trunk/c_bma0/c_bma0.tex

%$Header$

\chapter{\cbmazerolongtitle{}}

\label{cbma0}

\beginchapterquote{``Being responsible sometimes means pissing people
                     off.  Good leadership involves responsibility to the
                                         welfare of the group, which means that some people
                                         will get angry at your actions and decisons.
                                         It's inevitable, if you're honorable.  Trying to get
                                         everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity:
                                         you'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting
                                         the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid
                                         offering differential rewards based on differential
                                         performance because some people might get upset.
                                         Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices,
                                         by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone
                                         equally `nicely' regardless of their contributions,
                                         you'll simply ensure that the only people you'll wind
                                         up angering are the most creative and productive
                                         people in the 
                                         \index{Powell, Colin}organization.''\footnote{General Powell's
                                         presentation (\cite{bibref:d:powellleadershipprimer})
                                         is an absolute goldmine of tremendous quotes.  There were
                                         many equally striking contenders for this spot (the opening quote
                                         of the chapter about bad management).}}{General Colin Powell (Retired)
                                         \cite{bibref:d:powellleadershipprimer}}

\section{Introduction}
%Section Tag: INT
With the comic strip
\index{Dilbert@\emph{Dilbert}}\emph{Dilbert}, 
and several books, \index{Adams, Scott}Scott Adams made his fortune
anecdotally characterizing bad management.  Certainly, in any
country, \index{bad management}bad management 
is an abundant natural resource
and a shortage of bad management is not
on the horizon.

We are less concerned with the humorous aspects of
bad management and more concerned with the practical 
aspects.  In this chapter, we offer opinion on the
following topics:

\begin{itemize}
\item What \emph{is} bad management (i.e. what do we mean by
      \emph{bad management}
          and what characterizes bad management)?

\item What do bad managers do?

\item Which employees are most sensitive to bad management?

\item In practical situations, how should one deal with bad
      management?

\item What are the best strategies for escaping unrewarding
      work situations?
\end{itemize}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Characteristics Of Bad Management}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{How To Detect Bad Management During The Interview Process}

The interview process is naturally an opportunity for a prospective
employer to form impressions of a prospective employee; but it is
also an opportunity for the prospective employee to form impressions
of the prospective employer.  In this section, we supply some suggestions
about what to look for during an interview.

\subsection{The Automobile Taillight Analogy}

One of us (\index{Ashley, David T.}Dave Ashley, \cite{bibref:i:daveashley})
has an acquaintance who has described his method of evaluating
a used car (for purchase) as checking every electric light in the
vehicle to be sure that it works.  The stated rationale is that if
all of the light bulbs in the vehicle are maintained, the probability
is high that other [major] vehicle maintenance has also been performed.
Similar reasoning \emph{may} (or may not!) apply to evaluating
a work environment.

Stated more formally, it may be advantageous to find easily observable
indicators which correlate well with the quality of the work environment
at a company.

We are not sure precisely what indicators should be used,\footnote{We welcome
suggestions here \ldots please e-mail us \ldots{}} but the two 
strongest indicators that immediately come to mind are coding standards
and lessons learned.

\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Coding Standards.}  
      During the interview process, it may be a good idea to inquire about
          what coding standards are in place within the organization, to 
          ask to examine the standards, and also to inquire how the coding
          standards are enforced (in some cases, tools such as QAC or
          PC-LINT may automate this
          process).  The rationale for inquiring about coding standards
          is that maintaining order in the primary workproduct of
          software development---the code---is a fundamental goal.
          An organization that has no coding standards in place probably
          has other serious problems.
\item \textbf{Collection Of Lessons Learned.}
      In any organization that produces embedded products, product failures
          of one kind or another have probably occured.  These may be cases
          where a software defect has made its way into production, or even
          software product build process failures where a software defect
          was due to the build process or where a software load was not
          reproducible from version control archives.  A mature organization
          would document and collect these failures, in order to feed them
          back into the training (so that software developers don't make a
          similar mistake again), into the process (if any changes in the process
          would decisively prevent recurrence), and the tools (if the defect
          is automatically detectable).  During the interview process, 
          it may be prudent to inquire if product problems are documented
          and fed back to prevent recurrence, and to inspect documentation
          of past product problems.  An organization that does not collect
          product problems and try to prevent recurrence may have other
          serious problems.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{The \emph{What You See Is What You Get} Rule}

During the interview process, any prospective employer will have a tendency
to misrepresent chronic problems as acute problems.  As a general rule,
\textbf{problems of any type observed during the interview process are
\emph{chronic} in nature, no matter what claims are made by the employer.}

An analogy involving overweight people may help to explain this point.\footnote{We
mean no disrespect or insensitivity towards people struggling to maintain a
healthy weight.  However, the analogy is rather good, and for this reason
we would like to use it.}  It is very common to meet an overweight person
who describes themselves as ``trying to lose weight'', i.e. being actively
on a diet.  However, a study of overweight people who are ``trying to 
lose weight'' would probably reveal that nearly all of them are struggling
with a chronic problem---nearly all were probably overweight five years
in the past and will be overweight five years in the future.  For this reason,
when one meets an overweight person, it is a safe guess statistically that
the condition is chronic.

Organizations are very similar to individuals in that patterns of behavior
are slow to change.  Diets do not usually work.  Individuals find ways---even
while on a diet---to consume ice cream and hamburgers.  Organizations are
similar in that self-reform measures rarely succeed.  Organizations, like
individuals, find ways to sabotage their own stated objectives.

For this reason, any anomalies observed during the interview process are
almost certainly chronic rather than acute; no matter what claims
are made by interviewers.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{The Employment ``Dating Game''}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Authors And Acknowledgements}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\noindent\begin{figure}[!b]
\noindent\rule[-0.25in]{\textwidth}{1pt}
\begin{tiny}
\begin{verbatim}
$HeadURL$
$Revision$
$Date$
$Author$
\end{verbatim}
\end{tiny}
\noindent\rule[0.25in]{\textwidth}{1pt}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%End of file C_BMA0.TEX
1	%$Header$
2
3	\chapter{\cbmazerolongtitle{}}
4
5	\label{cbma0}
6
7	\beginchapterquote{``Being responsible sometimes means pissing people
8	off. Good leadership involves responsibility to the
9	welfare of the group, which means that some people
10	will get angry at your actions and decisons.
11	It's inevitable, if you're honorable. Trying to get
12	everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity:
13	you'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting
14	the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid
15	offering differential rewards based on differential
16	performance because some people might get upset.
17	Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices,
18	by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone
19	equally `nicely' regardless of their contributions,
20	you'll simply ensure that the only people you'll wind
21	up angering are the most creative and productive
22	people in the
23	\index{Powell, Colin}organization.''\footnote{General Powell's
24	presentation (\cite{bibref:d:powellleadershipprimer})
25	is an absolute goldmine of tremendous quotes. There were
26	many equally striking contenders for this spot (the opening quote
27	of the chapter about bad management).}}{General Colin Powell (Retired)
28	\cite{bibref:d:powellleadershipprimer}}
29
30	\section{Introduction}
31	%Section Tag: INT
32	With the comic strip
33	\index{Dilbert@\emph{Dilbert}}\emph{Dilbert},
34	and several books, \index{Adams, Scott}Scott Adams made his fortune
35	anecdotally characterizing bad management. Certainly, in any
36	country, \index{bad management}bad management
37	is an abundant natural resource
38	and a shortage of bad management is not
39	on the horizon.
40
41	We are less concerned with the humorous aspects of
42	bad management and more concerned with the practical
43	aspects. In this chapter, we offer opinion on the
44	following topics:
45
46	\begin{itemize}
47	\item What \emph{is} bad management (i.e. what do we mean by
48	\emph{bad management}
49	and what characterizes bad management)?
50
51	\item What do bad managers do?
52
53	\item Which employees are most sensitive to bad management?
54
55	\item In practical situations, how should one deal with bad
56	management?
57
58	\item What are the best strategies for escaping unrewarding
59	work situations?
60	\end{itemize}
61
62	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63
64	\section{Characteristics Of Bad Management}
65
66
67
68
69	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70
71	\section{How To Detect Bad Management During The Interview Process}
72
73	The interview process is naturally an opportunity for a prospective
74	employer to form impressions of a prospective employee; but it is
75	also an opportunity for the prospective employee to form impressions
76	of the prospective employer. In this section, we supply some suggestions
77	about what to look for during an interview.
78
79	\subsection{The Automobile Taillight Analogy}
80
81	One of us (\index{Ashley, David T.}Dave Ashley, \cite{bibref:i:daveashley})
82	has an acquaintance who has described his method of evaluating
83	a used car (for purchase) as checking every electric light in the
84	vehicle to be sure that it works. The stated rationale is that if
85	all of the light bulbs in the vehicle are maintained, the probability
86	is high that other [major] vehicle maintenance has also been performed.
87	Similar reasoning \emph{may} (or may not!) apply to evaluating
88	a work environment.
89
90	Stated more formally, it may be advantageous to find easily observable
91	indicators which correlate well with the quality of the work environment
92	at a company.
93
94	We are not sure precisely what indicators should be used,\footnote{We welcome
95	suggestions here \ldots please e-mail us \ldots{}} but the two
96	strongest indicators that immediately come to mind are coding standards
97	and lessons learned.
98
99	\begin{itemize}
100	\item \textbf{Coding Standards.}
101	During the interview process, it may be a good idea to inquire about
102	what coding standards are in place within the organization, to
103	ask to examine the standards, and also to inquire how the coding
104	standards are enforced (in some cases, tools such as QAC or
105	PC-LINT may automate this
106	process). The rationale for inquiring about coding standards
107	is that maintaining order in the primary workproduct of
108	software development---the code---is a fundamental goal.
109	An organization that has no coding standards in place probably
110	has other serious problems.
111	\item \textbf{Collection Of Lessons Learned.}
112	In any organization that produces embedded products, product failures
113	of one kind or another have probably occured. These may be cases
114	where a software defect has made its way into production, or even
115	software product build process failures where a software defect
116	was due to the build process or where a software load was not
117	reproducible from version control archives. A mature organization
118	would document and collect these failures, in order to feed them
119	back into the training (so that software developers don't make a
120	similar mistake again), into the process (if any changes in the process
121	would decisively prevent recurrence), and the tools (if the defect
122	is automatically detectable). During the interview process,
123	it may be prudent to inquire if product problems are documented
124	and fed back to prevent recurrence, and to inspect documentation
125	of past product problems. An organization that does not collect
126	product problems and try to prevent recurrence may have other
127	serious problems.
128	\end{itemize}
129
130	\subsection{The \emph{What You See Is What You Get} Rule}
131
132	During the interview process, any prospective employer will have a tendency
133	to misrepresent chronic problems as acute problems. As a general rule,
134	\textbf{problems of any type observed during the interview process are
135	\emph{chronic} in nature, no matter what claims are made by the employer.}
136
137	An analogy involving overweight people may help to explain this point.\footnote{We
138	mean no disrespect or insensitivity towards people struggling to maintain a
139	healthy weight. However, the analogy is rather good, and for this reason
140	we would like to use it.} It is very common to meet an overweight person
141	who describes themselves as ``trying to lose weight'', i.e. being actively
142	on a diet. However, a study of overweight people who are ``trying to
143	lose weight'' would probably reveal that nearly all of them are struggling
144	with a chronic problem---nearly all were probably overweight five years
145	in the past and will be overweight five years in the future. For this reason,
146	when one meets an overweight person, it is a safe guess statistically that
147	the condition is chronic.
148
149	Organizations are very similar to individuals in that patterns of behavior
150	are slow to change. Diets do not usually work. Individuals find ways---even
151	while on a diet---to consume ice cream and hamburgers. Organizations are
152	similar in that self-reform measures rarely succeed. Organizations, like
153	individuals, find ways to sabotage their own stated objectives.
154
155	For this reason, any anomalies observed during the interview process are
156	almost certainly chronic rather than acute; no matter what claims
157	are made by interviewers.
158
159
160	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161
162	\section{The Employment ``Dating Game''}
163
164
165
166	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167
168	\section{Authors And Acknowledgements}
169
170
171	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172
173
174	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
175
176
177	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178
179
180	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181
182
183	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
184
185
186	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187
188	\noindent\begin{figure}[!b]
189	\noindent\rule[-0.25in]{\textwidth}{1pt}
190	\begin{tiny}
191	\begin{verbatim}
192	$HeadURL$
193	$Revision$
194	$Date$
195	$Author$
196	\end{verbatim}
197	\end{tiny}
198	\noindent\rule[0.25in]{\textwidth}{1pt}
199	\end{figure}
200
201	%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
202	%
203	%End of file C_BMA0.TEX
Name	Value
svn:eol-style	native
svn:keywords	Author Date Id Revision URL Header