Archive for November, 2007
A few questions to ask yourself (from strategy to reality, purpose and accountability)
As you probably know, lately I’ve been thinking a lot about organising people. That’s great because in fact I am studying Human Resource Management (again) and the content without the reflection is just data. And there’s much more than data to learning. (Remember my old post Ackoff’s spectrum of learning?)
There’s so much philosophy on purpose. Ok, let’s change the word from purpose to strategy. Which is the strategy of your (my) company? The obvious answer is…
Let’s stop for a moment. I need your attention here. I’m going to ask again in bold:
*What’s the strategy of YOUR company?*
Do you really know? Think again.
Don’t cheat. It’s not a valid answer to say that the board does know. That’s not enough. For any strategy to be effective it must permeate the whole of the company. Not just to be in the board’s minds. No way.
Usually the use of the word strategy makes us defensive. True, this is nothing that affects us. Or maybe it does affect us but it’s nothing that we have a say on.
Wrong answer for an effective organisation. If the strategy is not only top-down but bottom-up, we should have a say. In fact I really think we should.
Let’s swap words again. Let’s talk about purpose. Purpose is not a scary word but, at the same time, has a lot in common with strategy. And ask yourself another question.
*What is the purpose of your job, of your post?*
That is easier to answer, but not quite. Is that really what you are doing? Don’t you think that’s the first thing that you should be clarifying with your boss? Along with a complementary question: what’s the purpose of her/his job? How do both purposes match?
This kind of questions should be asked periodically. Let’s not fall into the management trap. Let’s not end up being increasingly efficient with something that, at the end of the day, we shouldn’t be doing.
Let’s ask again.
*Are you being held accountable for the things you should be doing in your post or simply by the things you’re doing, for a few of them or, even worse, for things you are not doing and neither related to?*
Or in a more positive (and extrinsic) fashion:
*Are you being rewarded coherently with the purpose of your post?*
Why is that question important? Well, first there must be a clear purpose to our job, although probably one that will change quite often, but then all the metrics should match. And when I’m talking about metrics I’m not only thinking of “hard” financial metrics, but also the soft, and often much more important ones, from customer satisfaction to employee turnover rates, and the cause of these rates.
But these reflections wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t close the circle.
*Do this purpose match the strategy of the company? Is the accountability matching that purpose and strategy?*
Because if we could answer this question, we would be effectively knowing, and working for and along the strategy of the company. The strategy wouldn’t be tongue-in-cheek or lip service. It would be a common tool, a shared vision, something that would help the whole company move in phase and amplify its efforts. It would be part of a glue that would tie the parts tighter to the whole.
Add comment 30 November, 2007
The wide gap between theory and practice in human resource management
I’m not really sure if I am becoming cynical, but the more that I study about HRM the more I come to realise that there’s a huge difference between what companies say they do and what they actually do. It’s something like corporate social responsibility: many talk about it, but, in the end, they all worry about their shareholders.
Sometimes it’s the impact of change, the difficulty to see what is coming in turbulent times. Strategy focus on change, and that sometimes means more changing people than helping them overcome and adapt to change. Sometimes the strategical part of HRM just loses its meaning and it all becomes too tactical. Or at least tactical enough for the HR department to become “personnel” again.
And it’s not only strategy that changes in organisations. Strategy could focus on the external situation while taking into account internal resources. But there’s more that might change. Inside the companies, different policies overlap each other and priorities shift continuously. HR should adapt itself to the resulting change. But, how can they adapt when the situation simply doesn’t settle up?
Could it be that HR is the last step of the chain? Then it would be the one that moves faster, the one that takes more to settle depending on what happens to the rest of the company. That way, is it really possible for it to establish long term HR policies? Is it possible to assure temporal consistency in a set of practices that heavily rely on credibility?
Another approach is the practical approach. Many people deeply dismiss the possibility that HR is actually useful. They see it as something that is there, more a nuisance than a tool. And maybe there’s a reason for that.
For one part, there’s a lack of evidence of the connections between HR and productivity. There’s a real problem to be able to translate “soft issues” into “hard issues”. Apparently the scientific method doesn’t apply here, and measuring is difficult.
I said apparently because I do believe HR policies make a difference. At least in most of the possible strategies, if not all. But, don’t we all focus into things easy to measure?
We tend to define the utility of a given parameter given its ability to be measured. That way our occidental minds can sail into the sea of safety. But there’s a point where this sea ends, where unknown monsters and mighty mists arise. There lay the unmeasurable variables, the soft issues. What if they happen to be the relevant ones?
When I read that some company measures and optimises the dosage for the HR policies given the point where marginal returns start to decrease and decides to stop there I wonder if they really believe what they are saying, if they have really made an innovative system to probe into their employees’ minds, or, as I began with, if I’m simply becoming cynical.
2 comments 24 November, 2007
Apple’s scarcity rent (MacOS X in your PC: the hackintosh is born)
I think there’s little discussion that Apple’s operating systems are much more usable and friendly to the user than the ones created by Microsoft. Given the fact that the first used to precede the latter that could mean also a lack of observation skills by Microsoft, but that’s not the point. The point is that denotes a different strategic positioning for each company:
- Apple is focused towards customers. No redundant or extra menus, just the basic essential needs. utmost usability. But the trade-off also comes to one price: lack of support to several devices or open platforms. To ensure a controlled experience, controlling the hardware becomes necessary.
- Microsoft is focused towards providers. They define an open system and they build hundreds of thousands of drivers to be able to include each and every hardware even made. They are backwards compatible, ensuring the incorporation of legacy systems. The downside: too much variety hampers your ability to control the user’s experience.
The focus to providers, to the whole industry, means building a cluster of companies around that are able to freely introduce their products to an interoperable market. That’s quite interesting, isn’t it? Companies are able to build their own standards, to compete, and Microsoft simply supports them.It seems that a user should choose between a system tailored for her or a system thought for interoperability. Tough choice, huh?
Simplified like that one would say “let’s choose a system designed solely for the users”. But that’s not quite true. Both systems have users in mind, only a divergent focus. But a focus towards the industry means being able to access a pool of competing hardware. And that means lower prices… ain’t that nice for the user? Maybe the focus wasn’t the user, but she is directly benefited of having an interoperable and open hardware industry.That’s why the nerds simply won.But history makes strange turns. And Apple has changed a lot through the times. Two important swerves:
- Intel was PC, Motorola was Mac. Intel was winning in price and product. Mac switched.
- PC was MSDOS, and always backward compatible. Mac wasn’t, and in a bold move decided to switch to UNIX. Now Mac is more stable.
And the result is that Mac is standardised in its kernel and equipment, dwelling in the well of PC-compatible hardware and leaving behind its own proprietary hardware.There’s no real hardware difference between a PC and a Mac any more. Only slight differences that make them slightly different. That’s all. And, on top of it, a very different OS working in (almost) the same setup.And then Apple made another bold move. Decided to go open source. I could write a lot about open source, but the main point of it is releasing the sources so that developers can make better working programs and the quality of the applications and the user experience can be enhanced.And some hackers just did it. Netkas, ToH, BrazilMac and many more rebuilt the system kernel and adapted a few drivers so Mac OS would work in a standard (and advanced enough) PC setup. And voilà. MacOSX was born. Hackintoshes were born.
