4 ms·

Throughout the 1960s to the mid-1980s it used to fashionable because it was so helpful to reconstitute manufacturing corporate culture around a three axis orien

by scrubs 3y ago

Throughout the 1960s to the mid-1980s it used to fashionable because it was so helpful to reconstitute manufacturing corporate culture around a three axis orientation of quality through SPC, of customers, and profit. This was done to avoid the distortions that ruin companies in the medium and long term including bankruptcy, layoffs, junk products, and all the related human BS that comes with it: corporate politics, in-fighting, lying, and so on. Think Ishikawa's tunnel analogy in his "What Is Total Quality Control?: The Japanese Way." Some organizations included additional emphasis on responsibilities to society. I miss those days. I've run into too many individuals in corporate American that: * manage up/down * think that if you're not hustling all the time actively managing your rep -- because everybody is doing it -- you're a chump * A particularly ripe scenario to see this play out in tech sectors is cloud migration in companies that previously had large private data centers. The amount of BS and mid to upper level management cowardice that enables the in-fighting over capex, headcount, and control is truely disheartening. Here in my backyard --- the US --- I sometimes seriously wonder if "American Management" is euphemism for political players in soap operas.

edmundsauto 3y ago
Can you elaborate why you think managing up/down is bad? Maybe we differ in definition, but I take it to mean customize how you communicate (zoom in / zoom out) based on the intended audiences typical scope and responsibilities. I don’t want to tell my skip super in depth technical details they don’t need to know. It’s my job to process it for them.
- scrubs 3y ago
  What you write sounds fine. "It’s my job to process it for them" has truth in it too. However, it takes street smarts, experience, and being burned a time or two to know when it's two guys (associates) talking trying to get it right and when you're being played by a player. Flailing individual trust precedes the decline in institutional competency. And once that happens the prospect for legit corrective action is largely gone. In-fighting will dominate. Clues that maybe something is off (not exhaustive) based on some guys I worked with a few years ago: * The boss talks with team individuals only then brings the team together to report what everybody said, and what everybody agreed to. Actually, no individual knows what anyone else said and didn't have a chance to ask questions. * You're afraid to bring something up, or notice privately team members complain or share concerns but never say anything to decision makers or in a team setting * You're encouraged to make changes because of "reputation," team image or other nebulous sounding reasons. Change may indeed need to happen. But those are not reasons * You're instructed to remain technical to not engage or discuss issues that seem more pertinent to management, organizational values. Being boxed in is a bad sign. * Being brow beat into doing things out of guilt or entitlement are bad signs. * Putting internal politics or good light on the boss' project ahead of customer satisfaction even though the work will not satisfy intended customers is a bad sign. * Abusing through manipulation internal service supplier status is bad. One guy I knew slickly sold his team's capability knowing once tied in they were practically married. The code was implemented such that the customer had no insight or control to it. By running around the floor and vacuuming up as many internal teams as he could, he parlayed his position to "take over the floor, but taking over the data." Guess what? It failed in a spectacular fashion; he never took over control of that system and never gave his "customers" a better solution. He treated his customers as suckers. * The above point has a corollary: internal service suppliers get implicit management support, and it's implied internal customers have no choice but to work with them. This is NOT how it works on the outside. I choose my roofer and if I am not happy payment may not be given or is disputed or I fire the roofer. The hole in my roof is my motivation to treat the roofer right. My checkbook is why the roofer needs to treat me right. Either can walk away if the other is a jerk. But not in large corporations. That's why, for example, deprecating private data centers for the cloud are horror shows. The internal service suppliers are used to being in charge even entitled no matter how crappy or expensive their service is. And when they find out they might be replaced, they fight it all the way. See: https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/dp/0139524339 https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/d... https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Esteem-Management/dp/1555426123/ref=sr_1_1?crid=219QTFZNY6Q92&keywords=the+human+element+schutz&qid=1704669922&s=books&sprefix=the+human+element+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Estee... https://www.amazon.com/FIRO-Three-Dimensional-Theory-Interpersonal-Behavior/dp/B000P1C6OW/ref=sr_1_4?crid=AOUWR94ZMONL&keywords=human+element+schutz&qid=1704669960&s=books&sprefix=human+element+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C90&sr=1-4 https://www.amazon.com/FIRO-Three-Dimensional-Theory-Interpe... and any work from Deming, Crosby, or Drucker which do far better at integrating business, profit, people, and customers.
PoignardAzur 3y ago
I think this is what Robert Jackall refers to as "morall mazes", company cultures that are so far removed from practical reality and ethical behavior that it's impossible for a good-faith actor to navigate them.
- scrubs 3y ago
  Agree! The human element book I referenced above deals with those issues in a very practical way as does Ishikawa's TQM. One thing Schutz points out in a particularly striking way: issues of trust and openness are often the last thing to ever get dealt with in an organization. Players are a side effect of this. They work from a cynical base that a lot of office stuff is BS and as a professional --- not a naive nube --- they gotta hustle too . And that is what makes them savy; a pro who's seen it all. Instead they further erode climate. It's the office equivalent to news headlines: "The dirty secret behind ..." "What you where never told about ..." "The real truth about..." "The official ____ about ____..." The implication is clear: you are repeatedly lied to; you can't trust what you see or hear.

by scrubs 3y ago

edmundsauto 3y ago

Can you elaborate why you think managing up/down is bad? Maybe we differ in definition, but I take it to mean customize how you communicate (zoom in / zoom out) based on the intended audiences typical scope and responsibilities. I don’t want to tell my skip super in depth technical details they don’t need to know. It’s my job to process it for them.

scrubs 3y ago
What you write sounds fine. "It’s my job to process it for them" has truth in it too. However, it takes street smarts, experience, and being burned a time or two to know when it's two guys (associates) talking trying to get it right and when you're being played by a player. Flailing individual trust precedes the decline in institutional competency. And once that happens the prospect for legit corrective action is largely gone. In-fighting will dominate. Clues that maybe something is off (not exhaustive) based on some guys I worked with a few years ago: * The boss talks with team individuals only then brings the team together to report what everybody said, and what everybody agreed to. Actually, no individual knows what anyone else said and didn't have a chance to ask questions. * You're afraid to bring something up, or notice privately team members complain or share concerns but never say anything to decision makers or in a team setting * You're encouraged to make changes because of "reputation," team image or other nebulous sounding reasons. Change may indeed need to happen. But those are not reasons * You're instructed to remain technical to not engage or discuss issues that seem more pertinent to management, organizational values. Being boxed in is a bad sign. * Being brow beat into doing things out of guilt or entitlement are bad signs. * Putting internal politics or good light on the boss' project ahead of customer satisfaction even though the work will not satisfy intended customers is a bad sign. * Abusing through manipulation internal service supplier status is bad. One guy I knew slickly sold his team's capability knowing once tied in they were practically married. The code was implemented such that the customer had no insight or control to it. By running around the floor and vacuuming up as many internal teams as he could, he parlayed his position to "take over the floor, but taking over the data." Guess what? It failed in a spectacular fashion; he never took over control of that system and never gave his "customers" a better solution. He treated his customers as suckers. * The above point has a corollary: internal service suppliers get implicit management support, and it's implied internal customers have no choice but to work with them. This is NOT how it works on the outside. I choose my roofer and if I am not happy payment may not be given or is disputed or I fire the roofer. The hole in my roof is my motivation to treat the roofer right. My checkbook is why the roofer needs to treat me right. Either can walk away if the other is a jerk. But not in large corporations. That's why, for example, deprecating private data centers for the cloud are horror shows. The internal service suppliers are used to being in charge even entitled no matter how crappy or expensive their service is. And when they find out they might be replaced, they fight it all the way. See: https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/dp/0139524339 https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/d... https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Esteem-Management/dp/1555426123/ref=sr_1_1?crid=219QTFZNY6Q92&keywords=the+human+element+schutz&qid=1704669922&s=books&sprefix=the+human+element+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Estee... https://www.amazon.com/FIRO-Three-Dimensional-Theory-Interpersonal-Behavior/dp/B000P1C6OW/ref=sr_1_4?crid=AOUWR94ZMONL&keywords=human+element+schutz&qid=1704669960&s=books&sprefix=human+element+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C90&sr=1-4 https://www.amazon.com/FIRO-Three-Dimensional-Theory-Interpe... and any work from Deming, Crosby, or Drucker which do far better at integrating business, profit, people, and customers.

PoignardAzur 3y ago

I think this is what Robert Jackall refers to as "morall mazes", company cultures that are so far removed from practical reality and ethical behavior that it's impossible for a good-faith actor to navigate them.

scrubs 3y ago
Agree! The human element book I referenced above deals with those issues in a very practical way as does Ishikawa's TQM. One thing Schutz points out in a particularly striking way: issues of trust and openness are often the last thing to ever get dealt with in an organization. Players are a side effect of this. They work from a cynical base that a lot of office stuff is BS and as a professional --- not a naive nube --- they gotta hustle too . And that is what makes them savy; a pro who's seen it all. Instead they further erode climate. It's the office equivalent to news headlines: "The dirty secret behind ..." "What you where never told about ..." "The real truth about..." "The official ____ about ____..." The implication is clear: you are repeatedly lied to; you can't trust what you see or hear.