Question for Engineers in the Private Sector; What to do a with bad engineer?

John E. Hadstate wrote:

> <jjlindula@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1133926362.623331.309010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>Hello, I have a question that is off the topic from the 
>>newsgroup but
>>I want to get responses from engineers. I would like to 
>>know how
>>engineers in the private sector deal with engineering 
>>co-workers who
>>are ineffective, troubled or un-cooperative? I work for 
>>the government
>>and what generally happens is that engineer is assigned 
>>collateral
>>duties rather than engineering tasks, or you promote the 
>>individual to
>>another position and then hire a replacement. I don't have 
>>any clue
>>what would happen in the private sector, would they do the 
>>same, or
>>just fire the individual? Sorry for the off-the-wall 
>>question, but I
>>would appreciate any comments.
>>
> 
> 
> After serving 25 years in the private sector (Fortune 100 
> company), I don't think there are any hard-and-fast answers 
> to your question.  I have seen people "carried" for years 
> and years, then terminated by being offered early 
> retirement.  I have seen competent people marginalized-out 
> because their managers were incapable of adapting to new 
> technologies.  (Marginalizing a competent engineer is a 
> politically-risky but often effective way of getting him to 
> leave voluntarily.)  There was a much higher tolerance for 
> incompetence than for "rocking the boat". 

Ahh, but  "rocking the boat" can have very different results even in the 
same company. Depends on supervisor whose boat is being rocked. I had 
one who understood I "rocked only for cause". He left after correctly 
foreseeing where company was headed. Next supervisor valued "peace and 
tranquility". I "left" on request ;}

 > During the last 5
> years I was with them, "go along to get along" was really 
> the order of the day.
> 
> I hasten to point out that this approach was disasterous 
> from a business perspective: the company that I helped build 
> was first spun off by its German parent, then looted, and 
> finally put out of business by competition from Mexico (that 
> I helped develop).  It's part of the circle of life, and 
> proof that there is a God, after all ;-)
> 
> 
> 

> I work for the government
> and what generally happens is that engineer is assigned collateral
> duties rather than engineering tasks, or you promote the individual to
> another position...

I've only been in industry a while, and this last approach, promoting
the incompetent, caught me completely by surprise. Excuse my wide eyed
innocence, but doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of company
evolution, survival of the fittest and so on. In the end, the
incompotent float to the top, and there is a raft of  superfluous,
misguided management. I have to say, this has really shocked me!!!! Why
aren't these no hopers just given the boot?

<porterboy76@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1133986433.031223.120650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I've only been in industry a while, and this last approach, promoting
> the incompetent, caught me completely by surprise.

It's called, "The Peter Principle."

> Excuse my wide eyed
> innocence, but doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of company
> evolution, survival of the fittest and so on. In the end, the
> incompotent float to the top, and there is a raft of  superfluous,
> misguided management. I have to say, this has really shocked me!!!! Why
> aren't these no hopers just given the boot?

If they were once in a position where they were competent, there's a degree of 
"support structure" that they'll have developed that'll make it politically 
difficult to get rid of them.  (And realistically speaking, if they really 
were competent at _something_, they don't deserve to be fired, they deserve to 
be demoted back to what they _were_ good at.)  Unfortunately, this "support 
network" tends to turn into "the good old boys" network the higher up in a 
company you go.  The measurement of "uccess at the top (did the company make a 
profit last year?) tends to become far more subjective (since there are 
limitless reasons why, even with good management, a company can lose money) 
than it is at the bottom (did Joe Sixpack actually show up for his 9AM shift 
and produce his quota of 600 widgets today?).  It really does become similar 
to government politics -- when things go well, management takes credit for it, 
but when they don't, there's no shortage of whipping boys and excuses.

I've also been at companies where the HR department was so worried of being 
sued for wrongful termination that the red tape they made managers go through 
to document poor performance and eventually fire someone was so onerous that 
some managers figured they rather keep a bad employee around. :-(

Still, there ARE plenty of really good companies out there if you do a little 
digging...

porterboy76@yahoo.com wrote:

>>I work for the government
>>and what generally happens is that engineer is assigned collateral
>>duties rather than engineering tasks, or you promote the individual to
>>another position...
> 
> 
> I've only been in industry a while, and this last approach, promoting
> the incompetent, caught me completely by surprise. Excuse my wide eyed
> innocence, but doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of company
> evolution, survival of the fittest and so on. In the end, the
> incompotent float to the top, and there is a raft of  superfluous,
> misguided management. I have to say, this has really shocked me!!!! Why
> aren't these no hopers just given the boot?
> 
To some extent I think it's a misinterpretation of the book "The Peter 
Principal", where the writer found it interesting that people floated up 
to their level of incompetence.  Now we think that we're supposed to 
select the most incompetent member of the team to be manager, and if you 
need someone to manage managers, well...

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

<jjlindula@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133926362.623331.309010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, I have a question that is off the topic from the newsgroup but
> I want to get responses from engineers. I would like to know how
> engineers in the private sector deal with engineering co-workers who
> are ineffective, troubled or un-cooperative?

If they are female I believe they get spanked but only in some countries.

Glen

Tim Wescott wrote:
> To some extent I think it's a misinterpretation of the book "The Peter 
> Principal", where the writer found it interesting that people floated up 
> to their level of incompetence.  Now we think that we're supposed to 
> select the most incompetent member of the team to be manager, and if you 
> need someone to manage managers, well...
> 

Actually, this modification of the Peter Principal was put forth by 
Scott Adams and dubbed "The Dilbert Principal."

-- 
Jim Thomas            Principal Applications Engineer  Bittware, Inc
jthomas@bittware.com  http://www.bittware.com    (603) 226-0404 x536
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

John E. Hadstate wrote:
> <jjlindula@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133926362.623331.309010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hello, I have a question that is off the topic from the
> > newsgroup but
> > I want to get responses from engineers. I would like to
> > know how
> > engineers in the private sector deal with engineering
> > co-workers who
> > are ineffective, troubled or un-cooperative? I work for
> > the government
> > and what generally happens is that engineer is assigned
> > collateral
> > duties rather than engineering tasks, or you promote the
> > individual to
> > another position and then hire a replacement. I don't have
> > any clue
> > what would happen in the private sector, would they do the
> > same, or
> > just fire the individual? Sorry for the off-the-wall
> > question, but I
> > would appreciate any comments.
> >
>
> After serving 25 years in the private sector (Fortune 100
> company), I don't think there are any hard-and-fast answers
> to your question.  I have seen people "carried" for years
> and years, then terminated by being offered early
> retirement.  I have seen competent people marginalized-out
> because their managers were incapable of adapting to new
> technologies.  (Marginalizing a competent engineer is a
> politically-risky but often effective way of getting him to
> leave voluntarily.)  There was a much higher tolerance for
> incompetence than for "rocking the boat".  During the last 5
> years I was with them, "go along to get along" was really
> the order of the day.
>
> I hasten to point out that this approach was disasterous
> from a business perspective: the company that I helped build
> was first spun off by its German parent, then looted, and
> finally put out of business by competition from Mexico (that
> I helped develop).  It's part of the circle of life, and
> proof that there is a God, after all ;-)

This was a very interesting thread. My own experience from
Norwegian public institutions, is that no one leaves for no
other reasons than retirement. There are the occational
firing due to embezzlement(?), but never because of
inefficiency or anything like that. Well, there is one
excempt, more on that below.

In the private sector, the main tradition is that the people who
were hired last are the first to go. I don't think it is formally
included in the laws governing the economy, but it is such a
strong tradition it is a de facto law.

So all the companies that hired in the boom of the late 60s and
early 70s are now in deep trouble, since their main workforce are
getting into retirement, and they have no recruitment base.

It's near christmas, so I will not get even remotely close to
recruitment practices for management. Suffice it to say that
the Norwegien "operational body for air traffic" (the government
department that runs the airports and air traffic control) just fired
a manager only three weeks after he enetered the job. The reason
was his lack of competence and experience in air traffic at all,
and that he found it impossible to cooperate with his employees,
who are responsible for air traffic safety.

I don't know if him being fired was due to any sort of incompetence
or inefficiency; I suspect most of it was due to the Norwegian
equivalent of the FAA raising an eyebrow over somebody without
relevant experience being appointed to this type of position.
Even the FAA may have played a part, for all I know. There were
reports in the press of the EU equivalent of the FAA "reviewing the
standards of Norwegian air traffic control" after this guy was
appointed
and the reactions in his staff was known.

The Director of the air traffic control authority was on the news
yesterday saying something I did not make much sense of, but that
apparently was based on the philosophy that "a manager can lead,
without knowing anything about his/her business."

I have never understood those kinds of claims.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> The Director of the air traffic control authority was on the news
> yesterday saying something I did not make much sense of, but that
> apparently was based on the philosophy that "a manager can lead,
> without knowing anything about his/her business."
> 
> I have never understood those kinds of claims.

Have you read "The General" by C. S. Forester (of "Hornblower" fame)?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> writes:
[snip]
> This was a very interesting thread. My own experience from
> Norwegian public institutions, is that no one leaves for no
> other reasons than retirement. There are the occational
> firing due to embezzlement(?), but never because of
> inefficiency or anything like that. Well, there is one
> excempt, more on that below.
> 
> In the private sector, the main tradition is that the people who
> were hired last are the first to go. I don't think it is formally
> included in the laws governing the economy, but it is such a
> strong tradition it is a de facto law.
> 
> So all the companies that hired in the boom of the late 60s and
> early 70s are now in deep trouble, since their main workforce are
> getting into retirement, and they have no recruitment base.
> 
> It's near christmas, so I will not get even remotely close to
> recruitment practices for management. Suffice it to say that
> the Norwegien "operational body for air traffic" (the government
> department that runs the airports and air traffic control) just fired
> a manager only three weeks after he enetered the job. The reason
> was his lack of competence and experience in air traffic at all,
> and that he found it impossible to cooperate with his employees,
> who are responsible for air traffic safety.
> 
> I don't know if him being fired was due to any sort of incompetence
> or inefficiency; I suspect most of it was due to the Norwegian
> equivalent of the FAA raising an eyebrow over somebody without
> relevant experience being appointed to this type of position.
> Even the FAA may have played a part, for all I know. There were
> reports in the press of the EU equivalent of the FAA "reviewing the
> standards of Norwegian air traffic control" after this guy was
> appointed and the reactions in his staff was known.
> 
> The Director of the air traffic control authority was on the news
> yesterday saying something I did not make much sense of, but that
> apparently was based on the philosophy that "a manager can lead,
> without knowing anything about his/her business."
> 
> I have never understood those kinds of claims.

The Harvard Business School reportedly teaches (taught?) that
a manager could do so by simply understanding the numbers --
experience and knowledge of the business being managed not
required or needed.  How the manager is supposed to be able
to set policy, manage the personnel, etc. without any idea of
what the business is about is beyond me.  Of course, we've seen
numerous U.S. businesses go down the tubes...

It's easy to understand people getting aroused by someone with
no relevant experience being in charge of a life-critical
operation such as air traffic control.  Of course, a bottom-line
manager can greatly reduce ATC costs by grounding all the
airplanes.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> writes:
> [snip]
> > This was a very interesting thread. My own experience from
> > Norwegian public institutions, is that no one leaves for no
> > other reasons than retirement. There are the occational
> > firing due to embezzlement(?), but never because of
> > inefficiency or anything like that. Well, there is one
> > excempt, more on that below.
> >
> > In the private sector, the main tradition is that the people who
> > were hired last are the first to go. I don't think it is formally
> > included in the laws governing the economy, but it is such a
> > strong tradition it is a de facto law.
> >
> > So all the companies that hired in the boom of the late 60s and
> > early 70s are now in deep trouble, since their main workforce are
> > getting into retirement, and they have no recruitment base.
> >
> > It's near christmas, so I will not get even remotely close to
> > recruitment practices for management. Suffice it to say that
> > the Norwegien "operational body for air traffic" (the government
> > department that runs the airports and air traffic control) just fired
> > a manager only three weeks after he enetered the job. The reason
> > was his lack of competence and experience in air traffic at all,
> > and that he found it impossible to cooperate with his employees,
> > who are responsible for air traffic safety.
> >
> > I don't know if him being fired was due to any sort of incompetence
> > or inefficiency; I suspect most of it was due to the Norwegian
> > equivalent of the FAA raising an eyebrow over somebody without
> > relevant experience being appointed to this type of position.
> > Even the FAA may have played a part, for all I know. There were
> > reports in the press of the EU equivalent of the FAA "reviewing the
> > standards of Norwegian air traffic control" after this guy was
> > appointed and the reactions in his staff was known.
> >
> > The Director of the air traffic control authority was on the news
> > yesterday saying something I did not make much sense of, but that
> > apparently was based on the philosophy that "a manager can lead,
> > without knowing anything about his/her business."
> >
> > I have never understood those kinds of claims.
>
> The Harvard Business School reportedly teaches (taught?) that
> a manager could do so by simply understanding the numbers --
> experience and knowledge of the business being managed not
> required or needed.  How the manager is supposed to be able
> to set policy, manage the personnel, etc. without any idea of
> what the business is about is beyond me.  Of course, we've seen
> numerous U.S. businesses go down the tubes...

Well, somebody once said that "nothing seems impossible to the
incompetent."

> It's easy to understand people getting aroused by someone with
> no relevant experience being in charge of a life-critical
> operation such as air traffic control.  Of course, a bottom-line
> manager can greatly reduce ATC costs by grounding all the
> airplanes.

That's what is happening. The ATC operations were separated out
from government organizations to a commercial company to ""reduce
ATC operations costs." So the cut back on the number of air traffic
controllers, close airports, do all kinds of things to cut at the
expenses
side of the balance sheet. Maybe all that is necessary, I don't know,
but the way it is implemented leaves little confidence with the public.

People don't get their holidays, due to cancelled flights. No one
reimburse the losses, and the ATC company can not be held
accountable, either by passengers or airliners. Add to the mixture
that the former director of the ATC company required the staff to
use any pending holiday now in December, at the main traffic peak,
and it is easy to understand why she had to leave last week.

Not that it will help much, the ATC system will only work when the
ATC company is held economically liable for any damages to
airliners or passengers. Unless one pays for the damage of *not*
having a working national air traffic, the obvious way to save
money is to shut the whole thing down.

Rune