Job Search: Does PMP Correlate with Being A Good Project Manager (PM)? (My Super Limited Personal View)

While I search for jobs, I often see that many project management jobs require or prefer people with a PM (Project Management) certification. This some times causes me to think of all the project managers that I have worked with in the past.

In summary, I really do not feel like there is any correlation with a good project manager and being a PMP (Project Management Professional). My opinion could be flawed in what qualifies as a good project manager, but I think some of the qualities of the project manager far outweighs certain biases.

For starters, a good project manager should be able to handle a project well (not necessarily to completion/deployment). I specifically want to avoid saying successful because there are too many external factors on why a project could "fail" that is out of the PM's control. If anything, I feel that a good project manager really shines when a project is failing.

I have probably worked with over 50+ project managers with about half PMP (an extremely rough estimate). Most do the bare minimum; some do a decent job; and, very few do a good job. Bare minimum to me is just to keep their job. I often have to follow up with these PM; they often "lose" emails, notes, etc. on a consistent basis. Decent job to me is doing what is needed when things are not ideal. They will help out a little or upon request, but not more. Good job is when they don't need to be told multiple times to do their job.

By doing their job, I mean that they tell resources when their project is going to be delivered, the status of their projects, things I think a PM should know. So, I suppose I fail to see how a PM certification helps identify good project managers. What is it that they do that is so difficult? I practically do at least half the job of poor performers. I don't have a PMP. Those with PMP is about the same distribution across each quality of project managers.

To me, a company really only needs one person with a PMP and that should be whoever is managing the PMs. The other PMs just follows directions because almost all companies have their own variations so it is nearly impossible to really transfer one company process with another. Those who are more pro-active are able to figure it out, and those who are less or non-active are able to figure out how to fly under the radar. Yet, the company continues which seems to me that PMP really is rather useless, waste of money, and time.

Does PMP title mean a good project manager? To me, easily a no. Is it worth getting one anyways? Yes. Why? Because companies think PMP title means a good project manager which means they are willing to pay for it, therefore PM certificate is of value (unless I am the hiring manager, which I am not, so you are safe).

Job Search: Why can't ATS (Applicant Tracking System) transfer my profiles to other companies?

ATS solutions like Taleo, SuccessFactors, iCIMS, etc., do not transfer your profile from one company site to another. Yet LinkedIn and Google can, albeit they do a pretty terrible job of it.

Completing an online job application form is already a pain in the tuchus, but what drives me near insanity is the constant steps of upload resume, re-enter resume information into digital format, then cry/whine and repeat with maybe a 5% chance to get an initial call.

After so many applications, you start to realize a lot of sites use similar ATS solutions, which makes me question why they cannot just pull my information from last application to this one? I thought maybe it was a regulation issue but LinkedIn basically does that so does not seem like it. Perhaps if the ATS solution has a contract not to, they can at least build it on their main site so that I can provide them my information voluntarily for them to auto-populate the fields.

Job Search: There Is NO Shortage on Skilled Workers, Just Shortage on "Below-Market-Pay" Skilled Workers

I have always been wondering how can the United States be short on skilled workers, because there are plenty of non-skills workers who do not enjoy their work. Maybe short on general workers to current jobs and unfilled jobs, theoretically. But even then that is very hard to believe because there are plenty of people who do very little in existing jobs.

And as I apply to several positions, the most common articles I read about is recruiters being inundated with thousands of applicants. When I talk to hiring managers, they most definitely are not short on candidates and most I have spoken to have had no problems hiring a fitting candidate within the last couple years.

When job posters have on their form your minimum pay requirement or pay history, this seems pretty evident that there is no shortage on people looking for skilled work (possibly other works; I have only searched skilled work). 

One conclusion I can come up with that perhaps I am wrong is that HR really, really has no idea what they are doing. This is also a very high possibility in my opinion as they go through so many motions that make seem to limit their search on quality and possibly cheaper alternatives.

One example is that almost all jobs list out the requirements of the candidate to a generic person yet they require all candidates to tailor their resumes to them. They should be tailored to their target audience who are not generic people. In an opening for a manager, many descriptions will have a requirement with "ability to work in a team" or if they are a level higher "ability to work in a diverse team". The position is for a person specifically leading a team. Or another opening for an experience developer who has a specific tool experience that is almost irrelevant to the actual job. There are development posts where they require "X+ years of experience with Jira" (Jira is a bug-tracking tool). If they hire a developer that cannot figure out how to use any type of bug-tracking tool is not a developer worth hiring.

In either case, there is most definitely no shortage on skilled workers. Companies are either just too cheap to hire them or too simple-minded to identify them.

