The above chart is based on the needs of a small company, currently with 10 employees, who is looking for a free or cheap solution to use until the company grows up a bit. The employees can all read English, so language is not an issue. None of the employees have any project management skills whatsoever.

Much of the above analysis is based on my subjective feeling of course (ie. UI, Speed). I’m not looking for software which has MS-Project level detail, such as organizing project elements into WBS, heavy resource management ability, etc. Of course I’m not looking for high-level enterprise solutions. The focus of the online tool is to provide the management a Performance Management tool for his company. None of the above online tools (with except maybe the Zoho tool) would be good for huge complex projects which require detailed GNAT charts.

I will recommend the Wizehive tool to my client for free usage, and Zoho if he wants to spend $99 today. All the above are good tools though. The market leader seems to be Basecamp, which is a very good, clean solution, but does not have some task management options as the other solutions. In China, MS Project – without server / groupware support – is the most popular tool.

Now… about using this in China…

First of all, I have been told that Chinese companies tend to not use ASP / Cloud Computing tools. This may have changed, or is in the process of changing. In general, they like to have local control over the software and therefore like to self-host software.

Large companies usually have their own project management “toolboxes” and preferred software. But sometimes its good to have a more “informal” tool that a smaller group can use. For instance, project sales people, sourcing specialists, designers, merchandisers, and other small-group projects could benefit from using these tools. That being said, most sales people, designers, merchandisers, etc in China do not have very basic Project Management skills.

There has been a big push to advance Project Management skills in China.¹ For more background on this, see this Google “knol”. However, in most sectors, Chinese lack not only formal project management knowledge, but also lack the softskills needed to do basic project management. Therefore, its difficult to get people to use Project Management tools (and CMS tools for this matter) because most office workers don’t understand fundamental project management concepts.

Many…probably most…companies in China use MS Excel as their primary project management tool. Excel is a good tool for this. But it is not “groupware”. It is not good for sharing information. Its not good for managing people who are geographically dispersed. It does not have a calendar, which I think is very important. Hence, I recommended using online tools, which can actually be simpler in many ways to complicated Excel sheets.

To promote proper project management in China, management must invest time and resources to train project managers in both technical and soft-skills. Its usually too expensive (and does not have reliable payoff) to send non-professional project managers (like sales managers and merchandisers) to full PM technical skills training. So I recommend adopting relatively simple online project management tools. Once everyone in a small group is trained on using the tools, people will be used to using calendars to share appointments. Use “twitter”-like micro-blogging for recording daily activity. And set goals, which appear in the calendar, so everyone can visually see the deadlines. In offices where everyone use gmail (we standardized on this service at my previous company, and its a good thing), using tools which allow calendar sync will allow people to syncronize daily work tasks to their phone calendars. Also, Google calendar RSS feeds can be parsed, so one can download a calendar back into Excel in order to create all types of project reports. Of course, none of this will happen unless a manager constantly pushes and monitors tool usage. I guess the same can be said about any other policy, process, or IT solution.

Anyone have other ideas for project management software to use in China?

I’ve been honored today by a reader who wrote in a question about “title inflation”. Said reader gave permission to post this conversation, but I’m changing the names in order to protect the innocent and the guilty.

The reader’s name will be called “Frank”. Frank works for a branded consumer appliance company in Shenzhen; I do not know if its a factory or a sales-office however. Frank wrote:

I just saw your blog post about “Title Inflation” in China offices. [links added by me] This is a subject that I am wrestling with …. I work in a Shenzhen office with about 50 China nationals as staff. Our issue is that our US based corporate office wants to standardize job titles with the China office. This is leading to a competitive dis-advantage as our hiring pool is based on “better” titles than corporate is willing to use. Have you seen anything similar? Do you know of any resources available I can use to argue my case? Thank you in advance.

My response:

I’m honored that you contacted me about this. [...]
Question: is HQ suggesting that existing personnel’s titles be changed to fit the new policy? If this is the case,… you have a potential disaster on your hands. Even if the issue is just for new hires, you will have big problems. I have heard of many companies that strictly use their HQ definition on titles…and there is not usually much problem there. I have never heard of any company retroactively changing title names.

If you cannot convince your HQ from revising the policy, then one solution – which is rather a bad side-step solution – is to change English title names, but not the Chinese. This is sort of like fooling your HQ, but it will at least keep your workers from revolting…maybe.

I also included links to some articles that mention Title Inflation, which are included at the end of this post. Evidently, I misunderstood what is happening at Frank’s company. The HQ policy was that future pay increases should not mean increase in title role, unless an employee was being promoted to a position which fit with HQ’s role definitions.

Frank wrote:

[...] HQ is not suggesting we adjust current salaries, only on a go-forward basis. This does mean however, that a promotion would not result in a title change, only an increase in salary. In a hierarchical culture where career advancement and titles are so important, cash is only part of the total package. [...] I did see a link to a book “China CEO, voices of experience from 20 International business leaders” that talks about this briefly. They also suggest using a different title in English versus Chinese …. I truly do not like that idea.

Actually, I understood that adjusting current salaries is not in the cards…that would spark armed rebellion anywhere. Frank’s company HQ policy makes sense, as long as it does not create a situation wherein two or more people have the same actual position responsibilities, but have different title “levels”. Salary adjustments should be performance based, while title roles reflect responsibilities.

However, other problems can arise because of the HQ policy. Off the top of my head, I see two potential problems:

• Employees “drawing the box” tightly around their title, and thus refusing to take on more responsibilities, even with higher pay.
• Inability to use higher title to motivate an employee to take on more responsibilities, when cash salary increase is not an option due to budget reasons.
• Increased pressure to spend much more resources on employee development because advancement non-salary advancement is now more limited.

Anyone else have advice for Frank?

____________
Reference Materials

From Huffington Post, March 23, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/china-vs-japan-two-cultur_b_178263.html

From Workforce.com
http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/24/80/98/index.html

Published by DDI International:
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/leadershipsuccessinchina_chapter1_bk_ddi.pdf
(This link is for a PDF article that has a short paragraph about title-inflation in China. I actually think most of what DDI is over-priced and over-rated, but it is a name which demands respect from corporate HQ types.)

Foxconn employees?

Summary of Post: Foxconn is an unpleasant Taiwanese company. I do not know if they do anything illigal. But they probably improperly use assessment tests… which does nothing good for anyone. Also, this post constitutes blogging about a blog about a blog. And commenting on a comment on a comment. But hey… that’s what the internet is for (and the internet is also for porn, but that does not need to be said) . I do hope to add a little something original to this discussion.

Stan Abrams at China Hearsay wrote this post about Shaun Rein’s post concerning Apple’s apparant lack of supply chain EHS (environmental health and safety) control in its largest vendor, Foxconn. Stan also brings up a China Daily post about this issue, which in Stan’s opinion, is a pro-Foxconn white-wash.

I had previously posted my thoughts on Apple’s vendor-compliance issues in China. I myself don’t think Shaun’s article is particularly interesting, but that may be because Shaun’s audience is a more general business audience. I find comments on Shaun’s article very interesting however. A lot of people rush to defend Apple and Foxconn. I can’t help but think…what would the same people think if Foxconn’s China factories were actually located in the United States… would they have the same opinion? Furthermore, the commentors don’t know anything about supply – chain control issues. But that’s nothing new.

Stan brings up today’s China Daily article about this issue, in which the paper notes that investigators of Foxconn’s factories found nothing illegal. Stan’s conclusion: “Very disappointing outcome. Yet another epic fail by a local government.” What got me interested in this whole blog-on-blog-on-non-news issue are the quotes which Stan took from China Daily (concerning the recent suicides at Foxcon):

[government investigator noted]…both the suicides and attempted suicides exposed defects in the company’s management system and philosophy, particularly where the changing demands of a new generation of workers was concerned. … Foxconn “developed a kind of quasi-military management system”, which, along with tight production schedules, emphasized assessments that were at odds with a new generation of workers who cared more about their quality of life than their parents.

First of all, I agree with China Daily. Stan is wrong. Investigators didn’t find anything illegal therefore I will assume that nothing illegal happened. After all, I am from a country which believes in the principle “innocent until proven guilty”. I would never ever think that Foxconn’s management pays the local labor union representative money so that he would take the side of management in disputes. Could not happen in China. In other news… I have some land I’m selling Southern Florida state. If anyone is interested, please leave a comment here.

iPhone girl. Just another lazy post-90s generation slacker!

There are several things I find interesting about the China Daily comment. First, it focuses on the suicides as a failure of 90s generation work ethics. I find that amazing. They young people who took their lives must have done so because they didn’t have a balance between work and play. Wow. Today’s youth are a bunch of lazy fcks!

Stan remarks about the “military” nature of Foxconn and dismissed this. In truth, many Taiwanese companies adopt a sort-of quasi military culture in their factories.¹ Factories in China are all a little militaristic, but Taiwanese companies often take it to extremes. As in…extreme 5S crap….role-calls… everyone in company uniform, etc. General Managers in Taiwanese companies always talk about increasing “the ability to implement” (执行力). Whatever that means. I’ve talked to Taiwanese managers about this. Several have told me that they adopted their corporate culture from Japanese companies. That may be true, but Japanese companies in Japan put a lot of emphasis on people development. Not so in Taiwanese companies.

The thing is, having a militaristic corporate culture is not illegal. Sure…its unpleasant. It down-right sucks. It is not “aligned” with the public face of Apple. And despite what Taiwanese GMs, or Apple apologists might say…it is NOT intrinsically Chinese. But its not illegal.

Finally, I am most curious about the assessment system mentioned in this post. They did not say “appraisal” system, or performance management systems. I have visited several Taiwanese company HR people in the last three years who were interested in purchasing psychometric assessment tests which could be used to forecast a worker’s work performance. BTW, there is no such thing.

This is a sales meeting report from a visit to a Taiwanese-company HR Manager 2 years ago:

Ralph [the HR Manager] is looking for a simple test which can identify the candidates’ EQ level, their motives at work and personality type. Moreover, he wants to use this test as a short-listing tool before the interview, a predictor of future work diligence and competence. He wants the results to be simple and, ideally, can be used to enhance the first cut decision. Ralph said he does not like the [brand name] IQ tests because he already knows who is intelligent and who is not based on what university the candidates graduated from.

Action
Jesse agreed to send him [brand name] IQ tests. suggested use it with two groups; one group no tests, an another group tests. Thereby they can see the difference. Ralph said he wishes to use it on existing employees in order to see if the test can be correlated with employees performance. Jesse explained that there are too many other factors to see a correlation, but if Ralph wishes to use the test in this way that is his business. Jesse will send the tests in exchange for introduction to training manager, however, he does not have hopes of doing business with this Taiwanese company.

I’m so happy I don’t have to meet this type of customer anymore.

Anyway, my point is that it is quite possible that a large, semi-militaristic high-pressure / low wage company like Foxconn may use performance management tools, as well as selection tools, in ways which would create class-action lawsuits in the United States. If I was a government investigator looking into Foxconn’s organization…or if I was an Apple supply-chain compliance manager… I would definitely check out how there performance management system effects employee compliance issues.

I used to work for a company which provides Executive Coaching services, as well as Coaching Skills workshops. I learned much about formal coaching skills and processes over the last few years. Lately at my customer’s site, I’m finding that I am giving a lot of formal and informal coaching sessions to Chinese “subordinates” and “coworkers” ¹. My experience with coaching has been very positive, yet I have not used any of the “skills” or coaching processes which I learned previously.

I’ve searched the English web for articles on non-sports oriented coaching in China. I found:
China Success Stories: Executive Coaching in China²³. This article is about how to select an Executive coach. But within it, Mr. Gallo spells out what he sees as the competencies of a good coach, which include:

• Listening skills.
• Trustworthiness.
• Business Acumen.
• Intuitiveness.
• Flexibility.

“Formal” coaching skills, as I have learned them, are mostly about creating habits as well as procedures to increase listening, trust, and flexibility during a structured coaching session. Intuitiveness and business acumen are more like general competencies which a coach needs. Some people learn advanced skills. A good friend of mine teaches Neuro Linguistic Programing (NPL) in South China. I have a simpler process which I use for younger (under 40 years old) coachees.

I ask my subordinate how they want their careers to develop. If they say they want to advance, I say “well buddy… if you want to get to a management position, I will help you get there. I will put you on the track. It will happen. But you need to start thinking and behaving like you are in that position now. You can’t behave like an operator and expect to get promoted to a manager.” This is what I said to three people last week. Just like that. But in Chinese. I call this the “where do you want to be” conversation. I mostly deliver this people who need a “good kick”; for better or worse, I usually don’t need say this to good performers because they know where they want to go.

I find that saying the “where to” question seems to have a very powerful effect on my team-mates mainly because they never heard it before. Really. In their careers to-date, they have never experienced anyone sitting down with them and asking them how their career’s should develop (I actually usually have this conversation while walking around a factory with the coachee…not in my office… I think better on my feet). Most Chinese people never have this type of conversation with their managers because so few managers – including Western managers – never think about people development.

There is certainly a lot more to coaching than this. Really good, skilled coaches listen to the coachees, and then use practices to get them to speak out their thoughts and expand their viewpoint. The goal might be self-reflection and developing self-awareness. The aim might be improving leadership skills. Or imparting skills to deal with a specific business problem. BTW, I’m able to engage in this type of conversation with people while their regular managers cannot do so (I manage a “matrixed” team for a client). This is in-part because of the trust I have developed with the team, and in-part because they know I do not have a long-term stake in the company, so I am an outsider and less biased.

I found this: (from 2006):Business Coaching in Mainland China and Macao⁴ Although I don’t agree with everything said in this post. The author, Mr. Keith To, wrote something which I find interesting:

Nearly every single book about coaching you can find in the bookstores will tell you to coach using curiosity and intuition. How about coaching someone who has very little curiosity or intuition? This is typical of Chinese people. In our country (and many other Asian countries), parents taught us not to be curious. Curiosity is equivalent to danger and is deemed impolite. We have also been educated not to speak if we are uncertain. We keep our intuition to ourselves. So, are curiosity and intuition really critical in coaching?
[...]
Curiosity nor intuition works very well for the Chinese, even though the coach is willing and able to provide both. Why? Because the Chinese don’t talk much! Perhaps unlike North Americans, the majority of the Chinese population is extremely reserved, particularly in the context of a business environment. They think thoroughly before they speak, and then they speak cautiously. They are reluctant to answer questions they consider irrelevant, and the more curious the coach is, the more questions the client might consider irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree with some of the generalizations which Mr. Keith To makes. I do not believe that Chinese people are any more reserved than Americans, although they certainly have more “power distance” in the workplace. On the other hand, I’m always surrounded by many people who have no curiosity nor intuition. I would say of factory management teams, their curiosity was burned out of them long ago. Furthermore, being Engineers, they tend to believe only what is accompanied by hard data.

Often there is no benefit to coaching. This includes coaching unethical employees, and employees that refuse to be coached. About a year ago I was asked to meet with an HR Manager who wanted to set up some Executive Coaching for the Production Manager of her small company. I asked the HR Manager to describe the Production Manager. She said the manager , played favorites with his subordinates, hired incompetent relatives to key positions, took bribes from operators in return for coveted overtime work, and always lied to the (foreign) GM. I asked why does such a man need coaching. The HR Manager responded “This manager is great at managing up. He is the only one here who speaks English. And I don’t have the power to tell the GM that he is being fooled”. I offered to give coaching services to the GM. That didn’t happen.

