Conversation

Replying to
3/ Managers try to "solve" these problems because TINA: there is no alternative. Not because they know good solutions.
1
1
Replying to
4/ These problems are TINA because the people involved need the job/money and have to stay on and "make it work" even if very, very badly.
1
2
Replying to
5/ Managers get props for trying hard and doing better than "utter, miserable failure" not for producing spectacular, elegant solutions
1
4
Replying to
6/ But the *moment* there is an alternative, and it is picked, it becomes clear how godawful the "best" previous solution really was
1
4
Replying to
7/ About 90% of the time, the "alternative" is for somebody to make an exit, removing the impossible problem altogether.
1
3
Replying to
8/ Over last 400 yrs, such exit options have proliferated. Serfs for example, had a once-in-3-generations chances to exit by revolt
1
3
Replying to
9/ Today, you're likely to have 10-13 jobs/3-4 careers in a lifetime. And 4-5 project-level exit opportunities within each job.
1
5
Replying to
10/ We've gone from 0.3 exits/lifetime to something like 30-40. Each exit "solves" an impossible management problem and improves things.
2
14
Replying to
11/ Managers are really stewards of pent-up emotional baggage and containers of pending explosions between stress-relieving exit events
2
18
Replying to
12/ Unfortunately, the exit option is MOST available to the MOST critical linchpin people with high demand elsewhere
1
9
Replying to
14/ But net, this exit-centric way of optimizing net allocation of people at all levels from workgroup to national economy is a good thing
1
2
Replying to
15/ One reason I have an issue with the "mercenary versus missionary" ideological schism in tech is that it tries to force "local" solutions
1
2
Show replies