rick@seismo.UUCP (Rick Adams) (03/09/85)
According to an extremely reliable source, a certain highly regarded unix guru (and frequent unix-wizards contributor), currently living in Reston, VA, is moving to a "Sunnier" environment in 2 weeks. The current employers of the guru in question acually had the temerity to tell this brash young lad to stop fixing bugs in their system. He wasn't on the list of people authorized to do so. (I always thought most places have a difficult time finding people CAPABLE of fixing their bugs.) Presumably, this attitude is not prevalent elsewhere. Another guideline should be added to Rob Kolstad's "How to Trap a Guru": "Allow him to fix any bugs he finds." I suppose it's like waving a steak at a dog that's chained just out of reach... Most places would have figured this out on their own, but apparently there are still some slow learners out there. ---rick
earlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace ) (03/10/85)
I wonder if the current downfall of High Technology leadership in this
Country is due in part to the mismanagement of valuable employees?
I have seem with my own two eyes how a single person can out perform a
dozen people. But that single performer is a "misfit" in the corporate
world. He has to go, get rid of the "trouble maker". The trouble maker
just doesn't follow nit-picking orders well and thus, he is labeled for life.
Too bad for the Company and stock holders, they will lose in the end. After
all the misfits are removed, you have a well-oiled machine that generates
products designed to fit within the overall corporate strategy. Unfortunately,
by the time the product hits the market, it's outdated and too expensive or
the foreign competition stomped our collective asses in the ground.
I think too much time is spent with meetings and *bullshit*, lets see what
the market needs and go for it and stop the internal bitching that goes on
inside of almost every company in the United States today. Here is my
list of reasons why American Companies are losing to the overseas competition
(its my personal options only and not that of the company I work for and my
options may be wrong anyway...):
- The "not invented here" syndrome. This is your development group
will not use some piece of hardware, software, whateverware
created elsewhere because it was not created in the group.
How the hell do you think the overseas competition got so far
ahead of us? They used almost everything they could find, they
didn't spend millions of dollars doing research if what they
needed existed already (even if they had to steal it).
I would rather not steal but think how much information you can
get from your employees if you would just take the time to listen
to them, encourage them to send in fixes, etc. This brings up
another point.
- The "field people are stupid" syndrome.
Blows my mind to think that "field" people and "headquarters"
people are so different. Seems to me the field people are in
the field where the action is and the headquarters people are
in the ivory towers where there is no action. Lots of meetings
but nothing comes of them -- blows my mind. The guys in the
field, both Sales and Service, are not stupid. But they can
be made to *look* stupid if you announce a product (and sometimes
ship it) to customers before the Sales and Service guys are
even told about it. Other cute tricks include withholding
internal documentation on the product because the field guy
may give the information to the customer or competition.
Instead, the guys in the field are given the exact information
given to the customers. Talk about making the support guy look
dumb! Humm.. seems that field people are dumb since they don't
know anything about the product, therefore we won't listen to them
in the home office. What a setup.
- The "Sales people are more important that the Service people"
syndrome. Yes, its true! Once the product is sold, your on
your own. Better hope it never breaks. The problem is no one
likes to work on something thats broken (that includes me),
but it is possible to do the job of Service/Support and not be
treated like something that crawled out of the sewer. I can
understand that before you can support a product, you need to
sell it first but if the product doesn't perform or the customer
needs real support (no customer likes to be told "read the manual"
after he just spent the previous 5 hours trying to read that piece
of trash), I think you should be able to give it to him. (no! no!
not the knife!). To help the support people, give them the info
they need to keep the customers happy, without giving away the farm.
If the development people know of bugs that could save a customer
many man hours not to run into on his own, speak up and tell the
field guy, he'll know which customers could use it and not have to
blast it onto the front pages of ComputerWorld. Lets not treat
your support people too bad since they have DIRECT contact with
all your major customers and can cause real harm when they look
stupid. There was a lot of talk about DEC support and how bad
it was, I don't think thats really fair to the field engineers
since they do the best they can (and in my option, they do
it well). Managment has to treat each employee as if that
person was a valuable asset to the corporation, in the case of
support people, it means good training, up to date information
from the headquarters (so we don't go out and make a jerk of
ourselves) and the tools to do our job. We will, in turn,
give our best to your customers, who I might add, payed for the
service and deserve their money's worth.
Of course, if your product stinks, support may not help a bit.
The problem of where a manager tells the guru "you can't touch that machine
because you are not authorized!" makes some sense in that you don't want just
every Tom, Dick and Harrie to screw around with your computers. But, holy
smog, batch-jobs! seems to me the manager could say "<john>, your not
supposed to screw around with our computer but since you are doing a fine
job, why don't we put you on the access list and I'll talk to your boss about
letting you have more time to straighten our machine. We can use more talent
like yours!". Now, take the guy who is supposed to be fixing the computer
problems, but can't (for whatever reason) and let him learn from the guru.
Maybe someday, you will have *two* gurus, but at least you will have one and
he will be happy (maybe).
Sorry this article is so long, I just hate having other Nations thinking we
Americans are just a bunch of lazy people (its true, but we don't have to
*look* lazy) and High Tech was just a passing fad with us.
To put my management at ease, I should tell you that my manager (Gene Mueller)
at Perkin-Elmer is one of the best people you can work with. His boss is
a hell of a guy and they try their best to give their support people the
support they need to carry out the mission. The company has made many changes
over the last couple of years, the results are always slow in coming,
but attitude of the company is so much better towards its people than before.
I am much happier now that I was a couple of years ago and I think the
customers are too. Still room for improvement, but I think this is a company
that really wants to give the customer something for his/her money.
[Lord, I was born a rambling man... blah..blah..]
You know, if I didn't know better I would swear that the whole idea of a
Stock Market (where investors determine the fate of companies) is bad news for
American companies. Its like having a gun pointed to your head all the
time. Each quarter, you had better make more money than the last quarter
or you'll get your head shot off. Doesn't really allow you the freedom to
explore new market areas since you run the risk of having a bad quarter or
two. Whats wrong with making enough money to paay all your bills and have
a little left over in the bank for a rainy day? Why must companies have
35%, 55%, 1000% ruturn on their investments? With the stakes so high,
someone has to lose! If the company folds, it doesn't get hurt -- its not
a living being (except in the eyes of the law), an employee is human. Lets
stop trying to drive each other out of business and start working towards
an environment where all people can earn a living. There is plenty of money
for us all (just print more if we need it :-).
--
Earl Wallace
UUCP: ..!{ihnp4, ucbvax!hplabs, ucbvax!twg}!pesnta!earlw
PHONE: (408) 727-5540 x230
USMAIL: Perkin-Elmer Corp., Santa Clara, Calif. 95054nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (03/11/85)
Years ago, when I worked for a small firm that later became the
nuclear instrument division of Beckman Instruments, I found a
cartoon pasted to my office door. It showed a pair of button-down
types watching an overweight slob with a coffee cup and a messy
cigarette dangling from his lips wander by. The caption said
"I know. Unfortunately, he's indispensible."
I was really flattered.
--
Ed Nather
Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!natherdsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (03/11/85)
Ahhh, yes, but profit maximisation is consistent with the goal of using
your gurus, wild ducks, nonconformists, etc; however, it is not consistent with
the goals of management. Slow, steady profits with an appropriate delta-increase
permit corporate bean counters and entrepeneurs show all kinds of b******t to
other bean counters and such. Therefore, by using intimidation and fear, one can
make money without the hassle of developing ballistic transistors or fixing
Unices.
On the other hand, there are some reasonably progressive companies which
have realised almost too late the ultimate error in the ways. Look what Don
Petersen and staff have done with Ford Motor Co. in the last 6 years. (there
is a reasonable discussion of the changes there in one of the recent automotive
fishwrappers of late.)
I feel a flame coming on so I'll have to move this to net.flame anyway.
One question, though: Are one of you person(s) John Kenneth Galbraith under
another name?
dya
.gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (03/12/85)
Part of the problem is putting MBAs in charge of technical projects. There also seems to be a prevalent managerial attitude that corporate profitability is not due to having good products at reasonable prices but to fooling the customer into buying whatever you can slap together..
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (03/12/85)
... long discussion of ills of companies ... > You know, if I didn't know better I would swear that the whole idea of a > Stock Market (where investors determine the fate of companies) is bad news for > American companies. Its like having a gun pointed to your head all the > time. Each quarter, you had better make more money than the last quarter > or you'll get your head shot off. Doesn't really allow you the freedom to > explore new market areas since you run the risk of having a bad quarter or > two. Whats wrong with making enough money to paay all your bills and have > a little left over in the bank for a rainy day? Why must companies have > 35%, 55%, 1000% ruturn on their investments? After the stock is sold, the price of the stock is not real important to the company in any short term way. The stock price is only of interest in that: 1) You may want to sell more to get more capital 2) If it drops too low someone may try to buy you out 3) If it is too low for too long, the stockholders may vote to get new management. These are almost always multiple quarter phenomenon. The emphasis on short run mostly stems from bad managment practices and American corporations promoting people for the wrong reasons. The Japanese (Yes, YAJapanese comparison ) have a stock market, they also have a long range orientation in management. That is why they don't fall into the 'ship it NOW' trap. They manage to make the company work better and let profit follow of its own accord. (It is alway important to remember which is the cause and which is the effect...) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Comedo ergo dorum This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.