The Cult of Mediocrity
-
Hey, did you hear the one about the two brothers who spent years trying to make a bicycle fly? Or the guys who started a major computer corporation in their garage? Or the guy who dropped out of college to start one of the largest software companies in the world? You have? Well, can you tell what all these stories have in common? Here's a hint: they're all true, they've all achieved near-mythic proportions, and they are all about risk takers.
In America, risk is usually seen as a good quality. It puts the "great" in "greatness", and makes the impossible possible. Without risk we never would have reached the moon. Or defeated the Nazis. Or spent $18 on "Spiderman 3" tickets (some risks don't pay off as well as others...)
The flip side of risk, of course, is the potential reward – the "big payoff". It seems to be what's missing these days in the middle and bottom rungs of many big companies. Risk/reward is not just a high-falutin' management concept anymore. Regular employees also perform on-the-job risk/reward analyses too. Risk-averse cultures can be discouraging, in much the same way that an anvil landing on a minnow could discourage it from swimming.
I recently spoke with an old friend who's stuck in the risk-averse culture of a big company. We'll call him Joe. Joe recently decided it's in his best interest to be less of a risk taker on the job. Joe has a very good track record of identifying issues and bringing solutions to the table; but he no longer offers suggestions. He's a very hands-on and detail-oriented person; but he no longer volunteers to implement. The fact of the matter is that Joe quickly learned he can earn an "average" review rating and 2% "industry standard" raise with near-zero risk, just like everyone else on his job.
Businesses that don't nurture risk send a loud and clear message to their employees: "Excellence does not fit in with the business model and mediocrity is the order of the day."
Are you a risk-taker on the job? Does your job encourage risk taking? Or is the potential reward (if any) just not worth it?
-
The interesting point that is raised here is one of risk perception.
The examples you site as having managed the risk/reward situation successfully are examples because they were successful or because they are unusual? How many other thousands of people took similar risks and failed?
Did Bill Gates really take a risk in starting Microsoft? Perhaps a young man with many years ahead of him could afford to try something different in the knowledge that if it failed there was still time to try something else.
I don't think risk in itself is the cause of aversion to risk, rather that people are aware that in general risk is managed very badly and that in a given scenario the inability to accurately quantify and manage the risks will lead to failure.
I personally don't subscribe to the theory that businesses are in a survival of the fittest scenario. For the vast majority survival of the reproducible, the stable and the predictable are more appropriate given that most publicly owned companies try to maintain steady growth with the aim of returning predictable profits for their shareholders. If Microsoft are a worthy example then their methodology would appear to be let others take the immediate risk and then use the stability of the company to consume them once the biggest proportion of the risk has been passed.
The risk/reward curve is skewed very in much in favor of those who have very little to lose. That may be an obvious statement but its implication is clear, most of us are not in that position and neither are the companies we work for.
K.
-
Hi,
an interesting article. I have worked for a very large (now much smaller) electronics company where as I.T. consultants we were encouraged to 'challenge the business' both internally and with our clients. It was enormously liberating to be able to conduct meetings where we could not only ask 'how are we going to solve this?', but also 'why are we trying to solve this?'. I had a very good manager who managed a team of 80 Oracle HR, Finance and CRM consultants, if you identified an issue and raised it with her, her response was 'well what are you going to do to fix it ?'.
This definitely kept you focussed and made sure that people never bothered her with trivial things. She knew that we felt there was a genuine cause for concern, we knew she would take our concern seriously. The respect going in both directions was such that we never found ourselves in the position of not wanting to raise an issue because we would be given more work to do or work that we couldn't handle.
Conversely, I have also worked for a very small company where there was no respect, concerns were ignored or met with sarcasm, feedback was always negative, and everybody just kept their head 'below the parapet' for fear of it being shot off. Mediocrity flourished, people did as much as was needed to avoid censure, and no-one ever challenged the status quo
I know which organisation I preferred to work in.
David
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
-
Very appropriate having recently been slated for using SSRS2005 and pushing it instead of Crystal Reports 8 because CR8 wouldn't do the job and give the report the user wanted (multiple stored procs and table components and nested reports - a cinch in SSRS!). Vindicated by our main business system supplier suggesting we change from Cognos to SSRS when we change their product from Oracle to SQL Server
I would always rather achieve a result than tell the customer we can't do something because we aren't allowed to use the tool that can do it.
The entrenched bureaucracy of the public sector frequently gets me down and I always preferred working for private software houses where the product is paramount, not the paperwork surrounding it.
-
I work for an insurance company who's primary tenet is that most loss is avoidable. They're all about managing risk. The key here is managing risk, not avoiding risk. It's hard to avoid hurricanes. Instead, we maintain a, if not the, world leading testing facility where they figure out how to reduce, eliminate and mitigate the risks associated with wind, water and fire. The company has been making profits consistently ahead of projections and expectations. We've tried to take the same approach to our database work.
So, the question is, do you avoid risk by doing less work and subsequently getting less reward or do you embrace the risk and manage it by doing more work? For example, most of our team wanted to move to SQL Server 2005. But no one wanted to be the one to propose it except for two of us. We did all kinds of extra work on the side, testing the apps under development, identifying performance improvements or functionality improvements that would only be realized in 2005 and we tested, tested, tested our systems to ensure we could make the move without down time to the development effort. When we finally brought the idea forward to our chief architect, he said no. We persisted. He finally said, "Fine, but you two take personal responsibility for solving any problems that come up. The two of you will be held directly accountable for lost time to development." OK, that scared us, but we swallowed and said fine because we'd tested. Everything went off without a hitch. Our reputation improved within the company and we were able to crow about it in our next review.
It was doing the extra work that made the difference. Risk aversion is work aversion. Personally, I'm a lazy b*****d, but I like to play with new toys and my significant other likes bigger pay checks, so I go the extra mile to get both.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore RooseveltAuthor of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning -
I think that a lot of people confuse risk mitigation with risk aversion as well. I know I see it all the time, not just at work. It doesn't help when I've done the legwork to make a plan to mitigate risk and only find that someone else would rather avoid it. When there's no suitable reward like in Joe's case, then why even bother?
-
Great editorial Michael!
My career cycle has involved both kinds of companies mentioned in responses above: risk-encouraging companies and risk-avoiding companies. I've been independent before, then returned to the corporate workforce, and find myself independent again.
There is a direct correlation between risk and creativity. There's also a direct correlation between democracy and difficulty, from a management perspective. It's much easier for managers to bark out orders and expect them to be followed, more difficult to cultivate and grow individuals into a cohesive team. Having been leader and led, I've found one key: People must be free to fail before they can be free to succeed.
If your corporate culture is built in such a way as to publicly humiliate anyone who fails, prepare to be wiped out by the first wave of creative competition that shows up in your industry.
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
-
I can relate to this experience of bosses who encourage everyone to be risk adverse and to only share one thought -- theirs. I believe that voicing opinions help everyone to improve and challenges others to think rather than just do. Of course you <st1
ersonName w:st="on">must</st1ersonName> do it in a productive manner however, in a Corporate Culture that avoid this thought there is no productive manner. It is funny how a bad boss can teach what not to do just as much as a good boss can teach you what to do. -
Interesting slant to the taking down the server debate. I have worked at both big and small companies. I would say, I am now at what most would call a medium sized company, We really only have about 10 IT people, so there isn't much room to let things slide. If we don't do it, it doesn't get done.
However, in my last job, in my building alone, there were 500 IT people. There were more DB's in my last job, than there are IT people at my current company.
You could say I was a risk taker. In fact, I skirted that edge about as close as you can get. You could even say, I fell off a few times. Luckily I was able to catch myself and pull myself back up. So I guess the question is, was it worth it?
In the 8 years I was at my last company, I advanced faster than I think anyone else, but once I got to the top (which took about 4 years) I found taking risk almost rarely helped me. In fact, it only hurt, but never helped. I will say that it got to the point where (since I am no longer there) I could not both keep my hands out off the machine, nor could I stand by and watch it break before my eyes.
Could I change if I wanted to? Probably not (Again, let's add, I am no longer there). However, I am not the type of person that would start his own company, that is a different type of risk. Risk takers fail, but in general don't give up. I suspect that those that don't take risks fail enough (when taking risks) to stop taking the risks. Orville, Wilbur, Steve etc. I guess didn't fail enough to stop taking the risk. So do risk takers succeed? Do you know anyone that succeeded but didn't take a risk? Personally, I don't think you can succeed without taking risks. However, I think that once you do succeed, some stop taking risks. Others just aren't programmed that way.
-
Excellence on the job is a choice just as mediocrity is. I think most people you label as "risk takers" probably don't see themselves that way. They are just made that way, to do the best job they can do because that's who they are and they do it regardless of risk or reward.
It is sad that Joe succumbed to the drumbeat of mediocrity just because everyone else did and management didn't appreciate it. When you work, you should do your very best because that's the right thing to do and where you will find the most personal satisfaction anyway.
I was raised to always do my very best because I will be measured by the quality of what I do, not what I say or criticize others for not doing. I will admit that the corporate environment can sometimes stiffle creativity, but it has been my personal experience that if I present my Manager with a problem coupled with a solution, they generally follow the path of least resistance and have me implement the solution. Of course that may just be that I have worked at good companies or personal persuasiveness, I'm not sure which.
-
[Quote P Jones]Very appropriate having recently been slated for using SSRS2005 and pushing it instead of Crystal Reports 8 because CR8 wouldn't do the job and give the report the user wanted (multiple stored procs and table components and nested reports - a cinch in SSRS!). Vindicated by our main business system supplier suggesting we change from Cognos to SSRS when we change their product from Oracle to SQL Server
I would always rather achieve a result than tell the customer we can't do something because we aren't allowed to use the tool that can do it.
The entrenched bureaucracy of the public sector frequently gets me down and I always preferred working for private software houses where the product is paramount, not the paperwork surrounding it. [/Quote]
Sorry to P Jones for using this as an example but it does clearly demonstrates a point.
The project driver comes from a client as "I'd like my reporting service to do x,y and z"
This informs the business case which should ask the question "Is there a justification to do x,y and z" If the business case identifies a need then do the risk analysis.
The risk analysis should be "What are the risks of doing nothing" and "What are the risks of moving to a new technology which our business case advises us is required to carry out the request from our project driver"
If the risks of doing nothing i.e losing a valued client out-weigh the risks of using the new technology then i would argue that you are doing the least risky thing in moving to the new technology.
Now if against that evidence someone still decides to do nothing then i would say they are risk adverse. And that really is the point once you identify where the true risk is and you are able to support and quantify it then you can make an informed choice, up to that point it is guess work and i wouldn't blame anyone for not making a decision to go ahead with the change.
A lot of this comes back to proper project management and the need for IT and senior management to communicate using a shared language which can be provided by a good project manager. The simple fact is we spend a lot of time mitigating risks with back-ups, testing, QA etc but we perhaps don't communicate to those in ultimate control of our destinies/budgets that we are proficient in risk management.
K.
-
I started as one of those wide eyed wild big iron guys who felt we should cut to the quick and get it done. The old school was RB&LR, Rare Back and Let'er Rip. We lived risk, and many of us still do. We have made a lot of mistakes but made huge progress.
If you are going anywhere at all there a risks, and the farther you go in the shorter time the more risk you face. But the larger the risk the larger the reward and the more significant the progress.
After over 35 years of running full speed do you think we should slow it down now? Not a chance. Time is short and there is still too much to do. So, risk, follow, or get out of the way.
Remember that risk is the breakfast of champions, and it is better to drive then to sleep in the backseat.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
-
A risk adverse culture can come about in a lot of different ways. At my last job, the chief architect had his fingers in all the pies; he micromanaged every detail and always had to butt-in to every developer conflict (he couldn't just let 2 grown men decide for themselves how to resolve technical conflicts. Even worse, people would use him to get their way). You couldn't do anything without his approval, and to get his approval you had to argue with him for an hour. Naturally, that creates a culture of risk aversion. He also had a habit of getting boat-rockers fired.
There's a joke about guys like this: What's the difference between a Terrorist and a Chief Architect? You can negotiate with a Terrorist.
Why would any sane person stick their neck out in this environment?
By the way, the project failed miserably.
-
This is an interesting article. I've got two comments, from my experience.
About 15 years ago I was working in the private sector at a large manufacturing company. During that period of time the fashionable management practice was called Total Quality Management (TQM). One of the tenets of TQM was "Empower the employee". The whole idea was the employee was closest to the customer or most familiar with the problem. So, if some urgent need came up and the employee on the stop could see what would fix the problem, they would be empowered to fix the problem. The management of that company publicly said they supported empowering the employee. Some time later I came across just such a situation; there was a big problem and it needed to be resolved. Profit would be lost if quick action didn't happen. I knew what had to be done, and I did it. That saved the company a lot of money, time and effort. And for that action I was very severely reprimanded. So, on one hand the management of that company would say they supported TQM, but in their practice they clearly demonstrated that they were not interested in empowering the employee. I learned that at that company I should not innovate, because it would seriously hurt me. I left that company some years after that, and it is interesting to note that manufacturing plant closed some years after that. It would propably be wrong to say that management's approach to how TQM was implemented was the cause of the plant's closure - I am sure many things contributed to that. But I would not be surprised if management's punishing of employees for solving problems in creative ways, at least to some small degree, contributed to the plant's closure.
My other observation concerns what I call, "the civil servant mentality". For the last several years I have worked in various public sector positions; some local government agencies, some non-profits, etc. I have found many hard working people in these agencies, putting in more than what is required. I believe the majority of workers in the public sector jobs do at least "an honest days work", or significantly better. However, there is a small contingent of workers in government agencies who do just the minimum amount of work. The only thing they are interested in is working long enough to get their pension and then retire. They do just what is required, in order to get by. It really irritates me to see such mediocrity in work. I don't see a lot of this in public sector employees, but I do see it.
Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.
-
I can't remember where the quote comes from but it was along the lines of "An organism that ceases to explore its environment is in decline and is ultimately doomed". Total risk aversion is an oxymoron because to do nothing is ultimately a risk.
Plato said when people think alike they think very little.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply