Sort By:
Nov 7, 2010
Add a twist -- turn the scabbard once it's in -- as "management by powerpoint" consumes senior managers who are more concerned with the process than the substance.

Case 1 -- At least one of my former supervisors would have had us eliminate the footnote on the ppt "to clean it up" or "to get rid of the extraneous material" -- which would include trivial things like "it's the only data we had" or "it's OUR data and we trust no-one else's" or "we could run an actual test so we asked everyone around the room for their opinion."

Case 2 -- Not dissimilar, one former boss was given an assignment to see whether/how much of a particular product configuration could be outsourced. This boss had maintained that s/he would only support a "data driven conclusion." We went through an objective survey of our then-current suppliers to see if they were interested and if so, what the terms might be. All eight "partners" responded; six told our surveyor to go pound sand; one offered terms that indicated they really did not want this business; the last offered terms that indicated they were hungry. The boss told us to average the high and low numbers, call it a 25 percent survey return, and redefine the question so that it fit the answers. Then of course, leave all the minutiae off the slide deck.
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Nov 7, 2010
Hilarious!! I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time except that more often it won't be:

"We'll use the test results anyway because it's the only data we have"

but rather:

"We'll use the test results anyway because it's OUR test."
Nov 7, 2010
Scott, who do you have as a spy where I work? I have worked as an automotive test engineer for some 35 years and this has been the way management thinks all the time. 'Test' is a four letter dirty word to management. I call it the Merlin effect -- pure frick'in magic! All testing is voodoo and taboo. Most managers in automotive are bean counters and salesmen, no clue as to how to build a car! Case in point "RECALLS"!!! They bet on a falsified test report or blame engineering for something they made a decision on as to making it cheaper.
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Nov 7, 2010
The strip seems to give a reasonable explanation for loss of pride in workmanship, ownership is gone because the input has been skewed, resulting in creative frustration. My question is - who skews Scott's parameter's? Editors or readers?
+13 Rank Up Rank Down
Nov 7, 2010
@Ham24: Like I was at 5am this morning with little sleep over the past 48 hours (sorry Scott)!

I do have a story that relates to this.

Going to an outside agency to gain accreditation, and after a year of back and forth, and still no results because the security guru decided to change the questionaire each time we completed it, we finally once and for all gathered all players together to have it out. After an hour of in one of the most frustrating meeting I have ever attended (this guy refused to understand anything we told him, and even began arguing syntax and our usage of words!), our security expert (a woman) finally lost it and told him his questionaire andattitude was a piece of cap (substitude what you will here). To which this guy responds, "Well women are a piece of crap and whoever allowed them to be managers..." etc etc. He went on and on, the got up and stormed out of the meeting screaming F woman this and f woman that. We were so shocked we all sat there stunned in silence. His assistant (a woman) looked at us and said, "Don't worry about it. He gets like that sometimes." We just gathered upour things and left. After a few phone calls the accreditation was done within the week. I think the guy ended up in a white room somewhere.
Get the new Dilbert app!