Ask the Geezers

Attrition

Question: One of my staff told me that he's being aggressively recruited by a competing company. The recruiting is very targeted, and it is apparent that the caller had internal information about the teams, structure, functionality and even ratings. How can I deal with it? Is there something I can do to stop it?


Amiram Hayardeny: It happens sometimes, that people who left the company are being put in hiring positions in different companies. Naturally, they will try to use their knowledge of the old place to get skillful, talented, hard working staff to work with them or for them in the new place. Indeed, a clause in the contract warns against this behavior. Up to one year, depending on the situation, the departing person is not allowed to actively recruit from his or her old team. However, very little can be done to really prevent it. The person can make lists of targeted staff and hand it over to HR, he can give it away to a friend or a colleague. What can be done is completely internal, and mostly up to the junior managers. It's called a retention plan.

For many, retention means something monetary, something tangible, hard cash or stock. Indeed, making sure the staff are reasonably happy from a financial viewpoint is important. But there are many other ways to ensure that staff are happy and satisfied in their jobs. You must remember that people have choices. Your objective is to make sure that your staff chooses you. Every single day.

As a manager, it's your job to make sure that the people reporting to you work in a pleasant environment, that the job they have to perform is interesting, challenging and not tedious, that their contribution is significant and recognized. You must look in the mirror and ask yourself "when people leave the company, is there any chance that they are leaving on my account?".

In short, you have to make sure that your staff is satisfied. Job satisfaction is comprised of many elements, it is imperative to address ALL elements, on a timely basis. It is highly recommended to not wait for times when staff give notice to evaluate your staff's level of satisfaction. In fact, it's really important to do it on a regular basis. You can use one one one meetings, 360 surveys, and other tools provided by HR. Remember, when people leave companies, it's most likely that they leave their manager...

Read the this article (http://www.enotes.com/business-finance-encyclopedia/job-satisfaction) and you shall find the different elements of job satisfaction. It's important to address them all. Regularly.

Mike Hayden:

Sin-Yaw Wang:

Yes, try your very hardest to be a good manager.  Be creative in looking at processes to improve; be encouraging for interesting ideas to cultivate; be brave to do the right things, even if they are not popular; be good at project management so that the deliveries are at their best.  Good engineers need good manager to shine and they will stay with you.

Question: A staff member gave a 30 day notice.  She said that she was offered over 20% raise over what she makes with us, or  a promotion, more responsibility, and more challenging work.   Is there a way to convince her to stay?

Amiram Hayardeny: You must ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do you want this person to stay on board? Sometimes when a person wants to leave it isn't such a bad thing. Go back to her performance reviews, analyze her contribution, relationships with peers and managers, and don't be afraid to say: "yes, it will take time to hire and replace her, but truthfully, her departure may become an opportunity.
2. However, if you are happy with her performance and contribution, you have to verify the following: is she correctly leveled, correctly paid? Is she frustrated with her peers? managers? Try to isolate the reason why she wants to leave and see if you can mend the situation. For example, if you realize that she was skipped for a promotion or for a raise, try and fix it. Even in retrospect. Keep in mind, if she is underpaid, or mis-leveled, then you will not be "giving in to pressure", but actually correcting an error.
3. Is it within your means to mend the situation? What are the consequences with regards to other staff?
4. Does she understand the forces of the marketplace? A person is usually paid his or her market worth. Higher pay most likely means that she will get to cut a corner, but eventually, the new employer will equate her pay with her market worth. So she should be aware that this raise is temporary and not permanent.
5. Make sure she understands her growth opportunities, challenges, peer relationships etc.
   
6. If after all she decides to leave, it's always best to part as friends. The world is small, and burning bridges never helped...

Mike Hayden:  

Sin-Yaw Wang: 

The game is almost over when the person resigns.  Wish her the bests stay in touch.  At the same time, be the the best manager as you can (see above).  The rest of your staff will grow, hopefully faster than the departed employees, and find it difficult to trade a short-term gain with long-term prosperity.

By the way, if they cannot grow faster, then you will lose the rest of your staff eventually.

Posted at 08:28AM Nov 08, 2007 by Amiram Hayardeny in General  |  Comments[0]

An Overwhelmed Manager

Question It seems that there are issues all the time, and if I choose to deal with them all I will have no time and exhaustion will get the best of me. What do I do?

Mike One large difference between being an individual contributor and being a manager is that a manager's job is driven more by time and interruption. As a manager, I have spent a career with unfinished work. Senior management jobs usually have a lot more to do with the calendar than with project milestones. And the issues that come unexpectedly are often the most important at any moment.

The key is to delegate as much as you logically can, and then focus on the things that you *must* do. If you try to do everything yourself, you are doomed to exhaustion, failure or both.

Sin-Yaw It is a bit surprising to see this question. A person not knowing the concept of prioritization should not become a manager to begin with.

How to prioritize, on the other hand, is a question that frequently eludes even the most experienced managers. I offer you an algorithm that works for me:
1. Carve out time for family and personal life first. In the long run, they are the real engine for your success. Sacrificing them is suicidal, only slowly.
2. Align with your boss. Do not ask him/her to prioritize for you. Ask for his/her priority. Ask for their interpretations too.
3. Balance urgency and importance. Have a 2-by-2 matrix of high/low urgency/importance. Put things into the matrix. You won't believe the clarity you'll get by this process. While you are there, check the timing of each item.
4. March toward personal goals. Is this good for yourself? Do you know where you're going to?

Amiram This isn't a simple question. And in my mind, this is where management becomes more art and less science. Intuition is not scientific. Intuition is something that you have (or don't) and that develops over the course of your career and the collection of your experience, successes and failures.

To make it more complicated, let me use an analogy from wartime. Wars are not won by winning 100% of the battles. Wars are won by winning the important few battles. The question is, how do I know? And the answer is simple: you don't. Over the years, and as you gain experience, you develop a sense for the battles you want to win, the battles you don't mind losing, and the battles you simply don't show up to. Certainly, if you choose to fight all battles, you will lose the war. So, to answer your question: sift through the issues, find the ones that are really important to you, and take them as far as you possibly can. Don't hesitate. Don't look back. You would realize soon, that subset of battles you need to win in order to win the war, is much smaller than you imagine.

Posted at 10:29AM Jul 13, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[1]

Can I Be Both a Friend And Manager?

Question: As a manager, I want to be liked and appreciated. I want to be my staff's friend. But I also must have their respect. Can I have both friendship and authority at the same time? If yes, how do I do that?

Mike: If we refer back to the things that we talked about around the implied contract between the manager & employees, authority is something that someone else confers on you or delegates to you. If you want both friendship and authority, the employee who you want to be friends with had better understand and buy in to that implied contract very well.

Genuine friends support each other in different ways. I have very good friends who have been my employees. I have also had friends with whom I agreed we shouldn't be in a manager/employee relationship at any time. Having both friendship and a healthy manager/employee relationship is a thing that can be done, but you have to avoid letting friendship stand in the way of getting the job done. For example, if you need to talk to your friend about something he doesn't like to hear, ask yourself whether you can have a conversation because you are friends or your friendship keeps you from having the conversation. If the fact that you are friends makes it harder for the group and the person and you to do the job, that could be a problem. And for you as a manager, the most important thing is getting the job done well.

