Managing a Science Club Is Hard: Human Re What? Personnel Who?
February 13, 2020
DarkCyber noted a story titled “Google HR Chief Eileen Naughton Steps Aside As Worker Activis…” No, that’s the title. There are other versions of the story, but the Gadgets 360 take captures how many Googlers respond when human resources is mentioned. “Human re what? Personnel who?”
The story is a revolving door tale. Get out while the getting is good. Recently some high profile and somewhat interesting people have left the online ad machine: A lawyer, two founders, some disgruntled employees, and now the head of human re what?
The article states:
In recent years, the Google workplace has been disrupted by employee opposition to top-level decisions ranging from forging contracts with the US military to tailoring a version of the search engine for China. Google in November fired four employees on the grounds they had violated data security policies, but the tech titan was accused of persecuting them for trying to unionize staff. The dismissals of the quartet — dubbed the “Thanksgiving Four” on social media — deepened staff-management tensions at a company once seen as a paradigm of Silicon Valley freedoms but now embroiled in numerous controversies. One of the workers fired was connected to a petition condemning Google for working with the US customs and border patrol agency, which has been involved in President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Google employees have also openly opposed the company pursuing contracts to put its technology to work for the US military.
The Googlers are a frisky group of youngish wizards. Managing a science club is difficult. A high school science club? Yep, more difficult than a college science club.
Human re what? Personnel who? There is LinkedIn for those in need of a job.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2020
Blue Chip Consulting Firm: Killers of the American Middle Class
February 6, 2020
After reading “How McKinsey Destroyed the Middle Class,” I wondered if the company’s name should be McKroni & Co. For those who did not read the Akilattirattu Ammanai, Kroni was more evil than the demon Kali of the Mahabharata and Kalki Purana sharing similarities with Lucifer.
Kroni celebrating after closing a big deal for streamlining work flow processes.
If the information in the Atlantic article is on the money, MBAs are manifestations of evil. There are other candidates as well; for example, Bain, Boston Consulting Group, Booz, Allen, SRI, and other blue chip consulting firms. These outfits are more similar than some people understand, including their clients. My information is first hand. I worked for one of these big outfits and did contract work for another. My boss at Booz, Allen went to SRI, and I know that he did not make any significant changes in his thought processes. In fact, one BAH professional told me, “We require that teams fly on separate airplanes. If one plane goes down, we can send in other team members. Most are inter changeable. Heart warming, no?
Now back to the write up:
The main idea is from a journalist who wrote in 2010:
consultants openly sought to “foment a stratification within companies and society” by concentrating the management function in elite executives, aided (of course) by advisers from consultants’ own ranks. Management-consulting firms deployed a panoply of branded processes against middle management.
News flash: The mind set of the major consulting firms was in place and humming along the first time a Booz, Allen person contacted me in 1970. He explained the objectivity and need for data as part of the analytic process the firm practiced. I agreed, but because I was working at a university and had zero “experience” in anything except studying, going to meetings, and fooling around with my analyses of language for Psychology Today magazine, I was not too engaged in the conversation. He said, “We will put you on file. We may come back to you.” By golly, Booz, Allen did. I met with a fellow who would become my boss. Guess what? He explained that the BAH approach was designed to increase efficiency and reshape organizations by reducing layers of management. The BAH charm school made clear that friendly Mr. Booz in 1917 had this very idea, and it was part of the Booz, Allen DNA.
Kiechel was right in the main idea; he just muffed how long the mindset was in play at Booz, Allen and the other firms. McKinsey was founded in 1926, a decade after BAH. In fact, one Booz, Allen professional with 30 years of continuous service under his belt said, “McKinsey borrowed from our method. They changed our dot points to dashes; otherwise, it is a copy of this firm.” True or false? I don’t know, but the date of McKinsey’s founding makes an interesting historical factoid.
The article’s objective is to make McKinsey into McKroni & Company. The inequality evident in the US today is a result of one company. I agree that the thought processes of the blue chip consulting firms lead to inequality. The write up also takes aim at a presidential candidate who worked at McKinsey. The same notions of efficiency help produce Google and other high performance firms as well. Amazon is a case study in efficiency, the blue chip consulting firm way. Warm and fuzzy, not the words I would use to describe Amazon.
Net net: Interesting write up. Not exactly in line with reality, but McKroni & Co. is a convenient peg on which to hang a polemic about the way the real world is.
How does one change this obvious problem? May I suggest calling one of the blue chip consulting firms. You may be surprised how useful their through processes are. But wait. Publishing companies have got this revenue, credibility, and information trifecta figured out.
Begging for dollars is not a business model that inspires confidence.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2020
Bezos-tics: A Billionaire and an Alleged Political Alignment
February 6, 2020
Jeff Bezos heads Amazon, but he allegedly has goals beyond changing the face of retail. The Strategic Culture Foundation examines Bezos’s political views in the article, “Jeff Bezos’s Politics.” Heads up. DarkCyber thinks this “strategic culture” write up is a one-sided argument about Mr. Bezos’ goals to spread American imperialism, control other nations, and spread the ideals of neo-conservatism.
Bezos’s political power exploded when he purchased the Washington Post from Donald Graham (Washington D.C.’s daily newspaper) and negotiated with CIA Director John Brennan a ten-year cloud computing contract hosted by Amazon. As this quote says he is definitely wise about business:
“He was now the most influential salesman not only for books, etc., but for the CIA, and for such mega-corporations as Lockheed Martin. US imperialism has supercharged his wealth, but didn’t alone cause his wealth. Jeff Bezos might be the most ferociously gifted business-person on the planet.”
The article continues that Bezos, like all of American billionaires, ally themselves with neo-conservatism and imperialism. They seek to preserve these systems at all costs. Also Bezos has this going for him:
“Bezos also wants to privatize everything around the world that can become privatized, such as education, highways, health care, and pensions. The more that billionaires control those, the less that everyone else does; and preventing control by the public helps to protect billionaires against democracy that would increase their taxes, and against governmental regulations that would reduce their profits by increasing their corporations’ expenses. So, billionaires control the government in order to increase their takings from the public.”
But, use the word coined by DarkCyber, the Amagenic responses to Amazon a moving, just slowly. With employee push back and dissention in a close friend’s brother sister bond, is negativism being pulled to the man and the Amazon machine.
Worth monitoring to see if this “house divided against itself” is a myth or a reality.
Whitney Grace, February 6, 2020
Data Are a Problem? And the Solution Is?
January 8, 2020
I attended a conference about managing data last year. I sat in six sessions and listened as enthusiastic people explained that in order to tap the value of data, one has to have a process. Okay? A process is good.
Then in each of the sessions, the speakers explained the problem and outlined that knowing about the data and then putting it in a system is the way to derive value.
Neither Pros Nor Cons: Just Consulting Talk
This morning I read an article called “The Pros and Cons of Data Integration Architectures.” The write up concludes with this statement:
Much of the data owned and stored by businesses and government departments alike is constrained by the silos it’s stuck in, many of which have been built over the years as organizations grow. When you consider the consolidation of both legacy and new IT systems, the number of these data silos only increases. What’s more, the impact of this is significant. It has been widely reported that up to 80 per cent of a data scientist’s time is spent on collecting, labeling, cleaning and organizing data in order to get it into a usable form for analysis.
Now this is most true. However, the 80 percent figure is not backed up. An IDG expert whipped up some percentages about data and time, and these, I suspect, have become part of the received wisdom of those struggling with silos for decades. Most of a data scientist’s time is frittered away in meetings, struggling with budgets and other resources, and figuring out what data are “good” and what to do with the data identified by person or machine as “bad.”
The source of this statement is MarkLogic, a privately held company founded in 2001 and a magnet for $173 million from funding sources. That works out to an 18 years young start up if DarkCyber adopts a Silicon Valley T shirt.
A modern silo is made of metal and impervious to some pests and most types of weather.
One question the write up begs is, “After 18 years, why hasn’t the methodology of MarkLogic swept the checker board?” But the same question can be asked of other providers’ solutions, open source solutions, and the home grown solutions creaking in some government agencies in Europe and elsewhere.
Several reasons:
- The technical solution offered by MarkLogic-type companies can “work”; however, proprietary considerations linked with the issues inherent in “silos” have caused data management solutions to become consultantized; that is, process becomes the task, not delivering on the promise of data, elther dark or sunlit.
- Customers realize that the cost of dealing with the secrecy, legal, and technical problems of disparate, digital plastic trash bags of bits cannot be justified. Like odd duck knickknacks one of my failed publishers shoved into his lumber room, ignoring data is often a good solution.
- Individuals tasked with organizing data begin with gusto and quickly morph into bureaucrats who treasure meetings with consultants and companies pitching magic software and expensive wizards able to make the code mostly work.
DarkCyber recognizes that with boundaries like budgets, timetables, measurable objectives, federation can deliver some zip.
Silos: A Moment of Reflection
The article uses the word “silo” five times. That’s the same frequency of its use in the presentations to which I listened in mid December 2019.
So you want to break down this missile silo which is hardened and protected by autonomous weapons? That’s what happens when a data scientist pokes around a pharma company’s lab notebook for a high potential new drug.
Let’s pause a moment to consider what a silo is. A silo is a tower or a pit used to store core, wheat, or some other grain. Dust is silos can be exciting. Tip: Don’t light a match in a silo on a dry, hot day in a state where farms still operate. A silo can also be a structure used to house a ballistic missile, but one has to be a child of the Cold War to appreciate this connotation.
As applied to data, it seems that a silo is a storage device containing data. Unlike a silo used to house maize or a nuclear capable missile, the data silo contains information of value. How much value? No one knows. Are the data in a digital silo explosive? Who knows? Maybe some people should not know? What wants to flick a Bic and poke around?
Silicon Valley: Management Talent Available for the Challenges of 2020?
December 24, 2019
Ho, ho, ho. It is the eve of a big time holiday. What do some Silicon Valley companies want to kick the festivities off in grand style? Fresh, experienced, capable management talent? New hires create new opportunities.
DarkCyber may have spotted several candidates. With proven leaders a company struggling in today’s difficult business climate may be able to revivify trust, increase market influence, and enhance credibility via key hires. Some MBAs believe that new management is just the ticket to win the revenue lottery.
Who are these candidates?
If the information in Reuters’ story “Boeing Fires CEO Muilenburg to Restore Confidence Amid 737 Crisis” is accurate, “Muilenburg’s departure followed a week of dramatic setbacks for Boeing, which vies with Europe’s Airbus for leadership of the $150 billion jet industry.” But one person’s setback is another company’s opportunity. It seems that this individual may be seeking his future elsewhere.
For companies looking for senior management talent for their European ventures, HR professionals may need to look no farther than the French executives who made headlines recently. According to “Three French Executives Convicted in the Suicides of 35 of Their Workers,” the method used to motivate colleagues was described as harcelement moral institutionnel. That means energetic constructive criticism.
DarkCyber believes that traditional hiring practices typically do a good job identifying and motivating professionals. Some individuals stand out for different reasons.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2019
Google: We Can Be Avis, National Car Rental or an Off Airport Outfit Too
December 18, 2019
Quite a goal. Google wants to beat Amazon and Microsoft in the cloud. Err, isn’t Google a cloud centric outfit, or at least since it morphed from the cutesy Backrub into the behemoth it is today? What if Google doesn’t think it is a cloud business? Hmm.
The answer, of course, is Googley. Google has waffled a bit. The phones, the home helpers, and the mouse pads. But the company operates “out there”, from data centers in regular buildings to wonky containers which can be towed to a location where power is cheap and skills are hard to come by.
A series of stories is zipping around about Google’s new desire to become the big dog in cloud computing. Just like the PR program featuring Jeff Dean, the Google is starting to realize that it may have more in common with the low rent business of scalping tickets than with high technology outfits changing the way business does business.
That’s an interesting thought because it runs counter to the received wisdom that Google is the font of technology. Like the fountains in Rome, lots of work is needed to keep the fountains spouting water. Tourists don’t see Rome’s plumbing, and for good reasons.
The goal of knocking off Amazon and / or Microsoft (love that lawyer conjunction, don’t you?) will be achieved by 2023. That works out to 24 months. Microsoft’s NT project turned into a death march, and I think this goal is likely to follow the same trajectory.
First, Amazon and Microsoft are not standing still. Good old Microsoft is working overtime to make Azure stable and semi-coherent. How many search engines does one desktop software company need? How many analytics solutions? How many servers? These are questions Microsoft engineers are rushing to answer. The airplane is aloft, and making adjustments to an engine when the plane in in flight can be difficult when it has to operate in a hybrid mode and the ground stations can be crashed by a software update. Cool?
Plus, Amazon is moving along a different trajectory. The company is engaged in a multi front war, and it is less and less a cloud company. That bookstore in Nashville and the undoing of FedEx make clear that not even a mid tier state like Tennessee is exempt from the Bezos bulldozer.
Second, Google has not been particularly adept at sticking with projects over time. Examples range from the social media attempts, to the Alon Halevy semantic tools, and to some as simple as messaging services. The culture of incompleteness is a hurdle. Managers can fiddle with incentives and tweak the hiring processes. But the company is a bit like a flotilla of sailboats generally heading toward port when a bad storm presents itself. Everyone knows where to go, but there may be some delays. Delays when trying to knock off Amazon and Microsoft may not be desirable.
Third, there are lots of other companies which want to be the Avis and National to the Uber business. Oracle, down but not out. IBM, a bit of a clueless geriatric but still capable of surprises like its sales success in India, and dozens upon dozens of other companies.
Net net: The write up “Google Brass Set 2023 as Deadline to Beat Amazon, Microsoft in Cloud” is useful, but it contains one telling statement:
Google shifted headcount growth to its cloud platform sales and engineering teams.
What’s going to be the Google equivalent of Windows 10 updates which don’t work, arrive late, and kill some data? If it is ad systems, Amazon is going to get the best location in the airport to serve rental car customers.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2019
Business 101: Incentives Work at Facebook. Talk, Not So Much
December 18, 2019
Many years ago, I worked on a project for a very large, quite paranoid company. I am not sure how I landed a project to interview about two dozen unit CEOs and interview each about technology. As I recall, my task was to group the CEOs into three categories:
Bluebirds—These were the CEOs who understood technology germane to their business unit, evidenced no particular fear testing and integrating such technology, and who were following the company’s marching orders.
Canaries—These were executives who evidenced fear of technology. These individuals were not likely to move forward in order to reduce costs and staff using technology whilst increasing revenue and profits for the company.
Sparrows—These were hapless commodity CEOs who did not know much about technology, were happy snacking near careless MBAs lunching in the park, and who generally reacted to what most other CEOs were doing with regards to technology.
I had a bunch of fancy criteria, scoring sheets, prepared and consistent questions, plus other odds and ends required for such a subjective job.
My findings, I believe, revealed that the technology question was stupid. The CEOs were accountants and lawyers. Knowledge of technology was abysmal. The CEOs as a group responded to one thing—bonuses and raises. Chatter about technology was essentially irrelevant.
Whatever DNA this group of big time “leaders” had was warped in the intense radiation of benchmarks needed to take home a fat pay packet and get a bonus big enough to choke an investment banker.
I thought of this project when I read “Facebook Is Still Prioritizing Scale over Safety.” There’s quite a bit of yada yada in the write up, but this segment explains what drives Facebook:
Facebook calls its product managers’ ability to hit their metric “impact,” and impact can count for high percentages of product managers’ evaluations, though it varies by position and level. At the end of the evaluation process, each individual is assigned a rating by a manager — ranging from “doesn’t meet expectations” to “redefines expectations” — which is algorithmically tied to their compensation. Managers at Facebook aren’t given discretionary raise pools (raises are handed out evenly based on ratings) and there is no appeals process for evaluations, making a good rating paramount if you work at Facebook.
In order to be a bluebird, Facebook managers follow the incentive breadcrumbs. Why? Money. Public statements and other interesting Facebook behavior are irrelevant.
Why? The explanation may be found in the precepts of high school science club management methods. These are not taught in MBA school; these are learned in high school science club meetings and late night dorm sessions among programmers and assorted engineering wizards.
To fix Facebook, change the incentives.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2019
Gamer Company Provides High School Science Club Management Methods Case Example
December 6, 2019
Razer is an ecommerce and product business serving that wonderful community of online game players. Now the company is the subject of a write up, which may be false, partially false, partially true, or true. Figuring out which these days is difficult.
Razer is in the spotlight which “is a desktop streaming camera with a powerful, multi-step ring light that you can dim or brighten on command.”
“So smile,” says “Razer CEO Berated And Threatened His Staff, Former Employees Say.” The write up reports in the glow of the Razer Kiyo ring light:
Tan [the top dog at Razer] has developed a reputation for being a tempestuous, volatile boss…
The company has a snake mascot. DarkCyber is not sure if the snake is a refugee from a high school science club herpaterium or just an emotion charged symbol like those cataloged by Juan Eduardo Cirlot. In case you are curious, more about Cirlot appears here.
The point of the write up is that Razer’s management approach is remembered by employees as:
- Infused with top down control
- Volatile management behavior
- Demonstrations of management dissatisfaction
- Curse words with a handful of faves recalled by former employees
- Yelling
- Abrupt terminations but the article does not pinpoint major holidays as the best time to allow an individual to find his/her future elsewhere.
Sound familiar?
DarkCyber characterizes the approach to motivating the game hardware company’s professionals illustrates HSSCMM or high school science club management methods.
Why document this approach in DarkCyber? The reason is that a certain very large online advertising company could be amping up its HSSCMM procedures.
There may be some lessons to be learned by studying Razer and streaming the results to the faithful.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2019
Alphabet Google: Bail Out Time
December 5, 2019
The future of Alphabet Google is online advertising. Oh, there’s one other challenge rushing toward the company: Litigation.
Who is the new face for lawyers from most of the US states and a clutch of other countries? Sundar Pichai. You can get the Googley story in “A Letter from Larry and Sergey.”
Several observations:
- The legal scrutiny is not likely to be gentle and sweet. The good night may not be so good.
- The likelihood a change from high school science club management to a more McKinsey-like approach will produce some interesting disruptions. Fire people before Thanksgiving? Just a warm up, gentle reader.
- The “new” Google will be stripped of its down home Backrub charm. The influence of Indian high school and IIT will be significant.
Exciting? Probably. Good for lawyers. Absolutely? What about those mom and pop businesses that depend on Google for revenue? Amazon and TikTok are looking better each day.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2019
Kitty Hawk: Dreaming Is Different from Doing When One Seeks Management Guidance
December 4, 2019
I read in the capitalist’s tool this story: “Inside Larry Page’s Turbulent Kitty Hawk: Returned Deposits, Battery Fires And A Boeing Shakeup.” The business story as a business school case study is an interesting journalistic niche.
The main idea is that Larry Page, founder of Google and all-around business Lionel Messi, has scored an own goal with its flying car business. Kitty Hawk has suffered a couple of minor setbacks; for example, battery fires and disenchanted supporters.
To add insult to injury, Forbes, the capitalist’s tool, sagely observes:
Kitty Hawk’s promise to bring personal flying to the masses has failed to take wing yet amid technical problems and safety issues with Flyer and unresolved questions about its practical use, according to four former Kitty Hawk employees who were among six who spoke to Forbes on the condition of anonymity due to non-disclosure agreements.
Yep, management of a science club project underscores the difference between thinking about a flying car and actually building one are different. Just a tiny bit.
Which company can “save” Kitty Hawk. What about Boeing (the 737 Max outfit) for business guidance?
Amazing.
Something a Hollywood screenwriter might struggle to conceive. Faulty software and burning batteries managed by Boeing and Google.
Here’s a summary of this interesting case study from the hollows of Kentucky: Another Googley DNW or “did not work.”
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
