts or Real Impacts

Leadership never seems to hear my opinion. This makes me wonder if they even care about feedback. Personally, I do not think so. I also think this is 95% true. I write this blog for the 5% of those out there that are trying to understand and improve, hence why I gave up voicing my opinion.

I mean I am not surprised. I reached out. I tried. Basically if leadership's primary issue is communication, then no matter how loud my opinion is, it will never be heard until they are willing to open their mind by reading something like this blog.

At the Very Least

If you really do care, there is more appreciation when you reach out to the silent voices. There are many people who have opinions, not just me. Do not just listen, but also listen for the things they are not saying because they cannot say it.

Build trust by reaching out first. I feel that I stick my neck out. I am trying to help the company, but if leadership is the wrong type, I risk my job. That is why no one wants to say anything. The only reason I speak out is because I want to represent the people. But someday when I can no longer risk my employment, you will have another silent voice.

I have always been the last to leave. I know leadership in most corporate world do not care. I hope your smaller company will provide greater value. We really do not place a lot of value on salary. We really just want our fair share and know that our jobs are safe. People only say compensation is important when leadership is greedy, unfair, or ignorant/inexperienced. It is the safer and simpler method.

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

Executive vs Associates Emails

This comic was not so interesting until I read the comments. What I found so interesting is how quickly everyone jumped onto the idea that the ideal email is to be brief and to the point.

Yes, that the associate email is a bit lengthy but there is no way they could get by with the executive message. The lengthy version is very much the safer route than being too brief for an associate.

People should know their audience even among peer-to-peer messages. Some people need to have the flowery-words, and some people don't. Some people are easily offended if not enough proper respect is included in the email. And quite easily, someone like an executive gets thousands of emails and simple message of "please see below" will be quickly forgotten (intentionally or not).

Even for such a message from an executive, I have listened to many colleagues confused on what the message even meant in the first place. What thoughts? Grammar? Content? New idea? On every single bullet point or a subjective top 10 list? You're the executive what did you not like about that email?

It saddens me that even the experienced professionals make such simple, over-simplified comments. Yes, some messages could be more brief and some could be more descriptive. Most messages need to be tailored not only by who it is written to but also the author's experience/rank.


https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/8b670d02-0525-40e8-9d57-735086deefdf-original.png

Interview: Dear Interviewer, Would you Answer Your Own Questions Honestly?

Dear Interviewer, Would you Answer Your Own Questions Honestly?

If you are new to interviewing, these are good starting points (or see link below).

What I have thought interesting since I started interviewing is how "textbook" some of the answers are to the interview questions. All questions are structured to get some sort of information about the interviewee, but do interviewers ever think about what the interviewee thinks about the company on certain questions?

One of the questions, "Tell me about the worst boss you ever had," the interviewer is "trying" to see if you are going to talk smack about your older bosses. Almost everyone will recommend that you try to redirect the question to something positive, but why not say bad things about a bad boss (unless you've only had 1-2 bosses then I would also recommend you avoid answering this directly)?

Is the new boss expecting to be bad? If he is not bad, then why would he worry about what I say about bad bosses? Who has not had a bad boss? I mean this is like asking, "have you ever lied?" We all know the real answer, and we know that is not the answer the questioner wants to hear. Basically, you want us to lie. Is that how you want to start someone's career at your company?

If going the route of "yes, I do lie," I would also suggest that you add what you did about it. Like when my boss hired someone that was weak, I wrote a report trying to avoid any personal bias. I told her that this is my opinion and that I respect her choice because there are usually other factors that they have to consider that I am not privy to. Another example was a poor process. I recommended a better process with analytic on how it is a better business strategy. I want to show that I will go to my boss with my experience and my knowledge. I do not jump levels and report to his boss about my thoughts on him. If you cannot back up your actions, then maybe you should stick with the suggest response from CareerBuilder.

What if your boss was doing something illegal? I have not actually thought about this... and I am not sure exactly what I should do on that matter. I'd probably read the employee handbook and probably should be handled by HR. Anyways, this is probably a bit too personal to answer publicly because if you happen to be my boss... it is probably better that you don't know what I would choose. To all the not-worst bosses, what would you suggest?

Another question is "Where do you see yourself in five years?" Does anyone really know where they see themselves in five years that are relevant to work? Does the interviewer even know where they see themselves in five years with their current work? How can they expect that from someone who doesn't even know who is going to hire them?

I seem to dislike questions that really only have one correct answer. These types of questions only seem to serve one purpose and it is not to understand the interviewee. If you or your HR is not going to put effort into finding the right candidates, I have lower views of your company. Does that mean I will not choose you? Unfortunately for me, I probably would consider the option since most companies ask the same types of questions.

But like interviewers who are looking for that one ideal candidate, I am seeking for that one ideal employer and I hope to do so by being more straightforward about my profession abilities. If there was one recommendations for employers about their interview questions, that would be that you would be able to answer the same questions you ask: "tell me who was your worst manager that you've had," "where do you see me in five years?" If you do not like answering those questions, then do not ask those questions. Like interviewees, avoid lying because you will not get what you really want. It is a lose-lose for both parties.

On a different matter, these staple responses from recruiters and head-hunters are things that have always made me uncomfortable with them. Shouldn't they be people who should be making the hiring process easier by being more honest about the truths? Why has the whole interview process been mutated into something that favors people who know how to interview and not their real talent? Does a company really care if someone knew how to answer a certain question that is really irrelevant to them? Who cares if the person cannot see where they are in 5 years? Who cares if they had a bad boss or had all bad bosses? They only care that the employee adds value to the company.

I am not saying that the knowledge is important. It is important to know if we have ambition or have social issues. But you are expecting someone to know those with just one or two questions?

Sometimes I wonder about the use of recruiters. Their business model revolves around getting people hired. People don't get hired if the company already has perfect people. They love churn because that gets them the bonuses that they work out in the contracts.

I think there is a lot of room for improvements for HR, recruiters, and head-hunters to really make more long term solutions to the interviewing process. I think recruiters have the most to gain especially with the current technology in social networking. They can now keep in touch with people for several years without being very intrusive.

Why recruiters? Because companies do really not care much about employees or potential employees' life outside of their company. They want to focus on their product. Also on the political level, there are some managers that hire people they know over people people who are capable. It only takes one poor manager to make systems extremely inefficient.

And, people want to focus on their skills so that they can add value where they are talented at. Why should the person know who they work best with, especially when the employer does not even give them a say in the matter? People struggle to get themselves hired and you want them to know someone else?

This leaves the recruiters to find the best matches because that's their role in the process. They care that you did good work for Company A, showed loyalty in Company B, and demonstrated hard work at Company C. They should care that you had that one bad boss but you overcame it. They should have a better idea what your 5 year goal is better than the interviewee (isn't it kind of messed up that they call the company the client and not the other way or even both?) With their experience, they should know where you can be in 5 years and they should know what the company would expect in 5 years. They should know historically who you have worked best with. Not only that, that knowledge should be exactly the same except that you explain it in the perspective for that person. Too bad they only care about the person being at the right place and at the right time... if not, they move onto someone else.

Anyways, there's probably an infinite and one reasons to why the system is not that way. Unfortunately, I cannot help but think on these processes on a part-time basis as I would really wish to focus on processes on building new engineering technologies. I have been distracted by other industries because getting good coworkers is the biggest problem in process improvements. So here's my weakness... I am easily distracted by things that I consider the biggest problems on things that are preventing me from working on new engineering technologies.

Reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/03/04/cb.answering.tough.interview.questions/