I have seen this concept in other contexts as well. For example, if a friend wants to borrow money from me, I know he won't ask unless he absolutely needs it and I will give it to him. If the person doesn't pay back or uses my money to do things that I don't support, I will conclude that the friendship is only worth as much as the money he borrows.

Be reminded that another side effect of this is due to a phenomenon that people tend to infer things from what they see. People could make undue association between friendship and certain business decisions. So always try to make sure business decisions are only based on business factors. Conflicts of interest must be avoided.

Finally, you need to think about whether you are confusing pure social relationship with the term friendship. A social relationship may look to some people like a special friendship, but it isn't. A casual, social relationship is healthy in a work group and makes people more at ease working together.

Sin-Yaw Many of my personal friends worked for me before and I think a few of my bosses are my personal friends too. We like each other and keep in touch long after our career paths parted.

But they are exceptions, rather than the norm. The best relationship with those who work for you is probably "close but not personal." A manager will have to make the right decisions for the company, even if they are against the wishes of the employees. A manager must choose the best for the entire group, sometimes short-changing a few individuals. Maintaining a little distance gives you the objectivity to reach optimal decisions.

You don't have a choice in this matter. A manager who cannot make the right decision loses both the friendship and the respect from his/her staff.

Amiram Many managers may tell you not to befriend your staff. Let me state this clearly: don't listen to them. You can be good friends with your staff, as long as you maintain certain guidelines, and practice good judgment. In general, the kind of friendship you can develop is the kind which will allow you to maintain respect and authority. You can go for a beer with your staff, but you probably shouldn't get drunk. You probably shouldn't get romantically involved. Nor should you get financially involved. Activities as such may interfere with your judgment when it comes to job distribution, evaluation, promotions and raises.

You can introduce yourself and your family, and I don't mean your professional career and education. I mean other things like children, hobbies, sports. You can engage in after-work activities together. It's fine to spend some of your one on one meetings talking about things that are not work-related - don't try to be all business all the time. You should talk a little, and listen a lot - remember: one mouth, two ears... Let people know that you care about them (assuming that you do. If you don't - don't pretend). The goal is to do whatever is necessary to be able to give your staff instructions, without risking that they pay less attention because they think that your friendship supersedes the job. Bottom line: draw boundaries and make sure they are clear. Practice good judgment. And yes, one more thing: it isn't easy, but it is possible!

Posted at 12:02PM Jun 29, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[0]

Frustrating Results from the ME Survey

Question: I just became a manager this year and I recently got back my results from Sun's annual Management Excellence Survey (a survey in which employees can give anonymous feedback to their manager). I thought I was doing a pretty good job and my employees, my manager and my peers gave me good feedback in person, however the survey results were not that good. I thought I was an A- or B+ manager but the survey results say I'm closer to a C- (in the lower 70th percentile)... I have been putting a lot of energy into my job as a manager and now I feel so disappointed that apparently I'm not doing as well as I thought.

How can I put this survey feedback into perspective? How can I use it to make myself a better manager next year?

Mike: First, read the interpretation on MyHR @ Sun Web (an internal HR website at Sun) about how to interpret your results and present them to your team. Re-read it a couple of times to make sure you have a thorough understanding.

The survey is a way for employees to send anonymous feedback. It is also a tool for managers to get feedback and look for ways to improve whatever needs to be improved. So it is especially important for new managers to embrace the process as an opportunity to listen, and engage in open dialogue.

Second, remember that the percentile scores are based on a heterogeneous population of managers from all kinds of jobs, such as HR, Finance etc. You are compared against every job type of people managers at all kinds of level and experience. That's important to understand because different job functions have different strengths. For example, Sales & Services people tend to spend a lot of time on setting clear steps against their quarterly goals. Engineering managers might not do that so engineering managers as a group could have a lower percentile score in setting expectations when compared to other groups. On the other hand, the people that give the ratings are also a heterogeneous set. How they interpret the question as well as the choices for the answers could also be different.

In summary, it's better not to focus on the exact percentile score, but to look for trends/things where your expectations are different from what you are given and share that with your group in a matter-of-fact manner. You can start with “Here is what I think. Tell me what your thoughts are.” The absolute wrong thing to do is to look at the score and think “these people hate me so I won't work with them.” Remember that we learn how to become good managers from the people in the groups we manage.

Amiram: This situation is a lot more common than you might think. You have some excellent opportunities here. You have an opportunity for learning a lesson or two, and another for improving yourself. The lessons are simple. First, personal feedback is very general and is not to be taken literally. "Good job!", "Well done!", "Keep up the good work!" are nice to hear, but one should not draw his or her career conclusions based on these comments. Surveys are more focused and are directed at specific characteristics of your job, ie your personality, your management style. Surveys are also statistically sound. They are based on a reasonable sample of people, and the questions are made up and reviewed by professionals. It's quite expected that hallway feedback will be great but general, while focused, even scientific feedback will be closer to the truth. People who are more critical of themselves and their performance, usually don't take the general comments into account when they have to assess their own performance. A better sense of self, along with some self reflection capabilities, and a little self criticism will do the job. You should probably put less weight on general compliments in the future, and pay more attention to the scientific ones.

As for the other opportunity: the survey gave you some very specific items to work on. Don't try to change everything at once. Chances are it won't work. Select up to three items that need the most improvement. Read about them, ask for help, direction, coaching. Try to set up some metric for success. Re-visit in a few months, and adjust the plan as needed.

Keep in mind: first line manager positions are not as easy as they seem. You are the face that the employees associate with the company. Did you know that people leave their manager far more than they leave a company? So my advice to you is: don't be too judgmental about yourself, be more accepting to criticism, devise a plan, follow it, become better. It's not the end of the world - with some good will and directed effort - you will recover.

Sin-Yaw: If you have learned piano for less than a year, proud as you may be of your achievements, would anyone really rate you as a good pianist? If you are a medical doctor who just graduated from school a year ago, would you believe you are likely to be an "A-" doctor? Why would you expect that as a professional engineering manager? (And if you are truly one of these geniuses, you won't be asking this question.)

Come on! Give yourself a break. You are a novice in this management thing. Keep your spirits up, learn from everyone (including those who gave you a bad score), make sure that you do not stop improving. Don't fret over this. Before you know it, you could be the best manager your staff have ever worked for.

By the way, a good manager makes unpopular decisions from time to time. Placating the staff to get good scores is not a good idea.

Posted at 07:19PM Jun 21, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[2]

How to Manage an "Indispensable" Team?

Question I manage a group which has few people working in it for quite a few years. Due to the headcount freeze, we can not hire replacements if people leave. My team are aware of the fact that they are indispensable to the project (because of their experience and the headcount freeze) and are taking undue advantage of it. Nothing much has changed after the issue was raised couple of times. The environment of the team is not very healthy and it will likely remain so if I can't find a good way to deal with this. Could you give some advice?

Amiram It's a classic. You have to take a few factors into consideration.

First and foremost: cemeteries around the world are filled with millions of indispensable people. It's nice to think that one cannot be replaced, but the sad truth is: everyone can be replaced. Ken Kutagari, the creator of Sony's PlayStation resigned last month. He will be replaced.

As a manager, particularly if you are not as well versed in the technology as your staff is, it is an absolute nightmare to see one of your top guys leave. In fact, what makes them think they are indispensable is probably you! During my career, I have seen quite a few top people leave. Without exception, it was never as devastating to the team as I thought it would have been. In some cases, it was a blessing. Furthermore, during my career I have built two high performance teams, and a really small part of me wanted to believe that my departure would be devastating. It wasn't.

Second: how important is the project? Hiring freeze means no growth. It doesn't necessarily mean no replacements. What happens if the entire team leaves? Do you think replacement hiring will be approved? If the project is important enough, you will be able to hire replacements. If not, well then, I guess that answers the first question as well. Many managers think that the team shrinks while its responsibility doesn't. In most cases it isn't true. In most cases, you are not expected to deliver the same with less staff.

Indeed, this isn't a very healthy situation. You are not specifying how the team is taking advantage of the perception that they are indispensable. Are individuals asking for raise and promotion they don't deserve? And are they getting it? Do you get people come into your office and say things like: "if I don't get promoted, then I will leave"? If you let yourself get pressured into promoting people not based on merits, you are making a big mistake. My assumption is that one day, one of the indispensable guys will leave, the team will recover, and the understanding that "nobody is indispensable" will dawn on them.

Sin-Yaw: For companies like Sun, no one is indispensable. If engineers feel this way, you have been managing them wrong. The "good way" has always been readily available to you.

Over the long term, only the disciplined, self-respecting, and motivated team can perform. At the same time, only your team's productivity matters to your career, not its size. For yourself and your team, you are much better off losing one or two engineers to trade for the overall team discipline and motivation. Think about if so-called replacement headcount is allowed, what would you do? You should do exactly the same, even if the loss cannot be replaced.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "hiring freeze." A highly productive team engaged with important projects will always get the required resources for their jobs. No one, including yourself, will invest on non-performing teams. If you don't shape up your team, you will gradually lose charter and head for the demise. If you keep a high-performing team, you will find projects coming your way with the resources you need.

Mike It isn't clear to me what the questioner means by "taking undue advantage" and "nothing much has changed after the issue was raised a couple of times". "Undue advantage" may be a way of saying that there are performance issues in the group, or that the questioner believes he/she has lost credibility with the group. Either case represents a problem to be dealt with. The "nothing has changed" comment is puzzling. Who raised the issue? Is the questioner saying that he/she escalated the resource issue without any results? Or that the questioner pointed out performance issues to individuals with no result? If the former were true, there may be nothing that *can* be done given a generally tight budget situation at Sun. If the latter, then here is another problem to be dealt with.

Any manager must deal with situations where employees may disagree over their current assignment, pay, coworker compatibility, and any number of situations. The performance issues that the questioner observes (by saying "take undue advantage" and "nothing changed" in the question) are exactly the results of one such situation. In general, these demand a clear, non-confrontational explanation of the situation (in this case that staffing won't change, but everyone must still do their best to make sure the group meets its goals), followed by a straightforward method of dealing with performance issues. A manager who doesn't take control in a crisis loses the opportunity to be effective.

Looking at this question in another way, the team have an opportunity to pull together and gain something from this situation. It takes time to foster the team identity and collegiality that results in very effective teams, but it is never too late to start the process. Does the manager have regular team meetings where everyone has the chance to talk openly? Are there regular 1:1s? Are the group's goals visible to everyone, and does everyone understand how each team member's work supports the goals? Do group members offer to help when one of them has more work than the others? Does the group get together outside of work? If so, is the manager involved? Are successes celebrated by the team as a whole, and its misses analyzed just as openly so that processes can be improved? This is just a short list of things that can help to build a highly performing team.

Posted at 09:52AM Jun 02, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[2]

Where Did My Senior People Go?

Question: The senior people that I develop within my team tend to leave for other teams within the company. Even though it is not impacting the company's overall interest, it is greatly undermining my own team. I invest a lot to develop the staff but I never get to reap the benefits. And the team's productivity is being compromised since we are always developing people but we never have senior people to help out. How can I get to keep a relatively stable pool of the senior people?

Amiram: I see a few issues here. One is that some people get their training in one team, and then look for other challenges in other teams WITHIN the company. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The other issue is that for some reason, the manager of this team is not able to provide the challenges necessary for more senior people. I would add that there's a possibility about the nature of the work, which possibly requires junior people.....

In terms of advice, I would suggest one of the following: either provide room for people to grow, have challenges for more senior people, or continue to provide this great service for the company: educate and train junior staff so they can assume larger responsibility in different teams. I knew at least one manager who used to have this problem. One day she decided to be proud of the fact that she was so successful in training junior people, that they became very desirable to other teams. That's not such a bad forte...

Mike: It is a problem but also a good sign from the standpoint that other teams at Sun find the people in this group attractive. A team gets a good reputation when it delivers good employees. No one would want to work with a team that never produces good people.

Sun is not a place where we expect that people will stay at one job forever anyway. If we look at the overall attrition rate and transfer rate that we have started monitoring among the Solaris group recently, the average time people stay at their last position before the job change is about one to two years. It doesn't represent the average length of time that people at Sun spend on one position over the years, but it says it is not uncommon for people to move around within the company.

For managers: We need to be prepared for this kind of environment where people are interested in learning and doing new things, particularly at a site where people are relatively junior in terms of experience and skills. In my experience, at a young site where more opportunities are being created, the length of time that people stay in one position is shorter than that at a site with a longer history.

I agree that it could hurt the team when too many people move too often. But we can't tell people that they can't move, because it is in Sun's best interest to support people's growth. People will leave if they think that is the only way to advance their career. What a manager can do is to create opportunities for people to grow, recognize and support people's career interests and make sure your team sees that their manager is watching out for their long-term interest.

On the other hand, my advice as a hiring manager to the individual employees is while we definitely support job changes at Sun, they should avoid getting the reputation as a job jumper. Otherwise, future hiring managers may not be interested in them..

Sin-Yaw: It is not fair that you don't get to harvest the fruits of your labor. And you get to watch someone else do that! How frustrating! There are two ways to deal with this: first is to understand that everyone in society enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor. Sometimes you give more than you take, and sometimes it is the other way around. If you stop giving, being bitter about this, you will not really enjoy life much.

Then, you can be more skilled in retaining senior talents. People choose jobs for relatively simple reasons: personal relationship, job satisfaction, future perspective, and financial needs. Senior people have different priorities than junior people. You may have been focusing too much on attracting junior people, who typically value "future" and "peer relationship" more -- your effort in developing them is highly appreciated.

Most senior people look for job satisfaction that comes from being able to innovate and having autonomy. Most importantly, getting the respect and recognition that they earned with years of hard work. In other words, you need to withdraw and give them the stage and lime light.

Lastly, it may be that your organization is simply a "feeder" group that people typically use as a stepping stone for other opportunities. Be proud of that and use it to your advantages. You can motivate staff with it and establish rapport with other "recipient managers" to place your talents in favorable positions.

Posted at 08:54AM Apr 28, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Career Development  |  Comments[2]

When Opportunities Knock...

Question: Please help me to make a choice. I have two team members who are in very similar positions. They have similar education backgrounds, similar technical skills and communication skills. They both have the potential to develop into senior engineers. Now there is an opportunity for someone to take on more responsibility, deal with bigger challenges and learn more advanced skills. The one that doesn't get it this time will have to wait around for similar things to come up next time. How should I decide which one to pick this time?

Amiram: Let's start with a disclaimer. If indeed the two engineers are identical in all aspects, then the only way to make a fair decision will be arbitrary or random. However, it is extremely unlikely that two independent persons are identical. Even identical twins aren't identical. Therefore, the only way to make an informed decision is to use more criteria. You have mentioned education, technical skills, communication, potential. What about ratings, teamwork, actual deliverable, published papers, patents, coaching of others, curiosity, ability and willingness to explore, problem solving, elegance of solutions, quality, productivity..

Prepare a table with as many criteria as you need, rate the two engineers 1-5 in each criteria, and if you still have a draw - expand the criteria until you get a satisfactory answer. Otherwise, throw a dice.

Mike: You can deal with this as if you were hiring someone. Look at what the opportunity needs and the job characteristics required for someone to be successful at the position. By matching the candidates against the job requirements, I can almost guarantee that the two people wouldn't come out equally.

In general the people that are busiest are the ones that can take on more responsibilities. So pick the one that produces the most.

Sin-Yaw: The best opportunity a manager can give to an engineer is the freedom to innovate, not an assignment that appears to be popular at the time. The best engineer is the one who out-innovates others and has the tenacity to see things through. If both are good engineers, tell both of them to come up with good ideas and, equally important, a plan to prototype and productize the ideas. You then fund the better plan (not the better idea) and give the "opportunity" you talk about to the other one.

Posted at 10:25PM Apr 20, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Career Development  |  Comments[0]

Productivity, Communication & Foreigner 1st Line Managers

Question : Per the GENO productivity survey, communication is the top issue for BJ engineers. Of course this refers to communication in English. If it is the top issue for work productivity, it is likely to be a big problem in a manager/employee relationship if the two parties have to communicate in English. In that sense, I don't think foreigners should be made first line managers at all. Please respond.

Amiram: I fail to see the connection between having no foreigners for first line managers to the productivity survey.

The fact is that "productivity survey" is the wrong name for this questionnaire. It should have been called "Customer Satisfaction Survey", because it tries to measure the perception of productivity - and not the actual productivity.

First line managers carry a large part of the communication between the remote sites and the main site in the US. The perception of productivity is determined by the quality of communication directed outside the site, which implies - English. Again, first line managers should be appointed based on many criteria. Communication in English is certainly one of them, but not the only one.

Lastly, I am not sure how we determine who is a foreigner anymore. Is it by passport? Place of birth? Native tongue?

Sin-Yaw: The top issue for software productivity is innovation, not communication. Our US-based stakeholder, not local employees, requested improvements in communication. Therefore it does not dictate local communications done in English.

ERI had/has several English-only managers, they did/do quite well compared to the average. It is therefore *not* a big problem if the manager/employee communication must be done in English. I knew many "foreigners" who speak fluent Chinese (and some in ERI). Being a foreigner, then, does not dictate that communication must be done in English.

We consider many factors other than communication, such as planning and executing skills, when choosing managers. (In fact, most new managers are not very good in communication anyway. Not being able to communicate in Chinese does not automatically disqualify anyone from being a manager.

This question is based on a series of flawed assumptions. It itself attempts to justify (badly) a managerial decision based on something a person cannot hopefully change -- his or her ethnic origin. It also targets a group of people (foreigners) stereotypically. I hope this does not reflect the thinking pattern of most managers here. Every individual, Chinese or foreigner, deserves a fair chance. (And I would explain what "fair" is if someone will toss that question to this column's editors.)

And don't forget, your paycheck is signed by a foreigner who does not speak Chinese.

Mike: Communication could be seen as a means to better productivity.

This is an international company where the universal communication language is English. The ability to communicate with other parts of Sun is essential to the team's success. If we have a situation where managers need to represent their groups to other locations at Sun, the manager needs to communicate in English better than his/her team members. In that case, having a first-line manager who is an excellent English speaker is an advantage to the team.

If you look at the people who are at the top of companies and who are at the top of governments, it is pretty common that they speak good English.

The idea behind the submitter's question could be that this is China, so communication ought to be done in Chinese.

If employees feel that they can't communicate with their first line manager openly, freely, clearly enough because that first-line manager is not a native Mandarin speaker, that idea itself causes productivity problem at ERI.

I don't necessarily agree with the submitter. But what that person thinks is his/her own business, and he/she has the right to their opinions.

Posted at 12:49PM Apr 10, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

Where is the Justice System to Punish Faulty Behavior @ Sun?

Question: I have a team member who is one of the main contributors in the team. But he once made a mistake due to ignorance which unfortunately had a significant impact on a project release. We did a root cause analysis and installed preventive actions for the future. But it reminded me of a question regarding our rewarding/punishment system. I think if something goes wrong, someone should take responsibility for it. But I don't see "punishment" practice anywhere at Sun. How would you "geezers" explain that?

Amiram: "Punishment" is a harsh word. Consequences, in my mind, is a better term to use.

People make mistakes. They always do. The hope is that they learn from their mistakes, and that they don't make the same mistake twice (even better if they learn from someone else's mistakes). I would propose that consequences exist at Sun, as they do elsewhere.

Consequences do not have to be explicit. They are sometimes implied. In other words, if someone makes a serious mistake, his/her manager may delay the assignment of more responsibility. This is not a punishment per se, yet it is a consequence, a negative consequence. By the same token, people who operate error-free, may be given more responsibility earlier. You may call that a "reward" or "positive consequence".

Sin-Yaw: An action will have a consequence that usually means fixing the damage, cleaning up the mess, and/or righting the wrong.

We cannot encourage risk-taking unless we have tolerance for failures. We cannot hope for learning unless we are willing to accept mistakes. Without risk-taking and learning, we are not Sun.

Those who learn from their mistakes are usually better employees.

Mike: The only person who never makes a mistake is one who does absolutely nothing.

To me, making mistakes is just a part of life. Sometimes honest mistakes could have very big consequences. But if someone makes an honest mistake, the question is whether we should consider "punishing" that person.

In my opinion, punishment is something that is exercised on those over whom we have power. It is usually reserved for governmental practice. In other cases, it is something that is done to animals or people who are in the positions of chattel. For example, how we treat our children sometimes.

In most Western companies, some things are considered offenses and they are serious enough that the offenders will get a written warning or be dismissed immediately. If you look at the HR policy, you will find a list of things which are serious enough for some sort of punishment.

At Sun, a lot of things are handled relatively subjectively. You need to look at the ethics involved. And you have to look at a track record over time and consider the person's experience. A mistake made in good faith could work itself out over time. If someone has a record of not learning from his/her mistakes or of being terminally ignorant, then it may be someone we don't want to keep on the team or who will be held up on career development. It's not a one-time deal.

Posted at 11:34AM Mar 30, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[3]

When is the Time for a Weak Performer to 'Time-Out'?

Question: I have a team member who is "hopeless". I have given him chances but he hasn't made significant progress at all. I can't hire his replacement because all our head-counts are frozen. What should I do?

Amiram: If you take no action you will
1. not get the work done,
2. may face a morale issue with the team ("why should I work so hard when others can get away with poor performance?"),
3. lose respect from the team members for the inability to "make things right".
Bottom line: poor performance should not be tolerated regardless of hiring freeze.

As a manager, you have a variety of actions to take: from an improvement plan all the way to management initiated separation. Taking no action at all is not a good idea.

Sin-Yaw: Remember that your own time and energy is a precious commodity that you must manage too. A good manager allocates most resources to the project, or person, that gives him or her the most returns. He or she continues this investment strategy until all the resources are allocated. Whatever is left gets nothing.

It is not smart to allocate your time and energy on a person who is not giving back commensurate productivity. If you "cut your losses", your team's average productivity goes up. That's a good thing. Show your "management courage".

Mike: The first thing to think about is how much the person has invested in their work. Are they taking responsibility for their own behavior? At Sun, an individual's career is more than half their own responsibility. A person's ability to progress depends on how they can drive their own career plans. We are not a company where people are told what they need to do.

Secondly, the manager has to assess the situation and make sure that when they are giving someone an opportunity, they don't give them something too big, or too small, or something that is not spelled out correctly. They have to give the person challenges that he can handle.

If you have really done every thing including giving them appropriate opportunities, coaching, and explaining why they are not performing, and they are still not improving, you will eventually have to manage them out.

Some managers might think it is better to have an under-performer in the team than have that under-performer removed. But the under-performer will be draining the team's productivity. You are better off having managed them out than having that one drag the whole team down.

It's almost never that a person is a zero contributor. They are either positive contributor or negative contributor. What you want is to invest money, effort and reward on the positive contributors and manage the negative contributors out.

Posted at 08:03AM Feb 28, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[1]

A Quest for "Equal" Treatment

Question My group is statistically under-paid and under-resourced. The average pay is much below that of other groups. We never received budget or head-counts like other groups. How do I remedy that?

Amiram : It is most difficult to compare teams. In most organizations, it is very unlikely to even get the comparative data, unless you are a senior manager who manages multiple teams. Obviously, the data is unavailable to me. Is it possible that your team is younger or more junior? That they do a type of work which is generally paid less than the other teams? I suggest to talk to HR about it. To remedy the situation you need for someone to agree that there is a statistically significant difference in pay between your team and a corresponding teams of the same type. Once this is established, budget should be allocated.

Sin-Yaw : Comparison is poison.

Higher management does not allocate resources based on equity. They do it mostly based on the expected return -- the amount of future productivity compared to the amount of current resources. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is the most common style.

Comparison pits one group against the other. It is unhealthy. Making such a statement is a serious career limiting move (CLM). I recommend you focus on getting the most out of your existing resources, instead of being jealous of others. You just look childish.

Mike : The question is where you get the data that says your average pay is below that of other groups?

If HR's data does support your statement that with comparable experience and skills, your group is indeed
under-paid, the question is how you can create a data-driven argument that says here is what
our group's pay is and what the other group's pay is. Then you can escalate to management and HR and convince them that something needs to be done.

How quickly the problem can be fixed really depends. A problem won't be fixed over night. Everyone at Sun
just has to learn to be flexible and do more with less. That's the way we are.

Posted at 05:20PM Feb 15, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[3]

Why I Don't Want to Work with "Smart" People

Question: Many people I work with (management & engineers included) are smart people. But "being smart" alone doesn't help them to be good managers or good engineers. Sometimes I wish they are "less smart" when they are just being stubborn. Do you have any tips to work with the "smart & stubborn" people?

Amiram: The million dollar question... Asking people to be "less smart" is an unlikely solution. Let's focus on more realistic solutions. I'd use the following keywords in my answer: education, maturity, patience and involvement.

When people are young and inexperienced, they have a tendency to look at a problem from a very narrow angle, come up with a solution to the perceived problem, and argue to death that this is the only solution, and nothing else would work. This is where education comes in. The more people are educated, the more they understand that the real problem contains a lot more than the originally perceived one. The range of solutions is wide, and multiple solutions could work.

So first: Educate. Make sure that they see the problem at hand as it really is, that they are aware of the variety of solutions available.

Second, maturity. When people mature, they gain wisdom in addition to smartness. I copied the "answers.com" first definitions for "wise" and "smart". Smart people may know what to do, wise people have better judgment.
Wise: Having the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting
Smart: Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright

You as manager need a lot of patience. In fact, as a manager, patience is an extremely important trait. You have to listen, you have to coach. You have to present problems in a way that will keep the path to solution open. You have to present solutions, but not force them implemented. You shouldn't judge. You should always remember that most people do learn, most people do mature eventually.

Lastly, involvement. Engineers really don't like to be told HOW to do things. They want problems to solve. Get them involved in the process, they will appreciate it, and will be less stubborn and more productive.
If you're into it, there are countless games and short presentations. You may want to check out this site: http://www.leadersinstitute.com/teambuilding/team_building_tips/index.html

Sin-Yaw: Nowadays, EQ -- an indicator for social skills -- decides success more than IQ does. The abilities to plan for life, to delay instant gratitude for future, to communicate and understand others, and to have principles but not being stubborn are so much more important than being smart. Given that people at Sun are frequently at the top of their high-school classes, EQ is the differential.

First make the above point understood so that this person has the incentive to improve.

Then teach him or her the art of listening and understanding others. When someone disagrees, first seek understanding on the rationale and background of such disagreement. Stubbornness disappears when the differences in understanding disappear.

Mike: We should all remember that intelligence is the price of admission at Sun. Working with smart people can be energizing, and it fuels creativity. Honestly, working with young, smart folks is one of the things I have enjoyed the most about being at Sun for the past fourteen years.

Alas, though, there are some who are convinced that they are the brightest bulbs in the sign and set out to prove it at every opportunity. You call them "stubborn" but I call them "obnoxious smart people" or OSP's for short! IMHO most of these folks are just out to polish up their gigantic egos by belittling those around them, as though only one person in a conversation is allowed to be smart. I've mused for years about an imaginary opera called "TOSGA -- The Only Smart Guy Around" that plays out before me more than I would like.

There is no one person who knows everything; we all have holes in our knowledge sets and blind spots as well. The problem in dealing with an OSP is to find a way to help him be less defensive about his own ability and more appreciative of what others can contribute. No easy task, and a real test of your "influence power".

As managers at Sun, we use "coercive power" and "bestowed power" a little less, and influence more, than in some other companies. To influence an OSP you have to be considered worth listening to, to become interesting. That might require researching an esoteric subject (e.g., skin bacteria, the sex life of plants, weather science, magnetic propulsion) in order to become an instant expert, complimenting the OSP's intelligence, dropping the names of other smart people the OSP is known to respect (if there are any), or any other tactic that you can think of. Deal with facts and data instead of opinions whenever you can, but be creative, because creativity is often the OSP's stock in trade. Remember that the purpose here is to build a path around the OSP's ego instead of battling it head-on.

In most cases, the OSP is not the least bit shy about stating his opinion, so you will have to diminish the effect by asking for others to speak up. Sometimes it may take a "conspiracy for good" so that some of the others in the group are ready to do the same thing.

One last point: We often use the term "focused" for people who persistently do something we like. "Stubborn" is applied to those whose actions we don't like. The person's actions might be the same in both cases. Maybe only our reaction and the connotation of the words we use in describing them are different. We need to turn those OSP's into "FSP's".

Posted at 11:34PM Feb 06, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

When Communication Comes to a Dead End

Question: My communication with my team members vary a lot from individual to individual. Some are more talkative and easier to communicate with. For other people, the best I can get from a closed-door 1:1 is a one-minute project update. How can I get to understand the more silent type?

Sin-Yaw : Be transparent on your objectives. Don't kid yourself. Most people do not befriend their boss. Think about why you wish to have the talk and what you want to achieve from the talk. Then tell the answers straight to him/her.

Ask him/her to prepare for the topic. Send a message saying, "I would like to hear your thoughts on such-and-such during our next 1:1."

Also learn to listen. Focus on the person you are talking to. Try to understand the conversation. Be curious about the topic and ask for details. Be genuine and sincere.

Another thing that could help is to open yourself up. Tell him/her how you feel about the subject and about your own situation. If you are guarding yourself, how do you expect your audience to talk?

Amiram: The responsibility to make the adjustment is yours. It is called "flexing". There are many types of personalities: the "driver", the "analytic", the "amiable". You have to identify with whom you are talking, and make the necessary adjustments in order to communicate effectively with them. For example, with people who are less talkative, I would prepare questions ahead of time. For people whose speech you cannot stop, I would prepare a more directed conversation, and will stop them as necessary.

Mike: Vive la difference. All humans are different. Differences lead to innovations and progress. If everyone were the same, there would be no need for managers/geezers at all.

With the differences among people, it is normal that communication between a given person and other people will always be different. The number of different communication paths among a group of people is the factorial of the number of the people. Fortunately we don't have to take a completely different approach to communicate with every single person.

The first step in communication is to understand who the people are. There are various scales we use to explain behavior and communication styles. The union of all the different scales defines us as individuals.

Think about:
- In what areas is this person more knowledgeable?
- What is his communication style? Is he a talker or not?
- What is his personality?
- Is he task oriented or group oriented?
- Where does he belong in the "situational leadership" zones?

Also bear in mind that there are no absolute "yes" or "no" answers in defining peoples' character. An introverted person might not be introverted all the time. He could be seen as an "extrovert" by people that are more introverted than him.

It is the manager's responsibility to take into consideration all of the factors during communication. You have to be aware of the scales and listen/watch for cues.

If a person is quiet in 1:1's, you should find out what has caused the silence. You should never assume that the person doesn't want to talk because they don't like you. It might be that the person is shy, or he is scared to communicate or he is simply refusing to communicate.

Sometimes the only way to find out about the reason behind the silence is to stop telling, start listening and try hard to draw the other party out into conversation. There have been times for me that during a 1:1, I asked an open question and waited for 10 minutes for a response. People have different tolerance levels for silence. If you don't fill the void with talk, most people will eventually feel the need to talk. You can also try different open questions if one doesn't lead to the communication you are looking for.

For other people, you might need to ask the explicit question "If this is a problem, let's talk about it." That could take some strain out of the situation. At least talking about a problem could lead to a way to solve it.

When you are appointed a manager, there is an implicit management contract established between you and your employees. The contract is never completed and always suspected. You need to continuously build acceptance for your management contract between you and your team members.

With all the means you have as a manager, the eventual aim is to build a relationship of trust and support so that people will bring issues to you and you can be the coach. A person's manager is usually the most important thing for employee's retention. The strength of that bond and the willingness of the employee to accept being managed is the key to success of management relationship.

Editor's Summary:
- On top of other things, effective communication is what it takes for managers to build trust and acceptance into the manager/employee relationship.
- In order to communicate effectively, you need to understand the different types of people and know what skills to apply at which times.
- Stop talking when you are not being talked to. Listening with acumen and sincere curiosity could take the conversation to the next level.

Posted at 11:24PM Jan 29, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Communication  |  Comments[0]

"Tattletale"- to be or not to be

Question: I hear private complaints against a manager from more than one team members in his/her team. They are not speaking up because they are used to being "nice". They are not comfortable "attacking" people, especially if it is their manager. As a bystander, I want to keep silent and things will probably work out on their own. But I am also concerned if there is really a problem and I let it go. What should I do?

Sin-Yaw: A manager's job is not to please the staff, but to deliver results. Although a motivated staff is usually the most productive one, it is not always the case. It is possible that the said manager is pushing through a tough change and is experiencing a phase of low morale.

You should encourage the staff to speak up. At the same time, approach the manager and kindly bring up the matter without betraying those who trusted you. Ask for his or her plan. If the situation warrants it, talk to the manager's boss, HR, or myself -- not necessarily in that order.

That is, of course, assuming the said manager is not myself.

Amiram: This is indeed a very delicate issue. First I would find out the nature of the complaints. Obviously if criminal activity is involved, then the employee is obligated to report. I suspect that this isn't the case. Another typical complaint would be favoritism - the manager gives better treatment to some of the staff while ignoring or treating other staff in a different manner. There could be professional problems as well. Usually, there's an "objective" part of the organization, where people can go and complain while not risking their position. HR is a good choice. Sometimes, it can also be done anonymously. Being a silent bystander is not something I'd recommend to anyone.

Mike: Theoretically, your possible approaches can range from doing nothing at all to getting yourself all the way involved. To make a choice, there are interesting questions to be asked about obligation and responsibilities.

As a manager you have a responsibility to the company and also the company's employees in general (in addition to your own direct reports). You also have obligations to your peer managers. Most importantly you have obligation to yourself. You have to decide whether you are happy with yourself for the actions you will take.

I usually measure myself against this kind of question by thinking about how I would feel if I do a particular thing but it doesn't work out. For example, if I do absolutely nothing, a star performer in this person's group might decide to leave as a result of not being happy with his manager. That is not good for the company. On the other hand if I choose to get myself involved between the manager and his/her team members, the peer manager would look at me as the one causing the problem. That won't help either. Or if I try to convince the people from whom I hear complaints that the problem does not exist, then I will lose credibility. I don't want that because credibility is essential for a manager to be effective.

The question is to find a middle ground with balanced benefits for all the involved parties. You need to avoid the consequent effects of either over-reacting or under-communicating. In most cases, things won't work out by themselves.

One possible solution is to talk to some senior managers or HR partners who are in a neutral position and do not have direct responsibilities for the involved manager. Another thing worth doing, depending on your relationship with the “accused” manager, is to tell him that people are talking about his performance in this given area without disclosing the source. You can tell him that you are available for help if needed, and make him/her understand that if someone comes to you for help on the issue you'd take it as your responsibilities to escalate it to higher management. In summary, the communication can happen in the following steps: I know this is happening -> I am willing to help you if you need me. -> If someone comes to me for help, I WILL escalate. It could remind the manager that this is not just a simple matter between him and his employees.

Editors' Summary:
- A variety of things that the manager has done could have caused the complaints: “perceived” favoritism, unpopular decisions, or just bad management practice. Try to understand the nature of the underlying issue.
- Viable solutions include: a. Try to approach the manager without disclosing the source of your information. b. Talk to someone in a neutral position, be it senior manager or HR. c. Escalate to the manager's manager if the first two options don't work.
- Keeping this to yourself is not the right thing to do.

Posted at 08:43AM Jan 18, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

Dilemma for a Hands-on Manager

Question: I am a very hands-on manager. But someone told me I can only grow people by letting it go because I can't help them forever, and people grow under pressure instead of through coaching. How can I "let it go" so that they don't always come to me with the same kind of questions and still be ensured they will do the right things?

