Welcome to MyPath

I firmly believe the best engineers are pessimists.  They always expect things to go wrong and therefore take great pride in elegant designs that thwart the ever-present malaise of Murphy's Law.  In contrast, however, overtly pessimistic corporate executives are often seen as pariahs.  Pessimistic politicians suffer the same intolerance.  Political pundits universally give bad grades to government officials that express doubt and negativism.  Realistically, few citizens would be likely to vote for a candidate that said we faced complex problems, years of difficulties, and that we would have to sacrifice to dig our way out of this mess.  Voters and corporate stockholders universally want to hear only of cheap, fast, and easy solutions.  Cheerleading, it seems, is simply an expected part of the executive job description.

Everyone gets nervous at the status meeting when an engineer says words like "problem" or "delay".  Likewise, a corporate CEO expressing worry about the future of the company could cause a dramatic drop in the stock price and perhaps a mass exodus of critical staff.  In both cases, problems and uncertain solutions cause anxiety.

But the similarity between engineers and executives ends quickly.

A development engineer often walks into a new project knowing she will face troubles and, initially, may have little understanding of important facts and technologies.  She knows it is her job; her very reason for drawing a salary, to learn needed information and overcome complexities as they arise on the project.  Research engineers and scientists are even further removed from the executive world.  Their world consists of complex and confusing problems with no obvious solution.  Scientists discover and overcome the laws of nature by poking and prodding and thinking and hypothesizing and testing.  You are likely to hear only scientists and hardcore engineers say "Wow!  That is really a cool problem.  I have no idea how I'm going to solve it".

Executives, both corporate and governmental, may be expected to already know everything.  Sometimes it seems they are not only expect to know everything but to act that way.  It can be unbecoming for an executive to say a problem is difficult and will take a long time to solve.  Indeed, incumbent elected officials most often lose to a newcomer because the newcomer does a better job of convincing the voters that the problems we face are easily overcome.

While the details of the work of the engineer and the executive differ greatly, an even greater difference is the image or perhaps aura that the person must create and cultivate.  Engineers are generally tolerated if they are quirky or moody, cynical or pessimistic, or even perhaps antisocial.  Executives must always be and act the part of coach and mentor.  They must not only lead but also cheerlead.  Herein lies the difficulty that distinguishes great leaders from the ordinary.

I've seen staff roll their eyes in meetings where senior executives state with great vigor how well things are going.  The working folks know the reality of what is going on.  They see it every day.  Boisterous, excessive cheerleading loses the audience.  They think the executive is either a liar or a fool.

Great leaders are able to walk the line of encouragement.  They are not insanely optimistic, nor brutally honest about severe problems.  They are "Goldilocks", the just right cheerleaders who motivate the staff to greatness instead of losing them to hyperbole.

The demands of the two jobs (engineer and executive) are so very different few excel at both – but the world lies at the feet of those who master them.

Management By Focus is a methodology used to manage projects for which a number of features are not yet defined.  This tactic is employed to get an early start on a project before the requirements are fully known.  Work is initiated with a purposefully impaired view of the long-term goals.  This is generally done with good intentions to minimize engineering concern.

Experienced managers know that engineers often worry about designs done for systems in which there are a number of unknowns.  The engineers may worry that their designs will be inefficient or perhaps even inappropriate once the unknowns are understood.  The managers, however, are in a difficult situation.  The clock is ticking and they believe, or have been told, the project must get started.  This doesn't mean the risks are unknown or ignored by management – only that they believe they have no choice but to move forward.

In this situation, well-intentioned managers may be rightfully concerned that engineers will be distracted and slowed by the unknowns.  Since work must begin, management needs a plausible scheme to focus the engineers' attention on what is known as opposed to what is unknown.  Enter Management By Focus…  Of necessity, this strategy involves some amount of posturing as the engineers must be told there are no unknowns of consequence and they will be provided more information when they need to know.  In reality, they will be told more after someone figures it out.

To the inexperienced observer, Management By Focus may initially seem the height of folly.  Not so.  This is simply an unfortunate situation where the managers feel trapped by the necessity of beginning the project and genuinely consider this to be their best option.  Indeed, from this perspective, the idea makes sense.  Putting distractions and worries out of your head and focusing on the things you know and control seems like a good thing to do.

I understand the rationale that concludes Management By Focus is needed, but I cannot passionately defend actually using it.  While Management By Focus sometimes produces acceptable results, there are often good reasons to be concerned about a project harboring a large number of unknowns.  In fact, I'm writing this blog because I recently reconnected with some folks I worked with several years ago.  We discussed a project on which they are still working.  It should have taken 16 to 18 months, but management felt strongly time was of the essence.  The stated goals were to have a good demo in 5 months and a salable product in 12 months.  Now, more than 4 years later, the product is on its third architecture and still not complete.  While several impressive demos have been conducted, the product has not been used by a single paying customer.

I have to conclude that Management By Focus is extremely high risk with respect to producing a viable product in a timely fashion.  There are usually good reasons why talented people worry about undefined or open-ended features and functions.

On the other hand, running a company is much more than building and selling a product.  Sometimes you need a persuasive story to obtain funding or to get the project approved.  Sometimes facts and a robust design are not as important as launching the idea.  Worried engineers with furrowed brows don't help the sales pitch.  In such scenarios, cautious use of Management By Focus may be the best option.

You come to work every day and work on routine tasks with the same people.  You want more excitement in your life… and a change of scenery wouldn’t hurt either.  Suddenly you see the answer.  It's time to become a consultant.

But wait… there are a few things to consider before you resign your current job.  Perhaps the most important is to understand the difference between "body-shop" consultants and "independent" consultants.

Body-shop consultants are actually W2 employees of a company.  That company has a contract to provide support and they assign one or more of their employees to that work.  Later, the same employee may be assigned to a different support contract, but assignment after assignment the employee continues to receive a salary from their employer.  In actual practice, this often amounts to the "body-shop" company finding a new qualified person and hiring them to do the needed work.  When that work is finished the consultant may then be hired by another company to work on a different contract.  This activity may continue over and over and the consultant may receive W2s from a number of different companies each year.

Independent consultants, on the other hand, are W2 employees of no company except perhaps their own.  Any money they make comes as payment on work they obtained.

Body-shop consultants are something of an intermediate step between being an ordinary employee and going all the way to becoming an independent consultant.  As you might expect there are positives and negatives to this intermediate step – and, of course, one person's positive may well be another's negative.  In the end, your personality will decide where you will be the happiest.

The following table briefly highlights some of the differences the two modes of consulting.

The preceding table is only a partial list of things to ponder.  Indeed, a thorough treatment of some of these briefly stated topics could cover many pages.  For example, you may want to consult your tax advisor or spend some time on www.irs.gov to make sure you understand the risk associated with being classified as a Statutory Employee.

Consulting is not for the squeamish.  Consultants are often the first to go in a downturn and the availability of more work is not always predictable.  In addition, resuming your career as a traditional employee can be adversely impacted by your stint as a consultant.  Some unenlightened managers worry about hiring former consultants.  They worry you may view their position as a temporary stopover to fill a gap between your ongoing consulting contracts.

If the lack of predictability and security doesn't bother you, perhaps you are made of the "right stuff" to thrive in the turbulent lifestyle of the consultant.

Federal taxes have deductions and exemptions to motivate certain behavior.  For example, you get to deduct interest payments on your house mortgage because the government wants to encourage homeownership.  Likewise you get a deduction for children because the government believes having children is good.  Corporate bonus plans are similarly structured to encourage behavior the company deems desirable.

Smaller companies may not have an official bonus plan because of the labor needed to administer it.  They also may not benefit as much from such a thing since a smaller company is more intimate.  It is easier to track individual performance and behavior and therefore easier to guide and motivate individual employees.  In addition, smaller companies generally have simpler and more focused objectives.  This leaner and lower overhead organization makes them both more nimble and more at risk when unexpected events occur or when they experience a downturn in their more narrow market.

Running a larger company well requires planning, and lots of it.  Several times per year corporate executives gather and "guess" at their future revenue and plan how to spend it.  Raw materials and such must be purchased, debts must be paid, and so on.  Larger companies generally have distinct pools of money designated for specific objectives.  They must have a pool for annual raises, one for executive bonuses, one for building maintenance, one for research and development, and much more.  This means when it comes time for your annual raise, more money for you means less money for others and visa versa.  If snow removal costs are unexpectedly high the company must borrow money or take it from some other pool.  If revenue is unexpectedly low, some or all pools of money must suffer.

