Analysis of the story in the previous post
Disclosure: Something very much like this happened to me. The account I wrote was fictionalized, the names were changed to keep me from getting sued by the bad guys, and I engineered the narrative to include as much complexity as I could stuff in a single, longish post.
This type of situation happens all too often in the high-tech world, and contractors are best advised to understand the situation thoroughly, before they post ill-advised and off-the-mark rants about recruiters, and before they wind up in the situation experienced by Carol, Ted and Alice.
Give Buzz Turnip and / or InterGalactic Consulting a bad review on Glass Door? OK, maybe they might have that coming, but who, exactly, is the correct target of a complaint, and what exactly is the complaint? Are the losers in this drama going to profit from complaining about the companies that hurt them?
This narrative of mine is an example of a Charlie Foxtrot. All the players involved have some responsibility for the bad situation. I'll break this down in some detail.
Three big forces are at play here: ignorance (multiple examples), failure to take ownership of responsibility, and massive power imbalances.
Bob: Bob is the only surviving contractor, and the only clear winner. He knew he was going to be handed a feces sandwich, and coldly and quickly dealt with it when it came. He, notably, did not bother to help his fellow newbie contractors. That was not his job, and he might well have lost if he had tried to help them. Bob could be socially labeled a jerk, but professionally, he played his cards exactly right. Bob took ownership of his information problem and aggressively figured it out. It really wasn't his responsibility, Jen should have done it, but he fixed it himself and so triumphed.
Carol, Ted and Alice: These hapless three were the big losers in my story. While they had the ability to do the job they were hired to do, they didn't understand contracting, didn't understand power imbalances, and expected to be treated with care, reasonableness, and honor. Instead, they got fired for something that was obviously not their fault, suffered huge relative losses due to breach of contract, and then had to go looking for another job while in a wounded condition.
Jen: Jen didn't really understand contractors, either. It was just luck that one of the four she hired knew enough to work around the challenges he faced. She took a fairly serious hit with the failure, and now has to work much, much harder. She will feel even more anxious and stressed as a result of her contractor fiasco. So far, Jen is a net loser.
While Trudie might be able to find her better, more hardened contractors the second round, Jen has now been burned, and will be far less trusting of Trudie the next time. Jen expected Trudie to solve her problems for her in exchange for money. That is a pretty silly expectation, and almost certainly was not a contract line item. Jen did not think contractors were any different than employees. That was a false assumption, seriously exacerbated by her company's internal narrative on the subject of resources.
Trudie: Trudie runs a staffing firm. Her job is to place contractors with principal companies. Her job has search, matching, selling, troubleshooting, personnel, paycheck and billing functions. She does not run a contractor training service, and "decency", given the huge power imbalance between her little business and the larger companies with which she does business, is not part of her job.
It's hard for Trudie to get customers (principal, hiring companies). She has lots of aggressive competition. Her customers will dump her at the drop of a hat and go with someone else. They are busy, and only go to her when they have nearly impossible staffing issues. Ordinary staffing concerns they can handle by themselves.
By the very nature of her job, Trudie has no choice but to look at the people she places with customers as resources. Trudie took a hit here, too. Jen will have a much harder time trusting her. Trudie will have to blame the contractors and fire them, and beg Jen to let her find better, tougher candidates. Trudie has some serious legal exposure, too, due to the broken contracts. However, she knows from experience few of the people she fires will bother to sue her.
Darl: Darl took a minor hit, since Jen, one of his direct reports, is having trouble meeting her obligations. Darl may wind up demoting Jen if the situation persists. Darl is detached, relatively un-touchable, and is a mega-prick. He did not support his new manager report, Jen. He just tossed a very vague and dangerous suggestion over her cube, and did not sit down with her and carefully train her in, nor properly plan for, her new responsibilities. NB: Training Jen in how to properly handle contractors was most definitely Darl's job, and he abdicated that responsibility.
Of all the people I describe in this narrative, the one with the most responsibility for the debacle was Darl. Darl is also the one with the most power, and is the least likely to be held responsible. IMHO, Darl should have been disciplined.
In the real world of high-tech, Darl gets off scot-free. Jen has to struggle. Carol, Ted and Alice may not make it. Trudie's business may go under, unless she has lots of other customers.
This type of situation happens all too often in the high-tech world, and contractors are best advised to understand the situation thoroughly, before they post ill-advised and off-the-mark rants about recruiters, and before they wind up in the situation experienced by Carol, Ted and Alice.
Give Buzz Turnip and / or InterGalactic Consulting a bad review on Glass Door? OK, maybe they might have that coming, but who, exactly, is the correct target of a complaint, and what exactly is the complaint? Are the losers in this drama going to profit from complaining about the companies that hurt them?
This narrative of mine is an example of a Charlie Foxtrot. All the players involved have some responsibility for the bad situation. I'll break this down in some detail.
Three big forces are at play here: ignorance (multiple examples), failure to take ownership of responsibility, and massive power imbalances.
Bob: Bob is the only surviving contractor, and the only clear winner. He knew he was going to be handed a feces sandwich, and coldly and quickly dealt with it when it came. He, notably, did not bother to help his fellow newbie contractors. That was not his job, and he might well have lost if he had tried to help them. Bob could be socially labeled a jerk, but professionally, he played his cards exactly right. Bob took ownership of his information problem and aggressively figured it out. It really wasn't his responsibility, Jen should have done it, but he fixed it himself and so triumphed.
Carol, Ted and Alice: These hapless three were the big losers in my story. While they had the ability to do the job they were hired to do, they didn't understand contracting, didn't understand power imbalances, and expected to be treated with care, reasonableness, and honor. Instead, they got fired for something that was obviously not their fault, suffered huge relative losses due to breach of contract, and then had to go looking for another job while in a wounded condition.
Jen: Jen didn't really understand contractors, either. It was just luck that one of the four she hired knew enough to work around the challenges he faced. She took a fairly serious hit with the failure, and now has to work much, much harder. She will feel even more anxious and stressed as a result of her contractor fiasco. So far, Jen is a net loser.
While Trudie might be able to find her better, more hardened contractors the second round, Jen has now been burned, and will be far less trusting of Trudie the next time. Jen expected Trudie to solve her problems for her in exchange for money. That is a pretty silly expectation, and almost certainly was not a contract line item. Jen did not think contractors were any different than employees. That was a false assumption, seriously exacerbated by her company's internal narrative on the subject of resources.
Trudie: Trudie runs a staffing firm. Her job is to place contractors with principal companies. Her job has search, matching, selling, troubleshooting, personnel, paycheck and billing functions. She does not run a contractor training service, and "decency", given the huge power imbalance between her little business and the larger companies with which she does business, is not part of her job.
It's hard for Trudie to get customers (principal, hiring companies). She has lots of aggressive competition. Her customers will dump her at the drop of a hat and go with someone else. They are busy, and only go to her when they have nearly impossible staffing issues. Ordinary staffing concerns they can handle by themselves.
By the very nature of her job, Trudie has no choice but to look at the people she places with customers as resources. Trudie took a hit here, too. Jen will have a much harder time trusting her. Trudie will have to blame the contractors and fire them, and beg Jen to let her find better, tougher candidates. Trudie has some serious legal exposure, too, due to the broken contracts. However, she knows from experience few of the people she fires will bother to sue her.
Darl: Darl took a minor hit, since Jen, one of his direct reports, is having trouble meeting her obligations. Darl may wind up demoting Jen if the situation persists. Darl is detached, relatively un-touchable, and is a mega-prick. He did not support his new manager report, Jen. He just tossed a very vague and dangerous suggestion over her cube, and did not sit down with her and carefully train her in, nor properly plan for, her new responsibilities. NB: Training Jen in how to properly handle contractors was most definitely Darl's job, and he abdicated that responsibility.
Of all the people I describe in this narrative, the one with the most responsibility for the debacle was Darl. Darl is also the one with the most power, and is the least likely to be held responsible. IMHO, Darl should have been disciplined.
In the real world of high-tech, Darl gets off scot-free. Jen has to struggle. Carol, Ted and Alice may not make it. Trudie's business may go under, unless she has lots of other customers.
Comments
Post a Comment