Generation X - Harvard Business

Ok, I admit it - I like "10's lists". I also like articles that delve into the impact of culture on the work place. Tammy Erickson's article "10 Reasons Gen X'ers Are Unhappy at Work" in Harvard Business added to my understanding of generational differences and the impact of those differences on the work place.

As a "boomer" and son of a life long GE employee I came into my career with no other expectation than a job in corporate America. Since then I've moved around but remained attached to the idea of corporate job or close ties (consulting) to Corporate America. The article made me think through what many of my younger colleagues have experienced. It also made me think about perceptions - specifically what my own children think about the careers that lie ahead of them in light of what they have seen of my career and the careers of their friends parents. Note: I am the father of a high school freshman and a 6th grader.

Below are Ms. Erickson's 10 Reasons - but please read the full article because each reason has much more to it than the headings supplied below.

1. X’ers corporate careers got off to a slow start;

2. When you were teens, X’ers witnessed adults in your lives being laid off from large corporations;

3. Most corporate career paths “narrow” at the top;

4. Just your luck – the economy was slow when you entered the workforce;

5. And then there are those pesky Gen Y’s;

6. X’ers are, in fact, surrounded by a love fest – and not feeling the love;

7. X’ers are the most conservative cohort in today’s workforce;

8. Many X’ers’ are guarding a closely held secret;

9. Boomer colleagues are annoying;

10. Finally, your own parenting pressures are at a peak.

There are two items that resonated - #2 and #4. Many Gen X'ers would have been entering the workforce during the "corporate re engineering" efforts of the 1980's and the downsizing / economic downdraft of the late 1990's and early 2000's. They watched as parents, relatives and friends were laid off. I did not experience anything like that in my teenage years or during the middle years of my career. But the economy was very slow in the late 1970's when I entered the workforce and I did experience, first hand, tech bust in 2002 while on the verge of moving into the VP / C-level ranks. So I can relate.

My own children have watched as I have moved between jobs and while I have never really struggled financially, because I was able to move into consulting, those changes must have had an impact (note to self: discuss careers with children)..

Leaderhip Styles

I was recently asked about my leadership style. My immediate response was that I am "collaborative" (participative). As I have considered that response I realize that while I am generally collaborative my style does naturally shift with the situation.


I can, at times, be autocratic. That happens in situations where something has to get done in a very specific way on a short time frame. I can be free rein (delegative) in situations where "the group" knows what they have to do and doesn't require intervention.


I then started looking for articles on leadership style and found (as you might expect) quite a few opinions on the subject. Here are several.


Wikipedia has included 12 leadership styles in the entry on the subject. Many of these strike me as being subsets of the more basic leadership styles that I've encountered. But the overview provided in the article is good description of styles and situations.


The diagram above apparently originated in a the 1973 US Army Handbook - I found it in on the nwlink site (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html). In his article Mr. Clark notes that good leaders use all three styles. I've included the list below - Note: I encourage you to read the entire article because there is substantially more information, it is quite well thought out and well written.

From Mr. Clark's article "A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include:

• Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee.


• Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.


• Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything! The employee needs to take ownership of her job. Also, the situation might call for you to be at other places, doing other things.


• Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegative). "
  

CIO Magazine has several interesting articles on style. "The Best Leadership Style" comes at the question from the point of view of the company's perspective on I.T. Specifically, is I.T. "Strategic" or a "Factory". The perspective was interesting - noting that it's much harder to lead I.T. in a company where the function is viewed as a factory, cost center, etc. The leader in this type of organization must continuously prove the value of I.T. An I.T. leader in a "factory" will require a different style than one where I.T. is viewed strategically.

Earlier in the article author discussed styles required when I.T. is functioning well vs when it is not. In cases where I.T. is functioning well - soft skills, a more participative/collaborative approach and a more strategic view may work well. When I.T. is not functioning well - those approaches won't work.

My take - we all have a leadership style and a strength - we must recognize that style. Since we must use several styles depending on the organization and the situation we have to develop other styles and approaches to meet those situations. As leaders that is the key - recognizing strengths and weakness in ourselves, our staffs and our organizations.

First things First - get your services right

I've been reading quite a bit over the past several weeks - Gary Hamel's book "The Future of Management", the Wall Street Journal, lot of material on the Internet - from newspapers to blogs to various web sites. One thing that I've noticed regarding I.T. and Leadership in general - there is very little said about where to start.

So on the subject of where to start in a new Information Technology leadership position - start with an evaluation of what's working and what is not. In virtually every business that I've been involved with as a consultant or employee - there are basic issues that are creating problems for I.T. and the business. Most of the time they are not the sexy new stuff - they are basic issues that effect reliability, availability and usability.

So my advice - take 30 days to evaluate. Talk to your peers, talk to your end-users, talk to senior leaders. Don't make changes right away - unless something is really broken. Do you have meaningful stats that can tell you how your services are working? Do you have negative feedback on services? Do you have positive feedback?

Each of the situations that I've been in has had at least a couple of areas where IT was not performing to the user community's (or Senior Management's) expectations. A couple of these areas were serious concerns - instability in the infrastructure supporting key services and lack of progress on reports that had been promised.

Resolve these issues quickly earns credibility for IT (and you) but the process isn't necessarily easy. Issues with instability are typically a combination of straight forward solutions (power, network and server redundancy) along with less easily corrected problems (O/S, Database and application configuration). But focusing on these allows the organization to move to work that is more valuable to the business and more rewarding for I.T. staff members. Reducing after hours calls on instability issues also goes a long way to improving moral.

Looking carefully at the organization that you are coming into - while you still have an "outsiders" perspective is also useful. You may see changes that could improve the functioning of your group(s) and increase morale. Changes that you would not necessarily see after being in the organization for a longer period of time. If that view does point to significant changes in personnel - it is good to start planning those early so that they can be executed early allowing you and the organization past those changes quickly and with less disruption than if you wait.

Younger Workers and Technology

Jarina D'Auria's article in CIO Magazine's -"Younger Workers More Likely to Break Corporate Rules for Web Apps" provides a great overview of one of the challenges facing both Senior I.T. Leadership and Organizational Leadership. This generation (born after 1980) is very technologically savvy. They use technology in ways that no previous generation has including the Web Apps that are discussed in the article in addition to more basic technology including cell phones and PDA's. They expect more from technology and they don't expect their company's to get in the way.

Many of us try to accomodate reasonable employee requirements - web use is permitted provided that the work gets done. Security, where I.T. is reasonably sophisticated can handle most of the issues created by Web 2.0 applications and other technologies. Standards may be impacted but much of the technology in use seems less likely to impact corporate networks than earlier versions of the same.

But what is the benefit? Employee engagement, innovation, retention?

While we need to retain an "appropriate" level of discipline - that level has changed during my tenure in I.T. - correctly I believe. Before the 1980's there seemed to me to be very little blending of our personal and work lives. We went to work, we went to lunch, didn't spend much time on personal business during the day and went home when the day was done.

Now my younger employees are engaged in their whole lives through the whole day. Some of my customers are easier to reach via text messages than email or telephone and respond to messages regardless of time. I can find out about potential employees via LinkedIn, Facebook or YouTube. My kids will text me before calling.

What this means for I.T. is an orientation that is very different from the baby boomers. One that may be hard to understand but offers opportunities for improvements in the services that we develop within I.T. along with the products and services that we offer to our customers. Another form of diversity that recognizes the talents of a younger generation and provides an opportunity to demonstrate value.

This change is going to require management innovation that has certainly not been common. Gary Hamel points out in "The Future of Management" that there has been very little management innovation in the past 20-30 years. Management innovation is going to be required to engage GenX "millennials" and to gain the 4-6 hours of productivity that is available according to the Symantec study referenced in the article.

Disruptive Technologies - Change

Apple's iTunes Store has surpassed Wal*Mart as the #1 source of music. The shift to digital (music, movies and books) is accelerating. Digital sources of information are growing and our use is accelerating.

