IT All-Stars – We Don’t Always Get It Right
As Major League Baseball's All-Star game approaches this evening, I was thinking about the selection criteria used and its fairness or lack thereof. Being from Boston myself, I’m a Red Sox fan, however the number of Red Sox players (7) with planned all-star appearances does seem a bit high. There are many aspects to consider including individual performance versus team, clutch hitting/pitching and reputation. This got me thinking of the criteria used within companies to determine the all-stars.
Major League Baseball has more to consider than simply recognizing top performers. They are concerned with getting fans involved, television ratings, television network success, advertising, etc. In the case of IT, it just sort of happens. Or does it?
What makes one individual an IT all-star versus anybody else? Maybe it’s that developer who engineered a new process management system that increased efficiency by 50%. Or maybe it’s the IT manager who implemented a sound disaster recovery system and saved the day when a false fire scare destroyed every piece of hardware in the server room. There are indicators of potential all-stars, but it’s hard to say exactly what the clincher is. In some cases, there is no doubt about who the all-stars are. In other cases, it might be an issue worth debate over an ice cold beer at the end of the work day. And in a few cases, it’s just wrong.
A case where it was just flat-out wrong occurred when I worked at Monster.com.
(read more)
Major League Baseball has more to consider than simply recognizing top performers. They are concerned with getting fans involved, television ratings, television network success, advertising, etc. In the case of IT, it just sort of happens. Or does it?
What makes one individual an IT all-star versus anybody else? Maybe it’s that developer who engineered a new process management system that increased efficiency by 50%. Or maybe it’s the IT manager who implemented a sound disaster recovery system and saved the day when a false fire scare destroyed every piece of hardware in the server room. There are indicators of potential all-stars, but it’s hard to say exactly what the clincher is. In some cases, there is no doubt about who the all-stars are. In other cases, it might be an issue worth debate over an ice cold beer at the end of the work day. And in a few cases, it’s just wrong.
A case where it was just flat-out wrong occurred when I worked at Monster.com.
(read more)
Background
A proposed regulation (OFCCP) was in the U.S. Congress for more than 2 years that would require companies to maintain records of searches done on the Monster Resume Database. This regulation required companies to document the search criteria used to ensure they weren’t discriminating. Search criteria that omitted colleges with a historically minority student body such as Grambling State University or Brigham Young University are discriminatory.
Because delays in enacting this regulation occurred over and over again, it was a big surprise to just about everyone when it went into effect with a lead time of 3 months.
Actions Required
Although this regulation did not require Monster to do anything in particular, it did require our customers to maintain records of all search criteria used. As such, several groups within the company provided proposals for ways we could make this easier for our customers. However the response from the Vice President in charge of products was to do nothing and let this be the problem of our customers.
In the next two months, we heard from a large number of our largest customers telling us that they would no longer be able to use Monster if we didn’t help them comply with this regulation. Finally, the problem was given to the senior management team where a decision was made to address the issue for our customers. The Vice President of Products was put in charge of this initiative.
Over the next 30 days, all development projects were put on hold so that we could deliver this new requirement to our customers. Late nights were spent by a lot of people defining and developing the new functionality, talking to customers ensuring we would have a solution for them, testing and documenting the new functionality and training sales, technical support and customers on the new functionality. In the end, we were successful in delivering the functionality needed by our customers.
Result
Because the project was so successful, the Vice President of Products was given special praise, singled out for a tremendous contribution and ultimately rewarded with a promotion. The crisis (created by this very same Vice President) was averted! So an IT All-Star was created. But I don’t think that’s the kind of all-star I really want to have on my team. That’s like Barry Bonds getting the game-winning hit after making an error with 2 outs and the bases loaded. Unfortunately, most people would remember the hit.
A proposed regulation (OFCCP) was in the U.S. Congress for more than 2 years that would require companies to maintain records of searches done on the Monster Resume Database. This regulation required companies to document the search criteria used to ensure they weren’t discriminating. Search criteria that omitted colleges with a historically minority student body such as Grambling State University or Brigham Young University are discriminatory.
Because delays in enacting this regulation occurred over and over again, it was a big surprise to just about everyone when it went into effect with a lead time of 3 months.
Actions Required
Although this regulation did not require Monster to do anything in particular, it did require our customers to maintain records of all search criteria used. As such, several groups within the company provided proposals for ways we could make this easier for our customers. However the response from the Vice President in charge of products was to do nothing and let this be the problem of our customers.
In the next two months, we heard from a large number of our largest customers telling us that they would no longer be able to use Monster if we didn’t help them comply with this regulation. Finally, the problem was given to the senior management team where a decision was made to address the issue for our customers. The Vice President of Products was put in charge of this initiative.
Over the next 30 days, all development projects were put on hold so that we could deliver this new requirement to our customers. Late nights were spent by a lot of people defining and developing the new functionality, talking to customers ensuring we would have a solution for them, testing and documenting the new functionality and training sales, technical support and customers on the new functionality. In the end, we were successful in delivering the functionality needed by our customers.
Result
Because the project was so successful, the Vice President of Products was given special praise, singled out for a tremendous contribution and ultimately rewarded with a promotion. The crisis (created by this very same Vice President) was averted! So an IT All-Star was created. But I don’t think that’s the kind of all-star I really want to have on my team. That’s like Barry Bonds getting the game-winning hit after making an error with 2 outs and the bases loaded. Unfortunately, most people would remember the hit.
Category IT Trends
| Permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