take a good look, this picture is for real, MacOS in my PCIt works, I promise. I have both systems installed (for educative purposes of course) and MacOS X simply rocks. It makes the most of your hardware. Far more stable, far faster, far more usable.MacOS X version 10.5, also called Leopard, was hackintoshed just one week after its launch. So, if it can be done, why aren’t they?Why keep making software for a minority instead of addressing a big market share? Apple wants to keep selling its hardware… that’s a reason enough. Apple wants to segment its public, that’s another reason too. Is Apple learning from hackintoshers or would prefer them silenced?Let’s say it all loud. PC and Macs are no longer different. Many of us, PC users, could be able to choose between two operating systems tomorrow. Microsoft’s monopoly could be broken, and Dell could be providing alternative hardware to Mac users tomorrow, breaking Apple’s monopoly too. Two monopolies that do their best to help each other, regardless of appearances.Why must we be constricted to only one OS? Why should the OS determine who you buy your hardware from? There’s no objective reason for those market imperfections that are simply hampering consumers.Unless Apple decides to fire first…
5 comments 21 November, 2007
Being too busy (when some things are not working as they should)
I know it sounds like an excuse, but I’ve been too busy lately. Work has drained my energy to exhaustion, even disturbing my usual studying pace. But, what’s funny, it’s not work in itself but dysfunctions at work.
I think I already told you we had a new group of engineers assisting us. They are 20 people (and they will be 25 so if you want to send your curricula you still have time).
But then the problem with management arose. They are not aligned with our objectives. Mainly because their managers simply spend too few of their time and energy here, and there are a series of symptoms of that dysfunction. Let’s see some of them.
Continuous shifts of priorities. They are moved as a whole towards any priority that simply arises. That is not practical at all because they simply loose focus.
A possible solution: plan, plan and plan. Don’t lose the big picture. Don’t swerve. Keep an straight direction and people will be able to follow.
Diluted responsibility. Mid-level managers are not enforced but overrun by the team’s director. That way they simply abhor of their due responsibility and blame it all on the manager, at least subconsciously. In the end they prefer not to decide anything and simply demoralise.
A possible solution: enforce them. If someone holds responsibility for something, it’s for real. His boss shouldn’t come and change it all but listen to him, and maybe learn from him. He should, if he can, defend his position in the organisation.
Visible internal cracks. I have been in several meetings where documents have been presented that didn’t satisfy some of them. There was discussion amongst them about things that should have been already deemed.
A necessary solutions: grow consensus before presenting anything to the customer (that’s us). Their differences need to be cleared beforehand. It’s very important to show unity to the customer, not indecision or doubt. And that only means giving it some extra thought.
Lack of dedication. This symptom relates to the previous ones. To offer a good product, specially in consulting, you need to spend a lot of hours thinking and rethinking documents and ideas. That’s what is expected from you. It’s not acceptable to be in front of the customer and reopen subjects that have already been closed or read your notes on a paper towel from a restaurant.
A possible solution: effectively dedicate the people to the project, not try to have them in several projects at the same time with the result that they cannot focus on any of them. People need to focus to be effective.
Lack of knowledge of the customer. Not knowing how we are, what we want and how we work. That means that sometimes we don’t understand each other or they simply propose alternatives that have already been discarded. In a project that is quickly reaching its critical phase that may lead to confusion and trouble.
A necessary solution: you must know who are you working for, how they work, how they share responsibilities and not focus uniquely on the front man or the director who awarded the contract. The director always has people that he trusts to do things and with responsibilities (us) and that’s the ones you’re really working for (the ones that need the resources and the ones that will report about completion and effectiveness of tasks).
The final result is that, when we don’t understand each other, the problems escalate and derive into confrontations that, in time, become harsher and harder. Anger appears and people start not to listen to each other. And the rest of the team simply don’t know what to do. They feel confused, and lost.
I could go on adding more basic ideas, and make this entry long and boring. But my final message is that you’d be surprised on how many companies simply forget these basic rules.
Rules that should be understood by any manager providing consulting services to a client.
The final consequence of not following them is that people suffer. The team is not enabled but alienated. People don’t identify with and push for for the project but instead lose initiative and retrace to defensive and reactive positions. You end up burning up your team. People are so valuable yet so sensible to uncertainty. Even consultants.
3 comments 19 November, 2007