Amiram: An individual contributor can take upon himself/herself a lot. But very few individual contributors can contribute for 10 people. It is just impossible. What your friend is telling you, is that as a manager you cannot be as competent as each one on your team, and you can't be as productive as all of them combined.

By "letting go" your friend probably means two things:
1. Allow people to make mistakes - micro managers usually cannot stand by when mistakes happen. But mistakes are essential for growth. Let people experiment, let them come up with their own solutions - they may actually surprise you...
2. Coach people - do not provide them with the ready and already chewed answer - make them think,let them reach the answer on their own, even if it takes longer. That's what coaching is all about.

Sin-Yaw: Those "people" are telling you that you micro-manage too much. In general, micro-managing "chokes" the creativity of the team and is detrimental to your mental health and family life. It does not win.

First, delineate 1 or 2 things that matter the most to you. It could be on-time delivery, quality, team-work, or whatever. The important thing is not to have 5 items, but only less than 3. Then manage only what's relevant to them.

Secondly, focus on the result and not the process. Tell you people what you expect at the end. Also tell them how you plan to inspect the result. After that, leave them alone. When the time comes, inspect what you expect.

In this way you should find your team and yourself much less stressful.

Mike: The idea of "letting go" is easier for someone than for others. The idea is to try to have someone to grow to a point where they don't need as much help.

According to MASLOW's law, people's needs are classified into five tiers starting from physiological, safety, belonging-love, self-esteem, to the ultimate goal of self-actualization. We are fortunate to be in an environment where the people we are dealing with on a daily basis are CAPABLE of establishing self-actualization as their ultimate goal. It is a really good situation for managers to deal with people that are willing to learn and progress because it is easier to let them go and be on their own.

However how to “let go” could vary case by case even with the same people. As a manager, he/she can refer to the concepts of “situational leadership” and “leadership continuum” to choose different management styles for different scenarios. A manager may “let go” completely if a team member is both experienced at the task and highly committed to it. A manager may also turn to autocracy when the team member is generally lacking the necessary skills. For competent team members that have a lower confidence, manager could choose to be supportive and motivating while still leaving the control with the team members. Managers will also need to provide coaching and make decisions for people that are relatively inexperienced, and involve them in the decision-making process to restore their commitment.

Where problems could happen are with people whose idea of their ability are different from others including their managers' perception of their ability. If people think themselves are good but others don't, that is problematic. Even though these people might be really smart people, they may not work out in our organization because they can't tolerate different opinions for themselves.

Editor's Summary:
- Micro-management has bad influence all around. It causes an over-burdened manager, lack of creativity among the team members and a decreased team productivity in overall.
- Managers can "let go" by setting expectations on results without giving step-by-step instructions.
- Mistakes during the learning experience are essential and acceptable. That is not a reason not to "let go".
- Reference readings:
Situational leadership: http://www.12manage.com/methods_blanchard_situational_leadership.html
Leadership Continuum: http://www.12manage.com/methods_tannebaum_leadership_continuum.html

Posted at 09:11AM Jan 11, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[2]

Productivity Measurement @ Software Engineering

Question: I don't see how we are measuring individual's productivity in the software engineering field (for different functional roles). If we don't have a good way to measure an individual/team's productivity, how do we measure the manager's performance?

Sin-Yaw: It is a matter of fact that "productivity" in software is ill-defined and hard to measure. For both individual contributors and managers, we measure two things: skills and results. Skills are further divided into soft and hard ones, while definitions for results are usually pretty straight-forward.

To understand your own performance, ask yourself what skills you have better than others? Do you deliver more, better, and faster? Then take the answers to these questions to you boss.

Amiram: Gaps exist between theory and reality. What we are supposed to do and what we actually do could be different.

We, managers, are supposed to set goals, challenging but realistic, to each developer individually and for teams. We are supposed to follow progress, report, adjust plans, and take corrective actions when necessary. When goals are accomplished, expectations are met, and performance is measured. When goals are met earlier, with better than expected quality - we have outstanding performance. When goals are not met, expectations are not met, and poor performance is observed and recorded.

As I said, sometimes this process is not followed, which makes it harder to determine the individual's and the team's performance.

Mike: Sun in general is not measuring productivity by any formula. We are more or less using a subjective measure here at Sun. That is to deliver often and deliver significant things often.

You might still get recognition if you work on something for an extended period and come out with a more than significant result, but you can get challenged because you don't prove to people that you CAN deliver regular significant results.
The best group in Sun I know of is a group that delivers something significant every 6 months.

One thing to note is that funding at Sun is planned on quarterly basis. The way it operates is somehow similar to how investment banker practices. Investment bankers choose to put money on enterprises that have a return-on-investment quicker than others, and stop investment on the ones that have a longer turn around time.

At Sun, if a group has reputation for delivering significant things in a way that doesn't cause a lot of problems (regarding quality, service etc), that group is more likely to get funding in the future.

On the other hand, the groups with bad reputation will have more limitations in their operations than others. The group that has the worst reputation that I know of was not even allowed to review their own code.

So at Sun you build up your reputation if you are productive by delivering good things fast.

There are some more arbitrary measures other companies use like how many lines of code one writes, how many function points (a given purpose/idea) one has. We don't do that at Sun.
Sun is a company that values knowledge. The more someone knows, the more likely he/she will have good reputation at Sun. One of the reasons for that is probably because the people that started the Solaris organization (virtually UNIX) were people who had been more of hackers than someone who followed process to measure productivity. That theme has been staying at Sun throughout the years.

Some numbers we can examine would be: the amount of work (ie number of files changed), number of bugs resulting from the code and number of hours spent.

The point to think about the "number of bugs" is not to confuse "productivity" with "negative productivity". If you cause trouble that take others' significant effort to correct, you won't be considered productive even if you stay up all night yourself on the job. People that are truly productive very often have time to help other people. Productive people not only produce a lot themselves, but are also able to help others produce and share ideas.

So one of the main things for a manager is to create an environment where people can be productive. It should also be an environment that people know where to ask help to produce.

Posted at 09:03AM Jan 11, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

"Favoritism" for Foreign Background?

Question: I have been the victim of unfair treatment in terms of promotional opportunities and recognition. Over the years, I have witnessed people moving up without much merits. I am a better manager and never got the opportunity for visible projects or rightful recognition after I have good accomplishments. It seems to me ERI leadership (you geezers) favors foreigners over returnees. Chinese without international experience are at the bottom. Please explain.

Mike: This is an international company. Experience in dealing with other culture as an 'outsider' (or just any unfamiliar situation) adds value to you. If you have dealt with it successfully, that means you have conquered a big barrier. In this heterogeneous environment, you will have to learn how to deal with differences. By doing that, you will not only bring with you experience that you can apply to other situation, but also be able to help others to deal with their problems. And it is natural for everyone to pay a premium to get that experience.

On the other hand, our goal here is to provide a fair & open work place. If there is favoritism that are only based on people's experience and not based on people's ability to add value to their job, that is something worth investigating.

However, being fair does not mean being numerically equal. For two people with similar background, there could still be differences. People do things differently, and we are never all equal. But we have to be fair in making our decisions.

When selecting people, we want to have people that will add extra value as compared to the people that are not selected. The total experience (including overseas experience) has to be part of the consideration. Just BECAUSE one has spent his/her whole life inside China is not the only reason that he/she doesn't get certain position. Finally, anyone that is not selected should feel free to talk to the hiring manager about why he/she is not selected.