What does this mean for I.T. in our support for business. More content, more movement of data, more need for good taxonomy and meta data - more bandwidth.. We already see employees and customers looking for digital information sources. In addition to our standard fare of html and pdf files they are starting to expect podcasts, webcasts and videos (do you have something on You Tube yet)?

What does this mean from the standpoint of our organizations? What does this mean from the standpoint of the application set and infrastructure that we purchase and support? It's probably good news for certain suppliers - storage supplier(s) that we have arrangements with, that have good tools and the capability to scale. Software suppliers, database suppliers that can make the management of that data more efficient.

Organizationally, what are we doing to optimize our ability to handle the growth in storage requirements, changes in tool sets, ability to manage new forms of data? Dedicated storage staff, projects to meet these new business requirements, staff targeted at new areas of growth? and doing it all within static or shrinking budgets?

This is an opportunity to give key staff members a chance at something new. It's, perhaps, an opportunity to reorganize and move non-performing members of our organizations out of the business. It's an opportunity to change our staff composition to meet business requirements.

Housing / Financial Crisis - Impact on hiring

Back to the NY Times. An article in today's paper "Unsold Homes Tie Down Would-Be Transplants" by Louis Uchitelle tells an interesting story about the effect on our organizations ability to hire qualified staff. Specifically, to hire people who have to sell their homes to relocate. A common situation for many of us who have changed jobs in the past.

Hiring often involves someone who must sell house a house and move to a job. What if that house can't be sold or can't be sold without a substantial financial loss? It's possible that your perspective hire might not take the job. Or he/she might take the job and take a financial hit that has a substantial negative impact. It's also possible that you might never interview him or her because of the requirement to sell a house.

It is also possible that you and your company might find a different solution. Commuting / telecommuting. I'm a fan of flexibility having worked for several companies where it was the norm to manage telecommuting staff along with employees housed in other locations including some that were far from home.

For me relocation pain hits close to home (no pun intended). I've had a senior I.T. position where I planned to relocate ultimately but could not. The decision was, in part, due to the real estate market and partially due to schools. No blame here - the culture in that company held that all senior staff live locally. I respect the decision because I respect that team. But the discussions on flexibility were particulary painful.

Change for the good? From my family standpoint no move, no new schools, no change - so maybe yes. From a corporate standpoint - we found my successor - who lived in that area - so little pain other than that imposed by the transition. Either way we've both moved on.

The issue posed in Mr. Uchitelle's article is that the ability of the workforce to relocate is reduced. Will this situation force changes in the way we acquire and retain talent? Will those changes be long lasting?

Business Week - 10 Rules for Getting Ahead

I was reading Business Week over the weekend and came across a very interesting article / slide show entitled "10 rules on getting ahead". The article is a great summary of the things that we all need to do to get ahead in life. It applies to life in corporate America, a job search and to a limited degree to getting what we all want out of our personal lives (the things that we do for fun beyond work).

There are several key messages. First, it's about your network - build it, use it, don't abuse it. Second, it's about knowing where you are going and being able to articulate your vision. Third, be flexible. Interestingly, it is also has a page on your on-line presence - a LinkedIn profile - a Blog - Podcasts and even Twitter...

Another important idea is that we must sell ourselves - all of the time. Everyone (who wants to get ahead) should all have an "elevator" speech" (probably more than one). A 30 second spiel on ourselves, what we want in a job, a consulting contract, a big project, etc. We must be able to articulate what we want in life.

In my earlier post "Personal Change" I outlined my thoughts (to the degree that one can in a blog post) on networking. But I liked what I saw in the BW article and will be putting those suggestings into action. I'm even going to check out twitter... ;-)

Life After (or During) a Merger

The NY Times isn't the only publication that I read - though it is starting to look that way. Here's another story that has implications for I.T. Leadership and the companies that we work for.

Kelly Holland's article from last June 23rd's New York Times - "Life After a Merger: Learning on Both Sides". Has one major theme - keeping good people and two actions that are required to do so - planning and communicating.

Holland: "Managers trying to integrate newly acquired companies and divisions have their work cut out for them. Many current deals are about growth opportunities, which makes keeping key employees especially important."

Further: "So what, exactly, is the best way to persuade members of the new corporate family to stay? The sensible approach is the simplest: plan ahead, communicate often and treat everyone involved in the deal with respect. Say clearly and early when any cuts will occur, and help people feel that they are a part of the combined company’s culture."

This is good advise for every organization in almost any situation but particularly important when merging or significantly changing organizations. Plan for what you want to accomplish and communicate. Plan to keep the key individuals that you need to meet your goals and actively communicate.

The article quotes - Timothy J. Galpin, a senior fellow at Katzenbach Partners and author of “The Complete Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions," - "A year after a deal closes, Mr. Galpin says, managers would be doing well to have retained 80 percent of the employees they wanted to keep."

If 80% is the best we can do - then the worst could be devastating.

Vacations - Stress Reduction

I recently found the Dilbert Blog!

Given my discussion (random rants) on stress and Scott Adams tech background (he knows of what he speaks and speaks well) I found today's post particularly appropriate. Scott Adams takes a vacation..

Although Scott's thoughts were about the "bad of vacation planning" and the "good of actually being on one" his underlying theme seemed to be "vacation is important". It is especially important in I.T. where people ofter put in long or unusual hours. It's important to have the good memories. The stress reduction inherent in taking time off is critical to individual and organizational well being.

As leaders we need to focus the resources (people and time) on the issues and projects that are important to the business. Making sure that those people are at maximum efficiency is equally important as is managing time within our organizations.

Random rant!

Work Place Stress

Americans are stressed - and work is a big factor. In an article by Kelly Holland in the March 23rd edition of the New York Times entitled "The Tension Builds (It’s Almost Monday)" it is noted that in "Poll results released last October by the American Psychological Association", "one-third of Americans are living with extreme stress, and that the most commonly cited source of stress — mentioned by 74 percent of respondents — was work. That was up from 59 percent the previous year."

In addition "More than half the respondents to the survey said they had left a job or considered doing so because of stress, and 55 percent said that stress made them less productive at work." and "some 48 percent of the employers in the survey said stress created by long hours and limited resources was affecting business performance, but only 5 percent said they were taking strong action to address those areas.

What does this say about leadership? We are knowingly allowing stress to impact our organizations - through loss of productivity and loss of people but are not taking "strong action" to fix the problem! I suspect that many companies are taking NO action.

Several other blogs have picked up on the article and the results. In Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Blog posting "Sunday Afternoons" Mr. Bock notes "If you want to head off the "chronic sadness of late Sunday afternoon," the best way to do that is to give people a great working environment to go to on Monday morning. And the key to that is great supervisors. Select them. Train them. Support them." That's each of us - anyone who is called "the boss" - company leadership.

There are two good examples of companies that have done something about stress - GlaxoSmithKline and PWC. The PWC example I find particularly relevant to I.T. and Technology Organizations. PWC focused on eliminating the interruptions on weekends. I.T. Organizations work weekends - either because of changes that have to be implemented during off hours or project deadlines that won't be met without extra hours or outages. But that doesn't mean that we should expect other work to be accomplished during those times. Giving people the downtime that they deserve, that they need, improves our organization's efficiency, decreases turnover, increases satisfaction.

Finally, in Spherion's blog post "Life in the Cubicle - Burning the Midnight Oil" (from which the graphic in this post was swiped THANK YOU Spherion)they note that "nearly one third of U.S. workers spend between 41 and 50 hours a week at the office, and another 12% clock 50 hours or more weekly.". While we all know that it is often necessary in I.T. to work long hours - it should not constant and leadership has to make sure that we do what is necessary to reduce the requirement for long hours with no break. We also have to make sure that long hours at work are rewarded - not considered normal and expected. A bit of appreciation.

My thanks to the New York Times - many great articles that make me think about leadership, and technology.