"Got an idea that you think your managers are missing? Tell them? They don’t like it? Tell their bosses? They don’t like it? Tell the CEO. Stand on his or her desk if you have to – shout your reasoning, advocate for your customers, do what you have to do. Think you are gonna get fired?"
YES. In the vast majority of large corporations you will get fired before you even have the chance to get near the CEO's desk. Every single outspoken person I've known in large organizations has gotten laid off or canned outright. People who "take" leadership are seen as a threat to those who already have it and are eliminated.
The first or even second level managers don't even have a say. Unless your title is at least "director" you don't have a prayer in implementing any real change in the organization. The problem is, most directors are "yes men" who've risen through the ranks and are more interested in protecting their power than improving things.
Want to take leadership? Work for a smaller company where you might have more say, or start your own company like the author of the article apparently did.
Ok, so I realize that rallying against evil oppressive management is all the rage here on Slashdot, I mean HN, but let me offer an alternative view.
It's certainly not true at my day job (Microsoft SQL Server - you decide if its a big or a small org). Enough power is distributed throughout so you don't have to go to jump on Bill's desk. When one can get fellow engineers on board (which is the difficult part, really) one can always get management to accept their agenda and it doesn't rise even to VP level to get things sorted out. I've done it myself and I have seen others doing it.
So. Chose your work not based on org size, but on actual people you get to work with.
Rubbish (with one caveat). It is certainly possible to make change happen, even in huge companies.
The caveat - you have to do it the right way, and make the most of your advantages. (Being a new graduate or studying something work related, for example, is a massive advantage as it gives you a credible excuse for 'being keen'.)
The right way:
- Work out what should be changed and why. Condense this into a easy to follow thirty second pitch that is hard to argue against.
- Get friendly with your target's secretary. CEO's secretaries are people too, and spending ten minute's a day for a month getting to know her is a vital part of the plan.
- Sell the idea to your line manager. You are not asking for permission, just covering your back from later fallout (hey, you gave him a heads up and he didn't stop you...). His feedback can sometimes be useful too. His objections may need to be addressed in your pitch.
- Get your target's secretary to book you in with him for fifteen minutes. If your idea isn't good enough that she is willing to do this, despite your new friendship, it sucks and you need to rethink anyway.
- Pitch and cross your fingers. Your general competence, politeness and ability to cut through the system while working inside it will mark you out as someone to listen to. At this stage your idea might get bounced, but in my experience this is rare if you have a real problem, a good resolution, and a cost effective plan to go from here to there. Usually the only downside is that you get put in charge of making it happen - so be sure to have a list of things you need prepared.
You might think to yourself that this sounds like an awful lot of work to get an idea implemented, but it does work. It's also fantastic practice for selling your own product later, as these steps share a lot in common with a typical sales process.
The wrong way:
- Mumble something incoherent or badly thought out to your boss. When he 'doesn't get it' repeat it to his boss. Keep working up the chain, without ever taking a bath or wearing a suit, until every manager in the whole organisation thinks you are an irritating pillock. Then for an encore repeat the same unresearched assertions in front of the CEO (but more vehemently), having alienated your local managers to the point that they won't stand up for you.
This is what is wrong with Corporate America today. Why should you need to work the system? That's why some startups are a lot more successful, they're just a lot more efficient while the awesome-hacker-in-big-company-is-still-getting-to-know-the-CEO-s-secretary :-)
I would argue that there are no contexts where "working the system" isn't necessary for success, including startups. The systems you have to work here can even be more difficult because they are distributed -- investors, potential customers, etc. More like seduction than working your way to the top of a prison gang, but "working the system" nonetheless.
"You have to work the system" can be shortened to "You have to work". You have to do things that are uncomfortable, that you think you shouldn't have to do, in order to succeed.
Yep, but you still need to make a decision about which system you should be working in order to maximize whatever it is you're trying to maximize.
If you're trying to maximize wealth, iterating and failing fast is a much better way to do it as opposed to kissing middle-management ass, what's the point of working that system?
Hmm, not sure about that. Taking a arbritrary threshold of $500k a year, I have friends who earn that on boards of FTSE250 companies - there are maybe 2,500 of those jobs just in the UK (10 per company). At the top end exec compensation hits $40m+ which is equal to a huge startup cash out.
How many startup founder positions are there that pay over $500k a year? How many $40m+ wins are there per year?
Writing off the corporate route to weath might be a mistake, there are too many factors just to dismiss something as black and white. By the time you start considering risk, competitors and everything else it gets very complicated indeed. The fact that it isn't something you want to do personally doesn't make it a bad choice for everyone.
Its too bad each idea can't be taken on its own, however incoherent or badly thought out it is perceived as and actively worked on until until some understanding is reached. One thing I've always wondered about is whether a request can ever be too small. Its extremely disheartening to see even the most basic requests turned down, as it suggests the real ideas with a potentially larger company wide impact have a near nil chance of success.
It takes a lot to get a big ol dog to roll over on the couch, but it doesnt take much more to get him to move to the floor. The threshold to justify any change does mean that small changes aren't "worth it," especially when you consider that there may be a maximum amount of changes that people can tolerate at once. The view of an overworked/overextended/normal executive is, to some extent, one of triage.
In the end a company is just another system and working out how to make it do what you want can be just as fun as programming a computer to do what you want :)
Very well stated cog........ The best artistic portrayal of how "leadership" works (in the software development anyways) was with the character "Blumberg" (or at least I think it was blumberg... something like that) in the movie "Office Space". He was the manager of the character played by Ron Livingston (or at least I think that was his name)........
Hilarious movie. I've watched it dozens of times, though not for a few years now and that's why I'm a little hazy on the names. But whenever anyone starts talking about leadership in this business Blumberg is the guy that pops to mind and that's just because after over 2 decades working in the industry he's the guy who best characterizes all the managers and supervisors I've had to work for.
YES. In the vast majority of large corporations you will get fired before you even have the chance to get near the CEO's desk. Every single outspoken person I've known in large organizations has gotten laid off or canned outright. People who "take" leadership are seen as a threat to those who already have it and are eliminated.
The first or even second level managers don't even have a say. Unless your title is at least "director" you don't have a prayer in implementing any real change in the organization. The problem is, most directors are "yes men" who've risen through the ranks and are more interested in protecting their power than improving things.
Want to take leadership? Work for a smaller company where you might have more say, or start your own company like the author of the article apparently did.