8 ms·

I wonder what the thought process of the original boss was? It seems like his decision to fire the clever programmer was based entirely on the fact that he wasn

I wonder what the thought process of the original boss was? It seems like his decision to fire the clever programmer was based entirely on the fact that he wasn't doing what he was "supposed" to be doing, regardless of the massive benefits. I'm glad I've never worked for someone like this. But I'm afraid it's because I've mostly worked in start-ups or small companies where efficiencies and clever hacks are always appreciated. Is that kind of "logic" common in power structures?

rythie 14y ago
I think the problem is the boss manages, say, 10 people. Someone points out that the work of those 10 people can really be done by one person part-time and now the boss is redundant because no management is really needed anymore.
- planetguy 14y ago
  Pretty much it. This is also a good illustration of the difference between the private and the public sector. In the private sector your boss would rather keep all his employees, but your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss, would rather cut costs and increase profit. Start working for the government, though, and every level of management is keen on having as many people beneath them as possible, and there's no real desire at any level to reduce costs; the less efficient your department is the bigger your budget is and the more important you look. Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs (they're the only ones who even pretend to care) -- the bureaucracy will respond by firing the most useful and publicly visible of their employees to ensure that service levels drop thus justifying their case for an increased budget later on.
  - zacharypinter 14y ago
    I had a co-op job with the Navy (civil service) while in college. I sat next to a really nice lady named Peggy who was on the phone every day fielding lost password requests. She'd reset the password, then read the new password to the person over the phone, day after day after day. I went to my boss and offered to add a forgot password link to the site. His response: "But then what would Peggy do?"
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      This is what I imagine when I hear the phrase "job creation." If you want something done - your lawn mowed, a meal made, etc - you'll hire someone. But a job for its own sake? What, are you going to hire somebody to move a pile of rocks back and forth across your yard? A job starts with a need, not vice versa.
      - jcromartie 14y ago
        I have a pile of rocks in my yard... need work?
        ph0rque 14y ago
        After a couple days of rock moving, I'll just build a pick-n-place robot in my garage to do the work for me, ok?
        beambot 14y ago
        I know you say this in jest... but if you can solve unstructured pick-n-place (ie. non-uniform, unmodeled objects in arbitrary configurations with difficult outdoor perception), you could make some serious bank. This is actually a _very_ difficult problem.
        Raticide 14y ago
        He'd rather just go home early than share his robot.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      So much of the software work I've done is around getting computers to do the things that computers are good at. My response to the "what would Peggy do?" question is always "something that only Peggy can do" Automation doesn't have to be about reducing staffing costs, firing people, or hiring fewer people, it can be about getting more and better output from the humans on your team. Humans are great, and are wasted by reading passwords over the phone.
  - roc 14y ago
    > "but your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss, would rather cut costs and increase profit." That's a touch optimistic in my experience. There are definitely those who would love to cut costs and bump profit. But those who are out to pad their budget and status are more than just direct managers. In my experience, the more common driver of increased efficiency in the private sector, is department A angling in on department B's responsibilities with offers of being able to do them more cheaply/efficiently.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      Yup, every large organization has a tendency to develop sclerosis. Some manage to keep this down to a reasonable level, but those that don't collapse and are replaced.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    "Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs" If you're referring to any non-military domestic stuff, "Occasionally" means "Every year from 2000-present". Head on down to town/city hall and pull the budgets for the last 10 years if you don't believe me.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
If I were to guess, it's because that there are a bunch of temps doing data entry. They get paid a bonus based on what percentage of data they enter. Then comes this one guy, and he starts getting 90% of the bonus, thus effectively cutting out the bonus money for the rest of the employees (in a manner someone may see as cheating the system) That's just the other viewpoint of the story. Not saying it's most efficient, or right, but I can see a manager thinking that way.

rythie 14y ago

I think the problem is the boss manages, say, 10 people. Someone points out that the work of those 10 people can really be done by one person part-time and now the boss is redundant because no management is really needed anymore.

planetguy 14y ago
Pretty much it. This is also a good illustration of the difference between the private and the public sector. In the private sector your boss would rather keep all his employees, but your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss, would rather cut costs and increase profit. Start working for the government, though, and every level of management is keen on having as many people beneath them as possible, and there's no real desire at any level to reduce costs; the less efficient your department is the bigger your budget is and the more important you look. Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs (they're the only ones who even pretend to care) -- the bureaucracy will respond by firing the most useful and publicly visible of their employees to ensure that service levels drop thus justifying their case for an increased budget later on.
- zacharypinter 14y ago
  I had a co-op job with the Navy (civil service) while in college. I sat next to a really nice lady named Peggy who was on the phone every day fielding lost password requests. She'd reset the password, then read the new password to the person over the phone, day after day after day. I went to my boss and offered to add a forgot password link to the site. His response: "But then what would Peggy do?"
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    This is what I imagine when I hear the phrase "job creation." If you want something done - your lawn mowed, a meal made, etc - you'll hire someone. But a job for its own sake? What, are you going to hire somebody to move a pile of rocks back and forth across your yard? A job starts with a need, not vice versa.
    - jcromartie 14y ago
      I have a pile of rocks in my yard... need work?
      - ph0rque 14y ago
        After a couple days of rock moving, I'll just build a pick-n-place robot in my garage to do the work for me, ok?
        beambot 14y ago
        I know you say this in jest... but if you can solve unstructured pick-n-place (ie. non-uniform, unmodeled objects in arbitrary configurations with difficult outdoor perception), you could make some serious bank. This is actually a _very_ difficult problem.
        Raticide 14y ago
        He'd rather just go home early than share his robot.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    So much of the software work I've done is around getting computers to do the things that computers are good at. My response to the "what would Peggy do?" question is always "something that only Peggy can do" Automation doesn't have to be about reducing staffing costs, firing people, or hiring fewer people, it can be about getting more and better output from the humans on your team. Humans are great, and are wasted by reading passwords over the phone.
- roc 14y ago
  > "but your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss, would rather cut costs and increase profit." That's a touch optimistic in my experience. There are definitely those who would love to cut costs and bump profit. But those who are out to pad their budget and status are more than just direct managers. In my experience, the more common driver of increased efficiency in the private sector, is department A angling in on department B's responsibilities with offers of being able to do them more cheaply/efficiently.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Yup, every large organization has a tendency to develop sclerosis. Some manage to keep this down to a reasonable level, but those that don't collapse and are replaced.
- jbooth 14y ago
  "Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs" If you're referring to any non-military domestic stuff, "Occasionally" means "Every year from 2000-present". Head on down to town/city hall and pull the budgets for the last 10 years if you don't believe me.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

If I were to guess, it's because that there are a bunch of temps doing data entry. They get paid a bonus based on what percentage of data they enter. Then comes this one guy, and he starts getting 90% of the bonus, thus effectively cutting out the bonus money for the rest of the employees (in a manner someone may see as cheating the system) That's just the other viewpoint of the story. Not saying it's most efficient, or right, but I can see a manager thinking that way.