For the Love of...What?

What do you love about your job?

If you have something you do, and do well, you're in a good position. However, dream jobs only come when you discover that you actually enjoy what you do. If I could do anything I want and get paid, it probably wouldn't be what I'm doing now. But I said, "Probably." Because I do love this stuff. And I'll take a moment to indulge my ego and point out that people love the job that I do, too.

The problem is, what if you don't love your job?

I'm not talking about a job that you hate: if you hate the job, you're long overdue to move (and believe me, others will most likely be happy to help you to the door).

No, I'm talking about a job you don't hate...but you can't find anything to love about it.

I've been in a place where this was a real problem. People were no more excited about their jobs than they would be unclogging sinks, or washing dishes.

A recent study found that loneliness is contagious. We know that when people feel lonely, they withdraw. What the study noticed is that before they withdraw, they invariably communicate their feelings of loneliness to others. When they leave, everyone remembers their feelings and starts to echo them.

Remember this, because the same is most surely true of the work you do. If your heart's not in it, if you can't find anything about your job to make you happy, you are contagiously gray. Your lack of passion does not go unnoticed: it spreads to other hosts. You don't have to be the head of the Cheer Squad, but if you must share something, look for the positives.

(Lonely link: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50200/title/Loneliness_is_contagious,_study_suggests )

Madness to the Method

My division is one of many. Ours is currently the only one putting method to the madness, hiring Analysts and Project Managers, documenting all the work that's done, ensuring all the code gets tested, and making sure the customer is happy. We've learned the hard way that when Timmy wrote Our Beautiful Code, Our Beautiful Code is bricked the moment Timmy walks out the door. Too many shops rely on Timmy keeping it all straight in Timmy's head, and there are many developers who thrive on this idea:

"Documentation is nonsense, and asking people questions gets in the way of writing software."
"They'll like what I build because it's not pen and paper."
"They'll use what I give them because they have no choice."
"...And they'll see that I Am the God of the Code."

There's an argument for this approach: it usually starts with, "We haven't got time..." and ends with, "...because everything's on fire!"

People love "the quick win." Developers love it especially because they get bored. They are creative people, and having to labor at the same thing day after day requires a patience and mind for tedium that most other humans lack.

Management loves seat-of-the-pants solutions because they solve a problem quickly. They don't love them when they break. Often another rickety contraption is rolled out while the broken one is trundled backstage to be dismantled.

No one in technology plans very far ahead: that would be silly. Isn't it amazing that Windows XP lasted for 6 whole years? I can tell you now that while it is a nice idea that a software application might still be in use 6 years from now, 10 would be absolutely out of the question. I know without consulting my crystal ball that a user trying to use today's system a decade later is going to curse my name and start casting aspersions on my ancestry.

So why document? Why bother writing it down?

- To get it right before you start down the road
- To build something useful
- To fix breaks without having to track down Timmy
- Because like it or not, you and yours will be supporting this

The Project Manager faces a balancing act between customers and development: imagine your Project Manager going about her daily routine as somewhat like The Cat in the Hat, teetering a goldfish bowl atop an umbrella whilst unicycling. In the midst of this, two important Things must not run amok:

Thing 2 is that the customers must not be bored while you're getting ready for The Great Show that is their product. Don't make them re-read all your use cases and have meetings because you think meetings make your project seem important. Don't use technical jargon to make you seem smart, or go on about this great new feature that Technology X is going to offer the developer.

Thing 1 is that the developers have to be given something of value, then shown--by way of your documentation--that the streets ahead have been paved with gold. I've had more than one developer fuss and struggle with my methods, only to suddenly see, right towards the end of development, that I've magically given the customers training materials and user guides that cut down on the number of phone calls and e-mails...and at the same time I've given the developer a road-map to get back into their system if things go wrong. Or--better yet--hand it off to Junior Developer without having to sit behind him and do half the work using only the power of speech.

The next step I wish to undertake is to empower the client: the more changes to their application that they can apply without putting in a support ticket, the better life gets for everyone.

Without documenting how the machine works, none of us would ever be able to sandbox the client so they don't get themselves stuck.

Making "Dysfunctional" Fun Again

My house has many masters:

I manage my projects
My boss manages my division
His boss manages all our divisions

My boss keeps us organized. He makes sure we don't waste our time or spin our wheels. Rather than the tried-and-true "carrot vs. stick" method, he applies a middle-of-the-road approach that's more like gentle goads. Prods to keep one on the path and away from the dropoffs.

His boss doesn't ask for much. It's an odd mix: she is laissez-faire most of the time, but occasionally gets hit with a spark of innovation. I'd call it "management by magazine" if these ideas weren't driven by a healthy dose of smarts: she's brilliant, she's driven, and she wants to keep all the ducks in a row.

Where the flock starts to scatter is when it comes to the direction. "Now, go forth and do," she says. Imbued with all the great faith that one could ask of a super-boss, off we go to fulfill that vision.

Each of us in separate directions.

I've seen every division head clumped together in the same room with her, raising the Go Team mentality to a full head of steam...and then seen them go out the door wondering what's for lunch in the cafeteria across the street.

It's a shame, really. Some of it is family feuds, but most of it is a lack of whatever "glue" an organization needs to make everybody pull together. I don't think they're jaded about Yet Another Clever Vision so much as they figure getting things done today is more important than making life easier tomorrow.

Tired of fireworks shows that fizzle (and no doubt wanting to put a gold star on the resume before planning an exit strategy), she's done something rather Machiavellian:

She's sidestepped her own managers. She's asked me to be part of a team of leaders. I can't tell if that means we're Vision Evangelists or Next-Gen Management, but either way, it puts as all in an interesting position: whom do we serve?

"ABDICATION, n. An act whereby a sovereign attests his sense of the high temperature of the throne."
--Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

(sourced from Project Gutenberg)

The Cultural Victory

As the dominant software company across the industry, Microsoft has done both good and bad. In the past, they've been investigated for anti-competitive practices. There are times when the Microsoft Way seems to be "steal it, or buy the company and own it...or steal it then buy it if they sue".

Lately I'm beginning to think that Microsoft isn't trying to succeed by putting down its competition: it seems to be succeeding simply by building a better product. If you can trace how technologies like SQL Server 2008 and SharePoint have grown, you start to get part of a bigger picture for them that more resembles the American Dream: ideas, innovation, and energy.

On the other hand, Microsoft's Hall of Shame probably won't have a Vista wing that's as large as, say, the Aisle of Windows Me or the Microsoft Bob Exhibit. The biggest mistakes with Vista were, in my opinion:

1) taking 7 years to build the product, and still having it be so buggy and incompatible on launch; and
2) vendors having 7 years to learn how to write good drivers, and failing to do so.

Both are more shameful if you believe in the "Microsoft was just copying the Mac OS" philosophy: copying someone else's idea means a chance to outdo the competition by learning from their mistakes.

At the end of the day, if you're a company as far-reaching as Microsoft, impacting as many people as you do, youre best-case scenario is to celebrate your successes, own your failures, and learn from both.

Regardless, I'm now hopeful that hope Windows 7 will be less "Copy the Mac" and more "Build a better product."

Computerworld magazine columnist Paul Glen posted an article about how passionate employees aren't a good thing ("Hip-hip hooray for the Passionless", Aug. 10, 2009). In it, he states that employees who are passionate about their jobs can be bad: they wax and wane and that makes their productivity inconsistent and their passion unpredictable. He also suggests that talk of "Passionate employees" is usually the work of managers trying to brag about their leadership skills.

It's easy to peg "passion" as bipolar when you're using a sliding scale. Humans have good and bad days, productive and not-so-productive ones. That doesn't make them dispassionate.
If you define passion as, "Enjoying what you do," it's a lot easier to recognize that passion in the workplace is not about going above and beyond: it's about enjoying what you do, just enough to care about what you do.

The last thing you're going to want in the technology game is passionless drones. They seem to accomplish consistently, but the truth is they barely get by. In IT, it's dangerous for your shop to have people who would be no more excited creating code or helping others than they would be throwing newspapers or mopping floors. I'm seeing that problem now, and morale and productivity are in the tank because of it.

The Computerworld article:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/341344/Two_Cheers_for_the_Passionless

The Wheelbarrow of Cash

Cost Analysis does not turn anyone's crank. The word itself is dry and flat.

Most people don't realize that Cost Analysis is not only a necessary evil, but it's also seldom done correctly.

The best justification for an expenditure is that it sits smack in the middle of the needs pyramid: it's cheap, it can be done fast, and it can be done right.

The worst justification for an expenditure is the phrase, "Because we've always done it this way."

Either way, the most important question to ask yourself is, "Do we really need it?"

If you're renewing licenses that don't help you, or you're paying contracts that barely meet your needs, it's time to look elsewhere. The looking costs time and money too, but in the end, cost analysis is all about ROI. And ROI is never a one-time snapshot: it's an ongoing look at what you're getting back for your commitment.

Climbing Aboard the Starship Enterprise

If you are a large organization, you breathe a huge sigh of relief when you adopt technology.

Then the headaches kick in.

A new version comes out. One upgrade broke another system...until you bought that upgrade too. Now your employees need new machines: the old ones are just so slow.

By the way, the good news is, there's a new Operating System to buy. The bad news is, it's full of bugs and security holes.

Uh-oh--security! I bet you didn't give IT Security a second thought when you put all this together back in the '90s. You slapped McAfee on everything and called it a day, right? Oh, dear--you need firewalls. And countermeasures. Hrm...but you also need to make sure the guards don't punish the peasants: let the right people pass in and out of the gates, and keep the wrong people out. Don't forget to keep an eye on everyone so no one's sneaking your goods through the gates: your enemy pays a high price for your intellectual gold.

What to do with all this growth? "Go Enterprise", they say. The word "Enterprise" signifies a bold business venture. It's both Star Trek and an aircraft carrier--sounds pretty robust.
Enterprise IT is robust. The simplest explanation is this: it manages big systems, in a big way, by thinking big.

And requires you to chuck everything out the window and start over. Really, when IT scales to the Enterprise, it's a good idea to build out the entire infrastructure for an Enterprise scale of operations, and it's a bad idea to try to get there by just bolting on pieces-parts to an existing system.

This is when you start to realize that the NASCAR way is not your way: you don't need a ton of stickers on your Formula One, you just want a couple. No, I don't need Microsoft, SAP, HP/Compaq, Cisco, Symantec, IBM, and some third-party vendors to wander around tinkering with things: just Dell and Microsoft will do. Maybe some Cisco to tie it all together.

Time for another huge sigh of relief: the system is done. It's out there for everybody--Intranet, Internet, Extranet.

So now what? Time to sit back, and reflect. No, really--reflection is good for the soul. Amidst that hive of activity, there are a lot of busy bees bumping heads. You need to turn your gaze inwards. Work that Enterprise system to build a better Enterprise. Use Reporting to tell you what everyone's doing, and how it's working out. Use Analytics to uncover how they're doing it, and see if maybe they could be doing it better.

Are you ready for the challenge? Because the last thing you want to do is outsource it. Vendors will line up at your door if you say you need Business Process Reengineering, and they'll eagerly drop all those buzzwords that got you into IT in the first place: "out of the box", "robust", "turnkey", "integrated" and of course, the twins: "zero configuration" and "high ROI".

At the end of the day, nobody cares about your company like you do. Care enough to find good people who'll commit to the Enterprise. Bring them in, put them to work, and treat them well. You'll find that everything you do isn't as disposable as it once seemed. You'll see that there's a price for dumping developers back in the ocean and fishing around for more. It costs time and money to jettison Project Managers and have the new one rebuild political bridges. And no one knows your systems like your Analysts do. They're the ones who understand your users, and figure out how your IT can serve them.

More headaches? Well, yes and no. More of a brief aftershock, followed by an epiphany. You'll know that an Enterprise-level company deserves a system to match. And you'll see that everyone being on the same page will always serve the Emperor better than a land of fiefdoms.

Another Man's Shoes, Soon to be Empty

As tough as things were, I was surprised at my new job to find someone who had it tougher. This was a place of job security, of easy, relaxed complacency: nobody scream, you'll get things done, just do your best and take your time.



It's never a perfect world. No bunnies or unicorns bringing you candy and carrying you off to dreamland. He stood there at the team-building event, where he was asked to talk about himself, and talked about other people. About how grateful he was that he had their help, and that they'd helped him cope with his personal battles, even though this was a workplace, and these things aren't supposed to be aired in a "professional" environment.



He'd spent the past year dying. He still came to work. Even when he had to be driven home. Even when his boss finally said, "Go home and get well, so you can come back to us sooner." All of us knowing that wasn't going to be what happened.



He has 6 weeks to live. Maybe. And he's still sending thank-yous down the grapevine, for all the cards and the well-wishes.



Thank you, my friend. For being positive. For knowing that that's truly the only way to make the most of your time.

