The Fine Art of 'Boss Science'

BoredStiff writes "NYMag has up an article that explores Boss Science and the minds of American corporate leaders. In the real world, bosses are known to suffer from a long list of social pathologies: naked aggression, credit hogging, micromanaging, bullying, you name it. Leadership research shows that subtle nasty moves like glaring and condescending comments, explicit moves like insults or put-downs, and even physical intimidation can be effective paths to power. Research also shows that employees tend to see the jerk as boss material. The article goes on to discuss some of the science bosses apply to making an operation run smoothly: 'A researcher reported that one law firm deconstructs its HR needs by personality traits. It insists on extremely bright employees who are also extremely insecure. 'They want them to think that working really hard matters,' he explains. Through this prism, personality types can even be mixed and matched to make a team function more efficiently.'"

Comments

Conversely

[BWJones]

Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability. The danger of this is that they will not stay because they are hired away, but honestly if your employees are not being recruited by everyone else out there, they are not the best and brightest.

Re:Conversely

[Mikkeles]

'Research also shows that employees tend to see the jerk as boss material.'

That's just to remove him as a co-worker and inflict him on other bosses!
(I really wish that weren't a joke ;)

Re:Conversely

[mdkess]

I think one of the big issues with this is that becoming a manager is the only way that an employee can advance their career. So when your brilliant engineer decides that he needs more money, his or her only option is to go into management, and the company ends up losing a talented engineer and ends up with a bad manager who probably wishes they could be an engineer again, and all of a sudden doesn't like his job anymore. Also, you might have an average engineer who would be a great manager, but the system fails again in this regard because this guy won't get noticed.

Re:Conversely

[BWJones]

HP used to have a policy of only promoting people to management who had been engineers. This had a couple of benefits including the managers ability to know work flows and products as well as still allowing the manager to be able to participate in the work and product development. This of course changed as part of the culture shift at HP around the same time somebody had the bright idea of canceling their RPN calculators.

However, to more directly answer your point, smarter companies distribute managerial duties amongst a number of senior people yet still allow those people to participate in the work. Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase. Rather they need to continue to reward their productive employees with different pay scales for say engineering (apprentice, junior, blah blah blah, senior, fellow).

Re:Conversely

[Grishnakh]

Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase.

If there's no pay scale increase for becoming a manager, then what's the incentive to give up an engineering job to become a manager? It seems like the only people who'd be interested in management in this situation are those who are poor/mediocre engineers and/or more interested in politics and empire-building than actually doing productive work. This is exactly what I saw in my last company, which was another big tech company where managers were all former engineers, and there wasn't necessarily more pay for going into management.

Re:Conversely

[Fred_A]

Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability.

Sure, you can do that and sleep like a baby... while your competition laughs all the way to the bank (and their employees stare nervously at the ceiling all night long while shaking from the weird mix of antidepressants). You'll still fold first. The problem with evil is that in the real world, and *especially* the corporate world, it pretty much always wins. And what's more, once someone starts bending the rules, everybody *has* to do the same or be left behind to shrivel and die.

Yes it would be nice if the world was fair. It might even be the sign that we're a civilised society. However currently the world is what it is (i.e. certainly not fair at all) and that is one of the most important lessons to be learned, bitter as it is.

On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair. Would you expect physics to be fair ? The legal system has to to with the implementation of a set of local rules which you may or may not see as fair (but this is completely irrelevant). (hence the comparison with physics)

Re:Conversely

[j-pimp]

Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase.

If there's no pay scale increase for becoming a manager, then what's the incentive to give up an engineering job to become a manager? It seems like the only people who'd be interested in management in this situation are those who are poor/mediocre engineers and/or more interested in politics and empire-building than actually doing productive work. This is exactly what I saw in my last company, which was another big tech company where managers were all former engineers, and there wasn't necessarily more pay for going into management.

What about the people that want to teach? Do you not have any of those in your company? How about not promoting people unless they teach. Require management candidates to teach workshops and such. The problem with your company seems that they got it half right. If you give managers a higher payscale, people will sell out, and not be happy. However, positions of power always attract those that seek power. You have to cultivate an environment of teaching. That involves rewarding those that teach. Put up a wiki for the developers and thank those that contribute to it.

Re:Conversely

[BWJones]

Sure, you can do that and sleep like a baby...

Or, you can stay far enough in front that nobody else knows or is ready for what you are doing. Admittedly this is easier in the hard core sciences (where I live). When you start making widgets or providing services, all bets are off here.

And what's more, once someone starts bending the rules, everybody *has* to do the same or be left behind to shrivel and die.

Alternatively, you could act in an honorable manner and expect, no demand that those companies who work with you/for you/supply to you also act with honesty and respect for their employees and customers.

Yes it would be nice if the world was fair. It might even be the sign that we're a civilised society. However currently the world is what it is (i.e. certainly not fair at all) and that is one of the most important lessons to be learned, bitter as it is.

This is the problem we are currently facing with big business and politics. Everybody has come to expect that our politicians and industry leaders are pathological liars with no ability or willingness to do the right thing. Is this acceptable? If we accept this, does it mean the fall of our culture/civilization? The USA is only a couple hundred years old you know...

On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair.

Funny, in civics class back in high school and college, fairness was what we were taught the legal system was all about. The establishment of rules and laws that enabled the Constitutional structure that this country was built upon.

Would you expect physics to be fair ?

Physics is what it is... A set of rules and laws that govern a reasonable set of expectations that are set in a framework of understanding. Law should be like that, but we have this little notion called free will. Humans fsck it all up, but physics itself is pure. The trick is that humans can be punished when they violate cultural laws while physicists are celebrated for violating physical laws.

Re:Conversely

[Fred_A]

As an addendum to this, I wanted to add that I believe the above mostly applies to medium/large to large/transnational companies but that smallish companies can actually be run in a decent way.

I am *very* familiar with companies on the *large* (as in transnational multibillion) side for various familial reasons and shady deals were and are now increasingly unavoidable. By shady, I mean both in a moral and in a structural sense, in moral as in a *major* lab deciding to layoff 10% of it's worldwide work force because some sort of seer decided that it would benefit the company in 2012 (really), on the year (2006) when it made the highest profit ever, or shady as in *any* plane (European or US, or make that a weapons company if you like) company "buying" a contract.

Business is a nasty place.

Re:Conversely

[mobby_6kl]

Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability.

Holy shit dude. With insight like that, any company you start/manage is bound to dominate the market and take over the world!

Re:Conversely

[Fred_A]

On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair.

Funny, in civics class back in high school and college, fairness was what we were taught the legal system was all about. The establishment of rules and laws that enabled the Constitutional structure that this country was built upon.

You might in a way consider that it's fair because everyone is subject to the same rules. In the same way that gravity is in an abstract way "fair" because everybody is subject to it. However if one were to consider just the US laws, you could fill shelves with unfair (from a morally point of view) laws.

The rest of your argument is built on the same kind of logic. Playing outside of the rules gives such an advantage that if one player does it, pretty soon everyone has to. Why is doping a problem in sports ? Because it gives an edge. Why are *all* professionals doped ? Because if they weren't they'd trail behind.
It just takes one. Then either the others give up, or they cheat as well.

You seem to think that people will act honourably but they won't. People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate.
Somehow I think it's because you haven't yet faced the real world and are still sheltered in some kind of academia where the competition is still some kind of make believe stint. While there are niches where people act decently, the business world for the most certainly isn't it.

Re:Conversely

[Grishnakh]

Teach? Every tech company I've ever seen was chronically understaffed, so there's no time to waste with teaching.

Plus, I've been through lots of "training" courses in my engineering career. Personally, I haven't found too many of them to be terribly useful; I don't retain much from it. I learn far more by "doing", teaching myself, and by learning from my direct coworkers, than by sitting in a classroom.

Personally, I have no idea what the best model for structuring companies for best management is. From my perspective, it just seems hopeless. It seems like the best way is just to keep companies very small, because those are the places that appear to be most productive. Unfortunately, many projects (like fabricating CPUs or building Saturn V rocket engines) are too large and capital-intensive to do with small, lean companies, so it seems you're just stuck with the big, bloated, inefficient organization if you want to accomplish those things.

Re:Conversely

[Dun Malg]

People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate. That's not actually true. People are taught to cooperate for most of their formative years. Cooperate with your team, compete against the other guy's team. This is as old as the cavemen. Our tribe good, their tribe bad. It can be seen at scales from "family" to "nation". Seriously, haven't you ever met one of those creepy fucks who've been taught by their sicko parents to "win at all costs"? Full of anger and jealousy at the slightest victory by someone else? That's what someone "trained from the cradle onwards to compete" looks like.

Re:Conversely

[BWJones]

You seem to think that people will act honourably but they won't. People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate.

You have never worked with a really good team then... If there are people that I work with who do not exhibit honorable characteristics (honesty, hard work, fair and equitable dealing), I am very careful with them and will not give them the same latitude. It's simple really when you can surround yourself with people like this. In terms of larger corporations, one cannot hope to have this spread throughout the entire corporation, but lots of behaviors flow downstream.

Somehow I think it's because you haven't yet faced the real world and are still sheltered in some kind of academia where the competition is still some kind of make believe stint. While there are niches where people act decently, the business world for the most certainly isn't it.

Be careful which folks you lecture to about "the real world" as I've been involved in a couple of businesses including being the VP of one of them. While I am in academia currently, there is no lack of possibilities about also continuing to work in/with business. I am careful about which business markets I want to spend time in and which ones that we believe we can compete in.

Re:Conversely

[PPH]

That's the Dilbert Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_Principle in operation. Its difficult to get rid of an employee by denigrating them. What other organization would want them? Instead, build up their reputation and hope someone else will snatch them. With a few instances of this in the personnel folder, they become prime candidates for promotion.

Also, badmouthing people reflects badly on those doing the talking (please keep this in mind when formulating replies to this post).

Re:Conversely

[maxume]

"How do we build better institutions?" is clearly a big question. There is quite a bit of material out there about Gore, the people who came up with Gore-Tex. The 'big' difference is that their organizational structure does not have very much hierarchy in it. They even have a list of material about them as an organization on their website:

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/reading/index.ht ml

I get the sense that the development side of Google is somewhat like this(the 20% time doesn't have any hierarchy at all right?), and they are doing well, even though they are a bit young to use as a reference for a good organization, and I don't have anything to point at as evidence. In "The Tipping Point", Malcolm Gladwell posits that part of the reason that we don't do well in large organizations is that our brains top out at handling about 150 social relationships(more here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/01/0 1/tippingPointNetVersion.html#number ), where those relationships include your relationships with the people, and their relationships with each other, so you know how everybody 'fits' together. (Part of the reason that this is interesting is that if you look here: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/index.html you will see that Gore has 7500 people working in 45 locations. 7500/45=166)

Re:Conversely

[Grishnakh]

Your example of Gore is interesting, but at 7500 people isn't really that large. I'm thinking of companies in the 20,000 - 100,000 range. My last company which I referred to before has about 100,000 employees.

In "The Tipping Point", Malcolm Gladwell posits that part of the reason that we don't do well in large organizations is that our brains top out at handling about 150 social relationships(more here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/01/0 1/tippingPointNetVersion.html#number ), where those relationships include your relationships with the people, and their relationships with each other, so you know how everybody 'fits' together.

Hmm... I wouldn't have guessed that. My theory is that people are evil, dysfunctional, and incompetent (in some mixture of these, not all at once usually). For the evil part, many people in management are evil to some degree: they seek positions of power because they're attracted by power, and when they have it, they wield it in negative ways, doing what's in their own interest (like empire-building) rather than the company's. Then there's incompetent employees who aren't productive but find ways of sticking around and collecting a paycheck, many times by sabotaging other employees. Put together all these basic problems of human nature, and even the best-designed organization just seems doomed to failure.

Re:Conversely

[flyingfsck]

No fortunately it is not that bad everywhere. There are companies where an engineer can advance without following the management track and can even earn a lot more than his line manager. If you wish to land that kind of job, get into aerospace and defence, but you better start early - because experience counts in those corporations.

Re:Conversely

[maxume]

Yeah, they also act like a clump of much smaller organizations, taking away from them as a large example. I presume that individuals do have access to more resources than they would in a ~500 person organization, if so, there is some interesting information about how to get bigger in a good way there. I'm as cynical as anyone, but I am also prepared to call 500 years a 'short' time period(I realize that leaves explaining the pyramids and whatnot out...) and assume that we will get better at building big things, as we just don't have that much practice yet(and I can see where there has been much bias towards patterns that are successful over short time periods but problematic as time goes on).

If it really is impossible to build big organizations, somebody should calculate where size and efficiency balance to maximize output so we know when stuff needs to split(and it just might be 150, which is scary).

Coincidence?

[zyl0x]

Boss Science reminds me of another acronym.. can't seem to remember it, but I'm sure it had something to do with upper management..

Re:Coincidence?

[ion]

Maybe it was the initials? BS? Bull Shit?

Re:Coincidence?

[spottedkangaroo]

Canonical abbreviation. NASA is an acronym because you pronounce it. FDA is a canonical abbreviation because you don't. Sadly, the distinction is nearly gone, but there used to be a difference, and it wasn't all that long ago.

Re:Coincidence?

[zyl0x]

I stand corrected.

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was the initials? BS? Bull Shit? Wow.
Just...
Wow.

Hey guys. Could you leave your little brothers at home next time?

Re:Coincidence?

[Xiaran]

The things is that that can get very fuzzy, when some people procounce things and others dont. For example I worked with some Germans that pronounced VOIP. The told me that everyone in germany says VOIP. I used to know a guy that called ATMs "at ems".

Re:Coincidence?

[AuMatar]

Hodl on- you don't pronounce VOIP? I don't know anyone in the US who says Vee oh eye pee. Its VOIP.

Re:Coincidence?

[Xiaran]

I dont actually. I always say Voice Over Eye Pee. But Im an Australian living in London... I usually say Ess Emm Essing rather than texting.

Re:Coincidence?

[zevans]

Waitaminute... if you're an Australian living in London, surely you would say 'Stella, or Carling,sir?'

Re:Coincidence?

[Xiaran]

Na.. the Polish have taken that particular niche :)

Re:Coincidence?

[khallow]

Actually, I say "Voice over IP". So there's yet another way to pronounce it.

Re:Coincidence?

[JonathanR]

Voice Over Eye Pee?

Is that a BBC documentary sound track about golden showers?

Re:Coincidence?

[SanityInAnarchy]

The reason the distinction is gone is things switch too easily between them. NASA is an abbreviation that we've figured out that we can pronounce. WoW is similar -- the game patches are named WoW-someversion.exe, I believe -- and I never really thought of it as "wow" until people started pronouncing it everywhere.

Re:Coincidence?

[magarity]

FDA is a canonical abbreviation because you don't
Speak for yourself; I say it all the time. Fda! Fda! Fda! See there?

Re:Coincidence?

[spottedkangaroo]

The difference is that they intended for you to pronounce NASA as NahSah. For those canonical abbreviations where they didn't expect people to pronounce them it's certainly more fuzzy.

Another reason the distinction has disappeared (note the past tense) is that it simply isn't taught that way. It hasn't been for a couple generations either. In fact, only about half of the dictionaries out there actually put it this way:

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]: acronym n : a word formed from the initial letters of a multi-word name

... and few of the readers consider a word formed to mean one that you can pronounce (and was intended to be pronounced).

Re:Coincidence?

[Lodragandraoidh]

I say 'H323' or 'SIP', depending on the circumstances.

Works for elections too!

[Hoi Polloi]

"employees tend to see the jerk as boss material."

And voters tend to see the jerk as presidential material.

Re:Works for elections too!

[CaptainPatent]

No no no,

Some political leaders don't even have the mental capability to be a jerk

Re:Works for elections too!

[endianx]

Which country are you referring too? Here in the US, I don't think there has been a president in my lifetime that was perceived as a jerk.

Re:Works for elections too!

[FooAtWFU]

Hey, all else about his politics and lifestyle aside, wasn't Bill Clinton pretty widely perceived as a jerk for sleeping around (and then lying about it in court)?

Re:Works for elections too!

[Hognoxious]

wasn't Bill Clinton pretty widely perceived as a jerk for sleeping around (and then lying about it in court)?

I think he was perceived as a jerk because of the big fat hound he chose to sleep around with. I may be wrong.

Re:Works for elections too!

[Kris_B_04]

nah.. that was what caused the perception that he was stupid.

Re:Works for elections too!

[endianx]

Yeah he was perceived as being sort of a...sleaze?

But never really as mean or condescending. He was generally well liked as a person.

Re:Works for elections too!

[anlprb]

Here's what I don't get. Leader of the free world, couldn't he have bagged a Spice Girl?

Re:Works for elections too!

[metlin]

I think he was perceived as a jerk because of the big fat hound he chose to sleep around with. I may be wrong.

Dude, have you *seen* Hillary?! :-\

That poor man.

Re:Works for elections too!

[Frumious Wombat]

Lyndon Baines Johnston?

Richard Millhouse Nixon?

At least by proxy (gentlemen such as Al "I'm in control, here, at the White House" Haig) Ronald Wilson Reagan

And, almost, Robert "Darth" Dole.

I believe it was Harry Truman who said Americans thought it ok if the president was a SOB, as long as he was Their SOB.

Re:Works for elections too!

[Hognoxious]

Well you can't count Hillary - he's allowed to sleep with his wife.

Re:Works for elections too!

[Trailer Trash]

Well you can't count Hillary - he's allowed to sleep with his wife.

Presumably when she gives permission....

Re:Works for elections too!

[cheesybagel]

One thing I realized some time ago is that most people admire rule breakers. But only successful rule breakers which either do not get caught, or take a long time to get caught.

Examples: Kevin Mitnick (cracked computers). Adolf Hitler (turned a democracy into his dictatorship by gaming the system). Ariel Sharon (persistently violated superior military command orders to pursue reckless, yet successful attacks).

Bill got caught. Plus, the woman he picked was not that admired. Compare this with the alleged Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe affair and the reactions that had, and draw your own conclusions.

What matters then?

[touch0phgmail.com]

It insists on extremely bright employees who are also extremely insecure. 'They want them to think that working really hard matters,' he explains.
Then what really does matter in the workplace?

Re:What matters then?

[node 3]

You're hired!

Re:What matters then?

[winkydink]

Succeeding. It's just as easy to work hard on the wrong thing.

Re:What matters then?

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Getting shit done.

Some people can get shit done without working really hard.

Some people work really hard and never seem to get anything done.

Which would you rather employ?

Re:What matters then?

[sesshomaru]

"Salesmanship"

Back when H.P. Lovecraft was flat broke and wasn't making money selling his stories (of course, he never really made money from writing while he was alive, If he were alive now he'd have a Gillion dollars), he tried for a job as a salesman. The man who did the hiring told him he was too much of a gentleman for it.

You either had to be a charmer, someone with a really magnetic personality, or a very rude and disagreeable person who ignored civility in dealing with strangers.

The second, according to the article, is very important in getting promotions at work, and in my opinion the first would work just as well.

In other words, mastery of office politics and not mastery of whatever it is you were originally hired to do is the key to getting ahead at the office. Sad but true.

Re:What matters then?

[Mab_Mass]

Or, to put it another way, the only thing that should matter to an employer is that you add more value to the company than it costs to pay you.

Emphasis here on should. Too often, people only care about how many hours you put in and think that more hours is the sign of a better employee. I personally side with an old boss of mine who thought that someone working constant overtime is a sign of a problem. Either that person's boss is piling on too many tasks or that person is in the wrong position.

Then, there was another boss I had who took the attitude that management is a service done to those "under" you, where the manager's role was to shelter them from higher level BS and help them get the job done.

I had another boss once who told us that we shouldn't be "afraid" to come in on evenings and weekends. He was an asshole.

Now, I'm rambling. -1 offtopic

Re:What matters then?

[couchslug]

'In other words, mastery of office politics and not mastery of whatever it is you were originally hired to do is the key to getting ahead at the office. Sad but true."

As the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, it's who you blow".

Re:What matters then?

[SatanicPuppy]

The difference is, someone who is secure is going to say, "I worked a good 8 hours today (not counting lunch), I'm going to go home and have a nice dinner, because people can look at what I did today and know I'm an excellent worker."

Whereas an insecure person will work 11 hours, and worry when they go home because they don't value themselves and therefore think that no one values them either, and don't understand that their work is better than other people's work, and worry worry worry about being fired all the time.

Frankly, if someone doesn't want to hire me because I project as self-confident, then screw them. If you actually look at that from an HR point of view, you're purely out to mindf*ck your employees, because the only thing you care about is that they produce until they have a breakdown.

Re:What matters then?

[ArsonSmith]

I think the bosses that like to see people working overtime have either two things, trying to show that they have too much work to do to upper management, or the direct production idea as if everyone was a factory worker.

If you are stamping out cogs at 10 an hour and work an hour of overtime you get an extra 10 cogs stamped out.

If you ware writing code and work an hour of overtime you may get an hours worth of codeing, you may get some burn out, you may even set yourself back if done at a time you should sleep on it and finish that hours worth of work in 10 minutes the next morning.

Re:What matters then?

[ArsonSmith]

Some people lift weights.

Some people do yard work.

Both get good exercise. One actually accomplishes something useful.

I always laugh when someone first pays to go to the gym then pays someone to cut their grass.

Re:What matters then?

[Beardo the Bearded]

In the last few places I've worked, the people who work long hours are the ones that are the most desirable.

Never mind that I always get stuff done on time or ahead of schedule. What matters is that I'm not warming up a chair for more that 40 hours a week.

Re:What matters then?

[drsquare]

Except yard work isn't very good exercise. Cutting the grass is about as strenuous as lifting the lighting possible weight in the gym.

Re:What matters then?

[Lumpy]

from my 10 years climbing the corporate ladder?

It's a combination, how brown your nose can get, how good are you at selling your self and your idea, and finally who you know and who knows you.

That is IT. I dont care if your IQ is 167, you can solve any problem, and you are an incredible employee.

IF you cant make everyone believe you are a "really good guy", make sure your name is on the lips of those that are higher up, and constantly sell yourself as if you were a product you will NOT get to upper management. I have seen complete incompetent morons go from IT guy that should be fired to IT director simply because they could sell themselves and talk "management-speak".

If you go to work wearing a "I dont work here T-shirt", work 80 hours a week, and always pull off the miracles, you WILL NOT be promoted and will always hear the " you need management coaching " line. Wear a suit every day, do NOT stay late unless you have to and schmoose with the bosses, you end up on the promotion line.

I could not stand acting the act. I got sick of wearing suits and wasting 1/2 the week in useless meetings listening to upper managers talk about things they really know nothing about and they should be asking the engineers and not the other managers about. I left corporate life for the small business life.

Man I love it. Jeans and a T-shirt, I program, run IT, I even pull wires at the big jobs when needed. The employees respect me because I have the guts to get dirty with them. Hell many times I'll do the risky job instead of getting one of my guys hurt. You do NOT see corperate managers do that.

Re:What matters then?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Which would you rather employ?

Depends on your business model. Some businesses (like those making a living burning up pork-barrel funds from their Congresscritter) like people that will put in a fair amount of overtime, whether they get much of anything done or not. As long as they can write up a snazzy report about how hard they worked and bluff their way through the next funding cycle, "everybody wins" and they all get another round of paychecks and the member of Congress gets to brag about how many jobs they created.

Personally, I like working with people who can "get shit done." But apparently there's not much demand for that in American business nowadays. Not that I'm jaded or anything.

Re:What matters then?

[DannyO152]

Near as I can tell, the management at the law firm knows that working hard doesn't matter, so I guess they're not working hard. If they want hard workers, it must be because the company needs the hard workers it doesn't have, so it.... must.... matter.... Thank God I'm not a computer on Star Trek, I would be lights out and smoking.

Re:What matters then?

[lwriemen]

> If you take accept the full evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of life then
>
> * God does not exist.
> * Life has no fundamental purpose.

Wrong. Life's fundamental purpose is to procreate and evolve.

> * Free will is most likely an illusion.

This implies a belief in fate, not evolution. Given the first two, free will is the only thing that matters.

Re:What matters then?

[dunkelfalke]

i have even used a real scythe for cutting the grass many years ago. it still isn't a good exercise and also boring.

Re:What matters then?

[aadvancedGIR]

The one with the biggest breasts?

Re:What matters then?

[wboelen]

Which would you rather employ?

The one who doesn't spend all day in the bathroom! :p

Re:What matters then?

[Aceticon]

What matters to whom?

In my experience:
- The "company" values the getting of the right "shit" done (remember those times when you spent weeks/months doing something that turns out wasn't what was really needed? - That work is worthless for the company)
- Managers value looking good to their managers and to key persons that can influence their career progression (think prompty solving critical problems, giving extra help to some specific persons, covering up fuck-ups from the team/managers)
- Employees (should) value being seen getting shit done. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how gifted or how experienced you are - your chances of success in a company are a lot more tightly coupled to the perception people have of you than to what you actually are/do. Sad but true.

Re:What matters then?

[Ihlosi]

Then what really does matter in the workplace?

Sucking up to your superiors, being a jerk to anyone below you, being good at assigning blame to someone else.

Re:What matters then?

[jahudabudy]

Or "what you know about who was blowing whom on that business trip to Baltimore last October, did I mention I happened to have footage from the web-cam set up in that conference room?"

Re:What matters then?

[revengebomber]

Not if you duct tape a few 100-pound weights to your mower.

Re:What matters then?

[cheesybagel]

No. Life's fundamental purposes is to spread everywhere and self-perpetuate.

Procreation and evolution are merely tactics to achieve that.

Re:What matters then?

[Dogtanian]

No. Life's fundamental purposes is to spread everywhere and self-perpetuate. Procreation and evolution are merely tactics to achieve that. No. In the absence of evidence that life as we know it is the creation of a higher power (for whatever reason), life itself has no inherent "purpose" outside the inherently biased viewpoint that some people impose upon it. Period.

It just so happens that objects that are good at reproducing and enjoy reproducing are more likely to produce objects that survive and enjoy reproducing, and so on.... you can't talk about "purpose" unless something outside the system set the whole thing in motion. And we are very much a *part* of the system.

The Enneagram

[khasim]

It's not just your workers, it's what the workers want out of the job. Do they want to be seen as the heros? Do they want the drama? Do they want to it to be done exactly right? Do they want to tell other people to do the work?

There are a number of books focused on that. The Enneagram covers 9 different styles.

Take that and apply the Peter Principle and you have a good understanding of why bosses are such jerks. 8 out of 9 times, they won't have the same goals that you have (and the other time they'll be in active competition with you) and they're not skilled enough to handle the situation.

Re:The Enneagram

[BWJones]

It's not just your workers, it's what the workers want out of the job.

Precisely. Some folks are just in it for the paycheck, but that does not mean that they do not do their work with any lesser degree of competency. Other folks are in it to be famous while others still are doing their jobs to be influential. The trick is to create an environment where all approaches can be fostered and yet still maintain productivity, a sense of satisfaction (for you and your employees), and a positive income.

Do they want to be seen as the heros?

Heros I can take working for me. They tend to work very hard, are people pleasers and can often be trusted (they make good classified materials risks). The dangerous part about them is that they also tend to be co-dependent which for the company is not often a problem, but it leads to problems in their personal lives.

Do they want the drama?

These people I *don't* want to work with. They are always sabotaging productivity in the name of something happening where they are at the center of attention. They such cycles and personnel time up like no other with the exception of the pathological narcissist.

Do they want to it to be done exactly right?

Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience. It (failure) will happen and if you encourage a culture of insisting everything is done without mistakes, you never hear about the mistakes that end up biting you in the ass down the road.

Do they want to tell other people to do the work?

No, it is a team and if they want the glory without the work then they don't work for me.

Re:The Enneagram

[pipingguy]

Do they want to it to be done exactly right?

In some fields of engineering, some things DO need to be done exactly right. In the real world it's not always feasible to "reboot and try that keyboard sequence again" unless you don't care about exploding things and dead/injured people.

Re:The Enneagram

[sglines]

Some people move on to become bosses simply because they want to see the job done right. We've all seen how the job can be done wrong. Once you've mastered the technology mastering management is the only remaining way to the Zen of perfection.

This caught my attention...

[8127972]

"In the real world, bosses are known to suffer from a long list of social pathologies: naked aggression, credit hogging, micromanaging, bullying, you name it. "

So that explains everything that Ballmer has ever done. I knew there had to be a logical reason.

Re:This caught my attention...

[Dogtanian]

"In the real world, bosses are known to suffer from a long list of social pathologies: naked aggression, credit hogging, micromanaging, bullying, you name it. " Ballmer didn't really throw those chairs himself, he just took the credit for it.

On a somewhat-related note...

[bigred85]

I am a Computer Science student at a university in Virginia. Was in my networks class about 2 months ago and noticed in the instructor's powerpoint overview of the chapter material he had some personal note included referring to a "PHM". Clearly not getting the joke, I asked what it stood for. Upon recieving the answer "pointy-haired manager", I had a pretty good laugh.

I guess I just found it a bit ironic how Dilbert is turning out to be more of a stereotype of cube-life than a clever amusement.

...I mean aside from the talking animals.

Re:On a somewhat-related note...

[drinkypoo]

...I mean aside from the talking animals.

I haven't seen both in one coworker, but I've had both coworkers dumber than a dog (or what comes out of his ass end, for that matter) and I've had coworkers who smell worse than one...

most PHB are clue less and make you do TPS Reports

[Joe The Dragon]

Did you get that memo about the new TPS report cover letter?

The reason why the jerks become the bosses

[Opportunist]

Simple. It's been said already. They suffer from a few pathologies. Micromanagement ("look, he's puttng work into the fine details and doesn't ignore the minor things"), credit hogging ("And Smith from dpt. X was again the one who did it"). So who gets promoted? The guy with the toughest ellbows.

Of COURSE it's the jerk. And that also proves true the old saying "Those who can do, those who can't supervise". If they could, they'd be busy doing instead of trying to bully, hog the limelight and putz around with petty details.

Re:Lame article

[FooGoo]

Why substitute one system in which assholes succeed for another? It still ends with shit.

Your other point is more interesting...why do we need bosses? The truth is groups divide themselves into leaders and followers by nature...it's how we are wired. The people who standout lead by default because everyone else is willing to let them. I think a better questions for the modern workplace is why is the boss I had yesterday the same boss I will have tomorrow. People will lead in the areas they are strongest...bosses should be assigned my deliverable not by some management hierarchy.

Yes, I am a boss :) But, I lead when I have to and follow when I should.
FG

if you don't want to read the whole thing,

[MollyB]

here is the nugget (on page five!) that sums up this piece:

"The book is a paean to strong leadership of a kind that Leni Riefenstahl might have admired.

That is not an employee's point of view; we like the person who waits his turn. And seeing as there are more employees than leaders, this may be why books about asshole bosses tend to sell so well."

'Nuff Said...

Re:Lame article

[NeutronCowboy]

Because I can't do everything in my job. I've had good bosses, and I've had bad bosses. The bad bosses made me want to quit my job due to their incompetence and interference with my job. The good bosses made themselves invisible and filtered out anything that would distract me from my job.

Bosses are necessary. Every organization needs leaders (even the most far-out communes have de-facto leaders), because someone needs to organize direction.

And unions do not have anything to do with who makes a good or a bad boss. Come to think of it, I doubt you did more than glance at the first few lines of the article. Otherwise you'd have gotten to the part about changing the system.

Bah!

[Stanistani]

I have no patience for analysis. I use cheat codes, defeat the bosses, and win the game.

Re:Lame article

[drinkypoo]

Never once were the premises of the workplace questioned - why do you need a boss at all? If you have a system that makes it most likely that assholes will succeed, why not change the system? the article is just hand wringing, with a few bits of measly tripe appeals to "the human condition." Not once does this article even mention the word "union."

Your nickname and your comment say it all. Unions are bloodsucking leeches that reward mediocrity.

Now, cooperatives truly provide for all persons working for a business. But then you don't have a Union hierarchy to climb upward so that you can be rewarded for being too unmotivated to find a new job.

It is particularly telling that organized crime is/has been so frequently involved with unions. They are interested in them because they become an effective means of control and of wielding power.

Re:WWJD?

[Jake73]

I see this all over the place. WWJD...WWJD...What Would Jake Do... Why does everyone care so much what I would do?

synonym

[blindd0t]

...are known to suffer from a long list of social pathologies: naked aggression, credit hogging, micromanaging, bullying, you name it. Leadership research shows that subtle nasty moves like glaring and condescending comments, explicit moves like insults or put-downs, and even physical intimidation can be effective paths to power.

It sounds to me like their making boss synonymous to "ladies man" or "pimp" as well. Either way you look at it, the result is supposed to be a crack team providing services. ^_^

It depends upon the job.

[khasim]

Heros I can take working for me. They tend to work very hard, are people pleasers and can often be trusted (they make good classified materials risks).

Those aren't the heros I was referring to. I'm talking about the ones who skip steps that they know aren't needed ... and then show everyone how great they are when they fix the problems. Even though those problems would have been caught earlier or prevented if all the steps had been followed. On the other hand, heros make good firefighters (real ones, who put out real fires).

These people I *don't* want to work with. They are always sabotaging productivity in the name of something happening where they are at the center of attention.

Drama r0xx0r in advertising and entertainment and fashion and so forth. If you're doing tech, drama SUCKS!

Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience.

:D
Not when you're managing a nuclear plant. (Which is also a bad match for the heros and drama queens.)

What personality types you want on your team (if you even want a team) depends more on what the job is. If you get the right mix at the right job, you won't even need a boss. But that's extremely rare.

But I think the biggest problem with that article is that it mentions some of the different types ... but then doesn't try to look at the "jerk's" relationship with those other types. What happens when you have two narcissistics on a team? They can't BOTH be the boss. What if you have two assholes? Two jerks? THREE?

And they only really covered one type: the narcissistic who won't even stick around but hops to a new job as soon as one is available.

Now imagine working for a perfectionist jerk (do it over and get it right this time).
Or a drama queen jerk (watch "The Devil Wears Prada").
Or a hero jerk (nothing leaves his desk until it's a crisis).

Re:It depends upon the job.

[geekoid]

Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience. :D
Not when you're managing a nuclear plant. (Which is also a bad match for the heros and drama queens.)

Actually critical systems have a method specifically for learning from failure. It's called training exercise.

Learning from failure is a great tool for growing strong employees.

Re:It depends upon the job.

[revengebomber]

Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience.

:D
Not when you're managing a nuclear plant. (Which is also a bad match for the heros and drama queens.) Because of their failure, I'm learning how to kill zombies!

What does "manage" mean?

[khasim]

To mean it means that the manager is RESPONSIBLE for getting the time, materials, funding, resources, etc to his/her people so that they can finish the job/project/etc in the time required.

If you (the worker) are dealing with political bullshit, your manager is not doing a good enough job. The same with putting in overtime or having to scrounge for resources or doing a half-assed job just so you can meet the deadline.

Umm

[nicklott]

Does anyone actually work anywhere that these "boss" stereotypes are real? I've worked a lot of places, and had good and bad bosses, but my immediate managers have never displayed these characteristics (bullying, credit hogging etc). In a real company people who do these things are found out pretty fast and dumped. Surely this is just some weird Dilbert-type fantasy world we're talking about?

Re:Umm

[Johnboi Waltune]

Usually the bullying and micromanaging only comes out when the boss is under stress. They know such behavior is counterproductive, so most of the time they keep it under control. If they did it all the time, people would jump ship. People who show aggression and other social pathologies don't make it as managers, unless there is some other factor like nepotism, or he/she is socially connected to much more powerful people in the organization.

If the manager doesn't like you or respect your work, you often won't know it until you're blindsided by a negative formal performance review.

Re:Umm

[Beardo the Bearded]

No, it's not fiction.

Where can I start?

I'm an EE, and I work with embedded firmware design. I make my job look easy. I've been programming since I was 8, so it's about as hard for me as reading is for most people. I was hired to work on a new interface for an existing project. They also hired a project manager.

I've basically done most of the work. The project manager decided to put the project behind by three months while redoing my work. I know that it's based on my work because I was getting tired of the crapola and put a monkey trap in the code. They've spent the last two months trying to solve a problem that I fixed in November. (I showed them the fix, pointed out the problem, demonstrated a working unit, and documented the fix on the server, so don't think that I'm hiding stuff. The response was, "We know. We're experts and we already figured that out." and then going to the head of the department and having my emulator taken away.)

The project manager is from "France" and hired two co-op students to work on the project as well. They only speak in "French". All the technical work is discussed in French, and only French. I've put in formal complaints about this, but they ignore requests to stop (from higher-ups) So there's bullying and exclusion there. He even told me once, "If you argue with me again, I'll redo everything you've done and say you did nothing all year."

They're totally incompetent. They don't understand field size (and have wrapping bit-shifts all over the place). They had load-bearing breakpoints in their code which they fixed by putting in a race condition. They don't understand how an infinite loop in an interrupt can cause a lockup. I can't get into the code itself, but the class modules aren't following any coding principles. It's a huge mess. It just looks fancy because they used an XML commenting tool. Here's the icing on the cake: They don't even know how to use TortoiseCVS - after a YEAR!

Without anything else to do, I looked over the standards and requirements and planned out the remaining sections of the project. When I emailed them to the project manager, he wrote his own versions and presented them to other managers.

While I've been working towards getting this project completed, he's spent most of his time politicking and smearing my name. The PM keeps his desk messy to look like he's busy all the time. It's all appearance - we gave him a ream of useless paper and he put it on his shelf.

All I want is to find a nice place to work.

Re:Umm

[DavidHumus]

> Surely this is just some weird Dilbert-type fantasy world we're talking about?

Yes, it's called the real (corporate) world.

My last boss was nasty, egotistical, incompentent and supremely entrenched in the bureaucracy. She joked about being a "slavedriver" - particularly appropriate as slaves are not very good workers but they're economic because their cost is nearly free.

Her usual "management" technique was shouting in a nasty tone of voice about how bad your work was. She would typically follow this up by a request for questions. Wonder why no one ever asked any?

I knew I was doomed when I realized my boss's boss thought she was great.

Re:Umm

[fabu10u$]

What country do you live in, and do they accept American immigrants?

Re:Umm

[lawpoop]

This might sound a little strange, but you probably were raised by people who were more or less mentally healthy.

I used to think that childhood issues were bullshit, until I started dealing with my own issues and seeking professional mental health. On my own, I really started learning about social rules, personality types, and mental illness. Mental illnesses have a way of propagating themselves -- not all of them, but certain ones can, and thus do. (I'm not certain that this idea is accepted by mainstream mental health professionals). It's like the way a woman who was abused by her father gets in abusive relationships with guys, and then have children who are abused by their father ( even witnessing your dad being abused by your mom is a kind of abuse ). Or a guy whose father left early leaves his wife/girlfriend when she pops out a kid. He's never experienced a father interacting with a child, so he has no idea how to do it, the whole situation is weird and scary, he can't handle it, so he splits. You grow up thinking certain types of behavior are normal and acceptable, at a subconscious level. You have no awareness of this.

Anyways, that's kind of an extreme example. If your dad chewed you out all the time, and was an unfair, uncaring tyrant, you have no problem with a boss who acts this way, because that's the way that a man acts. If he didn't, you might think something was wrong, or a little weird about him. Hey, maybe he's gay or metro? Who knows? Whatever, he really doesn't know how to handle his employees, because he doesn't crack the whip...

My guess is that you've turned down jobs where you didn't like the people or thought that things were run a little weird? That's the healthy upbringing you were given telling you that what you were observing were unhealthy interpersonal relationships. You never see the fighting, the abuse, but there were plenty of body-language and personal-interaction clues that that's how things were run at that place.

Re:Umm

[Magada]

Then, there are types of orgs where 20-30% annual employee turnover is normal and anything less than 10% is a sign people are getting complacent and starting to like their jobs *too much*.

Re:Lame article

[tnk1]

Not once does this article even mention the word "union."

Nothing like suggesting a cure that's worse than the disease. Unions just add another layer of asshole to the workplace: the lazy retards who can't be fired due to their union ties and/or seniority even after its clear that they should never have been hired in the first place.

There's a reason organized crime loves unions, because its great for hiding all sorts of losers, offers great embezzlement opportunities, and lends itself to widespread waste and corruption. Lets not forget ridiculous rules, and the fact that unionized industry was a key contributor to making it uneconomical to run things like auto manufacturers and unprotected airlines in the US.

At some point in the past, there were industrialists that made people work 12 hour days for pennies in unsafe factories. In those circumstances, unions were by far the lesser of two evils. *We* may work 12 hour days, but we make shitloads more than pennies for it, even if you do work at EA.

I'll take the occasional asshole boss over a union I can't escape any time. At least I can transfer out of the asshole's department.

One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[Kris_B_04]

When I began my career as a programmer, I got a job with a great, but small company. The boss had built it from nothing. He had built his life from nothing.. .and he LOVED to tell everyone about that. (We would get lecture upon lecture about it, in fact. ;) How if he could do it, anyone could do it.)

But he was a good man. He actually could separate business from personal and he was great when he wasn't in "boss mode". His company got larger and he ended up in "boss mode" more often and that was when people started thinking of him as more of an asshole.

In the beginning, before he got "older" and "comfortable".. (Millionaire maybe now?), he was sociable as well. He took care of his employees and they were happy. He had monthly picnics and ice cream socials. Took us all to baseball games and all sorts of great stuff. He even had parties in his own home! Then, we think he got greedy. (more more more money!) and he started treating his techs like monkeys. (Any monkey can do this.. why pay graduates when we can train anyone off the street and pay them dirt cheap). He started treating the rest of his employees poorly as well. He still tried to keep up the "act" but his heart wasn't in it anymore.. and his employees started noticing that..

I (and others) saw the change coming. I got out of there, but there were tears. LOL (Hey, I'm still a girl dammit). He had taken good care of me and my son, above and beyond.. but that was before... that was earlier. Yes.. I actually hugged my boss on my last day... ;)

So, in this rambling, what I'm trying to say, is that not all bosses are assholes.. and maybe it becomes a learned trait. Maybe the system and society wear them down... maybe they become that way because that is what is expected or maybe they see those who are assholes really moving up the corporate ladder. Whatever the reason, it truly has become a job description for many bosses. And the more people who see it as a means to an end, the more people will pull that out of themselves just to get where they want to go. Yes, there are a lot who were "born" as assholes and never change throughout life (with what we are seeing, what motivation IS there to change?), but it's not a steady progression. It's not all defined under one stereotype... it is my belief that society MAKES the assholes because we allow them to BE assholes.

Kris

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[1mck]

I too worked for a small computer software company, but I didn't know that the boss was bi-polar, sprinkled in with a bit of ADD! They had such a high attrition rate, and it didn't dawn on me why anyone would leave such a great paying job. I soon found out, and I also learned that working for a large corporation is much different that working for a small company. If your boss is an a$$hole in a large company, then you probably have some wiggle room because he or she has a boss over them, and you can always go over their heads. But, if you're working for a small company, and your boss just happens to be the owner/CEO, and he or she turns out to be an insane, lying, backstabbing bastard, then your only recourse is to quit. Plain and simple...start looking for another job as they'll try and take you down with them in their crazy controlled reality, and with that will go your sanity, and it will affect every facet of your life including your family life. Get out while you can. I can honestly say that I will never, ever allow myself to be treated as badly as that a$$hole treated me. Everyone has a bad day, but to the level that c***sucker was to me, and his entire staff...no way! You say that he was one of the greats but still and a$$hole, I would have said the same about my past boss, but I just don't make excuses for people like that anymore. Why should I, or anyone for that matter do that?

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[meringuoid]

So, in this rambling, what I'm trying to say, is that not all bosses are assholes.. and maybe it becomes a learned trait. Maybe the system and society wear them down... maybe they become that way because that is what is expected or maybe they see those who are assholes really moving up the corporate ladder.

See The Godfather parts 1 and 2 for a fine illustration of this principle at work.

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[1mck]

I see your point, and I used to try to see both sides of the coin, so to speak, but now I just see them for what they are, and don't try to analyze why they are the way they are. After all, they don't care about you, do they?

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[geekoid]

I am curious. Did you tell him what you were percieving about him?

Not that you would be obligated to.

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[lawpoop]

Maybe, as the company grew, he took on more workers who may or may not have been as high caliber as you. As the organization got larger, he couldn't see what was happening from an 'on the ground' perspective, and felt distant and alienated from his own company. He knew that things were happening, but now it was less under his control and influence. If something bad was going on, he knew it must be something with the new people, but he had no idea who or why or how to fix or even influence the situation positively. As a defense mechanism against unknown new employees who weren't helping the company, he turned to traditional management styles.

As organizations get bigger, there's less efficiency and people have less ability to make a positive impact. It used to be a team, with group spirit and an ability to get things done with efficiency; now it was just a machine and he no longer fully understood how it worked. But the problem had to be somewhere with the new employees. So he dealt with the situation with the only tools he had available -- managing and being a jerk, protecting himself from 'problem' employees.

Just a thought.

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[Kris_B_04]

No.. I didn't feel it was my place...
I suppose I could have.. and probably still can (I'm still in contact occasionally). I'm also friends with one of his old friends and employees, so I might suggest it to him. I guess it is more of a chance to get an opening, you know.. you don't want to just bring it up out of nowhere...

Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole

[Kris_B_04]

That's a really good point! In fact, that sounds extremely plausible!

He's getting ready to "retire" now... however, the VP that he has chosen has become one of the worst "jerks" I've ever seen. He was never fond of me and was downright rude to me when I visited for the Christmas gathering. Someone suggested I mention to him what I've seen about how his management techniques have changed, but right now, I'm mostly looking for an opening to mention this rudeness of his VP soon to be President of his company which is my old boss' heartsblood. To leave his company, which he truly, literally built from the ground up, in the hands of this jerk will destroy everything he ever believed in.

But yes.. now he has so many employees that the vision he had when the company was smaller is gone. I could certainly see a defense mechanism developing.. You can't make a "family" out of 150 employees like you can with 50 or less. Plus, he's getting older and age does tend to slow people down and dull their senses. I would be willing to bet that you hit right on the money with your thoughts...

Thank you,
Kris

There are two problems wih that theory.

[hey!]

First of all there is agency costs. Jerks -- people who exploit people for their personal benefit -- don't confine themselves to screwing their underlings. They just exploit their superiors more carefully.

Come to think of it, buying into the notion that being a jerk makes you an effective manager may explain a lot of things. Like Enron.

The second problem is that there is a much more obvious explanation for why most bosses tend to act like jerks. They're over their heads. Most negative behaviors are defensive behaviors to cover up for the fact that things are out of control. Most people never receive any trainign in leadership. In fact they don't receive much traning in the mnagement tasks they have to do. They're just promoted until they reach a level where their dysfunction is so severe only a moron would promote them any higher. And a few of them work for morons.

Imagine a person in a boss role who happens to be splendidly equipped for that role. He has strong people and communication skills, a knack for organization, a good knowledge of the field he is working in as well as management techniques. Is he likely to be a jerk?

Re:There are two problems wih that theory.

[ddig83]

Actually, that's not exactly what killed Enron.

Mostly it came down to greed and complete incompetence. Although the traders (Enron was at heart a trading company) actually valued being a jerk. The senior guys actually had very little idea of what they were doing. Skilling was a brilliant consultant, and an absolutely horrible manager. They all became so enamored by the power and the money that they didn't question when Andy Fastow could make huge mistakes and debts just disappear.

management and pay scales

[King_TJ]

Right... I think a good bit of what really happens is, people join the ranks of "management", and then they discover that they have more control over their payscale than they ever did before. If you're an engineer for example, the best you can probably hope for is that all of your hard work and willingness to pull long hours when needed gets noticed, so you get a few extra percent when your annual raise comes around. But your pay is still pretty much fixed, based on what *management* has decided the range of pay will be for that position.

Once you're part of management, you can position yourself so your team of people beneath you accomplishes goals that you can then at least partially claim credit for, thereby giving you "easy reasons" for your own pay raise. They do the work, and you share in the reward. Furthermore, you have all these other tools at your disposal (in many cases). You get the say-so in deciding if your team should hire on additional staff, or cut back, or simply stay put with a "hiring freeze". When you dislike an employee's personality, you can make him go away. The rest of the team just has to put up with these problems, or else potentially face disciplinary measures including docking their pay! And of course, you can juggle all the numbers to put yourself in the most positive light possible, to further justify your own pay raise. (The rest of the people working beneath you probably don't even have access to those numbers, much less authority to present them to top-level execs.)

Re:management and pay scales

[xtal]

A few secrets:

- Management typically sees engineers as a means to an end, and an interchangable means at that. You pay market rate for engineering and they get the job done. Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do. If you want to make money as an engineer, you do NOT do it as an employee. You do it the way lawyers do - the retainer and contract model. Engineers are STUPID for agreeing to be employees. You sold your soul (and market power) for an easy paycheque.

- Profit comes from managing capital, NOT engineering. Managers are paid more because they manage the capital. That's what makes companies work.

I don't agree with all this, but it's based on my observtions of how the world works. If you want to make money as an engineer, look at how lawyers do it. Otherwise, you better be an entrepreneur, or willing to work the corporate management ladder.

Re:management and pay scales

[Grishnakh]

The retainer and contract model doesn't work with engineering, simply because companies don't expect to handle engineering that way, since other engineers aren't already doing that.

The contract model (without the retainer bit) does work, but only to a certain extent. Most contractors work for another company that just subcontracts them out to other companies, taking a cut of their pay. It isn't much different from an employment agency.

Independent contracting (often called "consulting"), however, is another matter. However, the problem here is that this only works if you're an expert in something, and have established yourself this way. For people fresh out of college, this obviously won't work; the only feasible way of earning money is to become someone's employee at this point. Worse, for many (most?) projects, the project is simply too big to contract out to independent contractors working at home. It could be contracted to one of those contracting companies I mentioned in the paragraph above, but as I pointed out the engineer is still someone's employee, it's just a different corporate structure.

Personally, since I hate management and the inefficiency that comes with working in a large corporation, I hope to eventually become an independent contractor. I've already signed up to do my first job on the side which I'll be starting very soon; hopefully it'll go well and within 5 years I can be doing this full-time instead of being someone else's bitch, err, employee.

BTW, one way I've found which works pretty well for getting more money in engineering is to quit! At least now, when companies are clamoring for experience engineers, (and this was even more true during the dot-com boom) they'll pay a lot more to someone new to get them to take the position, while they'll give out only meager raises to loyal employees. So by changing jobs every 3 years or so, you can increase your salary quite handsomely as long as the market rates keep increasing. The only thing to beware of is leaving too soon, since companies catch on (even though the whole matter is intellectually dishonest; if they valued their employees, why wouldn't they give them better raises than market rate?).

Re:management and pay scales

[ross.w]

Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do.

Unless you work for a consulting firm, where you ARE the product. I have found you get treated with a lot more respect usually.

Re:management and pay scales

[syousef]

Management typically sees engineers as a means to an end, and an interchangable means at that. You pay market rate for engineering and they get the job done. Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do. If you want to make money as an engineer, you do NOT do it as an employee. You do it the way lawyers do - the retainer and contract model. Engineers are STUPID for agreeing to be employees. You sold your soul (and market power) for an easy paycheque.

There's a lot to be said for stability if you can find it. When you're young and times are good, contracts and retainers serve you well. When times get leaner, or there are other priorities in life, having a secure job is a much better proposition. I think it's obvious you're young and probably don't have family commitments. I think you'll change your mind if you're ever ill for a substantial period, or have a sick child, or there's a large downturn. Summarily calling engineers who take full time paid jobs stupid is at best arrogant.

Re:management and pay scales

[Courageous]

- Management typically sees engineers as a means to an end, and an interchangable means at that. You pay market rate for engineering and they get the job done. Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do.


Um. The trend is away from manufacturing and towards services. Increasingly, it is indeed the engineers who DO make the company money. And will be more and more so as time goes on.

C//

Re:management and pay scales

[Gena5m]

xtal:
Telling people 'go to hell' in the middle of the self-serving sentence. Saying YMMV at the end. Loving yourself in public. Reminds me of a big fat 'N' in that 'OCEAN'. Narcissist that is. You found the way to work that is good for you, probably because you don't have to deal with those expensive staff of engineers on a daily basis. Otherwise why does it bother you that some of us make good money while working for a company? That expensive staff does not like to take BS, you know. You may not like it but the article is right on the nail with its emphasis on that N-word.

Re:management and pay scales

[Aceticon]

I work as an IT contractor in the UK (previously in Holland)

One of the great things of being one is that nobody will look twice if your CV says you've been changing assignments every 6 months.

It is true that as a contractor i work via an agency, and they take a cut. The thing is, they get a 20% cut and I get the other 80%. If i was working as a permanent employee for a company that then placed me at their clients (for example a consultancy or a "human resources" company) then it would be the other way around (they would get the 80%) and i would still be doing the same work.

Oh yeah, did i mention my income more than doubled when i moved to contracting and went up another 40% during 2 years (even before i moved to the UK).

The funny part is that if you're really good at what you do, companies are so keen to keep you around (since even as a contrator you're good value for the money) that they keep renewing your contract as long as you want. It's almost the level of job security of being a permanent employee plus having 2-3 times the income of a perm plus the added freedom of no-consequences-moving out of assignments when your're fed up with them (personally, when i want to leave i don't stop in the middle of a contract, i just don't accept the next renewal).

Honestly, becoming a contractor was the best move i ever did.

There's a couple of downsides to it (vacations = no pay; sick leave = no pay) and you have to be prepared to take on the risk of a market downturn at which point you might be out of work for several months and might even have to go permanent for a couple of years. Also, if like me you change assignments every 6 months - 1 year, you have to become a bit of a salesment since you will be selling yourself to a bunch of prospective clients anytime you want to change assignments: think of your as CV being your marketing brochure and the job interview as the place and time where you give your sales pitch (just don't overdo it).

All and all, if you've got the guts (and the savings on the side), the (proven) technical skills and a bit of social/interpersonal skills, contracting is pretty much the only way to stay in the technical career path and still get (middle) management level rewards.

Oh, yeah, we also get less crap from managers than the permanent employes (sad but true).

Re:management and pay scales

[plurgid]

> I can be doing this full-time instead of being someone else's bitch, err, employee.

Heh ... well I tried this too.
I think you'll find, as I did, that you are in fact, still someone's bitch. It's just that person is your customer now, where they were previously your employer.

I guess it depends on what your's specificaly in to. I tried contract programming, and got a real quick refresher in global market economics.

I took a "quick and easy" $200 "1 week" contract that balooned into a 6 week fiasco. Oh, my code was fine, but when you're on your own, every little thing is your problem. Specifically, the client coluldn't get it installed on his machine. Then he couldn't figgure out how to run it, then it ran "slow" (because he had some sort of super slow internet connection), etc, etc, etc.

6 weeks. $200.

And the guys in India and China would have done 10 weeks for $50. seriously.
The client felt like he got ripped, and so did I.

And thus my dreams of eventual self employment were dashed.
And I went back to working for the man.

Re:management and pay scales

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

When times get leaner, or there are other priorities in life, having a secure job is a much better proposition.

Agreed...if you can find one. I don't think there's a single job left in USA that can be considered "secure" in the traditional 30-years-and-out sense. Civil service, maybe, and the price for security there is low pay and zero empowerment.

.

DDB

Re:management and pay scales

[zevans]

Oh, yeah, we also get less crap from managers than the permanent employes (sad but true). Theorem:

{self-motivated} union {highly skilled}

{contractors}

and the corollary...

NOT [ {self-motivated} or {highly skilled} ]
->
troublemaker

Loyalty is the usual defence against this argument, but in today's market it matters not a fig until you're near six figure package or you are in a start-up.

Re:management and pay scales

[pipingguy]

Summarily calling engineers who take full time paid jobs stupid is at best arrogant.

I agree with you on that. On-call experts/hired guns need all the support they can get from full-timers. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

It's called whisper engineering.

Re:Lame article

[Vo1t]

Well the article has 'American' in its subtitle. Management analyses show that in Europe, esp. in countries like Germany there is sometimes bigger pressure put "on the system" then "on people". It's structure vs people. You could choose. Differences in management approaches have quite deep roots. Philosophy, culture, etc.

Yes.

[KingSkippus]

I've worked at two jobs where I've seen the reality of bosses to this extreme of badness.

A couple of examples: At the first one, my boss used to walk up and down behind our cubes every five minutes or so to make sure we were at our desks and working. If we weren't, she would start asking our neighbors where we were, when we would be back, etc. (And we were all hard-working professionals.) She even asked me to go to the men's room once to try to track down one of my coworkers. (I refused, and fortunately, he got back to his desk before it got ugly.)

I'll never forget once in a meeting, her boss suggested a change that we make to one of the reports we generated. He wasn't ugly about it, and he wasn't complaining; he was just trying to make it a little better than it was. Right there in front of him and all of us, she said, "I've told them that they're supposed to be doing that. I don't know why, but they just won't." (Of course, this being a new change, she was flat-out lying.)

At my last job, I honestly think my boss was crazy. As in, seriously, mental problems. He would yell and scream at people who were actually trying to help him with something. I'll never forget when he pulled me into a meeting and reamed me up and down because I was doing my job--are you sitting down?--too well. He told me, "This is really great quality work, but great is the worst enemy of good. I really need you to just do what you're working on, you know, good enough, and then move on to other things."

God, how I love leaving that company. He was on vacation when I turned in my notice, and I told the Human Resources lady (who, incidentally, I had talked to on two separate occasions about his behavior with absolutely nothing done about it), "Look, I know this is bad form, and if the circumstances weren't so extreme, I wouldn't do this. But the truth of the matter is that I do not want to ever see my boss again, so I will not be working out a two-week notice. Friday will be my last day."

Fortunately, I've had a couple of very good bosses to compensate for these horrible experiences. My current boss is a gem, and you all should be so lucky to have one like him. I guess we all have our professional ups and downs, and I've had some real doozies on both sides of that spectrum.

Re:Yes.

[emurphy42]

Not that I doubt boss #2's nuttiness, but "great is the enemy of good" can be true in some cases, e.g.

• The ratio of added cost to added benefit is high enough that the buyer balks at paying the added cost
• The time could be spent on another project that will do more to spur future business

Re:Yes.

[KingSkippus]

I don't buy that. Not good is the enemy of good. Great may not be the most efficient, but it is, by definition, better than not good.

And I didn't want to provide the gory details of the background of the situation, but the nutshell version is the before I got there, the previous system administrators had really done a job on the systems. They weren't deliberately incompetent, but they had never worked in an environment that had more than two or three servers, and they were just ignorant of how to run a lot more systems (we had around 30 or so servers).

One of my favorite stories is that I was sitting with one of the guys while going through the domain manager looking at all of the trusted domains (pre-Active Directory) and asking him, "What is this domain? What about that one?" For about half of the domains, he would stare blankly at it and say, "Um... I dunno." These were domains with active DCs in them with which we were replicating, and with users that had access to our stuff! Oh, and you should have seen the server room. There were CAT5 cables strung between the cabinets. You couldn't shut some of the server cabinets' doors because there were network cables literally run between the hinges on the back side of the door. The network cable to one of the main file servers had come out of its shielding, and the twisted pairs were hanging out. Switches were literally hanging out of the back of some of the cabinets, and the only thing holding them up were the cables themselves.

So anyway, one of the first things I did was go through and perform a somewhat detailed audit of our systems. I documented all of our servers, network segments, users, workstations, etc. Then I went through and cleaned all of the crud out of our domains and re-established order from the chaos. A couple of months later, my team completely cleaned out the server room, installed patch panels, actually mounted cable management arms, and so on. When we were done, the place was so unbelievably better.

As a result, server crashes that had been happening on a daily basis stopped. The users were amazed. This is kind of funny. The users had become so accustomed to stuff not working that they simply didn't bother reporting it any more. There were many times when I would only know something was broken when I saw something crashed while doing something else. I would ask the users, "Why didn't you tell me that you couldn't [do whatever it was that was broken]!!?" They would tell me, "Well, I just figured it would come back up in a few days..."

I remember thinking how sad it was when I sent out a company-wide e-mail one day basically saying, "Please report problems to us. I'm serious. I want to know when something isn't working correctly, and I will get it fixed in a timely manner!"

So anyway, we had the old crappy accounting software package called Fourth Shift. It was an old DOS program. So old, in fact, that the company that published it wouldn't support us and answer our questions any more. They would just tell us, "Um, that version came out in 1990. Upgrade." One night, a batch job scheduled to kick off at midnight failed, and the software didn't come back online until I got there the next morning. There was nothing that could have been done about it (barring hiring someone to monitor the software 24x7), but my boss somehow had gotten it stuck in his head that the reason it failed was because I had spent so much time documenting our assets and straightening out the mess that was our system setup. Thus, the meeting in which I was told that I should just do my job "good enough" and move on to other things.

I tried to explain to him that the people before me doing their job just "good enough" and moving on to other things is what had gotten us into the mess that we were in. I also tried to explain that even if I had done none of the cleanup and documentation that I had done, Fourth Shift would still have failed that night.

getting ahead

[timmarhy]

"'They want them to think that working really hard matters,' "

as i suspected, hard work,skill and dedication are a waste of time. clearly if they just want us to THINK thats what matters, then it's not. also, what a bunch of assholes. oh wait their lawyers.

Re:most PHB are clue less and make you do TPS Repo

[treeves]

Yeah, I have the memo right here. I just forgot. It's not a big deal because the report doesn't ship out until Tuesday anyway.

Interesting would be cop / Wal-Mart science

[transporter_ii]

It would be interesting to see them do a workup on law enforcement types, as I have always said a certain type of person is drawn to being LEOs...and to some degree, maybe that type of person is needed in that type of job.

Also interesting would be Wal-Mart Manager/Assistant Manager science, as all the management wannabes that can't get real management jobs, end up as management at Wal-Mart. Maybe they would be profiled as dumb jerks?

Transporter_ii

ObSpaceballs

[sconeu]

Evil will always win because good is dumb!

Re:Honesty is a Leadership Characteristic

[1mck]

"They need a freaking babysitter because most people are innately lazy and what differs from person to person is their own unique ability to disguise this." You need to hire a better HR person if that's the kind of people that are working for you. If you work for me, you should know your job, and need minimal supervision, and if you are needing a lot, then you don't know your job, and I'm going to find out why...plain and simple, people who are whiners, and complainers will get my "full" attention, and if I find out you don't know what the hell you're doing, and you can't be trained...you're gone. That's the one thing I didn't see in your post was that you would work with your staff, and support them...not coddle them, but work with them to achieve. Now, that's a leader, and a great boss. After you're done your work, go and see if there's anything else that needs doing, and if not, then go and get us some coffees....Make mine a large Timmies, 4x4!

Jump a couple of payscales

[Colin Smith]

And you see it everywhere. Middle management and upwards. It depends who you deal with mostly. Basically, they have fuck all else to do all day except play politics.

It ain't so...or is it?

[zevans]

Well, it might be so for a manager running a team of people with much lower stakes in company IPR than he or she themself has. But even McWalBucks burgerflippers will be more productive if correctly motivated. Being bullied or micromanaged does drive some people; but for others this will only slow them down. Real management skill lies in knowing the difference and dealing with each member of staff (or 'person' as I like to call them) accordingly.

If you are running a team of experts your job is to keep crap the hell out of the way of your staff and let them get on with leveraging their genius for the greater good.

The manager described in TFA will fail in either scenario. Remember that 'experts' might include fund managers just as nuch as Java coders.

Re:most PHB are clue less and make you do TPS Repo

[Andrei D]

Did you get that memo about the new TPS report cover letter? Yeah. It's just that we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports *before* they go out now. So if you could just remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!

Re:Honesty is a Leadership Characteristic

[ShrapnelFace]

I agree- and its a small part of what I said "get smarter" that includes using my time, your peers time, and etc.

Borland

[ushering05401]

anyone with more direct connections to old Borland want to wade in here?

maybe with something about the 'best and brightest' following the cash to a large corporation located in the u.s. pacific northwest where they were put to no good use while their old company foundered.

and then prevented from leaving their new employer by non-competition agreements they signed as part of their compensation packages.

bosses wouldn't be assholes if the 'best and brightest' weren't trained to care solely about the buck... which asshle bosses who care more about legal departments than about products can provide.

Erm...

[msimm]

Imagine a person in a boss role who happens to be splendidly equipped for that role. He has strong people and communication skills, a knack for organization, a good knowledge of the field he is working in as well as management techniques. Is he likely to be a jerk?

You realize you just described the *exact* reason "jerks" tend to move forward? The ideal boss you've described is middle management. Works with the people. Is important *exactly where he is*.

So what's in his future? Big bonuses? Promotion? Not likely. He's a workhorse. Keep him and burn him out. He's perfect exactly where he is.

Competitive environments are probably similar across the board. Be too good at something without an aggressive need to move vertically and see what happens.

Re:Erm...

[PPH]

Competitive environments are probably similar across the board. Be too good at something without an aggressive need to move vertically and see what happens.

True. Because the organization's reward structure is designed by those people who believe that moving up is the only way to excel. There are the rare instances that do provide a system of rewards for those who opt for a professional rather than a managerial career path. But then, how do managers deal with employees who are more highly paid (and otherwise valued) than their boss? Been there, done that.

Re:Erm...

[hey!]

Well, what about Warren Buffet? He's a good guy, and he surrounds himself with good guys, and he gets good results.

What I'm saying is that it can be done.

The problem is the shortage of competence. You leave your competent people where they are most needed and you make do with others whree you can get by.

Decency is a luxury for the strong.

in summary

[recharged95]

""Narcissism," says Adler, his hands flapping the air, "makes a person feel that he should be a leader. He's the one motivated to sell himself to peers.""

Note that selling one's self is currently 'rule #1' to be successful in business (any MBA program would tell ya).

Also...

"But the one who reaches the top fastest doesn't necessarily make the best boss. "

Hence, this article really explains why more businesses fail than succeed.

You're hired!

[msimm]

Please fill in these forms and this disclaimer.

HA!

[geekoid]

" Research also shows that employees tend to see the jerk as boss material. "

If that were true, I'd be king of the world!

This reminds me of

[I7D]

the Seinfeld episode where George realized that if you are angry all the time, people think you're really busy and a hard worker.

Re:Lame article

[geekoid]

"Unions are bloodsucking leeches that reward mediocrity."

My union experieces doesn't bear that out.

"But then you don't have a Union hierarchy "

WTF do you mean by that?

"It is particularly telling that organized crime is/has been so frequently involved with unions"

Does the mob even deal with unions any more?

A union is just a group of people who get together to be sure they are treated fairly. It is the only way for them to have power.
They can also provie management with a scape goat.

In the 70's they were blamed for failurs by companies, but nobody bother to point out that it was the selling of key technologies overseas that killed a lot of companies so the CEOs could make a mint.

Some unions get carried away, but that is the exception.

Donald?

[antdude]

Is that you, Donald Trump?

So...

[CrimsonScythe]

...what you're saying is we should work smarter, not harder? You're not per chance a manager? ;-)

Self-perpetuating narcissism

[autophile]

And so, the research shows, employees tend to see the jerk, the narcissist, and yes, even the asshole, as boss material.

I think this should have said: "Bosses tend to see the jerk employee, the narcissist employee, and yes, even the asshole employee, as boss material." The thing is, [rank-and-file] employees don't promote bosses. Bosses promote bosses. So really, you have a self-perpetuating system here.

--Rob

Being an asshole...

[ubuwalker31]

FTFA:
"Being an asshole," he says flatly, "is a contagious disease."

Guess thats what happens when you hang alot around slashdot too. :-)

Re:Lame article

[blahplusplus]

"It is particularly telling that organized crime is/has been so frequently involved with unions."

Hey they just follow the leaders: Businessmen. Maybe you haven't seen CEO pay lately?

non sequitur

[khallow]

If you take accept the full evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of life then

• God does not exist.
• Life has no fundamental purpose.
• Free will is most likely an illusion.

The conclusions don't follow from the premise. The full evolutionary hypothesis doesn't imply any of these.

No Surprise ... remember the Whitehouse in DC

[OldHawk777]

It is natural for employees to see the jerk as boss material, because (I believe) two out of three are in fact are low-life jerks that would rape their own children for token-wealth and pseudo-power. This is the way it has been throughout human history, the jerks get top billing and the credit for everything. I chuckle every time I hear a fellow citizen credit Prez-Ron Reagan with winning the "Cold-War". Prez-Ron (though very likable) won the "Cold War" about as much as he fought in "World War II". Mention Roosevelt (they think Mt Rushmore), Trueman (who?), Marshall (the old West) .... IOW, there ain't no need to argue about nutin anymore. Three years from now I expect to hear how Bush got rid of the bad Sodom guy who use to fick boys in the desert, when it was also Bush who fick our Warrior Brothers and Sisters in Iraq.

I love The USA Constitution and The USA Variety Culture, but most politicians and corporatist friends are low-life evil jerks riding US all globally and environmentally to hell as fast as ficking possible.

I have told at least three bosses over the decades, "My only boss is my wife, and the only boss at work, I will ever have, is someone I trust." Two of the three retired before they could fire me, and I said AMF to the third ... I never lost a days work/dollar.

Any idiot jerk can run a business into bankruptcy, a country into war or economic collapse, but only good hard working people/citizens can make a business and nation succeed when the idiot jerks are the bosses.

Re:No Surprise ... remember the Whitehouse in DC

[Gena5m]

To OldHawk777:
I really liked what you had to say about the trust. Trust works and that's main reason why narcissists should be spotted and rooted out, never mind 'displacing cheese'. I want to trust my trustworthy Boss to be business driven - if he is not I don't trust him even if I like him personally.

But regarding the Cold War you are wrong. I came from Iron Curtain and I am telling you that it WAS Reigan who won it. Don't underestimate American individualism in the right place, in the right time. May be you did not like him for a political reason but see my point above: trust is real world more then liking. (Many liked Clinton but noone trusts the white trash).

Re:No Surprise ... remember the Whitehouse in DC

[OldHawk777]

I trust no politician, I like no politician. I respect the public office, not the person. With this as an ideal, I would take a bullet to protect from any physical harm the USA President in office, because my fellow citizens have elected him.

I trust more Warriors/Marines/Soldiers/... than any person of substantial pseudo-wealth.
I like more Warriors/Marines/Soldiers/... than any person of substantial faux-power.
I hold more Warriors/Marines/Soldiers/... than any person of substantial false-profit-prophets.

I agree with your summary ... Family, Friends, Ideals, Honor, Protect, and Trust is essential.

I will always credit General George C Marshal (Marshall Plan for EU), Abe Lincoln (History Lesson for WWI&II) Post Civil War Reconstruction, FDR, Harry Trueman and a few more persons and things for winning the "Cold War". The Reagan administration for Iran-Contra election manipulation and taking credit for what coincidently happened while in office, The Kennedy and Nixon administrations for taking presidential campaign funds from the mafia and the dumb domino-theory and the Vietnam conflict, The Bush and all recent administrations for taking presidential campaign funds from corporatist/globalist plutocrats, the Bush-Iraq conflict and losing, fighting terrorist on only one front (Afghanistan) while in office, and most of all for preaching fear for political power/election and ....

I am a USA Citizen, my Bible will always be the USA Constitution of 1776 (A-mythic), my interest is the USA Public welfare, and I (due partly to age) have a very good grasp of USA history and current events.

FDR; "We have nothing to fear, but fear its self".

I have read blogs where GWBush dogmatist; compared FDR and WWII, to GWB and Iraq. I thought what spin-revisionist-bullshit ... Iraq is not a war, Iraq is one poorly lead, poorly planned, and stupidly perpetuated battlefield for GWB to have a great and glorious legacy against an ill-equipped-trained-supplied-lead-... domestic (at most regional) military. GWB destabilized the whole region, Arab and Persian states are aligning for a future major regional-war that will destabilize the major global (oil-based) economies of the USA, EU ... (maybe not Russia and China) ... and this is just a small short-story of what is going on with politics in the USA, EU, Russia ....

CITIZENS PREPARE & BEWARE, ALL IS NOT DESPAIR FOR THOSE DARINGLY AWARE (OKay, yes all caps was over the top, but funny).

!HAVEFUN!

Re:WWJD?

[tibike77]

I have this feeling you would not have bosses with glowing weak spots when exposed. Now, that's boss material. ...wait, we're not talking consoles here are we, Jake ?

Re:Lame article

[Eli Gottlieb]

Unfortunately, cooperatives tend to become capitalist businesses over time.

Past isn't good enough

[syousef]

Sorry but that's a load of apologist tripe. Being a girl doesn't have to mean you let your heart rule over your head. Your boss got greedy and you got out which is the right thing for you and your family. Doing good one day doesn't give you a free pass to do evil the next. No one makes excuses for a serial killer because at one time they were a nice quiet boy.

I've worked for a similar company. The founders (One middle age man and his younger partner were absolutely fantastic during the boom when I was hired. I was employee number 7. Bonuses were something like 15-20%. There were dinners at very expensive restuarants as prizes. There was a free softdrink policy if you stayed back late. The fact that we were working on niche technology didn't matter so much - it was after all a tech boom and work wasn't scarce.

I spent 5 years at the company.

When I left there were more than 50 employees and a low cost (low wage) Asian office training up for support. Forget the free softdrink. Forget any kind of bonus (literally none). Work was one crunch after the other (but I basically worked normal hours. I refuse to work continuous crunches).

What happened? Partly competition and partly the bosses becoming less willing to share what did come their way. The sad thing is a token is all that was needed. I think that yes a company founder may get worn down and that it's a tough job - people abuse your trust, you risk a lot, and the buck stops with you. However that doesn't excuse becoming an asshole. If as a company founder the only way you can make your business survive is to turn it into something you're not proud of yous hould get the fuck out.

Re:Past isn't good enough

[Kris_B_04]

I do what I must to protect me and mine! :)
No, it really doesn't give you a free pass to be evil as time progresses...

That's where they get blinded, those company founders. The vision is gone. The dream is gone. The pride is gone. The only thing left is that it is making money. By the time the money rolls in, it seems they don't care anymore about the dream, they look only towards the money.

If they are still idealistic enough to realize what is going on, I do hope they get the fuck out.. otherwise, it becomes, just as you say, low wages and unhappy employees who NEED a job.. when jobs are still scarce occasionally. The employees need him, but he doesn't need them.. he can always find more monkeys...

It becomes a never-ending, ugly cycle... and the only person who can change it doesn't care any more.. except for the money that continues to come in.. probably because of previous reputation and the past where employees cared and did their best because they wanted to and took pride in their work.. the company continues along these lines because of a previously built and satisfied customer backing who really doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Kris

Changing Jobs

[Mark_MF-WN]

My favourite thing is when the manager changes jobs, and insists on lying about how much he was paying his employees. At my work, we are just about to get our third manager in a year (the fourth in two years, but I wasn't around for that). During both change-overs, the manager insisted that we quote a higher wage to the new manager than we were actually receiving; like, they felt we deserved more money, they weren't willing to pay it themselves, and were totally willing to dupe the new manager into paying us more. Madness.

We're doomed

[ACORN_USER]

It's a shame that most people seem to get blinded by the boss who talks big and employs ignorant. I know of one who holds onto the reigns of power in his own small company by controlling access to knowledge about the system which he has developed. He talks big and insults frequently. He'll argue and attempt to shame in public, even when his point is wrong. You just back down from provable truths, simply because he has his own sense of reason. Those who work with him and have any real experience are few and the bulk of his disciples are selected specifically for their lack of experience. As a result, they seem to worship him as a small deity.

The one reassuring factor is that while I have known some really brain dead heads of development in the corporate world; the further down the ladder you look the worse they get. Now based on this, things are probably not so bad. Sure, you need to be a foolish twirp to get into management, however there is still some kind of an ability requirement on the foolish twirp who lives higher up the food chain. What I find sad, is that even right up at the top, - I'm talking God or gods - well, .. do you think that S/He might also share some of those traits? I just sprained by ankle and won't provide my own opinion, S/He might over-hear me.

Re:WWJD?

[OldManAndTheC]

Please Jake, tell us what to do!
Should we follow the gourd? or maybe the shoe??

Storytime...

[SanityInAnarchy]

My Calculus professor in college told me a story about this. I believe the story is about his father, but I'm not entirely sure about the details...

He worked on a railroad, doing something with boxcars. I believe the idea was to unscrew the doors and remove them... something like that. Anyway, one day, he figures out a new way of working, and does a day's worth of work in a few minutes. He takes it to his boss.

Boss: So how many of these can you do per day now?
Foreman: How many do you need?
Boss: Um... 10, 15?

I still don't remember what they were doing, except that it had something to do with boxcars. Point is, the boss was absolutely getting a good deal -- an order of magnitude more work done. At the same time, all of the workers get to do maybe an hour of work a day, and slack off the rest of the time.

I think there's a real trick here, though. You definitely want to reward those who work better, and most of the time, I'll happily trade a bonus or a raise for more leisure time. At the same time, you have to consider that we are accomplishing ridiculously more than we did before. Figuring out a clever way to work less and accomplish more is great, but if you let this continue, eventually you'll have a job where you walk in to work, push a button, get paid, and go home.

Re:Storytime...

[revengebomber]

Figuring out a clever way to work less and accomplish more is great, but if you let this continue, eventually you'll have a job where you walk in to work, push a button, get paid, and go home. "Visual Basic Programmer"

Politics are productive.

[jotaeleemeese]

What many /.ers fail miserabley to understand is that any organization will have politics embedded into it no matter what.

You can let people completely unprared to handle politics do the politics (that is engineers, programmers, technicians, etc) or you can let people trained to handle politics to do so.

Having people handling the politics inherent in an organization allows others to get on with the job they are good at.

So stop demonizing your manager, if he is a good one he is allowing you to be more productive.

Re:Politics are productive.

[Grishnakh]

Haven't you been paying attention? In most tech companies, the managers are engineers by training who have been promoted out of management. They've never been trained as managers, except maybe for a few short company-provided training classes. It's not like they studied management theory in college for 4 years.

I can understand the idea of allowing people trained at, and good at handling politics doing so. But in tech companies, that's just not the way it is. You might have a few managers who just had a natural talent for management, but by and large they don't have any skill at it at all.

Re:Politics are productive.

[Grishnakh]

In most tech companies, the managers are engineers by training who have been promoted out of management.

Whoops. I meant to say "...promoted into management."

Another nice resource

[technopinion]

Another nice resource for this type of stuff: http://www.badbossology.com/

Re:WWJD?

[cakefool]

You fools, this is Jake73 - we should be following Jake17!

Re:WWJD?

[LoveGoblin]

So that's what that stands for! I always thought it was World Wide Judo Dorks.

Re:WWJD?

[eneville]

For years I've been saying that bosses are not meant to be liked. They do tend to drift into those positions, personally I think people are promoted into such positions as they do not get along with their teams, they tend to create friction and thus there is no objection to separating them from the rest of the group through promotion.

secure job - insurance

[hany]

So essentialy employees are buying some insurance from their employers. Pay is being aranged by further diverting some portions of employees income away from him.

Question is: Are there better insurance policies available?

Like commercial insurance companies, savings, ...?

Science paper says

[mapkinase]

Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry:

Collagen proteins are also highly conserved. For example, the sequence identity for collagen {alpha}1 type 1 ({alpha}1t1) from human (Homo sapiens) to frog (Xenopus laevis) is 81%, and the sequence identity between human and bovine (Bos taurus) is 97%, an extraordinarily high similarity.

which is no wonder given unique proline-rich sequence required to maintain highly unique 3d structure of collagen fiber.So what is the sequence similarity we are talking about:

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen {alpha}1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity).

In other words human's collagen is much more similar to that of frogs then the collagen of T.Rex. Given the push evolutionists are giving to the dino-bird link, I am calling BS. If this is article in Science proves anything it is that T.Rex is quite far from ANYTHING that we know.

Re:WWJD?

[mojine]

Print version of TFA http://tinyurl.com/2z2ffw