How do you coach someone who seems to lack curiosity, drive, and intuition? Based on my experience, here are some ideas:

• Find a neutral third party to coach. Managers are usually not the best choice to coach their direct subordinates unless they already have an open, mutually respectful relationship.
• Find a way that is a little bit “shocking” in order to wake people up. I give the “where to” speech because I want people to think about the long-term future…something people don’t think in China.
• Understand that identified bad personal performance may be tied to many complex factors. Coaching should be an opportunity to examine more than the coachee, but also the environment the coachee works in.
• Understand that poor performance maybe because trust was broken in the past. The coach must be humble and prepared to admit his/her part in those issues.
• For coaches and managers new to China, learn where “face” issues are. Never cause your valued subordinate to lose face…it will not improve performance. This does not mean you can’t embarrass people sometimes. But you have to know the limits.
• Lack of curiosity is quite possible an Organizational Development problem affecting a whole company, not just individuals. If you can, you need to address the” environmental” problems.
• Always use empathy, righteousness, and fairness in all your dealings.

These are my suggestions. Anyone have better ideas?

They want to increase Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) reporting and discipline. Since I have been promoting Performance Management Systems as a way to create culture and behavior change, the HR Manager has decided to put EHS KPIs into a new, discipline/reward oriented graphic-scale performance appraisal system. This appraisal system, which we call the “Discipline Scorecard”, is only used in the factory; a fact which is creating complaints of unfair standards. But lets put those complaints aside for a moment.

EHS in the factory must be promoted and enforced by the line supervisors and Production Manager. They must use the Discipline Scorecard to deduct points from workers who create EHS issues. I call this a “punishment policy”. Additionally, it is the primary job of the Vice General Manager and is considered very important by the Labor Union representative, both of whom actively monitor the factory. There is an EHS specialist who does training and consulting, and, until recently, there was an EHS manager (a shared resource between several business units on the site). However, although there is a lot of support and attention to EHS, no EHS program, training, or tracking will be effective without self-monitoring and reporting of the Operators themselves.

And here is the problem. If an Operator reports an EHS problem he created, he gets dinged. If his supervisor reports the problem, he also gets dinged. Guess where this is going?

From the point of view of all the management, they want to reach a quantitative goal for EHS reports and incidents. That’s a management goal which comes from HQ. But what we really want to do is reduce EHS incidents for the sake of protecting workers and improving our work conditions. I’m thinking about recommending that EHS problems should go unpunished when an Operator reports it. Or, at the least, figure out some sort of scoring mechanic which will promote self-reporting of EHS issues.

Does anyone have any idea on how to solve this problem? Or, does anyone have ideas on how to use the Performance Management system to increase self-reporting of issues which would usually require punishments?

Large companies usually have performance management systems in-place. Or, at the very least, they expect to be able to plug-and-play centralized systems. Many new (or less experienced) HR managers will copy a pre-packaged system into their operations without much customization. More often, they will implement centralized systems. The implementation usually does not consider what skills are necessary to effectively use the system. The problem here is that performance management systems ultimately are about managing the behavior of individual people, which is not easy. Success largely depends on having a management team who are capable of driving adoption of the system over a long period of time. Anyone can copy a performance management system from one company to another. Implementation is easy. But adoption is usually very difficult. The system must match business needs. The system needs people who know how to use it and have the right skills. The system should be aligned with corporate objectives.

In short, any semi-competent manager can introduce and implement a performance management system within a month. But in most Chinese companies who I have called upon (including foreign owned, JVs, and SOEs), the system will be viewed by managers as well as staff as just another HR system which creates “busy-work”. Gaining passionate adoption is a multi-year crusade which requires commitment and support from all levels of management. For a company to succeed in implementing and adopting a performance management system, the management must view performance management not as just another HR system, but rather as a tool to slowly change the way people behave. Change the way they think. Change their culture.