The Crisis of the Mind

In the whirlwind of economic failures, IT has become a shitstorm. The field was cruel and greedy enough before the sudden purges.

What is important to remember is this: it's not you. You're in this field because you're willing to stand strong. No matter how hard it gets, know that at some point you're going to look back on these times and be pleased that they're gone. And remember how you got through them all right.

Stand strong. You wouldn't have a resume if you didn't have something to sell.

If it ain't broke...we can't sell it?

I don't understand why Microsoft completely revamped IIS 7.0, changing the security model from the ground up.

I think it's the old saw about "Job Security": everyone having to start over once in a while keeps them from being able to say, "We don't need to upgrade--it's the same old, same old...".

Plus it sells more books.

A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small

I got tasked with a project that for some reason strikes me as just plain fun. It's the kind of work that you take home with you, that gets in your head in your idle moments. Much to my good fortune, I started blue-skying about the project's potential, and got told that not only could we fill out the Happy-Path wishlist, the work had already been half-done in an earlier attempt to get the project done.
Pinch me.
Then the other shoe dropped: the reason this project stopped all that time ago was because the product would only have been used by four people. And now all of those people are gone, and the new guy is having to do their jobs.
I cringed at the idea that I might have to break the news to the client that they couldn't have what they wanted. And said a brief prayer of thanks that I hadn't told him about the many amazingly cool things we could do with his project.
I went to my superiors, expecting them to say, "Sorry, we can't justify the cost for just one user," and shoot the project down. Instead they asked the question, "How important is this data?" They had me talk to somebody in a different area who had asked management for the data. I discovered that not only was he going to need the information we had, but he'd need it to be produced using the blue-sky goodies we'd shelved. And the people that he in turn was needing to pass the data to would provide Federal funding to see to it the job got done.
Suddenly, that one miserable person has the potential to get something that's not only going to make his job a whole lot better, it's going to give him some cool tools...and raise his importance to everyone else around him.
Pinch me.

Corporate Kudzu

It's interesting, the differences between the private and the public sector, and yet there are also similarites. I've worked in government offices where not much gets done, and nobody worries about it.

I had one position where it seemed like no one had worked in the private sector, but they insisted they were, "just like a private company". It had this odd effect on the culture: no one who was a government employee could really be "fired", but they all spent their time worrying and moaning that any day, the axe was gonna swing. Everyone worked really late hours, and yelled a lot, but at the end of the day, they really didn't accomplish much more than any other agencies. I kept thinking they were playing "dress-up".



I didn't last very long there. I didn't have it in me to join in on the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. And I'm too cheery to let someone yelling at me convince me they're right. I also didn't talk politics: there were strong feelings about which party you supported, and if you didn't pick one and choose your allies, you were fodder for the front line.


One place that actually was a typical model and got to play dress-up: a billion-dollar multinational company that was simply beautiful. Beautiful people in expensive suits, women in the latest corporate fashions, and everybody buzzing like a beehive, thrumming with activity. It was like a dream, but you couldn't have it without stepping into the Pod...you were trained before you were allowed to start your first day, and the training was steeped in the Lore of Political Correctness: this is how we talk, this is how we use the phone, this is how we approach people, and these are the things we can and can't do because someone might have their feelings hurt.

It was kind of like a friend of mine's living arrangements--he was in a contract-driven "neighborhood association community". The kind of place with monthly meetings and a thick book of rules. He got in trouble for washing his car in the driveway. He got in trouble for popping the hood where everybody could see the icky engine--why couldn't he just let "The Mechanic" replace the air filter for him? (if you're like me, you're "The Mechanic". Not all of us can afford to overpay someone for a 5-minute part swap). And he got in trouble for generally not fitting in.

His neighborhood also had pest control come and take care of "the squirrel problem". The social sterilization procedures are what made this fascinating: someone had actually convinced the tenants that the Pest Control company doesn't harm the squirrels. Nothing bad--it was all for the better! They were gently captured in a cage full of treats, and then taken...away. To live somewhere happy and free. Some squirrel farm, where they had plenty of free space to roam.



I had a great time with the people in my billion-dollar multinational company: we had weekly meetings over a beer, we played pool together and went bowling, and still managed to crank out a lot of great achievements, crafting feather after feather for our caps.



And yet I always had this weird feeling that at some point, the squirrel truck would come. And I wasn't sure if I'd be on it or driving it.

