Month: April 2008

On Feet

· 1 Comment ·

Did that title get your attention? Good. The title will become clear…

Geek leaders (and the geeks who follow them) are often frustrated by the business folk in their company. We present upper management with a brilliant solution to some obvious problem, only to be shot down. “Morons!” We think. “How can they not see that my solution will be the panacea that this company needs???”

Lather, rinse, repeat. After a few cycles, the geeks or geek leaders come to the blindingly obvious conclusion that the company is being run by a bunch of idiots.

Okay; maybe the business folk aren’t the whiz kids that the geeks always have been, but they probably have more active brain cells than geeks think. So where’s the disconnect? Why don’t the business folk see the obvious solutions? Why can’t the geeks and geek leaders convince them?

It’s a foot issue. Anyone tends to lead with their most-used foot. Unfortunately, it’s not the same foot that the business folk receive well (the metaphor breaks here, but I figure you’ll forgive me). The business folk expect to see the business foot come first, and when they see the geek foot, many of them tune out instantly and never hear the geek leader’s (valid) arguments–either business or technical.

Think of it as a marching band. All of the members had to learn to lead with the same foot to begin, or else–chaos. In business, geeks and geek leaders have to learn to lead with the business foot (to business folks, who are also leading with their business foot), or else–chaos.

Are the technical arguments stronger than the business case? Probably. But the point isn’t to lead with what you think are the strongest arguments–it’s to get your proposed solution approved. While leading with the business foot feels awkward and wrong, it’s the foot that will get through to the business folk. And then, when they actually listen and approve your solution? Maybe you’ll discover that they’re not quite as dumb as you thought…

The Grammar Geek: Plurals and Apostrophes

· 1 Comment ·

I’ve been considering adding a new feature to this blog in addition to my leading geek posts: The Grammar Geek. I’ll post about my pet peeves. If my readers hate this, I’ll make it go away.

Very little in this world drives me as crazy as making plurals with apostrophes (in second place is probably NOT using apostrophes where they’re necessary). Here’s the general rule for apostrophes:

Apostrophes are used when letters are dropped or (rarely) for typographical reasons. There are three cases:

  1. Possessive nouns (this is historical–possessives were once formed by adding -es to the ends of nouns. When the “e” stopped being pronounced, the dropped “e” was replaced by the apostrophe, making the plural -‘s. Offhand, I don’t quite know what’s up with the possessive of plural nouns, but I think it has to do with the French (no, really, see here).)
  2. Contractions
  3. Plurals of lower case letters (“mind your p’s and q’s” (amusingly, blogger spell check wants me to change this to Ps and Qs. Note that there is no apostrophe for upper case letters–this means acronyms! (more amusingly, Firefox spell check wants me to change those to P’s and Q’s–which is wrong!!)))

Please note that, except for the third case (which has exactly twenty-six uses), NEVER MAKE A PLURAL WITH AN APOSTROPHE. Ahem. Making a plural with an apostrophe has become so common that I think I’ve developed a permanent twitch.

I’m going to give an example with the word that I see most often violated: attorney.

  • attorneys = more than one attorney
  • attorney’s = belonging to one attorney
  • attorneys’ = belonging to more than one attorney

Got it? Good. Now you can twitch, too.

On Humor

·

While checking my previous entries before titling this post, I was shocked to discover that I have not yet written on humor. This shocked me because one of the first things that many people notice about me is (and I quote), “You have a sense of humor!” To which I always respond, “Yes; I’ve been accused of that before.” Someday, I’ll think of something funnier to say. But onward and upward, here, to what humor has to do with leadership.

I’ve mentioned before, in my posts On Morale and On Complementary Strengths, that laughter and having fun can build better teams, but I’ve never explicitly talked about humor and leadership. I believe that having a sense of humor has really helped me to be a much better leader.

Why? Because I have to be able to to the following:

  1. Laugh at myself. I am not always right (contrary to my wishes), and sometimes I can be glaringly, blindingly, amusingly, and hilariously wrong. By laughing at myself in front of and with my geeks, I made it easier for them to call me whenever I was wrong about something. I also made it easier for me to call myself whenever I was wrong.
  2. Laugh in difficult situations. You know those situations where you either have to laugh or cry? Creating an environment where people laugh in those situations alleviates most of the tension that makes people miserable. Did you geek just field the stupidest user question ever? Better to laugh, right?
  3. Have fun at work. My favorite geek team memories usually involve laughing until tears roll down my face. We had one team member on my last staff who would say many things before speaking, causing us to completely lose it regularly. Guess who was our favorite team member?

But having a sense of humor at work–especially as the boss–means that you have to be careful as well:

  1. Watch for off-color humor. Not to say that you must always speak acceptably for the Queen of England, but (especially as the boss) you must never cross the line from a legal perspective. Yes; that means leave your risqué humor at home. Especially in a mixed-gender team.
  2. Don’t hurt people’s feelings. That team member who opened her mouth before engaging her brain? We couldn’t always laugh at her foibles, because sometimes she was a bit more sensitive about being wrong. You won’t always be perfect, so learn to apologize.
  3. Don’t laugh at the expense of getting things done. It’s always more fun to stand around and make each other laugh than re-wire all the switches. But you should learn to laugh while getting the job done (most of the time, anyhow). After all, unless you’re a comedian, you’re not being paid to make people laugh.

Overall, humor is incredibly important while you’re leading geeks. But, as with all things, responsibility and balance are key components to making humor work in a business environment.

On Grammar

·

Most geeks I’ve encountered in the technology world aren’t exactly well-rounded. Many of them excelled at math or science (or simply computers), but ignored English class. As a result, they are absolutely brilliant at their technical jobs, but act like it’s the end of the world if they have to write a business memo.

As a geek leader, however, you cannot afford the same luxury. Your department or group must be able to present a business-like face to your company or the outside world–especially in printed memoranda or publications. Due to your geeks’ probable dislike of writing, this duty will fall in your lap.

I was fortunate enough to be an English geek in school, and therefore understood and was able to teach my geeks the basic rules of grammar (not that I am always perfect, as you can see by reading this blog). Well, I could at least teach them about my pet peeves. However, no matter how many rules they eventually learned, I eventually learned that I had to proofread most communications that they sent outside the department. Not usually for message, but always for grammar. I also sent out fairly regular “grammar Nazi” emails to my department–usually the cause for some hilarity.

If you are a leader of geeks and don’t feel comfortable with your writing or your grammar, I would strongly suggest reading books on business writing. You can even Google things about which you are unsure. Your geeks might not seem to appreciate your efforts, but your boss will.

On Morale

·

Happy people are more fun to work with. Many people have no idea how to make geeks happy, however. I have a few “rules” that I follow that have historically kept my geeks upbeat:

  1. NEVER treat them like idiots. They’re often the smartest people in the room and might have a clearer picture of your management challenges than you do.
  2. Let them be creative. Never demand that they do a project according to strict rules, because doing so likely produces weaker product. (Note: strict REQUIREMENTS or specs are necessary, but those aren’t “how-to” rules.)
  3. Encourage laughter. If your company will tolerate it, encourage practical joking. My staff once toilet-papered my office when I made mention that they might do it in a column I once wrote.
  4. Institute non-mandatory “monotony breaks.” I often sent my staff fun (and work-appropriate) online quizzes, “questions of the day,” or Dilbert cartoons in order to allow them to blow off steam. Anyone very busy could ignore them, but they appreciated the change in routing and the chance to blow off steam.
  5. Let them bond. Take them out to lunch in appropriate groups. Encourage post-work gatherings. Let them chat at work. As I mentioned in my post, On Geek Socialization, this bonding will help them relate and keep their tempers during emergencies.

Overall, I treat geeks as I want to be treated. Helping them build morale leads to happier geeks, a stronger team, and better work product.

On Complementary Strengths

·

I’ve read and heard many places that most people hire people like themselves. (I mostly hear this in the context of why white men hire more white men, but I’m not touching that here.) I’ve also seen many studies that prove that diversity leads to stronger decision making and a better bottom line.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that the best team I’ve ever built started when I hired people very unlike me in strengths and habits.

Why? Because I have weaknesses. (I’ll give those of you who know me a moment to get up off the ground, since I’m sure you fell off your chairs at that public admission.) I’m very good at big-picture thinking and people management and team-building, but I’m weak at details and physical organization.

So you can imagine that if I built a team out of people just like me, no one would remember to book conference rooms for our meetings, and eventually our work space would be covered with piles of mixed-up papers. However, when I built a team out of people who were great at details but weak at the big picture and people who were physically organized but weaker at human interactions, mixed in a few people who were great at research, and so on, our strengths compensated for each other’s weaknesses.

Building a team out of people with complementary strengths leads to stronger work, but it can also be hilarious, as you find each other’s weaknesses amusing. Being able to laugh with (and occasionally at) each other also builds a better team.