NYCPHP Meetup

[inforequest]

Peter Sawczynec ps-at-pswebcode.com |nyphp dev/internal group use| wrote:

> I have found and employed some valuable advice for when one must 
> comment upon (read as criticize or complain') about failed job tasks 
> or fractured plans in a non-specialist corporate environment.
>  
> [But note that Dale Carnegie in his book "How to Win Friends and 
> Influence People, said "Remember the 3 C's: never condemn, criticize 
> or complain."]
>  
> When noting an ineffective office policy, a bad project plan, 
> under-budgeting, wrongheaded timelines, lack of peer cooperation -- it 
> is helpful to couch your comments as what I think of as "encased in 
> third-party effects".
>  
> Don't criticize the faraway parent company or your local company 
> office, don't "gotcha" the manager, don't blindside an associate -- 
> always "blame" the system(s) only, and only with dispassionate 
> third-party style references.
>  
> For example, say things roughly like so:
>  
> "An under adherence to code commenting can cause decrease in access to 
> legacy knowledge base items and hard won baseline techniques."
> or
> "A missing backup policy that poses even minor data loss can stall any 
> project in any time frame at any facility and probably cost valuable 
> company funds."
> or
> "Distributed staffers experiencing communication lag -- and this can 
> happen at any fast-paced company like ours -- can derail a precision 
> deadline sometimes even by hours."
> or
> "Very valuable corporate monies can be lost when fast-start strategies 
> don't hold up under long term executions that demand larger 
> perspectives and more encompassing parameters."
> or
> "The predictable changeover of programming staff -- really any highly 
> mobile staff -- might benefit immensely from even the most schematic 
> transferable documentations that inform new team members, bringing all 
> users up to speed and saving critical company dollars as projects 
> propel themselves more effectively."
>  
> Because no one likes to be attacked, but typically most people want to 
> be seen as fair minded, embrace this concept from the book entitled 
> "How to Deal with Difficult People". It is highly recommended that you 
> couch difficult recommendations with smoothing universal lead off 
> comments such as:  "It is fair to say...", "Likely most can agree...", 
> "Third parties might observe..."
>  
> Warmest regards,
>  
> Peter Sawczynec,
> Technology Director
> PSWebcode



Well, Peter, I don't disagree that such subtle literary tweaks as double 
negatives and references to the sub-optimal status of pilot-less 
endeavors soften the blow of due criticism, but they don't fix the 
problems, either. Sometimes, stupid is stupid. Sometimes the kettle 
really is black, the ball was actually dropped, and the culprit really 
should be hung out to dry *if* "the company" cares to improve things for 
next time.

Of course there is a time and place for each approach to professional 
life. Were it not for the corporate speak, the layers of obfuscation 
created by "management", and the subsequent inability of many such 
"organizations" to effect change, there would be no need for independent 
consultants (you know, the ones who are brought in to get the job done).

I propose to you that the same ancient Dale Carnegie stuff you cite, 
along with the ineffective "play nice" prefixes to what would otherwise 
be leadership statements, have contributed to the sad, unaccountable 
corporations we have ruling the world today. If no one takes 
responsibility,  no one is responsible. The damage done by "the 
corporation" as a whole cannot be challenged. Sadly, if most of the 
players play that game, either everyone has to play or there is 
disharmony. It is hardly accurate to blame that disharmony on the 
honest, albeit "less sensitive" employees. yes, i do recognize that in 
today's world, the losers are winning.

I also propose that the same corporate double-speak leads inevitably to 
unfair, mob-like behavior when finally change is truly required for 
survival. Someone gets to be the "scapegoat", "hung out to dry" and 
"heads roll" where IN FACT the heads that roll were not actually 
resonsible for the problem. Had the proper steps been taken when the 
kettle was noticed to be in fact black, there would be no need for the 
unfair (and IMHO immoral) mob behavior.

Some of us choose to work outside of that (IMHO corrupt and corrupting) 
system.Others seem to choose to run with it, despite the apparent fact 
that there is an unsavory backlash brewing that our grandchildren will 
have to deal with.

-=john andrews

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
"If you think this stuff is confusing, you should try optimizing websites for search engine exposure."  john andrews SEO http://www.johnon.com