Who's Holding the Bucket for the Bailout

This situation is a Financial World War II. Only this time, we are Europe and they are us.

We have been invaded by an insidious nationalistic propaganda that has deluded us all to the point of collapse. Our own people can't seem to stop the invasion because the masses are against them. We need someone to step in and stem the tide.

Unfortunately, this war doesn't involve boats or bombers or soldiers: it's about cash and credit. We need one or the other (or both, if you please), and the only thing we've got as collateral is an outstretched hand and a request for past favors returned to us.

If other markets demand liquidity, America will crash and bleed out like an Ebola patient. Other nations might like to think there won't be a domino effect, but the truth is that the more those dollars are pushed back, the more they drop and the less they give back as everyone scrambles for the exit. If our country won't nationalize its financial system by buying it up (and that statement alone tells you how bad off we are), then we need to outsource our credit to willing buyers.

Is this the Global Economy we've been waiting for?

Let me Reiterate the Point

I had an interview with a company where the development manager used the word "Iterative" to describe the development model.



For those not in the know, software development typically falls into a workflow cycle, and this cycle can be described in many ways. "Iterative" implies that development begins, moves forward, and doesn't stop. Anything that modifies the development cycle along the way is held off and incorporated in the next iteration: "That's a nice add-on, but we're a bit too far down the road for that right now. Let's incorporate that into Phase 2." Everything is broken up into neat cycles.



What made this interview stand out was the constant re-use of the word "Iterative". It came up several times in the conversation until, when I was finally asked what development methodology I prefer, I'd have been incredibly stupid to say, "Waterfall." I pointed out why I liked the iterative model of development: it encapsulates the scope of each development cycle, it acknowledges the need for modifications along the way, and it provides them a place in the next iteration so that the project isn't constantly stopped and changed. Imagine the difference between changing your oil every 3,000 miles, versus driving with the hood open and the drain plug out and constantly pouring quarts as you head down the road. Obviously, when you wait to mess with things, you get somewhere.



The last time I heard "Iterative" in the conversation was thus:



"It's good that you can work in an iterative environment: a lot of developers get here and find that they can't work with it. They get frustrated because we are so iterative."



I get the feeling they don't quite understand what "Iterative" means...but it's the closest word someone has come up with to describe their crazy work environment, and because it's a buzzword, it sounds more reasonable. More businesslike. It calms everyone down: "It's okay; we're just being Iterative." I got the impression that their journey is more like the driver insisting the oil can't be changed yet...while a half-dozen user-demons are prying at the hood. And the backseat passengers (stakeholders) are telling the driver to just go ahead and pull the hood release so they can do what they want. Management would be passengering, trying to reach around and pop the hood for you because you're the only one with your eyes on the road.

Between the Lines

I had an interview today that told me a lot. It wasn't any one of these things, but the combination of them that gave away what working for this company was like.

When they said,
"The typical work-week is 40-50 hours"

They meant,

"The typical work-week is 50+ hours"

You can tell this because they also said,

"We're not clock-watchers here."

meaning

"If we were clock-watchers, we'd all be miserably depressed at how much time we spend here."

"People can come in as early as they like: some enjoy being here at 6 A.M. and others stay 'til sometime in the evening."

In other words,

"Most people do both"

or

"The typical workday is distracting and frustrating, but you need to be here. It's the times before and after the users and stakeholders get here that you'll be getting anything done."

You can't always infer these things this way--but in this case, the combination of the above phrases, and the way the Development Manager looked when they said them, told me the truth.

There's nothing wrong with hearing, "We need someone who can hit the ground running", but I'm coming across a lot of shops who seem to have cranked up the treadmill and everyone's trying to be George Jetson: "Help! Jane! Stop this crazy thing!"

A lot of times this is because the company has been running on a binge/purge model of staffing: developers are a dime a dozen, so let's get a dozen or two, run them on projects, and if/when things start to get tricky--deadlines slip or developers push back on the requests--we'll let them go and look for some new ones. This is reasonable, given the circumstances: it's hard for a non-technical person to interview for a technical position and know that a person's skill-set is what is needed. And there are a lot of programmers out there who talk a good game.

What happens when you have so many hands on the code is that you have so many different ways things were accomplished that the applications become more of a mess the more they are worked on. In this case a lot of the in-house work was going to be to bring everything to one platform. Matters were made worse by the fact that the company had acquired two other companies very quickly, and to keep things running smoothly and make the mergers happen as quickly as possible, they had simply maintained all three separate systems...of everything. Billing, HR, Auditing and more were performed three times over because nothing had been merged yet. Three cheers to them for wanting it done, but a chorus of boos for waiting for everyone's jobs to reach critical mass before acknowledging it was needed.

Nuclear Escalation

Lawsuit Lawsuit Lawsuit.

I'm not sure why some companies feel the need to throw the "L" word around, but there it is. Like eBay going after Craigslist.org, I fail to understand the need to legally assault anyone and everyone--just because you can pay lawyer's fees, doesn't mean you should.

I think it's because some people enjoy the power: I'm thinking of three specific businesses in my area that claimed (to their employees, at least) to be pursuing legal action against former co-workers. Some were people who quit, some were let go, but I think the reason the jilted take to the courts is because they see an easy win: the little guy's not a big company, and besides, he's not even employed now! He'll never make court costs. He'll beg to settle, and we'll draw up the terms. As I'd mentioned in an earlier post, telling your employees that the guy who left is getting hauled to court is good for morale: either your remaining staff think he must have been pretty bad to warrant that treatment...or they fearfully shut up and hope they're not next.

Oddly, for all the gab from management, I've yet to see any of these particular instances make the papers. I suspect it's because they never happen. Companies get stung, they react, and the bad guy may get a nasty letter from a lawyer. Hard to corroborate my sources when the alleged accused is long gone and not eager to talk about it.

Regardless of your circumstances, never burn any bridges. Even if you're moving to another state, keep your head high, do your best to remain amicable, and don't stoop to mudslinging if your employer tries to draw you in. Document everything and insist on getting things in writing (and refuse to leave the premises until they do, or you'll never get it). Most importantly, smile and wish them well. Because when you blow up, shout at people, use obscenities, or even just think you're clever because you deleted everything off the server, you open yourself up to being sued into the afterlife.

Environmental Extremes

I don't like having to work so many different places in IT: retention rates these days seem to be awful.



But the interesting thing has been the experiences I've had with so many different places.

At this point, I've been in massive corporate halls of beautiful marble, where everyone is beautiful and they wear the latest fashions...and I've been in 8-room offices with ripped furniture, beer in the break room, and X-Box on Fridays.

What I learned from this is that for me, it really doesn't matter where I work. It's what I'm doing, and who I'm with. Do I like what I'm doing? If not, can I at least keep doing it without coming home miserable and/or annoyed? Are the people nice? That plays an important part--if you like being around the people you work with, you can overlook a lot of sins.

I had one job that was very personally rewarding: I felt like I was part of something great, and I was doing a lot of good for a lot of people--except the ones I was working for. For them I could do no right. They made me miserable, did horrible things with no regard for the danger they placed the general public in, and they ruined my health physically with the most horrible work environment an office could ever manage.

What matters to you?

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 3: The Raised Bar and the Sinking Quicksand

Despite the multiple hoops I have to jump through, I'm finding that the prize on the other side is sometimes snatched away. I feel sorry for Contracting companies right now because they're getting hit from both sides: the Scylla of desperate employees trying to squeeze top dollar from their contract, contract-to-hire, or direct-hire options; and the Charybdis of employers wanting fast movement through their own glacial slush.

To be specific, I have had three job opportunities that have taken the following steps:

1. Beg the contractor to find them someone--anyone. The water-cooler story was one place where the hiring manager said, "I'm so desperate I'm willing to stand out on the road with a cardboard sign, in a chicken suit, to draw people in the door!"


2. Hurry up and make this great guy wait. The company representing me says, "They loved your resume, and want to interview you right away--how soon are you available?" Then proceeds to be unable to get a straight answer as to when they'll interview you: is it this week? Next week? Either nobody at the company actually planned ahead, or multiple agencies are stoking my ego before the company's actually heard of me (possible)


3. Stop the Train! It's getting too close to the station! There's always something that stalls the last step. If the whole operation died at the beginning, that would be one thing--I'd immediately assume the problem was with me. But what's happening is that the company finds some fault with me, something about my skills or personality that's "not a good match" despite being happy with everything up to that point.

