Does a manager need to be an SOB to survive?

Posted on 12 August 2010 by Hamilton

In a recent article on BNET, The Real Reason for Bad Bosses, Jeffrey Pfeffer highlights a common, but little noted, paradox. To be a good manager, you need to be positive, supportive, and warm, but to be perceived as strong, competent, and intelligent, you need to be critical and even nasty.

The Two-Faced Manager

While there is a lot of truth to Pfeffer’s argument, he misses an important point. There is no law that says you have to be one or the other. There are two audiences at play – your team and the management team, including your peers and higher level managers – and you are the interface between them. You can and should present a different face to each audience.

When it comes to surviving in the corporate world, being two-faced is not only okay, it is absolutely necessary. You need to be the most supportive, collaborative manager possible in interactions with your subordinates, and you need to be as strong as possible (without being overbearing) in interactions with your peers and higher level managers. Not only does this improve your image (and promotability) with the management team, it also helps to ensure that your team gets its fair share of the goodies.

Strong Does Not Mean Nasty

The other common mis-perception (which Pfeffer clearly does not share) is that you need to be visibly “tough” or even nasty to be strong. While this kind of behavior may make you look strong in the short run (and even longer in a dysfunctional organization), it is ultimately a sign of weakness, not strength, and will eventually be seen as such.

This does not mean that you can’t be firm with your team, and critical when called for, and it doesn’t mean you need to turn into an SOB when you interact with managers. And, it especially doesn’t mean that you need to lie to either audience. Instead, you need to understand that there are two audiences, with different needs and expectations. To be a good manager for your team, your organization, and your career, you need to give each audience what it expects and needs.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged | 3 Comments

What STC can learn about certification from the FAA

Posted on 20 July 2010 by Hamilton

There has been a recent flare-up of discussion about certification for technical communicators and the forthcoming certification program from the Society for Technical Communication (STC).

Over the course of 100+ messages (I stopped counting at 100:-), the discussion has ranged from serious (does certification help or hurt job seekers) to off-the-wall (is the STC an evil organization bent on world (or at least tech comm world) domination).

However, to me, two critical questions have gotten short shrift: what can any certification program reliably say about the competence of an individual in a particular role, and how can participating in a certification program improve an individual’s skills as a technical communicator?

In short, can certification perform a useful function for both participants and hiring managers? I think it can, and I would suggest that STC look towards the FAA pilot certification program for insight into both the strengths and limitations of certification.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

Great idea, but…

Posted on 1 July 2010 by Hamilton

Users will change their habits when the pain of their current situation is greater than their perceived pain of adopting a possible solution.

–Pip Coburn The Change Function

Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why good ideas are always initially resisted.

– Hugh MacLeod, Ignore Everybody

Pip Coburn’s quote captures the most common reason good ideas fail. The pain of our current situation simply isn’t great enough for us to accept the pain it will take to change that situation. Yet, even when a rational analysis of a situation makes it clear that a change is essential, great ideas are frequently not adopted. The key to understanding Coburn’s point, and to implementing great ideas, lies somewhat hidden in Coburn’s quote, specifically the word “perceived.”

Our perceptions of both our current pain, the pain of change, and the benefits of implementing a new idea are all distorted by human nature. We underestimate the pain of our current situation, overestimate the pain of changing that situation, and underestimate the future benefit. We also often completely miss the effect a good idea has on the balance of power in an organization.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Thoughts on taking a new documentation management job

Posted on 25 June 2010 by Hamilton

On LinkedIn, there has been an ongoing conversation about transitioning to a new job as a documentation manager. The conversation has yielded some excellent suggestions, but I’ve noticed that they were all focused inward, on the team. They include suggestions like listening to your team, instituting changes carefully and in consultation with your team, and building a partnership based on the team’s objectives.

These are all good suggestions, and I wouldn’t want to suggest that you shouldn’t build a strong relationship with your new team, however, you also need to deal with the environment outside the group.

In particular, there are three more sets of interactions that will have a material effect on your success: interactions with your own manager, the managers of the teams you support, and your customers.

  • Your manager: I’ve never seen a management change where the new manager’s manager didn’t want some change in the way the group was being led. (Just as a writer cannot look at another writer’s words without finding something to change; upper level managers will always want some kind of change when a new manager comes in.)

    You also need to be absolutely sure that you and your manager are 100% clear on the group’s objectives and priorities.

    Finally, just as you need to build a relationship with your team, you need to build a relationship with your manager.

  • Your peer managers: You are really joining two teams, the team you manage and the team of peer managers; these are the people who manage the groups your team works with. You need to build a working relationship with them as a team, understand what they need/want from your team, and understand any problems they may be having with your team.

  • Your customers: You need to interact with your customers to understand their needs and concerns. While this may seem obvious, documentation managers too often treat the internal teams they support as their customers and ignore the people who actually use their documentation.

    The other reason for placing some emphasis here is that as a new manager you have the opportunity, and obligation, to take a fresh look at what your team is doing and institute changes. But, it’s very dangerous to make changes without understanding the customer impact and their needs. Plus, you can use customer input to help drive change.

Taking on a new job as a documentation manager is a serious challenge, and you are guaranteed to have a few bumps in the road. If you’re interacting frequently with the right people, you’ll be more likely to avoid the bumps or at least see them in time to take action.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , | 1 Comment

A CMS is like a Chain Saw

Posted on 24 June 2010 by Hamilton

A chain saw will not tell you which trees to cut or what protective gear to wear. To use one safely, you must plan your cuts, use protective gear, and take appropriate safety precautions.

Anyone who has seen a chain saw in action knows this.

A CMS (Content Management System) will not tell you how to organize your content or understand your processes. To use one safely, you must organize your content, understand your processes, and understand the problem(s) you want the CMS to solve.

Anyone in technical communication should know this.

The only difference is that most people know that chain saws are dangerous and plan accordingly.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Give them the objective, not the means

Posted on 8 February 2010 by

In a recent blog entry, ‘The relentless search for “tell me what to do,”‘ Seth Godin identifies a crucial tension in the manager/employee relationship. The tension is simple to explain, but hard to manage. Employees want to be told what to do, which is a reasonable request. However, when managers respond to that question, they shift at least some responsibility for the outcome to themselves.

In Godin’s view, the biggest reason employees ask this question is to shift responsibility, and his response is to resist the urge to answer.

I agree, but in practice, things are not quite that simple. Managers exist at least in part to tell employees what to do. If they refuse to provide direction, they abdicate part of their responsibility. At the same time, they need to provide that direction in such a way that the employee takes responsibility for the outcome, even though (to the corporation) responsibility will still ultimately rest with the manager (the buck needs to stop somewhere).

How does a manager address these tensions? In my experience it comes down to the distinction between the objectives and the means used to reach those objectives. This is not as easy as it may seem. We regularly think of objectives as things like, “clean the floor,” “remove the appendix,” or “convert all user documentation to XML.” While these things sound like objectives, I would suggest that the real objectives in these three examples are more like the following, respectively, “limit the damage that dust in the facility can cause to people and machinery,” “avoid the potential internal infection a burst appendix would cause,” or “reduce the cost of producing both online and print documentation.”

The necessary actions may be the same in all three cases, but by dealing with the actual objectives you gain some important advantages:

  • Workers can select the right way to accomplish a task, for example choosing a vacuum cleaner or mop instead of a broom to minimize dust in the air.
  • Workers can suggest alternative objectives, for example maybe you could reduce the overall cost of documentation more effectively by eliminating printed documentation altogether.

In general, if your objectives embody the organization’s goals (for example, making money or saving lives) you’re headed in the right direction. Then, engage employees in determining the means used to reach those goals, giving them as much latitude as you can. Finally, get out of their way and let them own their work.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Update on Reference Checking

Posted on 4 November 2009 by

After complaining about a perceived lack of reference check calls, I received the second in a week, after a long dry spell. Probably not a trend, but it was heartening to see another company checking references.

The call brought up a few additional thoughts:

  • I’ve noticed that when someone who worked for me years ago needs a reference, I sometimes find it harder to remember the specific assignment than to remember how well he or she did the job. I know who I can give a good recommendation to, but once or twice, I’ve fumbled the supposedly “easy” question, “what did he/she do for you?” even when I knew without a doubt that he or she did a good job on the now-forgotten assignment.
  • The most recent call came from a company that does contract services in the IT area. While I’m not currently in the market for such services, the fact that they demonstrated at least a degree of due diligence in hiring is a plus that I would consider in evaluating the company for possible work.
  • The same company send a thank you note, which in addition to being a nice gesture, provided them with an opportunity to sell their services. It’s rare that an advertisement comes across as a plus, but I admire companies that recognize the importance of spreading a wide net, as long as they don’t overdo it.
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Checking References

Posted on 28 October 2009 by

I just got a call asking for a reference for someone who worked in my group a few years ago. I was glad to give a reference, and happy that I could give this person a good one.

Surprisingly, this is the first call I’ve received to check a reference in over a year. During that same year, I’ve had half a dozen people ask me if I would be a reference, and in the years before, I’ve agreed to give references to many more. Some of those requests were generic, like: “if I need a reference would you give me one?” But others were clearly specific, with the company identified. Yet, this is the first time in ages that anyone has bothered to call me to check a reference.

In my book, Managing Writers, I stated that I only got called about half of the time. That’s clearly an overestimate at this point.

So why don’t more managers check references? Here’s my shot at enumerating the top reasons:

  • The applicant has obviously chosen references who will say good things, so why waste time listening to someone describe how wonderful the applicant is?
  • Once you’ve decided to hire someone, you just want to get on with things and not slow down the process.
  • You don’t want to take the chance of receiving information that conflicts with a decision you have already made.
  • The hiring process always seems to happen when you’re under pressure; you need someone right now, your “real” job is waiting, and you really don’t want to go out and find more people to interview if you unearth a problem with this person.

Regarding the first point, yes, you’re going to get someone that the applicant thinks will say good things about him or her. But, having called a lot of people to check references, I think it is still possible to learn important information, even from a “pre-screened” person. For example, you can check facts; what did the applicant work on? when did he or she work there? and so forth. In addition, you can often learn a lot from the way someone responds to questions. Even those who are restricted by their company to “name, rank, and serial number” answers may reveal their opinion in the way they respond.

The hiring manager I spoke with today didn’t ask anything out of the ordinary, and there was nothing out of the ordinary in my responses, but I think I made it clear that my evaluation of the candidate as an excellent technical writer was sincere and well-founded. I’m pretty sure that if I had thought otherwise, my meaning would have come through, even if I had used similar words.

The other three points, frankly, just add up to laziness. As strong as the urge may be to skip this step, there’s really no good reason for not calling references when you’re hiring. The call today took about five minutes, was cordial, and confirmed the likely perceptions of the caller. But, if it hadn’t, that one call could have saved him the trouble of hiring, and potentially firing, the wrong person. Since I like to call only when I’m ready to hire, it’s no more than a few phone calls about that one candidate. But if you don’t call, you are losing important information about one of the most important things you do as a manager (and one of the hardest things to undo).

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Does DITA Make You Dumb?

Posted on 6 October 2009 by

I had a twitter exchange a while back that got me thinking about DITA, structured writing, and the impact of tools on the perception of technical communicators.  The basic question was whether structured writing in general and DITA specifically are “dumbing down” technical communication, leading to a devaluation of the field.

I end up straddling the fence here. The short answer is “no, I don’t think DITA is dumbing down technical communication.” However, introduction of technologies like DITA, if not handled well, could lead to a devaluation of the field. The danger I see is that if managers misunderstand DITA and modular technology, they may conclude that DITA will allow them to hire less-experienced, less-skilled, and less-expensive writers, which could lead to a de facto dumbing down (or a train wreck, depending on your point of view).
Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

WebWorks RoundUp ’09

Posted on 18 September 2009 by

I am looking forward to attending WebWorks RoundUp 09 next month (Oct. 19-21, 2009) in Austin, TX. I will be participating in a panel titled, “Content Development Best Practices” with Alan J. Porter, Berry Braster, and Paul Mueller, fast company indeed.

XML Press is partnering with WebWorks to provide complementary copies of Anne Gentle’s Conversation and Community: The Social Web for Documentation and my Managing Writers: A Real-World Guide to Managing Technical Documentation for attendees. XML Press will also be giving away a copy of Alan Porter’s forthcoming book, WIKI: Grow Your Own for Fun and Profit. Plus, we will have an XML Press booth with information about our upcoming releases, book signings, and other goodies.

Overall, it looks like a great conference both for ePublisher users and anyone interested in the latest trends in technical communication and publishing. There will be keynotes by WebWorks execs Tony McDow and Alan Porter, featured talks by Stewart Mader and Tom Johnson, and panels with several groups of industry exporters. XML Press authors Anne Gentle and Alan Porter will both be speaking, and Anne and I will be available to sign our books.

Posted in Conferences | Tagged | 1 Comment