Management wars
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Conversion (*.dat) to a readable format
Next: Dynamic Allocation of files in an IBM Environment
From: Michael Mattias on 18 Sep 2005 11:01 "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:3p5celF8gk4pU1(a)individual.net... > "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias(a)gte.net> wrote in message > news:3ydXe.5$4u4.3(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > >> You and I may be familiar with different places, Mr Dashwood... isn't it > >> a > >> Wonderful World that has so much variety in it? > > > > There are good managers, bad managers and mediocre managers. > > > > Employees whine about all three. > > > For the most part, mine don't. (there is always the possibility of a covert > malcontent, I s'pose...) Um-Hmm. And I have some prime real estate I just *know* you will love..... MCM
From: on 18 Sep 2005 18:17 In article <3p5bekF8nk9qU1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >Doc, > >I'm genuinely saddened by your experiences. No need for you to be, old boy... I'm not, and they're *my* experiences. > >I really hope that at some point you will encounter a decent manager who may >cause you to think again. I am always willing to be proven wrong, Mr Dashwood... but until my experiences broaden they are still what they are. > >I promise you they do exist (though maybe not in New York, where 'getting >ahead at any cost' is considered to be admirable by many...) > >I'm not advocating a 'People's revolt' :-) I'm simply suggesting personal >responsibility. Oh good... those People are Revolting enough, as is! [snip] ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:dgjnd3$dhg$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> >> In article <3p513oF8mv07U1(a)individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>news:dggv16$ahj$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>>> >>>> In article <6domi1dfgpg03lqidigih15529op2qomk5(a)4ax.com>, >>>> James Johnson <saildot.maryland(a)verizon.net> wrote: [snip] >>>> 'A fish rots from the head'. >>>> >>> >>>No they don't. They decompose just like any other organic material. >> >> No wonder the Soviets are where they are today! >> >>> >>>However, as far as the analogy goes, having bad senior management >>>certainly >>>doesn't help any organisation or inspire the troops to greater effort. >>> >>>The fact is that in a hierarchic management structure (and the more >>>enlightened organisations are starting to dispense with this in favour of >>>networked management) bad management WILL get passed down. >>> >>>However, the 'rot' can be stopped by lower levels. If the principles in >>>Section 1 and Section 3 are applied, it doesn't take too long before the >>>idiocy in section 2 becomes highlighted. If people simply refuse to accept >>>bad management, it cannot survive. Each and every individual in an >>>organisation has the power to decide how they will react to the decisions >>>enforced on them. Employees who are bullied and coerced by their >>>management >>>don't have to take it; the 'bad' managers simply want them to believe they >>>do. It is a scam. Call their bluff. Unrest amongst the troops is of >>>concern >>>to senior management. The kind of staff turnover JJ described is >>>symptomatic >>>of a disspirited organisation being poorly managed from the top, with >>>employees who have been conditioned to believe there is nothing they can >>>do >>>about it. At a personal level, there is ALWAYS SOMETHING you can do about >>>it... >> >> This is a lovely aspiration, Mr Dashwood, but it is contradicted by my own >> experience. > >I'm sorry you feel that way. Mr Dashwood, to say otherwise would be to deny my own experience; I've tried to keep feelings out of it. > >> As studies with the many species, humans included, have >> demonstrated the behavior which is rewarded gets repeated and perpetuated; >> likewise, organisationally, if 'bad' behavior gets the recognition, >> promotion and raises then 'bad' behavior will prevail. >> >Only if 'bad' behaviour is allowed by the workforce (employees and >managers). Any organisation that rewards bad behaviour isn't going anywhere. There are, in my experience, a few organisations of moderate size - Fortune 100 internationals - which seem to contradict this assertion. > > >> As for bluff-calling and Standing Tall... as my Sainted Mother told me >> when I took my first paying job lo, those many years ago, 'When it comes >> to work remember two things: you can be wrong about something and be fired >> for it... and you can be right about something and be fired for it.' >> >Getting fired is not the end of the world. It is infinitely preferable to >compromising your integrity. > >It is much easier to get another job than to get another conscience... This is not contested, Mr Dashwood... what is being pointed out is that it happens. > >> The stories of Teller and Oppenheimer might be instructive. >> >I have read them both. And I'm sorry for both of them. I don't believe there >has to be a schism between genius and personality. Eisnstein managed to >manage people pretty well. Quite obviously, then, Teller and Oppenheimer might have been really bright guys... but they weren't no Einsteins. If 'since one person did it then all can do it' were true we might find