Management wars
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Conversion (*.dat) to a readable format
Next: Dynamic Allocation of files in an IBM Environment
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2005 07:24 <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. 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... >> >>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. (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.) 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? Poor and insecure managers who have an 'us' and 'them' attitude, in any organisation (even in the military), will band together simply because they are not confident, not usually the sharpest tools in the box, and they are insecure. Poor and insecure employees who have an 'us' and 'them' attitude, will do the same. Both will make it as difficult as possible for the 'them'. Enlightened people, whether managers or employees, realise that it isn't about 'us' and 'them'; it is about WHAT is right for the individuals, the group, and the corporation as a whole. The success of a corporation and of the people in it, depends upon the attitude of its people. 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.) I have worked in (survived in, would be better, for some cases...) many different corporate cultures and I've seen the ones that work and the ones that don't. Somebody has to manage. Corporate direction needs to be implemented. But the managers who are most successful, do not see their staff as the enemy; they see them as people who they work alongside, and have a responsibility to, just as they do to the corporation. > [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... :-) >>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. > See above re/ ichthyological decomposition... and combine this with > 'people may tend to surround themselves with others similar to > themselves'. > Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) Pete.
From: on 18 Sep 2005 08:43 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] >> >>>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. 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. 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. 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.' The stories of Teller and Oppenheimer might be instructive. > > > >>> >>>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. >(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 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. [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. Consider an easy logical reversal: 'If the company does what it should when then I will do well.' .... going to ... 'If I am doing well then the company is doing what it should.' .... and you will see a ready path for Management Mischief. >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. I do not know of a single one which was reversed by a sort of 'People's Revolt' which you suggest nor do I 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.' > >>>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. > >> See above re/ ichthyological decomposition... and combine this with >> 'people may tend to surround themselves with others similar to >> themselves'. >> > >Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) You and I may be familiar with different places, Mr Dashwood... isn't it a Wonderful World that has so much variety in it? DD
From: Michael Mattias on 18 Sep 2005 09:00 <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: > >Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) > > You and I may be familiar with different places, Mr Dashwood... isn't it a > Wonderful World that has so much variety in it? There are good managers, bad managers and mediocre managers. Employees whine about all three. MCM
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2005 10:21 Doc, I'm genuinely saddened by your experiences. I really hope that at some point you will encounter a decent manager who may cause you to think again. 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. Most of the people who post here already exercise it; some just don't have enough experience to handle bad managers, and become demotivated and unhappy. I posted these principles because I recognise there are many young people who lurk here and feel pretty unempowered. Some of them suffer from bad management. My post is intended to help. Even the most unempowered person in an organisation still has power over his personal actions and reactions. Resisting stupidity is a necessary course for anyone who professes to be professional. I believe people should not take responsibility for actions they know are stupid and have had enforced on them. Instead they should make sure there is an audit trail showing their objections, and the fact it was done only because they accepted their manager's right to manage. I am NOT saying you should resist your management every chance you get. But neither should you roll over if you disagree with what you are being asked to do. The Nuremberg defence is no defence at all. All of us have a responsibility to ourselves before we have responsibility to anyone else, and that responsibility of conscience is what determines our professionalism. There IS a place for ethics in business, and corporations flourish when they realise this. A few further comments below... <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] >>> >>>>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. > > 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. > 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. > 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... > 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. >> >> >> >>>> >>>>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... > >>(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.... ? 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. >>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. > [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. > > ... 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. > >>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. > 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. > [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. >> >>>>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. >> >>> See above re/ ichthyological decomposition... and combine this with >>> 'people may tend to surround themselves with others similar to >>> themselves'. >>> >> >>Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) > > You and I may be familiar with different places, Mr Dashwood... isn't it a > Wonderful World that has so much variety in it? > Indeed it is, Doc...indeed it is. Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2005 10:38
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias(a)gte.net> wrote in message news:3ydXe.5$4u4.3(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > > <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message > news:dgjnd3$dhg$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <3p513oF8mv07U1(a)individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >Hopefully, that's why I see good managers when I look around... :-) >> >> You and I may be familiar with different places, Mr Dashwood... isn't it >> a >> Wonderful World that has so much variety in it? > > There are good managers, bad managers and mediocre managers. > > Employees whine about all three. > For the most part, mine don't. (there is always the possibility of a covert malcontent, I s'pose...) I say it with confidence. I know them well enough to trust them and besides, if they had any bitching to do, they'd do it to my face. (Either in the workplace or outside it.) (However, I have not always been the easiest person to manage and I have heard tales (hopefully untrue...) of some of the people who have managed me, whining about the experience <gasp!>... ungrateful fools! If only they realised the personal growth they experienced by dealing with me... :-)) Pete. |