Prioritization

Everybody deals with it. The name of the devil is "Demand" and if its nature is unexpected then it becomes more poisonous. Prioritization is a weapon which serves as a great source of power in dealing with that.

Here is a seven-step approach for creating and maintaining a priority list and deal with the demand in a way it becomes meaningful to you. (The term "business" is used at a high-level and goes beyond the traditional definition of trade or commerce. It is used here as a context which has the most significant impact on you.)

1. Make an inventory list of everything you need to accomplish. Then classify it into the following three perspectives:
   1. Everything Routine: It should include all the tasks that you do on a routine basis. Checking emails, submitting status reports, attending review meetings… everything routine.
   2. Everything Exclusive: It should include all the specific requests from superiors, colleagues, clients, vendors or anyone who you need to be specific upon.
   3. Everything Extra-mile: It should include everything that you have initiated or you are taking an active part in helping that thing done. It might include new processes and procedures that you intend to create new product lines, new hiring policy, new reward policy etc.
2. Categorize each inventory item list according to:
   1. Business Criticality: Business criticality should be #1 driver. It would be wise to get engaged in doing the most important items related to the business. These are the items if not given attention to, would adversely impact the business.
   2. Personal Importance: Next is personal importance. Once business criticality and importance are dealt with, move focus to personal important items. These are the items if not given attention to, would adversely impact you.
   3. Urgency and consequences: Now deal with urgencies. In today's cut-throat competitive world, anybody might come to you with urgent requests to fulfill. You need to understand the distinction between urgency and importance and then deal with others' urgent items. These are the items if done, would impact others positively and not covered in the above two list categories.
3. Estimate how much time you have to accomplish the tasks. Also ask yourself few questions like:
   1. Should I do it myself or delegate to others?
   2. What can be delegated to others?
   3. What would be the impact of the delegation?
   4. What are the alternative ways of accomplishing the task?
4. Make a stand-by priority list and order it as per point # 2 (Business Criticality, Personal Importance and Urgency) – This list is the list you can act upon when you don't have any other priority set. The list you create in point # 2 gets precedence nonetheless.
5. Work out how you can fit the prioritized list into a time-box. Put priorities with high business importance first and hold-back the self-initiated priorities if you find it hard to time-box.
6. Finalize the priority-list and organize the work you need to do or get that done from others and act upon.
7. Revise the priority list as per your needs and re-enter into the priority list preparation exercise again.  Sharpen the saw.

Given the way it is described, it might look like a dreadful task however almost all the successful managers pass through this exercise almost mechanically. I have observed that Prioritization provides "structure" to the information chunks and leads to clarity and clarity is #1 success driver in accomplishment of anything you intend to accomplish.

Happy Prioritization!

Why is a phone interview required and how do I get to the in person interview?

Today this question is far more relevant than in years past. In the past phone interviews were only used if extensive travel was required for an interview. If somebody in New York applied for a job in Los Angeles he was going to have to get through a phone interview. With a few exceptions that was about the only time it was used. Now hiring authorities phone interview everybody even those just across town. This is not a good trend. Phone interviews are never as productive as meeting a candidate in person and during my career I have seen many of the highest caliber candidates be rejected because they did not interview as well by phone and the interviewer was not able to evaluate as well by phone as in person.
One of the biggest problems with a phone interview is that unlike the face to face interview the employer is looking for reasons NOT to bring in the candidate. Think about that. In an in person interview they are looking for reasons to hire. In a phone interview they are looking for reasons to not even bring a candidate in for a real interview, let alone hire him.

As a recruiter I was insulted when a company wanted to phone interview a candidate because there was only one reason for it. The employer did not trust me as an extension of their hiring team. They did not believe that I could evaluate a candidate as well as they could. They did not believe that I understood their needs as well as they did. This usually indicated a trust issue that went well beyond the phone interview. For this reason I did not accept assignments from employers who insisted on a phone interview before scheduling a candidate. If a client was not going to trust my judgment as to who they would interview I would win the trust or walk away from the assignment.

If phone interviews are so flawed why are they being used more than ever before? There are lots of reasons.
Employers do not believe resumes. Many candidates desperate to find work are "exaggerating" the facts and details of their resumes in order to appear a stronger candidate. It has been estimated that in good times 50%of resumes contained misleading content (lies) so imagine what it is in the worst of times. Employers cannot decide to interview a candidate based on the resume if they do not believe what they are reading. To these people the phone interview is a fact checking session.

