Enthusiasm

Mission complete… very tired right now… to be filled later…

One of the purpose of 360 degree feedback is to help coach people on their perception problems. If you sit back and think about top performers, high potentials, or whatever you want to call them, these individuals are generally the model citizen or at least they try to be. Sometimes people have concrete problems like personality flaws, technical or skill gaps, or in most cases in technical people, communication problems (communication is not an engineer’s strong suit).

I feel that I time manage reasonably well, multi-task reasonably well, do have some skill gaps that I’m always improving, and while I do need to continue to hone my personal style and communication skills (as we all need to), in general I don’t have a lot of concrete personality flaws. I have a few minor personality flaws, but they all stem from a concrete “flaw” if you could say it is one is my natural tendency to get hyper focused on something and be OVERLY enthusiastic and sometimes off putting to some people. One’s greatest strength inevitably is their greatest weakness.

But my real problem I continue to struggle with I think is perception. Perception problems are a tricky thing because reality is in the eye of the beholder. I can’t change people’s point of view, but if I understand their point of view I can help influence it, yes? Of course step one is understanding who’s having the perception problem and their point of view. Once I understand people’s point of view, then I can find the source of the perception problem and change something usually indirect that changes how people are perceiving things.

People perceive my intentions, my motives, my actions, my communications, my gestures, etc incorrectly. I’ve been accused of looking “angry” before by a simple eyebrow gesture. I’ve been accused of being intimidating when I was being curious. I’ve been accused of being cocky when I’m simply confident. I’ve been accused of “needing to win” in an argument when I’ve been trying to educate. I’ve been accused of being pontificating when I’m trying to energize people about something. I’ve been accused of being distracted when in reality I’m focused. People who really know me well and those who know me even reasonably well know that I don’t ever intend to come across that way, but rather that I give the perception of such. Perception is not something you can touch or feel, it’s something you have to look at yourself from the outside to figure out.

All of these perception issues stem from the over use of my strongest natural trait, my enthusiasm. I try to temper it as best I can, but I’m an emotional person and when I get excited and passionate about something (which I always do), then my enthusiasm kicks in to high gear. I also tend to lose it when I’m being challenged or pushed into a corner and I’m trying to passionately defend something I feel strongly about.

Since I’m on a self-reflective honesty streak, yes, I get defensive. This is not news to anyone who has read my blog, especially for a long time. It is another bad side effect of being passionate about something you believe in. In some ways I also have some control issues, probably still stemming from … well just read some of my blog posts with the Health tag. I don’t know maybe I’m over that, maybe not.

I need to come up with some techniques to not necessarily CHANGE my nature because one cannot change their nature when it is so extreme as mine. The best I can do is channel my natural tendencies in a more… mutually agreeable fashion. One of the ways I can do that is make sure that whatever cause I’m fighting for, whatever goal I’m passionately pursuing, whatever objective I’m pushing myself to complete, that it’s something that everyone has full buy-in for.

I think my biggest mistake in recent time is getting overly passionate about a cause that not everyone was truly bought in on. Some people said they were bought in on it, but apparently they weren’t and now I’m getting myself into trouble. Makes me wonder if some of the other causes I continue to fight for are really supported by everyone or if I’m fighting other battles that are a lost cause.

Keep in mind that I admit I’m wet behind the ears. On the other hand I do feel I’ve been around the block and am at least well studied on management techniques, HR methodologies, and leadership techniques. I would say I have the most personal experience in leadership and it comes very naturally to me and I while I understand management and HR techniques, it’s not so natural so I tend to stumble. One thing I AM capable of doing most of the time is recognizing the different mechanisms in the system and processes in the organization and realize how they are designed and why they are designed that way.

It’s mid-year review time so I’ve been noodling about a specific technique in performance management that I’ve gone quite a bit into detail on in multiple classes during my time achieving my bachelor’s degree. There are many strategic reasons for a two pronged performance management system such as the one at IHS, one part which has a positive leniency error and one with a negative leniency error. What I mean by that is that every person has a certain amount of leniency or strictness. People are really lenient, really strict, or somewhere in between. Depending on the performance management process, it will either work well for people who are lenient or people who are strict. If you use a two pronged system, it will balance out based on whether the person is super strict or super lenient.

• Strict people are generally focused on RESULTS. So an objective based system is agreeable to managers who are strict. They will grade people really harshly or really well as appropriate based on their results. On the other hand, lenient managers will struggle with an objective based system because they don’t want to give “good” people a “bad” grade. So lenient people will generally put “meets expectations” across the board for all people unless there’s something REALLY out of place.
• Lenient people are generally focused on EFFORT and SOFT SKILLS. So a core competency is agreeable to managers who are lenient. They will grade people really harshly or really well as appropriate based on their efforts and soft skills. On the other hand, strict managers will struggle an effort based system because they are so results oriented. So strict people will generally put “meets expectations” across the board for all people unless there’s something REALLY out of place.

So if you use a two-pronged system it should balance out. The problem occurs when either A. the systems aren’t appropriately balanced or B. managers forcefully “monkey” with the system to make the outcome what they wish. When either of these things occur the checks and balances of leniency is destroyed and people who have leniency short comings are not caught. Now I will step back for a moment and suggest that the two systems might not actually have to be perfectly balanced. For example, if the company was TRULEY results oriented, they would put a heavier weight on the object based side of the system vs the competency side.

What is important is that people not “monkey” with the system. In a two-pronged system, everyone will be uncomfortable with either one side or the other side of the system, but at the end of the day that’s what makes the system work. You need to stick to the rules of the system, grade people the way the system tells you to grade, and the human factor will be counter balanced by the system. I don’t know maybe I’m arguing my own point in circles. Maybe the system is designed so that even if people monkey with it, in the end it ends up being balanced. Who knows…

WCSF, MVP, Themes, Master Pages, Nested Master Pages, CCS, Skins, AJAX, GridView, DetailView, Entity Framework, oh my!

I’ve been working on a good working top-to-bottom example of my new “LakeView” project which is the C# rewrite of the project I manage development of  onto the Environmental Domain architecture.

This version demonstrates a proper implementation of WCSF’s architecture, using Mike’s (see “Hoarked” on my blog roll for his blog) SCF project blueprint, utilizing the MVP presentation pattern, using .Net 3.5 controls including AJAX, business modules for business logic, foundational modules for data access including LINQ queries to the Entity Framework. I’m using ObjectDataSource controls in conjunction with GridView and DetailView controls inside an AJAX update panel. The page itself is EXTREMELY code light aka “dry” with only a few lines of code on it. The ObjectDataSource is doing all the heavy lifting, hooking data events from the DataView and DetailView controls to business logic methods in the presenter.

Furthermore, I’m also have implemented Brian’s latest GUI design which is a 100% full height design which dynamic adds a scroll bar in the middle of the page if there is too much content. I’m not using IFrames or anything gross like that, using the CSS property “overflow: auto” to control the scroll bar and adding an inital fixed height which is being adjusted based on the browser’s viewable space dynamically via JQuery. I have Matt to thank me for that tidbit. I also have multiple Mike’s internally who helped me with the new database schema as well as working through the technology portions.

Still have to work on the master pages a little bit more, implementing a few more complex details like a smooth implementation of the tab selecting, product name and version pulled from the assembly file, bread crumbing, and any other updates Brian thinks of before I’m done with this. Then I can start distributing to the other domain teams and making sure they are using it properly with no code changes. I want this to be one of the key pieces that we share with no project custom alterations so that way when we update it, we update it for one product and roll it out to the other projects.

It has been a really busy this month, insanely busy even for my standards. Everything from fishing trips, trying to recover the guild, getting setup for my final term of college while still making A’s and staying focused on the classes I’m taking now, making an offer on the house we’ve been renting, getting turned down by the home owner (she’s crazy I tell you), and now we’ve made an offer on a different house after looking at several with a realtor. All this while trying to stay focused at work, delivering a product release on time, feature complete, with over 100 bug fixes. Everything is moving at the speed of light although to be honest, there’s nothing like shining in the face of a daunting task.

I don’t normally blog while at work, but taking the time to just quickly compose in written form the level of insanity my life is right now.

In the May 2009 article of HBR there was a very interesting article “What Only the CEO Can Do”. It made me think a bit about how this could be adopted to the role of the guild leader and what ONLY the guild leader can do. A member recently told me that ONLY the guild leader can make amazing things happen. Officers can make things happen, but generally only in support of what the guild leader is already doing. Of course the guild leader can’t do it alone which is why he needs good, dedicated officers.

Defining the Meaningful Outside - Of all of your external stakeholders which ones are the ones that matter most? What results are most meaningful?

In applying this concept to Warhammer, our external stakeholders are potential future members, members of the alliance, and the general opinion of the server community. Unlike a normal business who’s goal is profit, the goal of a guild is to be self sustaining and sustainable over time. Depending on the guild, different results will matter.  Our guild does a little bit of everything, but generally we’ve prided ourselves in excellent PVE results and meaningful RvR results. Showing these results to the outside means that we attract people of similar goals into the guild.

Deciding What Business You are In - Where should you play to win? Where should you not play at all? These are difficult decisions that require thurough evaluation and discussion. However, only the CEO has the enterprisewide perspective to make the tough choices involved.

Frankly we’ve always tried to be a mix of everything, especially in Warhammer. Maybe the time is nigh and we need to get serious and focus as a PVE guild or just an RvR guild. Obviously we will still do a mix, but we need to focus on “winning” at one or the other. If we win at one or the other, then the other will fall behind it, as such is the nature of the game. I think for this reason, we might officially change the focus of the game to be more PVE focused with a supporting RvR back focus.

Balancing Present and Future - Learning to strike the right balance between short and long term comes wfrom experience and judgment than from facts. Defining realistic grown goals is the first step toward getting the balance right; determining what goals are “good enough” to deliver in the short term is critical to gaining creditibility and momentum for the long term. Finally, the CEO’s personal involvement in leadership development may have the single biggest long-term impact on the company’s future.

This is something I think I have always done well in setting short and long term goals for the guild, delivering those goals, and following up on the progress of the goals in my monthly addresses to the guild. I need to do a better job of getting everyone involved more with the monthly goals. One thing I have not done well in my transition from WoW to Warhammer is establish a well enough base of officers who can reliably push the momentum when I’m not around. I can’t be online every night of the week and there needs to be officers who are moving our goals forward.

Shaping Values and Standards - Values establish a company’s identity; they are about behavior. If the company is to win, these values must be connected to the meaningful outside and relevant to the present and the future. Standards are about expectations; they define what winning on the outside looks like.  They are best established by answering two important questions: Are we winning with those who matter most? Are we winning against the very best?

I have to admit that while I’ve always done an amazing job of shaping values and holding a high standard in our values, I have not done the best at holding people to high standards. Unfortunately there is always the constant struggle with a volunteer organization of pushing people too far or not far enough. Some people do need to be pushed to get the optimal performance out of them, but push them too far and they leave. A volunteer organization like a guild makes defining and holding people to standards very difficult.

Andrew today shared a tidbit of leadership and motivation with the group. Not too sure other’s opinions of this kind of thing, maybe some people said it was “neat” just to humor Andrew, but of course I eat this kind of thing up.

The concept was looking at the individuals “Will” and relative “Skill” and take the appropriate approach to coaching them. It’s presented in am X/Y matrix, but can be explained just as simply in a list. Skill is just that, the skill and individual has at completing the task. Will is the level of self motivation the individual has at completing the task. Different people have different levels of skill and will for any given task. Some people might have HIGH will for doing very detail oriented work, but LOW will at doing very creative oriented work. So really I see this as not a catch all for all individuals, but needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

• Direct people who have low skill and low will. By doing so, you show them a clear, direct path to success. This kind of coaching is almost on the level of teaching, but this approach will increase skill over time and with relative confidence that comes with the increased skill, their will can increase as well.
• Excite people who have high skill and low will. By doing so, the aim is to increase their level of will to complete the task at hand through enthusiasm and other soft motivational techniques.
• Guide people who have low skill and high will. These individuals seek to complete the task at hand, but need guidance on how to get there. You don’t need to completely direct them, but push them in the right direction and maybe even create barriers to help guide their success. Over time as they gain skills, they will need less guidance and that leads to…
• Delegate people who have high skill and high will. These individuals not only are motivated to do the job, but can be trusted to get the task at hand done right with little to no supervision. Basically these individuals need to be empowered in every sense of the word and you need to support their efforts.

I’ve been taking a Virtual Leadership course with IHS and thought I’d include a few tidbits in my blog of different angles on how to effectively communicate. I know I struggle with this particular thing and sometimes I know others I communicate with who have a hard time with me as well. Maybe when I’m having a hard time talking with people maybe I can make sure to present them my thoughts in this mode to help them understand my point of view. Likewise I of course need to help people who are trying to communicate an idea to me to follow this process so I can effectively understand what they are trying to communicate to me.

In regards to my interactions with my boss, I think he very quickly skips steps 1 and 2 and immediately jumps into step 3 and 4 without taking the time to appropriately go through steps 1 and 2. This causes long drawn out spin out at times. I think it would be better for both me and him if we took the time to make sure that all the data is understood, how I interpret the data, the conclusions I’ve made, and what assumptions I’ve made. Then if I have holes then please test my assumptions, but don’t jump to that step. 

I’ll see what I can do to work with him on this process and see if it works better in regards to how he and I communicate.

All of us have at one time encountered the peer whose methods and thinking we didn’t understand. They mystify, frustrate and, on occasion, upset us. Rather than give up on him or her or try to glean their next move, you’ll find it more valuable to analyze their thinking process. In any particular coaching moment, start by trying to understand why the person has come to the conclusion they have. Ask them to:

1. Describe the data and what it means. What’s the relevance of the data to them, to the industry, or to experts in the field?
2. Explain their assumptions. Based on the data they’ve acquired, what assumptions have they made relative to the project? Why?
3. Test their assumptions. What’s your impression of what they just said? Do these ideas seem reasonable to you? Are there additional assumptions to make? Encourage others to ask questions at this point.
4. State your conclusions, and show your reasoning. Consider: Who and what will be affected? How will they be affected? Why did you come to this conclusion? How will it impact the company?

Remember that few people are used to defending their conclusions, and that these questions might make the person uncomfortable. Assure him or her that you are asking in order to better understand their thought process and provide additional perspective. As you continue to work together, start considering some alternative conclusions and possibilities — different ways of thinking outside both your normal realms. Another peer or someone else on the team may offer another perspective.

Really made headway today on the new database design.

I’m starting by dumping all the completely useless tables which drive the UI part of the old UI framework. I’m also consolidating a bunch of tables that are uselessly 1 to 1 for no good reason. For example user data is spared out between about 12 different tables and user privileges are sparsed out in about 10 different tables. I think that we’re going to go with a fundamental redesign of roles and rights in the software, so for now I’m simply dropping those tables and compressing the user tables into the 3 or so tables that need to exist. From there I’ll start converting the easy stuff, mostly correcting logical problems with table relations, clean up PK, FK, Tables, and Column names. Oh and also dropping all the SP’s and Views since those won’t be necessary anymore once we start using the Entity Framework. I will of course look at the old database for purpose of learning some of the SP logic to keep that in the new development, but it’s not necessary in a project LakeView database.

My hope is to have the majority of the database redesigned by the end of the week or at least cleaned up so I can import the current database into VISIO, map out the entities in a clean way, and have a good ERD discussion with Gloski and Michael, possibly comparing it to the way the EPA, the EU, and most importantly how customers think of the data.

As Michael and I continue to develop the business case, drivers, and road map for the upcoming project, Michael made the suggestion that we give it a code name: LakeView.  I think it’s kind of neat to be using code names because that means I can talk about it in a more concrete named fashion without giving it a version number or using the infamous word that seems to scare people the “R” word.

I’m really excited about Michael’s enthusiasm to the project and he even brought up some other business drivers I hadn’t even thought about. I mean I was mostly doing this for three purposes: fix architecture issues that cause new feature implementation to be painful and slow, drive up customer delight, and fix other architecture problems that makes hosting multiple customers on one machine near to impossible. Michael piled about 10 other BIG things on top of that along with all my smaller bullet points that explain my main drivers. He also pointed out initiatives he needs for the software in the coming years and those initiatives would be near to impossible on the current architecture.

At this point we just need to communicate our new plan up the chain of command and get buy in from key stakeholders. Michael is going to drive approval up the business side of the organization. Gloski for example is a key stakeholder who needs to feel comfortable about the plan since he does carry the pulse of the customer. My job is to get full buy-in from the IT organization: Andrew, Tim, all the way up the ladder.