Allow me to set the scene:

Under previous management, the UK site employed round about 30 people. 
Each year, we'd employ one, maybe two new people, and possibly as many 
as two people would leave.

However, with the UK now being run by Fathead, things are a little 
different. This year alone, we've had 5 new people hired, and 3 people 
leave. And we're only in Feb!

The process seems to be accelerating too.

Now, I can't find the message, but I'm *certain* I mentioned here the 
saga of our newest recruit. Basically the story goes like this: One of 
our guys is retiring. His job function is critically important. So, 
Fathead set about recruiting his replacement. Nothing strange there.

So, Fathead spent money advertising a post. He spent time interviewing 
candidates. And he told one of them, in writing, "hey, you got the job". 
Our staff spent 3 days training this guy. And then, on the 3rd day, 
Fathead strolls into the office where some staff are talking to the new 
guy, and he says "oh, by the way, I'm terribly sorry about this, but we 
aren't going to employ you". Five minutes later, he'd left the building. 
WTF?

Apparently it has been decided at top-level that we're on a hiring 
freeze. Anybody who leaves the company will not be replaced. No matter 
how important their job is. (Gee, that's a viable plan then.) And 
apparently Fathead only found this out when he tried to set up the new 
recruit's payroll details. The CFO summarily told Fathead we can't 
employ this guy. End of discussion.

All of which is pretty absurd, I'm sure you'll agree. But wait...

Chapter two emerged yesterday. Apparently our second receptionist... no 
longer works for us. Just like that. And Fathead was over in the USA 
last week, and he jumped up and down and stamped his feet, and they're 
now letting us replace the guy who's retiring. (Given how critical his 
role is.)

...and The *Real* WTF is... the guy who we just let go still wants the 
job! o_O So he's back again.

This is just getting absurd. It seems like every week we have a meeting 
and discover that some random member of staff no longer works for us. No 
warning or anything. They go home one day, and just never come back 
again the next day. And one day you find some random people milling 
around, and somebody asks me if he has a user account yet. (Presumably 
with the hiring freeze at least *that* won't happen any more...)

This is ridiculous. This is no way to run a company...

Post a reply to this message

Been there. Seen it.

Well, not to *such* an extreme (after all, in Germany it's not *that* easy to
fire someone), but this type of "business" thinking has been around wherever I
worked since I got my first job, so I have come to consider it perfectly
normal.

Management people seem to excel these days at saving money on the wrong things.

I bet many of those famous "synergy effects" of company mergers are more than
offset by the loss of productivity during the transitioning period. Especially
when those transitioning periods become the standard, only occasionally
interrupted by unexpected times of stable working conditions, decision
hierarchies, IT infrastructures etc.

I guess many times companies "set people free", the gain (by not having to pay
so many people) is at least partially offset by the wrong people (from the
company's point of view) leaving.

Free coffee or other beverages at the company's expense are discontinued to cut
costs, forgetting that these small things make a difference as to whether
people like working for a company or don't, which in turn impacts productivity.

Important equipment for automated testing isn't acquired because it is "too
expensive", forgetting that this automated testing system may be able to
perform more tests more reliably over the weekend than a student may be able to
do in a whole month.

New people aren't hired because they'd be too expensive. Instead, whole projects
are put at high risk. The people working on those projects suffer constant
pressure as they're always behind schedule, people are on sick leave more
frequently and longer (for plain medical reasons - being stressed out simply
doesn't help you recover from or even fight a sickness), endangering the
project schedule even more.

Projects are outsorced to India, only to find that (a) what you pay for is what
you get, and (b) communication is an integral part of every software
development process, and isn't made easier by splitting up the work across
continents, language barriers and/or timezones.

I guess I could go on for days about such examples of management stupidity.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Been there. Seen it.
> 
> Management people seem to excel these days at saving money on the wrong things.
> 
> I guess I could go on for days about such examples of management stupidity.

Depressing, much?

You would think that spending a small amount of money on something now 
that will enable you to save a very large amount of money later would be 
the kind of thing management would jump at.... Apparently not.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Depressing, much?

As I've never really seen anything different - no, not really. Seems to me like
it's commonplace, yet the world still keeps on turning.

> You would think that spending a small amount of money on something now
> that will enable you to save a very large amount of money later would be
> the kind of thing management would jump at.... Apparently not.

I think that the way the global economical system work nowadays (someone say
"shareholder value") doesn't encourage long-term thinking.

Sometimes I think if it was outlawed for companies to be owned by other
companies, and instead being mandatory for company owners to be natural
persons, the world might be a better place. I still have hope that real people
would be better at long-term thinking than companies (owned by companies owned
by companies owned by companies) could ever be.

There are too few people involved in decision-making, and too many automatic
mechanisms of a global system.

(BTW, ever heard of the "Long Now Foundation"? Very interesting.)

Post a reply to this message

>> You would think that spending a small amount of money on something now
>> that will enable you to save a very large amount of money later would be
>> the kind of thing management would jump at.... Apparently not.
> 
> I think that the way the global economical system work nowadays (someone say
> "shareholder value") doesn't encourage long-term thinking.

Indeed, when our hard-hitting new interrim CEO joined the company, his 
goal was not "increase profits" or "reduce debts" - it was "increase our 
share price".

Uh, WTF?

As far as I'm aware, a company's share price is an arbitrary number 
decided by a bunch of people who know nothing about the company in 
question. In other words, it's not actually possible to control share 
prices; they just vary at random. In particular, a share price is in no 
way related to how well a company is or isn't doing.

Most specifically, raising your share price doesn't stop you from going 
into liquidation. :-P I would have thought keeping the company trading 
would be a far, *far* more important target than raising some arbitrary 
number that nobody actually cares about. But what do I know?

> Sometimes I think if it was outlawed for companies to be owned by other
> companies, and instead being mandatory for company owners to be natural
> persons, the world might be a better place. I still have hope that real people
> would be better at long-term thinking than companies (owned by companies owned
> by companies owned by companies) could ever be.

I very much doubt such a law would be enforcable. I mean, wasn't M$ 
ordered to "split up"? And how did that work? Yeah.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, a company's share price is an arbitrary number
> decided by a bunch of people who know nothing about the company in
> question. In other words, it's not actually possible to control share
> prices; they just vary at random. In particular, a share price is in no
> way related to how well a company is or isn't doing.

Well, to *some* degree it *is* related.

However, various other factors - lots of them psychological issues - seen to be
mixing in.

Overall, it seems to be mostly related to how well a company *seems* to be
doing.

Or, more specifically, how stock traders expect other stock traders to percieve
the company to be doing.

Or, well, maybe, how stock traders expect other stock traders to expect other
stock traders to... uh, well, I guess you get the point.

In the end, it's probably all about a company's well-doing, distorted - possibly
beyond recognition - by a freakin' feedback loop.

> Most specifically, raising your share price doesn't stop you from going
> into liquidation. :-P I would have thought keeping the company trading
> would be a far, *far* more important target than raising some arbitrary
> number that nobody actually cares about. But what do I know?

As long as the company's shares soar, there's always someone willing to buy the
whole smash if it goes into liquidation...

.... maybe that's what some people are actually speculating for.


We're no longer living in a capitalistic world - we're living in a
shareholderistic world, as it seems...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/25/2009 5:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Depressing, much?
>
> You would think that spending a small amount of money on something now
> that will enable you to save a very large amount of money later would be
> the kind of thing management would jump at.... Apparently not.

It depends on whether or not they have the money now.  A lot of 
businesses got on the habit of paying their operating expenses with 
lines of credit, and then paying those off when customers paid them. 
It's effective, but risky because you depend on that credit.

With the recent credit crunch, suddenly these businesses have no way of 
paying the bills.  You can argue all day long about how spending a 
little money now will save you a lot later, but what if you can't pay 
the salary of the people you already employ?

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Indeed, when our hard-hitting new interrim CEO joined the company, his 
> goal was not "increase profits" or "reduce debts" - it was "increase our 
> share price".
> 
> Uh, WTF?
> 

Officers are appointed by the board of directors for a company.  Board 
members are elected by the shareholders.

Guess what shareholders want....  usually an increase in share value, or 
dividends.

Those who are officers in a company are very close to the shareholders, 
and therefore that's their focus.



> As far as I'm aware, a company's share price is an arbitrary number 
> decided by a bunch of people who know nothing about the company in 
> question. In other words, it's not actually possible to control share 
> prices; they just vary at random. In particular, a share price is in no 
> way related to how well a company is or isn't doing.
> 

Yes, share prices can be misleading - it's mostly an indicator of how 
much people want the stock.  If it is in high demand - share prices tend 
to go up - if it is in low demand, share prices go down.  By making a 
company 'look' more desirable one can cause share prices to go up - but 
that all can be a sham - look at Enron, MCI Worldcom, etc....

> Most specifically, raising your share price doesn't stop you from going 
> into liquidation. :-P I would have thought keeping the company trading 
> would be a far, *far* more important target than raising some arbitrary 
> number that nobody actually cares about. But what do I know?
> 

No, it doesn't.  But it can make a company look more valuable, 
especially if another merger is possibly coming up.  The shareholders 
are the ones that usually win.  In the end the paid worker just gets a 
check - if they are lucky.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Guess what shareholders want....  usually an increase in share value, or 
> dividends.

Unfortunately, most companies big enough to be publicly traded and owned by 
mutual funds and other giant conglomerators cause all kinds of distortions.

> Those who are officers in a company are very close to the shareholders, 
> and therefore that's their focus.

If the main shareholders are mutual funds, then the company sucks up to 
what's good for the mutual fund, not what's good for the company.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

> Management people seem to excel these days at saving money on the wrong 
> things.

Couldn't agree more.

Post a reply to this message