All Posts in Career Management

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

Consider the case of Ikea and the hexagonal socket-head screw.

In this case, the case is designing the database — the database containing the case of furniture held together by a particular hexagonal socket-head screw, and the case of all the socket-head screws used by a particular piece of furniture.

This calls for a “many-to-many relationship.” It’s something hierarchical DBMSs like IBM’s old IMS product can’t easily handle.

That’s one reason … and by the way, the least-interesting reason … I called IMS obsolete in last week’s KJR.

I shouldn’t have made reference to “batch mainframe COBOL systems,” when I did, though, because except in historical contexts, mainframe has no meaning. I should have left it at “batch systems.” Batch describes architecture. Mainframe COBOL merely describes lineage.

In any event, its inability to easily handle routine data design requirements does make IMS obsolete, although in an uninteresting way. As last week’s column emphasized, the lack of interest the best IT talent has in working on IMS systems is, the most important reason.

Most important, but not the most interesting (to your loyal author, at least).

What is most interesting is that it’s on the wrong side of an ongoing trend — the replacement of static relationships with dynamic ones.

This played out in DBMS-land when relational technology began to compete with CODASYL network-model DBMSs. Unlike hierarchical DBMSs, CODASYL DBMSs could handle all of the data design situations relational technology could handle.

But CODASYL DBMSs handled them with fixed relationships implemented through DBMS-managed pointer chains. Relational DBMSs handle them dynamically through SQL JOIN statements.

The next stage of DMBS evolution — the rise of NoSQL — continues the trend. Most of what you read about the subject would lead you to believe NoSQL’s ability to handle “big data” is what makes it interesting. Most of what you read is … what’s the word I’m looking for? … oh yes, “wrong.”

NoSQL is interesting because it replaces static relationships with dynamic ones too. In this case it replaces traditional data warehouses’ fixed OLAP schemas with “schema on demand.” That’s what makes Hadoop implementations so much quicker than traditional data warehouse projects.

And that makes Hadoop implementations much more like Agile methodologies, when contrasted with traditional data warehouse projects, which resemble traditional (and obsolete in parallel ways) waterfall methodologies, as data design (specifications) has to be completed before storing any data in the warehouse.

And by the way, the rise of Agile is another example of dynamicism supplanting fixed relationships, in this case replacing waterfall’s fixed-at-the-start specifications with Agile’s dynamically discovered just-in-time ones.

Abandoning fixed relationships in favor of dynamically defined ones applies to application development tools, too.

Back in the days of batch mainframes, the notion of coding logic into callable subroutines was something renegade FORTRAN monks preached into the deaf ears of the COBOL priesthood. When several different COBOL programs needed the same business logic, this was accomplished through the use of (I’m not making this up!) the COPY verb, which literally copied source code from a library into the target program.

Any change to business logic meant recompiling all programs that used the copy code — compile-time binding, unlike FORTRAN and more modern object-oriented technologies that bind logic contained in callable subroutines or objects during the linking process … link-time binding.

More modern, that is, but not modern, because modern computer languages dispense with all of that. Binding, such as it is, happens dynamically at run time.

Add Wifi to the list. It replaces fixed location-based relationships (cables run to offices and cubicles) with dynamic ones (wherever the computer happens to be within a facility). Add VPN or Cloud and things become even more dynamic — “anywhere” replaces “within a facility.”

And then … here’s the punch line. It isn’t about technology at all. It’s about the relationship between companies and their workforces.

Following World War II, the relationship between employees and their employers was mostly fixed, from the day they entered the workforce until retirement.

This relationship became temporary a long time ago, and we’re rapidly entering an age in which it’s becoming purely dynamic — independent workers engaged on a contractual basis.

Not only is this basic relationship becoming dynamic, but increasingly, even team memberships come and go, as who reports to whom gives way to who does what best.

The driving force is the same as with the technological trend, too: increased flexibility.

Is this good or bad? It doesn’t really matter. Lamenting the passing of fixed employee/employer relationships is about as productive as lamenting the passing of the hierarchical DBMS. You can argue the virtues of either one all you like.

It won’t change a thing.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

From the KJR mailbag regarding last week’s column on performance improvement plans (PIPs):

Hi Bob …

The only time I received a PIP, it was clearly to start building a documentation trail (your point about the recipient building his own trail cannot be over-emphasized) that would lead to my termination, ostensibly for cause.

My prior performance reviews had also been excellent. I continued to perform to the best of my abilities while conducting what little job search I could due to the enormous demands that the job placed on my time.

In due course, I was pulled into the resign-or-be-fired meeting and given 15 minutes to collect my personal effects and leave. The company subsequently fought my unemployment claim all the way to a judicial hearing (I won). Of course, the CEO said it was not personal. Of course, I did not (and do not to this day) believe her.

The story ends well. It prompted my move from Long Beach, CA to [current location], converting a long-distance relationship to one that ended in a fulfilling marriage. My journey led me to [employer name], where I have found meaningful work that has brought fulfillment.

Bob says: First, thanks for sharing your story. Second … of course it’s personal. Criticism might not be personal for the critic, but it’s always personal for the criticized, by definition. Beyond that, many managers don’t differentiate between “your performance is substandard” and “I don’t like you.”

Often, they’re yellers.

Third, you give me too much credit. You’re right that “my point about the recipient building an independent document trail cannot be overemphasized,” except for one thing: I neglected to say it. On behalf of everyone reading this, thanks for filling the gap.

* * *

Bob …

My experience is that PIPs are rigged against the employee. Their manager has already decided to fire them, but has to jump through legal hoops and have some “justification” so the company can’t be sued.

The best thing is for the guy to do the minimum, devoting his time to the job search.

Maybe also see a lawyer and send a registered letter to the company noting how the PIP is impossible and rigged for failure, to negotiate a better severance.

Bob says:

Depends on the company, and the manager. Some PIPs are sincere and legitimate. You’re right often enough to taint the whole process, but not so often that it’s a safe generality. Also, as most companies are “at will employers,” the lawsuit threat is overblown. They can and often do terminate employees with no stated cause at all.

Still, most of your advice is sound, except that employees on PIPs do need to be open minded about the possibility that they really do need to make some changes.

* * *

Bob …

Having been on all sides of this:

  • Good managers will tell you they’re unhappy long before you get a PIP. Bad ones may not.
  • If you’re reporting to a new manager, read your past appraisals to see if there is anything to suggest your previous managers had the same concerns but didn’t want to go to the trouble of going through the process. Your new manager might just be the first one willing to do so.
  • One way to know if the PIP is real and not window dressing or the result of a hidden agenda: What you need to do will be totally within your control and you will have what you need when you need it.
  • If you have a bad manager, hitting the PIP’s goals would save your job, but you may not get the support you need when you need it to hit them.
  • If you have a manager with an agenda, it won’t matter how hard you work, and factors beyond your control — factors that aren’t obvious to anyone in HR — may conspire to keep you from reaching the PIP’s goals. Example: needing the support of other people for whom you and your goals are a low priority at best.
  • Might you have annoyed a higher-level manager, whether directly or indirectly? You might be dealing with “delegated discipline,” at which point you have a manager with an agenda.
  • Ask HR what rights you have. Then ask someone who’s been around a while the same question. If HR seems to be leaving things out, you probably have a boss with an agenda and HR is backing them.

Bob says …

This is excellent advice. Thanks!

Someone once said we’re all smarter than any of us are. Thanks to all who, by writing, helped demonstrate the point.

Comments