Re: [OT] As Was Done With Training, Perhaps

A good response Doc. I don't think you are as cranky as you pretend.:-)

Both you and Howard seem to have a low opinion of management and their
motivation.

Having worked with bad management (as well as good), and tried to emulate
and learn from the latter it, is very possible that my view is too
optimistic. However, it is my view.

I do believe (and have expressed it here before), that all of us have some
responsibility for the people who manage us. We can influence them, and we
can simply refuse to accept bad management. (There is no excuse for
rudeness, bullying, improper use of power, or inappropriate behaviour, for
example).

But stupidity is something else. Management don't have a monopoly on it. The
best projects work as teams, with management simply administrating, guiding
and monitoring progress. Project (work) decisions should be discussed by the
team and implemented with the approval of the majority, after due debate
with the ones who disagree. None of us is as smart as all of us.

I've decided not to argue this any more (you may consider the motion that
'Management sucks...' carried :-)) because it has to be subjective, and it
has to depend on variables like corporate culture and the location where you
are working.

I simply hope you find better managers. :-)

Pete.












<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:du9lu3$ss6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46qob8Fcgl0iU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:du739j$qek$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There have been, at times, discussions here about how many employers
train
(or, more frequently, don't train) employees to deal with changes in the
technologies involved with their jobs... how a company seeking to
implement web-based functions will hire new Java-jockies instead of
sending their COBOL-coders to classes, for example.

This depends entirely on the attitude of the said COBOL-coders.

Everything depends on something else, Mr Dashwood... including this
statement.

If they
think they have nothing to learn, it is simply a waste of corporate cash
to
train them. Unfortunately, there are those who regard everything new as a
re-invention of what they already know. Would you spend your money to
train
such people?

I would not have hired them in the first place... but the attitudes of
employee might just, possibly, be a reflection of the attitudes of the
organisation which employs them; the behaviors which are rewarded are
those which are most likely to be propogated.

[snip]

Someone who had got stuck into Java in
his own time and could show some applets or similar running, would have a
lot more credibility than someone who just wanted some training, with a
view
to leaving as soon as he has a certificate.

One might wish to consider the reasons that such a person might have for
leaving, Mr Dashwood. Granted that I barely know why *I* do things, let
alone anyone else... but if one is employed by an organisation that
invests in (trains) employees and then allows them to participate in the
rewards which such investments demonstrate (do well in the training, get a
higher salary) then there might be fewer post-training defections.

Throughout my career I have
never relied on a company to provide training. Knowledge is much too
important (and valuable) to let someone else decide whether you get it or
not.

On the other hand... having knowledgable, well-trained, motivated
employees is in the organisation's own best interest. If an organisation
is not willing or able to take steps to act in its own best interest then
it might be reasonable to conclude that it will not act in its employees'
best interests, either... and an organisation that will not act in my best
interest might be one that I would seek to separate myself from posthaste.


I've often thought
that reasoning was bipartite, but with a single basis:

1) Sending someone to class Costs Money.

2) Once the person has completed the class they may be hired away by a
competitor... so to keep that person on the job a pay-raise might need
to
be given and this Costs Money.

I have known many short sighted employers who saw it this way; fortunately
there are also many who don't.

Realistic employers know that WHATEVER they do it is going to cost money.
Better to invest the money in their staff, value their staff (and be seen
to
do so), have an active social program and put money into it, and make sure
the people have an incentive to come to work, than to pay more money for
someone external.

It is my experience, Mr Dashwood, that 'realistic employers' are few and
far between.

People don't get hired away on completion of a class, if
that class is part of a three year plan for personal growth and subsidised
education.

Bingo... see above about 'mutual best interests'.

[snip]

Anyhow... I was catching up on a bit of reading and came across an
article
in the 18 - 24 Feb 2006 issue of The Economist, a 'special report' on
dealing with the ageing workforce, entitled 'Turning Boomers into
Boomerangs'. (A 'boomer' is someone born during the post-WWII 'baby
boom'
and a 'boomerang' is someone who returns to work after an absence). I
was
struck by the following:

Was it a boomerang :-)?

--begin quoted text:

A survey in America last month by Ernst & Young found that "although
corporate America foresees a significant workforce shortage as boomers
retire, it is not dealing with the issue." Almost three-quarters of the
1,400 global companies questioned by Deloitte last year said they
expected
a shortage of salaried staff over the next three to five years. Yet few
of
them are looking to older workers to fill that shortage; and even fewer
are looking to them to fill another gap that has already appeared. Many
firms in Europe and America complain that they struggle to find
qualified
directors for their boards-this when the pool of retired talent from
those
very same firms is growing by leaps and bounds.

Why are firms not working harder to keep old employees? Part of the
reason
is that the crunch has been beyond the horizon of most managers. Nor is
hanging on to older workers the only way to cope with a falling supply
of
labour. The participation of developing countries in the world economy
has
increased the overall supply-whatever the local effect of demographics
in
the rich countries. A vast amount of work is being sent offshore to such
places as China and India and more will go in future. Some countries,
such
as Australia, are relaxing their immigration policies to allow much
needed
skills to come in from abroad. Others will avoid the need for workers by
spending money on machinery and automation.

--end quoted text

Well, The Economist is always a bit suspect in my view (much too LSE if
you
ask me... :-)) and the point about Australia is certainly not the
perceived
policy. Australia has one of the tightest immigration policies in the
world.

That might be changing, Mr Dashwood... from a possibly-suspect source,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00072.htm

--begin quoted text:

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today called on the Government to
implement the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into the Migration Act
tabled today, and seriously consider abandoning the policy of mandatory
detention.

[snip]

"The Inquiry found the immigration system is inconsistent and treats
people without humanity - the system is broken."

--end quoted text

Our's is too slack; their's is too tight. Possibly both countries are
moving
towards correction of the situation.

Exactly... and if Australia is 'moving towards correction of the
situation' then The Economist's assertion that '(Australia is) relaxing
their immigration policies to allow much needed skills to come in from
abroad' might be seen as true.


... and then there's, of course, a simple reason... older, more
experienced workers might have a better knowledge of the value their
work
provides an organisation and might, as a result, demand higher wages...
and this Costs Money.

The man gave three reasons that contribute to this situation, but you see
only one, and a cynical one at that :-)

Considering costs, when it comes to business, is 'cynical', Mr Dashwood?
That will be interesting news to those who draw up ROI and CBA papers.


Never mind that it might take two recent college grads thrice the time
it
takes someone with thirty-odd years' worth of experience to accomplish a
task... the two grads' salaries, combined, are - on a quarterly basis -
less than the geezer's.

Doc, I really hope the cynicism you express is limited to CLC and not
propagated to your colleagues... It would make for a gloomy workplace.
(Well, it would for the geezers... :-))

I am, on most of my consulting sites, the 'geezer'... the one who is
willing to say 'How was this situation addressed in the days of
card-sorts?' and 'Let's not rush into this... a good hunter watches and
lines things up so that one shot is needed.'

Maybe attitude has a bearing on it? I don't think of myself as a geezer
and
I am passionate about what I do. It comes across in interviews. Maybe the
opposite does too...?

I do my best to combine the two, Mr Dashwood... the ability to watch and
wait for the appropriate moment, the Anciente Knowledge of the Oldene
Dayse... and then the fierce, no-holds-barred 'Let's Do It!' enthusiasm of
my Kollidj Kid days. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... but
that's true of any statement, including this one.

DD



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] As Was Done With Training, Perhaps
    ... Sending someone to class Costs Money. ... Better to invest the money in their staff, value their staff (and be seen to ... here is a description of what permanent employees ... The committe met with the management. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: [OT] As Was Done With Training, Perhaps
    ... There have been, at times, discussions here about how many employers train ... Mr Dashwood... ... invests in employees and then allows them to participate in the ... Sending someone to class Costs Money. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: The excuses thread
    ... "The public sector 'saves money' by offering lower salaries than the private ... knowledge from the consultants to the permanent employees for the same ... management to willfully lie on their CVs about how many staff they do ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Management wars
    ... I am always willing to be proven wrong, Mr Dashwood... ... >>>The fact is that in a hierarchic management structure (and the more ... Employees who are bullied and coerced by their ... I say that Life is Good... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Trip Report
    ... work out side of government for more money, ... The second is the stereotype much of the public has of government employees, ... incompetent, self serving management. ... We also had our share of lazy, incompetent craft employees. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)