We're a free community of over 18,000 Texas technology professionals here to network and promote our local tech scene.
If you're working in semiconductors, hardware, software, or IT in Texas, join us!
Online Job Search "Vomit Keyword" Bingo
Submitted by johnlogic on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 5:11pm.
::
Share this on Facebook!
When viewing online job postings, I often find many terms that just seem to turn my stomache instantly every time I see them. Some are just over-used, but others tell me that the writer is a clueless idiot with whom I'd never, ever want to work.
(In sharp contrast, and not-at-all surprisingly, Google seems to be consistently professional with its job listings. For example, see "Enterprise Technical Support Specialist - Austin".)
Here are some I found today, and what I read into them:
- "Web 2.0" : In the grand scheme of things, computer technology (including WWW) evolves continuously, not discretely.
- "[We are] [currently] in stealth mode" : If this were true and included with a detailed description of the company (as often seems to be the case), it's a recipe for disaster; if I were an investor and saw this, I'd sue the writer. If you need to be discreet and can only tell me what you're looking for, do so.
- angel-funded, well-funded, pre-IPO, acquisition target, etc. : generally means "no money coming in" and "fruits of your labor will go elsewhere"
- "cool" : That's highly subjective; tell me why I should think you are.
- "We are not [just] another..." : If you feel the need to write this, you are.
- "[push us to] the next level" : means "We are all out of ideas and desperately need outside help."
Comments? What are some of your (least) favorites?
- johnlogic's blog
- Login or register to post comments
This actually pretty funny. I have not been looking lately, but there are a plethora of stupid requests like: Commission Only Position (we have no money, but if you work hard we will have money but will not pay YOU for getting it for us). Matrix Management (We are so confused on what we are doing that we actually have no structure at all).
Your comment about "matrix management" hits too close to home. That is the style my employer has recently moved to. Sometimes I feel it is a rationalization of the "Office Space"ism of software people feeling like they have 6 bosses...
Yep, and there are "flavors."
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
If its anything what it sounds like, I would suspect my employer is using the "weak matrix"...
"Swarm," often debated. According to "Wiki" matrix is:
Matrix management is a type of organizational management in which people with similar skills are pooled for work assignments. For example, all engineers may be in one engineering department and report to an engineering manager, but these same engineers may be assigned to different projects and report to a project manager while working on that project. Therefore, each engineer may have to work under several managers to get their job done.
Too hard to deal with? WHY?
The problem is that usually the workers are assigned to more than one project at a time, and each of those project managers as well as the department manager all have their own priorities and agenda and so the worker gets lots of interrupts and conflicting orders.
Multi-tasking is the problem? Or is it that a company doesn't have enough staff engineers to spread around to individual tasks? Or is it that the company doesn't have enough work to justify hiring more engineers so the engineers have to "double-up" on tasks?
Multi-tasking isn't the problem in and of itself, its that if a person has six bosses and all of them want 100% of their time, they've got a problem. Workers get caught in the middle of turf wars and/or get pulled multiple directions at once sometimes virtually dismembered. When a company has 1/3 the number of people it had a few years ago and yet wants to do more work, how is that supposed to happen? It would be easier to stomach if the company wasn't crowing about how they are trying to become "one of the top companies to work for" and about how supposedly they are growing their sales at the same time they are cutting head count and not giving any salary increases to employees for the 3rd year in a row. If times were really tough, employees would probably feel better if they were told that rather than fed a lot of spin that doesn't match what is actually happening.
Common situation with us project managers -- some handle it better than others.
Typically, a project acquires resources (people) from various functional managers who oversee teams of developers, testers, and the like. A project manager for each project will need to source from many different managers.
Each of those managers has priorities that may conflict with a particular project -- maintenance, training, programs with higher priorities, the crisis du jour, etc.
The project has upstream stakeholders as well -- Directors, VPs, and the like including a sponsor or owner. This group of stakeholders also has multiple projects in the pipeline with sometimes conflicting priorities, the crisis du jour, etc.
Project managers typically have multiple projects. Ditto.
For the developer, there are (again) multiple projects and all matrixed in different patterns. Double ditto.
For a Java developer, as one example, assigned to four or five projects from different areas it can be a nightmare juggling what their functional manager needs with the needs coming from multiple project managers all fanatically dedicated to pushing their pet project through on time (something they are required to accomplish if they wish to retain their job).
Since the projects often come from different business areas, it is possible to have five projects all rated as top priority, high priority, or critical.
To the extent they are present, a PMO or some system of program and/or portfolio management can mitigate these conflicts. Good project managers with appropriate skills and experience can mitigate the effects also.
As mentioned previously, some PMs are better than others so anyone's specific experience depends on where they are and who they're working with at any given time. In any case, good communications and transparency among all groups is essential to sanity and employee retention. These conflicts can, if left unaddressed, create chaos and multiple failures.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Aside from the fact that there is plenty of "mumbo-jumbo" terminology tossed around in a number of different circles (some in South Texas but in alot of other places as well), what is actually funny is that as with many things, "one size does not fit all." Of course, given some of what I have witnessed and read, some of this is not at all surprising.
Here are some I found today, and what I read into them:
"Web 2.0" : In the grand scheme of things, computer technology (including WWW) evolves continuously, not discretely.
