The Root Cause of Turnover in IT

date:2006-07-11 14:40:30
category:Economics of Software

Why does IT have such a high turnover?

  • Technology appeal?
  • Money?
  • Boredom?

No. None of those. We can look at Maslow, but it’s too high-level.

  • Self-Actualization?
  • Self-Esteem?
  • Belonging?
  • Safety and Security?
  • Physical Needs?

Most IT jobs pay pretty well, above the median income. Look at MCP Magazine or InformationWeek , for example. Compare this with census data on income levels.

So, we’re into the belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization levels of Maslow. This post isn’t going to beat the standard drums of bad management. This isn’t about managers who don’t listen, or managers who aren’t flexible, or that junk.

No, the reason IT people turn over so quickly is because they are forced out by a manager’s appallingly bad problem-solving skills.

The Curtain Rises

Projects start with an initiating incident, a situation, a stumbling block. It’s generally something trivial, but it’s the last straw, the one that broke the camel’s back.

For example, we have a data feed that contains labor records that are filled with errors. We can’t, however, reconcile those errors unless we put the labor records side-by-side with invoices, bills, production schedules and some other stuff to get really solid comparison reports.

While ugly, it isn’t a problem until someone gets sick while someone else is on vacation, and management discovers this rat’s nest of spreadsheets, MS-access databases, and ad-hoc processing to try and locate the labor hour reporting problems.

Management’s solution: This Requires Software ™. Note that we haven’t stated a problem, or really talked rationally about candidate solutions. We’ve leaped past all of the thinking and picked the latest and greatest buzzword; in this case, Data Warehouse .

The First Act

Once we’ve determined that our labor hour problem is repaired by a Data Warehouse, we immediately hire someone to build one of those warehouse things. Immediately.

The important thing about the immediately is that we haven’t really spent too much time thinking this through. We’ve drafted a project charter that amounts to the following:

  1. Problem: We don’t have a data warehouse.
  2. Forces: We can build or we can buy. We can use contractors or in-house staff.
  3. Solution: Build a data warehouse.
  4. Consequences: We can use this for things like resolving labor reporting.

Note that the real problem (incorrect labor reports) is tangential – almost irrelevant – to the project charter. We’ve managed to refocus from the real problem to some technical thing that we hope will solve the problem. We can’t prove anything, since we leapt past problem definition to designing the software solution.

There are two branches in the road: Contractors or Staff.

There’s a hiring freeze (or we can’t justify hiring more staff), and we have to bring in Contractors.

  • If we’re disciplined, we require a Statement of Work, and an estimate. The estimate shows that this project is expensive and daunting. We’re forced to actually think through the “situation”, the “problem” and what we’re pitching as a solution. This is unpleasant, and often causes us to abandon the DW, and just fix the reporting problem. Note that we didn’t pay the contractors for their help; indeed, we complained about their solution being “too vague” because it reflected the vagueness in the request for proposal.
  • If we’re not disciplined, we bring in contractors, and start paying. After a while, the warehouse they’re building diverges from the situation we hoped it would address. We fire the contractors after spending millions on a non-solution to the unstated problem. Consequence: turnover in the contractor organization.

We hire someone, and explain the situation. They’re happy to have a job.

  • If we’re disciplined, we demand a project plan. It proves expensive and daunting. Now we’re forced to think through the “situation”, the “problem” and what we’re pitching as a solution. We reassign our warehouse person. Effectively lying to them about the job and the goals. Consequence: turnover.
  • If we’re not disciplined, but still managed to hire a self-starter, they start work. After a while, the warehouse they’re building diverges from the situation we’re addressing. We wind up reassigning the warehouse person. We have – effectively – lied to them about the job and the goals. Consequence: turnover.

The Second Act

The contractors (or the staff) have built a warehouse-like thing that doesn’t quite address the situation. Performance is bad, and it’s mission critical. Why is performance bad? We told people to stop gold-plating the application, just get something into production on the given date. In effect, we mandated bad performance by insisting that the date was more important than anything else.

Since performance of the warehouse-like thing is bad, and it is also mission-critical, we now need someone to speed up the performance of the application. Recall that we either fired the contractors or reassigned the staff. After being lied to, they left.

We are forced to bring in more contractors (or more staff) to address performance. We describe the half-baked data warehouse. We describe the situation. Neither add up to a “problem” with a “solution”. Instead, it is a rapidly worsening “situation”.

Indeed, we are specifically asking the new person for a Faerie Dust Solution™ ; something that it is impossible to deliver. We want it faster, but we won’t allow changes to the data structures or algorithms. Indeed, we don’t really have time for a lot of analysis, we just need it fixed. And we all know that “analysis” is just a rat-hole of lost time.

In spite of the obvious Fairy Dust, who wouldn’t stick around to catch a few paychecks? It’s okay if the underlying problem is off limits, technology change is off limits, and the existing architecture is sacred; it’s okay if the organization must “preserve the investment.” Getting paid to listen to this nonsense is better than not getting paid. Anyone would listen to this for as long as we’re willing to pay them.

So, when the contractors (or staff) fail to make significant performance improvements, they’re fired or reassigned. In effect, we lied to them to get them on board. We told them about a thing we’re calling a warehouse which doesn’t really exist. We told them about an architecture that doesn’t really work. And, best of all, when they found the real labor hour reporting problem, they stopped making progress on the Software we’ve been imagining since the curtain went up.

We reassign them. They quit. We created more turnover in IT.

Note that the fantasy Software (which somehow improves something about labor hour reporting or error correction), may be little more than a hack-around to one or more broken business processes. It also may be a solution that got conflated with random Data Warehouse buzzwords. Either way, we’re lying about the problem and the solution.

The Third Act

The third act is a strategic refocus on – whatever. The project is either cancelled, or suspended, or put on hold, or rescoped. The words don’t matter. What matters is that there’s a change in the project and the people involved are not doing what we originally asked them to do.

We have, in essence asked them to be something, and then devalued that thing. They quit. We create turnover by creating a situation in which people cannot succeed.

We can’t fix it

Clearly, this is the way IT is. It is an inescapable consequence of applying technology to information that projects get cancelled, scope changes, people get reassigned.

Right?

I disagree. Scope-change is not a logical consequence of IT. Scope-change is a logical consequence of wrong scope. Wrong scope happens for two reasons.

  1. Defining scope in the first place. If we do away with “scope”, we do away with “scope creep”. This is – superficially – ridiculous. However, after reading an Agile Manifesto and looking at Agile methodologies, part of the reason Agile techniques work is because the static, fixed, Grand and Glorious Greater Scope , is set aside for something more realistic and useful.
  2. Defining the wrong scope. If we must have a scope, why can’t we have a scope that defines real problems that real people really have? Why do we have to write vague (incorrect, misleading) statements? A generalization is the same thing as under-specification; why do we complain when our specific problem isn’t solved by a general solution?

We define the wrong scope for a number of reasons.

  • We’re afraid of “point solutions”. Why solve this one problem? That’s a lot of money. Why can’t we solve something more general, and get more bang for our buck? We don’t want to solve the “labor hours problem”, that’s too specific. We want to solve all data reconciliation problems.
  • We’re afraid of “naming names”. Identifying a specific problem can result in embarrassment, termination or legal action. The labor hour reporting involves subcontractors behaving badly, or it involves purchasing behaving badly. Some of it could – actually – be illegal.
  • We’re afraid of “root causes”. Identifying the root cause of a problem can require a lot of cooperative work, and may put us in the position of naming names. If we focus on the technology, not the organization, we don’t have to do as much work, and we don’t run the risk of embarrassing (or angering) someone important. If we locate the real reason for contractors misreporting their hours, it may involve incomplete work planning or incomplete task assignments. It may involve rotten communication with our subcontractors at any of a large number of organizational touch-points.
  • We’re afraid of “becoming a target”. If we’re very specific, someone else may fix the problem another, cheaper way and we’re left with nothing to do. Worse, if we’re specific, the Talmudic scholars and lawyers can spring out of the woodwork, split hairs, and prove that our specific problem never existed in the first place. Either way, we’re an embarrassing nay-sayer, describing problems that are already solved or never existed as described. After writing an RFP, the manager of purchasing may fix the touch-point, providing better and more complete information to the contractors. Or, a legal-eagle may say the the definition of “labor hour input” is incorrect, and “input” doesn’t happen when they enter the hours, but when the hours are accepted. The “incorrect” situation happens “before input”. The problem is reframed into something new.

The Illusion of Control

What do these things have in common? Most of these are about the Illusion of Control . When we wring our hands over the cost of a point solution, we’re really admitting that (a) the problem isn’t that valuable and (b) we can’t find a fix with a cost commensurate with the value. Who wants to admit that they can’t control what’s going on? When we avoid names and root causes, we’re protecting someone else’s Illusion of Control. If the problem slips away from us (solved or reframed out of existence) we appear to have lost control.

To maintain our Illusion of Control, we define scope badly. Sometimes we don’t define the scope at all, which gives us a very satisfying feeling of control. By failing to define the scope correctly, we wind up misleading people, reassigning them, and creating IT turnover.

Turnover isn’t part-and-parcel of IT. Nor is scope creep. It’s all just failure to focus on the actual problem. It’s really our feeble efforts to maintain the Illusion of Control.

What do we do?

How do we reduce IT turnover? Easy: be honest. Define project scope correctly.

Define the real problem: if the cost to fix is out of line with the cost to leave it alone, so be it. Name the names: if people don’t like it, either you’ve fixed the organization, or you’ll be invited to leave a dysfunctional organization. It doesn’t look bad on your resume, since you can document the real reason you were pressured out. It isn’t “just political” anymore, it’s specific bad behavior.

Find the root causes: they’re cheaper to fix, and the fix is permanent. Be a target: if the problem gets solved (or reframed out of existence), act like you own the solution; follow up with metrics on how well you did the problem identification and how well you motivated others to solve it.

When you hire (or rent) people, they’ll actually do what they’re expecting to do. There won’t be the same egregious level of scope creep. People will tend to stay where they’re valued.

Previous topic

Tools Aren’t the Answer

Next topic

Creating Value with Open Source Solutions

This Page