A Mandate to Be Cheap
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.
Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.
So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Sadly, they still have the authority to select the thing you said was not an option, and only recall that you mentioned it; thus it is your fault.
Here Here!
I suffer this problem - I present two options, say which one I really want, and they say - really, there is no other option? I know Bill down at BB can sell me xyz for half that price - then you do what Dustin explains, and they still pill Bill's solution and blame you when it doesn't work, and in my example, it was their mention.
Right, the issue here is defining "option".
Is there another option?
No, none that I know of that I could in good conscious recommend without knowing that I was setting you, the IT decision manager, up for failure.
Now I do like that sentence! I really truly wonder how it would really fly? I see several outcomes, so directly, yet pretty eloquently, of reminding them that they are the IT manager - 1) they will realize their but is on the line, and probably cave to your recommendation because they know they don't know, so they take your recommendation 2) they laugh at you because they don't agree that they are the IT decision manager, and because they are the owners they can do whatever they want, regardless of logic, 3) realize that this meeting was perhaps unnecessary and that they really should have you be the IT manager and trust you to do that job.
Is 2) really the owner than often? If so, quit. Easy peasy. They are irrational, insane and going to hurt you for fun.
In my case the owners are the board - and they can often be more seemingly irrational then the CEO, which if is true, then you're right, a person in this situation should move on.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.
Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.
So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?
I'd be out finding another position the same day, while applying for unemployment coverage. I'd not have a job at a toxic place any longer.
So no it's not a "win" but it would be a win in terms of being done with a poor employer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Exactly, you are the filter. If you are making recommendations, they are YOUR recommendations. Otherwise, you are just being asked to list things regardless of viability... which if so, there is nothing whatsoever to blame you for.
I can't argue with that. However, having something legit to blame someone for doesn't have to be part of the equation when you just feel like passing blame. I'm not calling it legit, just saying that happens in the real world. I'm not saying you can't win in a court of law; I'm saying that it's not worth the effort to fight a battle you aren't going to win with a boss or owner in a SMB employment scenario.
Of course, BUT you can manage things better or worse. How options are presented, which ones are presented, how they are documented, how the decision is labeled... these things really matter, even to crazy, irrational owners.
You'd certainly like to think you can control these things, but the reality is you probably can't. I constantly have management asking - Why do the PCs we purchase cost more than the ones in Best Buy - it's just a computer right? They don't understand things like warranties, business class machines, Windows Pro vs Home editions, etc, etc... when you tell them those things.. they only hear words, rambling words.
What's worse is that they often have had their crappy BB computer at home for 5+ years, so all those things that you mention about business class being better - they don't don't believe it since they got the same 5+ out of their BB computer.
The solution to this is explain why their proposed solution doesn't work (and document the explanation). If they still choose to purchase BB computers for $200 bucks it's pure on them.
When it blows up, they lose credibility and trust of further up management.
I think you must be working in much larger medium sized business than I. There is at most 1 level between me and the owners of the company since I left a fortune 500 company. So if my boss is good buddies with the owner/CEO I'm sunk no matter what.
Correct, you are dealing with people who just don't care and, it sounds like, are kind of corrupt (if they will blame you for their own decisions, that's kind of just mean and vicious.) Scapegoating when there are no politics, just mean owners, is very bad.
Of course it's bad, but you don't think it happens every day in a majority of businesses, on some level?
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
THere is no winning in that scenario. Doing a good job gets your fired, doing a bad job gets your fired. It's a corrupt environment (even if the corruption is just one owner that isn't capable of logic or kind thinking who just hates you personally) and the only good answer is to leave it as leaving it is the assumed end result regardless.
Sure, but that also takes time and effort, and it's not always a situation where the available jobs to go to are any better.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
What's worse is - the crappy solution that they pick more often than not seems to work out. Maybe not completely, but enough that management isn't demanding it's replacement. this is either because you bust your ass to keep it working, or dumb blind luck (in the case of the BB computer, I've had ones that lasted for 10 years, doesn't mean it was the right decision). So when these crappy decisions keep working out, your overpriced solutions just seem like you wanting to get new toys.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Exactly, you are the filter. If you are making recommendations, they are YOUR recommendations. Otherwise, you are just being asked to list things regardless of viability... which if so, there is nothing whatsoever to blame you for.
I can't argue with that. However, having something legit to blame someone for doesn't have to be part of the equation when you just feel like passing blame. I'm not calling it legit, just saying that happens in the real world. I'm not saying you can't win in a court of law; I'm saying that it's not worth the effort to fight a battle you aren't going to win with a boss or owner in a SMB employment scenario.
Of course, BUT you can manage things better or worse. How options are presented, which ones are presented, how they are documented, how the decision is labeled... these things really matter, even to crazy, irrational owners.
You'd certainly like to think you can control these things, but the reality is you probably can't. I constantly have management asking - Why do the PCs we purchase cost more than the ones in Best Buy - it's just a computer right? They don't understand things like warranties, business class machines, Windows Pro vs Home editions, etc, etc... when you tell them those things.. they only hear words, rambling words.
What's worse is that they often have had their crappy BB computer at home for 5+ years, so all those things that you mention about business class being better - they don't don't believe it since they got the same 5+ out of their BB computer.
The solution to this is explain why their proposed solution doesn't work (and document the explanation). If they still choose to purchase BB computers for $200 bucks it's pure on them.
When it blows up, they lose credibility and trust of further up management.
I think you must be working in much larger medium sized business than I. There is at most 1 level between me and the owners of the company since I left a fortune 500 company. So if my boss is good buddies with the owner/CEO I'm sunk no matter what.
Correct, you are dealing with people who just don't care and, it sounds like, are kind of corrupt (if they will blame you for their own decisions, that's kind of just mean and vicious.) Scapegoating when there are no politics, just mean owners, is very bad.
Of course it's bad, but you don't think it happens every day in a majority of businesses, on some level?
It certainly does occur on some level. "Oh I know this guy at ABC company and they use Quickbooks, so we should too".
Even if it doesn't meet the minimum requirements.
What matters is personal integrity to provide the best solution for the needs.
If you do provide the best solution (at least proposed) and the choice to go for the worst, that is on them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Exactly, you are the filter. If you are making recommendations, they are YOUR recommendations. Otherwise, you are just being asked to list things regardless of viability... which if so, there is nothing whatsoever to blame you for.
I can't argue with that. However, having something legit to blame someone for doesn't have to be part of the equation when you just feel like passing blame. I'm not calling it legit, just saying that happens in the real world. I'm not saying you can't win in a court of law; I'm saying that it's not worth the effort to fight a battle you aren't going to win with a boss or owner in a SMB employment scenario.
Of course, BUT you can manage things better or worse. How options are presented, which ones are presented, how they are documented, how the decision is labeled... these things really matter, even to crazy, irrational owners.
You'd certainly like to think you can control these things, but the reality is you probably can't. I constantly have management asking - Why do the PCs we purchase cost more than the ones in Best Buy - it's just a computer right? They don't understand things like warranties, business class machines, Windows Pro vs Home editions, etc, etc... when you tell them those things.. they only hear words, rambling words.
What's worse is that they often have had their crappy BB computer at home for 5+ years, so all those things that you mention about business class being better - they don't don't believe it since they got the same 5+ out of their BB computer.
The solution to this is explain why their proposed solution doesn't work (and document the explanation). If they still choose to purchase BB computers for $200 bucks it's pure on them.
When it blows up, they lose credibility and trust of further up management.
I think you must be working in much larger medium sized business than I. There is at most 1 level between me and the owners of the company since I left a fortune 500 company. So if my boss is good buddies with the owner/CEO I'm sunk no matter what.
Correct, you are dealing with people who just don't care and, it sounds like, are kind of corrupt (if they will blame you for their own decisions, that's kind of just mean and vicious.) Scapegoating when there are no politics, just mean owners, is very bad.
Well thankfully I've never been fired from a job, for a decision or otherwise. But as we talked about at ML Con - my friend was (from the details we had) because management didn't see the value in backups.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
What's worse is - the crappy solution that they pick more often than not seems to work out. Maybe not completely, but enough that management isn't demanding it's replacement. this is either because you bust your ass to keep it working, or dumb blind luck (in the case of the BB computer, I've had ones that lasted for 10 years, doesn't mean it was the right decision). So when these crappy decisions keep working out, your overpriced solutions just seem like you wanting to get new toys.
That is because you aren't properly accounting for the time it takes to maintain (BYAT Bust your ass time) to keep the system in place.
If you're salaried, and you're doing in your 8-10 hour day, the business doesn't care, so long as other projects aren't falling to the wayside.
If other projects are falling to the way side because you're stuck working on a bad choice, that choice needs to be replaced with a better one.
-
If you do provide the best solution (at least proposed) and the choice to go for the worst, that is on them.
Of course, but they won't always agree to see it that way, and you then get the consequences of their decision as to how to handle that. That's the real world. If quitting makes you feel like you have done the right thing, go for it. My only point is that your personal justification (whether in your mind or on a piece of paper) does not always shield you from the fallout of others' poor decisions. You can have all the proof in the world and still get the sh*t end of the stick. That's life.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
What's worse is - the crappy solution that they pick more often than not seems to work out. Maybe not completely, but enough that management isn't demanding it's replacement. this is either because you bust your ass to keep it working, or dumb blind luck (in the case of the BB computer, I've had ones that lasted for 10 years, doesn't mean it was the right decision). So when these crappy decisions keep working out, your overpriced solutions just seem like you wanting to get new toys.
That is because you aren't properly accounting for the time it takes to maintain (BYAT Bust your ass time) to keep the system in place.
If you're salaried, and you're doing in your 8-10 hour day, the business doesn't care, so long as other projects aren't falling to the wayside.
If other projects are falling to the way side because you're stuck working on a bad choice, that choice needs to be replaced with a better one.
While I did specifically mention busting the IT person's ass to keep it going - clearly they didn't care about that. But just as often, as in the BB PC, the one that lasted 10 years didn't require massive amounts of extra time to keep working compared to the business class one.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
If you do provide the best solution (at least proposed) and the choice to go for the worst, that is on them.
Of course, but they won't always agree to see it that way, and you then get the consequences of their decision as to how to handle that. That's the real world. If quitting makes you feel like you have done the right thing, go for it. My only point is that your personal justification (whether in your mind or on a piece of paper) does not always shield you from the fallout of others' poor decisions. You can have all the proof in the world and still get the sh*t end of the stick. That's life.
I agree, and I say let the pieces fall where they are, when you're asked to fix the situation, do so, or take the lumps (termination) and find a better position.
-
If other projects are falling to the way side because you're stuck working on a bad choice, that choice needs to be replaced with a better one.
You're making the assumption that you have some say in that decision. If that were true, you wouldn't be in that position. The truth is that they would have to admit to making the bad decision in order to have any grounds for addressing the current issue. To avoid that, it's simpler to say that you are poorly managing your time.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.
Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.
So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?
If the outcome is always the same, being fired for doing the right thing instead of being fired for things that are actually your fault is quite a big win, yes.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Sadly, they still have the authority to select the thing you said was not an option, and only recall that you mentioned it; thus it is your fault.
Here Here!
I suffer this problem - I present two options, say which one I really want, and they say - really, there is no other option? I know Bill down at BB can sell me xyz for half that price - then you do what Dustin explains, and they still pill Bill's solution and blame you when it doesn't work, and in my example, it was their mention.
Right, the issue here is defining "option".
Is there another option?
No, none that I know of that I could in good conscious recommend without knowing that I was setting you, the IT decision manager, up for failure.
Now I do like that sentence! I really truly wonder how it would really fly? I see several outcomes, so directly, yet pretty eloquently, of reminding them that they are the IT manager - 1) they will realize their but is on the line, and probably cave to your recommendation because they know they don't know, so they take your recommendation 2) they laugh at you because they don't agree that they are the IT decision manager, and because they are the owners they can do whatever they want, regardless of logic, 3) realize that this meeting was perhaps unnecessary and that they really should have you be the IT manager and trust you to do that job.
Is 2) really the owner than often? If so, quit. Easy peasy. They are irrational, insane and going to hurt you for fun.
In my case the owners are the board - and they can often be more seemingly irrational then the CEO, which if is true, then you're right, a person in this situation should move on.
That's what I'm saying - if you believe that your only function is to be there so that they can blame someone and they intend to fire you for doing a good job, then yes, moving on on your own terms is far better than moving on on theirs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.
Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.
So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?
If the outcome is always the same, being fired for doing the right thing instead of being fired for things that are actually your fault is quite a big win, yes.
That wasn't the choice presented. It was having a job or losing a job.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Exactly, you are the filter. If you are making recommendations, they are YOUR recommendations. Otherwise, you are just being asked to list things regardless of viability... which if so, there is nothing whatsoever to blame you for.
I can't argue with that. However, having something legit to blame someone for doesn't have to be part of the equation when you just feel like passing blame. I'm not calling it legit, just saying that happens in the real world. I'm not saying you can't win in a court of law; I'm saying that it's not worth the effort to fight a battle you aren't going to win with a boss or owner in a SMB employment scenario.
Of course, BUT you can manage things better or worse. How options are presented, which ones are presented, how they are documented, how the decision is labeled... these things really matter, even to crazy, irrational owners.
You'd certainly like to think you can control these things, but the reality is you probably can't. I constantly have management asking - Why do the PCs we purchase cost more than the ones in Best Buy - it's just a computer right? They don't understand things like warranties, business class machines, Windows Pro vs Home editions, etc, etc... when you tell them those things.. they only hear words, rambling words.
What's worse is that they often have had their crappy BB computer at home for 5+ years, so all those things that you mention about business class being better - they don't don't believe it since they got the same 5+ out of their BB computer.
The solution to this is explain why their proposed solution doesn't work (and document the explanation). If they still choose to purchase BB computers for $200 bucks it's pure on them.
When it blows up, they lose credibility and trust of further up management.
I think you must be working in much larger medium sized business than I. There is at most 1 level between me and the owners of the company since I left a fortune 500 company. So if my boss is good buddies with the owner/CEO I'm sunk no matter what.
Correct, you are dealing with people who just don't care and, it sounds like, are kind of corrupt (if they will blame you for their own decisions, that's kind of just mean and vicious.) Scapegoating when there are no politics, just mean owners, is very bad.
Of course it's bad, but you don't think it happens every day in a majority of businesses, on some level?
It does, but there is also a recourse when it is not the owner. THere is someone to demonstrate it to.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
THere is no winning in that scenario. Doing a good job gets your fired, doing a bad job gets your fired. It's a corrupt environment (even if the corruption is just one owner that isn't capable of logic or kind thinking who just hates you personally) and the only good answer is to leave it as leaving it is the assumed end result regardless.
Sure, but that also takes time and effort, and it's not always a situation where the available jobs to go to are any better.
That's a false value, though. You have to take the chances, there ARE good jobs. You try to limit your chances to a good one as much as possible. You move on. Basically... the risk is that things don't improve. But that's only a major risk if you don't move on again. You move on until you find a good one, then you stop.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
You can always limit your responses to good ones. You can say "there are, of course, bad ideas but it's my job to not recommend them, obviously. But if you want to do things that are not safe, you can always make that decision yourself."
While I love the frankness of that statement - and love to pretend that I'm that frank in general - OK I am, but not to the one who signs my paycheck. It's rare that you could say that to your manager and not have them severely dislike you, possibly to the point of firing you. Why? because they are emotional and want to be hand held.
Do you REALLY believe that your manager would fire you for doing your job well AND that the owners of the business would feel that firing you was a good thing to do specifically to cover up the manager trying to be emotional and trying to sabotage the business?
I'm being serious... read that statement aloud and ask yourself... firing someone over refusing to be set up for blame aforethought when the intent was for your manager to hurt the business and didn't like that you were not going to assist?
Absolutely, although that chain of rationalization doesn't happen in their minds. You're a PITA always nagging them about details they don't want to be bothered with. Eventually, you are weeded out.
It doesn't have to happen in their minds, it only has to be traceable via email communications.
Even if they do let you go, by the time that decision has been made, it would be painfully obvious that management is messing with the business more than the employee was.
So what? You don't have a job. Is that a win for you?
If the outcome is always the same, being fired for doing the right thing instead of being fired for things that are actually your fault is quite a big win, yes.
I guess the reality is that firings themselves are pretty rare - but being cut out more and more, and having your role just be that of break fix kinda sucks when you're trying to be IT.
-
As a sidebar with @Dashrender this entire topic is like picking a hooker.
You have the choice of the $20 dollar one, and risk the chance of AIDS (more likely) or you can choose the $600 escort (hooker) and have a rather lower risk.
Sure both hookers could have AIDS, but when you're buying the "top of the line" or "best value" wouldn't you rather have some kind of an assurance?
