He has to “work” an extra two hours per day free of charge to get to and from the office.
You’re a fire hazard. Do your thinking inside the box.
I remember! For a few months, circa 1993 we all thought this–then we heard the first stirrings of the outsourcing phenomenon.
Given that he’ll need two hours for the round trip, I can see where gas alone would be several thousand for the year. Add in car repair/maintenance, dry cleaning, and at least some meals out, it could reach five figures easily. (I know, he could pack his lunch but there will still be times when buying a meal is unavoidable due to working late.)
Because those who can’t do teach ; and those who can’t even teach supervise.
Oh, and don’t forget to put the new cover sheets on the TPS reports.
In a perfect scenario, as someone moves up in the ranks their impact should shift more and more from operational to strategic. From “I need you to do this and I need you to do it this way” to “we need to move in this direction, let’s hear ideas!”
In reality, this is a difficult transition to make as someone advances. Someone may be masterful at operational leadership, but clueless at strategic vision (and unaware that they should be shifting their balance in that direction). Often effective Managers wonder why they don’t get the promotions to the next level - often it’s because they don’t demonstrate vision, they’re stuck in operational issues.
Now, viewed from below, Senior Managers can appear like idiots to the operational staff because they are not playing the same game, speaking the same language. Sr. Managers are not supposed to be focused on operational issues - that’s for their lower level managers.
Of course, a good Sr Exec will be able to communicate strategy to an operational person effectively. But it’s not always the case.
I get where you are coming from but still, you have to wonder how some of these guys even have a job, much less a high paying job. I’ve been through the corporate wars. The “yea, but” syndrome permeates. I got to the point where I would say, “tell my why I’m wrong and I will go back to my office, put my nose to the grindstone and just shut up.” The answer was, you’re not wrong, but . . .
People that get all caught up in this capitalist, free-market BS fail to realize that corporations can be, and oftentimes are, more wasteful, less efficient and less productive than a government run organization. Then they say that well, if that’s the case, they will eventually fail. Not so. GM is a classic example. They have been mismanaged for over 50 years and they, like Citibank and others, got too big to fail. They run on inertia. When that happens who do they run to? Of course, the government. Look, I’m all for the bailout of GM. Too much was on the line. The alternative would have been the Chinese buying their assets on 10 cents on the dollar. Maybe they can clean up their corporate culture. I hope so. I wish them success.
Still, having been a prime witness, I don’t need to hear about how great the [rigged] free market is. Look at the idiots who have destroyed jobs and companies while being handsomely rewarded. Some of these people are really not all that bright. (Anybody listening named Bernie or Carly?) I am not a socialist and I think that markets and competition are essential to progress. Still, I’m not naive. Many of these “free market” corporations have succeeded more at rigging the game than at actually being efficient and productive.
I agree, 100%. It is rare to find people at the top who have true clarity of thought and strategy and can communicate that to the rest of the company.
I often host very mixed working sessions and I’ve lost count of the number of times I find myself thinking “how the hell has this person found themselves in charge?” I often think they would be happier and more suited to life back in their practical speciality.
I speak as a member of that much maligned group of people that encompasses Lean/Six sigma/Agile/operational excellence/business excellence. I only have a job because many senior leaders are insular in thought and action and think they can delegate change responsibility to me…they think they can pay me a wodge of cash and that is the end of their responsibility…oooo! do they get a shock.
You can’t buy culture change Mr. Manager, you’ve got to get off your fat arse and get involved yourself.
So I end up spending my life trying to cajole and influence such people to do what they should be doing anyway, to get onboard with what are, in essence, very…very simple principles of making businesses better. Strip out the branding and jargon and none of it is new or revolutionary. Concepts such as “Six-sigma” and “lean” are simple tools in fine new clothes because those that are buying them need to feel that they are special and magical. A wand they can wave rather than principles to live and work by.
Some that hire me seem to think they have transcended such mundane principles as: “Show me a business case”. Tell me why you need this, who cares about it? who is it going to affect? how does this support current strategy? what will it cost in time and money? what are the risks of action and inaction?
If you can’t answer those things a such a basic level then you shouldn’t do it. The OP’s situation seems like a classic case of doing just that.
It does sound quite important to me - they’re redesigning the look of the whole product. You don’t think that Apple should spend time thinking about how, when and why before bringing out a computer that’s all sharp corners? The NYT before changing which fonts they use? When my local newspaper changed theirs, they spent a month running a full-page ad telling people about the upcoming change, that they thought the new setup and smaller pages would make the paper easier to read, that they were also changing the paper itself (the new kind is recycled), and where to send feedback; I heard people grumbling about “newfangled design thingees” at the beginning of the advertising campaign, but by the time the new look came out people were eager to check it out. What DragonAsh described sounds similar in scope but definitely not in execution.
