SAP: Management Simplification Because of a Virus
April 21, 2020
SAP is an interesting company. How many years did it take Westinghouse to implement the SAP system? Right, there is no more Westinghouse, and it is possible that the job was never completed.
That’s a minor matter compared to the information revealed in “SAP Breaks Up Co-CEO Role After Virus Brought Leadership Problem.” (Note: A paywall may be in place for this write up because those run-for-president ads have to be paid for.)
The write up asserts:
SAP had been committed to the co-CEO structure, but when the coronavirus hit, it became clear that having two people in charge was no longer tenable, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
This begs the question, “Was the co-CEO set up tenable in the first place?”
Well, Ms. Morgan, based in the US, was not in Germany. Yeah, okay. Ms. Morgan was not a close pal with the IBM infused Hasso Platnet. Plus, a very minor factor maybe, Ms. Morgan was not a male.
Several observations:
- This SAP move is almost the equal of the some high school science club management methods in use at Silicon Valley companies
- A GM wizard allegedly observed, “Two objectives is no objective.” SAP’s Board of Director’s appears to have ignored this Sloanism.
- SAP’s financial performance tracks IBM’s performance. The apple does not fall far from der baum. So maybe a bum’s rush?
The management principle seems to be blame corona. Innovative.
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2020
A Revolution in Management: Efficiency Redefined?
April 14, 2020
I read “How COVID-19 Made Old-School Management Irrelevant: No More Pointless Micro-Management.” I think a more suitable subtitle would have been “A Millennial’s Howl for Me-Ness.”
The essay is interesting for three reasons.
First, it predicts the future. Predictions are easy, but as “now” yields to the future, most are sort of correct. Management changes may be a tough discipline to change. Why? The notion of organizing tasks and orchestrating the completion of those tasks requires responsibility. That’s an old fashioned concept, but remote control may lack some of the intangibles that traditional management principles rely upon.
Second, the notion of irrelevance is a mostly a point of view issue. Who determines relevance? Perhaps shifting from externally imposed obligations or expectations to an individual determining if those obligations or expectations are “relevant.” Reliability, particularly among many colleagues, is a slippery topics. Without reliability, tasks may be difficult to complete. Relevant or irrelevant issue? The answer depends on whom one asks.
Third, the idea of micro management annoys some people. On the other hand, there are individuals who do their best work within structures and expectations about behavior. One can make generalizations about direct interaction in person. The number of exceptions can undermine what one wants to be true. In fact, the generalization may be an attempt to impose what an individuals wants and needs upon others. Arrogance, stupidity, or a certain blindness?
Now the write up. The article asserts:
The need for a manager who “checks on you” has suddenly evaporated.
Interesting but the emergence of new methods for monitoring seem to be a growth industry: Mobile phone surveillance, Slack, and even Zoom meetings are monitoring, control, and directive devices in some ways.
Here’s another interesting mental construct:
In this new world of “work-from-home”, creatives feel free from antagonisms of the old, and the creators of new. Getting people to perform competitively in environments where remote work relies on individual resourcefulness, the in-your-face old school management has died.
The phrase “in your face” reminds me of a bright sprout deeply offended by a grade school teacher’s statement, “Pay attention to the assignment.” The reaction of some people to being told to deliver is rebellion. That’s not a reason to discard some management methods. In fact, I term this type of anti-management behavior as high school science club management methods or HSSCMM. The idea is that a few smart people gather and know what’s better, faster, and cheaper. Does this sound like some of the Silicon bro ethos? It should because this world view has created some interesting challenges; namely, employees who don’t do what’s expected. Employees who protest, leak, strike, and submarine work so it has more flaws than normal.
The write up identifies what has changed since the global pandemic modified some established patterns; for example:
- Work from home will become more common
- We are in a cultural tsunami
- Social distancing is “demolishing age old officer hierarchies”.