Sin-Yaw: Do you know that 90% of the people who drive think themselves as better drivers than average? Similarly, 99% of the software engineers think themselves as better engineers than average in terms of coding skills. There is one golden rule for promotion selection: those who get promoted must contribute to the boss's future success, at least not hinder it.

Being a good manager keeps your job. Being an excellent manager gets you on the queue. Being a contributor to your boss's success gets you promoted.

Ask yourself: How would I help his/her future success? Does he/she know that?

Sun is a global company headquartered in USA. English communication skills are a basic requirement for all employees, particularly so for managers. But the favoritism suspects should check who were promoted during the last 18 months. From the data we are seeing, it does not really support the allegation.

Amiram: Unfair treatment in terms of promotional opportunities... This is a very serious allegation. I can try and touch on it, but being a foreigner myself, I may seem to be part of the problem and not the solution. Also, this seems to be an HR problem. Nonetheless, I believe that Sun Microsystems hires and promotes people based on merits. Sun is committed not to discriminate against anyone based on gender, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, race, religion, color, or national origin.

Based on statistics from here, I don't think that this claim has merits, although as I said, HR should be able to answer this question.

Posted at 02:20PM Dec 25, 2006 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

What if I Started at the Wrong Place?

Question :What should one do after realizing that one has been hired in wrong/less band (MTS) and thus is not getting salary as he should rightly get?

Mike: First, there is a question why he thinks he was hired into the wrong level. We try to hire people by looking at the total number of years of related experience. The word “related” means only experience that can be applied to the position he is being hired into. The leveling tool is generally measuring people's education background and total years of related experience. If some background was hidden from us (for example, he has a Ph.D. Degree which was not in the resume.), he should set it straight by providing evidence to prove the experience.

Second, we can't go back and change the past. If someone was hired as MTS1 with a Ph.D. degree plus 5 years of experience, that IS a problem. We may be able to fix it now or later depending on the environment of the organization.

After reviewing the person's background, another point to consider is how the person has been performing since he/she comes on board. That can tell us whether his performance has proved he is qualified for a higher level position. If not, he is probably hired at the right level. In any case, the conversation should always start with his immediate manager.

Sin-Yaw : First of all, there are no fixed rules on what credentials must be hired for certain job level. Typical qualifications -- education, years of experiences, domain knowledge, etc. -- are simply guidelines. What's most important is whether the person can contribute at the expected level for the job or not. So, strictly speaking, once a person is accepted to a certain level, that will be the definition of the "right level" for the person.

After one has started working at Sun, he enters the promotion process. If you were hired at the wrong level, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that your contribution/productivity is clearly above that of those who are at the same level as you. And that should earn you a "promotion" quickly.

Amiram: When the person was hired, a contract was signed. In the contract there should have been, among other details, the salary. It seems impossible that a person was hired into the wrong band, and his/her salary is inadequate. But suppose there has been a mistake. If all parties agree that the person's band is wrong, then we have the HR tools to fix it. It's the same with salary. He should ask himself the question, is it possible that not all parties involved are in agreement?

Posted at 02:16PM Dec 25, 2006 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[0]

A View on Job Change "Temptation"

Question: One of my employees has an offer from another company for a higher position and a considerable
salary increase. If this person were my friend I would tell them to go for the new job, but as a manager
at Sun I think I'm obligated to try to convince the person to stay at Sun. What do I do?

Sin-Yaw: Do as if you are his or her friend. You should advise your friends to look beyond temporary pay increases and focus on learning and skills development. I have seen people jumping jobs for pay and ended up not growing over the long term. If your friend is still young, remind him or her that skills and relationship will yield better financial rewards over time.

Amiram: Don't forget that you have an obligation to have integrity as well. You can present options (if you have any), and let the person make their own decision. Again, you have to ask the person the following: what is their short term goal, and what is their long term goal? It is quite possible that people leave a stable job, with a lot of growth opportunity in the long term, for a short term opportunity which offers only a pay raise. Do this person have a horizon at Sun? Can they grow? Are they top performers? If the answer to all is "no", then you should probably bless them and let them go. If they do have potential, you should present the long term opportunities at Sun. The bottom line: keep your integrity, don't lie, and if you truly believe that this person is going for the right move, don't try to promise him/her things you can't possible give.

Mike:
Manager is always obligated to do what is right for your group and team. You should try to convince him to stay only if you think this person is good for Sun.

Don't cut side deals. Don't try to match the salary gap.
You don't know if the person will come back in 6 months with another even high offer or if the person is just testing the water.

Also remember to keep a global view of this case.

This is an opportunity to probe what are the underlying things that have led to this person looking for another job in the first place. Ask him about the pluses & minuses about his current job and situation. What would he change?

Except for salary, there are many other factors about a job, for example:
- work environment including both physical environment such as flexible hours, iwork infrastructure, and mental environment such as management style, group interactions.
- intellectual environment. Am I working with smart people and learning from them?

That is why the "Power of Sun" survey asks the question "If you get an offer at another company with similar pay, will you choose to leave Sun?"

Remind the employee that when making decision about a job change, one should also consider the potential risks at the new job. Ask questions like
- "How much do I know about his future job?"
- "Will I get along well with my future management and team members?"
In many cases the job change does not turn out as good as it originally looks.

Posted at 11:31AM Dec 12, 2006 by Wen Michelle Lei in General  |  Comments[2]

"Generic" Interview Questions

Question: Is there a question or set of questions that you ask in almost every interview? If so what is it?

Sin-Yaw: Not really. I try to assess if the candidate is smart, energetic, and has good communication style. I usually pick topics off the resume and drill them deep to see how the candidate reacts to the pressure.

Amiram: I personally like to go over the education (major, special projects), and experience (make sure all years are counted for, and if not ask for an explanation, for each place of work - I ask for special projects/responsibilities and reasons for leaving), Since my interviews are character-oriented (and not technical), I assume that I only see the people who passed technical interview and junior manager interview. I focus on communication, passion, teamwork. And yes, I use intuition in interviews as well.

Mike: I usually organize my interview into four parts. I start the interview by asking relaxing questions about the candidate, (e.g., his previous job, where he comes from etc) to put the candidate at ease.

Then I will go through his resume. I really want to know what he has done that is related to the position he is applying for. I want to understand how he is able to apply his previous experience to the new position. In this section I try to use “behavioral interviewing techniques. But I always try to ask ~80% of the same questions to all the candidates for any given position.

In the end, I will make sure to ask if he has any questions for me. I will also make sure he understands the follow up process and the company's contact by giving out my card and/or contact info.

For a list of typical questions, I have different focus for different positions.

For a people manager candidate, I want to learn more about his management skills and soft skills. I'd usually ask:
- How do you go about making sure your team can get along without you?
- How do you manage down, manage up and manage sideways?
- What is your management style? Why has that style been successful for you?
- Tell me about a situation where you have a problem with an employee. If necessary, I will expand the question by asking how the problem was found out, how was it dealt with and what was the result?

For a program manager candidate, I'd want to learn more about his planning skills and how he influences others.

One thing I try to judge for all candidates is people skills. I am interested to find out how they get along with others. How does he see himself regarding to his position in a big organization?

Posted at 11:27AM Dec 12, 2006 by Wen Michelle Lei in Hiring & Interview  |  Comments[1]