It’s relevant, though, because I made an assumption at work that almost got me into trouble when that assumption was wrong and then two days later discovered that another one did get me into trouble in my personal life.  In both situations, I was slammed in the face with the fact that assumptions can be bad, bad things when they are incorrect.

In order to conduct our multi-month interstate move this summer, we used PODS.  They drop empty containers on your driveway, you fill them, they pick them up, they train them to wherever you want, you call them when you’re ready, they put them on the new driveway.  No truck rentals, no storage rentals.  Given that we had a section of time between getting out of our old place and getting into the new one, it made good sense.

We orginially ordered 2 large containers (8×8x16) to pack our stuff in, but as the packing was going along in Washington last month, it became clear we’d need a 3rd.  I called PODS customer service and had a third one delivered the next day.  This would form the basis of my incorrect assumption.

Despite knowing our move in date for our new place a month ago, I intentionally held off calling PODS for a container delivery date in case something changed.  When I called them yesterday, after having received next day service earlier, they informed me the day I wanted was completely booked.  All drivers were operating at capacity and no more deliveries could be scheduled.  Doh!

What happened here?  I assumed that since I got 24 hour response time a month ago in suburban Portland, I’d get the same thing in late August in suburban Los Angeles.  Because that assumption was wrong, I’ll be sleeping on an air mattress that first night and have a justifiably angry family.  If we had a couch, I’d undoubtedly be sleeping on it, as I well should.  The PODS delivery is coming the next day, so the impact isn’t huge, but it still puts an unnecessary cramp in what has already been a long ordeal.

The morale: double check your assumptions to make sure they are valid for your situation.

Technorati Tags: assumptions, PODS

Every once in awhile, it happens. You are in a review meeting of some kind with your boss or, worse, your boss’ boss. The topic is some contentious issue your group is having with some other group and inevitably the big question comes from the most important person in the meeting and is directed to you:

“Can you come to the meeting I have with the other high level manager on this as my back up?”

That knot you feel in your stomach as the question hangs in the air is the realization that you are pre-whacked out Tom Cruise as Maverick and you’ve just been ordered to go after Soviet MIGs as Val Kilmer’s wingman.

What this manager has asked you to do is come to a meeting with high powered people and make sure he or she doesn’t make a fool of themselves because you understand the details that nobody else does. While you can turn this into a positive, it puts you in a very difficult situation because the stakes are usually higher than you are used to in meetings like this and there is a probability you can inadvertently make somebody responsible for your raises look like an idiot. That’s bad.

Here are 5 tips to consider when being put in this situation to help insure your continued employment:

1) Unless absolutely necessary, don’t say, “no”.

When your boss’ boss tells you to do something, you do it. End of story.

When it is your own boss and you have a good relationship you might be able to get away with turning something like this down, but the higher up the chain of command it goes, the more you have to risk by saying “no” to it. If you must decline for whatever reason, don’t just say “forget it” without explanation. My favorite current line for things like this is, “Unless you are willing to pay for my divorce attorney, I can’t do that.” I’m pretty sure my boss is sick of that one, actually, but it says, “I’ve got some family time planned during that 7 pm meeting you want me to go to” in a more lighthearted way. Soften the blow if you have to be negative, but go out of your way to make the commitment.

2) The Boy Scout Motto: Be Prepared

When you make a mistake based on lack of preparation with your peers, you look bad, but only to your peers. As higher level people get involved, the ripple effect of looking bad increase and being prepared gives you at least a fighting chance to look good. Better than if you aren’t prepared, certainly.

This one is fresh on my mind because I recently forgot it and looked like a fool. I was asked for a dollar estimate I made on a project and not only did I not have the correct spreadsheet open already, I had trouble finding it. I looked unprepared and unprofessional, which I was absolutely guilty. Have all the data and diagrams you might possibly need at your disposal up front so you can quickly refer to them if you need them.

3) If at all possible, play Cyrano over IM.

In my current job, people are spread all over the world and, as such, most of the meetings are over the phone. You can pull this off in person too if everybody in the room is connected to the LAN with a laptop, but the idea is that, like the famous scene in the Edmond Rostand play, if you can feed information to your executive without speaking it’s better for everyone. Your executive looks like he or she is infinitely knowledgeable on the subject at hand even though you really are. That won’t be forgotten when it comes time for stock options to be handed out, especially if you remind everybody about it when preparing for your performance evaluation.

4) Don’t speak unless prompted

These meetings tend to be very political and there are likely issues or past relationships at play that you have no idea about. Nor do you want to, trust me. Your executive knows what he or she is doing. Let them do all the talking if at all possible, which is why the IM trick is important. He or she might say something that isn’t entirely correct or even something that is a bold face lie. Don’t interject a correction because there might be a reason for that exaggeration or fabrication you don’t understand.

If you are asked something by your executive, only answer what was asked. Don’t expand your answer. When you are asked something by the rival executive, pause for a moment to give your executive a chance to cut you off so you can avoid answering. If that interruption never comes, again, only answer what was asked.

5) Never, ever contradict your executive.

There may be times when you are forced to say something and it will be the exact opposite of what your executive just said. Tread carefully through this situation with careful word choice. Start by restating what your executive said and give them a chance to refute themselves one last time. If that doesn’t work, despite being the definitive source of information, soften your comments with something like, “It’s a little more accurate to say . . .” or “That’s very close, but it works more like this. . . ” and then give far more details about the topic than your executive did. This will give the appearance that your executive was simply not clear on the lower levels of the topic at hand and avoid you having to directly contradict them.

Final thoughts

These situations can pay off big when it comes for rewards, but they can hurt you too if they don’t go well. Document what happened immediately following the meeting so you can track it for your performance evaluation later. It’s not exactly a life or death situation, but when following these steps and adding your own common sense, you can take advantage of this opportunity to make someone with really high status look good. As my Dad once told me, that’s a lot more important than making yourself look good.

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot - albeit a perfect one - to get an “A”.

Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work - and learning from their mistakes - the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

And Jeff’s summary:

Where have I heard this before?
1. Stop theorizing.
2. Write lots of software.
3. Learn from your mistakes.

I couldn’t agree more. The ideas behind my recommended techniques for making yourself easier to be scheduled is based on this exact premise. Want to get good at something? Do it a million times. You’ll make a ton of mistakes early on but that’ll help you refine your processes to produce a better result. That doesn’t mean there’s never room for theorizing, but there comes a point where you can’t let things play out in concepts any more and you need to get your hands dirty.

Technorati Tags: coding horror, learning, mistakes

Among the reasons I like writing about pro sports in this space is that many of them rely upon cohesive teamwork in order to achieve desired outcomes, just like most project teams in other businesses. A big difference is that the interactions among the people in pro sports is extremely public. It’s one thing to trash your boss on an email where you accidentally press “reply all”, it’s quite another to have a poorly thought out sound bite replayed on SportsCenter for days on end.

It is from that perspective that I find the Brett Favre saga especially interesting because it asks a basic question that plays out in lots of other companies today:

Is there such a thing as loyalty between an employer and an employee?

If you aren’t familiar with this story, Brett Favre has been the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers since 1992 and is considered to be among the best to have ever played in the NFL. Like many pro football players in their mid to late 30s, the past few seasons he has flirted with retirement going as far as to formally announce it this past March. As highly competitive people are prone to do, he has recently changed his mind about that and wants to play again.

The problem is, the Packers don’t want him. They have a quarterback they have been grooming to replace Favre when he was done named Aaron Rodgers. Favre’s longevity is unusual for an NFL quarterback and the Packers have groomed others to take over for him that have instead gone on to be starters for other teams (Kurt Warner and Matt Hasselbeck took their new teams to Super Bowls, for example, after being Favre back ups) as he kept playing. From the team’s perspective, they’re done assessing the situation a year at a time and want to commit to Rodgers long term.

The other problem is, they don’t want anybody else to have him either. Why let a valuable person go to a competitor when he’s under contract to the Packers? Reportedly, Packer management went as far as to offer him money to stay retired last week.

From Favre’s point of view, he just wants to continue to do what he’s been trained to do while his body is still capable of it. If his current employer doesn’t want his services or doesn’t want him to compete for a job with them then they should let him go seek employment elsewhere. He seems to realize he’s under contract to them and they are under no obligation to do so, but feels that his long service to the organization warrants it. If they disagree, he can create a public relations nightmare for them by showing up to a workplace he popularized yet is unwelcome. That is scheduled to happen today, in fact.

So, who’s right?

The most interesting part of this scenario is how ambiguous it is. The organization has compensated this individual handsomely over the years and has no legal reason to terminate his contract, allowing him to go to a competitor of his choosing as he as requested. In fact, NFL salary cap rules make that prohibitively expensive for the team to do so. Plus, they want a long term solution for one of their most important jobs. That all seems pretty reasonable to me.

But the employee should have the right to change his mind about when to no longer work, right? Yeah, he signed a contract but often times highly paid NFL players are asked to resign contracts to make salary cap rules easier on their teams. I don’t know enough about Favre’s current contract to know the circumstances of it’s signing, but it is a common practice. His argument is that if he’s able and willing to work he should get the chance to compete for a job or be given the opportunity find a new one somewhere else.  That too seems reasonable.

Both sides seem to have valid arguments, but one of them won’t end up getting a desired outcome.

So, who wins, the organization or the employee?

Would it be any different in your company?  In your industry?

Technorati Tags: favre, loyalty, nfl

Yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised to get an email from Thomas Friedman’s publisher informing me that they are having a promotion where they are giving away audio copies of “The World Is Flat” to generate some buzz around his new book out in September on environmental issues called Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America.   As you might recall, I enjoyed “The World is Flat” quite a bit, hence I’m passing word of this promotion onto you.  The promotion ends August 4, so get it while you can.

For a publisher to find a guy with a small blog, who enjoyed an author’s previous work, to help in promoting awareness of a subsequent title is pretty cool.  Even if I am a bit starstruck, that’s a 21st centry approach that not all businesses grok quite yet.

UPDATE 8/4:

The promotion has been extended to August 11.

Technorati Tags: hot flat and crowded, the world is flat

“Always tell the truth.  That way, you don’t have to remember what you said.” —Mark Twain

Within a 24 hour period the other day, I received over 100 emails and attended 5 hours of meetings.  During that time, I got asked a lot of questions that required answering and I had more than one opportunity to stretch the truth or flat out lie about something to make myself look better.  This would have been a really bad idea because people remember when you don’t tell the truth.

For example, I never ask my Dad what time it is for this very reason.

You might remember my Dad from the Golden Trashcan story. Growing up, there was a basic conflict in our house where I was an only child: Mom and I aren’t “morning people”.  Dad, irritatingly, is.

So once, when I was a teenager, the three of us were getting ready to take our annual family vacation.  The night before, we all agreed that we’d sleep until we woke up naturally, load the car, and make the 2 hour drive to the beaches of San Diego.  Pretty simple.

The next morning, my Dad opens my bedroom door and tells me it’s almost 10 so we’d better get going or else we wouldn’t have time to make the drive, check into the hotel, and get a decent beach day in.  Groggy, I peered over at my clock and it said 9:50 am.  Despite feeling like I needed some more sleep, I had to agree with him so I rolled out of bed and started putting on my clothes.

The oven and microwave digital clocks both said 10:05 am by the time I got downstairs, as did the analog clock above our entertainment unit in the family room.  I sat down on the couch in front of the TV and started to put on my shoes, when I glanced up at the VCR and saw it:

6:35 am

“DAAAAAAAD!,” I screamed at the top of my lungs.

Seeing as it was 1987, only the teenage boy in the house (me) knew how to reset the clock on the VCR.  If it were up to Dad, it would flash “12:00″ all day, every day.  All the other clocks he knew how to change, although upon interrogation he later admitted the toughest one was when he snuck into my room and altered my alarm clock without waking me.

The thing is, he got what he wanted.  By the time we confronted him, both Mom and I were wide awake, and we left the house before 7:00 and were on the beach by 11:00.

But never since have I trusted my father, one of my biggest heroes in life, with telling me the correct time because I’ll never forget when he betrayed me on it.  And that’s why when someone asks you a question at work, you should tell them the truth.  Utlimately, you are building long term relationships with people and they have long memories.  Something that reflects badly on you today will be remembered tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: honesty, networking, perspective

Some good points on self promotion and some nice links at the bottom make it worth a read.

Technorati Tags: arnel pinedas, journey, monster blog

On a much lighter note, my friend Liz Handlin ran a piece last Thursday enlightening those of us that are Digg challenged to a hilarious post over at JobMob entitled “150 Funniest Resume Mistakes, Bloopers, and Blunders Ever“.  Aside from invoking my favorite Homer Simpson image (”insert brain here”), it brought some humor to what was a tough Friday for me.  I found these particularly funny:

• “Finished eighth in my class of ten.”
• “I am loyal to my employer at all costs..Please feel free to respond to my resume on my office voice mail.”
• Why Interested in Position: “to keep my parole officer from putting back me in jail”
• Work experience: “Two years as a blackjack and baccarat dealer. Strong emphasis on customer relations - a constant challenge considering how much money people lose and how angry they can get.”
• “Skills: Strong Work Ethic, Attention to Detail, Team Player, Self Motivated, Attention to Detail”
• Reason for leaving last job: “Bounty hunting was outlawed in my state.”

It’s a great list that the folks over there took a lot of time to assemble, take a look.

Technorati Tags: funny resumes, last lecture, randy pausch

Often times, when interacting with a new group of people it can be difficult to decode the roles and responsibilities that have already been established among them. Inadvertently directing comments to the wrong person can spark insults or waste time, generally yielding poor results. Taking the time to ask about who is in charge of what can make a big difference for everyone involved.

When my maternal grandfather (inventor of concussion grenade fishing) died in 2002, my Mom went back to Oklahoma City before Dad and I could join her for the services that would be held. My grandmother wasn’t up to planning the funeral so her 3 daughters and son did the job.

My Mom (back left) with her siblings and parents, circa 1982.

As much as we all love them, it’s a known fact that my Mom and her sisters all got the family “bossy gene”. They have a need to be in charge. Don’t get me wrong, all of them use their powers for good instead of evil. When any of them are on the case, stuff gets done and you don’t have to give it a second thought.

As a result of being raised in a house with these people, my uncle is an extremely laid back guy. He’s a very hard worker, but he’s always had other people around him to do the worrying so he doesn’t do a whole lot of it himself (and, by extension, he was more fun to play with when I was a kid, a comment I’ll surely take flak for from my aunts). If you had three people barking orders at you all the time throughout your childhood who weren’t even your parents, you’d be the same way.

So, the four of them are sitting in the funeral director’s office planning how the services would go. The conversation quickly fell into a pattern. A gentleman in his mid 50s, the funeral director would address his questions directly to my uncle, who would say nothing when eventually the silence would be filled by one of his sisters interjecting the answer. Not understanding the dynamic, the funeral director continued to address my uncle almost exclusively, presumably because he’s male and the assumed leader of the group despite evidence to the contrary. After awhile, my uncle couldn’t stand it any more and with his gentle drawl, politely said:

“Excuse me, sir, but are you under the impression that I’m in charge here?”

Needless to say, the format of the conversation changed for the better after that and helped them all achieve a much swifter resolution to the issues they were there to discuss.

The next time you find yourself confronted with a new group of people with a prior relationship, take a minute to assess who is playing what roles. If you can’t figure that out for yourself, ask. Knowing who is interested in what is half the battle.

1. Make sure everybody has the same set of facts
2. Try to understand what in the other persons perspective is causing them to have an opinion different from yours despite #1

I spend a lot of time in this space writing about #2, but was reminded recently that you can’t forget #1 in the process.

As part of our return to Southern California, we are purchasing a newly constructed home.  This particular house is standing inventory for the builder and the only customizations we can select at this point is flooring.  With 3 dogs and an active 6-year old, we are big fans of solid surface surfaces.  Lemonade spills and dog barf is a lot easier to clean off of wood or tile flooring than it is carpet.

When we were scheduling our appointment with the design consultant to select the flooring, I explained our preferences and mentioned we were interested in getting the staircase in wood.

“You can’t have wood on the staircase,” she said.

“Why not?,” I asked, “We had it in our prior home.”

She countered with, “You can’t install wood there because the first step has a radial end to it with ballisters from the handrailing going into it.  That would have to be deconstructed and put back together in order to put wood down on it and I know my installer won’t do that.”

I left it at that, but before we had the actual appointment I took the following picture of the unfinished staircase:

That’s my wallet I placed there for scale purposes, since I knew I would have that with me at the appointment and I wanted to show how thick that wood was.  As you can see, the design consultant incorrectly described the radial portion of the stairs.  Instead of the ballisters (the vertical pieces) connecting into the bare stair, it connects to a piece of white trim.

When shown this picture, a new fact for her, the design consultant completely changed her opinion and we now have a wood staircase in the installers queue.  No angry exchange was needed and no analysis of her perspective either.  By making sure everybody had the same facts, the matter was quickly resolved.

If only the facts of software architecture were as easy to “show” to someone, my life would be a lot easier 8).

Technorati Tags: argument strategies, dispute