Corporations exist to make money.  Hence, the fundamental idea behind any bonus is to cultivate conduct and actions that make the company more money.  Bonuses can be an ad hoc few dollar "thank you" for working late, a $3,000 hiring bonus to persuade a valued candidate to accept a job offer, or a "golden handcuffs" retention bonus to discourage a critical employee from leaving.  There can be distinct bonus plans for non-managers, managers, and executive management.

In engineering companies (I've never worked in a brokerage house or bank), a defined corporate plan usually considers three factors in the computation of a bonus:  How you did, how your group did, and how the company did.  I've seen several situations where the excellent performance of an employee resulted in little or no reward because the company as a whole did not do well.  In such a situation, managers may try to console the employee with the infamous quote: "We can't do much for you this year – but NEXT year…"

The beauty – and the risk – of a bonus is that the company is not committed to paying this money.  That is why it is called a bonus instead of a salary.  No matter how much employees come to expect the money there is no guarantee they will receive anything if the company as a whole does poorly – at least in engineering companies.

My personal career has transitioned many times between being a manager and being an engineer, but for me this transition has never been absolute.  As a young engineer I often asked organizational questions and worried about system issues.  Some of my superiors thought this was a waste of my time and tried to "focus" me on my specific technical assignment.  I first sought a management position to officially broaden my area of responsibility so I would be allowed to work on a wider range of issues.

A year or two after becoming a manager I joined a start-up company where my primary value reverted to being an individual technical contributor.  I've "flip-flopped" (!!) between being predominately management and predominately technical several times since.

Speaking with some experience in these roll changes, it seems harder to go back to being technical because the technical world changes so rapidly.  Skills in great demand today become obsolete in just a couple of years.  In my career my personality protected me from significant obsolesces – as a manager I never stopped being somewhat technical.  I had some success in retaining my hold on technology by having my staff train me on technology with which I was unfamiliar.  I also continued, as I had since childhood, in "playing" with technology on a regular basis.  Today, unrelated to my day-job, I do Objective C based iPhone development.  Why?  Because it's fun!

Your first management position, like being a first-time parent, can be a challenging learning experience.  But leadership experience lasts a long time.  Going from a technical job back to a management position really seems much easier because people are people and have been since Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Beowulf.  I've been through management training courses at a number of companies and I must say most of it comes down to common sense and the Golden Rule you learned in elementary school, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Of course management is not really as simple as the Golden Rule.  Individual interests, temperament, and background result in the job of technical management being performed in a number of different ways.  Managers can operate at a high level, treating people and technologies as amorphous objects to be manipulated or they can be intimately involved with design and implementation and provide hands-on guidance and mentoring.  Ultimately, however, your choice of management style must be compatible the wishes and culture of your company.  No matter how smart or how productive, a manager will only be valued and promoted if her management style conforms to the expectations of her superiors.  Behaving in a fashion outside of the corporate norm makes superiors nervous – and having nervous executives concerned about your potentially unpredictable behavior is never career enhancing.

A number of companies value the "hands-on" managers who continue to use their expertise to guide people and designs.  However, most such managers have a rather short "half-life" as the demands of their management position prevent the regular honing of their technical skills.  Indeed, without interest and effort, your technical skills become more dated and eroded the longer you are a manager and the higher you migrate up the management hierarchy.

Former engineers who are now senior executives may have technical skills that are 10 or 20 or more years removed from relevance – yet their guidance and advice are far more valuable now then it ever was when they were engineers.  This is because of their experience, demonstrated wisdom, and extraordinary vision.

Your first management position can be a stepping-stone to greatness, but it is also likely to be quite different from anything you've done before.  Like any new job, study and adaptability can be of great benefit as you master the demands of your new position.

As a young engineer I was once tasked with making a finicky interface behave correctly.  Working on this was quite complicated and involved both hardware and software.  It required close collaboration with the local field service representative of the company supplying a critical component.  We managed to get the interface working properly and in the process I established a great relationship with the field service rep.  Having a good rapport with a vendor's technical expert can be very helpful.  A relationship of mutual trust allows the vendor representative to quietly share information about "quirks" with their products and how others may have worked around them.

A few weeks later we were visited by a delegation from the vendor.  We were one of their major customers and they wanted to make sure we were happy and would continue to purchase large numbers of their components.  Loosely mingling after a presentation, a well-dressed middle-aged man approached me and told me how happy he was that we managed to get everything working.  He told me how important quality was to them and asked what features or capabilities I would like to see in the future.  This man was unlike my friend the field service rep.  I found his manner and bluster to be annoying.  We chatted for a while and he told me of the many wonderful things his company was developing.  Some of the things he said conflicted with what I had read in the press or heard from the field service rep.  On one topic I expressed skepticism but he assured me in the strongest possible fashion that they were nearly ready to deploy these wonderful devices.  Not only that, but his company would devote whatever resources were necessary to ensure our success in using any and all of them.

Afterward I asked my boss about the well-dressed guy telling crazy stories.  It turns out the blowhard was the eastern regional sales manager, an important person in his company. This was a learning experience at an early stage of my career.  It seemed engineers and businessmen lived in different worlds and operated under different rules.  Engineers and businessmen have different backgrounds, personalities, and goals.  To generalize, some businessmen want to "do the deal" or "make the sale" whereas many engineers by natural personality and training want to deal with facts.  Understanding "business speak" and the at times exaggerated claims and promises of the business world can be difficult for some engineers.

As an engineer, you can't negotiate with nature.  The laws of physics may be misunderstood by the finite human mind but they are nevertheless fixed and immutable.  The engineer must understand enough of nature's idiosyncrasies to accomplish the assigned task.  This contrasts greatly with the worlds of business and politics where image, an aggressive personality, and clever sound bytes can buy you the world.  Businessmen (and politicians) at times get carried away with the moment and lose track of some facts in the telling of a good story or in making a sale.  The cultures are so very different that few people excel in both.  Worse, many times inhabitants of one domain have difficulty communicating with those of the other.  Sometimes humorous and occasionally tragic misunderstandings occur.

Faced with a challenging environment, the engineer may learn defensive behaviors.  They may begin to think that testimonials and talk and promises are meaningless.  They may question people and problem descriptions.  Unfortunately, such attitudes can lead to hard feelings and a perception of being a difficult person.  Being seen in this way is probably not career enhancing.  We all have to get along and you can't change the word – at least you can't change it quickly.  Adapt to your environment and embrace the diversity of the beliefs and cultures of your neighbors and coworkers.  Don't be an outsider.  Work within the system to improve your company and the world.  This means the engineer must learn people skills to succeed in the workplace and in life.

Too many engineers ignore soft skills.  Verbal and non-verbal connotations dominate the world.  A wink and a nod sometimes convey far more information than a multi-page email.  Businessmen and politicians control the world and the engineer depends on communicating with them and pleasing them to succeed.  An observant person can see that successful people know how to stand, how and when to smile, and when to applaud.  Learning a few behavioral skills can have many benefits.  They will not only advance your career but can help you get a date too…

Does a graduate degree significantly benefit your career?  Is it worth the cost and effort needed to obtain one?  In Engineering or other technical disciplines additional education beyond a Bachelor's Degree can enhance specific knowledge and one's general background, but… does it improve your career prospects?  Do you have a better chance of advancing if you get a graduate degree?

In the field of Engineering, I would have to say the answer is… maybe. I've worked a variety of jobs for many years but have never seen a hiring decision where one candidate was chosen over another solely because of having a graduate degree.  In the corporate world, graduate degrees seem to be a plus or bonus - the icing on the cake so to speak.  However, the academic community presents a distinctly different environment.  Your educational level and the certificates you hold appear to have more concrete value in academia. Personally, I have 30 years of experience and a Bachelor's and Master's in Engineering.  However, I never finished my PhD in Computer Science.  This places me at a relative disadvantage and may even preclude me from being a fulltime instructor at some universities.

In the corporate world the real advantage to a graduate degree seems to be a demonstration of ambition, drive, and ability to complete a task.  Task completion is very important in the corporate world.  They don't want you to work on things, they want you to finish them and move on to the next task or challenge.  Having a Bachelor's Degree indicates you can finish an undertaking, but having at least one graduate degree removes any doubt.  It bumps you into the next grouping of individuals.

A number of companies require a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, Computer Science, or "related field" for entry-level software or hardware engineering positions.  This requirement is rarely waived.  While the company may miss out on a few talented individuals, steadfastly requiring a Bachelor's Degree has a number of practical advantages.  One of the most important is making the selection process much easier to administer.  Indeed, one company for which I worked would only consider entry-level candidates with a Bachelor's Degree and a minimum grade point average of 3.5 out of 4.0. You may miss out on a few hidden "diamonds in the rough", but most people who maintained a 3.5 grade point average while getting their degree aren’t stupid.  This made hiring decisions pretty easy.

Graduate degrees can also place candidates in a higher wage for more junior positions but as the engineer gains more experience this advantage disappears.  After a few years your salary is determined more by your achievements than your degrees and grade point average.  In general, corporations exhibit more flexibility for senior positions.  Companies may advertise a minimum educational level for senior positions but these are often waived for favored candidates.  I'm familiar with several companies that "required" a Master's Degree to be promoted to the level of Director.  All of them also had Directors who lacked a graduate degree.

Types of graduate degrees are many and varied.  There are advanced technical degrees as well as degrees in Business Administration, Finance, Accounting, and more.  Your choice of graduate degree can reflect and influence your career path.  Degrees at every level, high school diplomas, Associate Degrees, and PhDs open doors.  While you may not be chosen for a position solely because of your graduate degree, it may get you an audience where you can sell yourself.

A few weeks ago I had lunch with a talented friend of mine.  His career path has been a little bumpy since the .com meltdown several years ago.  He'd worked for the same company for over 10 years but collateral damage from the .com implosion mortally wounded his company and he was laid off.  Since then his career has been a succession of corporate mergers, acquisitions, spinoffs, and layoffs.  Since 2001 my friend has had 6 jobs.  This year the company for which he worked closed due to the economic downturn.  At the time of our lunch he was "between jobs" for about 4 months.

As we munched on some french fries, we discussed his recent string of unsuccessful interviews.  On the surface, any company would love to have him as an employee.  Educated, intelligent, knowledgeable, and hardworking – he could help any project.  Yet he was getting few interviews and no offers.  As we chatted I asked if, other than the economy, there were current differences from previously successful job searches?  Perhaps, I suggested, he was dressing or acting differently at interviews.

His instantaneous response was no.  He didn't think anything was different.  Later, he changed his mind as we continued our lunch and discussed a number of things.  There was a difference, he said, but it was with the interviews – not him.  His recent interviews were with staff engineers and their managers.  Previously, other than his first job out of college, he'd somehow always interviewed with and was hired by corporate executives.  Here, in reverse chronology, are the hiring circumstances of his recent jobs:

• Hired by the president of a small company that went out of business earlier this year
• Hired by an engineering senior vice president of a medium sized company that was acquired and subsequently reorganized to eliminate his group
• Hired by the president of a small company that went out of business
• Hired by a vice president of a major corporation that later sold his division
• Hired by a senior vice president of a major corporation that later sold his division
• Hired by the engineering executive vice president of a small company that went out of business

We briefly discussed the possibility that he was too impressive in interviews and was intimidating the people interviewing him.  With the camaraderie of former coworkers who had not seen each other for too long and some gallows humor we jokingly put together a lighthearted plan to "dumb-down" his interviewing:

• He would alter his resume to remove the significant honors and distinctions it contained
• During interviews he would speak more slowly and less confidently
• He would pause before beginning to answer a question and act a little indecisive
• He would make a point to mention several instances where he asked his boss and coworkers for help

– Epilogue –

After months of frustration and a feeling that he had nothing to lose, my friend actually executed the strategy we concocted in jest.  Maybe it's coincidence or maybe the economy is getting better but he recently had a job interview and received an offer the next day.

Can it really be that corporate leaders are comfortable hiring the best talent but lower level staff and management are concerned about bringing significant new competition into the company?  I'm pretty cynical but I'm having trouble with this.  I am not willing to believe that such discrimination against really talented people is widespread.

I look forward to readers' experiences and comments on this issue.