David Hawkins

Greenhorn
+ Follow
since Apr 20, 2009
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
0
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by David Hawkins

There is too much variation depending on what part of the country you are in.

In central Texas a contractor I had to let go in February just started a new job this week. Not as bad as the dotcom bust days but that's still terrible for a technology professional, and this guy was very good at what he does.
14 years ago

Tim Holloway wrote:One of the big myths in business is that people who do what's good for the business will prosper and enjoy job security.



Not that I'm ignoring everything else you said, but I don't think it's a myth.

Some businesses are run better than others. Some businesses recognize that not all developers are created equal, or that some employees simply have more value to the organization than others.

I simply refuse to work for a company that will layoff people without considering the impact to the organization as a whole. Layoffs, in general, are bad. They are bad for morale, they are bad for the economy, and they put you at risk for losing your best people. Even if you keep your best people, the best can ALWAYS find work somewhere else. I understand the purpose of layoffs and I understand they are sometimes unavoidable. I find they introduce incredible risk as well.

However, I have worked in organizations that did layoffs and they were very careful about who they let go and who they retained. The people deemed most valuable to the organization still had their jobs. There was some disagreement when you got to the people who approached the middle to low end of the scale. The point is, it didn't pay off for some people I considered mediocre when they were let go ahead of some people I perceived as poor. Yet EVERYONE I considered good or excellent still had jobs.

There are no guarantees, especially in this environment. However, if layoffs are a possibility do you really want to be considered anything less than valuable to the company?
14 years ago
From my perspective I at least want my leads to interview. What I prefer to do is have a brief sit down discussion with the prospect, get to know them and what they like to do. I want to know what they worked on, how they did it, and get an idea of how passionate they are about their work and how well they might fit in with the team. I try to keep this brief, I can generally get what I need in 15 minutes.

After that I sit them down with a panel of about three people. Ideally this will be my team leads, but the mix could vary depending on availability. I typically don't sit in unless they need a third. The three employees have a range of questions they ask and this part could take between 30 minutes to an hour depending on how the questions go. A fast interview is typically not a good sign. Then we whisk away the prospect to my boss for a brief informal sitdown while I discuss how the interview went with my team. From them I am looking for technical proficiency plus their overall impression.

I have found this is less time intensive than the "gauntlet" style interviews where they meet various people. I'm certainly not going to have them meet everyone on my team (which has varied between 10 and 15 people) for a sitdown interview.
14 years ago

jim li wrote:feel so much pressure right now..

people are working hard and still have to worry about whether being laid off . sigh.............................................



The economy won't suck forever.
14 years ago

John Kimball wrote:Asking for a short-term commitment to extra work & longer hours is perfectly reasonable--say, a few weeks.
Once you start looking at months, then I'd say it's time to hire some outside help.

Also, I take it the delivery is all-or-nothing?
That is, it can't be staggered & phased at this point, to keep most of the projects & teams happy?



I agree that you shouldn't plan to work 40+ weeks for months on end. Unless you're a start-up and everyone has a piece of the pie, then I'd expect a lot more effort.

At the same time, what's all this talk of staggered and phased development? There are only so many days in a year and constantly pushing deadlines and reducing scope will have long-term impacts. Is it so important to work an 8 hour day that it's worth risking customer commitments and possibly revenue?

The underlying frustration is that people complain when they have to work beyond 8 hours but they also want job security and upward mobility. Employees complain that companies have no loyalty anymore but when it's time for a layoff, promotions, or any other organizational change the management team will remember those people that showed some dedication to generating revenue and keeping the company successful.

Working extra hours a few weeks to keep a project on track is not a huge sacrifice and helps the business as a whole. Having to rearrange schedules, impact deliverables, reduce scope to prevent people from working late has an impact on the business and could affect our numbers. If my responsibility is to help keep my team employed I'd rather ask them to work the additional hours and see to it they have jobs by the end of the year then play the nice guy and have senior management give us a pass and tick off customers so we can potentially lose sales and possibly have another lay-off. Which option should I go with?
14 years ago
With any luck it will ONLY be 100,000. Compared to what the US has been going through as well as some other countries, 100,000 is not really that big of a number. But I still hate to see anyone lose their job.
14 years ago

chris webster wrote:

David Hawkins wrote:
What do I do? I can't have the perception that I have a team full of slackers and if a handful of individuals would put in a couple of 45 to 50 hour weeks we'd be caught up. ...
Remember that not all problems have to be solved by management. In fact, you're almost guaranteed not to like the solution we come up with.



I hear what you're saying, and I certainly don't envy your position, but a number of questions come to mind.

Why are some of your team members falling behind in the first place? Is this because the plan was over-optimistic, because they're slacking as you suggest, or because of some other factor?



Outside factors put them behind. For better or worse, the people responsible have been dealt with but we still have to get back on schedule.


Have you talked to them to find out why they're behind? Given your own commitment to trying to keep the working hours reasonable for your team, have you challenged them to explain why everybody else now has to work extra hours to make up for their delays?



Multiple meetings with the group and individuals have commenced. We are back on track since I originally posted my reply. Maybe I'm used to a different standard, but when I was a developer and I would say I'd have something done in two weeks then I would get it done in two weeks regardless of whether or not I was interrupted in that time, had to put in longer hours to get caught up, or maybe even work a weekend. To me, when I commit to a date it means I will do what it takes to get it done. As a developer I was pretty good at making sure I worked an 8 hour day and got my work done, but even when I was in control of the estimates I did get it wrong occassionally. That is the case here. I met with the team lead, I worked out the dates in advance, and he committed to them. I didn't tell him when he would deliver, we came to an agreement. However, the project now rides on us delivering on time. Other teams and other projects will suffer if we don't make our commitments.


If your boss insists on comparing your team's hours unfavourably with the (less productive) hours of another team, why don't you speak up for your team if you genuinely believe they are more productive? If the boss doesn't know better, and you don't put him straight, who else will do so? Not the manager of the other team, that's for sure!



Perception is reality. If we were on target the whole time and working 2 hours a day less than the other team, we appear to be more efficient and a better team. If we are not on target and the other team is working 2 hours more, then we appear to be less dedicated. Without playing office politics and potentially putting my team at risk, I cannot accuse the other team of being less efficient while my team is behind.

All that aside, I do just have a philosophical disagreement that we must keep to an 8 hour schedule. I believe people need lives and they should have a work environment that is conducive to a family life if they so choose. At the same time, this or any other job allows them to put food on their table and software development is not a low paying field. Sometimes you do have to put work first and get the job done. I see developers complain about lack of career advancement as they rush out the door at 5pm. I've seen this over the past 10 years in technology. Moving ahead in your career doesn't require long hours necessarily, but it does require a dedication to the company goals. I can't just walk out the door if a teammate is struggling with a problem that I can help them with. If I can't help, I'm going home, but if I can help then I feel like I'm abandoning them. If working a long week helps keep my project on track, I'd do it.

Building a rapport with my fellow developers, helping the company meet its goals, and showing that I would do whatever I needed to make projects successful is what helped me bridge that gap between development and management. I want my team to have good morale and not work themselves to death, but at the same time I think that sometimes you just need to roll up your sleeves and get the job done.
14 years ago
Whew, May 2009 is my 10th year in technology. I got a late start so I'm a little older than some of my peers.

I've worked with quite a few veterans of the field and it's been interesting to see the different directions some of them have gone.

Management, where I am currently at, seems like the place where everyone wants to go when they get out of college. Unfortunately, the skills it takes to manage are often very different than the skills you need to code. The other harsh reality is that going into management is like starting a new career. In my case I went from a respected senior engineer with a long track record of success to a novice with no experience and no established credibility. That is a hard transition for some people and even two years later I miss the respect I had at my old position even though I love my current job.

Software Architecture is hailed as some kind of Holy Grail but it is a very different role than development. The good news is that anyone who is looking to advance their skills should be picking up some of the knowledge they might need to be an architect. However, to be good as an architect you have to understand the foundation at a deeper level. I guess the analogy that springs to mind is concrete. Developers know how to spread the concrete to lay the foundation, the architect knows how to MIX the concrete.

For me, these were my two choices and what it came down to was I knew I could be a mediocre to good architect or a bad to excellent manager. Even though the risk is that I could be bad as a manager I seemed more likely to excel so I focused on that path, while still learning some architecture skills because I do enjoy it and wouldn't cry if I ended up doing that instead.

Beyond that I know some people who just stick with development and they enjoy it. I don't see anything wrong with that except that it comes with some drawbacks. For one thing, there is a cap on the salary, but you can still make an easy 6 figures as a developer and that's still far above the median income in the US. The other, more severe, problem is that the longer you stay as "just" a developer the more likely you'll be hit with ageism.

The other route is something a friend of my pursued and loves. He is a Support Engineer. Basically he provides tech support at a high level. He gets to do some coding, solve problems, but isn't stuck just blowing code all day. Of course, he also has to talk directly to customers and that is not something most developers strive to do. However, he is very happy and he has done architecture and management.

The last option I've seen is that some people leverage their technology skills into a non-development role but stay in the technology field. Some people have studied to become sysadmins or DBA's. They can often pursue senior level positions even though they may be novices in their new areas. I often thought about doing this myself as I like working with data and being a DBA or working for a Data Mining company would have been great! Unfortunately, I never found the right opportunity.

I hate to say it, but more than any other prejuidice ageism takes the highest toll. I've seen some racism, but it's relatively minor and often easily countered. Sexism has been a problem in the past but we seem to be getting beyond it. I've seen people dismissed for their age and it is discouraging. When I've interviewed I don't worry about your date of birth, do you have the skills to do the job. Unfortunately, I've even had feedback from my managers, who are not spring chickens themselves, about some candidates being too old to "work well in the team dynamic". They never overrode my decisions but I found that feedback very discouraging.
14 years ago
Stupid decision. Coffee costs pennies compared to the lost productivity you'll have from caffeine deprived developers. A decision made by bean counters who can't seem to measure anything unless it is on a balance sheet.

This move will not save them money.
14 years ago
So here is the problem, from a management persepctive.

Your team is operating with fewer people than ever, you still have customer commitments, you still have projects, you need revenue to keep your remaining team employed, and there is a hiring freeze which means no additional help.

So you buckle down, plan out your projects, try very hard to enforce a 40 hour week but then find out that people are falling behind. When they fall behind they aren't getting caught up. They aren't putting in that extra effort during their normal 8 hour day (and as a former developer I am very familiar with this trick. The one where you just make sure you're much more focused and heads down) and they aren't putting in any extra time to get caught up. I am very aware that we have other teams where people work 10 hour days but don't get much done, so I am unimpressed. However, upper management sees the other team working 10 hours days, real productivity be damned, and my team is still working 8 hours days but complaining they can't get caught up and no one seems to be voluntarily doing what needs to be done.

What do I do? I can't have the perception that I have a team full of slackers and if a handful of individuals would put in a couple of 45 to 50 hour weeks we'd be caught up. Instead, I am going to have to intervene. They will be forced to work more hours and it will spill over to other team members not involved in the project. The other alternative is for me to get questions from my boss (Remember: Your boss has a boss!) as to why Team Member A is complaining about being behind while everyone on Team B is working 10 hour days. It is not good business to mention that Team B needs 10 hours to do 4 hours worth of work, that helps no one.

I'm not saying bad business decisions do not abound and I have worked with management who believed "Work more hours!" solves all problems, but a little more initiative from a handful of individuals would prevent me from having to do what I am probably going to have to do next week.

Remember that not all problems have to be solved by management. In fact, you're almost guaranteed not to like the solution we come up with.
14 years ago
As a manager myself I follow a strict rule of credit where it is due. Besides which, when my team does well I look good anyway.

However, one thing I learned as a developer is that you should never be afraid to toot your own horn. Your manager was routinely coming to you with questions and passing along docs that you had prepared. At some point you owe it to yourself to find ways to interact with the people who are going to be receiving the end results of your work. If a manager is not allowing you to interact with other teams, other managers, or customers when you show a willingness to do so then they are likely up to something.

In my case, I am looking for ways to get my team more involved in the process without getting them invited to every meeting on the planet. I recently removed my name from a design document because one of the development leads made such extensive changes that I didn't feel right about my name being associated with it even though I was the original author. At the point their effort on the task exceeded my own it was only fair that they receive the credit for the work. Besides, my name is still in the revisions

If a manager is really looking out for your career they'll be finding ways to put you forward and get your name out there. I'm a little surprised by your manager's actions because one of the ways I have been so successful in my career is by being an advocate for other team members and finding ways to help less experienced developers become senior developers. He could have achieved the same result and helped you at the same time.
14 years ago