Management wars
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Conversion (*.dat) to a readable format
Next: Dynamic Allocation of files in an IBM Environment
From: Howard Brazee on 12 Sep 2005 16:39 On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:24:07 -0600, Don Leahy <leahydon(a)nospamplease.netscape.net> wrote: > In conclusion, my manager is a wise and powerful leader. And he > monitors my > email. I can see that. I had a manager whos style wasn't really popular with other managers. He considered his job to be to get rid of blocks between us and successful completion of our job. He sort of worked for us and made us very productive. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Alistair on 13 Sep 2005 08:14 > > Ah, the old syndrome of They are incompetent and I am not. We all think > > that we could do our managers' job better ourselves. It is a different > > kettle of fish when you get to do the job yourself. > > I don't believe that this is is representative of the truth. I often say > things like that guy who replaced Peter Jennings sucks...or I read Chuck > Pahluniaks novel and it was so overrated....it does not have any bearing on > whether I could read news or write novels. I think you are picking nits by comparing apples with pears. You know that you could not write a better novel but your criticism of management implies a certain knowledge of all circumstances surrounding your manager's actions. I have become aware (through my studies around project management) that sitting in the big chair and issuing orders is only part of the story. Often, a managerial decision is effected by events unseen from the position of the worker. As a worker I would criticise the manager but appraised of the fuller picture my opinions would change. > >> 1. What is your personal attitude to your management? Do you see them as > >> a > >> bunch of wankers who have no idea what's going on or is required, no > >> understanding of the problems you have to grapple with every day, and > >> just > >> an unnecessary departmental overhead because a trained monkey could do > >> their > >> job? > > > > Wankers? wash your mouth out Pete. I'm not sure that the Cousins would > > understand the crudity of the term. > > Wankers is not all that bad....in Essex it's a formal greeting as in "Oy, > wangggggggka...you silly shirtlifter...ow ya doin'?" 'nough said. > >> 3. Could your attitude affect your management? (d'you think...?) > > > > Yes. It would make their lives more difficult if they actually had to > > do their jobs professionally. A negative attitude on my part would > > certainly make my managers' life problematic. So too would a drug > > induced high. > I agree and know this to be true. I am by nature negative in many ways and > often it has more effect on my peers than any good deeds that management > could do. I'm trying to be more positive because of it. It's hard to find > a balance between being positive and accurately reflecting popular opinion - > which is often (though not exclusively) visibly negative. I, too, tend towards an unhealthy dose of negativity and cynicism. Also, I am trying to change my attitude too (we are in danger of starting an Attitudinous Anonymous group). I found that a cynical ploy of saying "We don't have problems, we have opportunities..." was a good start as I worked on a 24/7 mainframe support team. Standing things on their heads is always a good start. > > >> 4. Would you do exactly what is specified in say, a program spec., even > >> if > >> you knew it was wrong, and would cause major disruption to downstream > >> processing? How would you deal with this situation (if at all)? > > > > No. If there is any doubt or concern then discuss freely with the > > originator of the spec. As an aside, a colleague was once asked to do a > > job of work for the client. He produced a suite of code which produced > > the desired result exactly as the user had requested. The user sent in > > a letter of complaint saying that although he had been given exactly > > what he had asked for, the developer should have known that this was > > not what he really needed! > > There _IS_ a responsibility to understand what the customer wants. > Depending on the organization this may or may not lie with the developer. > If my air conditioner breaks and my house is heating up I call an A/C guy > and say "My house is hot something is wrong - correct it". I don't expect > a bill for him filling my house up with ice....or replacing my A/C unit when > all I need is to fix the freon leak even though each solution fulfilled my > requirement. > However, if you called an air-cond man and told him that you wanted your house filled with ice and only ice you would not have the right to complain that he had failed to fix the air-cond if he had followed your orders to the letter. > This is why we are seeing a growing popularity in the idea of "prototyping" > (and I use the term loosely) requirements and less time on the up front long > drawn up requirements process. A lack of skillful communication and > requirements management and the "waterfall" method have long been a sore > point for many businesses. I've never worked in a prototyping workshop and suspect that it would not resolve the problem, merely improve the perceived delay between request and delivery. Also, there may be issues with quality of deliverables. > > Reminds me of a good joke though: > > A manager had a flagpole lying on the ground. He propped it in its hole, > got a ladder and a tape measure and tried to climb up to measure it, but > the flagpole fell down. Twice again he propped it up and tried to climb it. > Finally an employee said, "Why don't you measure it when it's on the > ground?" and the manager responded, "Stupid Fellow! The client wants to know > its height, not its width." Nice one, must add it to my collection.
From: on 13 Sep 2005 09:15 In article <1126613688.762063.207840(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] >I have become aware (through my studies around >project management) that sitting in the big chair and issuing orders is >only part of the story. Often, a managerial decision is effected by >events unseen from the position of the worker. As a worker I would >criticise the manager but appraised of the fuller picture my opinions >would change. Are you saying here that 'opinions may change based on the amount of information that is available?' If that is the case then it might be concluded that those responsible for restricting information are likewise responsible for the 'negative attitudes' which result from opinions which are generated in the absence of the information which they have not disseminated. Consider: Coder: 'The conclusion is (x).' Mgr: 'Ahhhhhhh, that's a very good conclusion... but you don't have the Big Picture, if you did then you'd conclude *just* as We have.' Coder: 'I come to conclusions based on what I have; what would be wrong with my being given the Big Picture and then we'll see if I can come to another very good conclusion?' Mgr: 'I'm... very busy right now.' DD
From: Alistair on 13 Sep 2005 09:43 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <1126613688.762063.207840(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > > >I have become aware (through my studies around > >project management) that sitting in the big chair and issuing orders is > >only part of the story. Often, a managerial decision is effected by > >events unseen from the position of the worker. As a worker I would > >criticise the manager but appraised of the fuller picture my opinions > >would change. > > Are you saying here that 'opinions may change based on the amount of > information that is available?' Err, yes. If that is the case then it might be > concluded that those responsible for restricting information are likewise > responsible for the 'negative attitudes' which result from opinions which > are generated in the absence of the information which they have not > disseminated. I take your point. At one place I worked, a weekly briefing was instigated whereby project leaders were appraised of 95% of the content of the directors' briefing (held the day before) and then expected to pass the information on to their colleagues. Result - rumour control was redundant, morale was boosted and the sheep were happy. I know from holding weekly project meetings with my staff on projects that they were happier too (although they thought that I was/am a shite project leader). Consider: > > Coder: 'The conclusion is (x).' > > Mgr: 'Ahhhhhhh, that's a very good conclusion... but you don't have the > Big Picture, if you did then you'd conclude *just* as We have.' > > Coder: 'I come to conclusions based on what I have; what would be wrong > with my being given the Big Picture and then we'll see if I can come to > another very good conclusion?' > > Mgr: 'I'm... very busy right now.' > > DD Dilbert must mention something like this. Pointy-haired boss would probably say something like "Need to know".
From: John Culleton on 13 Sep 2005 06:32
Alistair wrote: > > docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <1126613688.762063.207840(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >I have become aware (through my studies around >> >project management) that sitting in the big chair and issuing orders is >> >only part of the story. Often, a managerial decision is effected by >> >events unseen from the position of the worker. As a worker I would >> >criticise the manager but appraised of the fuller picture my opinions >> >would change. >> >> Are you saying here that 'opinions may change based on the amount of >> information that is available?' > > Err, yes. > > If that is the case then it might be >> concluded that those responsible for restricting information are likewise >> responsible for the 'negative attitudes' which result from opinions which >> are generated in the absence of the information which they have not >> disseminated. > > I take your point. At one place I worked, a weekly briefing was > instigated whereby project leaders were appraised of 95% of the content > of the directors' briefing (held the day before) and then expected to > pass the information on to their colleagues. Result - rumour control > was redundant, morale was boosted and the sheep were happy. I know from > holding weekly project meetings with my staff on projects that they > were happier too (although they thought that I was/am a shite project > leader). > > Consider: >> >> Coder: 'The conclusion is (x).' >> >> Mgr: 'Ahhhhhhh, that's a very good conclusion... but you don't have the >> Big Picture, if you did then you'd conclude *just* as We have.' >> >> Coder: 'I come to conclusions based on what I have; what would be wrong >> with my being given the Big Picture and then we'll see if I can come to >> another very good conclusion?' >> >> Mgr: 'I'm... very busy right now.' >> >> DD > > Dilbert must mention something like this. Pointy-haired boss would > probably say something like "Need to know". Managers have to deal with all kinds of difficulties that have little relation to writing programs or designing systems. There is the racist/sexist employee who doesn't like working for women or for men of another race. Disrupting unit meetings is his favorite indoor activity. There is the guy with an alleged disability who trots out the Americans with Disability Act whenever his work habits are questioned. There is the otherwise competent secretary who falsifies her best friend's time and attendance records. There is the programmer who is a Foxpro expert and is terrified by the prospect of learning anything new. There are the turf battles with other related information staff not under direct supervision. There are the client managers who have fallen in love with package x or vendor y and won't deal with any other alternatives. There are the budget battles. The theft of equipment. The air conditioning that won't work. And that was just my last job as a manager. The technical parts are challenging but solvable. The people problems will ultimately drive you into retirement. John Culleton Former Chief, Automated Systems Office, Baltimore City Department of Social Services. Former Chief, Special Equipment Staff, BRSI, Social Security Administration. Former Manager, Systems and Data Processing, Penberthy Division of Houdaille Industries Former Manager, Systems Application Programming, Link Group of Singer General Precision. |