Ongoing Path to Management

Ongoing Path to Management is to discuss about my attempts to get a people management (for the sake of these series will just be shortened as manager) role. I have known this was not an easy path, but one I believe is beneficial to the company given my experience and my ability to connect with other employees.

I also do not have a need to be in management. I am well content to do my job at my current position and current pay. I would still prefer to have more responsibilities and/or more pay. That being said, if I were promoted to management, I believe I would do a good job and I am willing to do the extra work. The reason I want to do this because I believe in doing what is good for my group.

There are some other obstacles to my path due to my personal beliefs which I will address in another post. Today, I just want to address a more obvious problem for everyone that is interested in becoming a people manager.

Catch-22

One of the biggest obstacle to getting a management role is the need to have management experience. The follow up question is how many direct reports have you managed. But all managers must have had no experience or directs reports before they became a manager.

Opportunity

From my experience, the fastest way to become a manager is to know the right person. No experience, no skills, just being in the right place at the right time. I have seen fresh graduates promoted to management within a year of working. Even those who did not even want to be a manager. Majority of them have no idea how to lead a team: causing confused team members, setting unreasonable goals, creating many social impacts, etc. Simply by knowing the right person will get you promoted (for many different reasons).

And then there is the very long and difficult path that depends a lot on luck. The luck is primarily based on your work for a company that is mature enough to have a structured method of promoting. Although luck like knowing the right people is still important, but has less of an impact which could increase your chances. At these firms, you can work hard and work several years to eventually be promoted to management role. You will have a better chance if you work for someone that is in a volatile position.

By volatile position, I mean that the position (not necessarily the person but could be driven by the person) has a high potential to change. The simplest is that the person is going to retire. The person will leave and a gap needs to be filled. Next is the person that is ambitious or really skilled. Basically, the person needs to move out of the role so that it becomes available and you have to be the best option.

Leads

From my experience, I believe that most managers are more leads. They have the know-how, they delegate, they review the product, but most do not care for the person's growth, the person's career, or if very unlucky, do not care for you at all. They do not set you up for a raise or for a good review. They see annual reviews as a waste of time. They only want to lead and force you to follow, just as they have to follow their superiors.

Because most managers are leads in reality, this confuses the title of managers because that creates poor standards of what a manager should do. For those who are new to the workplace, expectations of a manager becomes much harder to maintain across the company.

Turnover

Perhaps I work in very unsafe work environments my entire career, but I see that there are very few good managers.

My speculation is that good managers rarely leave a company (or let go). So to me, most companies are hiring just bad managers. This is also my belief why I am unable to randomly find a good company to work for. Because good companies do not have turnover to have roles to fill. Good companies will have good managers who most likely have good references so there is no need to reach out to find random candidates.

Good employees leave bad companies. The silver-lining is that they learn why certain processes are in place or why certain good practices are done.

People, People, People

I was brought up that good work will eventually be promoted. I hated playing politics. I have had my work credit stolen. I have been passed by another with less experience who was later fired within months. I have been told that the company cannot afford to hire helpers but yet when I leave, they eventually have to back fill with multiple people. I have won contracts with clients who eventually canceled their contracts with my former company shortly after I left.

Sorry for all the negativity. So more positively, I have always been a go-to person for some people around me for advice on career, work, projects, or even very situational scenarios. I have always been the fastest to learn. Among my team, I have almost always had the most projects, most tasks with equal or better quality with no complaints.

But all this is not important at all to management (at least in today's corporate management). All that really matters is the people you know. Not just any person, the right person whether they work for a good or bad company. If you do not know the right person, you will never be promoted even if you are the star employee. Sadly, the "right" person typically is not someone who is a good manager (although possible).

If you work for a good company, time may be worth spending to achieve that goal. For a bad company, the expense of being promoted may not be worth the sacrifices. I do not just mean financially (or sexually). I mean sacrificing your morals.

I am unwilling to lie or cheat. I would rather work cheaply until I find the right place to work that truly appreciates their employees. My recommendation to all is to keep an eye out for good people. Do not be afraid to approach them. Connection is important in this world if you want to make an impact and have more control over your own life. Hard work can only get you so far individually in current workplace.

Work Life: Being a Professional (coder)

I just read an interesting article. It has a lot of good points. Although I do not agree with every single point, there are a lot of good take-aways for anyone who is starting their career. In general, it is a good read. It is a bit lengthy but a good skim cannot hurt either. I also realize I wrote quite a bit too

The biggest problem (similar to some of the comments) is about learning off-the-clock being required as a professional. If you can spare time, this is a great way to get ahead. You should always strive to improve yourself, although it should be focused on areas that you cannot cover at work. Learning material that is related to your work should be done during work hours (assuming you are an employee).

As a contractor this may be a different story depending on the contracted work. If you contract to do work on certain work within your existing skill sets, then learning things to skills that have been promised should not be billed. On the other-hand, if you are contracted as a hired-hand, then the learning materials should depend on what your contracted responsibilities are.

The next problem is much lesser than the learning aspect. I rather separate the definition of responsibilities and professionalism. I prefer to see that professionals have a set process on how to deal with unexpected problems and responsibility as problems that should be managed by the person. If there is a big enough problem that falls within your responsibility, then attempts should be made to go outside of existing procedures to correct the problem. That includes staying up late and knowing when you should take a break. I have seen too many junior developers stay up all night then become completely useless the next couple days thus just adding onto the emergencies.

Also by separating the two, professionalism also covers responsibilities that may be outside your circle of responsibilities. For example if an outside group found a problem with communicating with your application, reasonable attempts should be made to assist the group even if there are absolutely no problems on your end. These groups could be third-party or system test team or another department. Being professional is knowing what a reasonable attempt is. You may already have prior engagements thus unable to assist in the short-term.

From my experience, one of the biggest factor to being professional is simply to manage expectations. Although some groups may not like that you cannot assist them immediately, almost all groups are satisfied with a path-forward (some plan where they can show progress) even if the response is that I will need 2-3 days to investigate the issue before providing a new status. One of the most helpful reminders for me is that most projects are really not life-critical (although I have treated some like one in by younger years). Although companies will claim that they lose so much money per hour that it is not fixed, there are many areas that they have skimped that also contribute to the problem. If you are a single-point of failure, that is not your problem... it is the company's problem. Do not confuse this as a reason not to do work, but more to prioritize how to balance your personal life and work life. If it is your anniversary or your child's big play, those should almost always take priority over extra work. Simply manage the "client" expectation that you will focus on it first thing in the morning.

The last problem that I want to bring up is primarily that the article also falls into one of its own points of curse of knowledge. Although I can relate to most of the points, I think it would be difficult for someone who is just starting their careers to fully understand why each point is problem. This is not an easy problem to fix as I suspect that I probably do the same all the time. A couple main topics are like "Don't be egoistic," "Be responsible," and "Accept criticism" (probably a few other topics). The problem with those is that everyone (good or bad) will always think they are all those things. Like who does not think they are good especially those who are victims of "bad" traits? I would have liked to see how to recognize when I am being egotistic or when I am in self-denial. I have faced many people who say "they accept criticism" when it is clear to everyone else that he is not.

The part about experience is actually a lot trickier than it is stated in the article. For example, I work with a lot of people who have much more experience in work experience but few have actual development background. Rarely are my suggestions are ever considered. I usually remain patient and professional in stating my opinions but not over-pressing the issue. Most of the time, the problems that come up are consistent with exactly the risks that I have stated. Am I perhaps being egotistic in that I provide more value than it really is (the actual data seem to back up my recommendations), or perhaps my coworkers egotistic in not allowing more value to my suggestions or accepting my criticism in their suggestions?

I find it more difficult when dealing with people who have more experience but do not seem to really comprehend the problem. Although they also recognize that there is a problem, I often do not agree with their methods in resolving the issue because they do not fully understand the full extend of the problem. I have tried to explain but I seem to fail in getting them to understand my point-of-view until it is too late. To me (imo), being a professional also means knowing when someone is set in their views, have more authority, thus knowing when to back-off and just hope they will someday see the value that I can bring to the team (even though they say that they welcome our thoughts).

Reference

http://www.sitepoint.com/good-developer/?utm_content=bufferfa3ba&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Life: Professional Blogs or Online Articles' Basic Information

1. I would like to see some sort of biography to the author to understand what kind of experience or background that the author. Personally, I have actually worked with one of their branches so I know there is some legitimacy to the company.

2. The date that the article was posted. I want to know how old the information is. How else should I know which information is newer when they conflict? These sites lose a lot of credibility in my views just for this little information. I am surprised how many articles are still missing the date.

3. And the last thing I'd like to see is references especially when they talk about other sources. If the source is theirs and independent, then it should be stated that way. Otherwise, information without references just makes the article seem like it has other purposes besides the primary message.

I can understand the lack of these in personal blogs or hobbyists, but professional and corporate blogs should have these at the minimum for me to believe such information. I am not saying that I do not trust it, but I am forced to find other similar information elsewhere thus some credibility is lost.