5 ms·

The story fills in all the reasons why ‘management’ start at #1. Company A buys company B for a product it believes in. Company A knows that company B was inc

The story fills in all the reasons why ‘management’ start at #1. Company A buys company B for a product it believes in. Company A knows that company B was incapable of getting product to finish line, which is why they sold out. No problem though, company A has done this before… The managers at company A are assigned to ship product, just like they have before. Managers can’t say “its all good, we’ll give them a couple more devs and leave them to it.” they were told to manage, changes will be expected, planning must happen. The C level of company A just spent a bunch of money on company B. The product needs to hit positive revenue in 9 months, without positive revenue in 12 months the company will be out of cash. So management are told in no uncertain terms that they have to ship in 6 months. The contracted developers sign on to a 6 month fixed timeframe and know there will be design tweaks by the new management. At every stage everyone is doing their job. Everyone is trying to do the right thing for success and to not get fired. Everyone has a problem that can only be fixed by someone at a different level compromising on their quality of work or their personal happiness. I’m not excusing bad management or execs who looking for a rapid cash-out. Trying to illustrate how a good company can hit the same pattern.

prox 4y ago
So basically from the inside everything looks reasonably well, especially at the beginning?
Kinrany 4y ago
So company A gambled that they can turn around company B in 12 months or go bankrupt? Sounds like whoever decided to buy didn't do their due diligence.
- midnightclubbed 4y ago
  Not necessarily bankrupt but at a point where they’d have to cut their losses by losing staff. But company B was going to be fully bankrupt before 6 months without company A stepping in. Companies make these decisions all the time, particularly in industries whose products are hit driven and then tail off.
JackFr 4y ago
> At every stage everyone is doing their job. Everyone is trying to do the right thing for success and to not get fired. Everyone has a problem that can only be fixed by someone at a different level compromising on their quality of work or their personal happiness. I think this hits the nail on the head. A bunch of reasonably competent people went in with the best intentions, all in good faith and over time it became clear certain assumptions were either too optimistic or simply wrong. While there is definitely blame to be apportioned, the frustration felt by all involved leads to a very human reaction of calling it malevolence or incompetence.
- spfzero 4y ago
  Assumptions being too optimistic or simply wrong, is a kind of incompetence though isn't it?
toss1 4y ago
That description sounds like a failure of C-Level at Company-A to do tgeir due diligence and properly allocate resources & schedule. Then everyone pays for their mistakes, and the whole thing is a waste . Optimism is essential in any endeavor, but it is no substitute for starting with accurate -in detail- assessments & provisioning of resources. They (the Corp-A C-Levels) had one job here...

prox 4y ago

So basically from the inside everything looks reasonably well, especially at the beginning?

Kinrany 4y ago

So company A gambled that they can turn around company B in 12 months or go bankrupt? Sounds like whoever decided to buy didn't do their due diligence.

midnightclubbed 4y ago
Not necessarily bankrupt but at a point where they’d have to cut their losses by losing staff. But company B was going to be fully bankrupt before 6 months without company A stepping in. Companies make these decisions all the time, particularly in industries whose products are hit driven and then tail off.

JackFr 4y ago

> At every stage everyone is doing their job. Everyone is trying to do the right thing for success and to not get fired. Everyone has a problem that can only be fixed by someone at a different level compromising on their quality of work or their personal happiness. I think this hits the nail on the head. A bunch of reasonably competent people went in with the best intentions, all in good faith and over time it became clear certain assumptions were either too optimistic or simply wrong. While there is definitely blame to be apportioned, the frustration felt by all involved leads to a very human reaction of calling it malevolence or incompetence.

spfzero 4y ago
Assumptions being too optimistic or simply wrong, is a kind of incompetence though isn't it?

toss1 4y ago

That description sounds like a failure of C-Level at Company-A to do tgeir due diligence and properly allocate resources & schedule. Then everyone pays for their mistakes, and the whole thing is a waste . Optimism is essential in any endeavor, but it is no substitute for starting with accurate -in detail- assessments & provisioning of resources. They (the Corp-A C-Levels) had one job here...