--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathically focused
> world
>
>
> > Strange it always seems to me that these same people are setting up and
> > applying procedures which work against the company rather than for it.
> And
> > that this is why things go SNAFU when they are not around.
>
> And they are so very bad that they cause problems before they arrive? There
> are indeed, bad office managers, bad administration assistants. But, even
> a poor administration assistant who is a bit heavy handed in scheduling
> conference rooms is better than the chaos that occurs when no one schedules
> rooms, and two important meetings are scheduled in the same time and place.
>
> Companies that comprise more than one person are social and political
> entities. It is impossible to stop them from being such. Personal
> feelings, social relationships between the people involved all have an
> effect on the work that gets done. People that are good at facilitating
> that
> are very valuable.
But if you structure that entintie on, say, reducing conflict, you get crap.
> > > I also don't think that "progress" is only measured by
> > > technology and business -- particularly I don't think
> > > that most corporations have a shining "vision of the
> > > future"- other than their own profits (of course there
> > > _are_ responsible and innovative companies which do).
> >
> > Was it always that way?
>
> When do you think it wasn't? The robber baron era, for example, was before
> women got the vote. The idea of a golden age before woman's lib where
> talent at producing things was the critical factor in a man's success is
> not supported by history.
Or supported by me. That is not what I said, it is what you injected into
what I was saying. There have been times when doing something for the
progress of all mankind, when doing the right thing becouse it made things
better was more important than personal advancement. (Not that personal
advancement wasn't also an issue.)
Actualy, as an aside, by interpreting my words the way that you did you
personified the difference we were talking about.
> There are a few short lasting exceptions to this rule. For example, in
> WWII, talented generals did tend to do well, even if they were next to
> impossible to get along with. For a few years, when there were virtually
> no Americans with experience and money was unlimited (contracts were all
> cost plus), and schedules were tight, young talented engineers could rise
> fast at NASA. They did, however, have to have mentors who were senior in
> NASA and sponsored them.
>
> But, of course, when NASA stopped being a critical part of the Cold War ,
> lost its direction after we beat the Russians to the moon, and people
> gained experience in NASA, it became a more typical bureaucratic entity.
> Indeed, it changed from one of the best to one of the worst organizations
> for obvious reasons. It lost its clear goal, and its funding was dependant
> on things that were inherently political in nature.
That's what I'm talking about.
> >
> > Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that the advancement
> > deteriorated. NASA can't even listen to their experts any more, and why?
>
> Because its experts tell it things that, if passed on to Congress, would
> decrease funding.
Once again what I am talking about.
> > Because they are not "people persons" enough to get themselves heard in a
> > strickly empathic driven political environement.
>
> You mean in the good old fashion "shut up and do as your told" corporate
> environment, everything would have been great?
No, you are linking things that are not linked. (Although we can talk about
the beinfits and constraints of "strong" leadership if you like.)
The other day a few co-workers and I were talking about Starship Troopers the
movie. Ed said that it was unfortunate that the uniforms in the movie looked
so simmilar to a Nazi uniform. Tom then asked why it was unfortunate, the
Nazi's had cool uniforms. Many in the group were agast. They couldn't
seperate the consept of appearance and policy. It took about 20 minutes of
convincing before the "agast group" could be convinced that Tom was refering
~only~ to the uniforms, even though that was all he has said.
Once again, this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. This just a
lunchtime converstaion, emagine the fallout of something like that work
related.
>
> >
> > I disagree. What possible use could a forman with People skills? The
> >right workers are the ones that get the job done. The only trouble that is
> > important is those that effect the task at hand. Focus on the people
> >skills and who gets the job depends on who likes who, what personalities
> fit
> > together, not who can get the job done.
>
> In my experience, getting the job done usually involves working with other
> people.
But does that mean accepting others and focusing on the task, or focusing on
the interpersonal relationships and accepting the task?
>
> And if you are concerned with
> > conflict then don't be. Conflict can be just as much a benifit as a
> > detriment. Conflict is naturual, let it happen.
> >
>
> > A type workers will always try and make it to the top and then stay
> >there. Why not focus their advancement on technical results rather than
> >shmoozing,
>
> The easiest and best way to the top has always been to play political
> games. When I started in industry, it was in the oil patch in the early
> '80s. It was definitely the good old fashioned business culture. Being a
> good 'ol boy was as critical or more critical for making money than being a
> talented engineer.
Differnt buissness, and once again you are injecting opinions that I did not
express.
> Now, there was an exception to this. Software was so new, none of the
> managers knew how to deal with it. I remember the Executive VP stating
> that the way to get good software was to hire a bunch of hippies and throw
> raw meat at them. In this environment, a software engineer who had little
> to no skill in getting along with people could do all right.
>
> But, after a while, people determined that folks who were good at coding,
> but who would assume that the internal software customers were all idiots
> who didn't need to be listened to, weren't really all that productive after
> all.
Wrong. You are injecting again. Only now you are doing it in reverse. There
was no "who would assume that the internal...." That is an idiots assumption.
A more logical reason would be the very reason you show your self in this
way. Power strugle. Ego.
If you really believe what you wrote, then do you also beleive that sci-fi
fans are all male sniveling idiots who have never considered sex much less
had a girlfriend.
Sorry, computer programmers are not, and never were, all fat long haired
ego-driven assholes that eat nothing but pizza, doenuts, and drink soda.
> One of the things I learned early in my career was that my technical
> ability, by itself, would not allow me to succeed. I was in an
> organization with field operations as a internal customer. These guys did
> not have to obey engineering mandates. Indeed, as the profit center, they
> could dictate to engineering far more than engineering could dictate to
> them.
All I am saying is that this is ineficient.
> To be fair to them, the equipment did have a lot of difficulty. A typical
> scenario was that they'd see a problem, report it to engineering, and get
> their management to put heat on the engineering management to get something
> done. Two weeks of work were done trying to put out this fire, after which
> time engineering produced a report proving that the reported problem did
> not exist. Usually, it really didn't, but the field really did have
> problems.
See.
> What happened, almost always, was that the field did report symptoms of a
> real problem, they just jumped to a false conclusion concerning the cause
> of the problem. They got mad because engineering told them they were lying
> (at least that's how it felt) and engineering got mad because they were
> chasing false leads all the time and could never get new equipment out.
See.
> I noticed this pattern, talked to my wife who was coaching me on
> interpersonal skills, and tried a different tact. When such a problem was
> reported to me, I looked, and found that the reported problem didn't exist.
> I called back, reported my findings, and got an immediate angry "OK, well
> I'll just have to fix this as best I can by myself" as an answer. I
> quickly said "wait, wait, I agree you have a problem we have to fix, I'm
> just telling you that my work indicates that you didn't identify the
> cause."
>
> I added a lot of positive, empathetic statements about understanding his
> position in the field, and talked him into doing one experiment to help me
> understand what was going on. The next day, he called, said he found the
> problem, it was his own stupid mistake. I emphasized the value in us
> working together to solve the problem, stated that the next time it
> probably would be on my side of the fence, etc. From then on, he was
> someone I could count on to work with me.
Not everyone can do that without the other person realizing they are being
patronized. Some people just don't pretend well, some people actualy think
that pretending is evil and unethical.
Why is it that this guys petty personal political agenda governs your actions
and forces you to be so unethical as to lye to him? Why do you have to babby
this guys ego. If you ask me, he is the one with inter-personal issues. he
needs to focus on his task and not on his political agenda.
> As a result of such actions, I had a network of friends in the field that
> helped me understand how the tools really worked in the field. This was
> invaluable in both fixing problems that cropped up, and in getting the word
> out to our customers. Good things like market share increase followed.
Well, why didn't you build the peice to begin with having lots of back and
forth input from the customer?
> Being technically right wasn't enough. I had to be able to get my
> technical solutions used. That took people skills. I've seen too many
> brilliant scientists, with no social skills, off in a corner seeking
> brilliant solutions to problems that no one really wanted solved to
> consider that a model for my own behavior.
I've seen too many briliant scientists , so cought up in social games to seek
the really good solutions to problems that everyone needs solved to consider
that a model of good behavior.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
