It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

ManagementSpeak: That’s a very insightful analysis.
Translation: It agrees perfectly with all of my biases.
Speaking of insightful analyses, this one, from an anonymous contributor, agrees perfectly with my bias toward accurate interpretation.

I miss Sam Kinison.

Kinison was the comic, killed a few years ago by some drunks in a pickup truck, who fell into fits of screaming with the voice of a dull hacksaw attacking an I-beam.

Sam’s spirit occasionally invades my flesh, like the time I heard a consultant compare management to raising children. Sam came to me then, and I felt like Dr. Strangelove fighting his own hand. I wanted to jump up and scream like Sam, “NO IT’S NOT! IT’S NOTHING LIKE RAISING KIDS! I HAVE A SIXTY-YEAR-OLD MOTHER OF FIVE WORKING FOR ME! SHE’S AN ADULT! A GROWN-UP! AHHHH AHHHH AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!”

This all came back to me as I read the megabytes of responses to my column on the 70% solution — the arithmetic that says you’d better create 70% more value than your salary or your employer loses money on you.

I did get two flames (one reader misunderstood the point, agreeing with me after we exchanged messages), but most readers endorsed the point enthusiastically. In fact, I received the ultimate compliment from one, who tacked up my column in his cubicle right next to Dilbert.

And these weren’t only managers wanting a whip to flog the hapless analysts who work for them. As many hapless, and for that matter hapful (there must be such a word, don’t you think?) analysts, and programmers, and other people who have to produce Real Stuff (RS, to use the technical term) for a living, were at least as supportive.

Employees want to succeed. They want to produce real value for their employers. Along the way, they want to enjoy their jobs, but that’s no trouble at all: let them produce real value and they’ll enjoy themselves, because most people naturally want to do exactly that.

Don’t believe me? Next time you have some strange assignment or other, call five people in your organization you’ve never met before, tell them what you’re working on, and say, “I was told you may have some good insights on how to approach this problem. Can you spare an hour to help me get my thoughts together?”

I guarantee you, at least six of the five will offer more help than you have any right to expect. And when you’re done, they’ll thank you. People want to create value for other people — that’s where self-esteem comes from.

The whole idea of empowerment stems from this basic realization about human nature. Very few employees go to work just to get a paycheck. Yes, that’s a part of why they show up, but it’s not the whole taco.

Every survey ever done on this subject reveals the same result: employees rank money between 7th and 10th in what they find most important in their work environment. (There are some qualifications on this statistic … the employees have to be making enough to have some disposable income, for example.)

Want more proof? Listen to what people gripe about. IT’S NEVER THEIR SALARY!

Employees complain about office politics. They complain about too many meetings. They complain about the food in the cafeteria. They complain about the number of meetings they have to attend. They complain about ridiculous procedures and regulations. And of course, they complain about having to go to too many meetings.

Every … every complaint you’re likely to overhear has to do with distractions from producing value.

Want happy, motivated, high-morale, high-performing employees? View every distraction they have as leg irons and hand-cuffs. Get rid of all that stuff.

Most of all, treat employees as adults, not because it makes them more effective, but because that’s what they are. They may work for you. If you’re doing your job, they look to you for leadership. They don’t need you as a parent.

So watch out — if you treat your staff like children, Sam’s going to come back and visit your office.

* * *

I still miss Sam Kinison. And I still like this column, all these years later. My only regret, when re-reading it, is that I missed pointing out that when you treat adults as children they’re likely to start living down to your expectations.

– Bob, 3/7/2016

In January, Minnesota turns into a winter wonderland. “Why would anyone want to live in a land like this?” we wonder, gazing out our windows at the pools of liquid nitrogen dotting the landscape.

Under these cryogenic conditions, some Minnesotans head north to go camping (honest!). Those of us who, less hardy or more sensible, view chess as an ideal winter sport spend our Januaries stoking the fire, pondering existential mysteries, or predicting the future: It will be cold again tomorrow.

Before making other new forecasts, let’s update old ones, starting with a prediction made way back on August 12th, 1996. Some excerpts:

“You can’t ignore the Web, and so, probably for the first time, you have to start thinking about serving your company’s [Real Paying] Customers. That will change everything.” “… You’re going to start working in marketing time … in months. Sometimes weeks. That means a whole different way of designing and building systems.” “… you’re going to justify your existence based on how well you help the company attract new customers, retain the customers it has, and encourage every customer to do more business with you.” “From here on in, you’re face to face with real customers. And that really does change everything.”

Not bad for 1996. I’ll claim victory. But never mind that. The riskier forecast, first made in January, 1998, scheduled Microsoft’s implosion for 2000. I’ll claim a provisional victory here as well.

Microsoft’s two big revenue generators, Windows and Office, have performed lackadaisically. Windows 2000 has taken the marketplace by drizzle, not storm; likewise Office 2000. Windows Me, the current end-of-the-DOS/Windows product, is a ride-along on new PCs — upgrade purchasers are rare as spotted owls.

Was it Microsoft or the economy? 2000 was tougher than 1999 for selling anything. On the other hand, 2000 was supposed to be the year of new investment in IT, after 1999’s laser focus on Y2K remediation. As pointed out here last February, though, spending was on new business applications, not more infrastructure costs, and especially not optional ones like upgrades like Windows 2000 and Office 2000.

Microsoft’s financial performance was poor. Superficially, Microsoft’s 2000 growth was a solid if disappointing 21% (1999’s figure was 73%). Factor out investment income, though, and growth was a paltry 11%. And Microsoft has issued earnings warnings for its next-quarter results.

Will next year be any better? Almost certainly, Dubyah will either cripple the antitrust suit or kill it outright. The DoJ will be MIA. (Related prediction: No new antitrust suits of any kind unless a Bush campaign contributor benefits, and free reign on mergers and acquisitions unless a Bush crony is put at risk.)

The bad news? It won’t help. Microsoft already owns the desktop. Whistler will end up like Cairo, Windows Me-Too will happen but will be an even less interesting upgrade than its predecessor, and the next version of Office will be boring. There’s no source for growth. The data center won’t help: Microsoft has squandered its credibility while facing intense competition from Linux, Sun, Oracle, and IBM. The only gains will come from the ever-hapless Novell.

In a bizarre twist, Microsoft’s only hope for major growth is the PocketPC, thanks to Palm having grown so complacent that no platform innovation is even envisioned. The PocketPC isn’t enough to rescue 2001, though.

It looks like a tough year for the Redmond contingent.