Re: Digest Number 68

On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 8:57:22 PM, Mary Poppendieck wrote:

> I'm not experienced with C&C managers, unless perhaps I have been one,
> but I don't think so.

OK. Knowing you as I do, I don't think so either.

> I do know this:  As a manager one of the early things I learned is to
> make the assumption that every person is trying to do their best, given
> the unique circumstances that surround them.  I found that if I made
> this assumption for everyone, it was true in almost all cases.  What
> happens when you assume that everyone is trying to do their best is that
> when they are not doing well, you look for reasons why.  What is the
> environment like which is causing them to do poorly?

Yes, I try to assume that as well. That's a big part of why I so rarely give up.

> Now it is my firm belief that this rule - assume that everyone is trying
> to do their best - holds for managers also.  Following the rule which
> has served me in good stead for many years, I assume that almost all
> managers are trying to do a good job.  If they are not doing a good job,
> there is something in their environment that is preventing it, it is not
> their intent to do a bad job.

Yes, I assume that. I don't think I've ever met anyone who was TRYING to do a
bad job.

> So let's examine that C&C managers you two spoke of.  First of all, I do
> not assume that anyone is a C&C manager, since that is a pejorative.  I
> assume that some managers might be acting in ways that others perceive
> to be C&C.  Something is either wrong with the perception or they are
> acting in a C&C manner.  However, if the person observing the C&C
> behavior is the target of it, then they are by definition correct in
> saying that they are experiencing C&C behavior on the part of their
> manager.  If others make blanket statements that 'all managers' or 'most
> managers' are C&C types, I tend to dismiss that statement.  

Yes. As far as I know I haven't been suggesting that all are. Many managers do
exhibit that behavior. I'm not sure whether it is more fruitful to declare that
there is no such thing as a C&C type, just people who do a lot of C&C, or not.
If the notion of "C&C type" is empty, I suggest we use it as a convenient
shorthand for "people who emit a high volume of command and control behavior".
;->

> So now back to our hapless manager who is exhibiting behavior which
> seems undesirable.  Why?  Well, perhaps the behavior is  effective,
> although I doubt that in the long run it is.  Perhaps the manager
> perceives the behavior as effective.  In that case, the only hope is to
> show him or her that there are better ways to achieve desired results.
> But it's a tough road, because they think their behavior is leading to
> successful results.  Low probability of success in this case.

Yes. And I do think that at least some managers believe that it is effective.
There are books on the subject. At the same time, even the U.S. Army, which
might be thought of as a haven for the behavior, is recognizing that certain
orders may need to be given ("Take that hill", or "Implement that product") but
that the actual execution needs to be emergent and local.

> But I would like to believe that most managers exhibiting C&C behavior
> know it is ineffective, but do not know any other way to behave.  The
> are under tremendous pressure to get results, and they have no other
> model.  These are the people who will more readily see that if they can
> make work self-directing, they can move beyond the behavior they do not
> really want to have.

YES YES OH GOD YES!!! My own irritating notion is that C&C behavior is largely a
result of fear. The manager barks because he knows he can do nothing real to get
the product out the door. He feels that his only choice is to buy posters with
encouraging sayings like "Teamwork", or to push, yell, scream, shout, give
orders.

I know that some managers feel that way, because I have felt that way when being
a manager and because others tell me that they felt this way.

XP gives these managers additional tools.

> They will probably not learn from bottom-up
> movement, they need some other approach.  We need to reach these
> managers, and when we do, we need to do it with respect.

Respect is as respect does. It seems unlikely that a "hard nuts" C&C snap out
orders manager is best brought to new realizations by saluting and saying Sir
Yes Sir. More likely, it seems to me, is a form of address that is congruent
with his, and a demeanor that says that one is of his rank or perhaps even
higher.

> I would like to think that most managers of software development are
> either not C&C managers or if they sometimes seem like one, they fall
> into the last category.  Most managers I've met have had management
> training telling them that their job is to teach and empower, so they
> want to do it.  As I said, I have not met all that many true C&C types,
> that is, people who were C&C and wanted to stay that way.  Quite
> frankly, I don't know what to do about them.

Yes.

> I am concerned that so often in discussion groups I hear mangers
> stereotyped as C&C.  I don't think such a characterization is useful,
> even if it were true, which I strongly suspect it is not in most cases.

I don't think this group is doing that; I don't think I'm doing that. I have
been, however, and will continue to be talking often about managers who exhibit
those characteristics, and comparing them with those who exhibit others, because
those are some of the folks we're talking to.

It could be, of course, that the guys Glen and Bill are talking about aren't
really exhibiting lots of C&C, but that I and others are reading that into what
Glen and Bill are saying. Much of the time all I hear, and from the chat here
and in the background, all that others hear is "you can't talk like that to the
guys who aren't here anyway".

That's frustrating. I hope the frustration shows. Get us in a conversation with
a real person and see what happens.

> But, Charlie, to directly answer your question, the way to change
> mangers who actually do exhibit C&C behavior is to make the simplifying
> assumption that they really don't want to act that way, but they see no
> other option.  Show them other options in a way they can believe.  Or
> show people higher in their organization how the culture might change.
> Help them be successful as they try on the new style. But don't try this
> from below. 

But Mary, according to Bill, it seems that we ARE below. THEY are CxO, we are
downtrodden programmer underling. We have to be trained to scrape the manure off
our feet before we're even allowed to meet one of these godlike beings who put
their pants on zero legs at a time. (OK, I admit, I'm on a roll here ... it's
all fun. But your point remains: we can't work this problem if we are taken as
underlings.)

> My real feeling is that by characterizing 'most' managers as C&C, we are
> selling them short.  I remember the days when 'most' workers were
> thought to be lazy.  What changed was that Theory Z came along and it
> was no longer acceptable to think of most workers as lazy.  An as it
> turns out, when attitudes toward workers turned more positive, most
> workers weren't lazy after all!  When it goes out of vogue to speak of
> most managers as C&C, then it just may turn out that most managers are
> not C&C after all.  Just changing our perceptions might have some effect
> on the perceived problem.

Yes. And in my subtle way, I'm here to work on a perceived problem. The one I'm
working on is that cats have no right to look at a queen.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition ...


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/