February 6, 2024 • 46 mins
Unlock the secrets to thriving in tech leadership with the insights of Mark Herschberg, whose own leap from physics aficionado to influential CTO unveils the vast scope of skills beyond engineering might. As Mark joins us, he lays bare the complex tapestry of success in the tech industry, pointing to the indispensable value of capabilities like leadership, networking, and communication. His own pivot from MIT to the startup world and beyond serves as a beacon for those charting their course through the tech sector, highlighting the merit of understanding company-wide goals and the impact of one's individual role.
Venturing through Mark's transition from the trenches of coding to the strategic vistas of management during the tech boom of '99, we uncover the strategies that bridge effective teamwork and the essence of recognizing the human component in software projects. Mark's reflection on his progression, akin to outgrowing childhood's Lego structures, showcases the enriching challenges found in leading people and shaping business strategies. His candid anecdotes from the frontline narrate the hard-won lessons on the importance of adapting communication styles to foster robust team dynamics, even in the most remote of working environments.
The episode culminates with a deep dive into the innovative strides made by MIT's skills training program, where Mark's collaboration has been pivotal. He shares how marrying industry experience with academic rigor equips the next wave of professionals with the tools for career success. Through this narrative, listeners glimpse the continuous interplay between evolving educational methods, like role-playing, and the real-world demands of the tech industry, encapsulating the journey of professional efficacy from classroom to boardroom.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mark Herschberg (00:00):
I wanted to become a CTO and I recognized it
wasn't just about being thebest engineer.
It wasn't that I could codebetter or faster than others.
There were all these otherskills I would need Leadership,
networking, negotiating,communication, hiring, team
building.
But no one ever taught them tome, so I began to work to
(00:20):
upskill myself.
We didn't have great podcastslike this back then.
It was a lot harder and as Idid, I realized these skills
will help everyone.
They are not just for leaders,not just for managers.
Everyone down to your summerinterns can benefit from these
skills.
So I began to upskill my team.
Tim Bourguignon (00:39):
Hello and welcome to Developers Journey,
the podcast bringing you themaking of stories of successful
software developers to help youon your upcoming journey.
I'm your host, Tim Boulgigno.
On this episode, I receive MarcHirschberg.
Marc has launched and developednew ventures at startups,
Fortune 500 and Academia.
(01:00):
He's the author of the book theCareer Toolkit Essential Skills
for Success that no One Toldyou, and helped to start the
undergraduate practiceopportunities program, dubbed
MIT's Career Success Accelerator, where he still teaches
annually Formerly, a top rankedballroom dancer and among many
(01:22):
other activities.
He also works with manynonprofits, currently serving on
the board of the Plant AMillion Corals Foundation.
Marc, a warm welcome toeveryone.
Mark Herschberg (01:33):
Well, thank you for having me.
It is my pleasure to be here.
Tim Bourguignon (01:36):
Oh, and it's our pleasure to have you here.
But before we come to yourstory, I want to thank the
terrific listeners who supportthe show.
Every month, you are keepingthe DevJourney light up.
If you would like to join thisfine crew and help me spend more
time on finding phenomenalguests than editing audio tracks
(01:56):
, please go to our website,devjourneyinfo and click on the
Support Me on Patreon button.
Even the smallest contributionsare giant steps toward a
sustainable DevJourney journey.
Thank you, and now back totoday's guest.
So, marc, as you know, the showexists to help the listeners
(02:18):
understand what your storylooked like and imagine how to
shape their own future.
So, as is usual on the show,let's go back to your beginnings
.
Where would you place the startof your DevJourney?
Mark Herschberg (02:29):
The start of my development journey probably
began at the end of eighth grade.
I was going into high school.
I already knew that I wanted tostudy physics in college and go
into politics.
So when we're trying to decidewhat elective for me to take,
I'm sitting with my guidancecounselor and I'm looking and
saying well, I want to takejustice.
(02:49):
Justice, that sounds like law.
That seems very appropriate forwhere I wanted to go.
And my guidance counselorlooked at me and said oh yeah,
we're not offering that.
Next year, pick something else.
I was caught off guard.
I didn't have a bad.
What do you mean?
The class was listed in thecatalog.
I didn't know what to do and myguidance counselor, who didn't
(03:09):
really provide much value otherthan this one critical moment,
said why don't I sign you up forcomputer programming one?
I didn't really want to do that, but I had no other options.
I thought, well, I'll come upwith something.
Maybe over the summer I canswitch.
I'll find something else.
But never saw anything else Iwanted, and so I showed up to
the class.
(03:29):
Now I had done a little.
I had a programming book.
I think a few years prior I didsome things in basic.
But we did this class andthey're teaching us basic, more
advanced stuff and I'm loving it.
I would get a programmingassignment and I would go home
and right away do the assignment.
We had a computer at home thiswas in the 80s and I'd code it
(03:51):
up and say wait, I'm done, Iwant to do more, I can't wait
for an extra assignment.
So that really got me excited.
And when I went off to MIT Idecided to double major in
physics and in computer science.
And even though I also minoredin political science, still
thinking I wanted to go intopolitics, I very quickly got
turned off from politics.
So I didn't go further downthat path.
(04:13):
And then as I graduated the 90s, physics was, funding was
declining, it was the end of theCold War, but software was
really taking off.
This is now the mid 90s, and sothat put me on that path.
Tim Bourguignon (04:27):
Did you look back at any any time at the
beginning of this CS 101 classessaying, well, but I still want
to go there.
I was really love at firstsight and you never looked back.
Mark Herschberg (04:39):
It was both because I do love computer
science, Even though I was notthe best of students freshman
year at MIT and definitely gotbeat up a bit by some of the
classes but then at the sametime I love the other stuff.
I am so glad I studied physics.
I wish I had more time to dophysics.
So it was love at first sight,but I have a harem of interests
(05:04):
and I tried to spend as muchtime as I can with each of them.
Tim Bourguignon (05:08):
So how did you choose your path, first at MIT,
into going into this, thiscomputer science major, and then
doubling major in physics?
How did you decide which pathto take?
I suppose MIT, mit's offeringis absolutely humongous and
really huge and you can goanywhere.
How did you find your path inthere?
Mark Herschberg (05:27):
Well, going in I knew I wanted all three of
those areas.
I knew I wanted physics.
I knew I wanted CS and I knew Iwas interested in politics.
I didn't think I could fit athird major in, but I was able
to get that as a minor andthrough some clever planning
that actually laid thefoundation for some of what I
now teach, I was able to fit allthree of those into my time at
(05:50):
MIT.
Tim Bourguignon (05:51):
Wow, is that normal to have two majors and a
minor in undergrad?
Mark Herschberg (05:57):
It was not very common back then.
Normally you'd have a major,maybe a major and a minor.
Double majors were pretty rare.
I believe these days it'sbecome a lot more common for
people to dual major or do amajor with multiple minors.
So it's become the trend and infact, one thing we saw at MIT
and I suspect is true at otherschools we would have students
(06:20):
that'll past maybe 10, 20 yearswould study computer science but
also biology because they wereinterested in biotech, and MIT
would see these trends and thenwould create these special
subdivisions within, for example, in computer science.
You can now subspecialize inbiotech, you're still getting a
CS degree or EECS, but with abiotech focus, and so they were
(06:44):
recognizing this Interesting.
Call it maybe not an overlap somuch as a conjunction, and when
I really think about whereopportunity lies, this was true
in the 90s.
I think it's still true today.
It's not necessarily within adiscipline, but when you go
cross discipline, usually that'smuch more virgin territory and
(07:06):
leads to a lot more opportunity.
Tim Bourguignon (07:09):
Much more conjunctions or synergies than
adding to think that I havenothing to do with one another
and falling into a crack.
It's really adding up in themiddle.
There's something new thatemerges and where there's way
less, let's say, offering interms of demand and offering,
(07:29):
there's way less people thathave the skills to really strive
in there, and so you can haveyour niche there.
Well, very cool.
What did you have in mind forthe mark that was coming out of
his MIT degree as double majorand minor?
What did you picture your firstand second and third jobs would
be?
Mark Herschberg (07:50):
Once I recognized I wasn't going to go
into physics, I said, okay, I'mdoing computer science.
I thought I'd be a softwareengineer.
Well, I first spent a yeardoing research at MIT for a
professor.
I do like academia, I do likepure research.
But then I just said, okay,I'll be a computer programmer.
And I found a job.
(08:10):
At this time I didn't have a lotof direction.
I knew I didn't want to workfor big tech, and back then big
tech was Microsoft and IBM.
Modern big tech mostly didn'texist.
I knew I didn't want to workfor Wall Street.
I knew I didn't want to go intoconsulting.
Those were three big industriesthat pulled from MIT and I
(08:31):
wound up at this tiny company.
They called it a startup.
I hadn't heard that term before.
I said, okay, fine, small techcompany, let me do this.
And I was very lucky that I hada really good manager and some
really good peers from whom Ilearned a lot, because I thought
, well, I've got a degree fromMIT, I know a lot, I'm a smart
(08:51):
guy, and I didn't know how much.
I didn't know.
But it was during that time theystarted to grow and I had a
very pivotal moment a coupleyears into that job.
My CTO called me into hisoffice one day and said listen,
this might come as a surprise toyou or maybe not, but I'm
(09:11):
leaving the company and I'mgoing to start my own.
I'm taking some people with meand you should come too.
Now, this was a surprise to me.
It should not have been,because I noticed a lot more
closed door meetings with thesenior team, not just there once
a week meeting.
There is definitely somethinggoing on and I didn't have the
mindfulness to think, hey,what's going on?
(09:33):
I should figure out.
Could this impact me?
I just sat there and happilycoded and when he offered me
this new job, all of a sudden Ihad a choice, because I thought,
well, I'm at this job, I'mhappy, I like the people, I'm
making good money I never eventhought should I consider
something else?
So once he gave me this new joboffer so well, now I have two
choices.
I need to figure out what isthe right next step.
(09:57):
So I have to prepare the jobsand then quickly start to think
about my long term future.
