Favoritism in the High Tech Workplace

I’m going to address a topic that isn’t often discussed formally by top management within a business, certainly not out in the open. It’s a major topic in HR circles, I’m sure. It’s also a major topic, in hushed tones, around the water cooler and during lunch among friends. But regardless of how little formal attention it gets, this is an important issue that exists in nearly every workplace, large and small. While it’s not something that gets addressed in management meetings or SEC filings, I’d venture to guess that it can have as much affect on a company as most “high profile” management topics.

The Problem

The issue that I’ m referring to is Workplace Favoritism. If you’ve ever worked in an organization larger than two people, I suspect that you’ve seen it. Favoritism is part of human nature. No two people interact similarly to any other two, so it’s impossible for all workplace relationships to be “equal”. It’s only natural to gravitate to people that you share common interests with, and with whom you have an easy rapport. And of course, there’s nothing wrong with any of this, on the surface. The problems surface when one of three distinct things ocurr:

1. When a good rapport and shared interests lead to a PERCEPTION that an employee is getting favored treatment from a manager


2. When a manager ACTUALLY PROVIDES unfair preferential treatment for one employee at the expense of others


3. Nepotism, the granddaddy of workplace favoritism

So you might be thinking, hey, this is pretty subjective stuff. There are many people in the workplace who are extremely sensitive, and are looking around every corner for perceived slights and injustices. Women can be suspicious that they’re being shut out of participation in the best projects, or advancement, because of the “Old Boys Club”—oftentimes with good reason, unfortunately. There are also many under-performers who look at other’s relationships, in an attempt to convince themselves that it’s something other than their own shortcomings that is preventing them from getting ahead.

What defines favoritism?

I don’t believe that you can, or should, treat everyone the same. I’m not an advocate of communism. People who perform well should be rewarded. And a single management style doesn’t work equally well with all employees. Some people need more attention to fulfill their potential, while others excel with less attention and more autonomy. And speaking strictly about nepotism, just because an employee is related to someone in a position of power, doesn’t insure they are lazy or incompetent.

So when does smart, individualized management of employees cross the line into unfair favoritism?

It crosses the line when an employee receives extra benefits that are perceived to result from a “special relationship” rather than from excelling in job performance.

The actions in question can be pretty subtle, and the employees who feel slighted might be very good at hiding their true feelings. So it’s also very easy for a manager to think there’s no real problem, and often be totally oblivious to perceptions of favoritism.

But it is extremely important for management to be hyper-sensitive to this issue. While this is a universal business issue, I feel it is particularly important to high technology enterprises. High Tech companies, particularly startups, are built to move very fast. A big aspect of that speed advantage is often the company cultures, which tend to be open and collaborative. To ignore this issue in a High Tech business is to invite a loss of productivity, or in extreme circumstances, an actual destruction of the company culture that you’ve worked hard to create. Resentment can build quickly when favoritism is suspected. Resentment quickly becomes bitterness, and bitterness leads to all sorts of behavior which creates problems for companies. Plummeting productivity, divisions between the perceived “haves” and “have-nots”, absenteeism and attrition. All of this has the potential to slow down or even stop a fast-moving, but embryonic, High Tech business very quickly.

Perception, not reality

I want to emphasize that it’s the PERCEPTION of favoritism that does the damage. If there is actual favoritism, you can argue that management is just getting what they deserve. But I’ve seen proud managers who think that since they’re not actually doing anything wrong, that should be enough—people will recognize it. They may also feel that they are too busy worrying about “real” business problems that are critical to the business in the near term, to be concerned with such “soft”issues. They’ll let HR worry about such things. Or since they’re not actually guilty, they believe that they just don’t need to defend themselves further. Lastly, they might think that since they’re the “all powerful” boss, they can do what they want, and no one will challenge their decisions.

In nearly all cases, no matter the justification, the companies of managers who ignore perceptions of favoritism will suffer as a result of the oversight.

This is a pretty confusing topic, with a lot of room for misperception on both the management and employee sides. But it’s extremely important for management to directly address the issue head-on. So what’s a manager to do to avoid the PERCEPTION of favoritism, which as discussed above, can be just as damaging as actual favoritism?

Common Sense Approach

I propose that it’s not hard to take a common sense approach to favoritism. Here are the rules I suggest management try to live by:

1. Do everything within your power to insure that advancement, perks and compensation are based strictly upon objective performance measures
   
2. Strive to treat everyone fairly, if not necessarily the same
   
3. Put yourself in your employee’s shoes--think back to before you were a manager, and evaluate whether you might feel a particular action feels like favoritism
   
4. Create an environment where any employee feels comfortable discussing a perceived injustice with management—this enables managers to nip misconceptions in the bud
   
5. Practice an open door policy—this also contributes to a culture of trust, which can sooth ruffled feathers before hurt feelings can fester and turn a situation far more sour
   
6. Manage potential perceptions of favoritism proactively—it’s much easier to prevent the perception up front, than it is to “put out the fire” once it’s raging
   
7. If at all possible, avoid family relationships within the workplace. If this isn’t possible, apply the highest performance standard possible to the relative in the junior position

Google PageRank Calculator Tool

Hi everyone,

Here’s another neat little tool on the Web that I’ve been putting to good use. It’s called ThinkBling, and it’s a Google PageRank calculator.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, a webpage’s Google PageRank provides a rough estimate of its “desirability” to the Google Search engine. Basically, the higher the PageRank that a webpage has, the more likely it will be to pop up on a keyword search done by someone using the Google Search Engine. There are a lot of calculator’s out there, but this one I’ve found to be the friendliest to use. You simply enter up to 50 webpage URLs and the ThinkBling PageRank calculator quickly determines the PageRank of each webpage, and returns those value to you. It couldn’t be simpler, and provides you with a great starting point on how your website is doing in the Search Engine wars.

Your Google PageRank is a great indicator of how easily people will be able to find your site. You may have built a great looking site with excellent content, but if no one can find it, it won’t do your business nearly as much good as it could. I liken it to building a grand casino or retail superstore in the middle of a cornfield, 100 miles from the nearest town and with no roads leading to it. That’s the real world analogy to an attractive website with a low PageRank.

You can use the PageRank calculator to determine what pages on your site need work, to appear higher in the search rankings. There are many things that go into getting your pages to have a high listing during a keyword search—applicable content is obviously important, as well as keyword density. But relevant links into a page is critical for a high PageRank, and something everyone should be working on, if they’re not already. The discussion on improving your site’s SEO is a long and somewhat complex discussion (way too complex and detailed for this article). However, everyone should become aware of its importance to their company’s business, and find out where they stand. Only by knowing where you stand can you then learn what changes can improve your rankings. The stakes of doing a good job on SEO are huge—and ThinkBling’s Advanced Google PageRank Checker is a great place to start. I recommend you give it a test spin!

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/
    

The Internet Marketing Start Page

It’s time to clue you all in about another nice resource I’ve run across on the Web. This site is called the Internet Marketing Start Page. It’s a great place to start your day, if you’re a professional Marketer, Entrepreneur, or otherwise just want to keep up with the latest tools and trends in marketing online. The Internet Marketing Start page basically is just what is says it is: a great start page, with anything and everything to do with marketing that’s available on the Internet. For anyone that doesn’t already have a favorite page, I’d recommend that you configure your browser and start your day on this page. There is so much information available, that it can actually give you a “creative push” to consider new things, rather than just being a passive resource that you refer to from time to time.

Included are entire sections on portals, search engines, marketing discussion forums, Webmaster tools, Business/Marketing/Technology News sources, Marketing & Advertising references, Industry Stats. It’s a resource with a truly rich array of great stuff for the High Tech Marketer. Give it a test drive and let me know what you think!

