Too many cooks spoil the broth

I was cooking a meal for a group that runs a company. With a world class chef in the kitchen, they were sure to find a plate the likes of which they'd never sampled before. Before I started, they came to me and said. We are anxious for this culinary masterpiece, however, we'd like for you to add a favorite ingredient from each one of us. Puzzled, I stopped and asked for an explanation. He told me that since they are not likely to ever have a world class chef cook for them, the food (they were all getting the same dish) had to include a favorite ingredient from each one of them.

Reluctantly I agreed, and waited for the list of ingredients. Brad likes liquor, so he'd like for the dish to include some Jamaican rum. Dan likes foie gras (goose liver pate) so I'll need to incorporate it into the mix. Steve is an Italian sandwich guy, so he'd like some cold cuts in the dish. Peter loves clam chowder, so he'd like some Cape Cod clams in the mix. So as I stand next to my pot in front of the stove, and scratch my head thinking of what concoction this mixture of ingredients will render. Surely nothing that I would put my name next to.

The truth is that I'm not a world class chef, but I do feel like one when I walk into a company to develop a web site. Everyone's egos needs to be stroked and their input need to be considered including fonts, colors, logos and designs,  careful not to upset anyone. Like walking around an emotional mine field. Put in the wrong color, the favorite logo is not in the right position, or the favorite font is not used and you put the project in jeopardy. When the project is done, they'll go as far as to say. "I don't know why we have to pay you, we designed the whole site".

I'm not computer literate. I'm lazy.

I attended New Bedford High School from 1979 to 1983. I was very fortunate to have 3 computer classes, starting with my sophomore year in the Fall of 1980. I was also very fortunate to have a very nice teacher that allowed me to spend every spare second of school time at the computer geeking out, before "geek" was a trendy word. If I had a study period, I was in the computer room. If I had a substitute teacher, I was in the computer room. If I stayed after school for any reason, I was in the computer room. You get the picture.

Many will find it hard to believe that we didn't use mice, Microsoft Windows was still under development in DOS and the internet was a collection of ideas in a few brilliant minds. In order to operate a computer you needed "skills." You needed commands. Dashes, slashes, dots and cryptic acronyms were the norm. Reference books were paramount. Technical proficiency a must. Not a place for the uninitiated.

Fast forward 30 years. iPads (2010), the cloud (~2005), Google (1998), Facebook (2004) and Twitter (2006). None of these things existed when I was in school. High school or college.  So the hundreds of hours I sat in computer classes (high school and college) do not apply here. So how would one learn to use such technology? You dig in. Start searching. Start pounding on keys, dragging and clicking, swiping and pinching. Using the concepts. Roll up your sleeves. Get dirty. The innovators will go on to give presentations, write manuals and reviews online. The early adopters will follow suite. The majority will jump into the fray, kicking and screaming, most of them saying: "But I'm not Facebook literate." These days all it takes to be "literate" is time. Most technical barriers have been eliminated. Time and perseverance are the only requirements.

Those that choose to ignore the developments will be left behind, slowly crippled by a lack of understanding. It's one thing to be proficient at all of the competencies. It's another to just understand. It's frustrating dealing with intelligent people who do not take the time to "understand" how "Twitter" works, for instance. They do not see why anyone else would have a use for it, simply because "they" have no use for it. Putting aside their arrogance would prove to be a great achievement. Then they could understand the reason others do things. So when I get an email that says: "Frankly, I don't understand how any of this works," that person is being 'lazy'. We all have the answers to our questions at our fingertips. The web is full of them. There's no excuse.

Curriculum Vitae

A fancy name for resume. VC, some call it. A listing of accomplishments, or should I say, embellishments.

Let's start with 'Bill'. Bill was a "project manager". That was his title. Bill's job was to manage 3 programmers and a content consultant. The consultant was the real project manager. The consultant came in 2-3 times per week, meet with the programmers, communicated with the client, wrote the project specs. He did it all. Bill? He strolled in somewhere between 9-10 in the morning, walked around to make sure everyone was working, then headed to get coffee. He held meetings, participated in meetings, looked busy, rubbed elbows with the executives making himself look good. He was an overpaid and under performing member. The truth is he was a 'non' performing member as all he did was take credit for other people's work. He often took long lunches, and he was long gone by 5.

