Comments for entry "Management/Success/Leadership: Mostly Bullshit" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from video_production

TueAMCDTE_Rthth

I always learn something new when I come to this blog, enjoy the photos and videos too, but I never have said thanks. So let me take the time now to say thank you and i'm going to finish reading through, RegardsÂ video production

Comment from Checkedout

TuePMCDTE_Rthth

Scott, I worked down the hall at the same company you did in the late 1980's - early 1990's and participated in some of the management programs du jour. The mid- and upper-level managers clawing to become Officers were a total anchor on any change in how the company did business. They also did really conterproductive things to maintain status quo. Changes were definitely in order, as the industry was changing rapidly and the competition was stealing our most profitable customers at an alarming rate. The mid-managers were afraid that any change in their way of managing would knock them out of their fantasy future. I actually worked for one woman who was certifiable. I complained to her boss, who fessed up that they knew she was wonky. A couple weeks later they 'reorganized' and she no longer had direct reports. She then spent 90 days in a rubber room. Another of my 'bosses' said they would do lip-service to the program du jour, but if any of the new stuff stood in the way of his bonus (he was planning to buy a new porshe with it) he'd fire anyone whose performance faltered because of the new methods. He made the statement again at the business plan kick-off for the year. Even asked each of the sales managers "what are your plans to get me my porche?" Guess we know how the new methods worked in that unit... The biggest problem was that metric drove behavior and the mid-levels wouldn't change metrics to something that made sense. They knew how to achieve the old ones. I had one boss beat me up to meet an arbitrary measure that drove 40% overtime. Meeting the metric also drove a lot of expensive work for other workgroups. I saw how ridiculous it was and refused to send some of the work out, resulting in a 98% rather than 100% result. I argued for a more rational metric and she kicked me out of her office after threatening my employment. Several months later, her boss got a new metric not to exceed 10% overtime. My boss adopted my suggestion and took credit for my idea. We met target the first week, but not before she pinged me on my eval for not meeting targets. One consultant was hired to assess the companies' "readiness for change." They held focus groups that resulted in the revelation that middle management was a solid anchor in the past monopolostic business practices. The front-line workers and management were in perfect alignment with the officers, but middle management would not allow the modern business practices to be used. The officers refused to believe it. They commissioned a 100% employee survey for several $million. Results were IDENTICAL to the focus groups, but they still refused to believe it. Did the survey again 6 months later. I'm not sure they ever got it, but the company ended up getting gobbled up by a bigger, better run corporation who fired or 'provided incentives' to many of the mid-levels. Somewhere during this process, our company brought in a big-name consultant who advised the officers to reorganize in a certain way, which made doing business internally a nightmare. We essentially had to pay other parts of the business to help us innovate to save $$. Brilliant. If we had the extra cash to pay for the innovation, why would we shop internally and go through the bureaucratic hoops? So a lot of good ideas were not innovated. Here's another example of the buffoonery: I sent an idea in through the official suggestion program to change the travel per diem policy. If you had to travel on a day trip, the company would not pay for your lunch. I watched people purposefully turn what could have been a day trip into a 2 or 3 day trip so they wouldn't have to pay for an expensive lunch in the big city. So instead of saving $15, the company was paying $200 a pop per person for meetings and conferences that were driven by the chinchy policy. I think that's called malicious compliance. It was actually rampant. The response I got from the 'suggestion plan reviewer' was that if I didn't want to pay for my own lunch I should look for a new job with a different company. I started to suspect we were doomed. Some really bad decisions resulted from ambitious middle managers who would buck the formal process, make a flashy presentation to the officers and get their signatures to implement an expensive idea that was not well vetted. One in particular resulted in an expensive piece of technology that the manufacturer promptly discontinued, leaving our company with the bill for all future upgrades. The selling company was brilliant -- they recognized a sucker and sold him and the company their albatross. Probably cost the company more than $100 million over 10 years for that piece of junk and the associated worker's comp cases. It randomly emitted a loud, high-pitched squeal through the earphone of the user, effectively deafening them. The ambitious guy got his promotion before the problems were discovered by the unsuspecting victims. A couple years later, I spent a day with a 'visitor' from a similar Australian company. In the course of the day he explained that about 8 years earlier they had a big-name consultant advise them on a business model that they adopted and it essentially bankrupted the monopoly in about 5 years. Turned out it was the same consultant and same business model. I then knew there was no hope. I took the next buy-out that I qualifed for -- maybe the same one you did.

Comment from vsharsh

MonPMCDTE_Rthth

So you mean to say that the golden rule is that there is no rule? That's an interesting oxymoron. Though opinions expressed in the blog are right on the money. I'll enlightened to know what arcane secrets do they teach in the exorbitantly prices business education programs.

