The Haphazard Development of People in Early Stage High Tech Organizations

Many entrepreneurs start out giving little thought to how they will grow their embryonic technology business in the long run. They are totally focused on designing and releasing the first product, or making that first sale. This focus is usually a very positive thing in a new company, since grandiose plans of startups have a way of getting derailed by the harsh realities of trying to survive.

Other more organized and contemplative entrepreneurial types have a master plan all laid out, including the steps on how they are going to grow their company all the way to the happy exit they have planned. This approach can be of great benefit as well; even though things won't go exactly as planned, it's great to have a road map that you can adjust as conditions change.

One thing that many younger organizations don't do so well, is in planning the development of their staff. Don't misunderstand; there are a lot of development opportunities for employees of newer and smaller companies. But this development often just "happens"; there is little thought that goes into it. A job needs to be done--and a particular body is more available than any other. The fit may not be ideal--and the amount of training given minimal. But the person is thrown in to sink or swim, because like the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention". It needs to happen, and it often works out well a surprisingly large amount of the time, given the haphazard way in which this "personnel development" often occurs.

But is this optimal, even within the constraints of a hard-charging software or hardware company? Most of the time, with a bit of foresight and a strategic pause, you can increase the odds of successfully stretching your current staff, into areas where expertise or experience are lacking. Below are five simple steps that may greatly increase your success rate in growing

Consider Psychographic Profiles Of Candidates In Your Hiring Choices
Like most things that are done in company development, if you hire the right people, things are likely to turn out better--no matter WHAT curves the marketplace throws your way. So try to think ahead when hiring that next entry-level employee, to fill the open clerical or support role. What other activities may need to be done in the near future? In what areas could this new employee be grown? Are you hiring the most flexible candidate, the type that will be most comfortable when you try to "stretch" them into an unfamiliar role? Will they freak out at being asked to perform a new and challenging activity, or will they embrace it as an attractive career growth opportunity? Try to think ahead, and the answer to your next personnel crises might be right down the hall.

Plan Ahead As Much As Possible
As mentioned above, it's really useful to try to think ahead to what functions will need staffing in the next 3, 6 or 9 months. This type of strategic thinking is difficult for many early stage managers, who are focused on getting through the end of the month. Unfortunately, this mentality often leads to hiring the person that will save a few nickels in initial salary, or has the most experience for the immediate position--therefore "hitting the ground running" with the least amount of training. But if you factor the medium and long term needs of your business into your hiring decisions, you may hire different candidate--who may add much more to the growth of the business over time.

Train At Least A Little--Don't Just Throw Them To The Wolves
Startups have a tendency to "throw people in the pool and see if they'll float". Many times managers will ask an employee to get started, and just do the best they can in the short term. It's often a crisis situation, and the manager intends to come back and train them when things settle down a bit. Unfortunately, in early stage companies, the situation NEVER settles down. As a result, you end up with an employee that fails, feels abandoned and neglected, or develops bad habits that become hard to undo. While it's hard to find the time or resources to provide training, for most people, it's an important factor in ultimately achieving success. So make it a priority to give the person in a new role some basic training, no matter what it takes.

Supplement And Train Using Consultants As Mentors
One great way to provide training and support to employees in new roles is to get some outside help. Many smaller companies don't believe that they can afford consultants, because their price tags for providing expertise and short term work are much higher than permanent employees. But that is usually "penny wise, but pound foolish". Most jobs that need doing, also need to be done right. If there isn't the expertise or senior management bandwidth available to train and support the employee in the new role, the job may not be done the way the manager intended--costing the company far more than the amount that outside help would. In these instances, an outside consultant is actually a very cost-effective way to prevent costly early mistakes, as well as putting the employee solidly on a track to long-term success in their new role.

Allow Room For Errors
Margin for error is usually less in early stage companies, with a resulting amount of high pressure to "get things right the first time". But it's unrealistic to think that someone new to a job, with minimal experience and support, will do everything perfectly the first time. Startup managers need to factor this into to their expectations, and plan for results to be a bit uneven at first. It's especially important that the demeanor of the manager makes the employee feel comfortable to take educated risks in the company's best interests, without feeling like any missteps could cost them their career.

SUMMARY
It's true that early stage tech companies can't afford to engage in the same type of organizational planning and personnel development that occurs in most giant corporations. However, that is somewhat offset by the vast opportunities for development that are found in these fast-changing, non-bureaucratic environments. Early stage tech companies are well served if they force themselves to engage in just a fraction of the planning done in larger corporations. Post a comment and let us know what you think about organizational development in startup companies.

