__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 23 March 2006 08:04 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 23 March 2006 07:03 \__
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Linønut <linønut@xxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>>>>> Vis-a-vis Office, I have just read that the head of their Office
>>>>> division is moving. He is rumoured to be put in charge of Windows. What
>>>>> in rotten hell is going on there in Redmond? Jointly with last night's
>>>>> announcement on the delays, this reflects very badly on administrative,
>>>>> _as well as_ technical issues, which are kept hidden from public sight.
>>>>> Here'e the link:
>>>> What? Putting an apps guy in charge of systems software?
>>>> Something's rotten in Redmond.
>>> Does seem a strange thing to do, although it should be noted that the
>>> 90s MBA/HR thinking was that if you're senior enough, it doesn't matter
>>> too much what you're managing, as you don't need to know the details.
>>> Personally, having seen this approach in action, I know that what it
>>> results in is a huge growth in internal political wrangling, as once
>>> middle managers realise that senior managers are technically inept, they
>>> start spinning all kinds of tales (at least the politically motivated
>>> ones do), so that the real story, whilst in there, become
>>> from the tosh which flies around. A technically capable senior person
>>> would be able to spot which is the proper solution in a face-off, but
>>> a non-technically capable one simply hasn't got the toolbox to do this.
>>> What they do instead is try to determine which of the middle managers is
>>> most likely to be telling the truth - naturally, this tends to favour the
>>> skillful politician over the perhaps less slick but knowledgable
>>> engineer. Hmm, did I sound like I've lived this :-)?
>>> This is a real Dilbert moment...
>> That's just the way business works. I was astounded to see how ignorant,
>> both technology-wise and presentation skills-wise, a vice president at IBM
>> truly was. I went to his public lecture a few days ago. The level of
>> technicality was /so/ utterly poor. It would scare the socks out of you to
>> believe that the guy is heading strategy for such a large and influential
>> Again I say: that's the way business works, as flawed as it may be.
> Well, I'd say it's more the way that it currently floats along, waiting
> for someone better to pull the rug. It would be good to replace the
> incompetents with those who were competent, but I suspect that the
> number of people who are capable of understanding technical content,
> comprehending economics, understanding strategy, being reasonable people
> managers, and able to determine tactical objectives all whilst operating
> at a fairly senior level is probably quite limited - what frustrates me
> is the lack of effort to even find such people - I'm quite sure that
> they're there...
Until Google pull them...
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:10am up 15 days 0:47, 8 users, load average: 0.23, 0.60, 0.61
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms