Re: Management wars

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:01:17 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dgkp1i$cq4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> In article <3p5bekF8nk9qU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>Doc,
>>>
>>>I'm genuinely saddened by your experiences.
>>
>> No need for you to be, old boy... I'm not, and they're *my* experiences.
>>
>>>
>>>I really hope that at some point you will encounter a decent manager who
>>>may
>>>cause you to think again.
>>
>> I am always willing to be proven wrong, Mr Dashwood... but until my
>> experiences broaden they are still what they are.
>>
>>>
>>>I promise you they do exist (though maybe not in New York, where 'getting
>>>ahead at any cost' is considered to be admirable by many...)
>>>
>>>I'm not advocating a 'People's revolt' :-) I'm simply suggesting personal
>>>responsibility.
>>
>> Oh good... those People are Revolting enough, as is!
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:dgjnd3$dhg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> In article <3p513oF8mv07U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:dggv16$ahj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6domi1dfgpg03lqidigih15529op2qomk5@xxxxxxx>,
>>>>>> James Johnson <saildot.maryland@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
.

Relevant Pages