This is all well and good--as I told one apologetic interviewer, "I understand that these things take time and you want to think it over. I'd rather you know that I'm the right fit than have you place me somewhere I won't bring value to you." (Been there, done that, it's part of why I'm now looking, thankyouverymuch)

The problem is that these particular companies I mention are making things worse for themselves. What happens is that with each candidate they reject, they raise the bar: reasons for rejection go from "Not talented" to "Not friendly" to "Wrong Hat Size." While this is happening, the work piles up and the project deadlines slide farther towards infinity. The work environment becomes a morass of quicksand that guarantees failure because even if they do find Mister or Ms. Right, that person's going to drown in a muddy mess. They're going to be miserable and bail on an impossible workload, muttering under their breath the whole while about what a crazy place that was.

One frustrated contracting rep told me he vented on the company. "Look," he said, "If I send you seven people a week, you tell me there's something wrong with all of them, and a week later they've all got high-paying jobs in your area, then the problem isn't the people." I don't blame him: this particular position has been open since July 2007. It's now June 2008 and the position is still unfilled. The last I heard was that they were insistent that they needed someone yesterday and it's getting more urgent by the minute. The other two companies have been 6 months and 70+ candidates, respectively (see previous post).

As desperation grows, "We need someone to hit the ground running" is the catch-phrase. But in which direction will they run?

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 2: The Buyer's Market

I was let go in March. The only employment statistic worse than March's unemployment rate...was April's unemployment rate. So that means I'm up against a lot of competition. I also have to be less mercenary than my competitors: I can't take a 6-month contract and pick up and go, moving anywhere in the country. I have a family to take care of, but neither would you see me sacrificing my time with them to fly somewhere every Monday and come back every Friday.

What this means is that the companies who are looking now have the luxury of picking and choosing. They can also take their time. For my part, I have to commit far more time and effort, and hit the largest number of opportunities to improve my odds. Where a typical job hunt involves a phone pre-screen, a phone interview, and a quick in-person interview, now the decisions I've tried to sway have required the following of me:

• Psychological profiles


• IQ Tests


• Agreement to be investigated for criminal, credit, and personal history


• Online skill assessments


• Preliminary phone screens


• Technical phone screens


• In-person preliminary interviews (usually technical)


• In-person "get to know you and see if you fit with the team" interviews

More than one place has done all of the above. Most at least do a choice of IQ or Personality, then skill assessments, then the rest. It takes a lot of my time, and if you think about it, it takes a lot of their time, too. They have to read resumes, call clients or companies, assemble interview teams and schedule the appointments.

I was told that one place has been through 70 interviewees and still not filled the position. Imagine that for a moment. With three employees managing the process, a conservative estimate will come up with the following numbers:

• Psych/IQ - 1/2 hour (1 employee schedules, evaluates scores, and handles e-mails)


• Resume - 1 hour (2 employees spend a half an hour reading and discussing, and we'll assume they just read the one, and even be generous and lump skill tests in)


• Phone screen - 3 hours (2 employees X 1.5 hours)


• In-person Interview - 4.5 hours (3 employees X 1.5 hours)

Even skipping some steps, we have 9 hours per candidate, times 70 candidates = 630 hours to fill one position. I can't imagine spending 630 work-hours on anything that isn't directly related to a project.

What I haven't figured out is how anyone gets anything done in this model--after all, how many hours in a day do we have?

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 1: The Opportunity Cost

Looking for a new job has been interesting, to say the least. When economic jitters hit a company, it's often surprising to see what bizarre steps they'll take to save money. No one has time for close analysis of financials in a business: that's the kind of thing you hear in Mutual Fund reports. Without taking a look at the waste, a company often makes guesses. They cut things that seem expensive. And in the effort to stop waste, that lack of forethought instead wastes more.

For the first time in a job search, I'm running across more than one position that is "cancelled". At some point along the way, the company just calls the whole thing off. "They cut the budget," I am told. "We had to cancel the position. Maybe we'll regroup in the fall."

The problem with this is seldom that the company spent too freely on a hiring binge. Usually the position was shopped out because there was a need for it. Something was getting held up, and now that something is not getting the attention it needs to get better (expect said something to possibly be amputated or outsourced by Q4 if things don't improve).

In tandem with my previous post about wanting the moon for the price of a cup of coffee, I just came across a position that was resubmitted into the system after being canceled. Same company, same job title, but at lower pay. And with some expensive buzzwords tacked on, the kind that normally push this job's salary in the other direction. Thankfully, we didn't get far with me before it was cancelled. But I suspect that the protests that the hire "can't afford to be done" are simply incorrect:

It can afford to be done. When you take into account what it'll cost not to.