It's just business

Everybody knows that it's now or never

Everybody knows that it's me or you...

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

"Everybody Knows" - Leonard Cohen

At one of my first jobs, a co-worker mentioned that he hadn't planned on working for his prior employer for ten years.  He just woke up one day and found that he had been there ten years.  At the time, I was skeptical. 

Yet I have found myself in a similar position.

In the fifth season of Mad Men, Don takes Peggy's work for granted.  He tells her that everything she's earned is from him.  As the last straw (not surprising for a fictional drama), he throws money in her face.

When she discusses a move with the person who really discovered her, her friend reminds her that Don wouldn't think twice about taking a business opportunity.  He bluntly remarks that it's just business.  Don wouldn't think about it emotionally, in terms of loyalty.  Peggy ends up taking the promotion (and raise) and leaves the advertising agency.

It's a scene I've thought about often in the past few months.  Truth isn't always stranger than fiction.

I have decided to take a new job opportunity.  I've also woken up after being at my employer for over ten years.  It's amazing to think about what's changed in ten years on the internet. 

I've learned a lot.  I've worked hard (in fact, that's what my boss specifically said about me when I mentioned I was leaving.  That I was a hard worker.  Go me!  That's exactly what I want people to know about me). 

But I've hit a glass ceiling of sorts.  And, much like Peggy's character, I know I'm not really getting what I'm worth. 

I think the modern workplace is structured this way.  It's human to take people and situations for granted.

Multiple people have told me that the only person looking out for my career is me.  It's true.  My company isn't looking out for my career.  And some of my co-workers - if they had a good opportunity, they would also take it without looking back, without thinking twice.

For me, the change is odd.  I tend to stay in situations simply because I've been there a long time, not because they are what's best for me.  Sometimes I stay longer than I need to.  And I admittedly have some anxiety about the whole thing.  Part of me would rather stay where it's safe, to stay with what's known. 

But life is too short. And this is just how business works. 

The consultant

I've had this cartoon up at my work forever.

There's an internet persona I encounter as a part of my job.  Basically, whenever someone has a question with a particular piece of software I work with*, he seems to weigh in.  Usually his comments decry that the original questioner is not a trained specialist, is asking ignorant questions, and he sharply criticizes management for not hiring professionals.  Obviously, this person has a financial interest in these comments - as he is a consultant who makes a living by advising in this field.  He's paid to be an expert, and to criticize the organization and its projects (right or wrong).

This type of arrogant attitude has always gotten under my skin.  In high school, a person was a "poser" without certain punk qualifications.  In college, it had to do with whether or not I had read certain authors or watched certain movies.  At my first job, it was whether or not my degree was in computer science.  For the record, at least that criticism had some basis in reality; a degree in computer science meant a higher salary and less job security.  If that company could keep hiring people without computer science degrees for a lot less money, they would fire the pricier computer science majors.

One sees this in former mormon circles a lot.  People have to trot out their mormon qualifications for speaking up about mormonism.  Born in the church, pioneer/polygamous ancestry (people don't usually mention the polygamy), mission, temple marriage, served in various callings are some of what's discussed.  Then, when they don't have that history, they're criticized for not have enough experience.  When they do, they're criticized for breaking sacred oaths and not enduring to the end.

So there's a vested interest in claiming people don't know what they're talking about.  Personally, I believe it's a balance. 

Of course people have to have a certain amount of knowledge and experience.  I wouldn't want an untrained doctor operating on me or my family. And some experiences cannot be learned.  I don't know what it's like to grow up as a male of color or in southeast Asia.

But it's ridiculous to always claim a person always needs certain education or experience that cannot be learned.  Humanity didn't get this far by assuming a person cannot learn, that they can only learn in certain ways, with certain official qualifications. 

Humans innovate.  They try to make things better.  Sometimes it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt.

And if a person has read your diatribe against management hiring inexperienced people enough times that one can recognize your name and statements, maybe it's time to revisit your strategy.  I certainly wouldn't hire someone so obnoxious.  I would be concerned that my company or system would be dismissed - that the consultant wouldn't be working towards a solution. 

*For full disclosure, I found most of these questions by googling questions that *I* have had - so I wouldn't say the original questions were completely out of line. 

Teaching, Test Scores and Education

Back in college, I had a conversation with a friend about his prospects.

My friend claimed his grades didn't matter; how he looked on paper didn't matter.  What mattered was that he could get in front of the decision makers and charm them (state his case).  There are many definitions of privilege.  To my mind, this is one of them.  Privilege is being able to get an audience with decision makers despite not meeting the original qualifications.

I've been involved (more than I ever wanted to be) in recent discussions about education, school structure and test scores.  For anyone not intimately involved in this current American educational debate, test scores now define everything in most schools.  The scores grade the teacher's performance.  The law is called "No Child Left Behind".  It means, for better or worse, what I remember from my school days is not longer what most students experience.  The students spend more time on math and reading, lots of drills and benchmark tests.  They get less for everything else; music, art, p.e. (gym), science and social studies.  

The school my children attend is a great school, but they have low test scores.  So now they're trying to keep the good things about the school, while raising the scores.  I don't know if they will be successful.

One of the arguments for focusing on the test scores is that life is full of tests.  (This is the argument an administrator told me).  It's true, my school life was full of tests.  I had to take a test for college admission.  I took a test for post graduate admission.  I took a basic math/spelling test to be a temporary secretary back in the 1990s (I got the job despite my spelling errors, more privilege I suppose).

But in my career as an IT professional, I've taken exactly one test.  Maybe I took a personality test when applying for jobs (I don't remember), but only one content based multiple choice test.  And that one test was a fluke (incredibly rare for my field).

So I disagree that tests are a part of life.  They may be a part of academic life, but not a part of life for all fields in the working world.  Most companies have yearly evaluations (or some performance system).  Schools and teachers need outside evaluation.  That's how accountability works.  I'm accountable to my boss and my company.  If I don't do my job by assessment, I get fired.  That's how it works.

I'm not a teacher and I wouldn't dream of being one. It's not my skill set.  It's hard work.  And I challenge anyone who thinks it's easy to try it.  Not everyone can teach successfully.  Not everyone can work in IT or as a chef.

Some politicians imply by their statements (or actions) that any businessperson could teach - or could perhaps be a better teacher than trained teachers. In the next few years, that fallacy of that thought will be apparent.  Allowing an untrained person to teach (or assuming they can teach without any training) is like allowing an untrained mechanic to work on my car, or an untrained nurse to put together my I.V.  What constitutes as training is debatable and something worth discussing.  But assuming anyone can teach without having any idea of subject matter, ways of learning, etc. is ignorant.

How do we independently verify schools and teachers without testing the kids? How do we account for a host of factors that need to be accounted for in that evaluation? What about everything that happens outside of school - which the research shows is a bigger predictor of test scores (and academic success)?

I don't have any answers. I know the system is not working currently.  And I don't know how well children are learning.  Are they being exposed to the wide range of needed skills (in addition to reading and math)?  How do they learn what they want to do as an adult?

And do the teacher's unions and administrators have too much power?

A good public education system has been the foundation of U.S. success.  I know there are ways to reform the system.  But so much seems to hit the law of unintended consequences.  With NCLB, lawmakers wanted to ensure that schools were held accountable.

But what happened is schools started teaching to the test, and teaching to the middle (bubble) kids.  The kids in the middle who can improve, not the very low or very high performers.

I trust the issues will be resolved soon.  I know many kids will succeed no matter what type of education they receive.  And success can be defined very differently.  This issue is not a simple one, and is much more about what type of society we want to be and create than anything else.

You can be whatever you want to be

"Follow your dream and the money will follow"

"You can be whatever you want to be"

You could call me a glass half empty type of person. Okay, so all the 20, 30 something readers of this blog, have you heard these statements before (by show of hands)? Are you really following your passion and making a living at it? If so, will you be able to support yourself for the rest of your life with that passion?

I believe that we do a disservice to children and teenagers by telling them empty maxims like these.

Sometimes an individual possesses an amazing combination of intelligence, skills, upbringing/luck/education and passion. They are able to actually earn a living through what they love to do. OR, they're fortunate enough (either independently wealthy or self-sufficient) to not have to earn a living.

Yet I strongly suspect the vast majority of people are not following their passion. They're doing what they have to do to survive, to pay the bills (if they are even able to survive and keep/hold a job). Sometimes, they're fortunate enough to like what they do for a living and survive.

But by telling someone that they can do whatever they want to do, that's just not really fair.

Because the truth is, for most of us, we can't earn a living by doing what we want to do. I've spoken to many people who would just like to sit around all day - watching tv, playing video games or surfing the internet. And yes, I believe I have heard of jobs that will pay you to do just that.

But for our society to survive, we can't all watch tv all day. Or write poetry, or paint. Someone's got to repair the cars. Someone's got to grow the food or deliver/ship that food. Someone's got to collect the garbage. It seems like it's a dirty little secret that only adults know.

Then, there are those of us who would like to earn a living by, say, writing, acting, or playing football, but maybe we really don't have that talent.

Telling every child/teen that they can be whatever they want to be is just not true.

I think we can all identify people in our own lives who are great artists, musicians, actors, athletes - but they can't support themselves with that for a living. Or, on the flip side, people who aren't talented but are making a living through the arts or sports.

Life sometimes is just not fair.

I don't mean this to sound depressing or bleak. It's not meant to be. I only mean to be realistic.

I think the important goal is to find a career for yourself that you can stand and support yourself at the same time. Where you don't dread going to work in the morning. Maybe where you are doing good for other people or the environment at the same time - maybe not. And you can still do that other stuff, where possible, on the side. Because a person typically spends a great deal of time at their job, so you might as well like what you do. And be good at what you do.

But don't expect that you can do whatever you set your mind to doing. Because for the majority of us, that's not the case.

I understand wanting to inspire, and I'm all for inspiration. But inspiration does have to be tenured (at times) with reality.

I believe it's simply unrealistic for everyone to expect to be the next Albert Einstein, Oprah or Bill Gates. Because everyone doesn't have the same talents or intelligence as they did. Even if we did, when you get down to it, what did those people have to sacrifice in their personal lives to meet their goals? And a person has to ask themselves, seriously, if they really want to sacrifice those things.