I was a competitive chessplayer as a kid, so I never
think one move ahead, I thinkmultiple moves ahead.
It's not just this next job?
What's this setting me up for?
Five, 10, 20 years down theroad, I realized I had more than
two job offers, because thiswas a dot com era in Boston, so
(10:20):
I'm not limited to just thesetwo.
Let me look around, and that'swhen I really started to be more
proactive in my career.
Where am I trying to go and howam I going to get there?
Tim Bourguignon (10:30):
I want to come back to that situation, or
awareness, understanding what'shappening around you, because
I've seen that a couple timesalready, people who are so in
their work, in the tasks thatthey were given, they don't
realize first and foremost andI'm not thinking about about
next steps and everything theydon't realize how what they're
(10:51):
creating fits in the big picture.
They don't realize how the bigpicture is constructing around
them and how sometimes people goaround them to to get something
and and and understand how theyfit into this.
And this is this has been oneof the key areas I poke at
during interviews isunderstanding.
(11:12):
Did you get the whole picture?
Did you get why you were thereand why you were doing this and
how it fit in the whole picture?
And then that would, of course,as you said, fit as well in
understanding what's happeningaround you.
Is there a meeting you're notinvited to where there seems to
be something important happening?
And maybe you should payattention to that, and it really
pays to becoming more senior tostart understanding this
(11:34):
understanding or the situationaround you.
I have no better word to putthat.
Mark Herschberg (11:41):
It's funny you struggle with the words because
this is all covered in chaptertwo of my book, titled working
effect, and that's probably myleast favorite title.
I could not come up with abetter title for that chapter
because it encompasses all thethings you're talking about.
It's not your work itself, it'snot writing code or if you're
an accounting doing financialreports, it's all the other
(12:04):
stuff.
Now that includes corporateculture and corporate politics,
which we get caught up inwhether we want to be or not.
It's understanding.
How are you delivering value?
Most people couldn't tell youwho their customers are.
They might have a list, butthey couldn't say well, our
customers tend to be mid-marketindustrial supply companies.
They don't know who theircustomers' customers are.
(12:27):
They don't understand how toadd value, and I always teach my
students and in all the otherwork I do If you don't know how
you're adding value, then it'sharder to add more value, which
is how you get ahead, how youget raises and promotions by
delivering more value.
But you're doing it without amap.
So understand the business thatyou're in.
(12:49):
Understand who are yourcustomers.
Now, it might be an internalcustomer, it might be the other
groups.
Adding this button helps thesales team.
Okay, how does it help thesales team?
It could be an externalcustomer, but understand your
customer's customer, how doingthis creates value for them.
To create value to theircustomers, understand your
industry.
(13:10):
When I do monthly meetings withmy team, we'll go over, okay,
what's happening and let's dosome big picture updates.
But I will make sure to talkabout here's what's happening in
other departments.
People often bring in anotherdepartment head the CFO, head of
sales, cmo say can you cometalk to my team?
(13:30):
We're going to spend 20 minutesof this meeting.
You give updates from yourdepartment.
Help them understand what'shappening.
But even if your managerdoesn't do this, here's
something that kills me.
Most people cannot name thecoworkers around them.
Oh, there's some woman.
She sits 30 feet from me.
(13:50):
I think she's in finance.
I think her name is Sarah, butthat's about all I know in
finance.
I guess I don't know.
She does stuff with checks.
They don't know.
You're saying 30 feet from thisperson for a year.
So go out, meet your coworkers,talk to them, meet them for
coffee to say, hey, I'm tryingto learn more about the
different aspects of the company.
(14:11):
Can we just grab coffee?
Tell me about your job?
What do you do here, you'regoing to learn so much and you
will be much more effectivebecause you have a better
understanding of your role andhow it fits into the business
and your industry.
Tim Bourguignon (14:26):
And I'm cringing because I'm in a 100%
remote company and so there's noreally way to see this person
30 feet away from you.
She is somewhere on Slack andyou just don't see her.
And so you have to be explicitabout this.
You have to be poking atdifferent, different persons you
don't know and say, hey, randomperson, I have never met you,
(14:48):
let's talk.
Mark Herschberg (14:49):
I'm going to recommend.
I rarely recommend third partytools, but I'm going to
recommend two.
There was a company calledDonutai.
I remember when they werepitching they were looking for
angel funding.
I saw the pitch.
I liked the idea.
I just didn't believe in thesize of the market.
It didn't seem defensible.
And it's not because a friendof mine wrote a competitor
(15:10):
called SUP.
Sup, as in what's up, they areboth plugins to Slack which,
given the technical audience, Isuspect most people are using
Slack and what it does.
It just creates these randompairings.
So this week I'm going to getnoticed that, hey, you and I are
supposed to get together forcoffee.
It can be done in person, itcan be done virtually, and it
(15:32):
just says, Okay, you're gonnameet and mark, you take the
initiative and I'll just Slack.
You say, Okay, hey, we'resupposed to meet, Let me know
when you're free.
And that's a good way to reallyjust create some of that water
cooler conversation that youdon't always get when you're
virtual.
Tim Bourguignon (15:46):
Absolutely, and smiling because we're using
Donut.
It's exactly this.
It's really exactly creatingthose, those serendipitous,
serendipitous meetings, justbecause you don't have the
opportunity otherwise.
That's very important.
Okay, let's, let's go back tothat CTO grabbing you and
(16:06):
telling you hey, common born andshit.
Did you say yes?
Mark Herschberg (16:11):
I looked at his company, I looked at my current
company and, as I mentioned, Irealized there were more than
two options, because this wasthe end of this was 1999 in
Boston, the end of the dot comerror.
We didn't know was the end ofit, but there were so many
opportunities and I realizedwhere I wanted to go.
I wanted to become a CTO, andit wasn't just about being a
(16:32):
better developer.
Both of these companies weregoing to continue me, primarily
in my individual contributorskills.
I'd be doing more coding andmaybe more advanced coding, but
I wanted to get more intoproject management and start
working on other skills.
So I looked for an opportunitythat would take me down that
(16:52):
path and that's where I went.
Did you feel?
Tim Bourguignon (16:54):
ready for leaving IC behind you and going
for something else?
Mark Herschberg (17:01):
It depends on when you're asking me that,
because at the time I would havesaid yes.
Today I would have said maybe.
And what I mean is there's afamous expression in the land of
the blind the one I'd man asking.
I currently did not have morethan one eye open, but that was
(17:23):
one more than most of the otherpeople, because at this time we
were so desperate for coders Ifyou just knew how to use a
computer.
I remember I had a.
There was a recruiter who triedto pitch me a QA person, and I
asked about her background.
I said, well, she knows how toturn on and use a computer.
Now, my standard was a littlehigher than that, but yeah, that
(17:46):
was a level when he could pitchpeople, because in 1999, such
demand and such a shortage thatyou could sell people that way.
So, having even a few moreyears of experience, I had a lot
more to offer.
For the record, I was also acompetitive ballroom dancer and
I know a lot about the ballroomdancing world.
If you go into a ballroom dancestudio and you say, oh hi,
(18:07):
we're here to take some classesor learn for a wedding, chances
are, the person teaching you isnot some world class champion.
It's someone who may have onlylearned to dance six or 12
months before me and the othercompetitors.
We could I and the othercompetitors we could run circles
(18:28):
around this person, but thisperson was sufficiently ahead of
the wedding couple that he wasfine teaching them Absolutely.
So really, you just needsomeone who's just a little bit
better than you and you areadding value.
So I think I still had a longway to go, but I was still.
I had enough to add value atthe time.
Tim Bourguignon (18:47):
Okay, I want to flip it around and and wrongly
reformulate it, just to see howyou react when you say back then
yes, maybe now maybe I'm alsohearing the naivety of the youth
saying, yes, of course, I'mready for that and now, in
hindsight, thinking, well,actually wasn't, but it was
(19:09):
sufficient.
Mark Herschberg (19:11):
I still didn't know all the things I didn't
know.
I remember, for example, I wastalking with one of the founders
and we're talking about theproject we had.
Most of our developers wereeither just to have college or
some of them had dropped out todo a startup.
And I remember we're talkingabout timelines and one of the
(19:31):
founders said well, we're justgoing to ask them to give their
estimates, because if they givean estimate then of course they
have to hold themselvesaccountable towards it.
I get like we as managers can'ttell them what to do because we
might not get it right.
But if they say it, well, thenthey've got to complete it.
And I remember thinking thatdoesn't sound right, like
(19:52):
there's still some problems bycouldn't articulate.
Estimates are hard and even ifyou ask them to do it, it
doesn't magically mean they cancomplete it by then, yet have
the vocabulary, the mentalmodels sufficiently fleshed out
to articulate it.
My gut was going in the rightdirection, but I still didn't
have as much experience as Iwould have liked if I had hired
(20:13):
me in that role.
Tim Bourguignon (20:15):
I hear you.
I hear you.
So how did that work out?
Did you find a CTO position?
Did you manage to get someexperience on your belt and
really step into this direction?
Mark Herschberg (20:25):
Well, in that job.
Now we technically had a CTOwho is the 22 year old college
dropout co-founder, who to thisday I don't know what exactly he
did.
I had the entire engineeringteam reporting to me.
I then had I don't know ifyou'd call it foresight or not
(20:46):
quite sure what term I said.
You know, at a certain point Iam realizing I might be not the
best person for this.
I think I'm doing a good job,but there must be better people,
more experienced people, and ifwe bring in one of those, I
could learn from him.
We brought in a guy who haddecades of experience at IBM and
(21:06):
I watched him make a wholebunch of just dumb mistakes.
He probably knew more aboutbusiness than me.
He knew a lot less aboutmanaging people than I did, and
I looked back at the time andthink I should not have brought
this guy in because he did notknow more than me and it became
very frustrating watching himmake some dumb decisions that he
(21:27):
knew.
You know, this is how bigcompanies work and this is how
I've done it for years, and itwas very frustrating watching
that, causing me to eventuallyleave.
