• DQ (unregistered)

    So, big boss hires two idiots, a year later realizes they're idiots and fires them again. all's well if it ends well. (Oh and on December 25th Santa Claus is coming if you believe in fairy tales)

  • Michael Scarn (unregistered)

    I pictured Stanley from "The Office" when reading this

  • Brian Boorman (google)

    Everyone, welcome to the new for 2022 website: thedailyftw.com

  • Teocali (unregistered)

    Total respect to the owner :D

  • 516052 (unregistered)

    I am surprised that Stanley wasn't the first to go. Incompetent managers despise competent staff that stands up to them.

  • AllenG (unregistered) in reply to DQ

    And here I thought Stanley's speech was the happy ending - you do not owe your company any more than they owe you.

  • Leonardo Herrera (unregistered) in reply to DQ

    This happens more often than you'd think. People who build succesful companies tend to be quite sharp.

  • Argle (unregistered)

    A couple comments on the comments from the OP. The owner was indeed sharp. Unlike some people who inherit businesses and run them into the ground, the owner did well with it. It's been nearly 40 years and the company is still around. I'm glad to see that the names Gordon and Dave were kept in the story. I used Gordon (Gekko) from the film "Wall Street" and Dave (Harken) from "Horrible Bosses" as the pseudonyms. In my short tenure at the company, I did indeed learn a lot f valuable lessons: some on what to do; some on what NOT to do.

  • grand slam (unregistered)

    It's a mistake to try to automate machining especially steel. Better to build the same thing but a hundred times bigger.

  • (nodebb)

    The problem is, as in many other companies, "project managers". They're useless and consume the budget, taking money away from actual engineering.

    In addition to never buying ERPs, my second golden rule for tech oriented organizations: so not hire PMs (at any seniority level).

    You are welcome.

  • Stella (unregistered)

    My company gave me an XXL haribo bag when I handed in my notice after 8 years of maintaining important infrastructure. They didn't even bother to look at my personnel file. I am a diabetic.

  • Floutsch (unregistered)

    I like Stanley :)

  • Chris (unregistered)

    So TRWTF is the project was completed within (Stanley's) original projected timeframe?

  • (nodebb) in reply to Mr. TA

    Hmm, my company is working on adding project management... To be fair, we are a project-based company.

  • kaewberg (unregistered)

    I remember exactly this situation. "How long will it take?" "18 months." "You have six." "Believe that as you may, it will take 18 months." In the end, we had to do it in six months by sacrificing all quality and leaving huge defects that took 24 months to even partially repair.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Mr. TA

    The problem is, as in many other companies, "project managers". They're useless and consume the budget, taking money away from actual engineering.

    It depends on the size of the project. You don't need project management when the project is small enough to run on the collegiate model, where everyone just gets on with doing what needs to be done and knows (approximately) what everyone else is doing. But once the project gets larger (somewhere between 50 and 150 people) then PMs become necessary in order to keep control, because the people on the ground can no longer see the whole picture and it is all too easy for some to slack off and deliver nothing (or nothing useful at least).

    Human organizations are not scale invariant.

  • (nodebb) in reply to konnichimade

    Rest in peace to your productivity in the short term and to your company in the long term.

  • (nodebb) in reply to dkf

    I never said there's no need for management. I don't believe in these ideals of a flat team where everybody just gets along. However, PMO is not the solution. Regular good old management tree works just fine. A 150 sized team will have about 20 managers and 3 senior managers and a CTO. These managers have to be engineers promoted through hard work and demonstrating exceptional talent. Most importantly, they're responsible for the budget, for the results, and have authority to deal with bad employees and reward good ones.

    Compare that to PMO, who don't care about the result, don't care about the budget, have little control over personnel matters, and worst of all, have their own team with its budget and head count, which they'd like to grow. See the difference?

  • (nodebb) in reply to dkf

    If you need 150 people, you are either employing Indians or need to split the project into several.

  • (nodebb) in reply to dkf

    If you need 150 people, you are either employing Indians or need to split the project into several.

  • I dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯ (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that Dave didn't somehow mismanage the project into taking more than a year.

    Stanley is made of awesome and probably did a good part of keeping it on (the original) schedule. Whatever they paid Stanley wasn't enough. He's basically the Legendary Engineer archetype.

  • Argle (unregistered) in reply to I dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯

    A few months ago, I actually found "Stanley." He and his wife were happily retired. We spoke for a while and I thanked him for the impact he had on my life during the short time I knew him. An important note about my return visit after a year was that he never had an unkind word to say about the people who made everyone's lives so difficult. It says a lot about his character.

  • ichbinkeinroboter (unregistered) in reply to kaewberg

    Yup. I have tried to explain this one so many times over 30 years... Having said that, very occasionally, IMMEDIATELY stopping the company bleeding money can be more important. But more on the 1 day (plus 6 week cleanup) vs 3 week fix scale of things.

  • Arfan Ali (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “The New Management”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article