The Middle-Wait Class

My friend Harry always calls me an ambulance driver. I didn't realize how much the term had grown on me until I used it about myself when he wasn't around. He's sneaky like that.

I'll explain the term, by way of explaining how it came to be used. For a long time I have little phrases, some might say mottos, that I use when giving advice or talking on particular subjects. A simple interesting phrase allows me to anchor the idea or concept; then depending on the forum, the time available and the particular audience I can tailor the message appropriately in real-time. As someone who spends a lot of time in reflection, I found it helpful to have a handful of these anchoring statements to organize and summarize my worldviews.

The particular behavior that Harry observed, we spoke about frequently, and ultimate won me the label of ambulance driver was this:

It's either the gas or the brake, but it's all the way down.

I'm not sure if I heard it somewhere else, or like many of my phrases, it just spewed forth in some conversation one day and I liked how it sounded so it got added to the repertoire. In any case, it is definitely a frequently exercised one.

To be practical, a phrase like this shouldn't need much explanation, and I have found this one resonates with most people pretty quickly. Not that they agree, but that they understand and can see how I strive to apply this to my life. On the contrary, most people disagree with varying degrees of vehemence.

Generally speaking people strive to be risk averse. They want to compromise and counter their need for change with a passion for passivity and a sense of stability. We do this in our personal lives, we do this in our careers, and companies (which are clusters of individuals) do this with their strategies.

Sometimes understanding a new view on the world or being honest about the underlying views that are actually driving us, requires we step back and introduce some objectivity. To that end, let's examine the corollary to the previous motto that applies to design choices or corporate strategy:

The Middle Always Costs More

This one may have been so obvious as to be blinding so let's examine how this applies to companies.

Generally speaking innovation inside a market happens similarly every time. The first mover is often an outsider because they have the least to lose. They have no market-share to risk and much to gain with even small successes. The next group are the current leaders. Sitting on top of their market, they can generally afford to make the investments and manage the risks. They have the unique insight that is only accessible to the guy sitting on top of the pile. Lastly, those in the middle might work up the gumption to delve into the fray. Usually the just wait and watch to see how things shake out before moving.

This last group of middle performers, of compromisers, are the ones who need assurances and guarantees. Being afraid to fail, they won't move until it becomes clear (to them) where success lies, which 'bets' will pay off, or that their current plan really is pulling a Dodo bird.

When you only take 'bets' that are sure things, you aren't really betting. When you aren't betting, you can pretty much predict the mediocrity of the outcome. When you only move because you are forced to because the market is self destructing, you'll continue to sit in the middle of any market you make it into. And your company will be all the other mediocre middle-waits.

It is the ambulance drivers who get to the scene first. They are willing to take calculated risks. They drive fast but very controlled. They break rules, but within constraints and boundaries. They put a single focus first and set aside all other conventions and norms in the headlong pursuit to achieve it. And they do it without a racecar. They do it with all the tools and gear they'll need so when they arrive on the scene, they can really add value. They don't just get themselves there, they bring help with them.

Usually when I get on the scene, it is a big bloody mess. Sometimes the patient dies in the back before we get them to the hospital and that is sad but unavoidable. It's the valiant effort, the commitment to try, the desire to really help and to do it regardless of what everyone else sitting in traffic has on their agenda that makes an ambulance driver effective.

You might not always enjoy riding along with an ambulance driver, but everyone hates being stuck in traffic with all the other middle-waits.

Keeping My Square Edges

When you hit crunch time on a project, the stress increase has the wonderful effect of showcasing the individual contributions which aren't always apparent. Strengths and weaknesses are illuminated most when risk (and therefore stress) is highest.

You may have heard others talk about stress as a way to weed out those who can't cut it. To identify those people with weaknesses and therefore cull them. Increasing stress works both ways, you can spot both weaknesses and strengths this way. The difference between smart people and lazy people is what they do with this information.

Surely, you can remove people based on their weaknesses, but is that really the best way to get top performers? Not in my experience, and I'm not the only one. A whole slew of authors are writing about this balance between strength and weakness. For example, Now, Discover Your Strengths by Marcus Buckingham, or Teach With Your Strengths by Rosanne Liesveld , Jo Ann Miller , and Jennifer Robison.

Historically, the path to improvement has always been through building up your weak areas, not downplaying them (or better yet, avoiding them entirely!). We give people feedback on the areas they aren't performing, ostensibly so they'll get better.

When was the last time you got a review or feedback that focused on what you did well and only glossed over how you could improve? We have been obsessed with it, and therefore churn out contributors who try and be well-rounded or generic, living in constant fear their weaknesses will be exposed. Because of this close-mindedness, they are never able to pour themselves headlong into their strengths. Like a fly buzzing around, they are constantly distracted by their weaknesses, so they never put full force into their punches.

This is most definitely not how I give feedback. If I'm going to spend energy and time to think about and communicate my analysis of someone else, it is going to be practical. We will celebrate your accomplishments and spend time talking about how you can use the things you do well to really knock peoples socks off and be smashingly successful. Then maybe if you have really pissed someone off or are offensively negligent in some area, we'll mention how you can either avoid those situations, or how to minimize the damage when they happen. There is no sense trying to make a surgical scalpel into a hammer.

For my own performance, the same rules apply. Certainly I am critical of my failures and short-comings, but only as they distract from my ability to perform with my strengths to their maximum potential. Rather then dwell on not being a white guy with shiny, gleaming, perfect teeth, bushy hair, a perfect handshake and who looks at home in a suit, I play my geeky, straight-shooter, mushroom-like role to the hilt. And then I bring a white guy with full hair, a nice tie, and a firm handshake to the meeting. He talks his white-guy talk and does the secret handshakes so I can focus on the important details necessary for us to actually deliver.

When we try and force people into being generic and "well-rounded" we are really asking them to knock off their typically square edges so you can shove them into your round holes. I like my edges and try to respect the edges of others.

No one can do it all. Recognize what you can do really well and then avoid or compensate for the rest.

Size Matters

When you are buying property, how much property you are talking abut really does matter. If you want to buy a house to live in, they care about your income, your personal ability to pay the mortgage. If you are buying a 20 unit apartment building they care about the occupancy rates and your ability to keep it occupied. It really as simple as that. The deal factors change with the size of the deal. But within certain ranges, the factors don't change at all. Buy a 10 million dollar house to live in, they still care about your income. Buy a 1000 unit apartment block and they still only care about occupancy rates and your management experience.

Now, I've estimated, planned, negotiated and sold dozens of technology deals that exceeded 3 million. I've done the same for a double handful of 10+ million dollar deals. And I've worked on one or two that reached the 50 million mark. The thing they have in common is that when it comes to the estimates, the plans, and the negotiations, the factors don't change. The delivery changes drastically, the oversight and number of hands in the pie sure change, but the actual work involved doesn't. The steps you go through, questions you ask, information you need to digest is basically the same regardless of the size of the deal. Which you only realize if you've successfully done it a few times.

Just like my friends who are think buying a 5-unit townhouse is the same as financing their second mortgage. You can always tell who has come out the other side having learned something by the way they approach their next deal. The ones who only survived their deal, who came out the other side but weren't changed, haven't evolved, who didn't learn anything, they're the ones who approach every deal the same way. They have a hammer that works, and they just keep whacking away assuming they'll hit some nails eventually.

If you want to make sure you aren't one of the un-evolved ones, make sure you are seeking first to understand. That's a little phrase I picked up from someone much smarter than myself, but I find myself using it way to often. In my mind, it sums up the attitude of the nimble among us. It separates those who are continually learning, from those who think they've got it figured out and are waiting for the world to agree with them. When you play in the realm of architects and executives, you see both attitudes often enough. Most of being a great architect or executive is being willing to make decisions, to hold a vision in your head and be articulate about that vision. This means there is a very fine line to walk when you are surrounded by ambiguity and collaborating with numerous conflicting opinions and personalities. You have to be very nimble or you'll quickly end up on the wrong side of the line.

If you are seeking first to understand, you will spend more of your time upfront listening and questioning. But you can't spend all your time there. At some point you have to discern the relevant information, express some decisions, be willing to wrong and allow others to correct you, and then drive for consensus. You must engage first to understand, but if all you do is understand and can't utilize that information, the value vanishes. You can be told the difference between financing your home and a multi-unit dwelling, but if you don't chance your approach and act on the information, you've lost the value. You are just as effective as if you kept hammering away with your single tool.

When it comes down to it, it is the size of your ears that matter most. But a nimble attitude and brains are also needed if you don't want to look goofy.