But after that I then startedgoing into other senior
positions, vp level positionsand then CTO positions.
Tim Bourguignon (21:43):
And regretted any of that compared to staying
in IC, I mean.
Mark Herschberg (21:50):
No, I think I went down the right path.
I do miss some IC work.
The analogy I always use isLegos, something that I suspect
nearly every one of youraudience has played with at some
point.
So ask yourself this questionwhy did you stop playing with
Legos?
And if you need to pause thepodcast, take a minute before
(22:13):
you hear my answer.
Think about why you may havestopped playing with Legos.
The answer for myself and formany people is that it gets
repetitive.
I had built a number ofspaceships.
I fly them around the room andI take them apart.
I build another spaceship, butspaceship 63 looks a lot like
spaceships one to 62.
(22:33):
And at a certain point you wantdifferent challenges.
I like coding, but I wasgetting tired of okay and we're
going to build another usersystem.
Make sure users have theseattributes on, don't forget the
logging and build all this, andback then we didn't even have
the libraries we have today.
But still, if you think aboutyour code, we know it's that
(22:53):
80-20 rule 20% is the core codeand the 80% is the defensive
coding around it, and that getsvery repetitive.
What I like about the peopleside of the business and that's
managing people or the businessstrategy.
It's always going to bedifferent and every rule has an
exception, so it's a harder setof problems.
(23:14):
Just as I moved on from theLegos to a more complex type of
play activity, I wanted to moveon to a more complex set of
challenges, because that's rightfor me.
That's not right for everyone.
So I'm glad I am where I am.
I do wish I had X hours a weekto keep coding.
The bigger challenge it's notthat I can't carve out the time,
(23:36):
but it's that I can't alwayskeep up with the latest software
.
Tim Bourguignon (23:40):
I know that problem.
I'm trying to cover Legoshidden behind me.
Mark Herschberg (23:46):
I have some as well on other shelves, but I
don't spend a lot of time takingthem apart and putting them
back together to play with them.
Many of us have on our shelvesbut we're not actually playing
with them.
Tim Bourguignon (23:55):
You don't know what you're missing.
Yeah, I totally agree.
The people problem is reallywhat attracted me at some point
as well, saying, well, I did alot of consultancy and saw the
same patterns and say, ok,that's where we are on the
journey.
Ok, now we're going to havethis problem, and now we're
going to have that problem.
Now we're going to startscaling and we're going to have
(24:16):
that problem.
And again and again and again,you see the same patterns and
the same problem.
On the technical side, at somepoint it becomes a bit dull and
says, hey, let's see what'shappening on the people side,
and every case is different, andthis podcast is an example as
well.
This is Joe 280, and no storyhas been twice the same.
(24:36):
It's always different, there'salways something different, and
so throw a bunch of people inthe same room and you have a
synergy that you've never seenbefore and you have something
that's completely unique again,and I love this puzzle.
I really love this puzzle aswell.
Mark Herschberg (24:49):
Before we start recording, you and I were
talking and you mentioned thebook the Mythical man Month,
which is a fantastic book.
Now, half of the book is gold,like the Mythical man Month, and
if you haven't read it, youprobably find the article online
.
The article that's the title ofthe book.
Half of it is very dated.
He talks about documentation byGrafiche.
Just go, okay, that's.
(25:10):
It's interesting from ahistorical perspective but very
out of date.
But another book I would put atthat level is People Wear by
Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister,and the thesis of People Wear is
that most software projectsfail not due to technological
reasons but sociological reasons.
(25:31):
It's that we didn't communicatewell.
It's that we had too manychanges during the thing.
It's not that, oh, we neededmore PhDs to get this done.
It wasn't technically toocomplex, it was all the people
issues that made it really hard.
There's not a line of code inthe book.
It is still one of the bestbooks on software or management
(25:53):
in general that I've read.
Tim Bourguignon (25:54):
Indeed, indeed, and that's actually been the
way I describe my job tonon-technical people.
It's basically well, throw 200engineers in a room and make
them work together, and I'm hereto help.
That Usually it's enough forpeople to say, oh, I see, and
(26:16):
that's indeed a People Wear isfantastic.
I really recommend it as well.
And that's what we've seenrecently with Conway's Law and
Reverse Conway's Law, with bookstalking about one or the other
meaning how do you design yoursoftware to influence the
organizational structures andvice versa, how the
organizational structuresinfluence the way your software
(26:36):
is built, and this is really abalance you have to keep, and
both of them are going toinfluence the other, and if you
veer too hard on one, then theother one is going to become a
problem, and then vice versa.
So really you cannot leave thisout.
This is so important.
Mark Herschberg (26:52):
I would actually very actively think
about who is sitting where.
Back when we were in physicaloffices five days a week, we'd
move into new office.
I think, how do I want to layout this office, these teams?
Because you have yourorganizational structure, but
even just physically, who isnear whom impacts your
communication flow and whathappens.
(27:14):
And in fact, I encouragemanagers really, when you think
about modern management, it isabout managing information flow.
It's about making sure theright people have the right
conversations at the right time.
If you can do that, then you'regoing to be an effective
manager.
Now that might happen becausewe have a weekly check-in
(27:36):
meeting or after this happensyou need to send an email to the
team.
But also happens because youput these people near each other
whether they're physically neareach other or their teams that
have regular coordinationmeetings.
You're going to enhance thechances of having those right
conversations with the rightpeople at the right time.
Tim Bourguignon (27:56):
And add the remote variable on top of that,
that becomes an interestingpuzzle.
Mark Herschberg (28:02):
Well, that's where you have to be more
explicit, because we don't havethat water cooler conversation.
We're not both getting coffeeat the same time.
We can use tools like Donut tofacilitate that.
Or we can just be more explicitand just say we're going to
have maybe more check-inmeetings, or it's more important
that you send this email whenthis happens to give an update.
(28:23):
As long as we think about andmanage that information flow, we
can do it formally orinformally.
And when you think about a teamthat might be four people
saying in a room together, youdon't need a lot of formal
meetings because the informationflow is natural when you have
40 people.
That's where we need thestructure.
Likewise, when we're even justfour people, but in different
(28:44):
time zones, we just need to adda little more structure to
foster that communications.
Tim Bourguignon (28:49):
Mm-hmm, I like the way you're putting it.
You're not advocating for moreor not advocating for faster,
but you're just saying addingstructure, which really is
dependent on the context.
I, for instance, have a basecamp in mind which we've heard a
lot, and they really advocatefor slower communication, more
(29:09):
thoughtful communication,probably not answering like a
chat, but really answering.
Let's answer tomorrow with allthe information and not on an
article, but almost really withthe thinking process, as if the
person afterwards won't be ableto reach me, to reach out and
add some or ask some morequestion, and really will have
only this article to work with.
(29:30):
And this really brings adifferent way of working and for
them that is the right thing.
For a different company itwould be a different set of
constraints and maybe it wouldneed some faster communication,
but really have to find out whatthis chemistry for your
organization is and really tellyou that structure for what you
need.
Mark Herschberg (29:50):
That's exactly right.
When we think about processesand we can think about waterfall
versus agile and agile is greatin many cases there are also
certain cases where you do wantwaterfall.
I remember reading for the USSpace Shuttle, which is now
retired, it would take them sixmonths to change a line of code.
Any of our businesses would die.
(30:12):
But you think about and sayliterally billions of dollars
and lives at stake.
I'm okay with them going reallyslow and being very careful in a
very unforgiving environment,so that flow is right for them.
And when you think about whatthese project management
techniques are, they're reallyabout the information flow,
(30:35):
whether it's we can't move tothe next stage until this one
has had all the checks, or justwe need to rapidly communicate
information in a daily standupand then do quick changes to get
quick feedback in a scrum.
So really it's saying what isthat information flow and
flexibility that we need?
Is it slow, steady, fullythought out, accurate
(30:57):
information versus the otherextreme, quick, dynamic
information?
And of course there's all sortsof in between and it's not just
that one dimension.
Tim Bourguignon (31:06):
No, it is not, and that's what makes the work
of organization crafting so hard.
You have to understand theright levers and not pull them
all at the same time, andunderstand how one maybe feeds
into the other and you can get areinforcing loop at some point
and get too much of the goodnessyou wanted to have and break
stuff.
(31:26):
So this is a fun puzzle.
I'd like to twist thediscussion a little bit.
So obviously, as a manager, oras a manager of manager, as
somebody in the leadership of acompany, you probably
accompanied a lot of people andreally did some mentoring I
(31:47):
wouldn't say teaching, butmentoring and really guiding
people.
At what time did you decide toformalize this and go back to
MIT and teach for real?
Mark Herschberg (31:57):
Pretty early on , so early in my career, I
mentioned how I knew I wanted toget into more of the people
side.
I wanted to become a CTO and Irecognized it wasn't just about
being the best engineer.
It wasn't that I could codebetter or faster than others.
There were all these otherskills I would need leadership,
networking, negotiating,communication, hiring, team
(32:19):
building, team building but noone ever taught them to me.
So I began to work to upscalemyself.
We didn't have great podcastslike this back then.
It was a lot harder and as Idid, I realized these skills
will help everyone.
They are not just for leaders,not just for managers.
Everyone, down to your summerinterns can benefit from these
(32:41):
skills.
So I began to upscale my teamand as I was doing that, mit had
gotten similar feedback.
Companies were saying these arethe skills we want to see, not
just in engineers, not just incollege grads.
Universally we look for theseskills and they're very hard to
find.
So MIT was pointing together aprogram to address this.
(33:02):
When I heard about it throughmy network, I said, okay, well,
maybe MIT could use some of whatI've built.
I reached out to the person whowas starting up this program.
I said I've got some content,I'm happy to give it to you.
I thought that would be it Oneand done, here you go, best of
luck.
But instead he said hold on,can you stay and maybe help us
(33:23):
build a little more content?
Okay, sure, spend some time,this could be fun.
So we were building out someadditional training and as we
were doing it, what he told meyears later is he recognized.
I brought a different dimension.
Now we have a number of amazingprofessors school of
engineering, sloan, school ofManagement.
These are literally the toppeople in the world, but they're
(33:46):
very academic.
They don't spend a lot of timein industry.
They said you're bringing thisindustry perspective.
That I think is unique.
We should bring in more peoplelike you to bring in that
perspective.
So we went out.
We found a bunch of other folksand created this program that's
co-taught.
We have the professors, becausewe need to get academic credit
(34:08):
and that requires professors,but then also practitioners like
myself co-teaching the students.
And this was 2001,.
2002 is what we heard.
So I have been teaching therefor decades and it was only the
last few years where I said Iknow this is helpful to not just
engineers, to everyone.
(34:29):
How can we reach a largeraudience?
I was trying to push MIT to putthis stuff online.
For various reasons that didn'thappen, so I thought I'd write
up notes, and what I thought wasgoing to be 10 or 20 pages of
notes expanded and suddenlybecame a 270 page book.
Tim Bourguignon (34:46):
Which is great for you, I guess.
Mark Herschberg (34:48):
Hopefully helpful to the world, because
that's my goal is trying to helpmore people develop these
skills.
I really want to see peoplemaximize their professional
efficacy Indeed indeed.
Tim Bourguignon (35:00):
Way better way to put it.
How have you seen this programevolve in those 20 years?
Mark Herschberg (35:09):
It's.
We've evolved, we've learned alot about teaching these skills.
It's very interesting becausethis is not first of all these
skills.
It's not how we learnprogramming or other skills when
you think back to what you'relearning.
You learned history by having aprofessor say here are the
important dates.
You learn coding by okay,here's how memory works, here's
(35:30):
computer architecture, here'sone.
If then statement does Right,then I say okay, I get, and then
we just go and regurgitate theanswer.
But that's not how these skillswork.
These skills are more akin tolearning sports.
I can teach you the rules to agame in 30 minutes, but it's
going to take you years to getgood at.
(35:51):
It requires drills andscrimmage games and coaching and
reflection, and that's theapproach that we take here.
So we start off doing that.
But even coaching if you ask,for example, a soccer coach or a
football coach, what they'recoaching was like year one
versus year 10 of their career.
Like I say, I've learned a lotmore about how to be a coach and
(36:14):
I think over the past fewdecades we learned a lot about
how best to engage the students,what type of activities work.
We've tweaked the activities tomake them more likely to get
the educational goals we'retrying to achieve, and so we've
done.
I'd say the core still works,but we've definitely done a lot
(36:34):
of tweaks along the way andwe've added modules and taken
modules out, based on a numberof factors.
Tim Bourguignon (36:41):
Again, wrong reformulation.
To be sure I understood whatyou described is it's basically
tweaking the form but not reallytweaking the content.
It's saying, well, this formdidn't really fit that context,
or maybe we discovered adifferent way to bring it out,
but the content remained thesame over 20 years.
Is it what you meant?
Mark Herschberg (37:02):
Yes and no.
The content has changed in thatwe've said we're going to drop
this module and that content andwe're going to add a different
module with different content,just because, if you think about
the skills we're trying toteach these skills, you can do a
semester-long class on just oneskill, yeah, and we're trying
to cram it all into a reducedprogram.
(37:23):
So we're just giving them alittle sample of each and just
at times you might say let's dothis, not that, but any given
module whether this is aleadership module, this is a
negotiation module how westructure it, the way we
approach it, the actual exerciseitself might change up based on
(37:44):
our experience and feedback.
For example, in certainactivities we want students to
fail.
They do better, they learnbetter once they fail.
There's another activity wherewe try to get a 50-50 split.
These are a lot of role-playingactivities and at the end we
want half the students to makeone choice and have to make the
(38:05):
other.
If they're all making onechoice, whether it's right or
wrong, it feels like, ok, wepush them too much in that
direction.
When we get that 50-50 split,then we can have a real
discussion before we tell themhow this all plays out.
Why did you think that way?
Oh, I never thought about thepoint you're bringing up and
that brings out a richerexperience.
(38:26):
So those are types of tweaksthat we do.
Tim Bourguignon (38:30):
What is the target audience of this class?
Is this really a freshman, 18years old, coming just out of
high school, or more, at the endof their undergraduate studies?
Mark Herschberg (38:42):
The class I've been teaching is for MIT
sophomores.
We have created sister programsthat go into the junior and
senior year for typically asmaller cohort of students.
We hit a wide range of hundredsof students each year.
Those then get down into thetens of students and now we're
looking at expanding.
(39:02):
I've been asking for years toexpand to graduate students,
which I think we're finallystarting to do this academic
year, 2023, 2024, possibly nextyear.
Tim Bourguignon (39:13):
Did you expect a difference in maturity and
life experience and that thisdifferent, this life experience
would affect the way peopleembrace the content or maybe
react to the content?
Mark Herschberg (39:28):
I don't think life experience from a few years
, from college versus collegeand grad school or sophomore to
senior I don't think it impactsthem that much.
What I'm finding is a biggercausality of how people engage
with this content.
(39:48):
First it's just some naturalinclination.
We just see the bell curve ofsome students say I really want
to learn this.
Others show up and well, I hearyou give free food so I'm doing
it.
A friend told me to do it.
Some just like well, I guessI'm here and I'm getting credit,
but they're not really engaged.
And you just see people, theirlevel of engagement, of interest
(40:09):
and how well they take to it.
Standard bell curve.
I will say, having now taughtfor a few decades, I have
definitely seen generationaltrends in how people approach
this and their interest tocertain things.
So that's probably a biggermacro factor than just are you
19 versus 21 when you're doingthis?
Tim Bourguignon (40:31):
OK, that could be an episode in itself, just
talking about that bell curveand how it devolved over years.
But unfortunately we're at theend of our time box and I want
to go back to one of the things,or one key moment I think in
the interview is when youdescribe leaving individual
contribution and going intomanagement.
(40:52):
This hell, yeah, I'm ready forthat.
If you had an advice for peopleexactly at that stage of their
career saying, well, I've seenthose problems and I see again
and again and again, I think I'mready for the rest.
How do I step into thisdirection?
How do I really make the rightmoves to be on the right track
(41:13):
into going there?
Do you have an advice for them?
Mark Herschberg (41:16):
I mean you have two pieces of advice.
The first is that you have toembrace these other skills,
Because when you're anindividual contributor, you
start out, you solve a certaintype of problem and when you do
well, they say we're advancingyou and now you solve a bigger
version of that problem and yetan even bigger version, and
(41:36):
you're typically doubling downon your technical skills.
I'm using technical, notnecessarily coding.
Again, it could be marketing orfinance, but it's that domain
skill that you are using overand over.
You're just wielding a biggerhammer To get to those higher
levels.
It's not about that domainskill, it's about all the other
(41:57):
skills.
It is about negotiating andhiring and team building and
managing and leading.
And the big challenge you haveto rely more on those skills.
And the big challenge is you'veprobably succeeded by just being
bigger, better, faster, but nowthat you're a manager you can't
(42:18):
do it and we see a lot ofmanagers burn out from that hero
.
Ok, the team's flowing, I'm justgoing to jump in, I'm going to
pull the all nighter, I'm goingto get it done.
And you might be able to dothat in your first role or do it
from time to time, but as youget more and more people.
You can't just pick up moreload.
Your ability to complete, toachieve, to deliver value is no
(42:41):
longer what you can carry inyour hands.
It's your ability to get theteam to do that, and that's a
very different type of challengethan what you've had before.
So we've basically beenrewarding you for a certain type
of activity and all of a suddenwe just change the rules of the
game when you become a manager,and so that's where you often
get tripped up and that's whereyou have to say it's no longer
(43:03):
my technical skills, yes, you'regoing to need those, but all of
a sudden these other skillsreally come into play a lot more
.
Tim Bourguignon (43:11):
Amen to that.
This is so important to realizeand understand, otherwise,
you're going for the walldirectly.
Mark, this has been a fantasticdiscussion.
Thank you so much.
It was really enjoyable.
Mark Herschberg (43:23):
Well, thanks again for having me on the show.
Tim Bourguignon (43:25):
It was my pleasure.
Where could the listeners reachout and could use this question
with you?
Mark Herschberg (43:31):
I'm going to give you two websites.
The first is my book's website,thecareertoolkitbookcom, and
there you can learn more aboutthe book.
You can follow me on socialmedia.
You can get in touch with me ifyou have questions.
I put out new articles everyweek and I have a whole page of
free resources.
I have nothing to sell.
Technically, you have to buythe book for if you want the
(43:52):
book, but everything else it'sfree.
I don't even care about gettingyour email because I'm not
trying to sell you anything else.
We have the career questions.
You should be asking yourselfQuestions to ask during an
interview to figure out is thisthe right company fit for you?
We have questions to ask whenyou're hiring to make sure
you're thinking the right wayabout hiring.
We've got links to all sorts ofother resources, again all free
(44:14):
, and all of this atthecareertoolkitbookcom.
The second website is becauseso often you read a book like
mine, say this is great, butthen you forget.
Where do you read thosenetworking tips?
Sitting at home?
Where do you need them Twomonths later at the conference?
We want to put those tips inyour pocket and again, it's all
(44:35):
completely free.
We created the BrainBump app, soif you go to brainbumpappcom.
You can follow links to the appstores to download the free app
.
It has all the tips for my book.
If you went through with ahighlighter, this is what you
would highlight.
We don't even check that youbought the book.
You get this all for free.
But you also have tips fromother books, career books,
(44:57):
management books, sales books,tips from podcasts, tips from
blogs, tips from other sources,with an ever-growing list.
So you have them all right inyour pocket and you can either
pull it up as you need it asyou're going into that
conference, pull up thosenetworking tips, or you can set
for a daily reminder.
If you're a new manager, 9 AMeach day, just get one of those
(45:18):
tips.
You don't have to open the app,just pops up.
You say, all right, I rememberwe're supposed to do this Great
swipe, but that's going to helpyou remember it and have it in
the forefront of your mind asyou go through your day.
So that's the BrainBump app,completely free.
Brainbumpappcom.
Tim Bourguignon (45:37):
And if you didn't get that scroll down, it
will be in the show notes.
Just click on it.
Goodness, I can promise youAnything else.
Mark Herschberg (45:46):
That's everything, Marc.
Thank you so much.
Tim Bourguignon (45:49):
Thanks again, and this has been another
episode of Dev.
First Journey with each othernext week Bye-bye.
Thanks a lot for tuning in.
I hope you have enjoyed thisweek's episode.
If you like the show, pleaseshare, rate and review.
It helps more listenersdiscover those stories.
You can find the links to allthe platforms the show appears
(46:13):
on on our website devjourneyinfo.
Subscribe.
Talk to you soon.
I wanted to become a CTO and I recognized it
wasn't just about being thebest engineer.
It wasn't that I could codebetter or faster than others.
There were all these otherskills I would need Leadership,
networking, negotiating,communication, hiring, team
building.
But no one ever taught them tome, so I began to work to
(00:20):
upskill myself.
We didn't have great podcastslike this back then.
It was a lot harder and as Idid, I realized these skills
will help everyone.
They are not just for leaders,not just for managers.
Everyone down to your summerinterns can benefit from these
skills.
So I began to upskill my team.
Tim Bourguignon (00:39):
Hello and welcome to Developers Journey,
the podcast bringing you themaking of stories of successful
software developers to help youon your upcoming journey.
I'm your host, Tim Boulgigno.
On this episode, I receive MarcHirschberg.
Marc has launched and developednew ventures at startups,
Fortune 500 and Academia.
(01:00):
He's the author of the book theCareer Toolkit Essential Skills
for Success that no One Toldyou, and helped to start the
undergraduate practiceopportunities program, dubbed
MIT's Career Success Accelerator, where he still teaches
annually Formerly, a top rankedballroom dancer and among many
(01:22):
other activities.
He also works with manynonprofits, currently serving on
the board of the Plant AMillion Corals Foundation.
Marc, a warm welcome toeveryone.
Mark Herschberg (01:33):
Well, thank you for having me.
It is my pleasure to be here.
Tim Bourguignon (01:36):
Oh, and it's our pleasure to have you here.
But before we come to yourstory, I want to thank the
terrific listeners who supportthe show.
Every month, you are keepingthe DevJourney light up.
If you would like to join thisfine crew and help me spend more
time on finding phenomenalguests than editing audio tracks
(01:56):
, please go to our website,devjourneyinfo and click on the
Support Me on Patreon button.
Even the smallest contributionsare giant steps toward a
sustainable DevJourney journey.
Thank you, and now back totoday's guest.
So, marc, as you know, the showexists to help the listeners
(02:18):
understand what your storylooked like and imagine how to
shape their own future.
So, as is usual on the show,let's go back to your beginnings
.
Where would you place the startof your DevJourney?
Mark Herschberg (02:29):
The start of my development journey probably
began at the end of eighth grade.
I was going into high school.
I already knew that I wanted tostudy physics in college and go
into politics.
So when we're trying to decidewhat elective for me to take,
I'm sitting with my guidancecounselor and I'm looking and
saying well, I want to takejustice.
(02:49):
Justice, that sounds like law.
That seems very appropriate forwhere I wanted to go.
And my guidance counselorlooked at me and said oh yeah,
we're not offering that.
Next year, pick something else.
I was caught off guard.
I didn't have a bad.
What do you mean?
The class was listed in thecatalog.
I didn't know what to do and myguidance counselor, who didn't
(03:09):
really provide much value otherthan this one critical moment,
said why don't I sign you up forcomputer programming one?
I didn't really want to do that, but I had no other options.
I thought, well, I'll come upwith something.
Maybe over the summer I canswitch.
I'll find something else.
But never saw anything else Iwanted, and so I showed up to
the class.
(03:29):
Now I had done a little.
I had a programming book.
I think a few years prior I didsome things in basic.
But we did this class andthey're teaching us basic, more
advanced stuff and I'm loving it.
I would get a programmingassignment and I would go home
and right away do the assignment.
We had a computer at home thiswas in the 80s and I'd code it
(03:51):
up and say wait, I'm done, Iwant to do more, I can't wait
for an extra assignment.
So that really got me excited.
And when I went off to MIT Idecided to double major in
physics and in computer science.
And even though I also minoredin political science, still
thinking I wanted to go intopolitics, I very quickly got
turned off from politics.
So I didn't go further downthat path.
(04:13):
And then as I graduated the 90s, physics was, funding was
declining, it was the end of theCold War, but software was
really taking off.
This is now the mid 90s, and sothat put me on that path.
Tim Bourguignon (04:27):
Did you look back at any any time at the
beginning of this CS 101 classessaying, well, but I still want
to go there.
I was really love at firstsight and you never looked back.
Mark Herschberg (04:39):
It was both because I do love computer
science, Even though I was notthe best of students freshman
year at MIT and definitely gotbeat up a bit by some of the
classes but then at the sametime I love the other stuff.
I am so glad I studied physics.
I wish I had more time to dophysics.
So it was love at first sight,but I have a harem of interests
(05:04):
and I tried to spend as muchtime as I can with each of them.
Tim Bourguignon (05:08):
So how did you choose your path, first at MIT,
into going into this, thiscomputer science major, and then
doubling major in physics?
How did you decide which pathto take?
I suppose MIT, mit's offeringis absolutely humongous and
really huge and you can goanywhere.
How did you find your path inthere?
Mark Herschberg (05:27):
Well, going in I knew I wanted all three of
those areas.
I knew I wanted physics.
I knew I wanted CS and I knew Iwas interested in politics.
I didn't think I could fit athird major in, but I was able
to get that as a minor andthrough some clever planning
that actually laid thefoundation for some of what I
now teach, I was able to fit allthree of those into my time at
(05:50):
MIT.
Tim Bourguignon (05:51):
Wow, is that normal to have two majors and a
minor in undergrad?
Mark Herschberg (05:57):
It was not very common back then.
Normally you'd have a major,maybe a major and a minor.
Double majors were pretty rare.
I believe these days it'sbecome a lot more common for
people to dual major or do amajor with multiple minors.
So it's become the trend and infact, one thing we saw at MIT
and I suspect is true at otherschools we would have students
(06:20):
that'll past maybe 10, 20 yearswould study computer science but
also biology because they wereinterested in biotech, and MIT
would see these trends and thenwould create these special
subdivisions within, for example, in computer science.
You can now subspecialize inbiotech, you're still getting a
CS degree or EECS, but with abiotech focus, and so they were
(06:44):
recognizing this Interesting.
Call it maybe not an overlap somuch as a conjunction, and when
I really think about whereopportunity lies, this was true
in the 90s.
I think it's still true today.
It's not necessarily within adiscipline, but when you go
cross discipline, usually that'smuch more virgin territory and
(07:06):
leads to a lot more opportunity.
Tim Bourguignon (07:09):
Much more conjunctions or synergies than
adding to think that I havenothing to do with one another
and falling into a crack.
It's really adding up in themiddle.
There's something new thatemerges and where there's way
less, let's say, offering interms of demand and offering,
(07:29):
there's way less people thathave the skills to really strive
in there, and so you can haveyour niche there.
Well, very cool.
What did you have in mind forthe mark that was coming out of
his MIT degree as double majorand minor?
What did you picture your firstand second and third jobs would
be?
Mark Herschberg (07:50):
Once I recognized I wasn't going to go
into physics, I said, okay, I'mdoing computer science.
I thought I'd be a softwareengineer.
Well, I first spent a yeardoing research at MIT for a
professor.
I do like academia, I do likepure research.
But then I just said, okay,I'll be a computer programmer.
And I found a job.
(08:10):
At this time I didn't have a lotof direction.
I knew I didn't want to workfor big tech, and back then big
tech was Microsoft and IBM.
Modern big tech mostly didn'texist.
I knew I didn't want to workfor Wall Street.
I knew I didn't want to go intoconsulting.
Those were three big industriesthat pulled from MIT and I
(08:31):
wound up at this tiny company.
They called it a startup.
I hadn't heard that term before.
I said, okay, fine, small techcompany, let me do this.
And I was very lucky that I hada really good manager and some
really good peers from whom Ilearned a lot, because I thought
, well, I've got a degree fromMIT, I know a lot, I'm a smart
(08:51):
guy, and I didn't know how much.
I didn't know.
But it was during that time theystarted to grow and I had a
very pivotal moment a coupleyears into that job.
My CTO called me into hisoffice one day and said listen,
this might come as a surprise toyou or maybe not, but I'm
(09:11):
leaving the company and I'mgoing to start my own.
I'm taking some people with meand you should come too.
Now, this was a surprise to me.
It should not have been,because I noticed a lot more
closed door meetings with thesenior team, not just there once
a week meeting.
There is definitely somethinggoing on and I didn't have the
mindfulness to think, hey,what's going on?
(09:33):
I should figure out.
Could this impact me?
I just sat there and happilycoded and when he offered me
this new job, all of a sudden Ihad a choice, because I thought,
well, I'm at this job, I'mhappy, I like the people, I'm
making good money I never eventhought should I consider
something else?
So once he gave me this new joboffer so well, now I have two
choices.
I need to figure out what isthe right next step.
(09:57):
So I have to prepare the jobsand then quickly start to think
about my long term future.
I was a competitive chessplayer as a kid, so I never
think one move ahead, I thinkmultiple moves ahead.
It's not just this next job?
What's this setting me up for?
Five, 10, 20 years down theroad, I realized I had more than
two job offers, because thiswas a dot com era in Boston, so
(10:20):
I'm not limited to just thesetwo.
Let me look around, and that'swhen I really started to be more
proactive in my career.
Where am I trying to go and howam I going to get there?
Tim Bourguignon (10:30):
I want to come back to that situation, or
awareness, understanding what'shappening around you, because
I've seen that a couple timesalready, people who are so in
their work, in the tasks thatthey were given, they don't
realize first and foremost andI'm not thinking about about
next steps and everything theydon't realize how what they're
(10:51):
creating fits in the big picture.
They don't realize how the bigpicture is constructing around
them and how sometimes people goaround them to to get something
and and and understand how theyfit into this.
And this is this has been oneof the key areas I poke at
during interviews isunderstanding.
(11:12):
Did you get the whole picture?
Did you get why you were thereand why you were doing this and
how it fit in the whole picture?
And then that would, of course,as you said, fit as well in
understanding what's happeningaround you.
Is there a meeting you're notinvited to where there seems to
be something important happening?
And maybe you should payattention to that, and it really
pays to becoming more senior tostart understanding this
(11:34):
understanding or the situationaround you.
I have no better word to putthat.
Mark Herschberg (11:41):
It's funny you struggle with the words because
this is all covered in chaptertwo of my book, titled working
effect, and that's probably myleast favorite title.
I could not come up with abetter title for that chapter
because it encompasses all thethings you're talking about.
It's not your work itself, it'snot writing code or if you're
an accounting doing financialreports, it's all the other
(12:04):
stuff.
Now that includes corporateculture and corporate politics,
which we get caught up inwhether we want to be or not.
It's understanding.
How are you delivering value?
Most people couldn't tell youwho their customers are.
They might have a list, butthey couldn't say well, our
customers tend to be mid-marketindustrial supply companies.
They don't know who theircustomers' customers are.
(12:27):
They don't understand how toadd value, and I always teach my
students and in all the otherwork I do If you don't know how
you're adding value, then it'sharder to add more value, which
is how you get ahead, how youget raises and promotions by
delivering more value.
But you're doing it without amap.
So understand the business thatyou're in.
(12:49):
Understand who are yourcustomers.
Now, it might be an internalcustomer, it might be the other
groups.
Adding this button helps thesales team.
Okay, how does it help thesales team?
It could be an externalcustomer, but understand your
customer's customer, how doingthis creates value for them.
To create value to theircustomers, understand your
industry.
(13:10):
When I do monthly meetings withmy team, we'll go over, okay,
what's happening and let's dosome big picture updates.
But I will make sure to talkabout here's what's happening in
other departments.
People often bring in anotherdepartment head the CFO, head of
sales, cmo say can you cometalk to my team?
(13:30):
We're going to spend 20 minutesof this meeting.
You give updates from yourdepartment.
Help them understand what'shappening.
But even if your managerdoesn't do this, here's
something that kills me.
Most people cannot name thecoworkers around them.
Oh, there's some woman.
She sits 30 feet from me.
(13:50):
I think she's in finance.
I think her name is Sarah, butthat's about all I know in
finance.
I guess I don't know.
She does stuff with checks.
They don't know.
You're saying 30 feet from thisperson for a year.
So go out, meet your coworkers,talk to them, meet them for
coffee to say, hey, I'm tryingto learn more about the
different aspects of the company.
(14:11):
Can we just grab coffee?
Tell me about your job?
What do you do here, you'regoing to learn so much and you
will be much more effectivebecause you have a better
understanding of your role andhow it fits into the business
and your industry.
Tim Bourguignon (14:26):
And I'm cringing because I'm in a 100%
remote company and so there's noreally way to see this person
30 feet away from you.
She is somewhere on Slack andyou just don't see her.
And so you have to be explicitabout this.
You have to be poking atdifferent, different persons you
don't know and say, hey, randomperson, I have never met you,
(14:48):
let's talk.
Mark Herschberg (14:49):
I'm going to recommend.
I rarely recommend third partytools, but I'm going to
recommend two.
There was a company calledDonutai.
I remember when they werepitching they were looking for
angel funding.
I saw the pitch.
I liked the idea.
I just didn't believe in thesize of the market.
It didn't seem defensible.
And it's not because a friendof mine wrote a competitor
(15:10):
called SUP.
Sup, as in what's up, they areboth plugins to Slack which,
given the technical audience, Isuspect most people are using
Slack and what it does.
It just creates these randompairings.
So this week I'm going to getnoticed that, hey, you and I are
supposed to get together forcoffee.
It can be done in person, itcan be done virtually, and it
(15:32):
just says, Okay, you're gonnameet and mark, you take the
initiative and I'll just Slack.
You say, Okay, hey, we'resupposed to meet, Let me know
when you're free.
And that's a good way to reallyjust create some of that water
cooler conversation that youdon't always get when you're
virtual.
Tim Bourguignon (15:46):
Absolutely, and smiling because we're using
Donut.
It's exactly this.
It's really exactly creatingthose, those serendipitous,
serendipitous meetings, justbecause you don't have the
opportunity otherwise.
That's very important.
Okay, let's, let's go back tothat CTO grabbing you and
(16:06):
telling you hey, common born andshit.
Did you say yes?
Mark Herschberg (16:11):
I looked at his company, I looked at my current
company and, as I mentioned, Irealized there were more than
two options, because this wasthe end of this was 1999 in
Boston, the end of the dot comerror.
We didn't know was the end ofit, but there were so many
opportunities and I realizedwhere I wanted to go.
I wanted to become a CTO, andit wasn't just about being a
(16:32):
better developer.
Both of these companies weregoing to continue me, primarily
in my individual contributorskills.
I'd be doing more coding andmaybe more advanced coding, but
I wanted to get more intoproject management and start
working on other skills.
So I looked for an opportunitythat would take me down that
(16:52):
path and that's where I went.
Did you feel?
Tim Bourguignon (16:54):
ready for leaving IC behind you and going
for something else?
Mark Herschberg (17:01):
It depends on when you're asking me that,
because at the time I would havesaid yes.
Today I would have said maybe.
And what I mean is there's afamous expression in the land of
the blind the one I'd man asking.
I currently did not have morethan one eye open, but that was
(17:23):
one more than most of the otherpeople, because at this time we
were so desperate for coders Ifyou just knew how to use a
computer.
I remember I had a.
There was a recruiter who triedto pitch me a QA person, and I
asked about her background.
I said, well, she knows how toturn on and use a computer.
Now, my standard was a littlehigher than that, but yeah, that
(17:46):
was a level when he could pitchpeople, because in 1999, such
demand and such a shortage thatyou could sell people that way.
So, having even a few moreyears of experience, I had a lot
more to offer.
For the record, I was also acompetitive ballroom dancer and
I know a lot about the ballroomdancing world.
If you go into a ballroom dancestudio and you say, oh hi,
(18:07):
we're here to take some classesor learn for a wedding, chances
are, the person teaching you isnot some world class champion.
It's someone who may have onlylearned to dance six or 12
months before me and the othercompetitors.
We could I and the othercompetitors we could run circles
(18:28):
around this person, but thisperson was sufficiently ahead of
the wedding couple that he wasfine teaching them Absolutely.
So really, you just needsomeone who's just a little bit
better than you and you areadding value.
So I think I still had a longway to go, but I was still.
I had enough to add value atthe time.
Tim Bourguignon (18:47):
Okay, I want to flip it around and and wrongly
reformulate it, just to see howyou react when you say back then
yes, maybe now maybe I'm alsohearing the naivety of the youth
saying, yes, of course, I'mready for that and now, in
hindsight, thinking, well,actually wasn't, but it was
(19:09):
sufficient.
Mark Herschberg (19:11):
I still didn't know all the things I didn't
know.
I remember, for example, I wastalking with one of the founders
and we're talking about theproject we had.
Most of our developers wereeither just to have college or
some of them had dropped out todo a startup.
And I remember we're talkingabout timelines and one of the
(19:31):
founders said well, we're justgoing to ask them to give their
estimates, because if they givean estimate then of course they
have to hold themselvesaccountable towards it.
I get like we as managers can'ttell them what to do because we
might not get it right.
But if they say it, well, thenthey've got to complete it.
And I remember thinking thatdoesn't sound right, like
(19:52):
there's still some problems bycouldn't articulate.
Estimates are hard and even ifyou ask them to do it, it
doesn't magically mean they cancomplete it by then, yet have
the vocabulary, the mentalmodels sufficiently fleshed out
to articulate it.
My gut was going in the rightdirection, but I still didn't
have as much experience as Iwould have liked if I had hired
(20:13):
me in that role.
Tim Bourguignon (20:15):
I hear you.
I hear you.
So how did that work out?
Did you find a CTO position?
Did you manage to get someexperience on your belt and
really step into this direction?
Mark Herschberg (20:25):
Well, in that job.
Now we technically had a CTOwho is the 22 year old college
dropout co-founder, who to thisday I don't know what exactly he
did.
I had the entire engineeringteam reporting to me.
I then had I don't know ifyou'd call it foresight or not
(20:46):
quite sure what term I said.
You know, at a certain point Iam realizing I might be not the
best person for this.
I think I'm doing a good job,but there must be better people,
more experienced people, and ifwe bring in one of those, I
could learn from him.
We brought in a guy who haddecades of experience at IBM and
(21:06):
I watched him make a wholebunch of just dumb mistakes.
He probably knew more aboutbusiness than me.
He knew a lot less aboutmanaging people than I did, and
I looked back at the time andthink I should not have brought
this guy in because he did notknow more than me and it became
very frustrating watching himmake some dumb decisions that he
(21:27):
knew.
You know, this is how bigcompanies work and this is how
I've done it for years, and itwas very frustrating watching
that, causing me to eventuallyleave.
But after that I then startedgoing into other senior
positions, vp level positionsand then CTO positions.
Tim Bourguignon (21:43):
And regretted any of that compared to staying
in IC, I mean.
Mark Herschberg (21:50):
No, I think I went down the right path.
I do miss some IC work.
The analogy I always use isLegos, something that I suspect
nearly every one of youraudience has played with at some
point.
So ask yourself this questionwhy did you stop playing with
Legos?
And if you need to pause thepodcast, take a minute before
(22:13):
you hear my answer.
Think about why you may havestopped playing with Legos.
The answer for myself and formany people is that it gets
repetitive.
I had built a number ofspaceships.
I fly them around the room andI take them apart.
I build another spaceship, butspaceship 63 looks a lot like
spaceships one to 62.
(22:33):
And at a certain point you wantdifferent challenges.
I like coding, but I wasgetting tired of okay and we're
going to build another usersystem.
Make sure users have theseattributes on, don't forget the
logging and build all this, andback then we didn't even have
the libraries we have today.
But still, if you think aboutyour code, we know it's that
(22:53):
80-20 rule 20% is the core codeand the 80% is the defensive
coding around it, and that getsvery repetitive.
What I like about the peopleside of the business and that's
managing people or the businessstrategy.
It's always going to bedifferent and every rule has an
exception, so it's a harder setof problems.
(23:14):
Just as I moved on from theLegos to a more complex type of
play activity, I wanted to moveon to a more complex set of
challenges, because that's rightfor me.
That's not right for everyone.
So I'm glad I am where I am.
I do wish I had X hours a weekto keep coding.
The bigger challenge it's notthat I can't carve out the time,
(23:36):
but it's that I can't alwayskeep up with the latest software
.
Tim Bourguignon (23:40):
I know that problem.
I'm trying to cover Legoshidden behind me.
Mark Herschberg (23:46):
I have some as well on other shelves, but I
don't spend a lot of time takingthem apart and putting them
back together to play with them.
Many of us have on our shelvesbut we're not actually playing
with them.
Tim Bourguignon (23:55):
You don't know what you're missing.
Yeah, I totally agree.
The people problem is reallywhat attracted me at some point
as well, saying, well, I did alot of consultancy and saw the
same patterns and say, ok,that's where we are on the
journey.
Ok, now we're going to havethis problem, and now we're
going to have that problem.
Now we're going to startscaling and we're going to have
(24:16):
that problem.
And again and again and again,you see the same patterns and
the same problem.
On the technical side, at somepoint it becomes a bit dull and
says, hey, let's see what'shappening on the people side,
and every case is different, andthis podcast is an example as
well.
This is Joe 280, and no storyhas been twice the same.
(24:36):
It's always different, there'salways something different, and
so throw a bunch of people inthe same room and you have a
synergy that you've never seenbefore and you have something
that's completely unique again,and I love this puzzle.
I really love this puzzle aswell.
Mark Herschberg (24:49):
Before we start recording, you and I were
talking and you mentioned thebook the Mythical man Month,
which is a fantastic book.
Now, half of the book is gold,like the Mythical man Month, and
if you haven't read it, youprobably find the article online
.
The article that's the title ofthe book.
Half of it is very dated.
He talks about documentation byGrafiche.
Just go, okay, that's.
(25:10):
It's interesting from ahistorical perspective but very
out of date.
But another book I would put atthat level is People Wear by
Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister,and the thesis of People Wear is
that most software projectsfail not due to technological
reasons but sociological reasons.
(25:31):
It's that we didn't communicatewell.
It's that we had too manychanges during the thing.
It's not that, oh, we neededmore PhDs to get this done.
It wasn't technically toocomplex, it was all the people
issues that made it really hard.
There's not a line of code inthe book.
It is still one of the bestbooks on software or management
(25:53):
in general that I've read.
Tim Bourguignon (25:54):
Indeed, indeed, and that's actually been the
way I describe my job tonon-technical people.
It's basically well, throw 200engineers in a room and make
them work together, and I'm hereto help.
That Usually it's enough forpeople to say, oh, I see, and
(26:16):
that's indeed a People Wear isfantastic.
I really recommend it as well.
And that's what we've seenrecently with Conway's Law and
Reverse Conway's Law, with bookstalking about one or the other
meaning how do you design yoursoftware to influence the
organizational structures andvice versa, how the
organizational structuresinfluence the way your software
(26:36):
is built, and this is really abalance you have to keep, and
both of them are going toinfluence the other, and if you
veer too hard on one, then theother one is going to become a
problem, and then vice versa.
So really you cannot leave thisout.
This is so important.
Mark Herschberg (26:52):
I would actually very actively think
about who is sitting where.
Back when we were in physicaloffices five days a week, we'd
move into new office.
I think, how do I want to layout this office, these teams?
Because you have yourorganizational structure, but
even just physically, who isnear whom impacts your
communication flow and whathappens.
(27:14):
And in fact, I encouragemanagers really, when you think
about modern management, it isabout managing information flow.
It's about making sure theright people have the right
conversations at the right time.
If you can do that, then you'regoing to be an effective
manager.
Now that might happen becausewe have a weekly check-in
(27:36):
meeting or after this happensyou need to send an email to the
team.
But also happens because youput these people near each other
whether they're physically neareach other or their teams that
have regular coordinationmeetings.
You're going to enhance thechances of having those right
conversations with the rightpeople at the right time.
Tim Bourguignon (27:56):
And add the remote variable on top of that,
that becomes an interestingpuzzle.
Mark Herschberg (28:02):
Well, that's where you have to be more
explicit, because we don't havethat water cooler conversation.
We're not both getting coffeeat the same time.
We can use tools like Donut tofacilitate that.
Or we can just be more explicitand just say we're going to
have maybe more check-inmeetings, or it's more important
that you send this email whenthis happens to give an update.
(28:23):
As long as we think about andmanage that information flow, we
can do it formally orinformally.
And when you think about a teamthat might be four people
saying in a room together, youdon't need a lot of formal
meetings because the informationflow is natural when you have
40 people.
That's where we need thestructure.
Likewise, when we're even justfour people, but in different
(28:44):
time zones, we just need to adda little more structure to
foster that communications.
Tim Bourguignon (28:49):
Mm-hmm, I like the way you're putting it.
You're not advocating for moreor not advocating for faster,
but you're just saying addingstructure, which really is
dependent on the context.
I, for instance, have a basecamp in mind which we've heard a
lot, and they really advocatefor slower communication, more
(29:09):
thoughtful communication,probably not answering like a
chat, but really answering.
Let's answer tomorrow with allthe information and not on an
article, but almost really withthe thinking process, as if the
person afterwards won't be ableto reach me, to reach out and
add some or ask some morequestion, and really will have
only this article to work with.
(29:30):
And this really brings adifferent way of working and for
them that is the right thing.
For a different company itwould be a different set of
constraints and maybe it wouldneed some faster communication,
but really have to find out whatthis chemistry for your
organization is and really tellyou that structure for what you
need.
Mark Herschberg (29:50):
That's exactly right.
When we think about processesand we can think about waterfall
versus agile and agile is greatin many cases there are also
certain cases where you do wantwaterfall.
I remember reading for the USSpace Shuttle, which is now
retired, it would take them sixmonths to change a line of code.
Any of our businesses would die.
(30:12):
But you think about and sayliterally billions of dollars
and lives at stake.
I'm okay with them going reallyslow and being very careful in a
very unforgiving environment,so that flow is right for them.
And when you think about whatthese project management
techniques are, they're reallyabout the information flow,
(30:35):
whether it's we can't move tothe next stage until this one
has had all the checks, or justwe need to rapidly communicate
information in a daily standupand then do quick changes to get
quick feedback in a scrum.
So really it's saying what isthat information flow and
flexibility that we need?
Is it slow, steady, fullythought out, accurate
(30:57):
information versus the otherextreme, quick, dynamic
information?
And of course there's all sortsof in between and it's not just
that one dimension.
Tim Bourguignon (31:06):
No, it is not, and that's what makes the work
of organization crafting so hard.
You have to understand theright levers and not pull them
all at the same time, andunderstand how one maybe feeds
into the other and you can get areinforcing loop at some point
and get too much of the goodnessyou wanted to have and break
stuff.
(31:26):
So this is a fun puzzle.
I'd like to twist thediscussion a little bit.
So obviously, as a manager, oras a manager of manager, as
somebody in the leadership of acompany, you probably
accompanied a lot of people andreally did some mentoring I
(31:47):
wouldn't say teaching, butmentoring and really guiding
people.
At what time did you decide toformalize this and go back to
MIT and teach for real?
Mark Herschberg (31:57):
Pretty early on , so early in my career, I
mentioned how I knew I wanted toget into more of the people
side.
I wanted to become a CTO and Irecognized it wasn't just about
being the best engineer.
It wasn't that I could codebetter or faster than others.
There were all these otherskills I would need leadership,
networking, negotiating,communication, hiring, team
(32:19):
building, team building but noone ever taught them to me.
So I began to work to upscalemyself.
We didn't have great podcastslike this back then.
It was a lot harder and as Idid, I realized these skills
will help everyone.
They are not just for leaders,not just for managers.
Everyone, down to your summerinterns can benefit from these
(32:41):
skills.
So I began to upscale my teamand as I was doing that, mit had
gotten similar feedback.
Companies were saying these arethe skills we want to see, not
just in engineers, not just incollege grads.
Universally we look for theseskills and they're very hard to
find.
So MIT was pointing together aprogram to address this.
(33:02):
When I heard about it throughmy network, I said, okay, well,
maybe MIT could use some of whatI've built.
I reached out to the person whowas starting up this program.
I said I've got some content,I'm happy to give it to you.
I thought that would be it Oneand done, here you go, best of
luck.
But instead he said hold on,can you stay and maybe help us
(33:23):
build a little more content?
Okay, sure, spend some time,this could be fun.
So we were building out someadditional training and as we
were doing it, what he told meyears later is he recognized.
I brought a different dimension.
Now we have a number of amazingprofessors school of
engineering, sloan, school ofManagement.
These are literally the toppeople in the world, but they're
(33:46):
very academic.
They don't spend a lot of timein industry.
They said you're bringing thisindustry perspective.
That I think is unique.
We should bring in more peoplelike you to bring in that
perspective.
So we went out.
We found a bunch of other folksand created this program that's
co-taught.
We have the professors, becausewe need to get academic credit
(34:08):
and that requires professors,but then also practitioners like
myself co-teaching the students.
And this was 2001,.
2002 is what we heard.
So I have been teaching therefor decades and it was only the
last few years where I said Iknow this is helpful to not just
engineers, to everyone.
(34:29):
How can we reach a largeraudience?
I was trying to push MIT to putthis stuff online.
