Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really)

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 6 / 12 > >>

inauniversefarfaraway 12/5/2012 | 1:02:34 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) Here is an interesting experiment, if engineering management was applied to the NHL.

First, Wayne Gretzky would be on welfare. The main reason for this is that he isn't a "team" player. Never mind that he makes the team. Anyone of that caliber would be quickly dismissed as too competitive. Coaches and team owners everywhere would keep this type of player off the ice. Plus, he makes all the other players feel inferior. This is not conducive to "happy" teams.

Top players would eventually all be let go, but only after management had them try to teach the worst players how to play better. This is because the worst players have a better team spirit, and there are more of them, so it's easier to be popular as a manager by catering to this segment. Lousy players are "yes" players. Besides, lousy players are more easily manipulated into taking credit from top players. Lousy players have less demanding salary expectations, so this is a great strategy to keep costs down.

So as to not hurt inferior players, coaches would scream and berate all top scoring players for not allowing others a chance at the puck, and for hoarding it. Anyone scoring more than one goal would be severely reprimanded, and would have to sit on the bench for the next game.

In an effort to increase overall team competence, the best players would be paired with the worst. That way, the best players would rub off on the worst. Top players would be cajoled or threatened into accepting this, especially if they object to being paired with nitwits. Management would label these top players has having big egos, or not being team players.

Coaches would encourage top players to get the puck as close to scoring as possible, and at that point, pass it to the inferior players to give them a better chance to score.

Enforcers would beat up top players on their own team to give the inferior players a better chance at scoring.

When these tactics fail, coaches would swap jerseys between top players and mediocre players to "balance" the statistics, and make it look like they had the better team overall.

Coaches would have the largest salaries. The hall of fame would be renamed the NHL coaches hall of fame. Coaches would be called "visionaries".

The size of the teams would quadruple, and would be made up of proportinal amounts of foreigners from other nations, none of which would have any hockey experience.

After ranking for the Stanley cup, all the top scorers not injured would be let go from their team. The injured players are there to discourage other top players for over-performing.

When people stop attending games, the teams are outsourced to your favorite emerging country and hockey is never heard from again.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 1:02:30 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) When I read this I thought about all the star palyers who think that they are more important than the team.

I also thought of the current lock out in which the players are putting their own short term interests ahead of that of the game.

I remembered two incidents. One was sitting in the stands during Wayne Gretzky's last game in Canada. I remembered the prolonged adulation htat he received after the game from the fans and his fellow players from both teams.

I also remembered sitting in the stands for Alexi Yashin's first game after his year-long hold out. His lawyer had stated in court that Yashin was acting only in his own self-interest. The booing for Yashin's appearance started when the fans realized that he was about to be introduced. It was so loud that I could not hear, at all, the introduction over the PA system and died away only when the next player was to be introduced. He was booed every time he touched the puck by his own team's fans.

The greatest players are also team players. It is the B- players who think they are better than the riff raff around them. It is the B- players who from cliques ratehr than teams. The A+ players bring up the play of all of their team mates just as Gretzky did

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:02:30 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) universe:
First, Wayne Gretzky would be on welfare. The main reason for this is that he isn't a "team" player. Never mind that he makes the team.
__________________________________________________

I think you misunderstood the drift of the arguments. If Gretzky were the kind of A player we are badmouting, he would never let go of the puck and attempt to score each time on his own. I suspect he does nothing of that sort.

A players that also build teams (and they can) are an increasingly rare breed. I suspect most engineers who do have a flair for management chose to be managers from the outset or very soon in their careers. Engineering management, increasingly, is the domain of failed engieers.

I have been fortunate to work with some A players that have built incredible teams. They are never scared of sharing credit with others, even when most of it legitimately belongs to them. They pick A players like themselves and group them between people who are good at execution and those good at innovation. I've known these A players to command the adulation, admiration and extreme loyalty of their teams. They never have to build teams, teams follow them where they go!

Honest to goodness, how many such people exist in the entire valley? I'd be surprised if there are more than a few hundred.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:02:29 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) >> Management tends to be issued from the worst elements in companies, hence they instantly feel threatened by this type.

I thought many times why the above statement
is SO UNIVERSALLY TRUE. Is there any social
engineering theory behind it? My conclusion is
putting inferior people in management serves
vested interests...that is why this happens
so universally

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:02:29 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) >>Honest to goodness, how many such people exist in the entire valley? I'd be surprised if there are more than a few hundred.

Valley really had been over hyped for its success
and leadership talent available. It was mostly
run of the mill success during excess era. I
would watch from now on (post 2004), how it
goes in the deliverance of durable value
proposition.....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

inauniversefarfaraway 12/5/2012 | 1:02:29 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) Well, I think we agree more than we disagree. "A" players lead, and mediocre people don't have the brains to recognize it. Management tends to be issued from the worst elements in companies, hence they instantly feel threatened by this type.

When encouraged and supported, A players provide enough rewards for all to share. They also do tend to be generous, since they are first to recognize that greater achivements can be realized through collaboration.

Fertile soil is needed for such players to grow. Hence the logic that only companies with great potential can attract, or foster that type of talent.

Remember also that we are made, and not born to achive in any field. The biggest failure of management is to invest in people that will never have the drive to rise to their full potential. Yet, they are the easiest group to cater to. This follows on the surmise that pretending A's are just B's made up to be A's.

Again, it seems there is more agreement than not.

The fact does remain that engineering as a whole is fertile ground for derelicts by a vast majority. The main reason for this is the fundamental drives for each of these camps.

The integrity needed to face the reality of technical challenges and to take them head on is exactly what B players will always lack, because they would rather invest the energy to manipulate their way ahead.

Many of us may have seen individuals in school that spend a lot of energy cheating, when the same energy channeled constructively would have achieved far more, including genuine learning. The same paradigm applies here.

We are know how business is cut-throat, and that goes against the integrity needed to solve technical problems.

far'y

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

inauniversefarfaraway 12/5/2012 | 1:02:26 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) The are sereval reasons. The first, and the motivation behind using the NHL as an example is that what hockey has going for it is the light of day. If just one of these idiot managers were coach for a day, they would get exactly what they deserve, and their ploys would be exposed for all to see.

By that I mean specifically that the whole world can see who's playing, who's hanging on to coat tails, who the idiots are, and so forth.

Engineering simply lacks this transparency. Because everything happens in back-rooms, there is plenty of opportunity for shady goings-on.

Also, the driving philosophy behind running a business is that you always go for short term gain by keeping productive elements in place. This is how idiots get promoted, to get them out of the way. Meanwhile, the productive elements become the playthings of the idiots. They can be cruel in surrounding them with their kind. Why do you think smart people never get hired, or encouraged to stay?

BTW, these types can smell each other a mile away. Just like the creatures in the puppet master, it's like they quickly exchange snippets that identify themselves as screwballs.

No business is actually run by the smart ones, therefore, there simply isn't the realization that by promoting the overachievers, you do lose a bit on the short term, but you accomplish the essential task of reinforcing and rewarding positive behavior.

This is the single and least understood element facing human kind ever. The only thing that will discourage the idiots is to let them sit in their crap until they figure out that they can't just mooch off of the productive folks.

This is also why business is boom-bust, and that a recovery is never accomplished by the same business segment. Once the idiots are entrenched, nothing can be done. Only time will eventually leech out the rot, or the riches of another business segment.

The routine then starts all over again. In the process, productive people are discouraged, and the liars, cheaters, ass-kissers get fatter.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

heads-up 12/5/2012 | 1:02:25 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) dljvjbsl,

Exactly my point...A very well-written and
thought-out post.

heads-up

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:02:25 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) >> The routine then starts all over again. In the process, productive people are discouraged, and the liars, cheaters, ass-kissers get fatter.

BTW, I see "ray of hope" in Google model where
there are almost no managers. When would industry
realize that we need NO managers. Managers
exist for the convenience and benefit of other
managers -- they actively seek and promote
such types.....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:02:25 AM

re: Headcount: Cutting the Fat (Really) >> The routine then starts all over again. In the process, productive people are discouraged, and the liars, cheaters, ass-kissers get fatter.

I thought STARTUP's would not fall for this
trap. Now after many startup experiences, I
see MAFIA culture prevails everywhere (and
that looks reasonable since MONEY is involved).
So I am much averse to contribute to startups
by going along the hype of changing the world...

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 6 / 12 > >>