Comment from ylevitan

MonAMCDTE_Rthth

I would encourage you to check out a book called "The Halo Effect" (linked to below). The book looks into a number of the most common delusions business authors and management experts write about in their books. Much of the criticism is focused on Jim Collins in particular. Collins is the author of books like Good to Great, which essentially go as far as to claim there is such a thing as organizational physics. http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Managers/dp/0743291263

Comment from usmdj

FriPMCDTE_Rthth

I interviewed for a management position one time that was currently empty. The manager I was interviewing with fortuitously happened to say that the productivity of the group normally went up when they didn't have a manager. I then asked why have a manager at all. He said that after about a month the productivity went down. He then went on to say best managers (based strictly on productivity which was quantified by output passing inspection) are ones who are there and don't do anything. I immediately said I was qualified. Unfortunately I didn't get the job. Apparently I was over qualified.

Comment from GLK

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

You scored another big hit with this one, Scott. I'm 56 years old and have seen so many business plans come and go it isn't funny anymore. Whenever some bright-eyed imbecile in a dark suit starts spewing corporate philosophy with a straight face my eyes automatically half close, my arms cross and my dill hole meter goes off the charts. The big thing at big companies now are Gallup polls. Nobody wants to participate, everyone hates them, the meetings are pointless and the time wasted is endless. But worse than that is the fervent albeit hushed opinion that the company would serve its employees better if they'd divvy up the millions they spend on Gallup every year and give it to the workers. But that's way too simplistic. An acquaintance of mine is a little younger than I am and fully retired with millions in savings. He did it by getting his Masters in statistical mathematics then starting a consulting firm. Hobnobbing with CEOs was a brilliant "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" strategy. He once told me when the economy tanks his business skyrockets. When business is down the board of directors turns the screws and the easiest response any CEO can make is, "I've hired a brilliant consulting firm to review our processes and pinpoint areas of improvement." Then of course the study will drag out for years with the resultant hair brained, half !$%*!$ madness eventually falling into the laps of the employees who just shake their collective heads. Trace it back and I think you'll find most of these idiotic philosophies are the direct result of business consulting firms pandering to CEOs in an effort to make them look like they're deserving of their ridiculously exorbitant salaries. But, hey, there probably isn't anybody that wouldn't stop do exactly the same thing if they were in their shoes.

Comment from delius1967

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

[ Regarding the Alcoa turnaround, the safety focus was a clever way to improve communication and accountability. That is basic management. Add accountability to any environment and you will have improvement. That is quite different from offering the employees free beer on Fridays and hoping their happiness translates into productivity. ] If improving communication and accountability is basic management, then why do so many managers suck at it? I agree it SHOULD be basic management. In practice, though, it isn't, which to me indicates that it is harder than it looks. Actually, forget that. It IS harder than it looks. A lot harder. I've been a people manager for ~15 years and still struggle with it. Someone who can do it naturally and effectively is a rare commodity. Friday beer may not be the same, but not all employee benefits are so frivolous. For example, Google gives its employees free food -- breakfast, lunch, dinner -- in their corporate cafeterias. They do it because they recognize that the cost of food is minimal compared to the cost of employees arriving late, or leaving early, or going out to lunch every day. Another example, a lot of tech companies offer employees free (or heavily discounted) memberships at upscale health clubs. They don't do this because having toned, fit bodies makes the work environment more pleasant; they do it because, statistically speaking, healthy people spend less time absent from work. A well-designed benefit package is nothing but a set of cost/benefit analyses spin-doctored into, "We care about our employees."

Comment from motown44

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

I love you. I'd like to send this out as an internal memo.

Comment from AtlantaDude

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

For a more rigorous debunking of the management BS, read "The Management Myth: Debunking Modern Business Philosophy" by Matthew Stewart. It is a well-researched take down by a former management consultant, and it is a pretty enjoyable read.

Comment from libovness

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

This post perfectly captured something I had been stewing on for awhile now. I expanded on the "How about the idea that every hourly wage slave should act like an entrepreneur"-point in my own blog post today (http://whoo.ps/2013/03/13/a-sorta-wise-entrepreneur-once-said), after having had an exchange a few months ago with a prominent tech entrepreneur (https://twitter.com/libovness/status/301446413034860544) on this exact idea. It's really bogus.

Comment from GrumpyJames

ThuAMCDTE_Rthth

CNBC ran a story on Valve on March 5. Valve is a $4 billion company with no upper level management or HR. Decisions on hiring/firing/bonuses are made by peer consensus. Whether this is idyllic as it sounds is anyone's guess and Valve is supposedly a fairly secretive company about its inner workings. But my simple guess is that management only adds unnecessary layers of inefficiency and politics in settings where employees are autodidactic, self-motivated, and passionate. This is probably a small slice of the total number of companies that exist in the world - and very few companies with high value, like Valve. Nonetheless, if employees are drawn from the top 1-2% of individuals and have the aforementioned qualities, the question of whether management would add or detract from efficiency is fair game.

Comment from Paddington

ThuAMCDTE_Rthth

Rule #1 for a successful manager (personal success, not necessarily that of the enterprise): Try not to make a decision. When absolutely forced to do so, chose the option that has already failed elsewhere. That way, when it fails for you, there is no blame. If it succeeds, you are a genius.

Comment from pastoresch

ThuAMCDTE_Rthth

I felt the bubble ... then I farted. Oh and one more thing, ass pimple is OK but next time try "butt zit". I feel it has more of a business ring to it.

Comment from LeadDreamer

ThuAMCDTE_Rthth

C'mon, there's even a name for this: "sample bias" - looking at the "common" features of your existing sample, and assuming they are unique to your sample. You see it in Mutual Funds and other financial institutions already - "Mr. Smith is one of the Top 3 fund managers of his generation - he must know what he's doing!" What they don't tell you is 20,000 other people started as fund managers the same year he did, 15 or 20 years ago. If you just randomly pick half of them to fail, and half to survive each year, how many would be left? that's right, about 3.... When you see articles about "7 habits of successful people", you have to ask - did the author survey all of the people who have the **exact same habits** who did NOT succeed? Passion doesn't hurt - but I see passionate failures. Type-A personalities? I seen more than a few drop of a heart attack. Maybe there is some element to success - but I've yet to see an analysis that could also be replicated by chance... Don't get me wrong; you can most CERTAINLY guarantee failure (among other things: don't try**), but a great deal of success is due to factors you did NOT control. Accept it, be grateful, and help others along the way. (**Old joke: guy sitting at home, complaining to the sky "God, why haven't you given me a winning lottery ticket?" God's voice booming back down "It would help if you actually bought one sometime")

Comment from workerant

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

I hope there's not a bubble coming. I just wrote a a management book and I'd hate it to get lost in all the other !$%*!$%*!

Comment from Dingbat

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

Speaking of management trends: When did companies start having potential hires interview with entire departments over the course of 6 or 7 call backs? That combined with the requirement that your most recent experience exactly match the job description limits potential hires to people who: 1) Lie well 2) Are completely non-threatening to potential peers, managers and direct reports 3) Have nothing better to do than show up for endless rounds of interviews I played that game for a few months before meeting my current boss at a social event. She hired me with no interviews other than a test project she evaluated with her team. Is that how all hires are actually made? Is the HR interview-go-round process just a game to keep the lawyers happy? How much of what passes for management today is really just data-driven CYA?

Comment from AlanB9

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

Phantom II - You have far too much time on your hands, you must not have a job. Based on the logic you use in a lot of your posts, you were more than likely fired or asked to leave the last job.

Comment from whtllnew

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

@Melvin1 [I think that management books are half BS, and half useful; the useful half is probably similar to listening to a motivational speaker - there are very few new ideas and no silver bullets, but you get energized to focus on important strategies/processes.] Im with you on the half useful part but not on the reason. My own opinion is that many management books contain ideas that proved to be useful somewhere and very likely are useful in other places, but the trick is to recognize where those other places are, where they arent and implement those ideas correctly. They become fads and sometimes lead to bubbles when managers try to implement them where they shouldnt or overestimate their ability to implement correctly.

Comment from Melvin1

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

I think that management books are half BS, and half useful; the useful half is probably similar to listening to a motivational speaker - there are very few new ideas and no silver bullets, but you get energized to focus on important strategies/processes. There is certainly something to be said for good managers. I've worked for very good, very bad, and some in between. Like everything, luck helps, but there's no substitute for quality management. I agree that benefits will not create success, but I'm confident that culture matters. Many a start-up or struggling non-profit have succeeded partially based on culture (which include: cooperative, entrepreneurial, supportive, rewarding, etc). And many successful companies have been brought down by bad culture (selfish, unrewarding, backstabbing, lazy etc). Great products and employees can counteract this a bit, but in the long run great employees won't stick around.

Comment from Gdmedia

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

I do think there is such a thing as charisma that is related to a person's biology, as well as to his or her environment and past experiences. Add Ted Bundy to your list of examples. Psychopaths are likely to be highly charismatic, even if their past is just a jumble of irresponsible, bumbling failures, as it often is. Part of charisma is the "look and feel" of another person -- how they appear and how they behave -- and some of that comes from their genetics. To my observation, there are, on the tails of the bell curve, some highly charismatic failures as well as some unappealling, reclusive successes.