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

Organizational Structures in Software & High Tech Companies

So you've put together a hardware or software startup company. Chances are you didn't give a lot of thought to what the next step should be in organization development--you just wanted to bring in some revenue and find a way to keep the doors open. Or, maybe you gave it a great deal of thought, even before you bound your initial business plan--there are quite a few anal-retentive planning types out there--you know who you are!

I don't mean to make light of this issue; it's actually quite a serious one. Let's look at a few of the questions to consider when deciding how to organize your company, as well as a few options.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO PONDER

What are the strengths, weaknesses, and operating styles of the principals? I believe that this is a critical question to ponder, if one wants to organize the company successfully. One of my great examples is HP. Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard instituted a decentralized structure almost from the very beginning of Hewlett-Packard. They were careful to keep the units small, by breaking them up as they grew. In my opinion, this was one of the great drivers of HP's success, and worked well because it suited their personalities, as well as the folks that they hired. They believed in "Management by Walking Around", but also believed in motivating high performance by allowing their employees to use all of their talents, without unnecessary constraints. It seems simple, butit is often hard for managers (especially hands-on, entrepreneurial types) to give their employees enough rope and space to excel. I believe that this hands-off, decentralized approach only worked well because this style fit with Bill and Dave's personalities.

What are the key personality traits of your employees and target hires? Similar to the question about the principal's above, the organizational style needs to fit with the "personality" of your company, the culture. If you have a lot of type "A", self-motivated people with strong leadership skills, a decentralized org chart may fit better than a hierarchical, centralized approach.

Are there disparate technologies within the company? This is a big driver in deciding how to organize. If you have several different technologies, how do they fit together technically--if at all? Do they fit together from a market perspective? If there is a lot of synergy or need to coordinate between technologies/products, a centralized, hierarchical approach may work best. The less "fit" that there is between your core technologies or products, the more inclination I would have to organize using a decentralized, business unit approach. This assumes that the resources are available for a decentralized organization. But if resources are so scarce that you can't decentralize properly, does it make sense to try to be successful with multiple disparate products/technologies anyway?

Now let's take a look at some common ways to organize.

ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS

Hierarchical/Functional/Centralized - the classic organizational style of traditional businesses. The strength of this type of organization is that it is easier to optimize each function, as there are more resources available within each function in a centralized approach. This can enable a more sophisticated approach to best practices. On the downside, my first job was with a Big 3 Automotive manufacturer, which was VERY hierarchical and centralized. The company was SO hierarchical that it paralyzed the organization to a huge degree; trying to get even the simplest, small thing done had to go many levels up. It was like trying to turn a battleship on a dime, and really painful. I'm not a big fan of this style for larger organizations, but for smaller, single-market or single product companies, it generally is optimal.

Decentralized/Business Units - This is the polar opposite of the traditional hierarchical organization. It's my preference for growing companies who are starting to "spreading their wings" beyond their initial market or technology focus, as well as for larger companies. It's strength lies in the ability to keep lines of communications short, keeping personnel close to the marketplace, and motivate self-starters by providing more positions of broad responsibility. For medium-sized companies, the danger lies in decentralizing before there is really critical mass to run separate business units, which comes with some added costs due to duplication of functions. One good way to mitigate this is to centralize and share as many of the non-product specific functions as possible, such as finance, HR, quality control, etc. The key functions that absolutely need to reside in the business units are usually marketing, product development, possibly manufacturing (for hardware companies) and occasionally sales.

Product-Centric or Market-Centric- This is a variation that can be combined with either of the two major organizational structures above. For example, within your marketing department, there could be people assigned as product managers, or as market managers. Sometimes a hybrid approach is used, where there are product managers for unreleased products, and market managers for currently-marketed products.

Matrix - This organization style is "overlaid" on top of a more typical organizational structure, such as the types discussed above. The main idea is to set up "dotted line" teams, responsibilities and reporting structures that are desirable, but fall outside of the normal way a team is constituted within the main structure in use. For example, in a hierarchical organization, you might set up a matrixed, cross-functional team to put focus on the launch of an important new business initiative. This may give the new initiative more emphasis than it normally would get, given its modest contribution to the overall business at that point. If used properly, matrix management techniques can be a great way to dampen the negatives that are inevitable in any rigid organizational structure. It must be used with caution, however. If used too frequently, or without endowing the "head" of the matrix with real power to accomplish the desired goals, matrix organizations can quickly become ineffective and politically driven entities--and the butt of jokes around the water cooler.

This is just a quick take on a very complex topic. There are many different ways to organize a software or technology company for success--too many to discuss here. And we just touched on a few of the issues to consider. Hopefully this short article will stimulate some thinking on this topic, to avoid organizational structure which often form haphazardly as companies are started and grown. Post a comment if you have a take of your own.

Phil Morettini

PJM Consulting

www.pjmconsult.com