Now that you know what he did, I will tell you what 'he' claims to have done as listed in his LinkedIn profile. Director. Yes, director. He claims to have managed 20 programmers. He claims to have been a trail blazer of cutting edge projects. He even takes credit for one of mine. He routinely hired outside consultants, projects were always over budget, and most of them would find their way to the "cutting floor". Bill's group was highly dysfunctional and eventually axed.

Today he's a VP for a Fortune 500 company. I can only imagine his job interview, and the references on his resume. My point is that it's difficult for his new company to validate the information in the resume. The department was disbanded, and it would be difficult to track down the individuals who can validate the information. Now if they had called me as a reference, then I'd died laughing at the 'details' in the resume. All of his references validated his resume, I'm sure. Imagine if his new employer had contacted random people from his previous job, and knew the real Bill. As an employer, you have a responsibility to find the "real" Bill, and not the lies in the resume validated by the liars they call "references."

Then there was 'Don'. Don was the CEO of a dot com. He had a big office. His office was far from everyone else. He had a private secretary. His office looked vast, and so empty. He sat at his big mahogany desk, and looked so busy. He wore expensive suits, in an industry that was made famous by people in birkenstocks, shorts and T-shirts. Unapproachable. He was a true CEO. Fancy cars. Expensive suits. Exotic art. He reeked of power and money. As the company was going downhill faster than a Super G Olympian, he managed a merger between our company, and 2 other failing dot coms. In his announcement to the remaining employees, he didn't even know the names of the other companies. Didn't know how to pronounce them, and didn't know what their products were. I was familiar with the other companies, and knew he was lying through his teeth.

The next day he was gone, never to be seen again. The company would go out of business some days later. The merger never happened, as Don was busy with his new company. We were all in shock. Curious, we looked online at Don's new company. We were all going to need new jobs, and might as well ask Don, right? Then we saw Don's profile on the company's web site. That's when our jaws dropped to the floor. He claimed to have grown the dot com (the one that was closing its' doors) to a global power house (it had 2 clients in 3 years, and one of the clients had gone out of business.) Now we knew that we were not getting any jobs. Any one of us could have blown his cover. His profile was full of "lies." Yes, lies. The only factual piece of information in his profile was his name, and the name of the company.

Then there was 'Dick'. First, it still amazes me how Dick got the job. He was not versed or educated in technology, had never worked in technology, but there he was, the "head" of technology. That happened often in the dot com days when it was difficult to find talent. Dick was someone's golf and drinking buddy, and needed a job. Dick was what I would call a jumper. He was gathering as many buzzwords and knowledge as possible to jump to a better, bigger and financially more rewarding job. Dick did not like to work. 20 hours a week would be a challenge for him. Liquid lunches were common, often along with "working-from-home" days, which we all knew he was playing golf and going to the beach. He never answered on phone on the days that he "worked from home", and management was not disturbed by it. Things got done when Dick felt like it, not when they were needed. Dick only worked on projects that he liked, leaving the ones he did not at the bottom of his todo list. He could not be bothered. When Dick realized that he was over his head, he quickly hired a tech company to bail him out. Told everyone that he was so swamped, that he needed additional help. Hard to believe that someone is getting paid for 40 hours, only works 20, then hires a consulting company to do his work. Then one day, out of the blue, he quits.

Again the team looks online for his new company. His profile is unbelievable. It was believable to the people that hired him, and that's what count. He took credit for the consultant's projects. He listed accomplishments for his failures. I remember sitting there thinking "How does he get away with this?"

Then there was Uri. His titles, from director, to executive, to director are head turning. His list of accomplishments are impressive. Created "this" at "such" company, responsible for "that" at "another" company. It looks very promising to a potential client that's looking to buy product and services from Uri's company. It looks comical to the employees who see the profile on the web site, and know the real Uri. Most refer to Uri as being over his head in a small puddle. Uri once took 10 business days to get a proposal to a client. An average consultant would get it done in 1 to 2 days. By the time the client received the proposal, they had already picked another vendor and started working on the project. Once again, the people who hired Uri took his word for the projects/accomplishments he claimed. Not one of them bothered to validate his claims.

Enough of the stories. How can we stop this from happening? How can we challenge hiring managers and business owners to do their due diligence when evaluating talent? How can a hiring manager get to the bottom of the talent, expertise and accomplishment on a resume. Of the interviews I've been on I can tell you this much. The people doing the interviewing are not talent evaluators. They are normally the person in charge of the department, and in many cases the person you'll be reporting to. Then there's the "buddy" hiring. That person is not being hired because he's qualified, he's being hired because he knows someone. I know it's the American way, but our economy is hurting, and it's time to put qualified people to work. The people in this post are not qualified to work in the information world. They are better qualified to gather carriages at a supermarket, or to run a lawn mowing business. Next time you see a list of accomplishments, exercise some due diligence, and make sure this person is who is says he is, and did was he says he did. Otherwise, you too could be hiring the next Bill, Don, Dick or Uri.

Corporate Security in the new millenium

Want to crack into a system? Find a password? Piece of cake. I'm going to tell you how most businesses operate, and how to get to someone's password. Want to avoid weak passwords? I'll fill you in on that as well. I'll also suggest a way to create tough passwords that are easy to remember. Mostly, I hope to protect you from the traps that people fall into when creating passwords.

First, start with password. Yes, I know it sounds tired, but security experts suggest that a high percentage of passwords are still password. The others are common words such as god, money and love, along with people's names, such as the name of a spouse, pet, kids, etc. Common numeric passwords are normally 123456 or dates such as birthdays, anniversaries, etc. It is estimated that 20% of all passwords can be guessed this way. Stay away from them, as well as dictionary words.

A few years ago I went to a client to work on their server. However, no one in the office knew the password for the system. Good security, I believed. I was finally able to speak to someone in charge. The disgruntled IT person left and the password was not known. We went from good security to bad business. So I'm back in the closet, and I start looking for the password. Under the keyboard, under the desk, in a manual. Somewhere there's a yellow sticky with one word written on it, and that's the password. Found it. HOTDOG. Didn't take long. It was in the inside cover of the once opened computer manual.

Then there's the office with 12 people. Everyone wants their own password, with their own "personal" (if you're at work, there should be no 'personal') space. Months after setting up separate areas for all the employees and creating different profiles, everyone has their password written on a yellow sticky somewhere around their monitor, and all 12 people in the office know how to get into every computer. Why bother.

Then there was David. David was a retired High School principal who could not stand being retired, and came back to work as a programmer. If you left your computer unattended, he'd sneak in, and start a time consuming task on it. As the day went on he'd forget what was running where. He'd get up, back to the "zombie" PC, and shout: "Does anyone remember what my password is?" He could never remember.

Several people I know can never log into any web site because they can't remember the username, email or password that they used when they originally signed up. There has to be a better solution, they all say, but one is not yet available. The best solution is to use the same username, email and password, this way you'll always remember. The worst solution is to use the same username, email and password. If you are compromised, then the intruder has access to all of your accounts. This is one method that identity thieves use. Once they have one piece of information, they'll use it on every account (Google, eBay, Amazon, bank account, etc.)

The processing power of today's computers can 'crack' a password in a short time frame. A lowercase password of 8 characters can be cracked in less than 2.5 days. An 8 character password with upper, lower, numbers and special characters would be cracked in about 210 years. Big difference. However, there's one big problem. The user cannot remember that's caps, or what's a number or frankly what their password is.

A common technique to "mask" password from ordinary dictionary words is to substitute letters with numbers. For instance, password could be duplicated as P - A - S - S - W - (zero) - R - D. Common letters that are substituted are: 1 - L or I, 3 - E, 2 or 5 - S, 7 - T, 9 - G, 0 - O. Other letter/word combinations can be used as long as the user remembers the relationship. Another is to offset your hands on the keyboard, and type a common word. For instance, if I move my hands one key to the right, when I type "password" I get "[sddeptf". Yet another trick is to use foreign words. Currently password dictionaries only contain English words, but as computers get faster and store more information, password dictionaries will change to include the more common languages around the world. However I must tell you that people who make a living cracking passwords know of these tricks, and they updated their algorithms to reflect the changes.

My advice. Use a combination of words and numbers that only you would know what they mean, with a minimum of 10 characters. I ran track and field in high school. My password could be something like T&F330hurdles. 13 characters. 2 caps. 1 special character. Want to make it harder. Add the initials from the High School at the end. T&F330hurdles@NBHS. A lifetime to crack (brute forcing a password is only as good as the speed of today's computers. as computers get faster, so does the speed at which it can crack a password.) Only a few people actually know that about me, and I don't have regular contact with any of them. I can always remember my password because it's relative to me.

In a work environment it's a waste of time (unless required by law) to implement security measures because the passwords become common knowledge. And the one time when it does not, information is needed from an employee's computer when she's on vacation, and nobody at the office has the password.

Use this information as best fits you. I'd hate to see someone compromised or a victim of identity theft.

People issues are the hardest to solve

I was having dinner with a client, and the owner of the company asks: "Francisco, you work at dozens of different companies. Tell me the truth. Are we the most dysfunctional company that you've come across?" I did not hesitate and answered "NO". He was taken aback by the quick answer, as well as "the" answer. "So you mean to tell me that there are worse companies than ours out there?" The answer was again, "NO". You see, many companies have people issues.

The last thing a company owner wants to do when he/she gets back to the office is listen to "petty" complaints. To hear that someone spends too much time in the bathroom, takes too many smoke breaks, constantly calling in sick, always on Facebook, snacking constantly, takes too many coffee breaks, answering personal cell phone, having an office romance, using the computer to run a home based business, talks all day and doesn't get any work done. You may laugh, but I've heard it all. Several times I've been told: "She must be banging him," referring to a co-worker who must be sleeping with the boss, as the only reasonable explanation for keeping their job. There's also the "he must have pictures, how else does he hang on to his job?"

Many owners choose to ignore the office shenanigans and let the environment simmer. It's not their expertise to deal with people. Remember, they are business people. They love business. They love to sell. They love to create new products and services. They love to wheel and deal. Cash the checks, as that's how they keep score. They are highly competitive and driven. The last thing they want to do is to reprimand an employee for spending too much time on the toilet. Keep in mind that when you fire someone, you then have to hire another person. You then have to train the new employee. The new employee will in turn take some time to get up to speed. It's easier to let the employee spend extra time on the phone, or take a longer lunch break. This leaves more time for selling, creating, competing, networking, etc.

Early in my professional career, I noticed this employee whom I believed did not do any work. Any attempt to discredit or point out his lack of contribution feel on deaf ears. Everyone else had already tried, and knew it was pointless. So I took notice of who he was and what he did. He generated organizational charts where he proclaimed to be the head of the department. He created several projects for which there were no budget or people to work on them. He was always in every meeting, at every break, and involved at every project adding his expertise. However, he never contributed to any project. None that I was involved in, nor anyone else that I knew of. He was really good at sniffing out meetings with food as he would walk out of them with hands full of whatever was available. He could be found speaking to the workers. He did it with me. Asked what I was working on. Seemed harmless, so I contributed to the conversation. He did it with everyone, it seemed. That was his job, to talk to people. Strange. Until one day, I finally figured out what he did. I was working in the lab, and was accidentally hidden in a corner of a large room. He and the owner of the company walked into the lab, sat nearby (without noticing me) and the owner said: "I want you to go down there [to a client,] and I want to know who's involved. I want to know their names and who they're working for. Don't come back until who know who the fuckers are." They did not know that I was there, or that conversation would have never taken place near me. But I had finally figured out what he did. He was a "spy." He spied on the competition, and he spied internally. He then had these meetings with the "boss" where he regurgitated the information he compiled.

So why is it that someone can spend countless time in the bathroom and nobody cares? Because she was "banging" somebody with clout. True story. Why did that person not get hired and the other person fired. A lunch relationship gone sour, where the bookkeeper decided, not based on merit, but rather on her soured relationship. True story. Why does this person get all the best/highest paying gigs, where she's a mediocre performer? The manager is her best friend from when they were in High School together. True story. Why did this person get hired when they were the least qualified of all who were interviewed? Someone's golf and drinking buddy. True story. I've seen more people get hired based on a relationship, rather than qualifications more times that I can count. While I know that it's "who you know, not what you know" that counts, in today's economic climate it's hard to "hand" someone a paycheck he is not earning. It's even harder to see the dysfunctional companies where employee productivity is non-existent due to employee "manager" relationships.

So the next time you see office politics, and you wonder why that person is allowed to continue with an unacceptable behavior, think of what you may not know, and that's likely to be the reason.

Google as "GOD"

Google is the almighty when it comes to ranking web sites (don't even mention Bing as they recently admitted to using "Google" results.) So Google has this great/huge algorithm that they apply to pages, and when someone searches for a word, out comes a listing of websites with relevant results. This formula is, of course, a secret. If everyone knew what the formula was, they'd "cheat" by changing the content of the site to cater to the formula, and therefore yield a #1 position in the results. Google frowns upon that practice as it wants the results to be objective.

Today, there are people who claim to be experts in Google search results, (Search Engine Optimization specialist) and many of them make a "nice" living at their trade. This however crosses a fine line between your website, and your website "googled" to rank higher in search results.

But that brings about a more thoughtful question which is: if you work so hard to get your business to the #1 ranking in a search result for a specific "keyword", what happens when Google changes the algorithm, and you no longer rank anywhere? What happens to the companies that became overnight stars because of the #1 ranking, when the high ranking disappears? Does that company have other marketing strategies? Or does that company just wilt and die? Companies have sued Google after their sites disappear from the top of the Google search results. None of them have won. If they did, it would be headline news.

Which brings me to a more compelling question. Many companies will hire Search Engine Optimization (SEO) consultants to help with the search results rankings of their internet sites. There's nothing wrong with that. However, most companies do not know which practices are good, and which practices are bad. Let's face it, if the companies knew the landscape of SEO, they would not need to hire such consultants. Since the search results formula is not known, SEO consultant should not (although many do) guarantee results. If you asked me to stack 5 boxes, one on top of the other, I can perform that job and I can guarantee a positive result. If you ask a SEO consultant to rank an internet site in the top 5 for "health insurance," can said consultant guarantee results? And when they can't, and resort to using "unlawful" practices? Companies can choose to hire SEO consultants and not bother as to what methods are implemented. Good, Bad, whatever, are they ever going to catch me? Everyone else is doing it, right?

So for the sake of our discussion, let's say that your SEO consultant used bad practices to "lift" your internet site to the top of the search results (does JC Penny mean anything to you?). And let's say that someone reported your internet site to a Google Webspam Assassin. The Assassin finds that your site is using "bad" methods and will then remove your site from the Google search results. If you're lucky, your site will drop like a rock in the the results. If you're not lucky, your site will disappear into a "black hole", never to be seen again in search results. Either way, your business will "hurt" as that traffic is no longer getting to your internet site. Worse, that traffic is now going to a competitor who very likely used acceptable practices. A double whammy. Let's say you stop the "bad" practices of your consultant. When will Google "reverse" the damage done to the search results? Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year? Do we really know?

And now what? What is your recourse? You can't "call" Google and complain to customer service. You can take'm to court, but that's never worked. After all, nobody has the "right" to be listed in the top of the Google search results. There no higher authority that you can call and say "Google was mean to me and removed me from the search results." Now what do you do? I'll tell you: Think before you do!!!

Gold Watch

work 40 years for the same company. retire to a party with a gold watch. those were the days. layoffs were not common. neither did employees get fired, unless they did something "really" stupid. both of my in-laws worked for the same company for their whole lives.

but today, in 2011, you are not likely to find anyone who will work for a company for 20 years, never mind a lifetime. heck, if i look back at all the companies i worked for, most of them are gone. let's see:

* 1987 - financial services company (out of business)

* 88-93 - instrument controls (sold/broken up into different units)

* 1994 - bank (acquired by another bank ... shocker)

* 95-96 - instrument controls (still in business, but under different ownership)

* 96-00 - financial services (still in business)

* 2000 - dot com (trimmed to 200 employees, acquired by a consulting company)

* 2001 - dot com (out of business)

* 02-05 - higher education (still in business)

as you can see, i never had a chance of working 40 years at the same company. looking back at all the companies i worked for, there's only 2 that i would consider spending my whole life there.

in a recent study of s&p500 companies, the life expectancy of a company dropped from 75 years, in 1937, to 15.

the point here is: our "business" environment changes constantly, and so do the jobs. people who were qualified to "file" and "type" on a typewriter no longer have the skill set to edit documents, send email or organize spreadsheets. most have not re-trained themselves to the modern skills, and often will find themselves at the unemployment line. if i look back at the jobs that i had at each company, and think of what that job would consist of today, i realize that if i was still working at that job, i would have had to "re-train" myself. in the 50's an engineer had a job/skill for life. a computer programmer in 2011 had to re-learn the programming landscape of 20 years ago.

more importantly, the people running these companies must also change how the manage the business and the people, and that's not happening. the pace and complexity of the work of today is a challenge for "old" managers without modern skills.

Darwin was right. only the strong survive.