Management wars
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Conversion (*.dat) to a readable format
Next: Dynamic Allocation of files in an IBM Environment
From: James Johnson on 20 Sep 2005 20:29 On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:01:17 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >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. > In my experience in the US (30 years worth in a variety of industries, all medium to big corps) I have had about 25% good managers/supervisors, 25% indifferent, 25% of the time lousy, and finally about 25% of the time the managers/supervisors were functional psychopaths. Currently I have a good management structure, but since I'm a contractor at a Dept of Defense office that is slated to be closed that too will be coming to an end. I am now in the process of getting another degree (this time in accounting) and will be changing careers for the third time. I went back to school last year after looking at demographic trends I came to the conclusion that programming was not going to keep me employed until I am able to retire. The BRAC decision on my place of employment spurred me to start taking 3 classes a semester instead of two. YMMV, JJ >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 >> >> > > James Johnson remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply
From: James Johnson on 20 Sep 2005 21:09
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:22:19 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >"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. > This CEO was a 30 year employee, started out as an engineer at the nuc plant, but he had very good social connections. His brother had a prominent role in the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration. Those that worked with him said he was always good at getting credit and avoiding blame. Many things at this plant were screwy, kind of re-invent the wheel and it had corners issues. The fact that it ran as well as it did (it is constantly on and off the NRC watch list) was due to heroic efforts on the part of many of the workers of the staff. The stories I could tell. I was a Health Physics specialist and a Radiation Instructor there before I became a programmer. Employment in that field is less than half of what it was 15 years ago. JJ >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. > James Johnson remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply |