3 Book Recommendations to Help You Earn Respect from Software Engineers

Technical Background Needed?

Companies like Google are notorious for preferring technical product managers.  (How dare they forgo your talents just because you don't have a C/S degree!)

Yet, if you look under the surface, you'll find many exceptions.  For example, take a look at Google product manager Kamila Staryga, who used to run the (now defunct) Google Helpouts.  She does not have a computer engineering background.  Her prior career background was with companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Procter & Gamble.  

Lest you think this is an exception, take a look at Serena Keith.  Serena is heads product at Lovely, a mobile apartment hunting app (acquired by RentPath).  Serena graduated college in 2008 as a social studies major.  Then, she worked a handful of jobs in non-technical roles.

So, What's Going On?

You could assume that Serena or Kamila simply relied on their industry expertise and strategic prowess.  Perhaps you're right.  Or, you could give them the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps they really studied up on technical matters.  People like Serena worked really hard to overcome their technical deficit to earn the trust of the mobile and web engineers on their team.

I have seen this humanist-turned-technologist narrative play out first-hand with people like Shanely.  Shanley used to work at Heroku, an uber-engineer kind of place.  The engineers there told me first-hand that when they worked with Shanley, they had no idea she was not from a technical background.

Meaning, basically, you get there by taking time to learn.  Big surprise!

Take Action and Read Up!

So, this is the part you've been waiting for.  Book recommendations that closes the technical knowledge gap.  That's right, you got to earn that respect from your engineering team. There's no free lunch, my friends.

I found a few books on Leanpub that should be worth checking out.  Best of all, they have a nice satisfaction guaranty.  So, hop to it and beef up your technical library!

        

Growing Agile: A Coach's Guide - This book is a collection of our workshops that will help you run similar workshops to create agile Release Plans. 

Inceptions, Starting a Software Project - A professional software craftsman has many tools under his belt. Many are technical in nature, but many others are considered soft skills. This book focuses on one such soft skill; The Inception Workshop.

Talking with Tech Leads - A book for Tech Leads, from Tech Leads. Discover how more than 35 Tech Leads find the delicate balance between the technical and non-technical worlds. 

Leadership lesson - Case of guest speaker organization

I was part of a 3-person committee for the a Darden student club that organized a speaker event for the entire school. I took on a lot of the leg work, but I had not volunteered to be the lead coordinator. Here were a few of the expected results and actual outcomes (there are not comprehensive).

Attendance goal - 60+; actual - app. 25
Audience diversity goal - diverse groups; actual - narrowly defined group of interested students and faculty

What happened? Few things. One was team leader's fault. But, for me, the more instructive lesson is my own complicity in that failure.

First, the team leader never really outlined all the tasks and timeline very clearly. Often, I would have to fill in and send out tasks to the group and get the thing moving. Questions I have:

- Why did the leader never step up? In that light, what was my responsibility?
- What should I have done? Should I have expended additional efforts to grow the leader to energize and encourage him? Or should I have simply taken over the show? I think in this case, he was my peer, so it was up to me to have said something. I failed to fix the issue.

Next, my complicity. Here are the things that most stick in my mind.

- I was asked to reach out to this speaker. I spoke to him and landed the invitation. But, during the conversation, I was not at all impressed with the guy. I should have said something, but when the team leader seemed satisfied with the speaker, I just held my peace. I think part of the failure of the event was because of this speaker's shortcomings. I ought to have stood up if I really cared and wanted to make this event better.
- As with the team leader's shortcomings, perhaps I ought to have been clearer in my expectations and should have engaged the speaker more directly to ensure the program went well by preparing ahead of the event.

These observations bring me to some troubling questions:
- If you want something done well, do you have to do it yourself? But, if you do, you're taking all the blame.
- In reality, you want your team to perform better - both your leaders and your followers - so that outcome will be better than if you organized on your own. But, energizing your peers who 'don't get it' can be draining. What's the solution? Is there some magic bullet for energizing your peers? How do you do this without losing your own energy?
- According to the GE model, you 1) hire right, 2) then differentiate talent & fire under-performers and grow top performers. Would I have fired someone in this case?
- What if I'm not in a position to fire anyone? So, does it always come back to me?
- Perhaps what was missing was incentive structure and accountability structure. How would one build this amongst a peer group?
- Part of what failed was lack of institutional knowledge. SYs didn't really involve themselves much and they didn't show up. Why? Were they merely testing us or were they genuinely indifferent?

Lessons: There are broader lessons to draw beyond those questions:
1. Don't ignore institutional knowledge. Figure out a away to leverage it and transfer it.
2. Inclusiveness and performance. You want to get others involved and make them perform? Figure out a way to (a) get their skin in the game and (b) make performances clear so that you can differentiate.
3. Judgment. This is a tough one. When your gut tells you something is going wrong. Stop, think, talk about it, and make sure you're going in the right direction.
4. Courage. Failure to choose comes from fear. When a tough choice needs to be made, choose and move forward.

Or perhaps I could have applied a different framework. For example:
1. Planning - create the right venue and select the right speaker; perform stakeholder analysis
2. Design - stay ahead of the marketing plan and get folks involved
3. Execute - lead team and coordinate tasks; delegate

IC Classes 7 & 8 - Professional Barriers: Luke's paradox

Last two days at IC have been challenging because I've been unable to focus on the topics we've discussed in class due to extra curricular activities and due to skepticism about value of the content we've handled.

It is weird. I think the idea about many of the leadership challenges is that there are lack of clear communications or proper energizing of the base. Based on some of my personal experiences, I wonder if it's actually because of the character of the individual. It seems those who are intelligent, humble, and have high character never cause intentional harm in an organization. Those who lag, on the other hand, not only stink at what they do, but they stink up the joint around them. Does this mean that you don't help the struggling swimmer, but that you let her drown? Maybe.

Here's a paradox. To those who have much, much will be required of them. To those who have little, even the little they have will be taken away.

Does that apply to the work place? Some organizations cut the bottom 10%. Should that number be higher if you want a really high performing organization? Darden itself is very selective, but I find it troubling that even at Darden, there are folks that I might like to cut from the organization. And I'm sure those others feel similarly about me. How can I reconcile this to working and performing in an organization?

How would having difficult conversations fix the performance problem? If it doesn't fix it, is it merely a tool to clarify the issue so that a manager can have an excuse for letting go of the poor performer?

IC Class 5 - Impediments to Network Development

"How (Un)ethical Are You?" by Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh

"The article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision making: implicit forms of prejudice, bias that favors one's own group, conflict of interest, and a tendency to overclaim credit." Problem is, as the article points out, we are not consciously aware of these problems. A solution starts with the recognition that our conscious attitudes could be serious screwed up.

Interesting link to see how biased you might be.
www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias

So, what's a manager to do? 1) Collect data, 2) shape the environment, and 3) broaden decision making. For example, shaping the environment is the notion that having a diverse set of people working in the office will lead to erosion in ethnic bias, and hence better decision.

For me, though, the thing that was really interesting was the comment by the authors that "These flawed judgments are ethically problematic and undermine manager's fundamental work - to recruit and retain superior talent, boost the performance of individuals and teams, and collaborate effectively with partners."

First, the idea that bad decisions can be unethical is interesting. Second, this observation reinforces a concept we learned in LO's GE case, that manager's chief job is to identify and grow talent. Perhaps I should spend more time at Darden learning to size people up.

How many MBAs does it take to run the world?

The answer is about 10,000 people. That, according to Peter Kiernan (Darden 79), a well known wall street executive and a New York philanthropist.

Kiernan made the remark in the context of pep talk to new admits to Darden over the weekend. His point was that a handful of leaders are catalysts for what happens in the world. Darden MBAs will be looked upon as leaders, and as such, we can expect to be either one of the 10,000, helping someone become one of the 10,000, or advising a member of the 10,000.

While I understand the nature of his remark about the opportunity before us, I couldn't avoid thinking how elitist that sentiment is. I supposed that as the chosen (which I gather may include other brilliant minds and MBAs from other top schools) run the world, they will iron their own shirts, look after their own children, mow the lawn, brew their own coffee, and pave the roads when the potholes get too large?

But, I think the lesson is that there is a need of leadership at various levels in our world. And getting an MBA, while not a guaranty, likely will help open up doors to leadership opportunities in the corporate world (though MBA schools generally do not limit the claim to the corporate world, which is a bit presumptuous - an MBA isn't like to turn out to be the next Isaac Newton).

On Ernst & Young Feedback Process

I met with my counselor for lunch ahead of FY2009 annual reviews, also known as the round table. Over lunch, we discussed my goals, my self review, and my performance feedbacks from various engagements as a preparation for the upcoming round table.

Since I have made up my mind to leave the firm, I didn't much care for the exercise, but still took care to update these reviews, because I wanted to end my career at Ernst & Young without shame or regret. Nevertheless, I feel that MBA application process was a much more meaningful and beneficial self discovery process than reflecting on my performance as an auditor over the past year. Even if I were to disregard MBA considerations, I still find that Ernst & Young 360 feedback is faulty to the point of uselessness. In my mind, that fault primarily is due to the lack of impact of the feedback.

The firm's feedback and review process results in assigning a numerical rating of an employee against his or her peers ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The rating is supposed to follow a forced curve and allegedly directly relates to one's annual salary increase. The range of the annual raises depends on the firm's performance. For instance, if the firm announced raises ranging from 3 - 12%, then those rated 5 are most likely to receive the double digit raise. I could care less for at least three reason (again, excluding MBA considerations):

1) I think the firm's raises will suck this year - many may not even receive a raise, and those who do will see only a modest increase. This assessment is based on economy in general, but also based on local market considerations. For example, our office has lost some accounts, and our other clients have pressured for lower fees. This has to translate to either a) layoffs or b) salary freezes. We'll see both.

2) Even if you receive a rating of 5, it doesn't guaranty that your raise will be commensurate. I can vouch for instances in which my % increase as a 4 was lower than a staff who received a 3. I think the actual raise is as much based on one's current base and how much the firm thinks it can get away with, etc.

3) Even if one were to receive a high raise, I feel like the entire game is pointless to the extent that you'll always be a little fish in a small pond. Out in the industry, or for those accountants jumping around, there is always more money to be made. For example, if you were to leave and work for a competitor, you could probably negotiate a 15%+ raise verus the 5% you're likely to get for staying. If you left for industry, you might get something like 30% raise.

Now, enter MBA (with respect to salary). My current base is $62,500. If I figure about a 5% raise (I expect to receive a rating of 5 or 4), then my base will increase to around $65,500. This would be considered generous this year. If I figure two subsequent annual raises of 10% per annum (highly unlikely - in fact, will not happen), then my base would be just shy of $80,000. Now, at the same time in the Fall following graduation, my base will be in excess of $100,000, working less hours and with more prestige and more enjoyable responsibilities. Hmmm ... tough call. So, there it is, a little fish in a small pond. Of course, salary isn't the reason I'm leaving, but it's yet another validation that there is no future for me at Ernst & Young.

Given these considerations, why would someone with the ability to jump ship stay on board? In fact, we find that those who can, do not stay. If Ernst & Young wants to become a great services firm it purports to be, then it must address this weakness.