The government is the ultimate bad manager. Government pays too well to too many for the government employees to give up security and insurance to quit and to move on to somethihgn better.....

I met Morry Taylor when he was running for President in the NH Primary and if I remember right he had a plan to fire a third of the government employees and pay them for two or three years because he believed they were good people and they would take the money and do something way better than what they were doing for the government. Way better was starting businesses and making other businesses even better that pay taxes and contribute to a better country and get rid of our national debt.

Promoted out of danger...

for those people that are too dangerous to be left in their current role, though incompetence or whatever. The best answer has always been to promote them to a level where the decisions they make get soo muted passing through the adminishpere that they have no impact.

look at all middle management, for any decision they make there is a committy, board, what ever you call them. Its their job to interperate what the hell the domented chicken headed moron actually needs doing and then to decide to send him on a "training seminar" in the carabian to keep him out the way...

when the Harvard bissniss school grads started running us everything whet to hell. they are thout that managing is managing and the what is of no importance.

… of new of companies die. taking all the time and money with them. most of the people now called entrepreneurs take other peoples money and make nothing new. come to think of it thats what the old timers did to/

what else happens re: Satan's learning-challenged little brother

first read the description (beneath the picture) of Simon, the former cow-orker...

then read the email exchange between the two of them...


http://www.
27bslash6.
com/p2p.html

Completely off topic:

http://www.
amazon.com
/SuperSense-Why-We-Believe-Unbelievable
/dp/0061452645/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1


Bruce Hood is the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol. He undertook his Ph.D. at Cambridge University followed by appointments at University College London, MIT and a faculty professor at Harvard. He has been awarded an Alfred Sloan Fellowship in neuroscience, the Young Investigator Award from the International Society of Infancy Researchers, the Robert Fantz memorial award and recently voted to Fellowship status by the society of American Psychological Science. "SuperSense: From Superstition to Religion- the Brain Science of Belief" is his first book written for a general audience.

I have a question regarding this direction as it pertains to the Dilbert story line. I have noticed recently that the level of overt hostility and contempt of managment (e.g. PHB, Catbert, Dogbert sometimes, etc.) towards the workers (Wally, Alice, Dilbert, etc.) has escalated sharply. PHB et. al. are not longer even pretending to be cordial to the peons they rule. I presume this is meant to mirror the fact that companies feel they totally have the upper hand because of the bad economy and do not even need to waste time and energy on fake !$%*!$%*!$%*! per the above premise regarding management at large companies breeding enterpreneurs, this could go in one of two directions. On one hand, the increased level of workplace toxicitiy could lead to more smart worker bees than ever decided that they have had enough of working for morons and striking out on their own. On the other hand, the brutal economic environment could cancel that out and then some, leading to the peons being more fearful than ever and more desperate than ever to cling to the 9 to 5 jobs they do have, thus allowing management to consolidate its already significant power like never before. This of course, will lead to management being more ruthless and cruel than ever, knowing that there is nothing that the helpless peons in their grasp can do for now. Which one do you thinks is true ? If so, can we expect this fork in the road to be reflected in future Dilbert strips ?

It's bad management that causes most of the problems in the business world.. But interpersonal communication is a very different skill than building complex things - it is equally essential to getting those things built and sold. The trick to having good management is to see who from the technical staff are really contributing to the organization - and seeing that they have the resources to contribute with minimal interference....

So what is a good manager? Someone who can build the product, but is better with people than with product. Someone who knows which tradeoffs are needed, and who will fight for the needs of his/her staff when needed. This manager will sacrifice himself/herself for his/her staff - something very rare in today's climate of greed.

However, a good manager is not always a person you'd want to work for. Sometimes, the needs of the company are in direct conflict with the employees. What should a good manager do? If you're an employee, you wouldn't want to work for this manager because his needs are not your needs. He works to service the firm, not you. So you'll either have to manage your role in the conflict - or bail out before you are sacrificed by the firm.

And in the end, what happens to the employees who are forced out, or bail out on their own? There are no longer enough jobs in our economy to support those people looking for work.. So what's left - running your own business, and hoping for the best. This is the most stressful path for many - as most of us don't have many creative ideas worth acting on. But for those who do have great ideas - being forced to start your own business is a blessing.....

I've been an entrepreneur since the age of 12. It had nothing to do with bad management, just that I wanted money to buy rollerskates (oops, showing my age!) and Mom and Dad wouldn't just hand it over. I was too young to get a regular job, so I created one. Every time I've tried to work a regular job ever since, I've gotten frustrated and gone back to running my own business.

So is this bad management, or just an entrepreneurial mindset that determines that any management at all is bad?

As Deming said "Over 90% of the problem lies with the system not the people" The system produces bad managers? If so, the system needs to be changed. One would think that for an individual organisation having "Bad" managers would be a negative thing, but if we assume entrepreneurship is a good thing, in a global sense, not so much.

The really interesting thing is that being motivated to become an entrepreneur through avoiding being managed badly, and actually being successful at it, will ultimately just produce another organisation that over time will produce bad managers, the very thing you left to avoid. If you are a really good entrepreneur, you will of course have left and be on to the next startup before you see the true evidence of your folly.

... but you know that good managers are hard to come by. Especially because of the Dilbert Principle.

And, I quit my last job mainly because of poor management and a vulgar short-term profit oriented mentality.
Now I work in a flat team, in that there is no one manager, we all get to manage the team. This model does not work for everyone, but it does wonders when applied correctly.

Great post, but it hits a little too close to home right now! I'm not a genius, but the management at my company is definitely intellectually impaired right now. Hard to leave the relative safety of this mess when I look at the economy, but blog posts like this one are helping me get closer. Thanks!

"According to a news letter that my mom the teacher once got, the National Education Association's stated goal is "to produce a productive work force", "

Lol, I wish that it did that. If people received their education specifically from their employer, how much time would pass before big corporations that had tons of working students on their payroll demanded colleges come out with cheaper, simpler, more career specific degree plans? What we have now is a complete abomination. As time goes on, employers are starting to value experience more than college credits. Yes, you still need the degree to get in the door, but it's hard finding a job straight out of college and your real earning doesn't begin until 5 years or more in the workforce. The degree is quickly becoming the "See, I'm at leas competent enough to attend classes for four years" tag that gets you into club "chance to be successful." College itself is adding less and less value every year as it becomes more and more expensive. Even if you do get a degree in a major that does actually require you to learn something useful in college, odds are you'll still waste much of your life in classes added on purely to increase revenue per student for the colleges.

"I would argue that it is the job of the individual to make themselves the masters of their own destiny."

I never suggested that it wasn't. I was just saying that we pay colleges to provide us with a pretty specific service, that we don't seem to be receiving from it.

"As to "wasting" time learning Shakespeare and anatomy, I would encourage people to consider the educational systems of other nations that do not follow the western model of wide exposure. In Poland, the Ukraine, and Russia, I'm told, students all receive the same basic education until the ninth grade, at which point they decide if they want to have a professional career or a trade, and they pick and move into a stream. So if you know you want to be a lawyer, there is not point in sending to you machine shop. No point in teaching latin to greasemonkeys.

While on the surface this seems like a good idea, consider that one of the by products was creating a worker's paradise, aka a Communist state."

Here you are basically agreeing with me, but then you slip in the strange reference to communism. I would hardly call the school systems in those countries ideal, or describe them in the way that you have, though. I've known people who have gone through that school system, and I would say they learn as much unnecessary information as anybody.

"Shakespeare teaches you to try and understand things that are just beyond your grasp. To try and appreciate and comprehend the customs and ideas of another group that is not completely familiar to you. To think about things in something other than a linear way. This is infinately useful in a global world. "

That's not really a lesson so much as a platitude. I think that we all try to understand things that are just beyond our grasp already. I was familiar with the concept of comprehending the customs and ideas of another group that is not completely familiar to me by kindergarten. You learn more in the real world than you do in college (when it comes to the squishy stuff that everyone ironically argues is what college is for).

"Frankly, if you're only making $15,000 a year, you're likely living your parent's basement, mocking the griping of those that provide for you, so that you have time to waste complaining, and not be out on the streets looking for a higher paying job. I'm not sure any kind of an education is a benefit to someone with no ambition. "

Nope, been living on my own and going to school for years.

There is a cycle to these things. Group of engineers or other competent folk set up a company to do great things. Company does well. Company goes public. Company is bought out by larger corporation or in a leveraged buyout and big tax breaks are gained because there is lots of interest to be paid. Bright people are laid off. Some may start their own company, if they can get the money. What if the tax code favored this last par? What if it was more profitable for corporations to spinoff enterprises than to layoff workers? Seems to me that would drive innovation and boost employment.

I would argue that it is the job of the individual to make themselves the masters of their own destiny. Once you give up responsibility for your future you are asking someone else to choose it for you, which is basically Communism. It is the job/duty of an educating body to provide the individual with the information to pursue said destiny. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure they are receiving said information. Caveat emptor.

As to "wasting" time learning Shakespeare and anatomy, I would encourage people to consider the educational systems of other nations that do not follow the western model of wide exposure. In Poland, the Ukraine, and Russia, I'm told, students all receive the same basic education until the ninth grade, at which point they decide if they want to have a professional career or a trade, and they pick and move into a stream. So if you know you want to be a lawyer, there is not point in sending to you machine shop. No point in teaching latin to greasemonkeys.

While on the surface this seems like a good idea, consider that one of the by products was creating a worker's paradise, aka a Communist state.

Shakespeare teaches you to try and understand things that are just beyond your grasp. To try and appreciate and comprehend the customs and ideas of another group that is not completely familiar to you. To think about things in something other than a linear way. This is infinately useful in a global world.

As for anatomy, ask any new parent if they wish their child could tell them exactly what hurts.

Frankly, if you're only making $15,000 a year, you're likely living your parent's basement, mocking the griping of those that provide for you, so that you have time to waste complaining, and not be out on the streets looking for a higher paying job. I'm not sure any kind of an education is a benefit to someone with no ambition.

tkwelge said
"College's job is to take low level, unskilled workers and make them into masters of their own destiny."
According to a news letter that my mom the teacher once got, the National Education Association's stated goal is "to produce a productive work force", in otherwords, compliant drones. Following your muse is the last thing that national educators want you to do.

I think you are right, even though i work analog, not digital. That is, I'm a wood worker.. I had three companies fold over my head, bad management. First the boss says "Next year we will be Number One in the industry..."

I didn't take any resources from work, unless you count creative dumpster diving. But management is unbelievably lame in this country. The whole middle class is ossified. I make musical instruments and have created more new designs in my converted garage than the majors have since the Vietnam War. Pathetic.

And i have to undercut the Chinese on price. But it can be done. I had no government or financial aid, except unemployment from my last job. Went to try for a government grant, and they offered to help me spent six months "creating a business plan" I told them i had a plan, "Buy some wood, make guitars, put them on eBAy, sell them, buy more wood."

They looked at me like i was a three headed Martian hillbilly. So, i bought some wood...