Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[cgasner1]

The task in an of itself is not the issue, it's the sentiment behind it.

Maybe this is an issue of scale. But I'm not going to stick with a company that micromanages like that. Assign a task, assign a due date, and leave me alone. I'll let you know if there's something you need to know that deviates from the plan or if I need more resources. Our co attempts to keep everyone >80% directly billable to doing work, not managing people. Both our CEO and VP still do actual work, it's one of the best parts of our corporate culture- people actually working and not just managing. It keeps them grounded, honest, and accountable.

Do you work for the government? That makes the difference when your ceo and vp have to earn a check.

 

[Alpine01]

Maybe this is an issue of scale. But I'm not going to stick with a company that micromanages like that. Assign a task, assign a due date, and leave me alone. I'll let you know if there's something you need to know that deviates from the plan or if I need more resources.

I share the same attitude relative to the work I do. That said, at best, 50% of the folks that work for me I could trust to do the same. The other 50% absolutely need hand-holding. Either because they are inexperienced and get easily distracted down dirt roads (but still hard-working and really want to do the right thing) or just plain don't want to put in the effort. That is reality, unfortunately. Glad to hear you consider/conduct yourself as one who can work independently. Not everyone can.

 

[Bonasababy]

Have stayed out of this thread so far and this post may be a mistake, but here goes ...

I have had anywhere from 25 - 200 people reporting to me on technical programs over the course of the last 10 years. I am directed/required by my management team to provide weekly activity reports on what my team is doing. This is three separate management chains, two are internal and one is a required input by my Government Customer. They all get the essentially the same report but it is formatted differently for each as they use different tools/practices to extract the items they want to pass on to their higher ups. I ask everyone of my team to provide me a bulleted list of what they did that week and what the upcoming major activities/events they are focusing on for the next week (if it applies). I can usually generate 60-70% of what my team provides me without their input but there is no way I can know everything they do on top of doing my own work. There are always items that they highlight that I am unaware or only vaguely aware of. Is it tedious at times? Yes. Is it efficient? Wrong question. The goal is not to confirm they are doing something useful or valuable, it is to track their status against their contributions to planned deliverables that I am responsible for and if they are falling behind, I can step in and help them directly or find resources for them to help themselves. And yes, it can identify where someone is not performing where I need them to be. The USG Customer wanted to track every dollar against each task/deliverable as well as using the info to actually understand the work being done. On top of the weeklies, I had to prepare monthly and quarterly reports to the same USG customer. Those are redundant and inefficient but were contractual deliverables. I won't speculate on the why relative to DOGE/Musk, but bitching about spending 5 - 10 minutes a week (0.2-0.4% of a normal work week) to highlight work completed is lame.

Just my experience in the private sector working with a USG customer. Value it as you will.

Might be making an assumption here but I might guess that the people who review your activity reports are capable of understanding them and validating the worth and need for your outfits work.

That is not the case with this DOGE effort.

Step back and think if someone who already doesn't like what you do but has no clue what the value of your work is--and their clear goal is to reduce your workforce--demands you provide information to them that you know is being used to decide whether to keep or fire you or staff on your team.

 

[Irrelevant]

Do you work for the government? That makes the difference when your ceo and vp have to earn a check.

I have. And all my clients are various muni/gov.

I thought this whole biz was about efficiency and trying to learn from private enterprise? Which would be best served by not asking people to tell me what you did, but by actually doing things; accountability to production which is the exact opposite of micro managing.

 

[Alpine01]

... accountability to production which is the exact opposite of micro managing.

1000%.

 

[noharleyyet]

I mean it's weird when people root for failure or disaster outside of maybe sports. Hence you laughing that Space X having a failed launch. I don't see humor in that.

"Politic" is a daily superbowl, with Fox in lieu of JayZee controlling the halftime show.

 

[Alpine01]

Might be making an assumption here but I might guess that the people who review your activity reports are capable of understanding them and validating the worth and need for your outfits work.

Not really. I had a recent USG customer that was new to the existing program. No experience with the work we were doing. After about a month of receiving very odd questions/requests, it finally hit me that they really didn't understand the program and what it was trying to do. Spent 6 weeks of multiple back-briefs to outline the program from day one and bring them up to speed over the intervening 18 months. In the end, he had better knowledge of the program, some understanding of the technical aspects (he wasn't an engineer by training), and a working knowledge of the challenges ahead. Life got somewhat better once he got comfortable witht he fact that while he may not fully understand everything, my team and I did and he could trust that experience.

That is not the case with this DOGE effort.

I don't have the personal insight to substantiate or deny that claim. Perhaps you do.

 

[SAJ-99]

Life got somewhat better once he got comfortable witht he fact that while he may not fully understand everything, my team and I did and he could trust that experience.

Thank goodness we have the monitoring program you described. Sounds very valuable in preventing costs overruns in those contractors with private contractors.
Yes, sarcasm.

