Tag: managerialism

  • Fire and be dammed, the poor management at tech companies

    Fire and be dammed, the poor management at tech companies

    Microsoft manager Adam Orth has joined the ranks of those fired after some poorly thought out comments found their way onto the Reddit discussion boards. The firing of Orth illustrates a weakness in the management of tech firms.

    Orth’s firing follows the “forked dongle” affair where two developers lost their jobs over sexist comments at an industry conference.

    What’s notable in all these firings is how Playhaven, SendGrid and Microsoft’s management all summarily fired their employees for what at worse could be described as a ‘lapse of judgement’.

    One of the conceits of modern management is that risk can be eliminated, the mark of a poor manager is to act quickly to get rid of anything that could potentially be a risk.

    These tech companies are good illustrations of this – neither Adam Orth, Adria Richards or the Playhaven developer deserved to lose their jobs over this, all it required was an apology and commitment to be more careful about what they post on the public internet in future.

    All of us, including the sensitive and incompetent firing managers, have something on the internet that could embarrass us or our employers. In an era where people are quick to take offense, it’s easy for something taken out of context to spin out of control.

    That’s a risk beyond the control of middle managers at software companies.

    Hiding from risks or attempting to purge them is not the way to run an organisation. Strong, good managers can do better than that.

    Management manual image by Ulrik through SXC.hu

    Similar posts:

  • Corporate palaces and the new Ceasars

    Corporate palaces and the new Ceasars

    One of the key traits of managerialism is executives spending vast quantities of shareholders’ money on opulent corporate headquarters, is Apple the latest company to succumb to this disease?

    Building a new headquarters is fun for managers. One company I worked for in the early 1990s was debilitated for months as executives spent most of their time moving walls, rearranging desk positions and changing lift designs to reflect their status as grand visionaries.

    For the company gripped with delusions of management grandeur a flashy head office is the must have accessory. It’s the corporate equivalent of the Skyscraper Index and is almost as good a predictor that a change in fortunes is imminent.

    Apple’s new headquarters is nothing if not impressive. Bloomberg Newsweek reports the building which, at two thirds the size of the Pentagon, will house 12,000 employees is currently estimated at costing five billion dollars, sixty percent over the original budget.

    The plans call for unprecedented 40-foot, floor-to-ceiling panes of concave glass from Germany. Before the Cupertino council, Jobs noted, “there isn’t a straight piece of glass on the whole building?…?and as you know if you build things, this isn’t the cheapest way to build them.”

    With over a $120 billion in cash, Apple can certainly afford to spend five or ten billion on new digs despite the grumbling of shareholders who have had to settle for a stingy 2.4% dividend from their shares.

    The big question though for Apple shareholders though is whether a project like this indicates a company that has peaked with management more intent on building monuments to itself or its genuinely visionary founder rather than deliver returns to owners or products to customers.

    On the latter point, there’s no evidence of Apple losing their way with their products yet, but it’s something worth watching in case management becomes distracted with their building project.

    For the company I worked for, the distracted managers all vanished one day when the main shareholder of the Thai-Singaporean joint venture discovered they’d been fiddling the books. They probably needed to pay for the office fit out.

    Similar posts:

  • Technology Cannot Save You – the limitations of relying on IT

    Technology Cannot Save You – the limitations of relying on IT

    One of the great conceits of modern times is that technology can solve any problem – the problems of Sydney’s transport system is an example of how IT can’t overcome managerial incompetence.

    The irrepressible New Australian has a good post about Sydney transport system and its battles with the opal card.

    Australian governments have been troubled with smartcard ticketing systems for decades, the Opal Card itself was promised in time for the Sydney Olympics thirteen years ago. Little has been done since.

    The fundamental problem is that governments are being sold technology solutions to fix management and political challenges.

    In Sydney’s case the problem is a complex fare structure and a Balkanised public transport system  – check the situation for a commuter wanting to travel from Parramatta to the city.

    • Ferry fare $7.20
    • Train fare $5.00
    • Bus fare $4.60

    The above fares are the standard single journeys, to make matters worse there’s a mind boggling range of concession, off-peak and periodic fares whose structure owes more to political opportunism, managerial incompetence and agency jobsworths protecting their turf than any logic or fairness.

    Without a logical or consistent to calculating the fares, computer algorithms have no hope – managerialism trumps coding every time.

    Basically Sydney has no chance of getting their system working properly without having an integrated fare and management structure. Technology cannot fix this problem.

    This is not just a Sydney problem A great example of how incompetent management can screw up what should be a straightforward implementation is in Melbourne which has a comparatively simple time based price structure.

    Melbourne’s Myki card has had a similarly troubled life being delivered decades late, hundreds of millions over budget and being so user unfriendly it seems designed to solve the city’s transport overcrowding problem by chasing away passengers.

    Basically management incompetence by arrogant bureaucrats and ignorant ministers doomed Melbourne’s project from the start.

    Australian governments aren’t the only organisations that fall for the fallacy that technology can solve their problems, around the world corporations and public agencies have made the same mistake.

    This is something technologists, and more importantly taxpayers and shareholders, should keep in mind when a CEO or minister is trumpeting the latest technology to fix their organisation’s woes.

    Image of the Opal Card brochure courtesy of The New Australian

    Similar posts:

  • Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

    Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

    Last week Oracle, the world’s third largest software vendor, had an eight percent drop in its stock price  after the company missed earning estimates.

    Part of the research for are article I’m writing on the company involved digging into the organisational structure of the company and interestingly it has a pair of ‘co-presidents’ – Mark Hurd and Safra Katz.

    Safra is the Chief Financial Officer who has a pretty powerful CV and seems well qualified for the job of controlling the finances of a $150 billion dollar company.

    Mark on the other hand is my favourite IT executive, his tenure at HP is a case study in the entitlement culture of modern managerialism and no small reason for that company’s present day problems.

    The analyst briefing (free subscription might be required) following Oracle’s disappointing reports betrays a little bit of tension between the two. First Safra;

    We’re not at all pleased with our revenue growth this quarter. So it didn’t help that our quarter ended on the same day as the sequester deadline. What we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force as Q3 deals fall into Q4.

    Since we’ve been adding literally thousands of new sales reps around the world, the problem was largely sales execution, especially with the new reps, as they ran out of runway in Q3.

    It seems there’s a touch of ‘dog ate my homework’ in mentioning the US political sequester, but the message is clear – “what we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force.”

    These are IT sales people we are talking about, ‘a lack of urgency’ is an insult to a group of people who have been known to work 120 hour weeks and sell their grandmothers if it means getting a fat commission.

    Mark is in the poo. We quickly learn why when it’s his turn to speak,

    We’ve added over 4,000 people to the Oracle sales force in the last 18 months. We’ve significantly expanded our customer coverage. We’ve seen material growth in our pipeline. But Q3 [conversion rates] were below what we expected, while our actual win rate went up.

    An investor would hope there’s material growth in the sales pipeline when you’ve added 4,000 salespeople to your workforce.

    In Oracle’s case though revenues have fallen .8% for the year and are only up 2% over the time Mark’s added all those go-getting Willy Lomans to the company’s payroll.

    The interesting thing with Oracle’s figures is the company has spent nearly $400 million on restructuring costs over the last year, has hired over 4,000 new sales people and yet total operating costs, and margins, have barely moved in that time.

    Which indicates somebody in Oracle is bearing the costs of Mark’s hiring spree.

    During Hurd’s tenure at HP, he was notorious for penny pinching and cutting worker’s benefits. While staff were finding they were stuck in economy for international business meetings, Mark himself was staying at some of Europe’s best hotels and showing off his bank account to attractive employees.

    Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself.

    Probably the most perplexing thing with Oracle today are Mark’s and Safra’s roles of c0-Presidents. What on Earth are those roles?

    Most telling with the co-Presidents is that they aren’t really in charge – if Larry Ellison, the CEO and founder, wakes up one morning and decides either Safra or Mark have to go then they’ll be out of the company well before lunchtime.

    Along with carparking spots, inflated executive job titles are good indicator an organisation’s management is focusing on it’s perks, benefits and privileges rather than delivering for customers and shareholders.

    Perhaps Oracle’s analysts and common stock holders should be focusing more on management’s behaviour more than the details of the company’s sales performance.

    Similar posts:

  • Walmart pays for cutting staff

    Walmart pays for cutting staff

    Along with the carpark test, a lack of customer service is one of the best indicators that a company has lost its way.

    Unattended reception desks, closed cash registers and deserted delivery docks are reliable indicators management has focused on short term staff savings which will ultimately cost the business dearly.

    Walmart is the latest example of this with Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that US shoppers are deserting the chain because shelves are empty and stores don’t have enough staff.

    The claim stock is piling up out the back of stores is particularly concerning, the just in time inventory management of modern retail chains means there’s little room for error as outlets don’t have a lot of space whil the cash flow of the business and its suppliers is based on getting goods quickly into the hands of eager consumers.

    Some of Walmart’s pain will be spread among suppliers as the store’s contracts will push undoubtedly some of the costs of rejected deliveries back onto logistics companies, effectively creating problems through the entire supply chain.

    No doubt there’s plenty of angry suppliers and truck drivers who are grumbling about lost time and payments on Walmart contracts. That won’t be good news for the company’s buyers when contracts come up for negotiation.

    Even though Walmart’s management can throw some of their problems over the fence, the fundamental issue of losing customers can’t be missed.

    Walmart’s isn’t the only retailer who’s fallen for the short term fix of cutting store staff to give a quick profit boost as department stores and big box outlets around the world struggle with the damaging effects of not being able to serve customers.

    That Walmart, one of the industry’s global leaders, would make such a mis-step shows the pressures on managements as economies deleverage and credit wary consumers decide that don’t need more junk in their homes.

    Cutting costs isn’t going to address those bigger trends, it’s going to take original thinking and management commitment to adding real value to customers.

    Service is just the start of a long process of refocusing the retail empires.

    Image of Albany Walmart courtesy of UpstateNYer through Wikimedia

    Similar posts: