There are two major reasons why I think a change in the organization is made, expansion and contraction. But for the case of IT, let’s add constant technological advancement as reason.
Whichever the reasons are, the company should be careful about carrying out a new plan to keep up with the challenge. But I should say that this is a more challenging move for the management than building a new organization from nothing. Considering that you have to retain some of what you have (procedure, people, etc.) while moving them up to a higher level, which could either make or break the company.
I have witnessed the growth of the organization for quite some time. And every year, there is a change in management, new departments, new divisions, new positions, people coming and leaving, new procedures, etc. We change because of expansion and competition, which is a good thing than witnessing laying off staffs.
In a software development industry like ours, applications, technologies and tools improve over time. People need to upgrade their knowledge and skills. Competition in the market gets tougher because everyone introduces new and interesting technologies and systems. This also means for the company to invest in the newest technologies to provide better and more efficient service to our clients. Investments were made to purchasing powerful computers, expansion of servers from other states, hiring more senior programmers, customer support, quality control, etc, even if it means getting a loan to provide the needs of market. If the company stays stalled and do not dance with the change, it will never survive. To change is to take a risk. And to change is to fight for existence.
In our case, the company sees survival in the competition, thus it needs to change. I asked myself upon writing this, “How did the company started the change?” I am not sure if I know exactly but I tried to recall the presentations and meetings we had with our COO.
There are a lot of theories how to do change but citing in Kotter’s 8-step model, let me review and check it against my knowledge of the organization.
Establishing a sense of urgency. On this step includes examining the current market against the company’s standing in the competition. And yes, this has been the very reason why the company made and is making a change. The people wanting the change identified the risks against opportunities, loss over gain.
Creating the coalition. The core group that initialized the change is the Executive Department. This department actually existed on the course of changing because previously, the top management only has the CEO and COO in it. Later on, I think, they realized that it will be more helpful if someone from the employed section will be part of them, thus this new department was born. Members are the CEO, COO, Technical Director, Executive Director, Human Resources, and all other top-level supervisory positions. This company’s coalition made up of caliber people who see the external and internal factors of the company’s existence. And it is just proper to have a powerful set of people to make the change viral.
Developing a Change Vision. Why is there a need to change? The coalition must be able to put a vision on what they want to be and what they want to have on their target date after having the change. How should this be achieved? It should always be clear and feasible so that lower-level managements are able to deliver what they ought to deliver. I have witnessed this on our meetings.
Communicating the vision for buy-in. When a vision is made from the top-level, this should now be disseminated to everyone in the company. All possible ways to communicate it should be made. And yes, we had annual presentation, semi-annual meetings with the COO, biweekly meeting with the Technical Department, biweekly meeting with QA, and etc.
Empowering broad-based action. This is I think one of the most difficult steps when making a change because this is where you get to eliminate obstacles from making it possible. It could be people who are not cooperative, or an old system or culture. I remembered one critical issue we had when I was still starting. It was about a change in the pay scale where senior programmers felt that juniors surpassed their pay. This made the management to do some restructuring of the department. Some got replaced, some were transferred, and others opted to leave.
Generating short-term wins. It is always best that employees are properly taken cared of. For a change to be successful, the employees should be motivated and persuaded. How? Give incentives and rewards. If the staff needs to work more than his current responsibilities and expected to perform more than his average, then there’s a need to increase pay. And so far, this has been always a practice for the company.
Never letting up. On this step involves hiring, promoting and developing employees who can implement the vision. I remember the time when the management called me that I am needed by another department to do project management for a system that needs to be critically released to clients, as it was overdue. So I worked for both departments.
Incorporating changes into the culture. Planning is only the start, but it is strong implementation that measures success. It is not easy to inject change in the culture and system of what we are used to, but constant practice and monitoring of the vision will help the change to be felt by the members. I admit that we are always struggling with the changes, but with our coalition, we are always brought back to the vision to hit our target.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Am I a Leader or a Manager?
“Are you a Manager or a Leader?” One of the most interesting topics discussed during our organization analysis class. These two words may sound very common but they are usually used interchangeably in the organization. Managers and Leaders have distinct traits but they said that the two are inseparable, complementary. Too much leaders is not healthy and it should be balanced by manager’s organizing ability.
A question popped from the crowd, if we are to choose between leaders or managers to be employed in the company, who would it be? I thought and told myself that it actually depends on the size of the company. If it is still starting, they can just have a Manager that can both work as Manager and Leader. This is where we once were until the company grows and need more people who can lead their people to the company’s goals. Then a flash of the Support Department from our company suddenly came to me, which I consider the best example to get me to understanding. This department has a Manager; with teams each led by Team Leaders. Their Manager acts as problem-solver and a planner. She checks the department’s human resources, sees any problems and seeks solutions, plans and envisions future growth, and coordinates efficiently with the top-level management. Team Leaders on the other hand, I noticed, are charismatic and proactive. They are more socially inclined to their members while at the same time maintaining a balance of their seniority. From our reporting tools, CMS and Bugzilla, I can see their drive and excitement with their work. They closely assist their team members on their tasks and make them more at ease with work.
At the time I throw the question to myself, I asked, yes, what am I? Manager or Leader? At some point I get to ask, I have the position of a Manager but do I act like I am? Or am I more of a Leader? So I need to evaluate some characteristics for both before I can finally say, I am either or both.
Of the many characteristics, I picked six (6) that I think have stronger distinction for both.
Focus. Leader is focused on leading people while Manager is focused on managing work. But honestly I’m torn between the two. I can sometimes be focused on motivating and persuading staffs to do their best, asked them if there is anything I can do to help them, or get their concerns so I can guide them to do better and hit our schedules. And I can work as Manager where I need to manage everything in the department, reassign workloads for balancing and scheduling, and make sure that the team is leading to where it should suppose to go.
Dynamic. Leader is proactive while Manager is reactive. Let’s try first to define both of these terms. Proactive is “acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty” while reactive is “tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus.” Where do I fit in? At times I am proactive but when there is more idleness, I am reactive. Proactive in the sense that when there are projects (systems) to develop and needing scheduling, I am a critical thinker, all possible cases that may happen in the future I lay down on cards. For the past six (6) months I have been proactive since there are three (3) big products under PHP rewrite. And with the current manpower, I have to build strong and determined team members. And with lesser “idle” times in the company, I am a less “reactive” person.
Decision. Leaders are open to their followers and let them help in the decision-making process. Managers on the other hand make decisions by themselves. So between the two, I am more of a Manager. I find it time consuming to include the group in the decision-making process. What I usually do is write down the plan and present it to them. It’s no longer interactive, but a one-way communication.
Exchange. Leaders have excitement for work while Managers do work for money. Managers get the position usually with the appointment from higher authority. They are paid more to higher responsibilities and this is their drive. Leaders on the other hand are innately work-driven by their passion for work.
Wants. Leaders want achievement. Managers want results. And I am a result-oriented person. I believe that there is improvement in one’s responsibilities if they are able to get results done in a timely manner. Achievement, like increase in the learning curve, like for QA procedures, is good but it is more important for me to have results done.
Conflicts. Leaders are open to conflicts and consider them challenges for a more efficient workforce. Managers on the other hand avoid them. They always want everything to go smoothly which sometimes bring them in mediocrity.
Now going back to the question, “Are you a Manager or a Leader?”. I can be both when circumstances need me to act to. But to be honest, having been placed as Manager is a difficult task. You do not only act as Manager, but you need to act as a Leader to get your subordinates be your followers, especially when finding leaders at your own department is hard to do. Now I agree that both manager and leader are inseparable, likewise for policies and human resources.
A question popped from the crowd, if we are to choose between leaders or managers to be employed in the company, who would it be? I thought and told myself that it actually depends on the size of the company. If it is still starting, they can just have a Manager that can both work as Manager and Leader. This is where we once were until the company grows and need more people who can lead their people to the company’s goals. Then a flash of the Support Department from our company suddenly came to me, which I consider the best example to get me to understanding. This department has a Manager; with teams each led by Team Leaders. Their Manager acts as problem-solver and a planner. She checks the department’s human resources, sees any problems and seeks solutions, plans and envisions future growth, and coordinates efficiently with the top-level management. Team Leaders on the other hand, I noticed, are charismatic and proactive. They are more socially inclined to their members while at the same time maintaining a balance of their seniority. From our reporting tools, CMS and Bugzilla, I can see their drive and excitement with their work. They closely assist their team members on their tasks and make them more at ease with work.
At the time I throw the question to myself, I asked, yes, what am I? Manager or Leader? At some point I get to ask, I have the position of a Manager but do I act like I am? Or am I more of a Leader? So I need to evaluate some characteristics for both before I can finally say, I am either or both.
Of the many characteristics, I picked six (6) that I think have stronger distinction for both.
Focus. Leader is focused on leading people while Manager is focused on managing work. But honestly I’m torn between the two. I can sometimes be focused on motivating and persuading staffs to do their best, asked them if there is anything I can do to help them, or get their concerns so I can guide them to do better and hit our schedules. And I can work as Manager where I need to manage everything in the department, reassign workloads for balancing and scheduling, and make sure that the team is leading to where it should suppose to go.
Dynamic. Leader is proactive while Manager is reactive. Let’s try first to define both of these terms. Proactive is “acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty” while reactive is “tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus.” Where do I fit in? At times I am proactive but when there is more idleness, I am reactive. Proactive in the sense that when there are projects (systems) to develop and needing scheduling, I am a critical thinker, all possible cases that may happen in the future I lay down on cards. For the past six (6) months I have been proactive since there are three (3) big products under PHP rewrite. And with the current manpower, I have to build strong and determined team members. And with lesser “idle” times in the company, I am a less “reactive” person.
Decision. Leaders are open to their followers and let them help in the decision-making process. Managers on the other hand make decisions by themselves. So between the two, I am more of a Manager. I find it time consuming to include the group in the decision-making process. What I usually do is write down the plan and present it to them. It’s no longer interactive, but a one-way communication.
Exchange. Leaders have excitement for work while Managers do work for money. Managers get the position usually with the appointment from higher authority. They are paid more to higher responsibilities and this is their drive. Leaders on the other hand are innately work-driven by their passion for work.
Wants. Leaders want achievement. Managers want results. And I am a result-oriented person. I believe that there is improvement in one’s responsibilities if they are able to get results done in a timely manner. Achievement, like increase in the learning curve, like for QA procedures, is good but it is more important for me to have results done.
Conflicts. Leaders are open to conflicts and consider them challenges for a more efficient workforce. Managers on the other hand avoid them. They always want everything to go smoothly which sometimes bring them in mediocrity.
Now going back to the question, “Are you a Manager or a Leader?”. I can be both when circumstances need me to act to. But to be honest, having been placed as Manager is a difficult task. You do not only act as Manager, but you need to act as a Leader to get your subordinates be your followers, especially when finding leaders at your own department is hard to do. Now I agree that both manager and leader are inseparable, likewise for policies and human resources.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Starting a Plan
The moment I stepped in the room for my Organization Analysis class, I was half aware what was going on. (Do I need to disclose that I was a little late? Okay, I won’t :D ) An introductory discussion was made then we came to the question, “What is the equation for IT?” The professor asked. IT = Hardware + Software. IS? IS = IT + Peopleware. And I was like, wow! I didn’t know that! Or at least remember. Where was I during my college years? My classmates were good at their profession, mostly are working at the academe so they answered in chorus. Discussion went on and finally we get to the first topic Strategic Planning.
I was then anxious how this topic will start because at the first place, I didn’t know exactly what Strategic Planning was, or if I did on my previous Management class, I must have forgotten totally what it was, or that I didn’t get too interested about it. I heard of it from friends sharing about their strategic planning meetings and activities but I didn’t bother asking its objectives.
Here are some points that I learned upon discussing strategic planning.
It is a short-term plan to cope with changes within the organization. It is a plan that has a maximum of 3years of envisioning, laying down goals to achieve, and setting priorities to follow. Why 3 years, you may ask. Because this duration allows you to see the baseline of your plan against the inevitable changes within the organization and outside factors, like competition, in a short but reasonable amount of time. Thinking about and applying this on IT, I think even lesser duration can be applied depending, I think, on the nature of the company and the services or products they offer.
Like in the organization I am a part of, although I have not been directly involved in the core planning, I noticed that the top-level management is making a target within 6 months to 2 years. (Wow, now some things are getting to my memories while writing this). Why six (6) months? I noticed this whenever there are features that are requested by clients and being added to the system. It should be within or less than the duration, or else, it will become obsolete and another software company may offer them the system with even greater features. So management in this case needs to plan ahead the manpower and the target release date to make sure that it is getting profit, else loss. I also remembered when our COO, during his presentation, showed us around twenty (20) new applications or systems that are to be developed in the next 2 years. Gearing away with the competition in the market and wanting to make a lead from all other competing companies. This is a presentation where the top management extends to their staff the plan they want and make it happen with everyone’s effort and contribution. This is another attribute of strategic planning; it “pulls the entire organization together around a single game plan for execution”.
I don’t exactly know this “single game plan” of the company. But one thing I know is that they are focused in two words: SALES and PROFIT. And it is bringing the whole organization there. Every year (so I believed when I joined), this boss meets the staff in all regions to present the company’s current status and its year’s plans and goals, where are we now and where are we heading. It’s not a workshop or a brainstorming event, only a presentation of what the top-level management has planned beforehand. This then allows managers from different departments to plan for their designated sections and responsibilities, check current resources, set new baseline and request for more manpower when needed. The good thing of this presentation is that not only managers are informed, but staffs under them too. That time I think it was unnecessary for this activity to include the staffs until this time that I realized that having everyone know the goals will let everyone work hard on it.
“If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” An organization wanting to stay long in the business should take planning as bread for their existence. But of course in the end, a good manifestation justifies it all.
I was then anxious how this topic will start because at the first place, I didn’t know exactly what Strategic Planning was, or if I did on my previous Management class, I must have forgotten totally what it was, or that I didn’t get too interested about it. I heard of it from friends sharing about their strategic planning meetings and activities but I didn’t bother asking its objectives.
Here are some points that I learned upon discussing strategic planning.
It is a short-term plan to cope with changes within the organization. It is a plan that has a maximum of 3years of envisioning, laying down goals to achieve, and setting priorities to follow. Why 3 years, you may ask. Because this duration allows you to see the baseline of your plan against the inevitable changes within the organization and outside factors, like competition, in a short but reasonable amount of time. Thinking about and applying this on IT, I think even lesser duration can be applied depending, I think, on the nature of the company and the services or products they offer.
Like in the organization I am a part of, although I have not been directly involved in the core planning, I noticed that the top-level management is making a target within 6 months to 2 years. (Wow, now some things are getting to my memories while writing this). Why six (6) months? I noticed this whenever there are features that are requested by clients and being added to the system. It should be within or less than the duration, or else, it will become obsolete and another software company may offer them the system with even greater features. So management in this case needs to plan ahead the manpower and the target release date to make sure that it is getting profit, else loss. I also remembered when our COO, during his presentation, showed us around twenty (20) new applications or systems that are to be developed in the next 2 years. Gearing away with the competition in the market and wanting to make a lead from all other competing companies. This is a presentation where the top management extends to their staff the plan they want and make it happen with everyone’s effort and contribution. This is another attribute of strategic planning; it “pulls the entire organization together around a single game plan for execution”.
I don’t exactly know this “single game plan” of the company. But one thing I know is that they are focused in two words: SALES and PROFIT. And it is bringing the whole organization there. Every year (so I believed when I joined), this boss meets the staff in all regions to present the company’s current status and its year’s plans and goals, where are we now and where are we heading. It’s not a workshop or a brainstorming event, only a presentation of what the top-level management has planned beforehand. This then allows managers from different departments to plan for their designated sections and responsibilities, check current resources, set new baseline and request for more manpower when needed. The good thing of this presentation is that not only managers are informed, but staffs under them too. That time I think it was unnecessary for this activity to include the staffs until this time that I realized that having everyone know the goals will let everyone work hard on it.
“If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” An organization wanting to stay long in the business should take planning as bread for their existence. But of course in the end, a good manifestation justifies it all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)