I’m at least partially of the opinion that a lot of it is because Senior Management people are often just too isolated from the day-to-day “life in the trenches” impact of what they do.
Just because something’s likely to sell well in Melbourne doesn’t mean the same is true of a mining town in Western Australia, for example.
It’s everything that comes along with no longer working from home – extended day care expenses, extra car payments (we were getting along fine as a one-car family, but now we’ll have to get another car), auto maintenance, gas, work clothing, internet expenses (work pays for home internet right now), etc etc etc. And as a bonus, I’ll be losing over three straight weeks of time with my family – time I’ll now spend sitting in the car. All because this POS didn’t know how to maintain a work/home balance.
I think one of the problems is that many of these folks (the people who go on to became senior managers) are hired straight out of business school and may not really know very much about the products the company makes.
In my industry a lot of executives and senior managers come up through sales. They understand well the dynamics of good salesmanship and how to close a deal, which is ultimately what matters most.
But a lot of them seem to have only a vague understanding of how things work on the production end, which can lead to inefficiencies in one sector, and a thinly stretched work force in another. They’re quite fond of using the latest buzzwords, but lack a grand vision that can be easily tailored to our product line.
I think a lot of the perceived idiocy is really that in many companies past a certain vertical level all the senior management are glorified accountants and finance people.
It’s really hard to relate with senior management when you think that they should have a focus on say… the business, while their real focus is on balance sheets, cash flow statements and profit/loss.
It makes for strange conference calls and some odd, poorly informed decisions on their part when they’re dragged lower than they’re really informed about.
I’m not saying that I agree with this behavior on their part, but I think I understand where it comes from. Personally, I think that an executive ought to understand their business, and furthermore, if there’s a piece of machinery or computer system that’s vital to that business, then they should be pretty damned intimate with that system or machinery.
It seems hugely irresponsible to me for someone to be in charge of a multi-million dollar line of business, with a computer system that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and has a dozen people supporting and developing for it, and for that person in charge to hardly know how to log into the system, much less understand how the system works in terms of data in/data out.
Imagine now running a Business as Government 
Had a similar situation. Some high-level person was working from home. His boss called to discuss something, and his kid answered the phone, saying his dad wasn’t available because he was out mowing the lawn.
Basically shut down telecommuting in our part of the company for 3 years (we’re more-or-less fully embracing it now). And, of course, at this guy’s level - he wasn’t working a 9-to-5 job anyway, and I doubt he had any particular work product that was delayed because he took a break. But, similar to your VP - if he was ‘abusing’ the privilege, well, then obviously no one could be trusted.
Nava has it spot-on: it’s a product that is used globally, and has a very wide client base. There has to be feedback from the sales desks because their the ones talking to the end-clients.
I am not prone to public displays of hostility, but really could not contain myself at this morning’s conference call and essentially told one of the senior managers in the head office that he as an idiot and I was basically veto-ing his latest idiot proposal. Risky - the manager almost surely has friends on a higher pay grade than either of us - but I couldn’t care less any more. If I’m going to stay here I’m going to do it on my own terms.
These idiots holds grudges for a loooooooong time. Don’t be surprised to find a few years down the road some hostile behavior that will be based on this confrontation.
I thought this was the point of a work at home position. You get to be at home in your jammies and if you need to take your kid to school or help your infirm mother go to the bathroom or whatever that’s okay because you will just pick up where you left off when you get back. They get their 8 hours a day and you get to have a little more freedom regarding which 8 hours you give them. Otherwise the only benefit to working at home is that you don’t have a commute any longer which is outweighed by the fact that now you are sitting at home ignoring stuff you could or should be doing since you’re home all day.
Maybe in Narnia, but on Earth, that’s not the reason for it at all.
The basic drivers for justifying telecommuting policies are:
[ul]
[li]Reduced cars on the road, energy, pollution, etc.[/li][li]Reduced office space allocation costs[/li][/ul]
Frankly, the expectation usually is that the telecommuter is at their home desk all day just like in the office.
Unfortunately, a lot of Managers just can’t let go of the control when someone is telecommuting - it just drives them crazy that they can’t watch over the worker so they get hyper-sensitive to any perceived abuse.
So basically they spend less money because they don’t have to buy me a desk, computer, or pay for office space for me to come to every day and in return for that I can’t so much as run to the store without worrying that it is going to cost me my job? Managers are dicks, man.