In my travails as a manager and a periodic lecturer on management, I am constantly amazed at how some managers, many of them highly placed, seem to continue making the same mistakes over and over again. Explaining good management practice never seems to penetrate because the lessons don’t seem to fit the problem as these managers perceive it. Sometimes, the lesson is best explained with an analogy and these are some examples of poor management as explained by a fellow project manager who has clearly encountered more than one of these management solutions to otherwise intractable management problems.
In terms of Project Management it is always a good plan to get off of a horse when you discover that it is dead, but this logic isn’t always followed by modern managers who seem to insist on alternative strategies. I’m sure you will recognize some of these strategies and may even have attempted some of them yourself, so here they are – the alternative strategies to dismounting a dead horse.
1. Changing Riders
2. Buying a stronger whip
3. Falling back on “This is the way we’ve always ridden”
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse
5. Appointing a committee to study the horse’s equipment
6. Arranging a visit to other sites to see how they ride their dead horses
7. Increasing the standards for the performance of dead horses
8. Increasing the standards for the performance of dead horse riders
9. Appointing a committee to revive the dead horse
10. Appointing a committee to review the acquisition standards for horses
11. Appointing a committee to review the job description for riders
12. Creating a training session to improve riding skills
13. Comparing the state of dead horses in today’s environment with those of previous decades to show that today’s dead horses are really an improvement
14. Changing the standards so that the horse is no longer technically dead
15. Hiring an external consultant to show how the dead horse can still be ridden
16. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase their collective performance
17. Increasing funding (horse feed) since the horse is obviously malnourished
18. Declaring that “No horse is too dead to ride”
19. Doing a study to determine if outsourcing will reduce the cost of riding the dead horse
20. Buying a computer program which is guaranteed to enhance dead horse performance and productivity
21. Declaring a dead horse more cost effective than a live one
22. Forming a process action group to find uses for dead horses
23. Promoting the dead horse to a position of greater responsibility
Did you wince? Did you recognize some of the actions you may have taken in the past when you discovered that a project you launched isn’t meeting expectations? Certainly it is easier to look back and criticize because hindsight is always 20:20 but then at the time some of these may have seemed quite reasonable. Of all of these the first one is the one that is most commonly implemented because it presumes the horse is dead because of the rider so what is needed is another rider. At the base of this strategy lies the manager’s belief that the project he initiated is sound but it is the leadership (not his of course) that failed. Sometimes this dead horse will have several riders and owners before a manager has the courage to declare the horse is dead and no rider can get it to run or even walk.
Another favorite and one that you see with company mergers, is the idea that if you can’t get the dead horse to perform, harness it to another dead horse in the hopes that they both will suddenly come to life and perform as never before. How many times have you observed this in the corporate world? Ironically, when this happens you sometimes get the Zombie effect as the two dead horses begin to shamble and stumble about in some semblance of competitive life.
The fact is that when the horse is dead – bury it. This is a hard lesson but it is surprising how many otherwise intelligent and reasonably competent managers can’t bring themselves to declare the horse is dead even though they can see it is lying on its back with all four feet straight up. But as an experienced Management Consultant, I must admit that in many cases the manager who has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the horse was dead was promoted to a higher level position seemingly reserved especially for dead horses with no discernible brain activity, frequently with such grand titles as Vice Chairman or even CEO. I guess this is attributed to the miracle of modern (management) medicine and it requires the intercession of an outside consultant to declare the horse is dead.
By way of disclosure this dead horse analogy is not original with me but I do not know its origin so I cannot attribute it to the original author. Only the comments are mine. C.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Observing the Passing Parade
Several things have been in news recently that have caused me to reflect on bravery and courage. One of the things that I have observed in that people who have performed extraordinary acts of courage and bravery general point out that they simply did what had to be done. They didn't view their actions as particularly extraordinary or even brave, they were simply doing their duty. But this is physical courage and reactive, these people took action in reaction to some event or circumstance and did so without a great deal of thought or analysis. I don't mean to denigrate or disparage these acts of courage, but courage takes many forms and sometimes, it requires a great deal of courage to do what is right rather than do what is expedient and this brings me to John Kerry.
There is no doubt that John Kerry served in a combat zone and was indeed under enemy fire. Whether or not he was a hero is really beside the point because he did do his duty and as we see from others, most acts of physical courage are reactive so it is easy to accept that John Kerry did in fact display physical courage. But that really isn't the point or certainly not the crucial point. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up and say "this is what I stand for" in an unequivocal way. President Harry Truman was famous for his moral courage. He took the position that I was elected to be President and I will do my best for the country. If you don't agree with me and my decisions, don't vote for me -- end of discussion. President George Bush hasn't been quite this direct, but he has effectively stated his intentions for the future and stood by his decisions in the past. He clearly believes in what he is doing and if you disagree, he is sorry but he doesn't plan on changing. But what does Senator Kerry stand for? What kind of moral courage has he displayed? He has yet to take any controversial stand and stick by it. For example, he clearly stated that he would expect any decision he made regarding military force would have to pass an international test. This was widely interpreted to mean that he would not act to use force to protect American interests unless the UN sanctioned it. When confronted with this interpretation, he didn't repudiate it, but he did try to soften it by saying he would always act to defend America. Not quite the same thing.
He has stated that he fully intends to raise taxes for the rich, except not for the very rich like himself. He and his wife pay 12.5% in taxes while the average "rich American" that he intends to tax pays considerably more in taxes. When confonted with this fact, his response was he would move to close the tax loopholes. The translation, is he doesn't plan on changing anything that will cost him but he fully intends to change things that will cost others.
His stance on military force is hardly distinguished. He voted against the Gulf War even after it was sanctioned by his treasured UN. Even though Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, he still voted against the war. He voted to give President Bush the authority to use force but he later equivocated by stating that he never actually expected the President to use force. He voted for and then against funding the military equipment and body armor he lated charged the President of not providing. Are these the actions of someone who has moral courage? With Senator Kerry, no one can ever be sure of precisely what he believes in because he only seems to believe what is expedient.
On a different subject, I see that the CEO of K-Mart is about to receive $94M in compensation even though the company has passed through one bankruptcy and is struggling to avoid another. The company has laid off thousands of people but the Board of Directors seems to think that it is morally right to pay the CEO what can only be viewed as an obscene amount of money considering that he was the leader who led the company into disaster. Here is a Board who has no moral compass rewarding an individual who has even less of a sense of morality.
The ACLU is running an ad opposing the Patriot Act. This ad points out that this act enables the government to search your house without first notifying you of its intention. Well -- helloooo -- the government has never been under any obligation to notify you that it intends to search your house. All that is required is that the government produce a search order signed by a judge and the Patriot Act has not changed that. It does permit the government to get one order and then apply it other cell phones since the terrorists move from phone to phone in an effort to thwart the government. The ACLU has also refused a grant from the Ford Foundation because they restricted the ACLU from using the funds to support terrorists organizations. Talk about being out of touch with reality. The ACLU also has successfully forced the government to provide lawyers to all of the terrorists held in Cuba. The judges in this country have completely lost their minds. Should we have provided lawyers to every POW we captured in WW II or Korea BEFORE locking them up? They successfully got one of their terrorists freed and he merrily went back to murdering and bombing in Afghanistan. Something needs to be done regarding this organization because it is becoming a serious danger to the country. Oh well, as Scarlett said -- "Tomorrow is another day".
There is no doubt that John Kerry served in a combat zone and was indeed under enemy fire. Whether or not he was a hero is really beside the point because he did do his duty and as we see from others, most acts of physical courage are reactive so it is easy to accept that John Kerry did in fact display physical courage. But that really isn't the point or certainly not the crucial point. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up and say "this is what I stand for" in an unequivocal way. President Harry Truman was famous for his moral courage. He took the position that I was elected to be President and I will do my best for the country. If you don't agree with me and my decisions, don't vote for me -- end of discussion. President George Bush hasn't been quite this direct, but he has effectively stated his intentions for the future and stood by his decisions in the past. He clearly believes in what he is doing and if you disagree, he is sorry but he doesn't plan on changing. But what does Senator Kerry stand for? What kind of moral courage has he displayed? He has yet to take any controversial stand and stick by it. For example, he clearly stated that he would expect any decision he made regarding military force would have to pass an international test. This was widely interpreted to mean that he would not act to use force to protect American interests unless the UN sanctioned it. When confronted with this interpretation, he didn't repudiate it, but he did try to soften it by saying he would always act to defend America. Not quite the same thing.
He has stated that he fully intends to raise taxes for the rich, except not for the very rich like himself. He and his wife pay 12.5% in taxes while the average "rich American" that he intends to tax pays considerably more in taxes. When confonted with this fact, his response was he would move to close the tax loopholes. The translation, is he doesn't plan on changing anything that will cost him but he fully intends to change things that will cost others.
His stance on military force is hardly distinguished. He voted against the Gulf War even after it was sanctioned by his treasured UN. Even though Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, he still voted against the war. He voted to give President Bush the authority to use force but he later equivocated by stating that he never actually expected the President to use force. He voted for and then against funding the military equipment and body armor he lated charged the President of not providing. Are these the actions of someone who has moral courage? With Senator Kerry, no one can ever be sure of precisely what he believes in because he only seems to believe what is expedient.
On a different subject, I see that the CEO of K-Mart is about to receive $94M in compensation even though the company has passed through one bankruptcy and is struggling to avoid another. The company has laid off thousands of people but the Board of Directors seems to think that it is morally right to pay the CEO what can only be viewed as an obscene amount of money considering that he was the leader who led the company into disaster. Here is a Board who has no moral compass rewarding an individual who has even less of a sense of morality.
The ACLU is running an ad opposing the Patriot Act. This ad points out that this act enables the government to search your house without first notifying you of its intention. Well -- helloooo -- the government has never been under any obligation to notify you that it intends to search your house. All that is required is that the government produce a search order signed by a judge and the Patriot Act has not changed that. It does permit the government to get one order and then apply it other cell phones since the terrorists move from phone to phone in an effort to thwart the government. The ACLU has also refused a grant from the Ford Foundation because they restricted the ACLU from using the funds to support terrorists organizations. Talk about being out of touch with reality. The ACLU also has successfully forced the government to provide lawyers to all of the terrorists held in Cuba. The judges in this country have completely lost their minds. Should we have provided lawyers to every POW we captured in WW II or Korea BEFORE locking them up? They successfully got one of their terrorists freed and he merrily went back to murdering and bombing in Afghanistan. Something needs to be done regarding this organization because it is becoming a serious danger to the country. Oh well, as Scarlett said -- "Tomorrow is another day".
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
What Ever Happened to Red China
When did the “Peoples Republic of China” become simply “China”? As far as I know the Chinese government still thinks of themselves as “The Peoples Republic”, yet the media no longer refers to them as the PRC. For that matter when did China cease being “Red China” and morph into the PRC and then to “China”? Are they less “Red” today? Has China become democratic or less communist? Of course not, what has happened is the media wants to turn world attention away from the abuses by the remaining Communist Regimes. North Korea is no longer “Communist North Korea” instead it has evolved into “North Korea” or if any negative connotation is offered, it is referred to as a “rogue regime”, but rarely if ever is it referred to as “communist”. The same is true of Cuba, suddenly Castro has gone mainstream as the Left tries to garner acceptance for his worker’s paradise, while ignoring the continued suppression of dissent and persecution of those who dare to challenge him. Did Communism die with the Berlin Wall? The recent anti-war protests were organized by the communists but for the most part in their haste to turn opinion against the administration the part played by the communists has either been glossed over or ignored altogether. What is going on in the media and when did communism die? For that matter what about its birth?
Interestingly, Communism is actually a moral reaction to capitalism and both are simply structured philosophical descriptions of market dynamics and part of the Science (?) of Economics. Commerce was largely unexplored or at least languished among the scholarly pursuits until the 1600’s. The history of the development and evolution of Economics is eloquently described in the “Worldly Philosophers”[1] Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations” actually is describing the real workings of the world of commerce at the dawning of the Industrial Age. Communism as described by Marx and Engels came as a philosophical reaction to the dark side of capitalism. This reaction can be summed up as being a moral judgment on the unequal distribution of wealth but it is a long way from formulating a philosophy and acting upon it. So Communism wasn’t born until 1917.
What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is that governments can be capitalist, socialist, or even communist, but the actual form of government is none of those. Governments are democratic and freely elected, or they are hereditary absolute monarchies, or dictatorships. Communist governments are and have always been dictatorships. No Communist government has ever been freely elected. Yet from the very outset the Leftists have been unable to get past the inherent morality of Communist philosophy and see its failures in practice. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens upon his return from the Russia of Lenin and Stalin said “I have seen the future and it works”.[2] Of course virtually all of the leftist writers and journalists at the time were offering very positive views of Communism. So the positive view of Communism has a long history and includes some very impressive names who offered if not outright support, certainly provided a patina of approval. Shortly after assuming the Presidency President Truman said “You are needlessly worried about Russian Communism, I am worried about British Imperialism”. A view he quickly came to realize was erroneous but a position that the liberal Leftists never came to share.
Instead the media and the Leftist intelligentsia glossed over the excesses, blatant falsehoods, and most of all the atrocities committed by the Communist Regime in Russia and later in Cambodia, Cuba, China, and Viet Nam. These were largely ignored and the left wing intellectuals continued their love affair, providing the Russians with atomic secrets among other traitorous acts. Even today the Goldberg’s are viewed as martyrs by the Left and the posthumous proof that Robert Oppenheimer was in fact providing secrets to the Communists was simply ignored by the media. But now we have the papers of Senator McCarthy describing his attacks on Hollywood and the State Department, those “bastions of “right thinking” and the media are once again in a fighting frenzy. Senator McCarthy was certainly a flawed man and there is little doubt that he grossly overplayed his hand, but the fact is Hollywood was and still is filled with actors, producers, and directors who are filled with animosity toward America and American ideals and freedoms, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick the “blame America first crowd.” Today “McCarthyism” is an epithet to be hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the Leftist intellectuals and their anti-American and pro-communist stance. The fact is that Senator McCarty was not totally wrong. . If you doubt this watch any Oliver Stone movie. He is an historical revisionist determined to show the world how history should have been.
But, what about Red China – how did it become not Red? How did Cuba cease being Communist Cuba and become “Castro’s Cuba”? Are these countries no longer “Communist”? Have I missed some dramatic change of heart? Are these countries now allowing free speech, freedom of the press, private ownership? Not that I know of, instead they continue to be oppressive states that imprison people for simply disagreeing with them. No dissent is allowed. The liberal press (a redundancy) paints a rosy picture of China today – it is a worker’s paradise. They are actually allowing elections at the village level. Of course, the old USSR held elections as well and you could vote for any Communist Party Candidate of your choice. The same is true in China today. It is just as Red and just as oppressive as it always was. It is interesting to me that the liberals today see China on the way to reform much like Taiwan and Korea. Apparently I missed something here because Taiwan was a leftover from the old Chiang Kai Shek regime and has been a democratically elected republic for a very long time. It evolved from a dictatorship but that was a very short period. As far as I know Korea is divided into two parts, the South which is a democratic government and the North which is a brutally repressive communist regime. So the “reforms” that the Chinese Government are implementing seem to me to be commercial more that political. Apparently this is just “realpolitik” because China wants to sell to the US and the US wants to buy. Red China is dead – Long Live China – the worker’s paradise.
[1] The Worldly Philosophers, Robert Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, 1953,
[2] Useful Idiots, Mona Charen –Regenery, 2003
Interestingly, Communism is actually a moral reaction to capitalism and both are simply structured philosophical descriptions of market dynamics and part of the Science (?) of Economics. Commerce was largely unexplored or at least languished among the scholarly pursuits until the 1600’s. The history of the development and evolution of Economics is eloquently described in the “Worldly Philosophers”[1] Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations” actually is describing the real workings of the world of commerce at the dawning of the Industrial Age. Communism as described by Marx and Engels came as a philosophical reaction to the dark side of capitalism. This reaction can be summed up as being a moral judgment on the unequal distribution of wealth but it is a long way from formulating a philosophy and acting upon it. So Communism wasn’t born until 1917.
What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is that governments can be capitalist, socialist, or even communist, but the actual form of government is none of those. Governments are democratic and freely elected, or they are hereditary absolute monarchies, or dictatorships. Communist governments are and have always been dictatorships. No Communist government has ever been freely elected. Yet from the very outset the Leftists have been unable to get past the inherent morality of Communist philosophy and see its failures in practice. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens upon his return from the Russia of Lenin and Stalin said “I have seen the future and it works”.[2] Of course virtually all of the leftist writers and journalists at the time were offering very positive views of Communism. So the positive view of Communism has a long history and includes some very impressive names who offered if not outright support, certainly provided a patina of approval. Shortly after assuming the Presidency President Truman said “You are needlessly worried about Russian Communism, I am worried about British Imperialism”. A view he quickly came to realize was erroneous but a position that the liberal Leftists never came to share.
Instead the media and the Leftist intelligentsia glossed over the excesses, blatant falsehoods, and most of all the atrocities committed by the Communist Regime in Russia and later in Cambodia, Cuba, China, and Viet Nam. These were largely ignored and the left wing intellectuals continued their love affair, providing the Russians with atomic secrets among other traitorous acts. Even today the Goldberg’s are viewed as martyrs by the Left and the posthumous proof that Robert Oppenheimer was in fact providing secrets to the Communists was simply ignored by the media. But now we have the papers of Senator McCarthy describing his attacks on Hollywood and the State Department, those “bastions of “right thinking” and the media are once again in a fighting frenzy. Senator McCarthy was certainly a flawed man and there is little doubt that he grossly overplayed his hand, but the fact is Hollywood was and still is filled with actors, producers, and directors who are filled with animosity toward America and American ideals and freedoms, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick the “blame America first crowd.” Today “McCarthyism” is an epithet to be hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the Leftist intellectuals and their anti-American and pro-communist stance. The fact is that Senator McCarty was not totally wrong. . If you doubt this watch any Oliver Stone movie. He is an historical revisionist determined to show the world how history should have been.
But, what about Red China – how did it become not Red? How did Cuba cease being Communist Cuba and become “Castro’s Cuba”? Are these countries no longer “Communist”? Have I missed some dramatic change of heart? Are these countries now allowing free speech, freedom of the press, private ownership? Not that I know of, instead they continue to be oppressive states that imprison people for simply disagreeing with them. No dissent is allowed. The liberal press (a redundancy) paints a rosy picture of China today – it is a worker’s paradise. They are actually allowing elections at the village level. Of course, the old USSR held elections as well and you could vote for any Communist Party Candidate of your choice. The same is true in China today. It is just as Red and just as oppressive as it always was. It is interesting to me that the liberals today see China on the way to reform much like Taiwan and Korea. Apparently I missed something here because Taiwan was a leftover from the old Chiang Kai Shek regime and has been a democratically elected republic for a very long time. It evolved from a dictatorship but that was a very short period. As far as I know Korea is divided into two parts, the South which is a democratic government and the North which is a brutally repressive communist regime. So the “reforms” that the Chinese Government are implementing seem to me to be commercial more that political. Apparently this is just “realpolitik” because China wants to sell to the US and the US wants to buy. Red China is dead – Long Live China – the worker’s paradise.
[1] The Worldly Philosophers, Robert Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, 1953,
[2] Useful Idiots, Mona Charen –Regenery, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)