Pick Any Two

Need something built? Problem solved?

You can have it done:
1. Quick
2. Cheap
3. Correct

Pick any two.

The above adage is something that gets brought up pretty regularly in the consulting world. Along the way, I've added a few more elements to flesh out some more guiding principles about what it takes to maximize deliver along all three fronts. These are in no particular order.

• If it works, it works. Conceptual isn't relevant. Theory is only interesting if during the discussion, the participants are allowed to drink beer.
• Simplify. There is no code that runs faster than No Code. Use fewer words and as little fine print as possible. If you can't hold the whole thing in your head, it's too complicated. If you need more than one diagram that can be read from a single sheet of paper, you've over done it. If there are more than three If's involved, you need to remove, restate, or reorganize.
• If it isn't written down, it isn't real. If it can't be measured, it can't be written down.
• Measure consistently. When your measures stop moving, then you've stalled and you should kill the [project/idea/initiative/report/product/etc.]. Or you've simply been measuring the wrong things. The later is more likely.
• One voice, one vision. No great idea or product in history was ever conceived by more than three people. If your working group (or decision-making authority) is larger than that, you might as well quit now.
• Intuition rules. You know what you know, don't second-guess. If you don't have an intuitive response, learn more about the subject until you do. Habits and standards always beat new, slick, and fancy when it matters.
• Change consistently. It isn't that you should seek change or avoid change, but accept it when the opportunity presents itself. Whether you go gracefully or kicking and screaming, make sure your reasons are rock-solid, repeatable, and right.
• If you can't change or compete, then compensate. We like to think everyone should be good at everything. Which is complete crap. If you need something done that you aren't good at, get someone better to do it. Don't like doing something? Pay, entice, or swap with someone else. You don't have to be good at everything if your address book is big enough. Stick to what you are good at and surround yourself with people who will compensate for your short-comings (as limited as they may be).
• Going pro? Go big. When you decide to pay someone for their experience or specialized skills or knowledge, choose wisely and don't hesitate to pay well. Then shut up, listen, and learn. There is a sign in the garage that says: Oil Change $10, Oil Change While You Watch $50, Oil Change While You Help $200.
• Kompromise Kills. Don't even start.

Stomping Grapes

Someone who works for me recently was charged with doing some work on a system that many people use for the project on which we were working. He came to me with concerns on how to proceed. He wasn't sure how to set expectations to the team about the work he was doing. He was struggling with how to layout his work because he was concerned with impacting others. Keep in mind, his work is absolutely crucial to the forward progress of the entire team and as such has far reaching impact. Specifically, he was proposing to create multiple versions of the system and play a shell game of moving people from system to system in an attempt to minimize their impact. The following is a much edited version of the email I responded with:

----

The proper way to follow an Adaptive Approach is to keep one and only one reference or definition for a thing. In this case that is your application. If that impacts other work we are doing on the system, so be it. Work fast.

One of our basic principles is that the overhead used in trying not to impact other people slows us down. This slow down costs a lot and the amount of impact avoidance gained is rarely enough to warrant the expenditure. As such, if you need to make changes, then by all means make changes. If that impacts people, so be it. Work faster.

I will give you my best advice that you have heard before and will doubtless hear again from me. Think in terms of a single build. A single process. A single copy of code. A single version. A single Application. And so on. When you think about "old" versus "new" it skews your ability to focus on the work. Instead you spend mindshare on preservation of work, or juggling conflicting requirements. Whenever I hear someone in a conversation about setting expectations start to say "What we were doing..." or "Before we did it like..." or anything that doesn't speak in the present or future tense I mentally shudder. They have just lost points with me and I make a mental note that their stock price is sinking. That is because they are effectively wasting the time of everyone in the conversation.

Like ripping a bandage off, or breaking up with someone, you need to just do it quickly and for heavens sake do it all it once!

One of the quickest ways to get into an Adaptive Approach is to forgo chronological labels like old and new. As the Highlander would say, "There can be only one." It means you impact people more often, but working in isolation is a myth of software, not reality.

You will find that software development (real software development) is a social activity. It's sort of like stomping grapes. You can try not to get any on you, but you'd be really missing the point as well as the fun. Wash your feet, wear white clothes, and embrace that the mess is going to get everywhere for a little while and your clothes will never be the same.

Enjoy the stomp, it makes better wine.