 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> [Yes, that's a contradiction.]
>
> For that matter, the top-management plan is to increase profits by 20%.
> I have yet to hear anything about *how* this is supposed to happen.
> They've muttered something about "oh, uh, yeah, we're going to hire more
> sales staff". But so far, I've yet to see anybody hired.
>
> What I *have* seen is that virtually every week we have a new lab worker
> starting here. So we're hiring huge numbers of lab staff, but from what
> I hear, our lab is a bit quiet at the moment. And there's not much
> future work showing up on the horizon either.
>
>
> It's a mad, mad world...
>
I have learned that either you trust management to make the right
decisions or you leave.
That doesn't mean that you are happy with the decisions or understand
them throughly. If the manager took the time to get you to understand
everything in a decision and agree with the decision - you might as well
be the manager.
It is kinda like you taking care of the computer network. People will
always second guess you and think you should do something different, but
they don't have the same perspective that you have.
I'm not excusing management behavior - there are plenty of jerks out
there - I know a few.
Just some fish food.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It is kinda like you taking care of the computer network. People will
> always second guess you and think you should do something different, but
> they don't have the same perspective that you have.
Most annoying when those "people" have superior rank to me and can
overrule my decisions... :-/
> Just some fish food.
Yeah.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> It is kinda like you taking care of the computer network. People will
>> always second guess you and think you should do something different,
>> but they don't have the same perspective that you have.
>
> Most annoying when those "people" have superior rank to me and can
> overrule my decisions... :-/
If they don't trust you to do your job, then maybe you need a new job.
Weren't you sending resumes out a while ago? What happened with those?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If they don't trust you to do your job, then maybe you need a new job.
Maybe?
I think this one has already been proved multiple times over beyond any
semblence of doubt. ;-)
> Weren't you sending resumes out a while ago? What happened with those?
Once or twice a week, some random agency would send me an email, I call
them, they tell me about some job I'm not really interested in, they
promise to let me know what happens with it, they never contact me ever
again. After a while, I stopped getting emails. (Although I keep getting
repeated auto-generated messages telling me to go work for HMGCC.)
I did go to one interview. The agency told me they wanted a programmer,
but what the company actually wanted was a customer support advisor.
Needless to say, that's not something I ever want to do. Company was
astounded that I managed to write half a dozen trivial SQL statements,
and the interviewer appeared to be trying to invent a job on the spot so
he could hire me. Not sure I liked the look of the company, frankly, but
they seemed quite keen to employ me - although in the end no job was
actually offered.
I have since spoken to that particular agency on numerous occasions.
They keep promising to send me to more interviews, but nothing has ever
happened.
At this point, I have completely run out of ideas. I've paid for the
services of a professional careers advice consultant - we'll see if
anything useful comes of that.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think both figures are useful - year over year (or quarter over
> quarter) is something that "the street" looks at and affects stock
> price.
Exploiting "noise" in the profit signal to try and make money is fine,
but...
> It's the beginning of building a trend -
...how can you use just one or two points of data to decide that a *trend*
is starting?
> and if the analysts use
> it as one indicator of a company's direction (from a profit standpoint),
> it makes sense to be aware of it and know where you're going.
I don't think any real analysts look at solely the headline numbers to
decide what to do. They will look at the detailed result history to
determine if the trend is changing, they can't do that with just one or two
numbers.
For example, suppose your monthly profit fell from 104 last month to 90 this
month. Some people then go off on one based *solely* on these figures, they
send out emails to staff saying that profits have dropped by 13% and it's
been the biggest drop for over a year blah blah blah", they try to "correct"
whatever they think has gone wrong this month etc.
Then next month the profit is 107, they feel all good about themselves and
maybe get a pat on the back from their boss if he is equally stupid.
But, take a look at the monthly profit figures running up to the 104,90,107
incident:
38,64,45,67,50,50,76,66,66,77,70,76,81,73,91,82,80,73,76,93
The clever person will notice that on average profits seem to rising at 5
per month, and try to find the reasons for why this is and how to go about
increasing it. The stupid person wastes effort on trying to explain and
correct the change every month.
It's not just profits, but plenty of other things (like production volumes)
that suffer from people trying to analyse the noise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> It is kinda like you taking care of the computer network. People will
>> always second guess you and think you should do something different,
>> but they don't have the same perspective that you have.
>
> Most annoying when those "people" have superior rank to me and can
> overrule my decisions... :-/
>
But again, you don't know what all they need to consider when making
decisions.
What you might think as small and inconsequential can have repercussions
that a good manager needs to take care of. Sometimes the manager cannot
discuss them due to confidentiality issues or the like.
That said, I am not defending poor management.
I've worked with plenty of jerks.
All they cared about was how big their head was.
If I didn't implement exactly what *they* thought I should, it was wrong
and I killed the cat.
Don't work under someone like that.
Just remember this...
Think about how annoying it is to have co-workers second guess your
decisions (I'm not talking about management here).
I bet you appreciate feedback when you miss something. You actually
want that type of feedback - it helped you do a better job.
But those who disagree and grumble with your decisions are just annoying
and it hurts your relationship with them - both professionally and
personally - which hurts the company.
Now, how do you think a manager feels when you grumble about their
decisions.
Sometimes management makes a poor decision as a mistake - you do as
well. But it does not make you incompetent.
Later... Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> But again, you don't know what all they need to consider when making
> decisions.
>
> What you might think as small and inconsequential can have repercussions
> that a good manager needs to take care of. Sometimes the manager cannot
> discuss them due to confidentiality issues or the like.
It just annoys me when some manager says "we should do X". And I
carefully explain "X is a bad idea because of A, B, C, D, E and F". And
the manager says "...yeah, well, I don't think those are problems". I
mean, WTF can you say to that??
> That said, I am not defending poor management.
> Don't work under someone like that.
Heh. If only I had a choice... ;-)
> Now, how do you think a manager feels when you grumble about their
> decisions.
Poor decisions are one thing. When you carefully explain why a dicision
is bad, and you get a reply that says no it isn't - no explaination,
just "I think you're wrong" - it's rather irritating.
Or when I say "I need to do X", and they say "nah, I don't think that's
necessary". Er, well actually, yes it is. But hey, they're not the ones
who are going to get screamed at when the auditors can. I am.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Poor decisions are one thing. When you carefully explain why a dicision
> is bad, and you get a reply that says no it isn't - no explaination,
> just "I think you're wrong" - it's rather irritating.
You can always ask for an explanation. "Please teach me where in my
chain of reasoning I made a mistake? Is B really not a problem? It
sounds like C will lose us customers; how do we avoid that?" Things like
that. He might just not want to take time to explain it, so ask him for
the time. (Or, as has been said, he might just have his head up his butt.)
> Or when I say "I need to do X", and they say "nah, I don't think that's
> necessary". Er, well actually, yes it is. But hey, they're not the ones
> who are going to get screamed at when the auditors can. I am.
Again, "isn't that part of the legal requirements outlined in section
XYZ of the how-to-make-auditors-like-you manual?"
I mean, I'm sure you ask these questions, but in my experience,
persistence helps. Half the time the manager is being a dork, it's
because he isn't actually thinking about the problem, and making a
decision based on an off-the-cuff analysis.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:29:00 +0200, scott wrote:
>> I think both figures are useful - year over year (or quarter over
>> quarter) is something that "the street" looks at and affects stock
>> price.
>
> Exploiting "noise" in the profit signal to try and make money is fine,
> but...
>
>> It's the beginning of building a trend -
>
> ...how can you use just one or two points of data to decide that a
> *trend* is starting?
It's two points of data in an overall view of what the company does.
Only those two points of data isn't enough, you have to look at the
policies the company has implemented as well.
>> and if the analysts use
>> it as one indicator of a company's direction (from a profit
>> standpoint), it makes sense to be aware of it and know where you're
>> going.
>
> I don't think any real analysts look at solely the headline numbers to
> decide what to do. They will look at the detailed result history to
> determine if the trend is changing, they can't do that with just one or
> two numbers.
Like I said, it's an indicator. There is more analysis that's done, of
course, when you talk about Wall Street analysts. But an improvement in
year-over-year (or quarter-over-quarter) is an indicator that something
good happened in the quarter or year. Then look at the trend over 5
years - 5 points or 20 points, take your pick - and that *is* a trend.
Another indicator is the difference between looking at GAAP vs. non-GAAP
numbers. non-GAAP is generally a better indicator (as I understand it)
because it reflects ordinary business and not extraordinary expenses for
reorganizations or other (hopefully) one-time expenses. So while a
company may show a loss from one quarter to the next, if you look at the
non-GAAP financials, you might see a trend of increased sales. That's a
good thing, regardless of the GAAP numbers which might include costs for
litigation, acquisitions, and the like.
> For example, suppose your monthly profit fell from 104 last month to 90
> this month. Some people then go off on one based *solely* on these
> figures, they send out emails to staff saying that profits have dropped
> by 13% and it's been the biggest drop for over a year blah blah blah",
> they try to "correct" whatever they think has gone wrong this month etc.
>
> Then next month the profit is 107, they feel all good about themselves
> and maybe get a pat on the back from their boss if he is equally stupid.
Monthly is too frequently, I think you'd find most analysts would agree
with that. Quarterly or annually are the numbers that I typically see
used.
> But, take a look at the monthly profit figures running up to the
> 104,90,107 incident:
>
> 38,64,45,67,50,50,76,66,66,77,70,76,81,73,91,82,80,73,76,93
>
> The clever person will notice that on average profits seem to rising at
> 5 per month, and try to find the reasons for why this is and how to go
> about increasing it. The stupid person wastes effort on trying to
> explain and correct the change every month.
>
> It's not just profits, but plenty of other things (like production
> volumes) that suffer from people trying to analyse the noise.
It largely depends on what you're trying to get out of the numbers. But
again, a monthly period is too short because of those variations. I
wouldn't decide a company was doing good because they had more sales on
July 3 than July 2. But I might decide a company was a good investment
if I saw their revenues increased in FY08 over FY07. Especially if the
FY07 revenues (or more appropriately, the non-GAAP profits) were over the
FY06 profits.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:15:35 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> After a while, I stopped getting emails.
Don't wait, contact them back periodically (not daily, but every couple
of weeks to month) and just "check in" and see if anything new has turned
up. Persistence pays off - if you don't keep in touch with them, they'll
assume you're not looking.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
