Caddickisms

The majority of senior executives and managers are stressed at work. Eighty percent of senior executives and managers are stressed at work, with a third saying they are highly stressed, based on a nationwide survey by NFI Research.

That’s a lot of stressed people. And those people being stressed means that the people who work for them are most likely stressed as well. That’s a whole bunch more people.

The top three sources of stress at work are deadlines (52%), interruptions (42%) and conflicting responsibilities (37%). “This is not a healthy work situation with this constant pressure on people all the time,” said Chuck Martin, CEO of NFI Research.

Okay, if those are the top three, why aren’t they ever addressed, except to increase them?

The more stressed a person is, the less effective they generally become. So we’ve got a whole lot of less-than-top-performing executives and managers running around passing their stress down to the levels below them (essentially leading people to become more stressed). The feedback from those people then goes back up to the managers, and the inevitable unrest causes them even more stress.

Deadlines are the top stressor. In most cases, executives and managers are the ones setting the deadlines to begin with. That means this one is completely within their control. So why don’t they do a better job of controlling this stressor? It’d be easy to say it’s because they are stupid, but I don’t think that’s really the case. I think these are intelligent people, but they don’t take the time to plan ahead. They see a trend or a need, and say “I need that now!” and then tell those below them to get it done, without really considering the effort it takes to get it done right.

Take, for instance, every software project I’ve been associated with (not, I hasten to add, as a leader). An executive has looked at the competition and realized that somebody does something better than we do, so we better get that capability quickly. Fine… sounds like a reasonable plan. He tells the manager below him to get that done in X timeframe. The manager, not really knowing the specifics of how to pull that off, but wanting to impress the boss, says “Sure. We can do it for $XXXX.00.” The executive says “Great! So we have the talent to do it. But do it for $XXX.00.” (Because it’s an executive’s job, apparently, to provide a challenge, and lower costs.) The manager says, “okay but we need to expand the timeframe to X+1.” The executive says “Deal. Git ‘er dun.”

Right there: that’s where it all falls apart. See, with that budget there is no way they can get it done in X+1. They need at least X+3. But the manager thinks they can cut a corner here or there and bring it in maybe a little late, but not too badly. Plus, he’s not thinking of all the pieces that need to go into the project. He’s an IT manager, so he’s thinking:

• write the code,
• test it,
• fix the bugs,
• deploy it.

But he’s not figuring in:

• run focus groups,
• increase the scope,
• argue about the color of the interface,
• spell check the labels,
• provide development, testing, and training environments,
• write the training and documentation,
• deliver the training,
• produce the graphics,
• conform to marketing’s visual standards,
• rewrite entire modules because we forgot to ask users how it should work,
• revise the training and documentation,
• etc. . .

So from the initial agreement the software is doomed to be slipshod and 4 months late.

Now meanwhile, the executives are promising the public, or worse, the shareholders, that this will be in place at X+1. So now they’re stressed, because it looks like they’re incompetent when it doesn’t come out on time, and the manager is stressed because they could be fired for making the executive look stupid.

All this could be avoided if project management processes were actually followed and all relevant stakeholders were included in the estimating process. (I can’t speak for other departments, but I know the training timeline is ignored until the last minute more often than not.) I’ve also seen that most software projects are not nearly as well architected in the planning stages as they should be — many times I’ve heard project managers say, “We’ll figure that out later” only to be slammed with stress when they discover that that seemingly innocuous function actually impacts three distinct systems — so what should be a small effort when planned correctly turns into a major coordination of last-minute effort and rushed work.

Related posts

• Video: Photosynth demo - awakening to the true power of the web (0)
• SkillSoft buys NETg (1)
• Limits of Responsibility - ASTD’s Big Question for March (0)
• Interviewing for creativity (1)
• Working in the buff (0)

Creating Passionate Users

Risk aversion can take a good idea and make it useless. And risk aversion is rampant in corporations. That’s one of the points in Kathy’s post. It’s a long post, and it’s late, so I’m not going to go much into it, but here’s a quote:

. . . many of the “leaf nodes” (what Microsoft and Sun and others refer to as “individual contributors”) tend to be innovative and brave, but many of the “branches” (i.e. layers of management) can’t stomach the risks. In their (admirable) desire to be strong and stable, the “branches” put safety above all else.

What kind of safety? Sometimes managers are putting the best interests of the company first. That’s great–they’re often more experienced and have a better grasp of the bigger context. But (and it’s a really big but) sometimes they’re just worried about their own damn job. In other words, the leaf node/individual contributors often think about the effect of their work on users, while the mid-level managers often think about the effect of their work on their job. And whose fault is that? All those layers of bosses. Even one risk-averse boss in the chain-of-command can do major damage to innovation, spirt, motivation, etc.

The major point in her post, though, is what can be done to combat risk aversion killing your spirit. Her list:

• Regularly review the assumptions behind all your decisions.
• Practice letting go
• Push the boundaries strategically, one-by-one
• Use blogs to build support within the company
• If all else fails and the culture of risk-aversion is stealing your soul, consider going into “short-timer” mode.
• Keep reminding yourself that life is short!

Related posts

• Working in the buff (0)
• Where are the humans? (0)
• Video: Photosynth demo - awakening to the true power of the web (0)
• Stress: Executives and managers feeling the pressure (0)
• SkillSoft buys NETg (1)

Survey: Unethical Corporate Behavior Stems From Unrealistic Objectives and Deadlines

First of all, the fact that this even warranted study is a heck of a condemnation of the corporate world. That, in itself, bothers me.

On a grander scale, this is also a condemnation (or perhaps a revelation) of our human natures: many of us will cheat to get things done, given the opportunity and a bit of motive (which could be as simple as saving a bit of time or inconvenience). It’s sad, but true.

Anyway… it’s interesting to note that of all the ways corporations combat this behavior, the method that ties directly to the #1 cause is missing: have realistic objectives and deadlines.

I wonder if it ever even crossed their minds.

Related posts

• Working in the buff (0)
• Where are the humans? (0)
• Video: Photosynth demo - awakening to the true power of the web (0)
• Stress: Executives and managers feeling the pressure (0)
• SkillSoft buys NETg (1)