Human resource departments are under intense pressure to reduce expenses. They are a non revenue generating function so in hard times they are always one of the first to feel the pressure. Interview travel cost are a big expense item so phone interviews are a tool to make sure they are spending wisely. In many cases multiple phone interviews are conducted.

***

In the past quarter century of self employed consulting, I have been placed by various headhunters into about 1/4 of my projects. Working with them, I had one interview in person and maybe a couple what I would consider to be telephone interviews.

All other phone calls with them consisted solely of them dispensing additional job related details, followed by my own evaluation of both the positives and the negatives, in terms of the overall fit. However, none of them felt like [telephone] interviews.

Therefore, do not be too harsh on your corporate prospects just because too many headhunters have created an impression that most recruiting outfits are nothing more than resume re-faxing services.

***

You make some great points, but I guess it comes down to what you use a phone interview for. I have three years exp as a recruiter and was taught that a phone interview was not to eliminate candidates. You confirm that they meet minimum requirements - Then give them a better understanding of the company, position and culture. Finally you prepare them for the in person interview coming by telling them about the hiring manager, the selection process, salary range and benefits. I was always told I am the candidates advocate and acting as such I will create win win scenarios. We get candidates that fit our needs and culture and candidates perform better in interviews. Resumes are used to screen candidates and eliminate non qualified applicants not phone screens. As for working with thrid party recruiter I think it is a question of culture, my job was to present the hiring manager with the best possible candidates period. who cares where they came from I always worked well with thrid party recruiters and I would say that 1/2 the time I encourage them to participate in the pre interview phone screen. which they did and the results where a stronger more prepared candidate.

***

One of the key reasons for phone interviews is that the team members are scattered to the four winds.

I generally agree that in person is much better, but lacking it, which I suspect will become more and more common, shouldn't be a hindrance if you have done your homework on the company and the division you are interview for.

I actually have a funny story about phone interviews. In this case the subject matter is highly technical and very few recruiters would have the knowledge to know what depth the candidates have or whether they were being led up the garden path or not. So I don't fault the recruiter for doing not much more than a quick review of the resume and letting the hiring manager handle the details.

Usually I don't expect much; however, I was interviewed for a contract a short while ago and was told they would get back to me in a week to ten days as they were interviewing a number of candidates. Okay, I thought, thanked them and put it out of my mind except to tickle file it for follow up. The interview ended at 4:30 pm and covered general knowledge with a bit about how the team worked. The team manager was not on the call. Plus they are all scattered across five offices in three time zones. Was I surprised when the next morning, sixteen hours and fifteen minutes later, I was offered the contract!

Ethical behaviour in the Job and business

Found this on Linkedin, a must read for folks with experience.

How do good people get caught in seemingly no-win ethical dilemmas?

In my early years in management I reported to someone in a large, publicly-held corporation, who directed all of us on his staff to use our expense report process to contribute $1000 each for a computer system that was going to reside in his office. He convinced all of us that this was not only OK, but was expected. He after all was a regional manager. We later learned that this was not true and he was subsequently fired for misappropriation of corporate funds. We the members of his staff were essentially told that we should look to further our careers elsewhere. I regret being part of this even if I can assign it to naivety and lack of experience.

In another large, publicly held company, I was approached by a member of the Board of Directors to consider a remote learning solution that he had created as the means for us to reach our customers more effectively. Upon evaluation, we determined the technology was not a good match for us and I politely communicated that to the board member. I was later refused a promotion told only that certain members of the board were uncomfortable with my style. I do not regret my how I handled that one.

With over 30 years of management experience today, I am quite confident that I can navigate the waters of safe ethical behavior. I wonder, however, is there a better answer for the younger and less experienced? Or must they too accumulate a regret or two before they find their way?

How about you? Did you have a solid ethical framework in your work environment that allowed you to make the right choices all the time, or do you too have something that you regret?

+++++++++++

I have been in a situation that seemed at the time to be "a no-win ethical dilemma." Now that I am out of it, the answer was clear. The easiest thing for me to do is always to tell the truth and to do what is right. If I do these two things, I can emerge from any ethical dilemma able to hold my head high.

This will sometimes mean a financial squeeze, a strained relationship or other hardship, but in my experience these were short term.

The key is to have a strong moral compass. Without this you will be blown like a ship without a rudder.

++++++++++++++

Ethics is always a personal dilema faced especially when you are starting out in any profession, whether public or private industry. As an accountant, I have learned on the job first hand, what types of ethical dilemas businesses and individuals can face. It is up to each individual to make that moral choice on how to proceed. The more exposure you have to ethical dilemas, the more confident you will become making and in standing by your decisions.

As a junior accountant, I was more apt to "go with the flow" to not ask questions, although in the back of my mind, I knew something wasn't right. I felt that I needed my job and did not want to jeopardize my career by raising concerns that I was not comfortable with. Today in senior management, I can comfortably maintain that ethical posture and confidence in sound business decisions and relay onto others in senior management the proper rules of business.

I consider myself to set a great example of ethics and confidence in my position and to uphold the accounting profession.

+++++++++++++++++

Every time I've resisted unethical behavior, I paid much less for my resistance than the unethical party did, but I always suffered, and I suffered first. C'est la vie. Courteous, well-documented refusals that cite corporate mission and values make trouble, but it's the best kind of trouble and the only kind that a responsible employee who cares about the company will make. Think of the alternative: culture flows from the top. Power corrupts. If you didn't take a risk in disagreement based on the common good and the long view, could you call yourself ethical? And if you "went along," how long would you want to stay with that company or that boss?

+++++++++++++++++

A few situations like this slap the naivity right out of us, don't they?

There will always be ethical dilemmas. I have 16 virtual advisors. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Einstein.... Great people.

Except BF had a child out of wedlock, TJ had slaves, and AE married then divorced his pregnant first/second cousin.

A similar list of anyone's heros would reveal the same.

We usually don't plan on doing something wrong. Like your example, you think you are doing something good....then more and more you get sucked in. Later on you have to protect your action you thought was right but is now wrong. Best thing: Admit you thought it was right at first but then change it and get past it.

THE PROBLEM is having one set of standards for us and one for others.
Having one set of standards for us and one for others is never right.

One need go no further than LinkedIn to see people rail on one politician for what they praised the other for. Double standards. Non-objectivity. That is the problem. What you do is good because you are you, and you are a good person. What they do is bad, because they are bad people. Does not follow.

Like Martha Stewart. She should have gone to prison as she did. However, I could be her best friend. She just made a bad choice amongst 35 that day.

Here is my fail-safe ethical guideline: I can do whatever I wish to do, but it must be consistent with the greater good.

My cells must work for my organs, or they are a cancer.
My organs must work for my body, or they have failed.
I must work for my community (business, etc.), or I am dysfunctional.
My community must work for the greater good, or it is a cancer on humanity.

We do have to be careful though, for we rationalize our best interest: "Well, it is best if I pollute the waters so I can get wealthy and give to charity and create jobs."

But there are no no-win ethical dilemmas, and here is why: You can always attempt to do the greatest good, in every single situation. As long as you honestly can say you were trying to do the greatest good, with due diligence, you are never "guilty" in an ethical sense, though perhaps in a legal or practical sense you could be.

The system has the right to judge the performance of its parts, so even an appearance of unethical behavior is not good. Generally go with the perception of good by society, unless it is clearly wrong.

We are all just different parts of the same universe, thus our every action must be consistent with the greater good.

Or we can choose to be cancers upon creation. The choice is ours.

The simple answer is to ask if, from a larger perspective, your actions are consistent with the greatest good. To test objectivity you may consider asking if you would still believe it if your opposing religion or political party or economic class were doing the same.

In our every action we create the rules we wish society to have.

But what I have learned from LI and elsewhere, is that people are perfectly happy to have double standards and believe other people are dastardly evil and their heroes saints, both for the very same actions.

You are either working for the system, or against it, and the system goes on from our cells on to infinity. You are either working for the system or against it, and if the system finds you working against it it has every right to take corrective action.

Ironically the highly subjective field of ethics is actually nothing more than systems theory.

Links:

• http://www.bevaluable.com

++++++++++++++++

The golden rule has always worked pretty well for me. When confronted with an ethical dilemma, I like to try and determine what the impacts are on various people (i.e., customers, vendors, fellow employees, shareholders, managers, etc.) of a course of action. If I find a course of action has an adverse impact on a particular person or class of persons, I then ask whether or not I would be okay if something like that were to happen to me. If the answer is no, then it is unethical.

+++++++++++++++

These are difficult situations and even more difficult times. My bottom line is, and has been for a long time, "is this something I can tell my wife and children."

I presented this and my other "laws" during the lunch speech at a business marketing conference in 2005 and several people asked for a copy of the speech and two people suggested it become my 2nd book - which it did - Why Epiphanies Never Occur to Couch Potatoes.

At the end of the day, each of us has our reputation to consider, and a mirror to look in.

And I want to know that my decisions are all in the category of "can I tell my wife and children.

Links:

• http://www.EpiphanyBook.com

++++++++++++++++

Well, there is the doubt that there are "good" people but there are hundreds of ways to get "caught". Sometimes, there may be doubts about if the catch is a devils trap, a cultural taboo or some kind of political game.

As several others examples point out, there are the traps of lies, following the wrong examples, going along.

Through out the world, more so in poverty but even in professional circles there are the traps of desperation, "I need to do this to make business", "I need to do this for promotion", "I need this to eat next week"

Fundamentally human, are the "following gonads not brains" traps

Not exactly types, but one can also analyze many of these situations as
"slippery slopes", "tar babies" and "best of bad choices"

++++++++++++++++++

Situations like this can be difficult.

I had one experience where a manager forced employees to produce reports about our work that were misleading and, sometimes, outright lies to mask bad leadership decisions. Some on the staff balked, some just went along, others took a route of more passive resistance.

It was interesting and instructive to see the two extremes of the reactions. One staff member, with a background in assessment, saw it not as an ethical debate, but one of "giving the client what they want" (in this case, the "client" being her manager). Another questioned the practice privately, but went along with much enthusiasm. Both got a nice promotion eventually. Those that questioned what we were doing were ostracized and "blackballed" by the manager.

In the end, these things backfire. The manager wound up getting a reputation as being untrustworthy - the hype she was dishing out just didn't match the reality of what people were seeing. She found it more difficult to find quality people to work for her and, as a result, more and more problems kept piling up in the organization that she just couldn't solve.

The sad part about it is that she damaged the reputations and careers of many of her employees in her quest to get promoted.

I just don't want people in my life like that. Lies and dishonesty just keep piling up like unpaid bills. Eventually, someone wants to see results. Someone who's a fake can never really regain respect once it's lost.

+++++++++++++++++

All are expressed opinions, but still, "if your heart or wife (!) doesn't have a problem, why give a damn?".

Money is all honey, if you want to be ethical.

Startup and Microsoft

Read this article on comparing startup with Microsoft...

some decent points to learn.

Successful Startups: Microsoft Wasn't Born Great

--
Regards
Vijayashankar

VCs and Startups

Here are top 7 things you should remember while pitching to potential VCs:

Be ready with your Product

This by far seems to be the most important aspect that VCs see while making a decision – At what stage of development is the product or service. However good your idea may be, very few VCs will be interested in it. Unless and until you have a working product (even if it is prototype), your chances of getting funding diminish drastically.

Your opinion’s don’t matter, hard facts and figures do !

Your opinions don’t matter to VC’s unless you are credible and have been there, done that. To add to it, if VCs have slightest difference of opinion than what you have, your chances of getting funding can come down to zero. It is always safe to stick to facts and figures when making a point.

Know your competition very well

In general, most of us do this quite well, however we need to know our competition from VC’s perspective. The positives / negatives of competitors and how they affect your business. You have to be very clear about the key differentiators between you and your competition.

VCs are skeptics

You need to understand this well. VCs will always look at your idea and product like a die-hard pessimist. They will only put their money in your venture once they get satisfactory answers for every aspect of your startup.

VCs hate outrageous projections

Never, I mean never try to balloon your figures on projections. VCs see right through it. As mentioned earlier, your projections should be based on solid facts and figures (not your opinions). The moment VC feels that figures are too good to be true, they will turn negative.

Be prepared to be grilled

VCs will grill you on anything and everything. Be prepared to answer questions that you may have never even thought. Make attempt at answering if you are confident that you can take it through. If you don’t, say “no”. VC’s will forgive you for not knowing certain things, but never if they feel you are lying.

Never show your desperation

Always be calm and composed while presenting your idea. You should be enthusiastic, but over enthusiasm could come across as desperation. And if VCs smell desperation in your talk, they will think twice before putting even a dime !

How to Resolve Project Conflict

Here's how to face and deal with conflict within your project team...

You need to face conflict and not ignore it, as ignoring it only makes the problem worse. The earlier you face it, the easier it will be to resolve. Here are some examples of conflict you might experience on projects:

• Your boss is frustrated with progress and takes it out on you openly, in front of others in your team.
• Your colleague wants something from you that you can't give them, or can't do for them within the time frame required so they get angry.
• Your staff think you're being unrealistic about time frames, so they handle it badly by raising their voice and being obstructive.

When conflict occurs, take these steps:

• Time out: If the other person is getting heated, tell them you need to take five minutes to collect your thoughts. Then make a coffee or go for a walk. This will help you both to calm down and reflect on what has happened.
• A pacifier: When you restart your conversation, start with "I know that you're under pressure because of... " This will pacify them a little and will make the atmosphere more positive.
• Problem solving: Then agree that a problem exists and that you both need to work together to resolve it constructively. Discuss the various solutions to the problem and try to agree on the pros and cons of each before deciding on the best course of action.
• Body language: While all this is happening, you need to focus on your body language. Use open stances. Take your hands out of your pockets and never fold your arms. Try and use slow hand movements. Use a passive voice and don't show emotion. Maintain good eye contact. Listen carefully and watch their body language as well.
• A mediator: If the above steps are going poorly, then you need to get someone else involved who can help mediate informally. Tell them you'd like to add a colleague to the conversation as they will have ideas for a solution. Then invite someone who is a good problem solver, whom you trust.
• Giving feedback: When the conversation becomes a little more relaxed, it's time to give the person some constructive feedback. Let them know how you would like them to deal with you next time a similar issue comes up. Only by giving positive constructive feedback, can you change their behaviour.

--
Regards
Vijayashankar

Typical breakeven poInt for a Captive Offshore Software Development Group

We comes across many customers with various ideas, who also have their own IT team.

Software Outsourcing is an art. You basically need to ramp up and down, based on project needs. No harm in sending work to India. At times big MNC's resort to having their own Captive Offshore Development Group.

What would be the Typical breakeven point for a Captive Offshore Software Development Group?

Will it all depends. If you have an order book and a project list that gives you sufficient comfort that you will be able to offer employees a good job with career development potential, then you can take on permanent hires rather than contractors straightaway.

On the other hand, if the nature of the software projects being worked on is such that the skill sets required vary greatly from project to project, then it may be better to develop a business around a network of consultants that you know and trust, where you pull in the right people for the right job on an ad hoc basis.

I'd imagine one that a lot of Small/Medium operators would be wrestling with....

Unfortunately, I don't believe there's a fixed formula. There are too many factors (current profitability/ costs of staffing a centre/ staff profile of offshore talent/tolerance for risk etc) to provide a definitive answer.

I would strongly reccomend them to have them plan out the two ( or three) business scenarios over the next 3 years and compare the forecasted outcomes. I think the answer would become apparent.

- Assess their real motivation for change (increased profitability/ scalability etc)

Assuming a motivator of profitability,

- Create a revenue forecast based on current & ongoing growth (with respect to the offshore sourcing)
- risk profile of sustained growth (diversification of clients, repeat business etc)

offset these with:

- TCO of each employee (full time) vs contractor rates (which I assume attract a premium)
- What other costs are required to staff a centre (e.g company/training/management overheads). There will be fixed component + incremental $ for each employee
- What value do you get from a full time employee vs a contractor in an offshore situation?
- What must you offer as a full time employee to the offshore talent? There could be some hidden premiums...

Scenario 1: All contract

Scenario 2: All full time

Scenario 3: Hybrid (reduce risk of people on bench/answer resource demand spikes

- run the numbers across the FTE scenarios you outlined and see where it lands. This ideally would put them in a more informed position to assess their situation and ideally make a call.

Generally, profitability will temporarily suffer while taking up the cost of the center overhead. This should be factored. Dont be afraid to drop a project, midway, if it is going no where. Money saved is money earn't!