Well basically, just wanted to touch base to give you an up-date on the requested collage of supportive services.

At the end of the day the bottom line is just the tip of the iceberg, so we will put it on the back burner ‘till the infrastructure is in place then we will fast track it to achieve a win/win situation for all stake holders going forwards across the level playing field going right down to the wire to determine who’s who in the zoo and dialogue with all stake holders etc etc et bloody cetra, so the question is who generates this drivel and who pays for it? and how can we stop them from doing it?

>>who generates this drivel and who pays for it?

CB88.

that funny, bob :)

bob(from black rock) said:

Well basically, just wanted to touch base to give you an up-date on the requested collage of supportive services.

At the end of the day the bottom line is just the tip of the iceberg, so we will put it on the back burner ‘till the infrastructure is in place then we will fast track it to achieve a win/win situation for all stake holders going forwards across the level playing field going right down to the wire to determine who’s who in the zoo and dialogue with all stake holders etc etc et bloody cetra, so the question is who generates this drivel and who pays for it? and how can we stop them from doing it?

The people who generate this drivel have already moved on to new pastures. By five years ago they were generating at least one new management acronym every day. The number of acronyms in the world now exceeds the number of words in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I think it’s bored upper level managers who do this. But it could be political speech writers who follow the mantra “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull”.

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

mollwollfumble said:

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

no, it doesn’t

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

That would work if all workers were capable of managing themselves. some are not. by a long chalk.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

rofl, managing themselves…

Love your work rev.

Boris said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

That would work if all workers were capable of managing themselves. some are not. by a long chalk.

There are some processes which require a production controller to see the big picture while the operatives get on with their specialised tasks.

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

rofl, managing themselves…

Love your work rev.

Managers need to be proactive though, we’ve had slack workers and I mean blatantly slack and it’s ignored when it should be bumped higher up the food chain for investigation

Boris said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

That would work if all workers were capable of managing themselves. some are not. by a long chalk.

“Responsible for” =/= “capable of”. Not by a long chalk.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Throughout the world, the number of managers exceeds the number of workers they manage.

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

In CSIRO every person had two different managers. Or more, it is possible for any person to have six or more managers that they reported directly to. It was not unusual for person A to be a manager of person B and person B to be a manager of person A. This is a direct consequence of the imposition of what is called “matrix management”.

All through government in Australia, the total number of managers is approximately twice the number of people without a formal management role.

Much business has gone the same route. So I think I’m correct in saying that throughout the Western world the number of managers exceeds the number of non-managers.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

no, it doesn’t

It would if you said that all workers were at least responsible for managing themselves.

In CSIRO every person had two different managers. Or more, it is possible for any person to have six or more managers that they reported directly to. It was not unusual for person A to be a manager of person B and person B to be a manager of person A. This is a direct consequence of the imposition of what is called “matrix management”.

All through government in Australia, the total number of managers is approximately twice the number of people without a formal management role.

Much business has gone the same route. So I think I’m correct in saying that throughout the Western world the number of managers exceeds the number of non-managers.

That is not common of the line management structure of any organisation that I have ever been a part of, or ever dealt with…

and I would dare say that what you are describing does not reflect the true line management structure of even the CSIRO – I can however understand how certain individuals may have project or area management responsibilities that lead to strange dotted reporting lines.

looks pretty standard to me…

http://www.csiro.au/en/About/Our-impact/Reporting-our-impact/Annual-reports/14-15-annual-report/Part1/Org-structure

diddly-squat said:

looks pretty standard to me…

http://www.csiro.au/en/About/Our-impact/Reporting-our-impact/Annual-reports/14-15-annual-report/Part1/Org-structure

no no no, someone that has never held a CSIRO management position says it’s not like that..

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

looks pretty standard to me…

http://www.csiro.au/en/About/Our-impact/Reporting-our-impact/Annual-reports/14-15-annual-report/Part1/Org-structure

no no no, someone that has never held a CSIRO management position says it’s not like that..

I’m not sure I understand… everyone in the CSIRO is meant to hold a management position…

> That is not common of the line management structure of any organisation that I have ever been a part of, or ever dealt with…

Line management is dead.

Matrix management killed it.

mollwollfumble said:

> That is not common of the line management structure of any organisation that I have ever been a part of, or ever dealt with…

Line management is dead.

Matrix management killed it.

Welcome to Rivendell Mr Anderson

It’s a road map of the synergy using the top down approach of the new paradigm, Mr Bob. Get with it!