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

The Rise and Fall of Novell

Once again one of the great brand names of High Tech has been prominently in the news, for disconcerting reasons (if you’re a fan or shareholder, anyway). This time it’s Novell, Inc. A couple of weeks ago Novell announced that they are to lay off 1000 people, roughly 20% of their workforce. Certainly not a minor reduction, and not the first of its kind for this former industry stalwart.

This company holds a special place in my memory. In the early 90’s the Novell name was synonymous with Networking. The company was a pioneer in Corporate Networking, and played a major role in helping to create this market as we now know it. When I entered this market in 1990, the company’s core product, NetWare, held a commanding 70%+ market share in the networking software space, which was already very large at the time, and growing at a rapid rate. It was in this environment that I began my first general management position, starting up a systems and network management software business. Netware being the dominant NOS at the time, I got a very close look at the company’s activities, and some of the decisions and events that began Novell’s long decline. Novell is still a $1B company, but in terms of power and prominence, they are a shadow of the company I kept a close eye on in the 90s. It appears they are spiraling down toward a possible finish. The speculation is that they will become an acquisition candidate very soon, which could lead to the venerable Novell brand fading from view.

So what caused the unfortunate change in fortunes for this former industry high-roller?

It’s a familiar story, actually, especially for those of you who are regular readers. The Novell story is particularly interesting, because several factors, each one itself capable of wreaking havoc on a solid company, came together to put this company into a long nosedive.

MICROSOFT-ITIS

The first problem was what I call “Microsoft-itis”. Novell became very successful on the back of its flagship NetWare platform, which drew the attention of Microsoft. Microsoft tends to become unhappy when any other software company grows too big, too fast. The upstart is then viewed as a potential threat in Redmond, as well as the fact that the market this other company has helped grow now becomes large enough to be attractive to MS. So the first problem was getting in the gun sight of Microsoft. Now, it’s hard to blame the company for this, it’s more of a side effect of success. This situation has caused problems for many a company, and is enough unto itself to throw a large majority of companies off their game. To have Microsoft target you is quite disconcerting, and if you don’t make the right decisions, you may be in serious trouble. How a company reacts to this challenge is critical, and in truth, often life or death.

ARROGANCE

Unfortunately, in some cases, being targeted by Microsoft sometimes builds a company up in its own view. It’s almost a baptism into the big-time. Microsoft is worried about us; we’re a peer to them now! We must really be smart! This leads to a false sense of security about the company’s true position in the market, leading to the second factor which can bring a company down—Arrogance.

Novell had plenty of excuses to be arrogant, even without Microsoft’s attention. They were truly dominating the Network Operating System business. The brand was dominant, the product was good, and the worldwide distribution network of VARs and distributors was second to none. Sales people at Novell no longer had to sell—they took orders. That led to a need to keep the big ball fast growth rolling, even as the market matured and became quite large. Wall Street, you know. Novell became known as a company that pushed, rather than created via pull marketing. There were numerous channel-stuffing scandals, so sales people could make their quarterly numbers and max out their bonus. No matter, things were well in hand, Novell was on a roll.

The closest competitor at the time was Banyan, with their VINES operating system. Banyan had a nice niche in the largest, WAN oriented corporations, but was no threat to Novell’s dominance. There was also a fast growing peer-to-peer player, Artisoft, who had a nice niche in the entry level market. Again, Artisoft posed no serious threat. And then there was Microsoft, with its alliance on the LAN Manager NOS with 3Com. At the time, Microsoft’s distribution strategy was still to primarily be an OEM supplier, preferring to let others take the lead in bringing the product to the end user market. They had piggybacked the hardware vendors with DOS and the emerging Windows 3.0, and were attempting to use that strategy in the Networking market with 3Com as their main partner. 3Com at the time was a dominant networking hardware vendor. They also teamed with many suppliers of UNIX software to create private label versions of LAN Manager for each UNIX flavor—HP UX, for instance. There were about 17 other platform partners, as I recall. It looked like a formidable syndicate which could challenge Novell for market leadership.

However, like many early Microsoft entrées into new markets, the offering was a joke. LAN Manager ran on top of OS/2, which should tell you something about its lack of success, right there. Technically inferior, with too many players involved to advance and support it, LAN Manager never gained significant traction vs. Netware, even with huge amounts of money being poured into development and marketing. Major new releases would be announced, each which was supposed be the one to give Novell a run for its money. It became a running joke in the network business. At this point, Novell looked invincible.

LOSING FOCUS

Then the arrogance at Novell rose to new levels. Apparently thinking Microsoft couldn’t beat them at their own game, Ray Noorda and senior management at Novell decided to also take on Microsoft on their own turf. Not only that, but to compete across many, many categories. They decided they wanted to become the new Microsoft, and in doing so opened a multi-front war against a larger competitor, with far more resources (See Hitler opening up the Russian front in the War against the Allies).

Novell bought WordPerfect to compete with MS Word, Quattro Pro to compete with Excel, and announced a dizzying array of additional new initiatives. (See Netscape taking a similar approach in its heyday, as well as Google is now, as we speak—that ought to be interesting). No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has won a multi-front war with Microsoft. The people that have fended them off (which is a small list), when MS has put them in their headlights, have done so by sticking to their knitting, and playing by the rules of their own market segment. Intuit is a notable example, which was able to keep MS in a minor role in the Personal Financial software segment, by advancing and focusing on its own offerings and current market.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Well, many of you who have been in High Tech for a while probably already know the result. Microsoft finally split with 3COM, developed Windows NT, essentially building Networking into the Operating System. This finally began to hurt Netware, and although it wasn’t an immediate rout, over time NT became the clear winner. The terminator of Redmond can be knocked down, but they almost never give up—they just go deeper into their pockets, and keep on coming.

The acquisitions that Novell made were already second or third tier products, and their markets were outside of Novell’s core market and competency. Drained of resources and fighting losing battles on many fronts, Novell was soundly defeated, ultimately selling off many of its acquisitions, retrenching and changing their strategy—quite a few times over the years, I might add. They went into a long, slow decline, and once this begins at a large company, it’s very difficult to truly turn it around.

WHAT IF?

So what would have happened it Novell hadn’t reacted like Netscape later did, choosing to battle it out toe-to-toe with Microsoft, blinded in a fit of rage and bravado? What if they had followed a similar strategy to the one that Intuit took? What if they had marshaled their resources, and kept their focus on maintaining the lead they had in Network Operating Systems and related businesses—which were pretty big markets in their own right? Hindsight is always 20/20, but my guess is that they would have had a much better chance of continued success—and possibly avoided the sad headlines in the Trade Magazines of the last few weeks.

So that’s my take—please post a comment below, or email me your view.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Publicize your News for Free

I wanted to let you know about another great online resource I've been using for a few years. It's call PRWEB, www.prweb.com

PRWEB is a "free" Internet-based, press release Newswire. I have found it to be a great service. Previously I used PR Newswire and BusinessWire. They are excellent services, and not tremendously expensive. But I've found PRWEB to be just as good, if not better, in many circumstances.

Sending out a basic press release is free, although PRWEB does request "donation" support. Even a small donation gives you access to value-added services, to further distribute or track the results of your press release campaign. A number of them are well worth it.

There is no excuse not to write press releases with such a great, inexpensive service available. It's one of the highest return activities a high tech company can do, as I've stated before. And the cash outlay is practically nil, so even the thinnest market budget can issue a press release in a very professional manner.

There are several other similar services available. PRLeap (www.prleap.com) is another I've heard is good, although I haven't used it personally.

So make sure you don't ever use cost as an excuse again to prevent you from writing and publicizing your new product news.