Software Developers Understand that People are not Machines

Some of the best ideas on management that I have read have come from the software development community. A large class of bad management practices insists that "what gets measured gets done" and assumes that management is as simple as measuring some variables and then tweaking the organization to get better numbers.

I wonder if the fact that software developers spend much of their time working with machines helps them see the differences between machines and people. If something is wrong with a program, I can attach a debugger and see what is going on. I have perfect information about the program and the program has no feelings as I inspect it and change it. For most programs, every time I run it with a certain set of inputs I get the same outputs.

All of this stands in stark contrast to working with people. The act of measurement itself has consequences even before the outcome is known.

I also wonder whether people in other fields that create or repair machines share the same insights. Maybe it is only people who don't work with machines that think people can be treated like machines.

How NOT to run a business

The Wall Street Journal has an article on How Bosses Stay in Charge. It describes how not to run a business. In this downturn, businesses have an opportunity to bring in very qualified people that they would otherwise not have a shot at. There is no such thing as overqualified. For a refreshing contrast, see this post. Relevant excerpt:

Phil Eagan recently reminded me of an investor meeting we did early in Viking’s history with one of our largest and most astute investors. I was asked about the commitment of Viking’s founders. I assured the investor that I was committed to our business. I also said that I believed that businesses must choose one of two paths. In the first path, the organization exists to serve the needs of the founders. In the second, the founders exist to serve the needs of the organization.

In the former, the founders maintain control. While they may delegate tasks, they make the key decisions. The founders may hire talented people to support them, but turnover will inevitably result as these individuals realize the limitations of their careers.

In the second path, the founders continually ask who in the organization is best able to fulfill each responsibility, without regard to title or tenure. As the talented new employees demonstrate their abilities, the founders will invite these individuals to share in the organization’s decision making process.

There is an irony in how these two paths are perceived by investors and other outside constituents. In the path where the organization revolves around the founders, constituents will take comfort in the perceived stability of the organization that, they believe, results from the consistency of the founders’ roles. But, I believe an outsider will underestimate the instability that exists at the levels below the founders.

In contrast, on the path where the founders exist to serve the organization, outsiders may perceive a level of instability. They will periodically be confronted with news that a founder has changed his role, ceded responsibility for some decision making, potentially reduced his work load or, possibly, left the organization altogether. However, if the organization has attracted talented individuals, helped to develop their skills and judgment, and established a process in which an individual’s merit determines the level of responsibility given, then the organization likely will endure. I believe Viking is this type of organization. I fully expect that, in the years to come, all of you will prove me right.

Seth Godin on Benefit of the Doubt

Seth Godin has a good post on when people give others the benefit of the doubt. While he discusses miscommunication, it can be extended to include the lack of communication. I read somewhere that when you don't communicate anything, people will make something up themselves to fill the void. Often, because most people will not give you the benefit of the doubt, what they make up is worse than the truth.

This is a key point for managers: communicate enough so that people do not have to make things up, but not so much that you are bugging people. Since people are individuals, learn over time how much information of various types your teammates desire and customize your communication style accordingly.

Punishing Loyal Customers

I am frequently surprised by companies that offer better deals to non-customers than they do to their existing customers. At Constant Wave, we have a policy that no one should be disadvantaged because they trusted us with their business or were an early adopter. When we run special discounts aimed at acquiring new customers, we offer the same discounts to existing customers.

This is another advantage to the SaaS (Software as a Service) model. Since our customers rent the software, we can easily apply a discount to the next month's fee. A sales model would require us to rebate a portion of the purchase price to existing customers.

You're Going to Make Mistakes

You're going to make mistakes, and that's okay. But what's not okay is failing to set up systems to tell you when you've made a mistake.

How Starbucks Should Have Introduced Instant Coffee

It wasn't a mistake for Starbucks to introduce instant coffee. They introduced it in a way that weakens their brand and contradicts the story they've been telling for years. They are saying that the instant coffee tastes just as good as their brewed coffee and challenging customers to a taste test.

You should never put your customers in a position where they could lose, so the taste test is a bad idea. Starbucks should offer customers the opportunity to compare the different coffees, but the containers should be labeled so that the customers know which coffee is instant and which is brewed.

The instant coffee should clearly be marketed as "almost as good" as the brewed coffee or "the next best thing" to the brewed coffee. It should be positioned as a drink for when you can't get the original Starbucks experience. Commercials could show people enjoying the instant coffee at the in-laws' house or the South Pole. It is a way to treat yourself when the original experience is not an option.

This would expand the brand, rather than undermine it, which is what the current approach is doing.

Luxury Lite: Starbucks Goes Instant

The Wall Street Journal has an article today on Starbucks' instant coffee. I recommend reading the article for the discussion of the whole experience of using a product, for example uncorking a bottle of wine. I think instant coffee from Starbucks is a terrible idea because it destroys the notion of the ritual of making coffee. I also recommend reading Seth Godin's book "All Marketers Are Liars", which explains the importance of having a story to tell about your product. Starbucks built a brand with one story, and now they are saying that story was wrong.

Like the weather, people are subject to the whims of butterflies

The butterfly effect, popularized by Edward Lorenz, says that something as small as the flapping of a butterly's wings can affect something as large as the weather. This is because the weather is a chaotic system; it is complex, non-linear, and highly sensitive to initial conditions.

The behavior of people is also chaotic, even though each individual thinks they are consistent and rational. The discrepancy arises from a lack of knowledge of all of the internal rules and conditions that make perfect sense to the individual, but are unknowable to others.

On the way to work this morning, I was stuck behind someone on a two lane road with almost no passing zones. This person drove exactly the speed limit, although most locals will exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph in this area. If this person wants to adopt a "law and order" posture, that's fine with me. However, in a different section of the road, this person started going 20 mph over the speed limit in order to get around a large truck.

To me, I thought this was inconsistent behavior. When I was in a hurry, this person wanted to follow the law. When they thought they would be delayed, then the law goes out the window. Internally, I'm sure the person's behavior was thoroughly consistent with his internal rules.

This is what makes management and other interactions with people so difficult. You can think you are interacting with the person the same way on two different occasions and get completely different outcomes, because you didn't understand all of the details from their perspective.

Is sales more difficult than managing?

I used to think that managing was the most difficult task in the world because it dealt with people--the most complex thing in the world. Managers are trying to get people to do something, but they typically have some leverage with those people (salary increases, job security, etc.). People in sales are also trying to get others to do something, but often have no leverage at all.

Different mindsets of managers and non-managers

I am transitioning to a non-management role for the first time in over a decade and I am surprised by how different the necessary mindset is. As a manager I was primarily concerned about others and tracked many different issues. As an individual contributor, I am rediscovering the required focus on a single task. I had forgotten what a stark contrast there is between the two roles. It deepens my conviction that the biggest step in a manager's development is the first step from non-manager to manager.

For more on this topic, I recommend the book "The Leadership Pipeline" by Ram Charan.