ourselves surrounded by Mozarts and Rembrandts and Bohrs, oh my. >>>>> >>>>>I once worked for an electric utility (on the Fortune 500 list) and >>>>>found >>>>>myself >>>>>transferred to an IT group at corporate headquarters whose management >>>>>team >>>>>in >>>>>general violated almost every item in Section 2 on a regular basis. Not >>>>>surprisingly, the turnover among programmers was on the order of 60% a >>>>>year and >>>>>this was the group that did the coding for accts payable, accts >>>>>receivables, >>>>>billing, finance, service order. In other words the core functions for >>>>>the >>>>>corporation. Management's whole take on the situation was "There's >>>>>something >>>>>wrong with our programmers, they all keep quitting." >>>> >>>> Just like many other groups... managers tend to support themselves over >>>> others. >>>> >>> >>>Good managers don't. >>> >>>Uncharacteristically for you, Doc, you are making generalizations which >>>are >>>demonstrably untrue. >> >> Notice the 'tend', Mr Dashwood. > >Notice that even with 'tend' included, it is still a generalization that is >demonstrably untrue... Mr Dashwood, if you have evidence that members of a sociological 'we-group' do not tend to support other members of that group over outsiders then you have evidence which appears to contradict some of the basic tenets of anthropology and sociology... this has been demonstrated since Durkheim's work. > >> >>>(I'm a manager; I do NOT support other managers in >>>disputes if they are wrong, just because they are managers. And I can >>>immediately think of around half a dozen other managers I know (and >>>respect) >>>who share the same values I do, and would not ask for or expect support, >>>simply on the basis of the 'old boy' network.) >> >> One swallow doth not a summer make, Mr Dashwood, and using yourself as a >> comparative is, as my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the >> angels! - a path to disappointment. >> >I wonder about your capacity for original thought... Maybe catchphrases, >adages, and cliches have slowly disguised the fossilization of your thought >processes.... ? If I get presented with 'five times five' in base 10, Mr Dashwood, I usually conclude 'twenty-five'... call me fossilised, aye. > >I mentioned 7 swallows which, if not entirely a Summer, at least suggests a >sunny afternoon. And I have never been disappointed by using myself as a >case in argument. In fact, personal experience seems very pertinent to me. >You used it yourself a few paragraphs back. Anecdotes are anecdotes, Mr Dashwood; they are the results of the series of accidents which make up any given individual's existence. > >>>I suspect this is a topic >>>that may be important to you and maybe your judgement about it is not as >>>clear as it is in other areas? >> >> I speak from my experience and observations, Mr Dashwood; as I've stated >> before my experience appears to be mostly in 'sick' shops. >> >I'm sorry. Really. No need to feel badly, Mr Dashwood... me, I say that Life is Good... and It just keeps Getting Better. > >> [snip] >> >>>The success of a corporation and of the people in it, depends upon the >>>attitude of its people. >> >> Ahhhhh... and different people consider 'success' to be different things. > >Yes, that is a fair comment. > >> Consider an easy logical reversal: >> >> 'If the company does what it should when then I will do well.' > >Sorry this makes no sense to me as written. My error and apologies... see correction below. > >> >> ... going to ... >> >> 'If I am doing well then the company is doing what it should.' >> >Seems a non-sequitur, but I didn't get the first part... > >> ... and you will see a ready path for Management Mischief. Let me try again... 'If the company does what it should then I will do well.' .... going to ... 'If I am doing well then the company is doing what it should.' >> >>>The attitude determines the 'culture', and the >>>culture is either oriented towards success or it isn't. (When it isn't, it >>>seems to be focussed more on control, and extracting as much as possible >>>with as little effort as possible, rather than contributing. Small minded >>>people implementing small minded policies.) >> >> There are many examples which one might take from recent newspaper and >> business-periodical headlines, Mr Dashwood, of corporations which were >> destroyed by mismanagement. >And there are many times that number which never make any headlines and are >well managed, profitable and provide good livings for their employees. 'Trains Run On Time' is a rare headline, aye. > >> I do not know of a single one which was >> reversed by a sort of 'People's Revolt' which you suggest > >I suggest no such thing. > >> nor do I know of >> a single instance of a corporation which was destroyed by >> 'mis-employeement'. >> >Management must take responsibility for failure, whether it was employees or >managers (or both) that caused it. What managers must take responsibility for and what happened might not be the same thing, Mr Dashwood... and I do not know of a single instance of a corporation which was destroyed by 'mis-employeement'. > >> [snip] >> >>>>>The VP of IT was the soul mate to Dilbert's boss. We had bumper >>>>>stickers made >>>>>up that said "Dilbert, it's not a cartoon. It's a documentary." >>>> >>>> Art imitates