.

Incoming payments redesign.

.

Impact

.

.

Helped reduce Ops team from 11 to 3

.

.

.

Context

.

Crypto is an upcoming field and does NOT have sufficient support from the Government; therefore the banks.

.

Incoming payments (on-ramp) integration is therefore done by accepting statement files from various banks.

.

Problems

.

The previous design had been done with many design flaws. E.g.

.

.

.

.

  Solved by changing the lock on a single mutex – userId

.

.

.

.

These properties were redesigned to be stored in a JSON column in the same table. This reduced both storage costs + the need for additional joins.

.

.

.

Solved by creating webhook callback tables. The tables were purged after 30 days to NOT take up lots of space.

.

All logs were available with success/ failure messages.

.

Time Spent

.

Result

.

.

.

Reliability / Cost Reduction / Performance Improvement

.

Impact

.

Reduced Cloud costs by 30% ( still going down )

.

Below are the projected numbers.

.

.

.

Context

.

Organization was one of the highest $$ payers to AWS for cloud costs.

.

At the same time, the application faced issues during the months – Feb, March and April 2023.

.

.

Improvements

.

Following were done to improve the application:

.

.

.

.

    .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Result

.

Reduced Cloud utilization by 30% ( hence 30% costs saved )

.

Below are projected numbers.

.

.

.

Checklist Creation

.

.

Team manager gave feedback that the same issues repeated in the team e.g. missed deployment steps, partial testing deployments etc.

.

So I created this checklist. This helped reduce 95% issues.

.

.

The post Trading Org – Contributions appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

.

Cache Redesign

.

Impact

.

.

Infra

.

.

.

.

.

Context

.

Client is an ecommerce website. One of the existing services – Aggregator fetched data from ~7 different services.

.

.

Data was saved on Redis collectively for each product e.g.

.

Key = Price service key + Inventory service key + Promo service key + ….

.

Value = Price of product + Inventory of product + Promos on product … etc.

.

This design was copied from a legacy system bought by the organization. (forgetting the name)

.

Cons of design

.

.

.

Pros of design

.

.

However, the same data was read sequentially from 6 upstream systems. And posted to redis every “n” seconds.

.

.

Redesign

.

As part of the redesign, following changes were done:

.

.

.

Con

.

.

Pros

.

.

.

Time spent

.

.

.

Results

.

.

.

.

.

Failed Rewards Reporting

Impact

.

.

Context

.

When users bought from the website, they receive rewards e.g. 50OFFDOMINOS, 75OFFOVENSTORY etc.

.

Rewards are of 2 types …

.

.

Players

.

.

.

Problem

.

Players malfunctioned. e.g.

.

.

.

Solution Chain

.

After NOT having received the coupons, following would typically happen.

.

.

All of the above typically took ~3 weeks. And was very tiring for the tech team.

.

.

Redesign

.

I recommended, got approved and started on a new business process.

.

.

.

.

Result

.

When an Ajio customer calls. Customer care would have a complete view of what happened.

.

80% of the requests could be handled at level 1 itself. They could redirect the solution without the intervention of the Tech team.

.

The time of 3 weeks would reduce to 3 mins.

.

I coded the highlighted part of the design. Also initiated the Tableau report creation. And then moved to my next organization.

.

The post Ecommerce Org – Contributions appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

#book excerpt

.

Disclaimer : The blog does NOT help techies that do NOT know their tech.

.

Intro

.

Ask any interviewer why they chose one candidate over the other. They will tell you about qualifications and experience. They will also have a list of skills needed for the job.

.

But research shows interviewers are deluding themselves. They are swayed by a mysterious and powerful force.

Data shows that only one important factor plays a role:

Did the candidate appear to be a pleasant person ??

.

.

In other words – a pleasant person.

.

Studies demonstrate that going out of one’s way to be pleasant is way more important. More than qualifications and work experience.

PS : Ass-kissing is different from being pleasant.

.

How about black-spots ??

.

.

What if one has some weak areas ? lack of experience, unimpressive performance or less than stellar credentials ?

.

Again, data shows that – people who present their weaknesses in the beginning do better. Admitting weakness is seen as a sign of openness.

Think about it for a second. A person who admits his failures would have the strength of character and integrity. Therefore, the person would NOT intend to mislead us.

.

For an interview, I completely forgot about the schedule. And was working on something else. Later (having kicked myself on the bum) I wrote back the following:

The interview was re-conducted.

.

I just realized that we had a discussion today. Was in a production issue, and completely forgot about this conversation. Lost track of my time ..

.

This is completely my fault. And I apologize.

Would we be able to reschedule this to another day ? If so, I’ll be grateful. If not, I understand. Thanks.

.

.

Admitting one’s weakness, a person becomes likable. But again, openness or pleasantness have their limits. ( I wrote the mail back in within the hour, not after a week )

.

.

Glories and Victories

I’ve been in many interviews where the candidate opened up with their glorification. It’s kinda a showoff.

Again we have studies. A person is more likable when they mention their accomplishment towards the end.

.

Think about it – if someone mentions their strengths too soon, then they seem boastful. However, if they let their strengths emerge naturally, they are seen as modest.

Kids – wait to let the person know that you single-handedly saved the day.

.

Blunders

.

So, we’ve been pleasant, open, and modest. But what if I forgot the time complexity of binary search ? or something similarly silly ?

Again we have data. We overestimate the impact of a mistake.

Meaning, our mistakes seem bigger to us than they really are. This is also called the ‘Spotlight effect’ in psychology.

.

Excessive responses might actually draw the interviewer’s attention to the mistake.

So, if appropriate then acknowledge the mistake. And move on as if it wasn’t a big deal.

.

Wrap up …

.

These are the elements of a great interview …

.

Likeability is more important than achievements and experience. So,

.

Don’t hide weaknesses

Instead, bring them out in the beginning. This will give you a credibility boost.

.

Wait to share achievements

This lets the interviewer know that you are modest.

.

If you make a mistake

Don’t overreact. Acknowledge if appropriate, then move ahead.

.

Excerpts from the book – 59 Seconds by Richard Wiseman

The post Perfect Interview – Decoded appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

.

Intro

.

Achieving cooperation and delivering is a priority for IT companies. Their bread and butter too !

.

Missed timelines, delayed projects, stretching programs, over-budgeted portfolios are common. Equally so within the IT industry.

To solve these problems organizations create systems. Like –

.

These are all to build teams. And so co-operation.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that achieve cooperation. Or ought to.

.

We start with … what DOESN’T work.

.

Bonuses

.

Bonus : A monetary incentive for a certain behaviour.

.

Let us start with few questions:

.

Appraisal reviews

.

Performance review months at IT companies are the most unusual times.

.

.

Like the Autumn months, the greenery in the office landscape dries and starts to die. In anticipation of the upcoming winters !

.

.

It’s a time for revenge, grievances, proving and other things. Many times it is NOT for PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, and is for everything else.

.

But why ?? Here are some reasons appraisal systems give us heartburns.

.

.

.

.

And IT companies depend on such systems for their growth. A system with so many flaws is at best – unhelpful, and at worst a hypocrisy.

.

Team Building – Parties, Excursions

.

We pick the next tool set – from the HR’s playbook. A team bowling event, a dine-out, paintball battles, secret santa, treasure hunts, cultural events and more.

I admit – these do build camaraderie. Just like going to the gym, once a quarter builds our body !!

.

While the events help. They are too few and far between, to achieve any reasonable result.

I submit – team building events delay any upcoming attrition at an organization. That’s it. Raising a team’s productivity is too far-fetched a goal for these events to be able to achieve.

.

To BE or Not To Be – tis the question

.

With all the flaws of – bonuses, appraisal systems or team building systems. Do we abandon them ?

.

I disagree. Abandoning such systems would create a “socialist” structure. One with no disincentive to be lazy, and NO incentive to work hard.

No software company can survive such neglecting techies.

.

During Soviet Union times, everyone stood the same risk of going to the Gulags. So, everyone stopped working.

You see – when everyone stands the same chance of being imprisoned. Being lazy and sent to Siberia sounds better than working hard and going there !

Same would happen at an IT organization.

.

.The answer then is – redesign the systems with some important characteristics.

.

.

The Pillars of a Cooperation Achieving System …

.

This is where our blog series begins. In the next set of blogs we talk about pillars of a cooperation achieving system.

.

As always … I speak only about the tech industry. Let’s begin …

Pillar 1 : Quick Detection of Behaviour

.

The post Achieve Co-operation at IT Companies appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

.

Intro

.

Achieving co-operation and delivering is a priority for IT companies. Their bread and butter too !

.

Missed timelines, delayed projects, stretching programs, over-budgeted portfolios are common. Equally so within the IT industry.

To solve these problems organizations create systems. Performance bonuses, HR practices, team exercises, parties, excursions, etc. These are all to build teams. And so co-operation.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that achieve cooperation. Or ought to. So, the following are the requirements for a good review system.

Continuing from How to Achieve Co-operation. We start with pillar 1.

.

Quick Detection of Behaviour

.

If I, a software developer, am being lazy. Then even before I can be punished, my cheating must be detected. More importantly – it must be done quickly.

.

If the detection is fast and accurate, the punishment ( or reward ) can be immediate and accurate.

.

“Immediacy” thus increases the prospects of getting successful cooperation for an organization.

.

Vice versa is also true. If my performance is rewarded quickly, then it is reinforced. If not, I could attribute my rewards to my luck, communication, attendance, or worse – luck.

.

A good example is Pavlov’s experiment. Ivan Pavlov rang a bell each time he fed his dogs. As usually happens, the dogs salivated seeing the food. But eventually, the dogs ended up associating the bell with food.

Later Pavlov simply rang the bell, and the dogs salivated. Had the food been served hours after the bell, would we see the same results ? Nopes !

Stimulant and stimulus too far ? The behavior will never work.

Same goes for Software engineers.

.

.Quick detection

.

Let us consider the following:

.

We have a team of 10 developers. Deep is a lazy one !

His code does not solve all use cases, is buggy, poorly designed, and is late.

.

Deep’s lead quickly brings the issue to the notice of their manager. The manager reviews all details and comes in with a guilty verdict

Within a few days – he is critiqued and is asked to be careful. Since the reprimand is immediate, Deep hardly gets any benefit from his lethargy.

The ROI ( Return Of Investment ) on lethargy is very low. And chances are Deep will stand corrected very quickly.

.

On the other hand, wait 1 year for a performance review. The ROI becomes HUGE for Deep !

.

Slow detection

.

From the same 10 developers, let’s say, some collude to avoid work. They make an understanding with their Lead. Who hides their mistakes and covers for them. In turn, the devs stretch for the Lead when needed.

Together, they come up with tricks to divert accountability. Questions are diverted to the business team, product owner, architect, or manager.

If you think this is uncommon at large organizations. Well, think again.

.

Now cheating has become more complex. It has more dimensions.

Leadership cannot always look at each dimension, therefore cheating is detected “much late”. This gives me ( the developer ) an incentive to be lazy.

.

In fact, many (so-called) leaders are incapable of verifying all dimensions. Therefore, they only look at the final stages of a deliverable. Like …

.

More Complexity !

Unfortunately, these factors have other influences too ….

.

With all these complexities – detection and punishment become slow and inaccurate. This in turn raises the temptation to cheat.

I claim that – all large IT companies including Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, Wipro etc. face this problem.

.

If the system detects my lethargy slowly, and only partially. Then being lazy might seem like a good idea.

.

The scale problem

.

Consider an organization with ~100 employees. And designated with a hierarchy of around 5 layers.

.

Management has these additional questions to answer ….

.

The scale problem is cherry on top of the other ones. That is – collusion, complexities, monitoring ability, and other factors.

If figuring these out is slow, then people have incentives to cheat.

I bet that all large IT companies like Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, Wipro etc. face this problem.

.

Wrap up

.

Quick detection is important to generating cooperation, at an IT company. An annual review or a quarterly review, does not serve this purpose well.

.

In other words, a good performance review system needs “Quick detection of behavior”.

.

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

.

Next, we discuss the “Nature of rewards” in a performance system.

The post Achieve Co-operation | Quick Detection appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

Intro

.

Achieving cooperation and delivering is a priority for IT companies.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that help achieve cooperation. We’ve looked at …

.

Today we talk about …

.

Nature of rewards/ punishments.

.

What the organization assumed was a reward. In fact, it was a punishment. The subject is best described with real-life examples. So, here we go …

.

Promoted to quit :

I was managing a very difficult project. Taking care of technical, managerial, design, architecture, client engagement, and other aspects. The right people became happy. And leadership promoted me to a ‘Manager’ position.

2 months later – I quit the job.

.

What the organization assumed was a reward, to me, was a punishment !

.

Why ?

.

A common idea is – a manager supersedes an engineer.

.

There are Techies and there are Managers. Both add value and are needed at IT organizations.

Personally, I have been interested in technical work. I do not have the aptitude or interest to be a manager.

So, to me – the idea that “a manager supersedes an engineer”, is just managerial hubris.

.

When done in a standalone manner – Tech Management has no “Skin in the Game”. If you have seen managers use a lot of complex words to discuss a simple problem, then you’ve witnessed the concept.

.Growth gets stunted without ‘Skin in the Game’. This is one reason I keep away from Management.

.

.Back to the subject …

The promotion was assumed to be a reward. When in fact, it was a punishment for me !

.

Point being – understanding the Nature of Rewards is Important.

.

Rewards

.

Let us look at the various ways organizations “reward” employees:

.

But each reward has a “next level” effect. Such an effect, while important, is less understood. Here is another story to drive the point …

.

Social outcast :

The Director of an org told me that he wanted to “overload his employees”.

He explained – since single youngsters did not have many other things to do. They could ( and did ) contribute more to the organization.

One of his “bright boys” was a guy named Nikhil. The poster boy did nothing but work – day and night, weekdays and weekends. Of course he was rewarded for the work with faster promotion and salary hikes.

.

Sounds fair right ? But, devil in the details. Remember the “next level” effect …

.

Message to team was – work 24*7, to get your deserved appreciation.

.

Few could compete with Nikhil’s work ethic. So, most did not get their deserved promotions. Many quit.

Also, once the team found out that Nikhil was responsible for them receiving poor bonuses. They implemented social sanctions on him. In turn, this brought down team productivity.

.

Of Course the director did not realize that – Nikhil had become a social outcast.

An Outlier + Comparative rewards = Reduced productivity of the team

.

Rewards cannot be comparative to an outlier.

Once again – Visibility (nature) of Rewards is Important..

.

My take : Being the nerd that he was – rewarding Nikhil in silo would’ve been a better idea.

.

.

Nature of punishment

.

Exactly the same way, the “nature of punishments” matters too.

.

Incorrect punishment :

I’ve written about a techie called Rahul. He was a Director at an organization and an underperformer. Of Course he wasn’t able to deliver on his tasks. And then used to choose the next best option.

Get help in the name of “teamwork”. He called his subordinates and asked them to put in long hours. Rahul’s team bore the added burden of what he failed to do.

.

Rahul was reprimanded. But he did not care.

His behavior invited social sanctions. But he did not care.

.

Why ? Wrong type of punishment.

.

What would’ve happened in case Rahul wasn’t helped ?

He would’ve had to stay up long nights, all by himself. Right ? I bet he would’ve either quit or made corrections. And everyone would’ve been better off.

.

You see – The nature of the punishment matters.

.

Wrap up

.

People want ( or avoid ) different things …

Achieving cooperation requires the “right incentive or disincentives”.

As they say : To each thy own !

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

.

Next, we discuss the “Clarity” of punishments/ rewards.

The post Achieve Co-operation | Nature of (dis)Incentives appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

Intro

.

Achieving cooperation and delivery is a priority for IT companies.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that help achieve cooperation. We’ve looked at …

.

Today we talk about …

.

Clarity

.

What are the boundaries of acceptable behavior ?

What are the penalties of cheating ?

.

An employee might …

.

Either way, the boundaries of acceptable behavior should be clear. So should the consequences of cheating.

.

The VP at an org hired new employees saying … “The project should be delivered in 1 year, else you are not needed”. The result ?

.

The team became efficient and high function. Each team member was clear about the consequences of what came next.

.

The most important part of the demand was that – Expectations were crystal clear.

.

The idea seems simple enough. Is it though ?

.

Calculated risks

.

Pankaj is a troublemaking engineer. He does the work, but loves to try out new things. As with anything else, some of his experiments do not end well.

Should he be reprimanded or encouraged ? Clarity once again becomes important.

.

.

How would you clarify the limits of acceptable behaviour for Pankaj ? What risks are okay ??

Is it okay to mess in a …

.

The above scenarios make it complicated to figure out limits of acceptable behavior. Therefore these are NOT good standards.

.

Complexity makes it easy to cheat AND let good behavior go undetected.

.

In other words, boundaries of acceptable behavior need to be simple, for them to be Clear.

.

Surprises

.

Surprises are stress tests for clarity.

Certain surprises ( due to lack of clarity ), bring up interesting situations. This is best described with real examples. So, here we go …

.

A sudden penalty killed the most productive organs of a team.

.

Work the weekend :

We were working on a deadline, a difficult project and all. Days were long and weekends passed without rest.

There were few who contributed NOT ONLY to their own work but also to others’. Helping others meant, sometimes missing our deadlines. Overall deliverables were high, even though some work was delayed. This was because we believed …

Team deliverables are MORE important than personal deliverables.

.

We were helping the organization and there wasn’t a disincentive.

.

Suddenly – we received an email from a department head. The people with delayed deliveries couldn’t take any leaves ( weekends, holidays etc. ).

It was a punishment of sorts. The result ?

.

The top 10% stopped helping others. We now focussed only on our work. Helping others, at the cost of our time, became a disincentive.

Personal deliverables became MORE important than team deliverables.

.

Some deliverables became timely ( from us 10% ). But, the overall deliverables of the organization sank.

.

What was more important ? Individual deliverables OR Team deliverables ? I believe both are important. But the point is … leadership lacked clarity.

This lack of clarity killed the most productive organs in the team. (and further delayed work).

.

I let the leader know that his decision had a side effect. But stubbornness is a leadership virtue. Had our friend read a bit of Game Theory, he would’ve understood the idea.

.

Also, surprises have undercurrents.

During this crisis, the biggest cheaters worked hard and got (justifiably) rewarded. But created discontent among the best performers.

Such disharmony is never good for team camaraderie..

.

Wrap up

.

Clarity is important to achieving cooperation at IT companies.

Limits of acceptable behavior and consequences of cheating, need to be clear to a team member.

.

With muddying factors like …

.

Techies need to be clear on what could result in a reward/ penalty.

.

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

.

Next, we look at the Certainty of a reward/ penalty.

The post Achieve Co-operation | Clarity appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

Recap …

.

Achieving cooperation and delivering is a priority for IT companies.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that help achieve cooperation. We’ve looked at …

.

Today we talk about …

.

Certainty

.

Employees should have confidence that good behavior will be rewarded. And that bad will be punished. Higher such confidence, higher the cooperation.

.

Lucky draw :

I worked with Infosys for many years. Many times, my performance was pretty good (staying modest) . However, I wasn’t always rewarded.

Reasons ?

.

After 100% of hard work, my chances of getting rewarded stood around 20 – 30 %. This was a de-motivating factor. Not just for me but for all others too.

.

After a few iterations … Did we work hard anymore ? Ofcourse not !

.

The same thing happened with punishments. When I was lethargic or wrote poor quality code:

.

Once again – After 100% of laziness, my chances of getting punished stood around 20 – 30 %.

.

Did the system encourage lethargy ? Ofcourse !

.

Certainty triggers co-operation. And uncertainty triggers collusion.

.

Countries behavior

.

International agreements like Trade fall under the purview of WTO ( World Trade Organization ).

When one country complains that another has cheated on a trade agreement. Example …

.

Then, the WTO initiates an administrative process that drags on for months or years. Facts of the case have little bearing on the judgment. It usually depends more on international politics and diplomacy.

.

Due to the uncertainty and delay – such enforcement procedures are NOT effective. The same goes for techies at IT companies.

.

Penny wise Pound foolish :

I worked with a software company. They promised me a ‘reward’ for delivering a difficult project. End of the project, they suddenly came up with an excuse – financial troubles.

PS: My reward would’ve been in the range of ~5000 $.

.

I moved on to greener pastures. But the company did not realize that – most employees had become sluggish.

Employees weren’t certain whether their work would be rewarded anymore. This reduced overall productivity. The loss could be quantified in the range of ~1,000,000 $.

.

The org saved some thousands, only to lose a million ! Pennywise, pound foolish !

.

Wrap up

.

Certainty is important. My probability of being punished drives my risk appetite.

The same rewards/ penalties with a high degree of certainty drive higher co-operation.

.

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

.

Next, we look at the Size of a reward/ penalty.

The post Achieve Co-operation | Certainty appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

Recap …

.

Achieving cooperation and delivering is a priority for IT companies.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that help achieve cooperation. We’ve looked at …

.

Today we talk about …

.

Size

.

The size of a reward/ penalty should be proportional to the size of the contribution ( or lack thereof ).

Let a thief go, and he steals again. ( If a punishment is too small, it isn’t effective. )

Kill a thief and other thieves start killing. ( If a punishment is too big, it triggers worse behaviour.)

.

A general rule is – Keep it conservative.

.

Too Big rewards

.

Big rewards have blindspots – Greed and Ego; for starters.

.

Handling success requires humility. The feeling of “I have arrived” can ruin careers, projects, and more.

Fall from grace has been common among Kings, Presidents, Bureaucrats, Politicians, Film Stars etc. While talent and hard work do take them to the top. Many aren’t able to handle success.

.

It takes a special someone to keep working with the same humility despite the rewards. ( not because of them )

.

Double salary :

Priyanka joined as a Business Analyst with a product-based organization. Bright and energetic, she did good work and was noticed.

Next appraisal – she was promoted to a PM role and her salary was doubled.

Priyanka had arrived !

.

Everyone noticed that – suddenly she became ‘edgy’. Her requests turned into orders and remarks. Certain tasks suddenly became ‘beneath her’.

The gaps became someone else’s faults. Statements like “Why should I” and “Not my responsibility” were thrown around. Her projects started lagging.

A few more months and the blue-eyed PM quit the organization. ( or was asked to )

.

The size of the reward was too big and too soon for Priyanka. She could not handle her salary and stature. Since the organization rewarded her disproportionately. So, The organization was as much responsible for her failure, as was Priyanka herself.

.

Too Big penalties

.

Why are terrorists and murders arrested ? and not just shot dead ?

Think about it … even when the guilt is clear, why are convicts arrested and taken to court ?

.

To answer this question … let’s think about what happens with the other protocol. What if all terrorists are to be shot dead ?

Example… IS chief ‘Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi’ blew himself up instead of being captured. Why ?

He knew that the penalty would be the biggest, so why not create the biggest damage.

.

When people have nothing to lose they go all-out crazy. In the process, creating much more destruction.

.

Point being : Too big penalties damage more than they help.

.

The same goes for software engineers. If an engineer is threatened to be fired at the first production bug, then:

.

If you understand the above, it is because you know that bugs are always possible. That being the case, there should be practical sized punishments for successful deterrence..

.

Imagine a guy working on back-to-back production issues. Would it make sense to punish him for being late to office ?

Ofcourse not !!

Someone fighting for survival should be cut slack on hygiene practices.

I would get pissed at such a reprimand. And might plan to leave the organization altogether.

.

Reminder on the general rule : Keep it conservative. Meaning – Penalties need to be of the smallest effective size.

.

Right size ??

.

How do we know the right size of a reward or penalty ? To be honest, I am not fully sure. But, I know a working analogy.

When eating, how do I know when I am full ? Well, my stomach tells me !

.

All I have to do is Listen !

In the same way, all I have to do to get the right-sized reward for a techie is – See/ Listen/ Perceive.

.

Wrap up

.

The Size of a reward or penalty is the next piece of the puzzle.

.

Like eating, too many rewards lead to obesity, and too little to anorexia.

.

Both conditions cause detriment to health. Not only of the techie but also of the organization.

Proportionate rewards and penalties are the next pillars in an IT organization.

.

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

.

Finally, we look at the Repetition of a reward/ penalty.

The post Achieve Co-operation | Size appeared first on techwiddeep.com.

Recap …

.

Achieving cooperation and delivering is a priority for IT companies.

.

As part of this blog series, we look at “systematic” concepts that help achieve cooperation. We’ve looked at …

.

Today we talk about …

.

Repetition

.

Why is most food of a poor quality at tourist attractions ?

The food is NOT cheap. In fact, it is sometimes outrageous for the value.

.

We purchased from a family grocer for almost 40 years !

Received the best quality products, with the best discounts. All without asking !

.

I am sure you’ve already figured it out. Key is – Repetition.

.

Let’s say a restaurant serves a poor meal at Jaipur’s Hawa Mahal. ( A famous tourist destination. )

.

.

The opposite is also true. Our family grocer had a big disincentive while cheating. He would’ve lost repeat business.

PS : Repeat business is so important that it is a success metric !

.

The prospect of future losses offsets the temptation to cheat now.

.

Tech Companies

.

The same goes for techies. Continuation of engagement/ employment drives, quality of work.

.

.

.

In the same breath –

.

Litmus Test

Repetition is used as a litmus test, across the industry.

.

For an Organization :

If an employee has had a lengthy tenure with an org. Then, he has almost certainly performed above a threshold. In other words, the lengthy tenure proves –

Both valuable.

.

The lengthy tenure guy HAD to deliver at some point. Whereas, the fickle one might’ve only hopped from one responsibility to another.

Using tenure as the proof – a less talented but loyal employee is more valuable. This compared to a sharp but unreliable one.

.

To employees switching jobs every year :

Your experience does NOT prove your abilities. So – unless you prove talent another way, you are of poor value to an org.

Good orgs will avoid you; despite your talent.

.

For an Employee :

If an organization has had a lengthy employee tenures. Then, it has almost certainly done some things right. Therefore, the lengthy tenures prove –

.

A reliable but low-paying organization is more desired than a high-paying unreliable one. The good org HAD to deliver quality management at some point. Whereas, the other type orgs might’ve simply churned employees.

.

If business at an organization is expected to grow. And if the organization wants to cheat its employees. Chances are that – it will recognize that it stands to lose more in the future due to the collapse of the cooperation. Therefore, it will be hesitant to cheat.

.

To orgs churning employees :

Your total number of years does NOT prove your standing. So – unless you prove management abilities another way, you are of poor value to an employee.

Good employees will avoid you; despite your high salaries.

.

Other factors – Economy

.

Other factors like the economy also impact the repeat engagement.

.

During times of economic booms, employees will be tempted to ‘move on’ i.e. end the repeat engagement.

The increased salaries at new organizations give them immediate upside. While the downside hits them only in the future. ( in case their new org terminates the employment )

.

The opposite happens during economic downturns. Employees want to keep the engagement, while organizations dictate their salaries/ rewards.

.

Review sites

Technology has played a BIG role in creating repetition. Think of review sites – Yelp, Glassdoor, Google reviews, Amazon reviews, Goodreads etc.

They create a memory of past behavior. Thus giving us repetition, where there was none.

.

Earlier –

An organization was free to cheat its employees and let them go. The new employees would be a fresh batch of tourists to be cheated again !

Now –

Reviews on Glassdoor create a memory of the cheating. New employees hesitate to join a toxic organization. The organization loses good talent and therefore business.

Essentially – The prospect of a future loss offsets the org’s temptation to make silly decisions now.

.

Thus, review sites have increased the cost of stupidity. By introducing repetition.

.

Wrap up

.

Repetition is the last pillar to achieve cooperation at an IT company. Choices between a long term and a short term game become very different, for the same players.

..

.In the spirit of repetition. Once again – these are the 6 pillars of getting cooperation at an IT org:

.

Missed timelines, delayed projects, stretching programs, over-budgeted portfolios are common. Equally so within the IT industry.

While systems like – Performance reviews, HR practices, rewards etc help. Any system that misses either of the above pillars becomes dysfunctional.

.

Hope the clarity helped. Happy team building !

Excerpts from: The Art of Strategy

The post Achieve Co-operation | Repetition appeared first on techwiddeep.com.