Management wars
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Conversion (*.dat) to a readable format
Next: Dynamic Allocation of files in an IBM Environment
From: on 18 Sep 2005 21:09 In article <3p69u1F8r14rU1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >Good responses, Doc. It is pleasant to be able to disagree without things >descending into flame. That's *just* what I would expect from an Antipodean poopie-head, too! > >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. I don't see myself as being such... but what do I know? Rightly or wrongly I try to accept it as a Fact of Nature, like 'In absence of opposing forces things seem to fall in an earth-normal gravitational field at 32ft/sec/sec (9.8mm/sec/sec)' or 'at sea level pure water will boil at 212 Fahrenheit (!00 Celsius)' or 'if you push it hard enough it will Fall Over'... if such things are saddening then the World is full of stimuli for misery. >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. Or... maybe I do what I do because I am what I am; a Percheron is not an Arabian stallion, a marathon-runner is not always a good sprinter, a parade-marching soldier is not always a good assassin. > >It is obvious that you deal with the pimps and the idiot managers, with wit >and intelligence and manage to extract a decent living. Life is Good, aye... with a bit of luck, smarts and perserverance I might even be able to keep improving it, for myself and others. > >However, I wouldn't want the young to emulate your cynicism and have tried >to suggest that there are other possible approaches... :-) Kids, Don't Try This At Home! On the other hand... how does one learn one's limits without testing them? DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2005 21:22 "James Johnson" <saildot.maryland(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:3m2si1pocqr3e7sm50v28b4gup62ed3nph(a)4ax.com... > 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. Excellent! At least they maintained their integrity. This was obviously a VERY sick corporation. > Didn't make a hill of beans difference. From what you're describing, it looks like it was beyond salvage, so, no, it wouldn't make a 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 is just apalling. You were well rid. > 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 Yes, I agree. Sometimes, and these are fortunately very rare occasions, it is SO bad there is no possible salvage. I'd like to know how the CEO got his job. Was this a private company? > >>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... >> In the case above, all you can do is leave. Pete.
From: Howard Brazee on 19 Sep 2005 10:12 On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:25:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >This has been discussed, at length, and bears no repeating at this time. >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... and that means that you >not only have to train them but you have to pay them more lest another >firm hire them away. Plus, if you train CoBOL programmers to work with the technologies that they want for their resume - they won't be doing CoBOL work. And while all the other stuff gets the glory - not having experienced programmers to do the important stuff doesn't do the manager any good.
From: on 19 Sep 2005 10:36 In article <7mhti1tp937ie2kbjsv57gjdnqu0doh6nc(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:25:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>This has been discussed, at length, and bears no repeating at this time. >>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... and that means that you >>not only have to train them but you have to pay them more lest another >>firm hire them away. > >Plus, if you train CoBOL programmers to work with the technologies >that they want for their resume - they won't be doing CoBOL work. I barely know what *I* want on my resume, let alone anyone else... but I'd be interested in receiving training for COBOL that does web-work and whatnot. > >And while all the other stuff gets the glory - not having experienced >programmers to do the important stuff doesn't do the manager any good. Nothing new there... even back in the Oldene Dayse people would talk endlessly about the new development on which they worked (20% of budget) and say little about the maintenance aspect (80% of budget... or similar numbers). DD
From: Howard Brazee on 19 Sep 2005 12:08
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:36:06 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>Plus, if you train CoBOL programmers to work with the technologies >>that they want for their resume - they won't be doing CoBOL work. > >I barely know what *I* want on my resume, let alone anyone else... but I'd >be interested in receiving training for COBOL that does web-work and >whatnot. Me too. But management already hired "experts" in the new technologies who are completely unfamiliar with our old technologies and our old business needs. Gradually they become familiar with the business needs, but they see absolutely no need to learn CoBOL nor to make any tool available within their Kingdom that old timers are more facile with than they are. And I expect I'd do the same thing. I'm comfortable with my tools, they're comfortable with their tools. They are in charge of their side of the shop. |