Life imitates Art imitates Life. >>>> >>> >>>It was a pretty cool thing to do though... You would think the hint might >>>have been taken... :-) >> >> Mr Dashwood, in another comic-strip here in the States (Doonesbury) a >> small company owner was told to take a look at the workers' >> cubicle-area... his response was a sad 'Oh no... Dilbert strips on the >> walls.' >> >While cartoons afford amusing and often incisive insights into real life, >they are NOT real life... > >Dilbert is so successful because Scott Adams actually bases it in real life >emails he receives from people in the work place (and his own experience in >a cubicle, of course...). While this makes it easy to relate to, Adams >seizes on and exaggerates a particular aspect, in order to accentuate the >humour. It is like a good caricature, but few people would present a >caricature as being a life portrait. Enough people appear to take Dilbert as a 'close enough' portrait so that the mention of 'Dilbert strips on the walls' is used to indicate 'something is wrong with the organisation'. > >>> >>>>>His decisions >>>>>and policies drove everyone below him half insane and set the management >>>>>tone. >>>> >>>That is pretty bad. However, I stand by the belief that people don't have >>>to suffer bad management. And they shouldn't. >> >> I stand by my experience when I say I have seen many, many instances of >> bad management trickling down and no instance of good management trickling >> up. >> >OK. Our experiences differ. Makes for a better conversation than endless stream of 'yup... that's right' might! DD
From: on 18 Sep 2005 18:48 In article <3p4go4F8belaU1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >Loved these responses, Doc. Thanks. Anytime. > >Comments below... > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:dgguf1$9po$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> >> In article <3p04h4F82qb5U1(a)individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>>2. How will working here improve my personal growth? >> >> It will keep me from living in a cardboard box... after that comes >> schooling. > >Nah... schooling is for porpoises... If you aint got no porpoise, don't go >to school... Something's fishy here... and it's rotting from the head, will someone contact Ripley's? [snip] >> Try combining Schiller's 'Against stupidity the very gods contend in vain' >> with Ellison's 'After hydrogen, stupidity is the most common element in >> the universe.' It's out there, one deals with it and if the concentration >> in a particular area exceeds tolerable levels one changes location. >> > >That is certainly one strategy. But it is not the only one. Schiller was >often pessimistic (in fact, 'Ode to Joy' [Freude!] is the only thing of his >I can think of that isn't...), Ellison is probably correct, and it is nicely >expressed, but changing location when the concentration exceeds tolerable >levels is just one way to deal with it. Arguably, lighting a match, finding >a relief valve, or dissolving it with wit, are all possibly better. Lighting a match in a concentration of hydrogen might not be a good survival-tactic... oh, wait, you were referring to stupidity. Hmmmm... come to think of it, lighting a match in a concentration of stupidity might not be such a good idea, either; the environment could shift from being one filled with idiots to being one filled with flaming idiots. >The best >approach is to make it difficult for the stupidity molecues to congregate in >the first place... One exercises control over one's environment as one can, Mr Dashwood. [snip] >> When I got my first suit-wearing job lo, those many years ago, my >> co-workers were proud to announce how miserable they were. They cited a >> common example, I'll call him Kneeburt, and would say 'Remember Kneeburt? >> He'd always say 'Now keep in mind... this should be *fun*!' (pause) >> Kneeburt isn't here any more.' >> >> I recall relating this to my Respected Father as a sign of what it takes >> to get ahead in the world and he said 'Not really... think about it. >> These are small circles you work in, if Kneeburt went on to something >> worse don't you think they'd be gloating about it?' >> >> Shortly after that I went the independent consulting route. >> > >Your father was a very wise man. What... no accusations of fossilising on this one? Actually, I think the Old Man was taking inspiration from the ending scenes of 'Man In The White Suit'. [snip] >>>6. Seek to extend your knowledge. >> >> Ow. This might be seen as telling the Russian Wolfhound 'seek to be like >> the chihuhua' or the Arabian stallion 'seek to be like the Percheron'... > >Would that be an extension of knowledge? I don't think so. > >There are many things I have knowledge of, but no desire to emulate. Mid-sentence interruptions might cause continuity to be lost, Mr Dashwood. > > >> different folks appear to have different temperments and some people >> appear to be quite happy doing the same thing, over and over and over >> again, in a fashion which would drive others 'around the bend'. [snip] >>>7. Separate work from person. If someone is critical of your work, or >>>doesn't take your advice, don't take it personally. You are no less of a >>>person because someone didn't like something you did. >> >> Unless, of course, the criticism is expressed as 'What kind of idiot would >> write code like this?' > >What kind of idiot criticises code at a personal level? Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, Mr Dashwood... and it is something I heard a manager say, long ago. [snip] >>>1. The most valuable asset that any company has, is the people who work >>>for it. >> >> This is not, in my experience, evidenced by the treatment given them. >> I've turned down contracts because of this... the conversations have gone >> like this: [snip] >> Me: 'Simple... I end every interview with a question of 'could I see where >> I'd be sitting? I like to get a sense of where I'll be spending my >> working hours'... and they didn't know. Now... they're going to be paying >> a lot of money for my work. If the manager said 'I want to spend >> US$200,000 for a color printer - a one-time cost that's readily >> depreciable - one of the questions asked would be 'where are we going to >> put it?' They show that kind of concern for machines but not humans... >> sorry, I don't want the job.' >> > >You have probably missed some very good projects by this. I understand your >attitude, but I think it is too hard. Mr Dashwood, if it is 'too hard' to ask people to consider 'We are asking this person to join our team, where will he sit?' then perhaps I am better off not being there. >Still, it works for you. I have never >interviewed anyone who asked to see where they would be sitting. If they >did, I'd walk them through the bull pen, let them spend a few minutes >chatting to others (without me standing nearby - time for a coffee or rest >stop) and if it was known exactly where they were going to sit, I'd show >them. If it wasn't I'd tell them that. The fact that I could recruit people >for a project and not know where they were going to sit, does not make me a >bad manager and neither does it indicate I care more about machines than >people (I don't...). I DO know they will be accommodated, even if we rented >extra temporary space. Mr Dashwood, I have shown up for contracts and had to wait weeks to get a mainframe logon ID... it would have made for an interesting status report, had I bothered to fill those out. I do not expect any special accomodations but in order to Do My Job I need certain things... like a place to sit and a terminal to code at. Call me 'weak', I guess. >>>The company should invest >>>in its people. That means delivering promised training, encouraging people >>>to do extra curricular studies, and generally supporting and helping >>>people >>>who are trying to improve their skill base, and/or their personal growth. >> >> This has been discussed, at length, and bears no repeating at this time. > >Nevertheless, you repeated it, so I have to repeat my viewpoint on it >below... :-) > > >> The contrary stand is that if you train your people they get more skills, >> if they get more skills they think they are more valuable, if they think >> they are more valuable they'll want more money... > >Most people want more money whether they think they are more valuable or >not. Sometimes they are right, and they are being underpaid. I have no >problem at all with people wanting more money and I enjoy giving them ways >in which to get it. > >> and that means that you >> not only have to train them but you have to pay them more lest another >> firm hire them away. >> > >If you have staff who are not happy in their work, they don't need more >money to be lured away...They'll leave for the same or less. That isn't the only reason, as noted above. > >If you have staff who realise their value is improving, who see themselves >growing and have fun in the workplace, who know they are valued, who have no >problem with coming to work (sickness and absenteeism are minimal), they'll >probably pay you to let them work there... (Four Yorkshiremen, again..) I do >not advocate underpaying people and I don't see it as a contest. If the >company is making profit it can afford to pay people what they're worth. And >it should. There's the flip side, Mr Dashwood, that a Good Businessperson never pays more for anything than is necessary and a manager is rewarded for keeping costs down... dicey things to balance. [snip] >In one place I worked it was not company policy to pay for teambuilding. One >of the Directors (my immediate Boss) was invited to the celebration at end >of project. It was at a very good hotel in the Midlands, and food and wine >(all from NZ) were provided. I paid for it out of my own pocket as a token >of my appreciation for the support the team had given me. This Director saw >the obviously high morale, heard from someone I was paying for the bash, and >picked up the tab without me knowing. The company policy was later changed >(on his recommendation) and project budgets were increased by a small amount >to cover 'rewards and incentives'. At one of my clients' sites a Memo came down from Headquarters, saying that if a group of employees gathered and money had to be spent then paying was the responsibility of the Senior Person present... period. I thought this was magnificent, until I was at a gathering and it came time to settle up... and I nodded towards the Corner Office man present and said 'Mr Jones, you are familiar with the recent memo about responsibility for payment at functions like this?' Mr Jones looked at me and said 'There was no such memo.' My response was 'Oh, I guess you were left off the distribution list for a reason... but it spoils my memories of the evening when people begin to argue over their portion of the bill, this one is on me.' > >Money and quibbling about it, is something that should not happen in good >corporate cultures. If the Directors have catered lunches, there should be >no objection to this largesse been distributed to the actual workers also. What 'should be' and 'what is' might not always be the same, Mr Dashwood... I have been at many places where Word Goes Out after a meeting-with-food ends so the underlings can gorge at the scraps of the Managerial Table but I have never been in a place where the Managers look forward to the employees leaving slices of congealed pizza. [snip] >Not training people because they will cost more, is just small minded, sad, >corporate culture. There is, in my experience, a fair bit of it out there. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2005 19:01 Good responses, Doc. It is pleasant to be able to disagree without things descending into flame. I accept that there are many cases of bad practice in the workplace. But it still saddens me when I see very bright and capable people like yourself being brought down by it. Maybe the hard shell of ascerbity you often demonstrate is as a result of being shafted at some time by someone who probably needs help to tie their shoelaces. It is obvious that you deal with the pimps and the idiot managers, with wit and intelligence and manage to extract a decent living. However, I wouldn't want the young to emulate your cynicism and have tried to suggest that there are other possible approaches... :-) I'll make one more post here with responses to the other posts and then I think we are done... Pete. TOP POST - no more below. <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:dgkp1i$cq4$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > > In article <3p5bekF8nk9qU1(a)individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>Doc, >> >>I'm genuinely saddened by your experiences. > > No need for you to be, old boy... I'm not, and they're *my* experiences. > >> >>I really hope that at some point you will encounter a decent manager who >>may >>cause you to think again. > > I am always willing to be proven wrong, Mr Dashwood... but until my > experiences broaden they are still what they are. > >> >>I promise you they do exist (though maybe not in New York, where 'getting >>ahead at any cost' is considered to be admirable by many...) >> >>I'm not advocating a 'People's revolt' :-) I'm simply suggesting personal >>responsibility. > > Oh good... those People are Revolting enough, as is! > > [snip] > >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:dgjnd3$dhg$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>> >>> In article <3p513oF8mv07U1(a)individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>>news:dggv16$ahj$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >>>>> >>>>> In article <6domi1dfgpg03lqidigih15529op2qomk5(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> James Johnson <saildot.maryland(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >>>>> 'A fish rots from the head'. >>>>> >>>> >>>>No they don't. They decompose just like any other organic material. >>> >>> No wonder the Soviets are where they are today! >>> >>>> >>>>However, as far as the analogy goes, having bad senior management >>>>certainly >>>>doesn't help any organisation or inspire the troops to greater effort. >>>> >>>>The fact is that in a hierarchic management structure (and the more >>>>enlightened organisations are starting to dispense with this in favour >>>>of >>>>networked management) bad management WILL get passed down. >>>> >>>>However, the 'rot' can be stopped by lower levels. If the principles in >>>>Section 1 and Section 3 are applied, it doesn't take too long before the >>>>idiocy in section 2 becomes highlighted. If people simply refuse to >>>>accept >>>>bad management, it cannot survive. Each and every individual in an >>>>organisation has the power to decide how they will react to the >>>>decisions >>>>enforced on them. Employees who are bullied and coerced by their >>>>management >>>>don't have to take it; the 'bad' managers simply want them to believe >>>>they >>>>do. It is a scam. Call their bluff. Unrest amongst the troops is of >>>>concern >>>>to senior management. The kind of staff turnover JJ described is >>>>symptomatic >>>>of a disspirited organisation being poorly managed from the top, with >>>>employees who have been conditioned to believe there is nothing they can >>>>do >>>>about it. At a personal level, there is ALWAYS SOMETHING you can do >>>>about >>>>it... >>> >>> This is a lovely aspiration, Mr Dashwood, but it is contradicted by my >>> own >>> experience. >> >>I'm sorry you feel that way. > > Mr Dashwood, to say otherwise would be to deny my own experience; I've > tried to keep feelings out of it. > >> >>> As studies with the many species, humans included, have >>> demonstrated the behavior which is rewarded gets repeated and >>> perpetuated; >>> likewise, organisationally, if 'bad' behavior gets the recognition, >>> promotion and raises then 'bad' behavior will prevail. >>> >>Only if 'bad' behaviour is