"Got an idea that you think your managers are missing? Tell them? They don’t like it? Tell their bosses? They don’t like it? Tell the CEO. Stand on his or her desk if you have to – shout your reasoning, advocate for your customers, do what you have to do. Think you are gonna get fired?"
YES. In the vast majority of large corporations you will get fired before you even have the chance to get near the CEO's desk. Every single outspoken person I've known in large organizations has gotten laid off or canned outright. People who "take" leadership are seen as a threat to those who already have it and are eliminated.
The first or even second level managers don't even have a say. Unless your title is at least "director" you don't have a prayer in implementing any real change in the organization. The problem is, most directors are "yes men" who've risen through the ranks and are more interested in protecting their power than improving things.
Want to take leadership? Work for a smaller company where you might have more say, or start your own company like the author of the article apparently did.
Ok, so I realize that rallying against evil oppressive management is all the rage here on Slashdot, I mean HN, but let me offer an alternative view.
It's certainly not true at my day job (Microsoft SQL Server - you decide if its a big or a small org). Enough power is distributed throughout so you don't have to go to jump on Bill's desk. When one can get fellow engineers on board (which is the difficult part, really) one can always get management to accept their agenda and it doesn't rise even to VP level to get things sorted out. I've done it myself and I have seen others doing it.
So. Chose your work not based on org size, but on actual people you get to work with.
Rubbish (with one caveat). It is certainly possible to make change happen, even in huge companies.
The caveat - you have to do it the right way, and make the most of your advantages. (Being a new graduate or studying something work related, for example, is a massive advantage as it gives you a credible excuse for 'being keen'.)
The right way:
- Work out what should be changed and why. Condense this into a easy to follow thirty second pitch that is hard to argue against.
- Get friendly with your target's secretary. CEO's secretaries are people too, and spending ten minute's a day for a month getting to know her is a vital part of the plan.
- Sell the idea to your line manager. You are not asking for permission, just covering your back from later fallout (hey, you gave him a heads up and he didn't stop you...). His feedback can sometimes be useful too. His objections may need to be addressed in your pitch.
- Get your target's secretary to book you in with him for fifteen minutes. If your idea isn't good enough that she is willing to do this, despite your new friendship, it sucks and you need to rethink anyway.
- Pitch and cross your fingers. Your general competence, politeness and ability to cut through the system while working inside it will mark you out as someone to listen to. At this stage your idea might get bounced, but in my experience this is rare if you have a real problem, a good resolution, and a cost effective plan to go from here to there. Usually the only downside is that you get put in charge of making it happen - so be sure to have a list of things you need prepared.
You might think to yourself that this sounds like an awful lot of work to get an idea implemented, but it does work. It's also fantastic practice for selling your own product later, as these steps share a lot in common with a typical sales process.
The wrong way:
- Mumble something incoherent or badly thought out to your boss. When he 'doesn't get it' repeat it to his boss. Keep working up the chain, without ever taking a bath or wearing a suit, until every manager in the whole organisation thinks you are an irritating pillock. Then for an encore repeat the same unresearched assertions in front of the CEO (but more vehemently), having alienated your local managers to the point that they won't stand up for you.
This is what is wrong with Corporate America today. Why should you need to work the system? That's why some startups are a lot more successful, they're just a lot more efficient while the awesome-hacker-in-big-company-is-still-getting-to-know-the-CEO-s-secretary :-)
I would argue that there are no contexts where "working the system" isn't necessary for success, including startups. The systems you have to work here can even be more difficult because they are distributed -- investors, potential customers, etc. More like seduction than working your way to the top of a prison gang, but "working the system" nonetheless.
"You have to work the system" can be shortened to "You have to work". You have to do things that are uncomfortable, that you think you shouldn't have to do, in order to succeed.
Yep, but you still need to make a decision about which system you should be working in order to maximize whatever it is you're trying to maximize.
If you're trying to maximize wealth, iterating and failing fast is a much better way to do it as opposed to kissing middle-management ass, what's the point of working that system?
Hmm, not sure about that. Taking a arbritrary threshold of $500k a year, I have friends who earn that on boards of FTSE250 companies - there are maybe 2,500 of those jobs just in the UK (10 per company). At the top end exec compensation hits $40m+ which is equal to a huge startup cash out.
How many startup founder positions are there that pay over $500k a year? How many $40m+ wins are there per year?
Writing off the corporate route to weath might be a mistake, there are too many factors just to dismiss something as black and white. By the time you start considering risk, competitors and everything else it gets very complicated indeed. The fact that it isn't something you want to do personally doesn't make it a bad choice for everyone.
Its too bad each idea can't be taken on its own, however incoherent or badly thought out it is perceived as and actively worked on until until some understanding is reached. One thing I've always wondered about is whether a request can ever be too small. Its extremely disheartening to see even the most basic requests turned down, as it suggests the real ideas with a potentially larger company wide impact have a near nil chance of success.
It takes a lot to get a big ol dog to roll over on the couch, but it doesnt take much more to get him to move to the floor. The threshold to justify any change does mean that small changes aren't "worth it," especially when you consider that there may be a maximum amount of changes that people can tolerate at once. The view of an overworked/overextended/normal executive is, to some extent, one of triage.
In the end a company is just another system and working out how to make it do what you want can be just as fun as programming a computer to do what you want :)
Very well stated cog........ The best artistic portrayal of how "leadership" works (in the software development anyways) was with the character "Blumberg" (or at least I think it was blumberg... something like that) in the movie "Office Space". He was the manager of the character played by Ron Livingston (or at least I think that was his name)........
Hilarious movie. I've watched it dozens of times, though not for a few years now and that's why I'm a little hazy on the names. But whenever anyone starts talking about leadership in this business Blumberg is the guy that pops to mind and that's just because after over 2 decades working in the industry he's the guy who best characterizes all the managers and supervisors I've had to work for.
1) Many corporate environments are built around a lack of trust. Generally this parades as "quality assurance" or "change management". There's certainly a place for QA and change management - the problem is that those processes often intervene -before- a change takes place. Beneficial change, however, is not always obvious prior to implementation. So say some plebe in app management has an idea for restructuring the UI of a particular sub-section, but it gets nixed because "The users won't understand" or "We'll have to retrain." A) This could be the change that would make life easier for the people who interact with that screen, they just didn't know it; B) Even if there's a mock-up, it's not the same as using the system. Now certainly there's a real cost to change, but most organizations are restrictive rather than permissive. This makes the "fight for change" really hard.
2) Bad corporate managers view ideas as a threat, if they didn't buy in. Say you have an idea that could alter your company for the better. If your manager rejects it and you push the issue, you better watch your back. (As a manager this is a hard impulse to overcome if you let yourself get 'sucked into' the corporate environment. Instead of being angry that someone "went around you", realize you missed a good idea (it's ok!) and try and figure out how to make it the best implementation possible.)
3) People are delusional. The linked post talks about people who think they have good ideas. In 'bitch and moan' sessions I've witnessed at conferences, eating with colleagues at lunch or whatever, I hear about how their great ideas are being ignored. Their ideas aren't great. They've come to be ignored because they're the Dwight Schrute of their office. So telling people to 'take leadership' is actually really bad advice.
On the last point, I often wonder if I am delusional or not. It helps to find a few fellow engineers who are willing to listen, understand and tell you when you're smoking crack. Of course you should be ready to extend the favor yourself.
I brainstorm a lot, and I like to bounce ideas off my fellow engineers. I've found the most effective stratety to getting buy-in is 1) awareness -- usually via link sharing 2) conversation around the lunch table -- weeds out 85% of ideas 3) more conversation, this time during meetings, where the positive of X is brought up in contrast to what happenes now and then, finally 4) proposal. Slow and steady wins the race. You don't want to trigger people's fight or flight response.
Okay I really like the message that is being sent in this article.
But whether it works really depends on the company culture. You gotta remember that for each individual employee, his/her incentive is NOT to do what benefits the company the most. His/her incentive is to do what benefits HIMSELF/HERSELF the most. So it is up to the company to create a culture where doing what benefits the company the most also benefits the individual the most.
For many many companies this is not the case. Due to internal politics or the ego of managers, it is often to the benefit of the individual employee to shut up and do the stupid thing. GIGO you know. Why should I speak up and make the company $100 million dollars, if it means my manager will get mad at me and my raise goes down by 1%?
I think this is more of a leadership problem than anything else.
I think one of the goals of a leader is to create an environment in which people feel good about bringing their ideas to the forefront. They shouldn't be punished for being outspoken.
I agree with coglehtorpe that in many large organizations such a person would get fired.
I think employees can speak up but before they do they should assess the situation.
I don't know if your chances are better in general in a small company. I have been in small organizations where the CEO is a bully and don't really care for much feedback.
The trick is to work for an organization large or small whose culture favors such a behavior for e.g. GE under Welch or some of today's great companies when they were small etc.
What I can say from experience though is that a company that favors employees to speak and one that values their opinion is a superior company.
A self-appointed CEO / Janitor's perspective is going to be very different from pretty much everyone else in the workforce. Many leaders in middle-management literally got "'ass-kicking-certification plaques' at [their] doorstep[s]..." in the form of an acceptance letter to business school. As coglethorpe said, doing end runs around your superiors will get you fired.
This guy's cool and all, but he's on a plane that does only intersects with corporate America at the talent pool of sheepish employees.
I remember reading in a book by Tom Peters that Toyota has a suggestion box system they take seriously. Like, they implemented 6,000 employee suggestions a year at one point.
YES. In the vast majority of large corporations you will get fired before you even have the chance to get near the CEO's desk. Every single outspoken person I've known in large organizations has gotten laid off or canned outright. People who "take" leadership are seen as a threat to those who already have it and are eliminated.
The first or even second level managers don't even have a say. Unless your title is at least "director" you don't have a prayer in implementing any real change in the organization. The problem is, most directors are "yes men" who've risen through the ranks and are more interested in protecting their power than improving things.
Want to take leadership? Work for a smaller company where you might have more say, or start your own company like the author of the article apparently did.