Does seniority equal entitlement?

I was speaking with a colleague the other day about a recent reorganization we were aware of at another company that essentially replaced the head of a department with that person’s subordinate. My colleague noted that was a shame because the person demoted (he wasn’t let go) had seniority over the person who assumed his duties.

My reaction was “What does seniority have to do with the ability to manage effectively and drive a unit to success?” Seniority is one of those areas in work life that I am really torn on. I believe that hard work, commitment, and loyalty should be rewarded but longevity in a position is not necessarily proof of that. Because of poor management practices, there are times when a person with less than stellar performance remains around for a long time because she’s trouble and rather than deal with her, management passes her around. Over time this employee not only remains with the organization but often climbs the ladder as well!

I’m not implying that this was the case with the employee my colleague and I were speaking of, just that when you begin to talk about seniority, the waters can get muddy really fast.

There’s no doubt that an employee’s longevity in an organization can be beneficial. However, does being around a long time mean that one should be automatically promoted should the opportunity arise?

My answer is no. While I think it should play a factor in the decision making, I don’t believe it should be weighted so heavily as to make the outcome inevitable. I stand by the argument that the most qualified person for the position should be in the position - period. This is, of course, ignoring office politics (which is the elephant in the room that I am conveniently ignoring right now).

Those readers who are unionized are probably reading the above and having a conniption fit right about now. Organized labor is often heavily slanted towards seniority and one must “pay his dues” (no pun intended) before getting a shot at a promotion. Perhaps even more importantly, they place a great deal of emphasis on seniority when it comes to reductions in force, with a first-in, last-out type of mentality thta can result in less senior employees “bumped” out of their positions.

While I understand the safeguards this provides (it curtails management from cutting higher-wage employees and replacing them with lower-paid less senior employees), there’s an underlying unfairness in it all. Being someplace for a long time should not equate to entitlement at any level of the organization.

Having said all of the above, in a perfect world, the most qualified person for a position would fill a position when it becomes available. However we don’t live in that perfect world nor is determining who is best qualified anything close to an exact science. In fact, it’s closer to an art than a science.

Now, let’s talk about that elephant in the room. Politics can and does encompass everything from personal likes and dislikes, organizational power, organizational and personal values and beliefs, contracts, policy and procedures, just to name a few. These factors add to the complexity of the promotion/retention process. Seniority can and often does fall into the area of organizational and personal beliefs or explicit rules based on a contract.

If the rules are explicit regarding seniority, the process is simplified. But I’ll argue that the results are not optimal for the organization.

If the rules are not explicit, then the results vary and can lead to optimal hires for an organization or not, depending on the culture of the organization and the tendency for management to view seniority as an entitlement.

We’re all familiar with the Peter Principle, that people rise to their level of incompetence, is strongly rooted in promotion by seniority. Being around for a long time doesn’t necessarily equal being best qualified for a position. I will reiterate that there is some value in longevity, but it should not be over emphasized.

It’s a problem when employees who haven’t been “around long enough” are not even considered for a higher position.” That practice can be detrimental for the organization and demoralizing for staff. People don’t want to see someone get promoted who is less qualified than they are, no matter how long they’ve been with the organization.

Obviously this is not clear cut issue, but in the realm of management and leadership, longevity may or may not make you wise and it should not be a guarantee for promotion. Agree or disagree? Have you been passed over for promotion because someone more senior got the position and you felt better qualified? Let me know what you think.

Some thoughts on passing as an extrovert

A lot of professional project management consultants choose to pass rather than reveal their true colors. We choose to pretend to welcome people to our cubes, to speak up during the unending roll of meetings, and to actually leave our space in order to find out what is going on. In other words, we choose to pass as extroverts rather than the introverts we truly are. In some cases this transformation is so extreme that our friends and family would not recognize us inside the business environment.

It gets worse. Almost all of the business advice is written by extroverts for extroverts. The structure of business emphasizes the skills of extroverts (e.g. willingness to communicate trivial details, ability to endure the company of a number of people for hours on end) rather than the talents introverts bring to the table. So, where is the reference for the rest of us?

So, what is a dedicated project manager who also happens to be an introvert to do? I don’t mean in terms of passing. I mean what do we do in terms of genuinely aligning our personal preferences with the needs of our project teams? How do we stop pretending and start really getting involved?

First, we have to accept that an introvert who leads does not do so in the same way that an extrovert does. An extrovert leads by using his charisma and ability to connect to draw others into his circle. It’s kind of like encountering a jamming field inside of which the target’s mind doesn’t work quite right. An introvert leads by understanding and assisting others in understanding what needs to be done.

Second, we have to toss the PMBOK in the circular file. Yes, I know it’s popular with project management wonks and introverts of all descriptions. It gives us a handy reference and the ability to create hundreds of useless documents to hide behind. At it’s worst, we can use the thing as a “cookbook”, a step-by-step guide to miserable failure.

The seductive allure of process, any process, needs to be discarded in favor of honest self-reflection and analysis. Most processes serve to record information for extroverts, who have memories like mayflies anyway. What we need is to focus our attention on understanding what is happening, why it is occurring, and how we can get our teams to act in a way that will restore blessed silence as quickly as possible.

To do this we need data. Lots of data. Fortunately most modern introverts are class-A infovores, and we have access to wellsprings of information exceeding our ancestors’ fondest dreams. While the extroverts go out and glad-hand, we have the ability to figure out what’s really going on. Don’t let your lack of knowledge regarding “accounting” or “technology” or “fruit-juice” stop you either; it’s all data and it all obeys structured rules regarding its analysis. Learn the rules, sort the data into models, and work it out.

Finally, get out of the front lines. We are introverts, not extroverts. It’s not necessary for us to speak with everyone, all the time, everyday. Find an extrovert on the team, appoint him “team leader” or some such nonsense, and let him speak up and field questions. This kind of front-office/back-office approach to project management (whether done with a team leader or two project managers) can produce impressive results.

Good luck, my fellow introverts, and remember: it is no longer considered ok to growl at the person who comes into your cube for the fifteenth time that day to discuss his potted plants.

Meeting the software development challenge with static source code analysis

This white paper highlights key business and technology issues facing large software development teams and discusses how Coverity's groundbreaking static source code analysis technology enables them to detect and fix critical defects and security vulnerabilities early in the development process.


here is the pdf.

source @TechRepublic