allowed by the workforce (employees and >>managers). Any organisation that rewards bad behaviour isn't going >>anywhere. > > There are, in my experience, a few organisations of moderate size - > Fortune 100 internationals - which seem to contradict this assertion. > >> >> >>> As for bluff-calling and Standing Tall... as my Sainted Mother told me >>> when I took my first paying job lo, those many years ago, 'When it comes >>> to work remember two things: you can be wrong about something and be >>> fired >>> for it... and you can be right about something and be fired for it.' >>> >>Getting fired is not the end of the world. It is infinitely preferable to >>compromising your integrity. >> >>It is much easier to get another job than to get another conscience... > > This is not contested, Mr Dashwood... what is being pointed out is that it > happens. > >> >>> The stories of Teller and Oppenheimer might be instructive. >>> >>I have read them both. And I'm sorry for both of them. I don't believe >>there >>has to be a schism between genius and personality. Eisnstein managed to >>manage people pretty well. > > Quite obviously, then, Teller and Oppenheimer might have been really > bright guys... but they weren't no Einsteins. If 'since one person did it > then all can do it' were true we might find ourselves surrounded by > Mozarts and Rembrandts and Bohrs, oh my. > >>>>>> >>>>>>I once worked for an electric utility (on the Fortune 500 list) and >>>>>>found >>>>>>myself >>>>>>transferred to an IT group at corporate headquarters whose management >>>>>>team >>>>>>in >>>>>>general violated almost every item in Section 2 on a regular basis. >>>>>>Not >>>>>>surprisingly, the turnover among programmers was on the order of 60% a >>>>>>year and >>>>>>this was the group that did the coding for accts payable, accts >>>>>>receivables, >>>>>>billing, finance, service order. In other words the core functions >>>>>>for >>>>>>the >>>>>>corporation. Management's whole take on the situation was "There's >>>>>>something >>>>>>wrong with our programmers, they all keep quitting." >>>>> >>>>> Just like many other groups... managers tend to support themselves >>>>> over >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Good managers don't. >>>> >>>>Uncharacteristically for you, Doc, you are making generalizations which >>>>are >>>>demonstrably untrue. >>> >>> Notice the 'tend', Mr Dashwood. >> >>Notice that even with 'tend' included, it is still a generalization that >>is >>demonstrably untrue... > > Mr Dashwood, if you have evidence that members of a sociological > 'we-group' do not tend to support other members of that group over > outsiders then you have evidence which appears to contradict some of the > basic tenets of anthropology and sociology... this has been demonstrated > since Durkheim's work. > >> >>> >>>>(I'm a manager; I do NOT support other managers in >>>>disputes if they are wrong, just because they are managers. And I can >>>>immediately think of around half a dozen other managers I know (and >>>>respect) >>>>who share the same values I do, and would not ask for or expect support, >>>>simply on the basis of the 'old boy' network.) >>> >>> One swallow doth not a summer make, Mr Dashwood, and using yourself as a >>> comparative is, as my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with >>> the >>> angels! - a path to disappointment. >>> >>I wonder about your capacity for original thought... Maybe catchphrases, >>adages, and cliches have slowly disguised the fossilization of your >>thought >>processes.... ? > > If I get presented with 'five times five' in base 10, Mr Dashwood, I > usually conclude 'twenty-five'... call me fossilised, aye. > >> >>I mentioned 7 swallows which, if not entirely a Summer, at least suggests >>a >>sunny afternoon. And I have never been disappointed by using myself as a >>case in argument. In fact, personal experience seems very pertinent to me. >>You used it yourself a few paragraphs back. > > Anecdotes are anecdotes, Mr Dashwood; they are the results of the series > of accidents which make up any given individual's existence. > >> >>>>I suspect this is a topic >>>>that may be important to you and maybe your judgement about it is not as >>>>clear as it is in other areas? >>> >>> I speak from my experience and observations, Mr Dashwood; as I've stated >>> before my experience appears to be mostly in 'sick' shops. >>> >>I'm sorry. Really. > > No need to feel badly, Mr Dashwood... me, I say that Life is Good... and > It just keeps Getting Better. > >> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>The success of a corporation and of the people in it, depends upon the >>>>attitude of its people. >>> >>> Ahhhhh... and different people consider 'success' to be different >>> things. >> >>Yes, that is a fair comment. >> >>> Consider an easy logical reversal: >>> >>> 'If the company does what it should when then I will do well.' >> >>Sorry this makes no sense to me as written. > > My error and apologies... see correction below. > >> >>> >>> ... going to ... >>> >>> 'If I am doing well then the company is doing what it should.' >>> >>Seems a non-sequitur, but I didn't get the first part... >> >>> ... and you will see a ready path for Management Mischief. > > Let me try again... > > 'If the company does what it should then I will do well.' > > ... going to ... > > 'If I am doing well then the company is doing what it should.' > >>> >>>>The attitude determines the 'culture', and the >>>>culture is either oriented towards success or it isn't. (When it isn't, >>>>it >>>>seems to be focussed more on control, and extracting as much as possible >>>>with as little effort as possible, rather than contributing. Small >>>>minded >>>>people implementing small minded policies.) >>> >>> There are many examples which one might take from recent newspaper and >>> business-periodical headlines, Mr Dashwood, of corporations which were >>> destroyed by mismanagement. >>And there are many times that number which never make any headlines and >>are >>well managed, profitable and provide good livings for their employees. > > 'Trains Run On Time' is a rare headline, aye. > >> >>> I do not know of a single one which was >>> reversed by a sort of 'People's Revolt' which you suggest >> >>I suggest no such thing. >> >>> nor do I know of >>> a single instance of a corporation which was destroyed by >>> 'mis-employeement'. >>> >>Management must take responsibility for failure, whether it was employees >>or >>managers (or both) that caused it. > > What managers must take responsibility for and what happened might not be > the same thing, Mr Dashwood... and I do not know of a single instance of a > corporation which was destroyed by 'mis-employeement'. > >> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>>The VP of IT was the soul mate to Dilbert's boss. We had bumper >>>>>>stickers made >>>>>>up that said "Dilbert, it's not a cartoon. It's a documentary." >>>>> >>>>> Art imitates Life imitates Art imitates Life. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It was a pretty cool thing to do though... You would think the hint >>>>might >>>>have been taken... :-) >>> >>> Mr Dashwood, in another comic-strip here in the States (Doonesbury) a >>> small company owner was told to take a look at the workers' >>> cubicle-area... his response was a sad 'Oh no... Dilbert strips on the >>> walls.' >>> >>While cartoons afford amusing and often incisive insights into real life, >>they are NOT real life... >> >>Dilbert is so successful because Scott Adams actually bases it in real >>life >>emails he receives from people in the work place (and his own experience >>in >>a cubicle, of course...). While this makes it easy to relate to, Adams >>seizes on and exaggerates a particular aspect, in order to accentuate the >>humour. It is like a good caricature, but few people would present a >>caricature as being a life portrait. > > Enough people appear to take Dilbert as a 'close enough' portrait so that > the mention of 'Dilbert strips on the walls' is used to indicate > 'something is wrong with the organisation'. > >> >>>> >>>>>>His decisions >>>>>>and policies drove everyone below him half insane and set the >>>>>>management >>>>>>tone. >>>>> >>>>That is pretty bad. However, I stand by the belief that people don't >>>>have >>>>to suffer bad management. And they shouldn't. >>> >>> I stand by my experience when I say I have seen many, many instances of >>> bad management trickling down and no instance of good management >>> trickling >>> up. >>> >>OK. Our experiences differ. > > Makes for a better conversation than endless stream of 'yup... that's > right' might! > > DD > >
From: James Johnson on 18 Sep 2005 21:09
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:24:38 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:dggv16$ahj$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> >> In article <6domi1dfgpg03lqidigih15529op2qomk5(a)4ax.com>, >> James Johnson <saildot.maryland(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>Some things not mentioned is that sometimes managers are "bad" because >>>their >>>bosses force them to be the way they are. The level of management >>>incompetence >>>may start fairly high up and be forced downward. >> >> 'A fish rots from the head'. >> > >No they don't. They decompose just like any other organic material. > >However, as far as the analogy goes, having bad senior management certainly >doesn't help any organisation or inspire the troops to greater effort. > >The fact is that in a hierarchic management structure (and the more >enlightened organisations are starting to dispense with this in favour of >networked management) bad management WILL get passed down. > I beg to differ. Much of management protested the policies and decisions, and when that didn't work they walked too. Didn't make a hill of beans difference. A standing joke at that time was first thing in the morning was to ask who is the team-lead/supervisor/director today? My bosses would apologize to us during evals and when the corp reneged on employment contracts (usually just before they bailed) when they had given up on upper management. A bunch of us explored legal action against the company (at that point we had given up on the corp ourselves and were looking for other work) but the short story was though we had a slam dunk case, the corp had a history of fighting everything even when they were obviously in the wrong through multiple appeals. Though in the end we would win it would take 4 to 6 years to go through the appeals and our legal expenses would be significantly more than any judgment we would receive. We even had HR reps apologizing for what was being done to us and that they couldn't do anything about it. Off the record we were told that the VP of IT was good friends of the president of the board, and they had a shoot the messenger reaction to any suggestion that he was a less than stellar performer. This company also had a manager that was an accident waiting to happen at their nuclear generator site (which was 60% of their production capacity) and it took the NRC ordering the CEO to NRC headquarters to be presented with a million dollar fine and a warning that you have 6 months to correct these "management" issues or you will be shut down. Said manager was demoted one grade and transferred to scheduling, seems he had married one of the corporate VP's grand-daughters. So this corporation was quite immune to the things you suggest. JJ >However, the 'rot' can be stopped by lower levels. If the principles in >Section 1 and Section 3 are applied, it doesn't take too long before the >idiocy in section 2 becomes highlighted. If people simply refuse to accept >bad management, it cannot survive. Each and every individual in an >organisation has the power to decide how they will react to the decisions >enforced on them. Employees who are bullied and coerced by their management >don't have to take it; the 'bad' managers simply want them to believe they >do. It is a scam. Call their bluff. Unrest amongst the troops is of concern >to senior management. The kind of staff turnover JJ described is symptomatic >of a disspirited organisation being poorly managed from the top, with >employees who have been conditioned to believe there is nothing they can do >about it. At a personal level, there is ALWAYS SOMETHING you can do about >it... > > > >>> >>>I once worked for an electric utility (on the Fortune 500 list) and found >>>myself >>>transferred to an IT group at corporate headquarters whose management team >>>in >>>general violated almost every item in Section 2 on a regular basis. Not >>>surprisingly, the turnover among programmers was on the order of 60% a >>>year and >>>this was the group that did the coding for accts payable, accts >>>receivables, >>>billing, finance, service order. In other words the core functions for >>>the >>>corporation. Management's whole take on the situation was "There's >>>something >>>wrong with our programmers, they all keep quitting." >> >> Just like many other groups... managers tend to support themselves over >> others. >> > >Good managers don't. > >Uncharacteristically for you, Doc, you are making generalizations which are >demonstrably untrue. (I'm a manager; I do NOT support other managers in >disputes if they are wrong, just because they are managers. And I can >immediately think of around half a dozen other managers I know (and respect) >who share the same values I do, and would not ask for or expect support, >simply on the basis of the 'old boy' network.) I suspect this is a topic >that may be important to you and maybe your judgement about it is not as >clear as it is in other areas? > >Poor and insecure managers who have an 'us' and 'them' attitude, in any >organisation (even in the military), will band together simply because they >are not confident, not usually the sharpest tools in the box, and they are >insecure. > >Poor and insecure employees who have an 'us' and 'them' attitude, will do >the same. Both will make it as difficult as possible for the 'them'. > >Enlightened people, whether managers or employees, realise that it isn't >about 'us' and 'them'; it is about WHAT is right for the individuals, the >group, and the corporation as a whole. > >The success of a corporation and of the people in it, depends upon the >attitude of its people. The attitude determines the 'culture', and the >culture is either oriented towards success or it isn't. (When it isn't, it >seems to be focussed more on control, and extracting as much as possible >with as little effort as possible, rather than contributing. Small minded >people implementing small minded policies.) > >I have worked in (survived in, would be better, for some cases...) many >different corporate cultures and I've seen the ones that work and the ones >that don't. Somebody has to manage. Corporate direction needs to be >implemented. But the managers who are most successful, do not see their >staff as the enemy; they see them as people who they work alongside, and >have a responsibility to, just as they do to the corporation. > > >> [snip]> >>>The VP of IT was the soul mate to Dilbert's boss. We had bumper stickers >>>made >>>up that said "Dilbert, it's not a cartoon. It's a documentary." >> >> Art imitates Life imitates Art imitates Life. >> > >It was a pretty cool thing to do though... You would think the hint might >have been taken... :-) > >>>His decisions >>>and policies drove everyone below him half insane and set the management >>>tone. >> >That is pretty bad. However, I stand by the belief that people don't have to >suffer bad management. And they shouldn't. > >> See above re/ ichthyological decomposition... and combine this with >> 'people may tend to surround themselves with others similar to >> themselves'. >> > >Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) > >Pete. > > James Johnson remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply |