Autumn Marathon
Contact Jason
Following:
Posts tagged "entrepreneurship"
Tuesday, Aug 11th, 2009 ↓How We Work Now: Input Requested!
Globalization has garnered particular attention in the high-tech fields for a number of valid reasons. First of all, the high-tech workforce in the US is particularly diverse in its international origins and has been since the 1960s. Second, the nature of the work, particularly in software development, lends itself more easily to remote or distributed work, than many other kinds of work ranging from manufacturing to provision of services which require an “on-site” presence. These two factors helped lead the information technology industry to become a kind of standard bearer for “outsourced” and or “offshore” business models.
My long-time employer, Sun Microsystems, was not unlike many companies in its adoption of an offshore product development model. Founded in the early 1980s by a quartet that included an Indian and a German, it employed a cosmopolitan engineering force in California for its first 10 years before initiating product localization in Japan. During the talent shortages occasioned by the dot-com boom in the late ’90s, the emphasis moved to accessing hidden talent in places like India and China. After the subsequent “dot-bomb crash,” cost savings that could be realized by employing engineers at roughly 1/4 the Silicon Valley rate became a major motivation. Recently, the idea has been that by developing products in emerging economies, particularly in the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China), the company would enjoy greater success accessing those markets.
Since leaving Sun, I have been surprised at the degree to which the smaller businesses, non-profit organizations and political movements with which I have worked are also globalized. Ever wider availability of free software tools have made it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to give a professional and very “big” impression. In just a couple of years, we have moved from free email to telephone and video conferences, project management and CRM tools, custom web domains, blogs and wikis. Small organizations are now just as able to access remote talent and work with specialized vendors (outsourcers) as large companies.
These technologies have enabled very positive trends. They allow (even require) a degree of agility greater than any before - companies and movements are able to get off the ground in a matter of days. The technology also enables collaboration among individuals and groups in different countries which, in the long run, makes nations themselves more amenable to collaboration and diplomacy than to more hostile interaction. That’s a bit of a political aside in this article, but I strongly believe it to be true and worth noting.
Yet, as widespread as these technologies and work practices are becoming, my observation is also that organizations do not think through the reasons for deploying them. They almost always exaggerate the cost savings as lower wages are offset by communications, travel and other expenses. They almost always overlook the need for implementing a different (and usually more heavy-duty) form of project management. They tend to overlook the human dynamics of working in a distributed fashion i.e., are people in one disadvantaged in terms of effectiveness, visibility, enjoyment of work, career advancement, etc.?
For these among other reasons, globalized projects often fail to achieve their business objectives: I am writing a book chapter about global teams working on software projects. There are plenty of examples from my own experience that I will draw on, but would really appreciate some input from my friends and colleagues. Do any of you have stories that illustrate the points made above? Or do you disagree with my ideas and have others points to make? If so, would really appreciate your leaving them in the comments to the blog or writing to me directly.
Failing Quickly
I recently lucked into a fabulous consulting engagement with an entrepreneurial start-up company which is launching a transformative IT product. It’s just the sort of company that I despaired of finding in New York City (such companies are much easier to find in California or in other pockets of the US). Though it’s a product I believe in and with people I can trust, I am avoiding treating this as just a job, and not only because I have not been offered an official position. I’m trying to heed advice that I pass on to aspiring entrepreneurs of all ages, given by Tina Seeling, Executive Director of the Stanford Technology Ventures program and author of the book What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20. Two of her ten lessons are:
- You don’t have to wait to be annointed (i.e., don’t wait until someone tells you are responsible for something to start taking action); and
- If your not failing some of the time, you are not taking enough risks.
There are a hundred reasons why a company like this can fail even if the basic idea is correct - bad timing, insufficient funding, poor implementation of the concept, stronger competitors, Just to name a few. And there are dozens of reasons why I might not be the right person to help the company: not technical enough, not salesman enough, personality conflict with the founder, with colleagues, etc. But in less than two weeks, I have developed some strong ideas about what the company can do to increase it’s chances of success. I’m not going to wait for someone to make these part of my job description to start making them happen. And if I do fail, I need to fail quickly, learn some lessons, and move onto the next venture.
Fathers & Sons
Working with a family-run business is different. All organizations have their own cultures and personalities: family businesses have an additional overlay of kinship and shared history complicating matters.
I was recently advising the founder’s son in a small light manufacturing enterprise in Brooklyn. This firm was under tremendous financial pressure due to misjudgments made over several years by the father. The son and I were discussing tactics: how to make it through the next few weeks; and in particular, how to manage cash flow to get jobs done. “You know what my biggest problem is?” the son asked me. “The second we get any money in the door, my father tells me to give it to whomever is annoying him most.”
He was right: the father was, in fact, using the firm’s cash revenue to pay personal debts and obligations. Leaving aside the question of legality (to me it looked like tax evasion), the practice was starving the company of working capital. Everyone was suffering: employees and suppliers were routinely getting paid late or not at all. The founder’s son was a virtual slave to the business, taking very little in the way of owner’s draw and did not even have health insurance (the group policy had lapsed because the company was not paying its bills).
The son paused the conversation, put his head in his hands and said, “I can’t believe I’m throwing my Dad under the bus.” I tried to convince him that rebuilding a sound business was in his father’s best interest: it would eventually be able to pay down all of those personal debts whereas now he was barely able to make minimum payments to keep debt collectors away. I even tried to joke with him that all sons sooner or later throw their fathers “under the bus.” But he was unable to summon the willpower to say “no” to his Dad and the business’s problems have multiplied and increased.
Shangri-La
One of the great things about meeting with a lot of different businesses is the insight you get into management styles and business culture. A few weeks ago I met with a fantastic company. Extremely well-funded, its mission is as much humanitarian as it is profit-making. Highly technological, the people who work there all graduated with sciences degrees from top universities and are extremely polished and polite. They also have beautiful offices and seem to really enjoy what they do. This was one of the rare instances where researching the company and interviewing for a position was enjoyable in and of itself. At the time of the interview, I felt as though I found a common language with the folks there i.e., that we hit it off. I was wrong - not only did I not get the job, but I did not even make it to the next interview round.
Had I been looking for them, there definitely were warning signs that the fit was not there. For instance, when I asked questions about the function of the role I was pursuing; or why the organization had pursued strategy “x” rather than strategy “y” with its flagship product; or why it had been decided to organize as a “for-profit” rather than a non-profit - the answers were polite, but rapidly became more guarded. “David,” the head of the organization and its sole investor, had made the decision and the interviewer “couldn’t really say why.” And the while the educational credentials and level of the folks who were interviewing me were unquestionably extremely high, it was also clear that their backgrounds were pretty homogeneous (and different from my own). My own philosophy is that a heterogeneous workforce and a tolerance for internal disagreement are important ingredients for successful businesses. While I certainly wish this group well and hope to read about their successes in the future, I wonder whether the absence of these qualities will prevent it from reaching full potential.
Postcard from the Edge (3)
Our friend has left the small company where he started working just over a month ago. He explains -
“Certainly, the adjustment from large IT products corporation to a small light manufacturing group was a big one. There were lots of positives in the lack of red tape, the ability to work across functional lines and learn new skills. However, in small business even more than in a corporation, you realize that your success depends on the owners’ and on your colleagues’ work. It is a “partnership” in the true sense if not the legal meaning of that word. And I quickly came to realize that the owners of this firm were not managing to ethical/legal standards that are very important to me and as a result they had not been able to attract class-A employees to the organization. This was very disappointing since the industry is very promising and is an area for public/private investment under the Federal stimulus package. We reached a point where I realized it would be either “fish or cut bait” and I decided to continue fishing in other waters.”
Postcard from the Edge (2)
Our friend has written again with more information about his new situation:
“The company is located in an industrial area in northeastern Brooklyn near the border with Queens. It is far not only from Manhattan, but also from the hip and stylish quarters of Brooklyn. There are only a couple subway lines in this part of the city and while trains that go to Wall Street and midtown are unusually empty at times due to the economy, that is not the case on the “G” and “L” trains. Since there are only a couple of trains and because many of the workers in this area live in Brooklyn, Queens or Long Island, many people drive to work instead of using public transport. Throughout the day, the streets are crowded with both commuters and heavy commercial traffic. Within a couple blocks of our light manufacturing plant, there are a couple of cement mixing factories. There are both dust and fumes: the air quality is noticeably worse than in other parts of the city.”
Postcard from the Edge
A friend who just started a new work assignment writes:
“Just started with a small (fewer than 20 employees) company this past week. The contrast with the Fortune 500 company where I spent the previous 11 years couldn’t be greater. I started working on President’s Day, which is a difference right there. At my old company, not only is President’s Day observed as a holiday, but many employees take the whole week to go skiing. Stuff that takes ages in a big company - getting an email account, for instance - took about 20 minutes. Also, in contrast with a corporation, the learning curve is quick and the time allowed for getting up-to-speed is short. I started diving into my work right away: someone asked me to do something within 20 minutes which I figured out and completed within the hour. I spent much of the week learning the firm’s production process and getting different perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of the operation. It’s going to be a hectic assignment, but I feel fortunate to have landed anything in the midst of our current economic turmoil.”
Career Change: Then and Now
For the second time in my career, I find myself engaged in an extended career transition (first time was in 1996-7) and I will address a few posts about how the experience has changed over the past 12 years.
The circumstances are different now:
- In 1996, I voluntarily left a secure government position because I wanted to work in a more dynamic field where my work would have more impact. Last summer, my position was restructured out of existence and I joined the 2 million other Americans whose jobs were lost in 2008.
- In 1996, I had been in the workforce for only five years and while no longer “entry level” was at the beginning of my business career. In 2008, I have been working for nearly 20 years and am in mid-life and mid-career. That fact significantly affects the way that potential employers will view me and how I must present myself to them.
- The most important circumstantial difference is that in 1996-97 (the year of President Bill Clinton’s reelection), the economy was growing at nearly 4% per year. In early 2009, as we prepare to begin the “age of Obama,” the severest financial crisis of our lifetimes has led to a deep recession. The national economy is shrinking.
Nevertheless, there are elements of continuity. In both cases:
- I have spent my transitional time in New York City; a town I know intimately, but where I have never worked happily.
- I derived considerable satisfaction from redirecting energy from a career focus to a family one. Key difference - my 1997 toddlers have grown in millenial teenagers. And don’t misunderstand - I need to get back to work for a variety of reasons.
That’s the context. In subsequent posts, I’ll discuss how the business environment has changed for job hunters. Notwithstanding the ill condition of the economy, I believe technology has enabled significant opportunities that were not feasible as recently as the late ’90s.