 

[BrentD]

Not really. I had a recent USG customer that was new to the existing program. No experience with the work we were doing. After about a month of receiving very odd questions/requests, it finally hit me that they really didn't understand the program and what it was trying to do. Spent 6 weeks of multiple back-briefs to outline the program from day one and bring them up to speed over the intervening 18 months. In the end, he had better knowledge of the program, some understanding of the technical aspects (he wasn't an engineer by training), and a working knowledge of the challenges ahead. Life got somewhat better once he got comfortable witht he fact that while he may not fully understand everything, my team and I did and he could trust that experience.

I don't have the personal insight to substantiate or deny that claim. Perhaps you do.

Yes you do, if you were paying attention. People are being dismissed summarily with claims of insufficient performance, yet their evaluations were stellar and even exceptional. And how many mission critical people have been dismissed that manage things like nuclear weapons, air traffic, various ongoing health emergencies, etc. etc. This is not meticulous weeding and winnowing, and to think it is, is disingenuous to put it kindly.

 

[Alpine01]

People are being dismissed summarily with claims of insufficient performance, yet their evaluations were stellar and even exceptional.

I have seen that happen too many times on the private side. Nothing new here. Doesn't make it right but it isn't unique either. Leadership changes and they have their own ideas on the path forward.

And how many mission critical people have been dismissed that manage things like nuclear weapons, air traffic, various ongoing health emergencies, etc. etc. This is not meticulous weeding and winnowing, and to think it is, is disingenuous to put it kindly.

Never said it was meticulous or well thought out. Please show me where I said that. From my POV, it hasn't been well thought out but that POV is limited. We don't know what we don't know, or at least I can say that for myself. You may have much greater insight into the conversations and decision-making processes inside the WH than I do.

I have seen management styles come in and wholesale gut everything from the beginning and force programs to earn their way back to existence. In some cases, it can be the right approach as it quickly sorts the chaff and the wheat. Other times it is just disruptive with no clear gain in the end. Time will tell how this one sorts out. That doesn't diminish the fact that it is a very painful exercise for those involved and I can sympathize with everyone that is caught up in it. Hopefully everyone affected comes through in the end in a better place.

 

[SAJ-99]

I have seen that happen too many times on the private side. Nothing new here. Doesn't make it right but it isn't unique either. Leadership changes and they have their own ideas on the path forward.

The Federal government is the largest employer in the country, hence this would be the largest layoff of all time. So yeah, unique.

 

[Alpine01]

The Federal government is the largest employer in the country, hence this would be the largest layoff of all time. So yeah, unique.

Scale - Yes. Process - No.

 

[Treeshark]

As importantly, the "local" management has historically, and for state fiscal rationale, resulted in the heretofore federal public lands being sold and becoming private lands.

I think that largely depends on the state.

Here at home, a lot of property is owned by the state and counties (remaining open to public use).

 

[SAJ-99]

Scale - Yes. Process - No.

If this seems normal to you, I would say you have worked for some pretty $hitty employers.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I think that largely depends on the state.

Here at home, a lot of property is owned by the state and counties (remaining open to public use).

That is true. However the amount of land given the state at statehood relative to what's owned publicly now is the real story.
In the case of Nevada, that state sold to private something like 93% of the land given to them at statehood by fed.

 

[MTGomer]

I would like to share that Montana manages wildlife reasonably well

compared to what!?

 

[Bc1992]

Do y’all think the lack of rd work will keep some people out of the forest?

 

[Sytes]

Maybe a lot of these federal properties would be better served being managed more locally?

Trite argument of those advocating PLT, but boils down to an apples to watermelons analogy when analyzed with details and specific differences.
As importantly, the "local" management has historically, and for state fiscal rationale, resulted in the heretofore federal public lands being sold and becoming private lands.

************

compared to what!?

You left out a considerable amount of my comment that was an observation of the following portions above. "I would like to share..." though according to our arguments on HT about State wildlife management, I would question that. However, that said, the idea Federal holds better capability, I would question that as well.

I would like to share that Montana manages wildlife reasonably well on our public land though... Maybe we should make hunting a federal license and remove it from the States.
Who manages wildlife better? Ugh...

 

[Alpine01]

If this seems normal to you, I would say you have worked for some pretty $hitty employers.

Never said it was normal. Said it has happened before; said it can in some cases be successful; said it can in some cases be nothing but disruptive. But the approach (process) is not unique to what DOGE is doing now, rightly or wrongly executed. And if nothing else, looks to reflect a more private industry CEO mentality which is no surprise given Trump/Musk backgrounds. Definitely different from the usual approach from DC critters that haven't balanced a budget since 2001 nor had a budget actually passed before the start of a fiscal year since 1996 (for FY1997 budget). Perhaps a different approach is needed.

Relative to the employers comment - you would be surprised. One is consistently top-tier within the US and globally. Doesn't mean every executive leader is top-tier though.

 

[BrentD]

...Hopefully everyone affected comes through in the end in a better place.

You can hope for anything. But you cannot reasonably expect anything short of calamity.