Managing

Years ago, there was a popular management style called "Management by Objectives". It was one of a continuing series of waves of greatest things in management, things that would sweep aside the awkwardness and ineffectiveness of prior efforts and lead the company on the path to profit and happiness. The basic idea of MBO was that you told people what you wanted done, and you rated them on how well they got it done. Companies varied as to how hands-on the managers were, at that point, but hands on or not, people knew, under MBO, what they were supposed to do or get done. This was intended to give them the global view that they needed to advance their careers.

MBO isn't with us any more, but the memory lingers on. This morning, I was reading the Mini-Microsoft blog, which is written by someone who is not only a Microsoft employee but a True Believer in Microsoft. The author writes about the layoffs in Microsoft, which pain him, but more because they weren't done well then that they were done, period. He feels that there were a fair number of people who should have been laid off, because they weren't contributing effectively to the glory that is Microsoft. I winced, thinking of people I've known like that (I recall one guy, at EDS, standing at a meeting and saying that he would 'follow his leader into the desert'; and then there's the 'red suspenders' concept that was popular at EDS for a while). Frankly, I never entirely trust people with that attitude, because I think they are more than willing to toss me overboard for the good of the company. Sorry, Bill, nothing personal.

It got me to thinking about hiring, and evaluations, and how to tell people if they're meeting goals. And what to do when they don't.

The hiring part is easy. It gets more difficult when there are specific job requirements -- you have to be able to code in PLX, you have to be fluent in German, you have to be able to dunk ten basketballs in a row with your eyes closed -- but you can still weed out the ones who don't make it. But then you get to the hard part: integrating these new people into The Team, making the team stronger, more capable. Its relatively easy when what you need is obvious - jeez, we need a center-fielder who can scoop and throw without falling down! - not so obvious when the talents are not so on-display. That coder in PLX is good if they'll be the only one; now projects are getting done in PLX that could not be done before. But if there are others who also code in PLX, things are already getting done, so you have to be able to discern where things are better now. Sometimes, that's not possible. Two programmers doing the same kind of work do not always equal twice the output of one programmer.

And then there are the ones who made the cut, who made the team, but they didn't quite make the grade. They're good enough to be there, but they're not good enough to be the ones that you look for when you have a problem. Make that "a PROBLEM". Around our house, we call that 'the A team' - as in, Yeah, I went to the store last night, but it took a while to check out -- guess they didn't have the A Team on. The writer in that Microsoft article refers to people that he thought should have been terminated, and he was glad that they were -- then astonished to see them hired back. Why are they here again? he asked himself. Although they brought a capability with them, they also brought a less-than-keen focus on the task, the goal, the mission. They weren't there to Make It Happen -- and only that kind were the ones that he thought ought to be there.

I can't argue against that. I always liked to think that I was one of those, but the truth is, I was one of the ones who could do the job, but not Do The Job. The difference is, I think it's the task of the manager to bring people like that -- like I was -- up to speed, making us more capable, more focused, more the sort of person who can run through walls. Most managers can't do that. They're good at firing that sort of person, but they're not good at firing them up.

The concept of MBO was to give you the broad view, let you see what you needed to do, and then let you do it. The concept of the manager was to faciliate that accomplishment and integrate it with those of others in support of the overall organizational goal.

Neither concept seems much popular, these days.