Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!att!bellcore!duncan From: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Personal growth and software engineering! Message-ID: <1991Apr5.122520.18513@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 5 Apr 91 12:25:20 GMT References: <34953@athertn.Atherton.COM> Sender: usenet@bellcore.bellcore.com (Poster of News) Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Organization: Computer Technology Transfer, Bellcore Lines: 83 In article <34953@athertn.Atherton.COM> mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) writes: > > When you offer someone experienced >to change, you offer the opportunity to start over BEHIND the people they >used to be in front of. In organizations with a meritocracy (e.g. >ranking between individuals leads to commesurate benefits) this means a >short term loss in ranking and commensurate benefits. Long term thing might >be different but the short term affect is enough to introduce hesitancy and >a desire to "time" the transition to a convenient time, hence resistance to >change. And this is heightened if there is not obvious "merit" assigned to change, but simply the expectation that change will occur and that people will "produce" at some acceptable level throughout. If it is very clear that the opinions of those who judge merit consider output as the important factor (i.e., "what have you done for me lately"), then changing the input or the way input is turned into output is less likely to be seen as encouraged. Change often means some reduction in performance level while mastery is being achieved. If you can see this happening and the merit system only looks at levels of output as a constant, then change is quickly equated with diminished rewards. The person undergoing the change has to look for future rewards and sacrifice near-term ones. >The second reason is that whenever there is change, there is the possibility >that not only will you lose experience, but quite possibly competancy. I think this is just the other side of the coin rather than a second reason. The issue with experience is that you will, likely, gain that back after a while. As you've described it based on some skill/ability it appears you might never gain (or which impeds you), it is a permanent loss of "merit" since the rules for what is valued change and you cannot change. I think both have to do with what is considered valued and how that is communi- cated to people. In very competitive environments, "professionals" are ex- pected to manage their own growth to a large extent, but they are often not able to determine what that growth should be. > but I have a lot >of psychological investment in what I have enjoyed doing well in the past. And I think this is a key point. It is perfectly okay to expect professionals to be responsible for their development, but one cannot be surprised that, after many years of skill-building (and reward for that skill, don't forget), when the values change, people resist. People want to feel supported (appre- ciated) during the period of change. I think leaving too much up to simple "professional" expectations leaves people with the feeling that they are on their own. >People often comment on how "young people" are so much more open to change >than their elders. The above two factors go a long way to explain why. >When you are at the bottom of the experience curve, starting over on a >different one, seems to matter relatively little. You've also not been reinforced in your behavior for many years through the merit system that told you what you were doing was good. Older employees are often praised for being "dependable" while younger ones are rewarded for their willingness to adapt and change. Accepting change is often tough for those who seem to mandate it as well. It is one thing to be supportive of change in a theoretical sense as a value. It is another to be committed to change as a way of life (even for a while). One can delegate (or mandate) responsibility for change onto others; one cannot delegate commitment to change if people have not been a part of the decision to change. Watts Humphrey in his book _Managing_for_Innovation_ makes this point. He also notes that professionals, out of a sense of responsibility and some pride, will try to fulfill expectations that others place upon them (e.g., tight schedule). However, this is not the same as being committed to the obligation because one has their own credibility at stake (e.g., they came up with the schedule them- selves). People who have been around a while have also seen lots of fads (which bring change with them) come and go -- or, at least, come and get superceded by the next one. Hence, it is often harder to get experienced employees as excited by change because they see the surface/outward trappings change, but life going on pretty much as always from the sociasl/political/rewards perspective. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))