"The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors" • Hacker News Board

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#111

Post by elptacek » Sun, Aug 05, 2012, 6:29 PM UTC

In a somewhat related adventure, I am scheduled to give a talk soon (hopefully the same talk twice) about managing a security assessment project. I am hearing about this same sort of beheading happening in the infosec departments from various clients. The impact on me, personally, is that my client contacts are stretched so thin that they don't have cycles to prepare and make the best use of my time. I'm planning to have handouts with checklists. So this topic has been very much on my mind, lately.

One of the things I've learned from Tom is to keep track of how I spend my time. It is tedious and frustrating, but not unlike dieting: without data, you just have no proof. If I had found myself in the situation that the OP describes, my first reaction would have been to keep a running log of every task I had done, including start/stop time and a description of the work done. I've written scripts to do this in the past that generate PDF timesheets -- you could probably use Trac somehow. I'd keep this stuff on a device I owned, and bring the logs to my reviews. Yes, this adds to the stress. Yes, you'll get criticized for it. But when someone who has no clue why the carpets are always clean starts swinging that axe, you'll be wearing armor.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#112

Post by DavidAdams » Sun, Aug 05, 2012, 7:39 PM UTC

Foy wrote: post #7

michaelochurch wrote: post #2

Executives are day traders. I've known day traders to argue that they make more money trading in the first and last 30 minutes of the day than they do if they're trading all day, because they end up getting involved in "boredom trading" that is break-even at best (and blows out their variance) and quite possibly losing. As for executives, they're disciplined, they can enjoy their easy jobs and high compensation and a…

I hear nightmarish stories of micro-managers all the time. They feel that in order to do their jobs they have to tweak EVERYTHING that crosses their desk. One memorable anecdote I came across was about an animation artist who was in charge of animating the queen for a 3d chess game. Because he knew his manager's weakness he threw in a duck... Yes, a duck. Fully animated with sound effects and everything. Sure enough,…

A friend of mine who buys and restores old houses deals with a similar issue. Buyers hire inspectors when they want to buy a house, who are supposed to alert them to major liabilities that might be lurking. But those inspectors aren't well trained and also have a need to appear to be "useful" to the people who pay them, so if you're selling a house that doesn't have any obvious flaws, such as a broken furnace or crumbling foundation, then they will entertain themselves by pointing out trivial items that dont' really affect the house's suitability, but can often scare buyers away or cause headaches for the seller. (For example, cracks in the foundation of an 80 year old house that likely appeared within months of the house being built and haven't budged since.)

To counter this, my friend purposely leaves 3-4 fixes that he intended to complete all along un-done for the inspector to notice and fixate on. Then the inspector gets to look useful, the buyer gets a good house, and everyone's happy.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#113

Post by geon » Sun, Aug 05, 2012, 8:29 PM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #42

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #26

In this case, the downside to saving money by laying off expensive experience is clear. Unfortunately, the downsides are rarely clear before the upsides, and by the time the mistake is obvious, returning to the previous state is difficult, and an incentive has been created for short term savings at the expense of long term ones. By way of example, several years ago I sold tools at Sears. Sears had spent decades build…

"but the fact that it takes years for the effect of reduced quality to become obvious: in the short term, consumer confidence in the brand is still high," The only thing I'd point out is that the two are related. Sears had this policy for a very long time and so it slowly becomes an established fact. That's why you can make the cost savings change and show new profits for a quarter, 2 quarters, maybe even a year or t…

I'm asuming there would be an entire board of directors or some such who were aware of this decision. They can't all be so naive that they dont realize the danger of undermining their brand reputation.

They must have made an informed decision.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#114

Post by georgemcbay » Sun, Aug 05, 2012, 8:50 PM UTC

vl wrote: post #109

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #26

In this case, the downside to saving money by laying off expensive experience is clear. Unfortunately, the downsides are rarely clear before the upsides, and by the time the mistake is obvious, returning to the previous state is difficult, and an incentive has been created for short term savings at the expense of long term ones. By way of example, several years ago I sold tools at Sears. Sears had spent decades build…

Ah, I was buying my tools at Home Depot and Lowe's (how the heck it's supposed to be pronounced?) and was thinking that may be I should now shop at Sears since I can afford it. But looks like may be it's not a good idea anymore. >For instance, I've heard it suggested that companies use long-term equity, say 15 years out. Not going to work, they will just trade whatever they got on some secondary market.

"(how the heck it's supposed to be pronounced?)"

Ignore the e and pronounce it "lows" as in "highs and lows".

Source: Lowe's radio commercials I've heard.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#115

Post by niels_olson » Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 12:17 AM UTC

geon wrote: post #113

jusben1369 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but the fact that it takes years for the effect of reduced quality to become obvious: in the short term, consumer confidence in the brand is still high," The only thing I'd point out is that the two are related. Sears had this policy for a very long time and so it slowly becomes an established fact. That's why you can make the cost savings change and show new profits for a quarter, 2 quarters, maybe even a year or t…

I'm asuming there would be an entire board of directors or some such who were aware of this decision. They can't all be so naive that they dont realize the danger of undermining their brand reputation. They must have made an informed decision.

sure, but what were their individual motives? If the CFO had a plan to migrate to SomeOtherCo(R) in two years if he did well enough at Sears, then maybe that was his horizon...

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#116

Post by NinetyNine » Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 6:05 AM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #76

NinetyNine wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure how you're implementing scrum. Our scrum standups are always just the programmers, once a day in the mornings, and are used to keep all the programmers on the same page and talk to each other to find out if features might have a codependency, or if other blockers can be solved by something else another dev is working on. There's no "watching" of people or "intimidation". You might want to speak to…

Yeah, but next you'll tell us at your standups you actually stood up. No one gave me an answer when I asked why they called our meeting standup meetings.

In my current project we do actually stand up, although only due to the pleasure of the team leader. The main reason it's called a "stand up" is to serve as a reminder that it should be very short, 5 minutes max, or otherwise the time most people would feel comfortable standing for a meeting.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#117

Post by darkarmani » Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 6:22 PM UTC

NinetyNine wrote: post #116

darkarmani wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but next you'll tell us at your standups you actually stood up. No one gave me an answer when I asked why they called our meeting standup meetings.

In my current project we do actually stand up, although only due to the pleasure of the team leader. The main reason it's called a "stand up" is to serve as a reminder that it should be very short, 5 minutes max, or otherwise the time most people would feel comfortable standing for a meeting.

Yeah, thanks for the answer. I was being facetious, because our micromanager would divert the meetings to be daily 25 minute meetings! Daily.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#118

Post by hga » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

geon wrote: post #113

jusben1369 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but the fact that it takes years for the effect of reduced quality to become obvious: in the short term, consumer confidence in the brand is still high," The only thing I'd point out is that the two are related. Sears had this policy for a very long time and so it slowly becomes an established fact. That's why you can make the cost savings change and show new profits for a quarter, 2 quarters, maybe even a year or t…

I'm asuming there would be an entire board of directors or some such who were aware of this decision. They can't all be so naive that they dont realize the danger of undermining their brand reputation. They must have made an informed decision.

The board should have been informed, but I see no compelling reason to assume they were.

Re: "The carpets are so clean, we don't need janitors"

#119

Post by omnifarious » Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 6:16 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #15

Foy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear nightmarish stories of micro-managers all the time. They feel that in order to do their jobs they have to tweak EVERYTHING that crosses their desk. One memorable anecdote I came across was about an animation artist who was in charge of animating the queen for a 3d chess game. Because he knew his manager's weakness he threw in a duck... Yes, a duck. Fully animated with sound effects and everything. Sure enough,…

I had a micromanager who hit everyone with 3 to 4 status pings per day. Even on work-from-home days, which defeats the point. His status pinging was a compulsion like email checking, but it eventually caused the team to fail. Consequently, I hate status meetings and standups and the various so-called Scr(ot)um tactics used to make people feel watched. I realize they're probably necessary as an occasional annoyance, b…

We have a daily meeting that's not supposed to exceed 15 minutes. We're still trying to get into the swing of making that happen. But I find them invaluable for learning what other people are up to that day. And they frequently result in people being able to solve their problems after the meeting because someone else was able to help.

This sort of daily communication can be really helpful. But it's also really easy for it to devolve into a long meeting that's much less useful. And if management is using it to apply pressure to get more work done, they're making a huge mistake.