> I'll just point out here that you are actually complaining > about people who complain. Why don't you shut up and do > something about it?
I do: I hire accordingly ;-)
> > There's always three at least three > > choices: Help make things better, leave, or shut up and > > deal with choosing the third option. > > How does one help make things better if management is > unwilling to listen? I'm not posing this as a rhetorical > question. Please enlighten me. Are you suggesting that > management doesn't have more power than the people being > managed?
How does one discover management is unwilling to listen? Must've tried option 1. I didn't say "There are always three choices that work." If, after my best efforts (modulo how badly I want to work for said whacked company) I keep hitting brick walls, then I have two choices.
I am not implying that there don't exist situations where change is nearly impossible. But what I am suggesting is that in those cases, leaving is a really good option. I spend way to much time at work to be miserable there. I want to love my job (which I do).
> I personally find no validity in the idea that complaining > has no value. Smart people listen to complaints and it > they are valid try to address them. If I write some code > and someone comes to me to point out something that I have > done that they don't like and why, I have some options. A > few of these are 1. Try to understand the complaint and > find a solution that addresses it. 2. Explain why the > complaint isn't valid. 3. Tell the complainant "stop > bitching and do something", "come up with a better > solution if you don't like it" or some other > passive-aggressive response. >
James, I think we are disconnecting on definitions. Your example above is great and that kind of 'complaining' is necessary for improvement. I am considering those to continually complain, never participate in solutions, treat management and others whose work they don't perceive as important, with disdain. I was relying on the previous postings to provide that context.
To your example, I think it is critical to have an environment where people feel safe to challenge the status quo - respectfully - whether it is a colleague's code, or a manager's decision.
> Personally I would go with 1 or 2. This is because I want > to produce the best solution I can and my ego isn't easily > bruised. People's complaints are helpful to me in > understanding the problem I am trying to solve while their > suggestions for resolutions are usually not helpful. > > Option 3 is the worst one. It solves nothing and creates > bad-blood.
I couldn't bear to choose option 3 but it seems better than complaining and not doing anything.
> If someone, let's say one of your employees is doing > something you don't like. How do you address it?
I speak with them. I just looked up the definition of "complain." I complain ;-) Like I said, I was assuming the context of the thread. Hopefully that clarifies things.
> > > > My feeling is "Stop bitching and do something!" > > > > > > Technically, bitching is 'doing something' but I'll > > agree > > > that it's often non-productive. On the other hand, > > this > > > is often a bullshit argument that people in positions > > of > > > power use when they don't want to consider ideas > > contrary > > > to what they believe. > > > > By bitching, I mean complaining. Saying things are bad > w/o > > proposing a solution is more than unproductive, it > > pollutes the well and it is irresponsible. > > I disagree. I've affected change with the help of > coworkers. What started the ball rolling was complaining > to each other. Just because someone doesn't have a > solution doesn't mean they haven't identified a real > problem. Most employees who complain to each other and > not their supervisors because they don't feel comfortable > doing so. They fear retribution. This may be imagined > but just assuming that it's not management's fault is a > cop-out.
See but you and your coworkers did do something. You did have a solution. I'm not saying, "You don't have the right to complain if you don't have an immediate solution to go with it."
I am talking about a pattern of behavior where there is gross dissatisfaction, verbal expression of such, and zero action. Over and over.
I don't know what the cop out statement means.
I know that for my sanity, I want to work at a company where there is a degree of safety. In the sense that I can safely express my concerns (complain), know they are heard, and get some degree of empowerment to do something about it.
> No. The point is that victims and victimization exist. > Saying someone has the 'victim mentality' suggests that > t feeling is not valid. If someone is actually being > victimized, they don't have victim mentality, they are a > victim. Would you claim that the people of Zimbabwe are > not being victimized by their dictator? If they just > stopped having a 'victim mentality' would everything be > better?
Not at all. I was referring to people who adopt the victim role as an excuse to not do anything. If they've tried to make things better and were metaphorically punched, then they ARE victims.
> I know it's hard to believe but this thread isn't about > you specifically.
> James, I think we are disconnecting on definitions. Your > example above is great and that kind of 'complaining' is > necessary for improvement. I am considering those to > continually complain, never participate in solutions, > treat management and others whose work they don't perceive > as important, with disdain. I was relying on the previous > postings to provide that context.
Well, I took your post as a response to mine which may have been a bad assumption. Unfortunately, unless I rename my response, I can't see which post you were responding to, unless I am missing something.
To give you some context to my tirade, I'm currently a transplant to a rust-belt city and here, jobs are not plentiful, although I do see opportunities improving, at least for me. Over the decades the people here have become so pessimistic about the job market they have become cowed. I have seen management (not at my current employer) use this fear to intimidate employees. One of the worst offenders use to say something along the lines of "I don't want to hear problems, I want solutions" when that manager unwillingness to listen to the advice of subordinates was a big cause of problems. I've also had people tell me similar things when I was offering solutions or when I did, they clearly didn't really want to hear what I had to offer. It was just a line to put me in my place.
So, your comment kind of pushed my buttons a little. You are probably a good manager and I'd probably like working for you. Lastly, I have a bad habit of letting sinus infections get the better of me, so sorry for getting all worked up.
> To give you some context to my tirade, I'm currently a > transplant to a rust-belt city and here, jobs are not > plentiful, although I do see opportunities improving, at > least for me. Over the decades the people here have > become so pessimistic about the job market they have > become cowed. I have seen management (not at my current > employer) use this fear to intimidate employees. One of > the worst offenders use to say something along the lines > of "I don't want to hear problems, I want solutions" when > that manager unwillingness to listen to the advice of > subordinates was a big cause of problems. I've also had > people tell me similar things when I was offering > solutions or when I did, they clearly didn't really want > to hear what I had to offer. It was just a line to put me > in my place. > > So, your comment kind of pushed my buttons a little.
I see know. Practically the same words!
> You > are probably a good manager and I'd probably like working > for you. Lastly, I have a bad habit of letting sinus > infections get the better of me, so sorry for getting all > worked up.
My allergies are making me cantankerous too. Cheers!
> The problem is that the users or the 'business' > doesn't want 80% (or whatever) of their problem > solved. They want 100% of their problem solved. > An often the parts of the solution that are > missing are the most important and the cost of > not having them far exceeds the cost of > implementing them. We should be trying to > optimize the 100% solution but we buy the X% > solution. We end up implementing the rest of the > solution anyway but at much greater cost because > we based our choice on a flawed premise.
It is not just ISVs who fall pray to this problem. It is also the customers evaluating ISVs. Often, customers are reluctant to enter into long-term contracts with ISVs who are willing to deliver a 100% solution. Instead, they pick the off-the-shelf up-front cost. So, they pay $100,000 up front for implementation instead of $40,000 a year for implementation, continuous maintenance and upgrades. They just don't see the immense value in highly customized software: it buys you greater accountability, two-way trust and loyalty, true capturing of business processes as they evolve, etc.
You can read about SaaS as a serve from CIO.com all you want. At the end of the day, some CIOs can't differentiate between off-the-shelf and SaaS. They just don't get it.
> > ...We should be trying to > > optimize the 100% solution but we buy the X% > > solution. We end up implementing the rest of the > > solution anyway but at much greater cost because > > we based our choice on a flawed premise. > > It is not just ISVs who fall pray to this problem. It is > also the customers evaluating ISVs.
Arguably, people get married on an 80% match, too.
I think it's a human thing. When is "it's close enough to what we need/want" really ENOUGH?
> When is "it's close enough to what we need/want" > really ENOUGH?
Customers usually figure out that they aimed too low in their requirements, and that is why they end up coming to an ISV who is willing to customize a system to fit their particular niche needs.
Arguably, people get married based on what they can tolerate, not what they enjoy about one another. There is a phenomenal "Short" movie about this that is absolutely hilarious: Full Disclosure. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477656/ Tagline says it all: "Wouldn't you rather find out now?" Plot synposis: "Everett reveals every terrible habit, attitude, and hang-up on the first date. Shockingly, women don't react as he'd hoped...until he meets Brinn, who's willing to play his game and try for Full Disclosure."
Flat View: This topic has 20 replies
on 2 pages
[
«
|
12
]
Previous Topic