"[We are] [currently] in stealth mode" : If this were true and included with a detailed description of the company (as often seems to be the case), it's a recipe for disaster; if I were an investor and saw this, I'd sue the writer. If you need to be discreet and can only tell me what you're looking for, do so.
angel-funded, well-funded, pre-IPO, acquisition target, etc. : generally means "no money coming in" and "fruits of your labor will go elsewhere"
"cool" : That's highly subjective; tell me why I should think you are.
"We are not [just] another..." : If you feel the need to write this, you are.
"[push us to] the next level" : means "We are all out of ideas and desperately need outside help."
There are clearly exceptions to any of the rules herein after implied. For example, a company that is in "stealth mode," could indeed be a very real company with no need or desire to seek publicity or even allow the public to know that it exists (mine is such a company, and, for example, has no website). There is also no shame in having a company with little or no money coming in, especially if it is a temporary rather than persistent condition.
So, let's talk a look at the concept of Matrix Management. As noted, there might be degrees of reality in this, but ask the question of why or whether structure is needed in a cross-disciplinary management team in which work and tasks are associated with the skills of those involved. Is that structure? I don't believe that it is. Now, once again, I "fear for my life" in making any analogies that cause angst with people in the IT, game or software fields. So, I am not sure of the varying flavors, but there are many free form management styles and companies that do work. Often, especially in less structured environments, some people who need more guidance or direction, or who have more broad requirements for immediate feedback or sense of place within an organization, are not suited to work in such settings. As time passes and the less structured and more free-form businesses that emerge (as leaders in their fields etc.), the less likely it is that people who need structure will be able to survive or thrive.
Management and various styles of management are as many as the flavors at Baskin Robbins or Hagen Daz. The science of management is constantly evolving, both because of technology and the capabilities that "it" affords, and maybe even moreso because of the geographic and/or global spread of the workforce. Basically, some people need the security blanket of structure and organization; others are adept at working within a free-form environment and can thrive without having to deal with a traditionally structured work place.
Bottom line is that is the reason why some people are managers and know how to grow an organization, and others are left to be the employees. Management of free-form organizations, is a skill developed over years after learning in more structured situations. By the way, and not to needlessly create more intellectual debate, that, at least to me, is the beauty of a "swarm" mentality. If skilled and experienced people know their jobs and understand the tasks at hand, there is little functional reason for structure other than for the comfort of those who have difficulty in such unstructured systems.
Lack of structure in no way implies lack of leadership...or even lack of organization.
One motivating factor behind matrix management is the big differential between project work (defined-term; narrowly defined output) and functional management (continous; multiple outputs).
Matrix systems allow for both flexibility and definition. Project managers and resources move freely between projects. Functional / Line managers focus on resource forecasting, training, HR, maintenance, and other ongoing items.
There's more but that's a start.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
I understand that, but regardless of the management model, there will always be people who cannot (or will no) adapt. Not everyone can operate in a flexible environment.
Nothing wrong with free form, swarm, or other models either. Really depends on the needs, goals, and skills available in the organization. And, yes, not all people are adaptable to every model. There is no "one size fits all" model.
Come to think of it, there's no "one size fits all" anything. I've tried the clothes; they're not ;~)
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
One thing I can tell you is that management styles and techniques which work for companies the size of yours don't always scale well to companies with hundreds or thousands of employees. While I doubt you'd get many people tell you that the traditional top-heavy hierarchical management structures are without their own issues, unfortunately there is also a point at which the simpler systems that work well for entrepreneurial companies often start to break down as growth happens.
We're going to have to agree to disagree again. Managing multi-disciplinary teams, whether in an open model or in a "swarm" type model can work. My opinion (albeit only my opinion) is that the levels of skill sets (not just professional or technical competancy) all enable a flexible and dynamic working environment.
As I've described my management style before, its a 24/7/365 brainstorming session with problem solution being the only goal. I also know that "swarm" has successfully been implemented in large companies. Disparate workforces, geographically dispersed people can all align if they are the "right" people (in the right environment for them). Not everyone can do it.
commission only- we will work you hard and if you help our company grow, we might be able to give you some money. its a ridiculous offering and unfortunately it is becoming a common trend. What ever happened to investing in people?
Ask the gov't to underwrite some of the costs of maintaining a staff and overhead for small businesses. When small companies take the short end of the stick (in the eye) while the BIG COMPANIES get bailed out for incompetant management, pay for performance becomes the norm vs "investing in people."
Good observation. I once saw a similar glossary for the Craiglist for-sale section (e.g. antique / vintage = old and crappy)
From an applicant perspective (and I hope I don't offend anyone here who labels themselves as such), I see WAY too many "social media experts" out there. I don't consider myself one, and I think some folks consider themselves as achieving social media expert status by means of having (a) an account on any two of facebook, myspace, linkedin, or twitter, and (b) a pulse. In other words, that term means nothing to me anymore.
Apparently the role of a 'social media expert' is to sell how-to dogma to people who want to become a 'social media expert' so that they can sell dogma to... well; you get the idea ;~)
Twitter and Facebook become MLM platforms.
I'm unsure of the 'pulse' status in some pertinent examples -- seems to be more of an auto-responder / robot thing ;~)
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave