Prev: Data-path accuracy in IIR filters?
Next: Special Issue on Cognitive Information Processing
From: Manny on 29 Jul 2010 20:23
> (6) Accept the idea that you actually lack clarity.  You wouldn't be the first
> engineer who did.  So find an advocate among the "low level" people who
> understands what you're proposing, and try to use your advocate as a translator
> between what you say and what you mean.  If what you've done in the past is as
> good as you think, then the "high level" people will be receptive to your
> proposal once it's expressed in ways that they understand.  If not, then
> consider that what you've done in the past wasn't quite as impressive as you
> thought.
I above all know this and constantly tell people that I cann't explain
something inherently complex in lay terms. What I'm pissed about is
that this "low level" dude is something of a heavy weight that people
fear and revere. And if the "high level" dude chose to override the
"low level" dude's judgement, it tells you a thing or two, doesn't it?

> If option (6) doesn't work for you, then go with (1) or (2) -- always leave on
> good terms, even if you were mistreated.  You never know when one of those "low
> level" people will become a "high level" person and ask you back.
>
> Options (3), (4), and (5) are unprofessional, immature, unethical, and even
> illegal.  People don't forget this kind of behavior.  And they can get back at
> you just by telling the truth about you.
Those who know me know my dry sense of humour---I oftentimes tell my
supervisor that if he were to attempt to pull off the things I
regularly brief him on on his own, this is what I'd do. As much as I
like to do this, I know I can't do it. Still I like to go around
telling people what deep inside I fancy doing. That said, there are
certain things that I could stall and go and do with the Asians while
completely operating within the law and the professional code of
conduct.

-Momo

From: Greg Berchin on 29 Jul 2010 20:36
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Manny <mloulah(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>And if the "high level" dude chose to override the
>"low level" dude's judgement, it tells you a thing or two, doesn't it?

Yes. It tells me that you need to re-read the final sentence in my description
of option (6).

>That said, there are
>certain things that I could stall and go and do with the Asians while
>completely operating within the law and the professional code of
>conduct.

I can only conclude that you don't "get it".

Greg
From: Manny on 29 Jul 2010 20:39
On Jul 30, 1:36 am, Greg Berchin <gberc...(a)comicast.net.invalid>
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Manny <mlou...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And if the "high level" dude chose to override the
> >"low level" dude's judgement, it tells you a thing or two, doesn't it?
>
> Yes.  It tells me that you need to re-read the final sentence in my description
> of option (6).
>
> >That said, there are
> >certain things that I could stall and go and do with the Asians while
> >completely operating within the law and the professional code of
> >conduct.
>
> I can only conclude that you don't "get it".
I am doing research on something. And by definition, everything I come
up with is mine AND is in the public domain.

-Momo
From: Manny on 29 Jul 2010 21:28
> Is it possible that you spun your talk for the 'low level' guys, and
> failed to appreciate the points that the 'high level' guys would have
> wanted to hear about, and/or allowed yourself to get sidetracked?
Mixed audience always hard to satisfy and I got sidetracked.

> Are you saying that in addition to talking to the wrong interest group
> (the people signing the checks are _always_ the right interest group)
> you also allowed your talk to get sidetracked?  If the question isn't
> germane to your main point it's often a good idea to say "Wow!  That's a
> cool question, but it seems awfully specific -- bring it up after I'm
> done here!".  Look at your manager as you do, so he can tell you whether
> to answer it or proceed on your previously planned agenda.
Perhaps should've done just that. But things were serious and this
could've been interpreted like me dodging something I can't answer.
And it was more of a serious interview. You live and learn.

> I don't see (6): "Figure out what I did wrong in the talk so that I
> could avoid doing it again".
There is no again. It's over, final, and the verdict is out.

> Even if you're contemplating (1) through (5), you should do this, so
> that when you leave a smoking hole in the ground wherever you are and
> move to Asia, you won't have to do it there, too.  Remember, there are
> only seven continents, and it's damn hard to get work in Antarctica.
I know I know. There I will keep my head down, and keep bowing back.

I now have to tell my lady this; one out 6 more to play for.

Thanks for the thoughts.

-Momo
From: Fred Marshall on 29 Jul 2010 22:09

Manny,

I would have said about the same things as Tim.

It really pays to ask: "Who is the audience?" In this case, it appears
it was the high level guys - whether you had that figured out up front
or not. That is, their reaction appears to have hurt you (real or
imagined) and it's not clear that the low level guys could have done that.
- He who pays is the audience.
- He who buys is the audience.
- He who can hurt is the audience.

Having identified THE audience, the next step is how to communicate with
them in words they can understand (as Tim points out):

- What do they want?
- What do they need?
- How can you help them achieve their needs and wants?

Then do a skillful job of blending your message with their needs and
wants. If you find a strong mismatch then you have the wrong product
for that particular audience. It's nobody's fault - it just is. But,
lack of clarity should not be allowed to be a reason to fail. In your
case now you need to be the picture of clarity. Use the KISS principle.

My own deepest frustration was trying to communicate with a boss who I
*thought* would value a progress report but who seemed to *need* a
report of completion and nothing in between. And this was at a point in
my career when I had already learned to communicate at all levels pretty
darned well.

I don't understand why you're giving up. But then, I'm sure there's a
lot I don't understand. Is there no way to convey pieces of the message
here and there, now and then until it becomes *their* idea, their need
so that they come to you? And, in the process be Mr. Clarity?

Once upon a time I was given the head management role over a group that
included small capability in in-house DSP chip design - but was really
focused on building processor systems. The chip design piece was
something that my boss had nurtured and developed and was part of a
broader corporate strategy (because we also owned chip fabs). One day I
told him that we had no business designing our own DSP chips in the face
of TI and others doing their thing in a much more comprehensive and
efficient way. Can you imagine that he didn't buy it when I suggested
this!! But, 2 months later, he was on board. I guess I had given him
enough food for thought that it made sense after the emotional reaction
had cooled.

So, time can be an ally. And that gives you time to consider what the
messages have to be and to deliver them. Delivering them doesn't have
to be in front of a room or in front of a group.......
And, one of your messages may be that Manny can express things very
clearly.
I must say, doing this doesn't come without a bit of effort.

It does appear that you're on the inside still, eh?

If it's in Power Point or similar form, you might share for some
critique. Right how it's all pretty vague. Or, should I say: "lacks
clarity"? :-)

Fred
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Data-path accuracy in IIR filters?
Next: Special Issue on Cognitive Information Processing