InformationWeek

Hi Herb:
I'm not sure if you have presented a column about the resume "services." What I am referring to is the current standard of resume submission to an automated process that filters based on keyword and date of employment. Now I don't know if these programs actually perform those functions or not, but is this urban myth true?

If it is an actual practice, I can see why there is a dearth of "qualified" people in IT/IS. I believe that far too many truly qualified people are bypassed by the resume systems. The act of speaking with candidates appears to have taken a back seat. There is more to an individual than buzzwords in the electronic ether.

Assuming the former, how do Internet startups find out about these potential employees? And how can I get on this list? Assuming the latter, how do people find out about these opportunities so they can contact Internet startups?

Best Regards,

Peter Diestl

Dear Peter:
Yes, Peter, there is no Santa Claus. Why, just imagine doing without the wisdom of judging a person's suitability by using a machine to see if a few key words or phrases appear on a piece of paper (virtual, of course)! If there were a Santa Claus, no one would be so efficient!

Unfortunately, there are companies, and they are proud of it, that use automated systems or services to filter the resumes of potential candidates to determine if they have the rudimentary skills for a position. I have several problems with the process. The first is that there are multiple ways of saying the same thing about your technical expertise, and it would take a very smart computer to realize that "implemented industry-leading database software" might very well equal "has Oracle experience." Personally, I'd hate to lose a good person because my filtering program isn't as smart as the individual I might have hired.

The second problem I have with filtering programs for resumes is one that no amount of sophistication or refinement of the software engine will fix. When you read certain resumes, they are intriguing and make you want to meet the people who wrote them. I have hired more than a few very good technical people and several excellent managers that way.

I'm sure a lot of our readers will disagree with me, citing the amount of time saved by employers when reviewing directly submitted resumes or searching job databases. I hear you. However, I don't think it takes that long to skim a resume, and any extra time expended is a worthwhile investment to avoid missing really good candidates.

Dear Herb:
I just read "The Law Of Corporate Failure." While I laud your desire to encourage companies to tolerate mistakes, it just won't happen in a mature organization. The trouble is that, as you point out, the people who don't know how to take risks are in charge. When the company tries to change its culture and "celebrate failure" or other such nonsense, the ones who get to experiment are the boobs who can't differentiate good initiatives from bad. Colossal folly is the result. Yes, he or she might get lucky, but you can't consistently grow or change a business on blind luck.

I don't have a better strategy for you though. Perhaps one should bear in mind Jack Welch's primary regret as an executive: that he didn't fire the bad people faster.

Gordon Fuller

Dear Gordon:
I don't really believe in celebrating failure. Gen. George S. Patton had the right idea: "Your job is not to die for your country; it's to make the other guy die for his." I do believe, however, in trying to learn from each mistake and giving people the opportunity to learn from theirs. Naturally, if there is a pattern of failure, then the wrong people are in the job or the job is impossible to accomplish (note: dead horses do not run faster when the riders are changed).

I'm not sure how I feel about Jack Welch's oft-stated comment. Perhaps it's because I am not as sure as he was about my own ability to determine so quickly who the "bad" people really are.

Dear Mr. Lovelace:
I just read your column for the first time, the one titled, "The Law Of Corporate Failure." Well done. You hit it on the head. I'll look for your column more often now.

I'm one of the freethinking types, and although I don't have to have all my ideas accepted, I must be heard or I become disheartened and leave. Now as I reach my 40th soon, I'm toning it down, having finally reached the point of being able to do exactly what you predicted Ron will do after being blasted for having an idea. I've learned not to care about whether the company adopts good policies or not.

We can't all just leave when we become disheartened, so I simply started to care less. I know a lot of truly exceptional IS people who've decided that a great salary, benefits, and comfortable living aren't too bad a price to pay for being less enthusiastic. I've decided that's what I want, and suspect I'm finally acquiring the skills for management.

Regards,
Steve Raynes

Dear Steve:
Thanks for the compliments, but your letter saddens me. As Dylan Thomas once wrote, "Do not go gentle into that good night." While it's important to know when to argue and when to keep quiet and go with the flow, the most valuable people in an organization are those who can be trusted to share their opinions--even when they are contrary to what the majority thinks.

Any executive who cannot stand to hear people speak the truth as they see it is a poor excuse for a leader. To such a boss I say that if you want nothing but affirmations of your own opinions, look in the mirror all day long or get a dog. Any company that promotes such people will soon be in deep trouble. It's a diversity of views--up to the point that a decision is made--that provides the strength that propels a good organization. A good airing of ideas lets people understand why a particular path is chosen and helps everyone pull together afterward.

Dear Herb (or whatever your real name is):
I've greatly enjoyed your articles over the years and have just finished your article on "The Law Of Corporate Failure" and wondered about how you would characterize "The Law Of Corporate Success."

A few years ago I was in a discussion with a friend in another company about some of my political battles. He said (it's a favorite theme of his) that the power of the samurai lies in the fact that a samurai has nothing to lose if he dies in battle. It's a principle I've applied over the years in my corporate battles: go to work every day willing to be fired.

Bob Jernigan

MIS Project Leader

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

Dear Bob:
It's probably an effective strategy, being willing to die for your principles, but I can't see it ever becoming as popular as karaoke. I do believe, however, that effective leaders have to be willing to do the right thing without fixating on what's best for them personally. During the years, the really good bosses for whom I've worked have shared that common trait. To that extent, I think you're right on with your premise for the law of corporate success.

Dear Mr. Lovelace:
An article that you wrote earlier this year, "Who's Monitoring My Crystal Ball?", mentions that an insurer offers rates based on mileage, time of day, and areas visited.

Can you divulge who the insurer is?

PS: I do enjoy your articles (and even agree with most)!

Regards,

Joe Golobic

Dear Joe:
Thanks for your letter and thanks for saying that you agree with most of them. Awhile ago I had a colleague with whom I often disagreed. Once, I said that he made good sense and we should follow his advice--at which point he commented that he wanted some time to rethink his position.

The insurance company I referred to in the column was Progressive Insurance Co. The Ohio firm outfitted some cars of Texas drivers with global positioning systems that measured how long the customers drove, where they went, and when they did so. Progressive sets the rates for the insurance based, in part, on the data. Such things as your age, driving record, and vehicle type still count, but the company can adjust the rates accurately depending on whether you drive at night or in congested, accident-prone areas. The tests were started in 1998 in Houston.

It's an interesting concept. On one hand, it allows for insurance to be paid for on the basis of usage and risk. Would you go out tonight to that club downtown if you actually knew that it's going to cost you incrementally, not only for gas and parking, but also for insurance? Progressive says their customers evidently are thinking about it because accidents, and premiums, have decreased in the test group.

On the other hand, and this was the theme of my column, how much information are we willing to divulge in order to save money? Do we necessarily want anyone, including our insurance companies, to have the capability to know, moment to moment, where we are in our automobiles?

Dear Mr. Lovelace:
Having been a CIO for several years, many executives have asked me, "What's the difference between a CIO and a chief technology officer?" Frankly, I don't have a clear understanding myself. Can you help?

Rafael Fagundo

Dear Rafael:
While the terms are frequently used interchangeably, especially in dot-coms (it's de rigueur to be called the CTO, not the CIO, in most of them), there can be a real difference in responsibilities.

In general, the chief technology officer worries about the ability of the infrastructure of the organization to meet the company's needs today and in the future. The chief information officer, on the hand, worries more about the relationship of the applications systems to the business needs. Sometimes, especially in older companies (but not always) the CTO reports to the CIO.