These sound ominous or life affirming depending upon one’s point of view. The flows of digital information undermine hierarchies. I addressed this subject in my Eagleton Lecture (sponsored by ASIS and Bell Labs) in the late 1980s. As digital information zips around, the “old” patterns are weakened and some collapse; for example, knowing about a company’s legal problems once easily concealed until ubiquitous “publishing.” The cultural tsunami picked up steam in developed countries as newer technologies and tools became widely available. Change does not speed along when certain capabilities are classified and available to a comparatively small number of individuals. Diffusion of tools accelerates diffusion of behaviors. New ideas flourish in such an environment. The datasphere is a hot house. The work from home or WFH is definitely becoming more common, just not for everyone. It is difficult to create certain products from home. It is difficult to reach some decisions from home when a golf outing, lunch, and one to one sizing up is necessary.
I grant that change is taking place, some good, some bad. I agree that in some sectors, the 19th century approach to business will not be successful. I support the idea that a 9 to 5 workplace of the “organization man” will be the only or best way to build an organization.
However, if one takes even a cursory look at different cultures at different points in the past, interesting commonalities emerge. Examples range from a group’s appointing a leader to provide guidance seem widespread. Specialists perform certain tasks, often working alone or in concert to deliver an artifact that cannot be crafted alone in a different location.
Several observations:
- WFH or work from home is not right for everyone. Multiple methods are needed. Picking the most suitable method to achieve the goal is the job of management. I think a manager from a Roman engineering brigade would agree in part. A stone cutter working in a quarry is of zero value to team in trans Alpine Gaul.
- Management evolves. Take a flip through Peter Drucker’s management books. The ideas seem both in tune and out of step. Why? Individuals organizing resources to achieve a goal have to adapt to the cultural environment. A failure to adapt is the ultimate failure of an enterprise.
- Some people need the structure of an organization and a routine which may involve a commute, annoyances like a cube in a bigger space, and people making noise, suggestions, and waves.
Net net: Generalizations which are focused on a narrow slice of those who need to work are interesting but self centered, not objective, and wishful thinking. Parts of life will be like grade school. Suck it up. Deliver something of value.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2020
The Spirit of HP Management Exists: Quibi Hears an Eko
April 10, 2020
Anyone remember HP’s greatest moments? Paying really, really close attention to some Board of Directors? Buying Autonomy without reading an expert group’s report? Stumbling into the abyss with Alta Vista? Possibly the influence of Meg Whitman and that HP management experience has now challenged the practioners of the high school science club management methods for excellence, judgment, and logical thinking?
I am thinking about HP because I read “Quibi’s Turnstyle Tech Battle Sees Eko Score Accelerated Hearing Date For Preliminary Injunction – Update.” If the write up is accurate, the HP way has found itself into the mechanics of Quibi. Quibi is apparently a short form video service. None of that sitting in one’s pajamas talking about Animal Crossing. These are allegedly pro-grade videos, better than the outputs of TV stars forced to manage their own lighting and audio.
The write up states:
In reality, Eko owns the technology and promptly asked Quibi to cease and desist,” an accompanying flourish filled memorandum of points (read it here) from Eko’s parent company says of the slow-burn confrontation between the parties over the past few months. “In response, Quibi sent an untruthful letter and then filed a declaratory judgment action,” according to the 30-page paperwork submitted to U.S. District Court in California.
I think this means that the HP way allegedly has appropriated a system and method from another firm. That other firm is going to try to obtain justice. Interesting, right. Justice.
The article states that Quibi is free for now. Will the footsteps of Eko’s lawyers echo in the minds of those embracing the sounds of a possible HP anthem “Oh, I’ve Got Hair Oil On My Ears And My Glasses Are Slipping Down, But Baby I Can See Through You.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2020
Great Moments in High School Science Club Management: Twitter and Zoom
March 30, 2020
Bird is a company with venture money renting scooters. One effect of scooteritis is the desire to throw scooters in ponds, dumpsters, and bushes.
A string of Tweets at this link report an example of the HSSCMM or high school science club management method. The technique is to use the Facebook friendly Zoom video conferencing app to hold a company meeting. (Why not have everyone move their Alexa close to the conference call too?)
Instead of a meeting Bird terminated with HSSCMM 400 employees. The happy news was provided by a pre-recorded Zoom message. Another Twitter service user insisted that the message was delivered by an allegedly human person who “started crying halfway through.”
Okay, Zoom. Firing lots of people. Nifty HSSCMM nevertheless. It will be interesting to see what the next “coming down to earth” high technology company can extend this method.
Efficiency when dealing with those NOT in the science club.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30. 2020
Google Stadia: Google Wood or Just Recycled Cardboard?
March 12, 2020
DarkCyber does not play games. Sure, there are some young-at-heart DarkCyber games, but I ignore them. One of these hard-working individuals spotted “Google Stadia Hits an All-Time Low With This Embarrassing Tweet.” I am not much of a tweeter.
Apparently someone at Google does read tweets and noted one that contained this high school cheer / acrostic thing:
Note that there is no game for I.
A Googler replied, with a tweet, of course: “Why would you bring attention to this?”
I assume the answer is one of these choices:
a. It’s millennial or Gen X, Y, or Z humor
b. Stadia is not performing
c. Someone actually cares about Stadia to try to spell a word using the first letter of games on the service
d. There is a game on Stadia which uses the “what’s up” emoji instead of words.
The write up states:
Clearly, whoever is in charge of the Google Stadia Twitter account has stopped caring. It’s probably for the best since everyone else stopped caring about it months ago.
Google Stadia seemed doomed from the start, and things haven’t gotten much better. It lacks games, has a terrible monetization system, and generally isn’t all that convenient. It even pales in comparison to other similar systems like GeForce Now and Project xCloud. If the state of their social media is anything to go by, Google is already well on its way to just checking out and letting the system die. It’s hard to blame them. So far, Google Stadia seems like it was just a horrible idea.
DarkCyber has little insight to how things work at Google. I would surmise that whoever worked on Stadia has made an effort to catch on with a hot project team. No, not solving Death. Solving Stadia, however, may be a comparable challenge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2020
Tech Experts Branching Out: No Different from MBAs Who Can Manage Any Business
March 9, 2020
Elite or self-perceived elite have some fascinating characteristics.
“The Prodigal Techbro” explores a related idea in terms of those with technical expertise. The subtitle of the article provides a little more color on the idea:
The tech executive turned data justice warrior is celebrated as a truth-telling hero, but there’s something a bit too smooth about this narrative arc.
The article states:
The Prodigal Tech Bro is a similar story, about tech executives who experience a sort of religious awakening. They suddenly see their former employers as toxic, and reinvent themselves as experts on taming the tech giants. They were lost and are now found. They are warmly welcomed home to the center of our discourse with invitations to write opeds for major newspapers, for think tank funding, book deals and TED talks.
The write up explains:
The moral hazard is clear; why would anyone do the right thing from the beginning when they can take the money, have their fun, and then, when the wind changes, convert their status and relative wealth into special pleading and a whole new career?
The reveal in the article is:
Prodigal tech bro stories skip straight from the past, when they were part of something that—surprise!—turned out to be bad, to the present, where they are now a moral authority on how to do good, but without the transitional moments of revelation and remorse. But the bit where you say you got things wrong and people were hurt? That’s the most important part. It’s why these corporatized reinventions feel so slick and tinny…
For the most part, I think the write up is insightful.
OHave you heard the assertion. “An MBA equips a person to manage any business.” Whether the business school accomplishes this depends upon one’s point of view. The more prestigious the business school, the more confidence some MBAs have in their abilities. Accountants and lawyers share this characteristic. If I am correct, there is a challenge facing business and social institutions because tech bros — at least some of them — have the same hubris about “we can do anything.”
What’s fueling this? Maybe three factors:
- Opportunism. Remember the fine leader Martin Shkreli and the 5,000 percent drug price hike. Pushing Daraprim’s price up was logical, and clever, entitled people can just do things.
- Intelligence. Because some people are smarter than others, the thrill of being smart leads to more adventurism. Is that why the Google VP Forrest Hayes took drugs, engaged with an interesting female, and left a family to figure out what’s what. Does smart expand what William James called “a certain blindness”?
- Indifference. When one is logical, facts trump emotions. When Facebook executives evade questions about Cambridge Analytica type activities, perhaps these individuals are indifferent to the impact of their actions or inactions? And Libra? Same VCR tape.
The alleged tech bros, by the way, are not all men. The behaviors of female executives evidence this tendency as well. One recent example is the Sheryl Sandberg NBC interview. Fascinating word exhaust.
Net net: The conversion from high tech superstar to social media mentor is similar to Jonathan Edwards’ Great Awakening; that is, a convenient redemption.Yep, that’s what the elite have delivered: A mindset for the top one percent. Outstanding.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2020
Google and Its Trajectory from Dorm to Domination
February 21, 2020
I read the capitalist’s tool essay/opinion/analysis article called “From Exceptionalism To Unrest: Why Google’s Culture Is Changing.” The idea that Google and its change is an obvious one. The reason for the change, according to the write up, is relative deprivation. Here’s a bit of color on this interesting, MBA-meets-yoga-babble concept:
Insights on relative deprivation shed light on the dynamics Googlers may face in this respect. The research shows that when, for reasons outside of their control, people are denied opportunities that others possess and they desire or feel entitled to and equipped for, they will feel personally deprived, and grow not only dissatisfied, but also resentful.
What happens if a Googler perceives himself/herself/whatever self as being treated unfairly? Here’s the outcome:
The combination of feeling personally deprived as a result of a culture of exceptionalism and that progressive growth of sensitivity to or awareness of fairness components due to sustained uncertainty is an explosive recipe for Google.
You know that most people want an official Google mouse pad. The mouse pad says, “I am beloved by the Google.”
Why aren’t today’s Googlers protesting in front of the building and not doing handstands of happiness?
Googlers don’t want to solely be part of a cool club. They, too, as most humans, are looking for a work environment in which people can enjoy working with others and making a difference without having to think first and foremost about where they fall on the ‘excellence’ curve.
Keep in mind that I am old (75 this year to be exact) and I live in rural Kentucky, which is to some who live in fantasy the epicenter of technology, fair dealing in health care and bourbon, and political acumen. (You know the track record of Senator McConnell perhaps?)
From my vantage point, the write up is like an Instagram story: Selected moments, a filter, and difficult to figure out for those not in the Instagram flow.
The Google has changed and maybe there are a few other factors at work:
- Lack of regulation allowed the company to do whatever it wanted with zero consequences. Google was not quite anything goes, but it was able to deal with issues because everyone wanted a Google mouse pad, work at Google, or wear a T shirt with the Google logo. The Disneyland for the technically adept has aged. Check out theme parks that have been around for more than two decades. Paint doesn’t bring the zing of the good old days. The zero consequence mode has begun to rundown, and Googlers, Xooglers, and others using the company’s services know that the roller coaster is being pulled downhill.
- The management method is what I call high school science club management which I abbreviate to HSSCMM (the final m means method). Science clubs were when I was in high school a place for a small number of people who like science, math, electronics, and mostly one another. It was an “us” versus “them” place. Decisions were made by members who looked at the world through a lens calibrated differently. Prom? Nope, physics. Sports? Nope, statistics. Dates? Nope, derivatives. The HSSCMM tolerated heroin addiction, crazy behaviors like wearing roller blades to a meeting with Sumner Redstone, and sexual fiddling around. Procedures, policies, and a mainstream culture were not part of the game plan. And when these were required, the founders and some original Googlers distanced themselves. The result was a wonky miasma of HSSCMM and what was “required.”
- The arrival of money created an elite among the elite. Google, chock full of interesting people with some interesting ideas, migrated from the intricacies of just being clever to having to make stuff work. Lots of smart people want to come up with ideas and then move on. That’s why products and services disappear overnight. No clued in Googler wants to work on something like enterprise search or a loser social network. Google is less like a real science club and more like a group of people who repair ATMs and set up mobile phones. Google faces class war. Sexual improprieties is just part of the annoyances. Money talks, and in Google’s present position, shouts loudly.
There are other factors as well; for example, Wall Street’s need for more and more financial performance. Also, competition from outfits like Amazon, Apple, and Facebook which make it more difficult to make Google the way it was in its first five years of existence. Plus, the slow realization that advertising is not just annoying, it fuels an approach to information that requires comprehensive data about individual’s conscious and unconscious behavior on a 24/7 basis.
The analysis of Google by a culture architect is, as I suggested, interesting. It is, however, a small part of the Google ethos. Reducing Google to grousing employees concerned about fairness misses the mark. Google’s culture is changing, but the changes pivot on the post IPO world, the lack of government regulation, the lust for colorful tchotchkes, and a failure to look at the distinct phases through which Google moved. The calculus of these data combined with the real time information about the “now” Google leads to oversimplifications and fundamental misunderstandings about what Google set out to do, did, and is now doing.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
Managing a Science Club Is Hard: Human Re What? Personnel Who?
February 13, 2020
DarkCyber noted a story titled “Google HR Chief Eileen Naughton Steps Aside As Worker Activis…” No, that’s the title. There are other versions of the story, but the Gadgets 360 take captures how many Googlers respond when human resources is mentioned. “Human re what? Personnel who?”
The story is a revolving door tale. Get out while the getting is good. Recently some high profile and somewhat interesting people have left the online ad machine: A lawyer, two founders, some disgruntled employees, and now the head of human re what?
The article states:
In recent years, the Google workplace has been disrupted by employee opposition to top-level decisions ranging from forging contracts with the US military to tailoring a version of the search engine for China. Google in November fired four employees on the grounds they had violated data security policies, but the tech titan was accused of persecuting them for trying to unionize staff. The dismissals of the quartet — dubbed the “Thanksgiving Four” on social media — deepened staff-management tensions at a company once seen as a paradigm of Silicon Valley freedoms but now embroiled in numerous controversies. One of the workers fired was connected to a petition condemning Google for working with the US customs and border patrol agency, which has been involved in President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Google employees have also openly opposed the company pursuing contracts to put its technology to work for the US military.
The Googlers are a frisky group of youngish wizards. Managing a science club is difficult. A high school science club? Yep, more difficult than a college science club.
Human re what? Personnel who? There is LinkedIn for those in need of a job.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2020
Blue Chip Consulting Firm: Killers of the American Middle Class
February 6, 2020
After reading “How McKinsey Destroyed the Middle Class,” I wondered if the company’s name should be McKroni & Co. For those who did not read the Akilattirattu Ammanai, Kroni was more evil than the demon Kali of the Mahabharata and Kalki Purana sharing similarities with Lucifer.
Kroni celebrating after closing a big deal for streamlining work flow processes.
If the information in the Atlantic article is on the money, MBAs are manifestations of evil. There are other candidates as well; for example, Bain, Boston Consulting Group, Booz, Allen, SRI, and other blue chip consulting firms. These outfits are more similar than some people understand, including their clients. My information is first hand. I worked for one of these big outfits and did contract work for another. My boss at Booz, Allen went to SRI, and I know that he did not make any significant changes in his thought processes. In fact, one BAH professional told me, “We require that teams fly on separate airplanes. If one plane goes down, we can send in other team members. Most are inter changeable. Heart warming, no?
Now back to the write up:
The main idea is from a journalist who wrote in 2010:
consultants openly sought to “foment a stratification within companies and society” by concentrating the management function in elite executives, aided (of course) by advisers from consultants’ own ranks. Management-consulting firms deployed a panoply of branded processes against middle management.
News flash: The mind set of the major consulting firms was in place and humming along the first time a Booz, Allen person contacted me in 1970. He explained the objectivity and need for data as part of the analytic process the firm practiced. I agreed, but because I was working at a university and had zero “experience” in anything except studying, going to meetings, and fooling around with my analyses of language for Psychology Today magazine, I was not too engaged in the conversation. He said, “We will put you on file. We may come back to you.” By golly, Booz, Allen did. I met with a fellow who would become my boss. Guess what? He explained that the BAH approach was designed to increase efficiency and reshape organizations by reducing layers of management. The BAH charm school made clear that friendly Mr. Booz in 1917 had this very idea, and it was part of the Booz, Allen DNA.
Kiechel was right in the main idea; he just muffed how long the mindset was in play at Booz, Allen and the other firms. McKinsey was founded in 1926, a decade after BAH. In fact, one Booz, Allen professional with 30 years of continuous service under his belt said, “McKinsey borrowed from our method. They changed our dot points to dashes; otherwise, it is a copy of this firm.” True or false? I don’t know, but the date of McKinsey’s founding makes an interesting historical factoid.
The article’s objective is to make McKinsey into McKroni & Company. The inequality evident in the US today is a result of one company. I agree that the thought processes of the blue chip consulting firms lead to inequality. The write up also takes aim at a presidential candidate who worked at McKinsey. The same notions of efficiency help produce Google and other high performance firms as well. Amazon is a case study in efficiency, the blue chip consulting firm way. Warm and fuzzy, not the words I would use to describe Amazon.
Net net: Interesting write up. Not exactly in line with reality, but McKroni & Co. is a convenient peg on which to hang a polemic about the way the real world is.
How does one change this obvious problem? May I suggest calling one of the blue chip consulting firms. You may be surprised how useful their through processes are. But wait. Publishing companies have got this revenue, credibility, and information trifecta figured out.
Begging for dollars is not a business model that inspires confidence.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2020
Bezos-tics: A Billionaire and an Alleged Political Alignment
February 6, 2020
Jeff Bezos heads Amazon, but he allegedly has goals beyond changing the face of retail. The Strategic Culture Foundation examines Bezos’s political views in the article, “Jeff Bezos’s Politics.” Heads up. DarkCyber thinks this “strategic culture” write up is a one-sided argument about Mr. Bezos’ goals to spread American imperialism, control other nations, and spread the ideals of neo-conservatism.
Bezos’s political power exploded when he purchased the Washington Post from Donald Graham (Washington D.C.’s daily newspaper) and negotiated with CIA Director John Brennan a ten-year cloud computing contract hosted by Amazon. As this quote says he is definitely wise about business:
“He was now the most influential salesman not only for books, etc., but for the CIA, and for such mega-corporations as Lockheed Martin. US imperialism has supercharged his wealth, but didn’t alone cause his wealth. Jeff Bezos might be the most ferociously gifted business-person on the planet.”
The article continues that Bezos, like all of American billionaires, ally themselves with neo-conservatism and imperialism. They seek to preserve these systems at all costs. Also Bezos has this going for him:
“Bezos also wants to privatize everything around the world that can become privatized, such as education, highways, health care, and pensions. The more that billionaires control those, the less that everyone else does; and preventing control by the public helps to protect billionaires against democracy that would increase their taxes, and against governmental regulations that would reduce their profits by increasing their corporations’ expenses. So, billionaires control the government in order to increase their takings from the public.”
But, use the word coined by DarkCyber, the Amagenic responses to Amazon a moving, just slowly. With employee push back and dissention in a close friend’s brother sister bond, is negativism being pulled to the man and the Amazon machine.
Worth monitoring to see if this “house divided against itself” is a myth or a reality.
Whitney Grace, February 6, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
