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:
@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?
-
@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 part is true. But good documentation helps a lot - show the cost of support. Do you do post mortems to show why their decisions were bad and how money was lost? If not, how would they know?
-
@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:
@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.
No, the presentation was... getting blamed for things failing no matter what was presented as options. That implies that the blame is always there regardless. So getting fired is always the end game.
-
@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:
@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.
On this one I see Scott's point - if you make a recommendation and they don't like it, and they are bad managers, no matter the outcome you will be fired - what you really should have done when you saw this situation was start looking for a job before you get fired. Because your other option is just to forever play the punching bag.
-
@Dashrender 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.
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.
That's not quite how it was worded. Because they made themselves the IT managers and refused to allow backups was the implied reason. Then the new IT manager decided to fire someone that wasn't the IT Manager or decision maker possibly in connection with that or not, we didn't really determine.
-
@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:
@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.
And a lack of promotion, lack of increased pay, attrition of skills, etc. It's like being fired, it's slowly phased out.
-
@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:
@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.
On this one I see Scott's point - if you make a recommendation and they don't like it, and they are bad managers, no matter the outcome you will be fired - what you really should have done when you saw this situation was start looking for a job before you get fired. Because your other option is just to forever play the punching bag.
But playing the punching bag rarely works out long term. If the IT Manager uses you as their punching bag, THEIR manager will normally eventually question why they are paying you if you are considered so awful. Then you get fired for having let them beat you up.
-
@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:
@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.
That's not quite how it was worded. Because they made themselves the IT managers and refused to allow backups was the implied reason. Then the new IT manager decided to fire someone that wasn't the IT Manager or decision maker possibly in connection with that or not, we didn't really determine.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
-
@Dashrender That was very possibly a case where he failed to convey who was the IT Manager and got burned for it. Someone felt that he was a decision maker when he was not and it spread. Once people start repeating that stuff, it becomes the accepted truth. It's so important to never let that happen.
-
@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:
@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.
If the owner agrees or cares.
Remember when we had a conversation about something being "broken"? You would contend that a car with non-functioning AC is "broken". I would contend that as long as the engine starts and it gets you from A to B, it's not functionally "broken". I think the same paradigm is at work here. I have seen many small businesses with broken parts that continue working and existing. The owner may be a moron. The management may be incompetent and do far less than profitable things for the company. Still, it can continue to make money and do business and satisfy its customers well enough to be a decent business. It's not "showroom condition", but it's not dead either. There is a large area of possibilities where business can operate while not being optimal in all of its functions. This scenario of a manager who would rather cover his tracks than own up to bad decisions happens all the time. It's not the best for the business, but the owner may not be that worried about it because the business still rolls under its own power and generates a paycheck for him. Crap rolls downhill, so the lowly IT guy is going to get the fallout that comes from that structure. Sure, you can quit and hope that you can find employment at a company that is better, but that's no guarantee. Everyone would love to have the dream job where management is competent and the owner's top priority is the greatest possible success of the business, but those companies are few and far between. You can continue to argue for the optimal as the only acceptable option, but there aren't enough of those jobs to go around, so I will continue to argue that you need to broaden your vision and realize that your argument really doesn't get a whole lot of traction in the real world we live and work in. Ideally, I agree with you completely. Pragmatically, I believe that you are way off-base.
-
@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:
@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.
If the owner agrees or cares.
Remember when we had a conversation about something being "broken"? You would contend that a car with non-functioning AC is "broken". I would contend that as long as the engine starts and it gets you from A to B, it's not functionally "broken". I think the same paradigm is at work here. I have seen many small businesses with broken parts that continue working and existing. The owner may be a moron. The management may be incompetent and do far less than profitable things for the company. Still, it can continue to make money and do business and satisfy its customers well enough to be a decent business. It's not "showroom condition", but it's not dead either. There is a large area of possibilities where business can operate while not being optimal in all of its functions. This scenario of a manager who would rather cover his tracks than own up to bad decisions happens all the time. It's not the best for the business, but the owner may not be that worried about it because the business still rolls under its own power and generates a paycheck for him. Crap rolls downhill, so the lowly IT guy is going to get the fallout that comes from that structure. Sure, you can quit and hope that you can find employment at a company that is better, but that's no guarantee. Everyone would love to have the dream job where management is competent and the owner's top priority is the greatest possible success of the business, but those companies are few and far between. You can continue to argue for the optimal as the only acceptable option, but there aren't enough of those jobs to go around, so I will continue to argue that you need to broaden your vision and realize that your argument really doesn't get a whole lot of traction in the real world we live and work in. Ideally, I agree with you completely. Pragmatically, I believe that you are way off-base.
If the owner doesn't care, then the owner is part of the politics that are the problem. It's that simple. If an owner doesn't care that his staff lies to him to cover up that they are not making him the profits that they are paid to do... that's his decision and takes us back to what I had said.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender That was very possibly a case where he failed to convey who was the IT Manager and got burned for it. Someone felt that he was a decision maker when he was not and it spread. Once people start repeating that stuff, it becomes the accepted truth. It's so important to never let that happen.
I'm sure I am personally in that situation - If I took a poll of staff and management, who is the IT manager/decision maker, I bet most (meaning more than 80%) would say I am. This is simply not the case though. If I want to spend more than $1000 it has to be approved by either my boss (the CEO) or, and more likely, the BOD.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender That was very possibly a case where he failed to convey who was the IT Manager and got burned for it. Someone felt that he was a decision maker when he was not and it spread. Once people start repeating that stuff, it becomes the accepted truth. It's so important to never let that happen.
I'm sure I am personally in that situation - If I took a pole of staff and management, who is the IT manager/decision maker, I bet most (meaning more than 80%) would say I am. This is simply not the case though. If I want to spend more than $1000 it has to be approved by either my boss (the CEO) or, and more likely, the BOD.
Approved to spend is not quite the same. That they probe your logic is not the same as them making the decision.
-
@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 That was very possibly a case where he failed to convey who was the IT Manager and got burned for it. Someone felt that he was a decision maker when he was not and it spread. Once people start repeating that stuff, it becomes the accepted truth. It's so important to never let that happen.
I'm sure I am personally in that situation - If I took a pole of staff and management, who is the IT manager/decision maker, I bet most (meaning more than 80%) would say I am. This is simply not the case though. If I want to spend more than $1000 it has to be approved by either my boss (the CEO) or, and more likely, the BOD.
Approved to spend is not quite the same. That they probe your logic is not the same as them making the decision.
Gotta help me out with that one... tell me kemosabe.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
If I took a pole of staff
Grammar Nazi incoming...
I pictured a bunch of your staff members like this:
https://bigstickcombat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/polejmp.jpg
Perhaps you meant "Poll"
-
@pchiodo said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
If I took a pole of staff
Grammar Nazi incoming...
I pictured a bunch of your staff members like this:
Perhaps you meant "Poll"
ug, yeah.. thanks.
