Jed recently pondered: > He [Rossi] would gain much more credibility if he would only > allow the NRL to test his machine, but I doubt that will happen. > I do not understand why, but he does not want more independent > tests of his machine. It sure makes him look bad, doesn't it?
I am, of course, psycho-analyzing the psychological motivations of another person, an individual whom I've never met face-to-face. This is always a dangerous thing to do, so please take the following impressions for what it's worth. As I've speculated before here, Rossi's do-it-all-himself plan strikes me personally as the actions of the quintessential micro-manager at work. I suspect the micro-manager bug tends to be very strong in engineers. That's probably a distinct advantage to possess in such professions. Incidentally, I've noticed that the micromanaging bug tends to be very strong within me too, and I'm just a computer programmer nerd at heart. Years ago I recall an unpleasant experience I had to endure during an orientation meeting with my new manager where the "talk" focused on proper computer coding technique. I just started working at the University of Wisconsin, Division of Information Technology, back in the 1990s. She discussed what kind of PL/1 mainframe code was considered acceptable and what wasn't. Keep in mind the fact that not all that many computer programmers code in PL/1 these days, including at that University shop. Just a few die-hard old farts. When the discussion got around to what kind of "loops" where considered acceptable and which weren't I really had to bite my tongue and simply endure my "orientation". I've never taken a liking to managers who feel inclined to tell me how to write my own computer code, particularly since it not their job to write code anymore. I've run into this insanity more than once in my professional career, and it is always a total waste of my time and theirs. Under the circumstances the best strategy I learned was to simply say, yes... yes... uh-huh... yes... and then go back to my office and write the code the way I know will get the job done and in a manner that makes the most sense to me. Truth of the matter is: I'm the one responsible for making sure the programs I write run in production. I'm the one who will be called to the mat if something goes wrong with them. Managers are not going to look at my code anyway since they are managers. They have more important things to "manage". As one might surmise, the psychological characteristics attributed to personalities who tend to micro-manage projects can have certain advantages, but also a few distinct disadvantages - the major disadvantage being that they are less prone to consider views, and opinions of others particularly when they are within the eye of the hurricane of their own views and opinions. So, I guess one could say I'm guilty as charged, and damned proud of it. My defense has always been: I accept the consequences of micromanaging myself and myself alone. So, why do you care, particularly since I have no interest in micromanaging your own professional predilections. In Rossi's situation, however... I dunno. It's a big project, one that will obviously involve the input & work of many individuals to complete. Rossi's project is not a simple computer program for which a single individual can easily be responsible for "managing". Hard to tell how his micro-managed grandiose plans will pan out. I hope for the best. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
