FAQ — Technical Leadership and Management

Leadership/Management Style

This is an important question which I will answer on two levels, the general and the techie-specific.

Part 1 — Let's look at this question with the "Human Factor" in mind. There are those leaders who try to apply the same leadership or management style to everyone. This is a mistake. Human beings differ on many levels. If you attempt to apply a "one size fits all" approach to leadership, assuming your style is a good one, that approach may work well with many, but not all, of those you lead. What happens with those for whom your style is not a good fit?

Ask yourself the following questions:

•  Are you adapting your approach to satisfy individual needs?

Some of your people (whether techie or non-techie) may actually need direction (for example, those who lack experience or the ability to be innovative). While others require more freedom to act of their own accord and in their own way (for example highly skilled and experienced techies who don't need someone sitting at their shoulder every minute).

• Have you attempted to find out the needs of those for whom your preferred leadership/management style may not be a good fit? If not, why not?

If you haven't taken the time to find out what is important to them, what style works with them, you are doing them and yourself a disservice. As a leader, you can't afford to wait for them to volunteer the information? You need to be both observant and proactive about finding an approach that works for you both.

If you are expecting others to always adapt to your style, That's pretty arrogant. You may have a long wait, especially with techies. In point of fact, adaptation needs to happen in both directions: you need to address these individuals in a manner that best facilitates their needs, while they need to be willing to accept your leadership and trust that your approach is appropriate for the circumstances. In this way, you promote effective communication and collaboration.

• What sorts of people do you find challenging to deal with? How have you handled such people in the past? Was it productive, or did your approach add to the problems or confusion?

We all eventually run into people who "rub us the wrong way" — for example, people whose personalities clash with our own, people who grate on our nerves, and/or people who always seem to choose a course of action or position that is contrary to our own. (Personally, I find it difficult to work with "prima donas" whose actions fail to match their arrogance. Hey, I never said I deal with everyone perfectly!)

Just remember, you can't control how such individuals choose to act. You can control how you choose to respond to them. Staunchly refusing to facilitate their efforts (on principle) merely aggravates the situation and is fruitless. If you can't find a way to work with such an individual on your own, consult a mentor, a coach, or someone who has been successful working with that individual, either in the present or the past. If you run out of options, then you need to transfer the individual or fire them. Otherwise, the controversy you engender between you will negatively affect your group's performance.

In general, be prepared to switch your leadership/management style to better facilitate the people and situations with which you commonly come into contact. If this chameleon-like ability is not natural for you, consider how you might alter your approach to get the best results with each individual (think in terms of desired outcomes, not how you will accomplish the desired metamorphosis).

Part 2 — Now let's look at which styles do and don't tend to work well with techies. Traditional management structures are all about power, i.e., influencing the actions and behavior of others. In environments where a traditional management style is employed

• Each person is assigned a specific role and scope of job as well as a defined (or assumed) level of responsibility and authority within the organization.
  
  
• Decisions are often centralized rather than distributed or localized.
  
  
• Managers and/or group leaders usually establish group and individual direction, delegate tasks, set schedules, track progress, and evaluate performance.

This centralized command-and-control approach has proven to be ineffective with the innovators who work in technology. Techies tend to be mavericks - they resist authority and what they perceive as unnecessary control. The external incentives and pressure tactics that work well with non-techies are less effective with techies. This, in turn, short-circuits the traditional manager's leveraging power when attempting to control a techie.

Technology workers want to

• Be directly involved in planning and decision-making.
• Know the justification and need behind requests made of them.
• Know that their work will be useful and valuable.

For these and other reasons, successful leaders have found that facilitation and engagement are much more effective with techies than command and control.

Ask a number of coaches or mentors, and you're likely to receive many different answers. I can only give you recommendations based upon my own experience. Below are my top five:

1. Find out what is expected of you. If you don't already have a job description for your new position, try to secure one from your organization's Human Resources Department or from your manager. Don't be obnoxious about it, but do be persistent about identifying the expectations of your boss and your organization. Your boss may (or may not) have a clear idea of what he or she expects from you; some supervisors believe they limit their options by being too explicit up front.

Any job description is a broad outline at best, but at least it gives you a starting point. If no job description is forthcoming, then arrange to have a one-on-one conversation with your boss; take notes and write your own job description. Then send your boss a copy for adjustment.

Remember: In the absence of a job description, you may have a golden opportunity to define the responsibilities of your position, especially if the position is new within your organization. This may seem daunting, but it can actually work to your benefit. In essence, you are creating your own position to suit yourself. One caveat: Don't get so enthusiastic that you overwhelm yourself by taking on more than you can possibly handle (which is a common occurrence). You will set yourself up for failure before you even begin.


2. Do your homework. Whether you are new to an organization or taking on a new leadership position within the same organization, you need to become thoroughly familiar with 1) the people who populate your management structure, 2) all products and/or services being provided by those whom you are now leading, and 3) the high-priority clients your group(s) serve. This will take time. Start by putting together a basic plan of action. Lay out what areas you need to investigate, whom you need to speak with (in what order), and what information you will need to be at least conversant about them. Schedule appointments to meet with the key individuals on your list and time to complete your assessment.
   
   
3. Schedule one-on-one meetings with each of the people who report directly to you. These meetings should be held within the first week or two after assuming your new position, even if you already know the people. In advance of these meetings, prepare a list of three to five pertinent questions to help stimulate the conversation. During these meetings, talk less and listen carefully. Be observant. Your new direct reports will likely be a bit nervous and/or uncertain as to what to expect from you and vice versa (even if they know you). Try to put them at ease by assuring each individual of your intent to make no radical changes until you better understand the "lay of the land." If you were promoted within your existing organization, you may also want to consult the FAQs listed under Transition into Leadership» for more information.)

If you have taken on the leadership of a large organization, it may be appropriate to schedule a communication meeting including everyone in your reporting structure. Schedule this meeting to take place after you and your management team have had time to lay out a rudimentary plan for moving forward, but don't wait too long. Your people need to know there is someone stable "at the helm" more than they need to know the nitty-gritty details of your plan.

4. Establish at least one or two goal(s) quickly. Plans take time to discuss and evolve, but it is important that your people have a framework in which to operate. Long-term goals help establish a foundation for that framework, while short-term and intermediate goals provide near-term focus and direction. At a minimum, discuss priorities with your direct reports and establish at least one or two goals upon which to begin building a framework for the future and to establish immediate focus while you flesh out the rest of your goals and plans.
   
   
5. Schedule time for yourself. Starting a new leadership position can be overwhelming if you don't carve out time for yourself. You need focus time and time to take care of health considerations like eating properly and getting regular exercise. I recommend setting aside 1.5 to 2 hours per day which you designate as focus time. Make it clear to your people and others in your organization that you would prefer not to be interrupted, or have meetings scheduled, during this period (if at all possible).

This period will likely be your most productive time each day, so be sure to schedule it to occur when your energy is at its peak. Jealously guard these "me" times, and be persistent about requesting that others respect them, else they will erode over time and be sucked back into the maelstrom of day-to-day demands.

This can be a real shocker if it's never happened to you before. There may be a sound reason for the refusal, or the individual could be making a stand to exert their autonomy or to test you. Whatever the case, here are a few things you can try.

The first priority is to keep your temper under control. Getting angry or letting your emotions get the better of you weakens your position and escalates the disagreement in a negative direction. The second priority is to understand clearly why the individual refuses to acquiesce to your request, so you may tailor your response. Without this information, you are flailing in the dark. The third priority is to establish, if possible, a collaborative atmosphere in which to resolve your difference of opinion. The last thing you want to do is force either party (you or the other person) into an untenable position from which backing down or saving face is not an option.

If all else fails, and you feel the person is being unreasonable, or the situation demands their compliance, you may feel compelled to "pull rank," i.e., insist based upon your positional authority. In most cases, this is a weak position that could escalate your response (or that of the other person) in a direction neither of you wants to go. I would only play the "rank" card if you believe there is no alternative and you are willing to accept the consequences of enforcing your directive.

When a person challenges you, your response is usually dictated by how confident you are about your position or the need for your request. How you respond may also be skewed based upon the manner and perceived intent of the challenger, or the circumstances surrounding your discussion.

Let's start with the latter. If you find yourself in a situation where you must exert your authority and demand compliance (e.g., a safety issue, emergency, or matter of ethics), then assertively and persistently restate your position or request and invite the challenger to hold his or her comments until another, more appropriate time. If the circumstances do not warrant such a strong response, but your discussion must move on in order to keep to a timetable, simply explain the need to move on and invite the challenger to discuss his or her concerns at a later time.

If time is not an issue, then my recommendation is to invite others who are present to chime in with their own thoughts concerning the the topic under discussion, including, but not limited to, the validity of the two positions as stated. This latter technique does not always work, but when it does, it can defuse a potentially tense situation.

If you are fully confident concerning your idea or request, then taking a QED (prove me wrong) stance may be appropriate. However, be prepared to be gracious if you are proved to be in error. Admit your error and thank the challenger for drawing your attention to it. If you are not fully confident in your position, ask for additional input from the rest of the group, or indicate that you will need to do further investigation before proceeding with the discussion.

If you feel there is malicious intent involved in the challenge, there are a number of response options from which to choose:

1. Defer the confrontation by indicating that you are willing to continue the discussion "off line" and at a later time. Then, move immediately on to the next agenda item.
   
   
2. Counter-challenge the challenger by asking, "What is the basis for your objection?" (The challenger may actually have a valid objection, so don't just dismiss it out of hand.)
   
   
3. Use humor or exaggeration to lighten the mood and "spike their guns." (ONLY adopt this approach when your emotions are under control and you aren't already "hooked" by the challenger's baiting or heckling.)
   
   

The biggest challenge associated with delegation is learning to trust that others can get a task or a job completed in a timel fashion. Most of us have some familiarity with the old adage, "If you want something done right, do it yourself!" There is definitely some truth to that statement, at least as far as getting things accomplished in a manner that will fully satisfy you. Our perspective concerning what constitutes "right" is most often based upon what we believe is appropriate in a given situation and upom our personal experiences. The same is true, of course, for others as well. In order to delegate a task or job successfully, you must:

1. Get off the ego trip. Accept the fact that at least one other person or group in the world can do the job at least as good or better than you can yourself. (If this is not the case, then the task/job should not be delegated in the first place.)
   
   
2. Find the right person for the task/job. Consider what knowledge and experience is required to achieve the desired outcome(s). Then, choose the right person from among the members of your team. If no one suitable is available on your team, you may need to search outside the team — in other groups, departments, or divisions, or even outside your organization, for example, using a consultant or consulting firm.
   
   
3. Provide a written specification. Techies often drag their feet when it comes to writing specifications, mainly, I suspect, because many techies write either slowly, poorly, or both and find it tedious in the extreme. Others claim that writing specifications is a waste of time since the specification becomes quickly outdated once work has begun. (Sound familiar?) It's true that this can happen, but the process of writing a functional specification provides benefits than far outweigh this criticism.

I assure you that a written specification — from a one-paragraph or one-page summary (for simple tasks) to a fully detailed design document (for complex tasks or projects) is absolutely critical. Such specifications clarify intent, desired outcome(s), timeframe, and much more. Most importantly, a written specification lessens the likelihood of misunderstandings when it comes to functionality, deliverables, features, and costs. People have "convenient memories" when it comes to project details.


4. Identify a suitable approach. Once you have identified the best person/group for the task or job, ask yourself whether the approach you have in mind is the ONLY approach that will work, or is it simply your preferred way of attacking the problem. This requires honest objectivity on your part. If your way is the only way, make sure the person/group you have chosen for the task is able and willing to perform the activity exactly as specified. Alternatively, hold a formal or informal review of their approach and be prepared to allow that their approach may be as valid as your own. That is, it may be neither better nor worse; it may simply be different.
   
   
5. Agree on a process for tracking progress. Assigning a task or job to someone else does not eliminate your responsibility. Therefore, you and the other party must discuss and agree on how you will be informed of progress being made, as well as how often you will be informed.
   
   
6. Let go! Resist micromanaging. The hardest part of this process is to allow the person/group to do the job or task without continual oversight and interference. Micromanaging shows lack of confidence in both the individual or group to whom a task has been assigned, and in your own judgment. If your tracking process is properly defined and implemented, you should have adequate opportunity to make necessary assessments and adjustments to keep the activity on track.

Finally, remember that you need not be a superhero! You cannot be everywhere at once, be everything to everyone, nor can you do everything alone. If you try to be, you will rapidly become burnt out. If you need to train someone to whom you can delegate tasks, then do so! It is worth the time expenditure now, in order to give youself options for the future. Otherwise, you demonstrate lack of foresight, an unwillingness to be flexible, and you will ultimately limit your chances for career advancement. Think about it!