For various reasons that didn'thappen, so I thought I'd write
up notes, and what I thought wasgoing to be 10 or 20 pages of
notes expanded and suddenlybecame a 270 page book.
Tim Bourguignon (34:46):
Which is great for you, I guess.
Mark Herschberg (34:48):
Hopefully helpful to the world, because
that's my goal is trying to helpmore people develop these
skills.
I really want to see peoplemaximize their professional
efficacy Indeed indeed.
Tim Bourguignon (35:00):
Way better way to put it.
How have you seen this programevolve in those 20 years?
Mark Herschberg (35:09):
It's.
We've evolved, we've learned alot about teaching these skills.
It's very interesting becausethis is not first of all these
skills.
It's not how we learnprogramming or other skills when
you think back to what you'relearning.
You learned history by having aprofessor say here are the
important dates.
You learn coding by okay,here's how memory works, here's
(35:30):
computer architecture, here'sone.
If then statement does Right,then I say okay, I get, and then
we just go and regurgitate theanswer.
But that's not how these skillswork.
These skills are more akin tolearning sports.
I can teach you the rules to agame in 30 minutes, but it's
going to take you years to getgood at.
(35:51):
It requires drills andscrimmage games and coaching and
reflection, and that's theapproach that we take here.
So we start off doing that.
But even coaching if you ask,for example, a soccer coach or a
football coach, what they'recoaching was like year one
versus year 10 of their career.
Like I say, I've learned a lotmore about how to be a coach and
(36:14):
I think over the past fewdecades we learned a lot about
how best to engage the students,what type of activities work.
We've tweaked the activities tomake them more likely to get
the educational goals we'retrying to achieve, and so we've
done.
I'd say the core still works,but we've definitely done a lot
(36:34):
of tweaks along the way andwe've added modules and taken
modules out, based on a numberof factors.
Tim Bourguignon (36:41):
Again, wrong reformulation.
To be sure I understood whatyou described is it's basically
tweaking the form but not reallytweaking the content.
It's saying, well, this formdidn't really fit that context,
or maybe we discovered adifferent way to bring it out,
but the content remained thesame over 20 years.
Is it what you meant?
Mark Herschberg (37:02):
Yes and no.
The content has changed in thatwe've said we're going to drop
this module and that content andwe're going to add a different
module with different content,just because, if you think about
the skills we're trying toteach these skills, you can do a
semester-long class on just oneskill, yeah, and we're trying
to cram it all into a reducedprogram.
(37:23):
So we're just giving them alittle sample of each and just
at times you might say let's dothis, not that, but any given
module whether this is aleadership module, this is a
negotiation module how westructure it, the way we
approach it, the actual exerciseitself might change up based on
(37:44):
our experience and feedback.
For example, in certainactivities we want students to
fail.
They do better, they learnbetter once they fail.
There's another activity wherewe try to get a 50-50 split.
These are a lot of role-playingactivities and at the end we
want half the students to makeone choice and have to make the
(38:05):
other.
If they're all making onechoice, whether it's right or
wrong, it feels like, ok, wepush them too much in that
direction.
When we get that 50-50 split,then we can have a real
discussion before we tell themhow this all plays out.
Why did you think that way?
Oh, I never thought about thepoint you're bringing up and
that brings out a richerexperience.
(38:26):
So those are types of tweaksthat we do.
Tim Bourguignon (38:30):
What is the target audience of this class?
Is this really a freshman, 18years old, coming just out of
high school, or more, at the endof their undergraduate studies?
Mark Herschberg (38:42):
The class I've been teaching is for MIT
sophomores.
We have created sister programsthat go into the junior and
senior year for typically asmaller cohort of students.
We hit a wide range of hundredsof students each year.
Those then get down into thetens of students and now we're
looking at expanding.
(39:02):
I've been asking for years toexpand to graduate students,
which I think we're finallystarting to do this academic
year, 2023, 2024, possibly nextyear.
Tim Bourguignon (39:13):
Did you expect a difference in maturity and
life experience and that thisdifferent, this life experience
would affect the way peopleembrace the content or maybe
react to the content?
Mark Herschberg (39:28):
I don't think life experience from a few years
, from college versus collegeand grad school or sophomore to
senior I don't think it impactsthem that much.
What I'm finding is a biggercausality of how people engage
with this content.
(39:48):
First it's just some naturalinclination.
We just see the bell curve ofsome students say I really want
to learn this.
Others show up and well, I hearyou give free food so I'm doing
it.
A friend told me to do it.
Some just like well, I guessI'm here and I'm getting credit,
but they're not really engaged.
And you just see people, theirlevel of engagement, of interest
(40:09):
and how well they take to it.
Standard bell curve.
I will say, having now taughtfor a few decades, I have
definitely seen generationaltrends in how people approach
this and their interest tocertain things.
So that's probably a biggermacro factor than just are you
19 versus 21 when you're doingthis?
Tim Bourguignon (40:31):
OK, that could be an episode in itself, just
talking about that bell curveand how it devolved over years.
But unfortunately we're at theend of our time box and I want
to go back to one of the things,or one key moment I think in
the interview is when youdescribe leaving individual
contribution and going intomanagement.
(40:52):
This hell, yeah, I'm ready forthat.
If you had an advice for peopleexactly at that stage of their
career saying, well, I've seenthose problems and I see again
and again and again, I think I'mready for the rest.
How do I step into thisdirection?
How do I really make the rightmoves to be on the right track
(41:13):
into going there?
Do you have an advice for them?
Mark Herschberg (41:16):
I mean you have two pieces of advice.
The first is that you have toembrace these other skills,
Because when you're anindividual contributor, you
start out, you solve a certaintype of problem and when you do
well, they say we're advancingyou and now you solve a bigger
version of that problem and yetan even bigger version, and
(41:36):
you're typically doubling downon your technical skills.
I'm using technical, notnecessarily coding.
Again, it could be marketing orfinance, but it's that domain
skill that you are using overand over.
You're just wielding a biggerhammer To get to those higher
levels.
It's not about that domainskill, it's about all the other
(41:57):
skills.
It is about negotiating andhiring and team building and
managing and leading.
And the big challenge you haveto rely more on those skills.
And the big challenge is you'veprobably succeeded by just being
bigger, better, faster, but nowthat you're a manager you can't
(42:18):
do it and we see a lot ofmanagers burn out from that hero
.
Ok, the team's flowing, I'm justgoing to jump in, I'm going to
pull the all nighter, I'm goingto get it done.
And you might be able to dothat in your first role or do it
from time to time, but as youget more and more people.
You can't just pick up moreload.
Your ability to complete, toachieve, to deliver value is no
(42:41):
longer what you can carry inyour hands.
It's your ability to get theteam to do that, and that's a
very different type of challengethan what you've had before.
So we've basically beenrewarding you for a certain type
of activity and all of a suddenwe just change the rules of the
game when you become a manager,and so that's where you often
get tripped up and that's whereyou have to say it's no longer
(43:03):
my technical skills, yes, you'regoing to need those, but all of
a sudden these other skillsreally come into play a lot more
.
Tim Bourguignon (43:11):
Amen to that.
This is so important to realizeand understand, otherwise,
you're going for the walldirectly.
Mark, this has been a fantasticdiscussion.
Thank you so much.
It was really enjoyable.
Mark Herschberg (43:23):
Well, thanks again for having me on the show.
Tim Bourguignon (43:25):
It was my pleasure.
Where could the listeners reachout and could use this question
with you?
Mark Herschberg (43:31):
I'm going to give you two websites.
The first is my book's website,thecareertoolkitbookcom, and
there you can learn more aboutthe book.
You can follow me on socialmedia.
You can get in touch with me ifyou have questions.
I put out new articles everyweek and I have a whole page of
free resources.
I have nothing to sell.
Technically, you have to buythe book for if you want the
(43:52):
book, but everything else it'sfree.
I don't even care about gettingyour email because I'm not
trying to sell you anything else.
We have the career questions.
You should be asking yourselfQuestions to ask during an
interview to figure out is thisthe right company fit for you?
We have questions to ask whenyou're hiring to make sure
you're thinking the right wayabout hiring.
We've got links to all sorts ofother resources, again all free
(44:14):
, and all of this atthecareertoolkitbookcom.
The second website is becauseso often you read a book like
mine, say this is great, butthen you forget.
Where do you read thosenetworking tips?
Sitting at home?
Where do you need them Twomonths later at the conference?
We want to put those tips inyour pocket and again, it's all
(44:35):
completely free.
We created the BrainBump app, soif you go to brainbumpappcom.
You can follow links to the appstores to download the free app
.
It has all the tips for my book.
If you went through with ahighlighter, this is what you
would highlight.
We don't even check that youbought the book.
You get this all for free.
But you also have tips fromother books, career books,
(44:57):
management books, sales books,tips from podcasts, tips from
blogs, tips from other sources,with an ever-growing list.
So you have them all right inyour pocket and you can either
pull it up as you need it asyou're going into that
conference, pull up thosenetworking tips, or you can set
for a daily reminder.
If you're a new manager, 9 AMeach day, just get one of those
(45:18):
tips.
You don't have to open the app,just pops up.
You say, all right, I rememberwe're supposed to do this Great
swipe, but that's going to helpyou remember it and have it in
the forefront of your mind asyou go through your day.
So that's the BrainBump app,completely free.
Brainbumpappcom.
Tim Bourguignon (45:37):
And if you didn't get that scroll down, it
will be in the show notes.
Just click on it.
Goodness, I can promise youAnything else.
Mark Herschberg (45:46):
That's everything, Marc.
Thank you so much.
Tim Bourguignon (45:49):
Thanks again, and this has been another
episode of Dev.
First Journey with each othernext week Bye-bye.
Thanks a lot for tuning in.
I hope you have enjoyed thisweek's episode.
If you like the show, pleaseshare, rate and review.
It helps more listenersdiscover those stories.
You can find the links to allthe platforms the show appears
(46:13):
on on our website devjourneyinfo.
Subscribe.
Talk to you soon.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!