8 ms·

I hear nightmarish stories of micro-managers all the time. They feel that in order to do their jobs they have to tweak EVERYTHING that crosses their desk. One

by Foy 14y ago

I hear nightmarish stories of micro-managers all the time. They feel that in order to do their jobs they have to tweak EVERYTHING that crosses their desk. One memorable anecdote I came across was about an animation artist who was in charge of animating the queen for a 3d chess game. Because he knew his manager's weakness he threw in a duck... Yes, a duck. Fully animated with sound effects and everything. Sure enough, when he showed his work to his manager he said "It's perfect, but get rid of the duck." So maybe the moral of this lesson is that when things are running 100% smoothly, it's wise to toss your micro-manager a bone by doing something intentionally a little wrong to give them something to meddle with. ;-)

cperciva 14y ago
I've heard the same advice applied to PhD theses: Examiners always want to change something, so leave something in which you won't mind having them tell you to change.
- praptak 14y ago
  I have witnessed this advice applied to contract drafts. Lawyers from the other company were routinely given some bullshit clauses to prove their usefulness in vetting the contract.
  - lancewiggs 14y ago
    The really entertaining part is when they don't catch them. Every clause is negotiable - don't leave it to your lawyers alone to negotiate.
Dobbs 14y ago
The duck story is battle chess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Battle_Chess#The_duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Battle_Chess#The_duc... I've often had the opposite problem: companies where the CEO is so disconnected from the company (usually by working remotely 80% of the time) that the company doesn't have direction and languishes.
- Foy 14y ago
  Oh thanks! I was wondering where exactly I had heard that.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Aww, so there never was a duck.
- rmc 14y ago
  Speaking of managers ignoring things, I'm reminded of the last episode of the 90s sci-fi tv show 'Sliders', apparently the producers thought the network exec werent reading the scripts, so they deliberately broke a rule, and wrote a scene where someone was shot in the head and it wasn't picked up on. cf. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders#section_2 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders#section_2
michaelochurch 14y ago
I had a micromanager who hit everyone with 3 to 4 status pings per day. Even on work-from-home days, which defeats the point. His status pinging was a compulsion like email checking, but it eventually caused the team to fail. Consequently, I hate status meetings and standups and the various so-called Scr(ot)um tactics used to make people feel watched. I realize they're probably necessary as an occasional annoyance, but I think they're an unnecessary pain in the ass most of the time. Their real purpose is to intimidate people into being productive, and that Theory-X bullshit doesn't work in the modern economy.
- natrius 14y ago
  There is a large set of humans who get more work done when they're held accountable for it. I'm one of them. Call it "intimidating people into being productive" if you must, but it works. Even in the "modern economy." The manager in the example you gave was indeed taking things a bit far.
- NinetyNine 14y ago
  I'm not really sure how you're implementing scrum. Our scrum standups are always just the programmers, once a day in the mornings, and are used to keep all the programmers on the same page and talk to each other to find out if features might have a codependency, or if other blockers can be solved by something else another dev is working on. There's no "watching" of people or "intimidation". You might want to speak to your manager next time something like that is happening, because there's no way it can be good for your productivity or the other people on your team. It's certainly not a normal practice. At the very worst, if someone isn't pulling their weight they should be dealt with in private.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    Yeah, but next you'll tell us at your standups you actually stood up. No one gave me an answer when I asked why they called our meeting standup meetings.
    - NinetyNine 14y ago
lotharbot 14y ago
Obligatory Dilbert (7/12/1997): http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-07-12/?Page=2 http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-07-12/?Page=2
DavidAdams 14y ago
A friend of mine who buys and restores old houses deals with a similar issue. Buyers hire inspectors when they want to buy a house, who are supposed to alert them to major liabilities that might be lurking. But those inspectors aren't well trained and also have a need to appear to be "useful" to the people who pay them, so if you're selling a house that doesn't have any obvious flaws, such as a broken furnace or crumbling foundation, then they will entertain themselves by pointing out trivial items that dont' really affect the house's suitability, but can often scare buyers away or cause headaches for the seller. (For example, cracks in the foundation of an 80 year old house that likely appeared within months of the house being built and haven't budged since.) To counter this, my friend purposely leaves 3-4 fixes that he intended to complete all along un-done for the inspector to notice and fixate on. Then the inspector gets to look useful, the buyer gets a good house, and everyone's happy.

by Foy 14y ago

cperciva 14y ago

I've heard the same advice applied to PhD theses: Examiners always want to change something, so leave something in which you won't mind having them tell you to change.

praptak 14y ago
I have witnessed this advice applied to contract drafts. Lawyers from the other company were routinely given some bullshit clauses to prove their usefulness in vetting the contract.
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  The really entertaining part is when they don't catch them. Every clause is negotiable - don't leave it to your lawyers alone to negotiate.

Dobbs 14y ago

The duck story is battle chess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Battle_Chess#The_duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Battle_Chess#The_duc... I've often had the opposite problem: companies where the CEO is so disconnected from the company (usually by working remotely 80% of the time) that the company doesn't have direction and languishes.

Foy 14y ago
Oh thanks! I was wondering where exactly I had heard that.
Dylan16807 14y ago
Aww, so there never was a duck.
rmc 14y ago
Speaking of managers ignoring things, I'm reminded of the last episode of the 90s sci-fi tv show 'Sliders', apparently the producers thought the network exec werent reading the scripts, so they deliberately broke a rule, and wrote a scene where someone was shot in the head and it wasn't picked up on. cf. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders#section_2 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders#section_2

michaelochurch 14y ago

I had a micromanager who hit everyone with 3 to 4 status pings per day. Even on work-from-home days, which defeats the point. His status pinging was a compulsion like email checking, but it eventually caused the team to fail. Consequently, I hate status meetings and standups and the various so-called Scr(ot)um tactics used to make people feel watched. I realize they're probably necessary as an occasional annoyance, but I think they're an unnecessary pain in the ass most of the time. Their real purpose is to intimidate people into being productive, and that Theory-X bullshit doesn't work in the modern economy.

natrius 14y ago
There is a large set of humans who get more work done when they're held accountable for it. I'm one of them. Call it "intimidating people into being productive" if you must, but it works. Even in the "modern economy." The manager in the example you gave was indeed taking things a bit far.
NinetyNine 14y ago
I'm not really sure how you're implementing scrum. Our scrum standups are always just the programmers, once a day in the mornings, and are used to keep all the programmers on the same page and talk to each other to find out if features might have a codependency, or if other blockers can be solved by something else another dev is working on. There's no "watching" of people or "intimidation". You might want to speak to your manager next time something like that is happening, because there's no way it can be good for your productivity or the other people on your team. It's certainly not a normal practice. At the very worst, if someone isn't pulling their weight they should be dealt with in private.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  Yeah, but next you'll tell us at your standups you actually stood up. No one gave me an answer when I asked why they called our meeting standup meetings.
  - NinetyNine 14y ago

lotharbot 14y ago

Obligatory Dilbert (7/12/1997): http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-07-12/?Page=2 http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-07-12/?Page=2

DavidAdams 14y ago

A friend of mine who buys and restores old houses deals with a similar issue. Buyers hire inspectors when they want to buy a house, who are supposed to alert them to major liabilities that might be lurking. But those inspectors aren't well trained and also have a need to appear to be "useful" to the people who pay them, so if you're selling a house that doesn't have any obvious flaws, such as a broken furnace or crumbling foundation, then they will entertain themselves by pointing out trivial items that dont' really affect the house's suitability, but can often scare buyers away or cause headaches for the seller. (For example, cracks in the foundation of an 80 year old house that likely appeared within months of the house being built and haven't budged since.) To counter this, my friend purposely leaves 3-4 fixes that he intended to complete all along un-done for the inspector to notice and fixate on. Then the inspector gets to look useful, the buyer gets a good house, and everyone's happy.