management – John Vincent

Human

It’s good to be able to stand on the shoulders of the outstanding people who have gone before. I’m lucky in having worked with some exceptional people in my engineering career.

That’s not the whole story. To appreciate the good, it’s necessary to experience the bad. There are a couple of people I’ve worked for, and with, who had less than admirable qualities. There’s no way that these experiences warrant the personal touch, naming names or pointing fingers. It’s only by standing back, taking time, letting water flow under the bridge that some behaviours become explainable.

Let’s face it, we are all subject to pressure, on occasions, and there are times when our reactions are not what we might have wished. That’s true of me as much as anyone. Here’s a one or two deidentified examples from the last 40-years of my work.

Hieratical management structures have inherent problems. A reports to B and B reports to C and so one. This way of working was atypical of large industrial organisations for a long time. Then the modern fashion for matrix management[1] swept in.

As a young engineer, working on a major project that involved several subcontractors, the love and terror of the Gantt Chart was familiar territory. This was especially true when key millstones involve an enormous number of components coming together at the same time.

Ever been in an important meeting where your boss throws you under the bus? Then having to pick-up, the pieces the next day. I suspect this is a common experience. The pressure of having to deliver something onetime, and to cost, and having said to the higher-ups that there were no problems, then human behaviour can become unreliable, to say the least. Naturally, after work experiences like this one, it’s easy to promise yourself that you would never do the same. Ho Ho.

Then there’s the case of the senior person who is wrong, or at least that’s what subsequent history showed, and you can’t convince them, at the time, to take a different approach. What makes this harder is knowing that they have the intellect to run rings around you, but they remain adamantly wrong. Times when, at the end of the day, you wander home grumbling like Muttley[2] the character in Wacky Races. Yes, I’ve done that after a few awkward moments.

To add a third one. A smart new boss takes over. A fresh broom with a reinstated mandate. Determine to fix all the things their seniors say needs fixing. Inevitably a period of uncertainty hangs like a mist over the whole organisation. During the first months, everyone has one question; am I part of the deadwood that needs trimming or am I part of the brave new future? My situation was of positivity, lashings of optimism and creative possibilities. Then the realisation kicks-in that this information gathering period wasn’t about renewal. It was about a person climbing the greasy pole.

I will always council against cynicism. Adopting a permanently pessimistic attitude to human behaviour is down-right foolish. Let’s hope this is confined to a few[3]. However, young people entering the world of work do need critical thinking skills, some knowledge of human behaviour and it never does any harm to add a bit of stoicism[4].

[1] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/matrix-management

[2] https://wackyraces.fandom.com/wiki/Muttley

[3] https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android

[4] https://dailystoic.com/9-core-stoic-beliefs/

Patch?

Hobbyists built it. So, how come billions are invested by the huge corporations that use it? Only a fraction of their resource was used to create it in the first place. The INTERNET is as much a wonder of the world as the pyramids. I don’t say that lightly. Today’s level of interconnection, intercommunication and interaction across the whole globe was merely speculated about 50-years ago. In historic terms that’s the blink of an eyelid.

Where we are now it’s impossible to imagine a future without the facilities that are at my fingertips. Tap out recognisable words and they can go anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.

[That part is poor. Keyboards are where my fingertips connect with the world. Surely there will come a better way in the not-too-distant future? Evolution didn’t make us this way.]

Looking at some other major advances of civilisations, they came about in separate ways.

Long distant roads were originally military assets. Getting legions of troops from one place to another in a sprawling empire. Dominating the landscape. Reinforcing even the most remote outpost. Crossing a great distance on land has moved through several phases, waterways gave way to railways and they back to roads, as a primary means of transportation.

The telegraph was more, what I might call, can do technology. Experimentalists like Marconi put two and two together to make five. Scientific investigation provided the possibilities. He, and his like, were entrepreneurs. They saw the piece parts of technology as a business opportunity.

Aviation was more of an evolutionary advancement. A dream that the ancients held and wrote about. Slowly down the centuries theories and experimentation came together until powered flight became viable. Then decade after decade, more technical possibilities were exploited. Warfare, enterprise and adventurers have driven continuous development.

The INTERNET wasn’t seen as a commercial opportunity at its inception. It was a put together simply as a means for scientists to share their work. Maybe more than hobbyists doing the work but technicians with no master plan for world domination. They certainly were not Bond villains.

That is one possible one reason for the vulnerabilities inherent in our global electronic infrastructure. This week, the implications of those intrinsic vulnerabilities are becoming all too apparent. Embedded code that only a few experts take any notice of, that is until something bad happens. Their vital work never especially celebrated or significantly rewarded.

I don’t say it will ever happen but what if there was a practical plan for an INTERNET-2. A whole new set of protocols? An attempt to build-in integrity, expandability, and security from day one. Learning from experience.

The word “patch” is an indication of how crazy the current situation remains. It’s like that silly word “glitch.” Even the word “junk” seems quite inadequate if a crook “hacks” someone’s private account. These words make serious issues seem like minor inconveniences. Distinguishing between annoyances and harmful situations has become muddy waters.

Why is this the case? Is this the only way to communicate what’s going on.

I think it goes back to simple utility. Is the INTERNET, in its current form, so incredibly useful that society can tolerate any number of “inconveniences.” I wonder. Or will the story be like the waterways and the railways. Neither will ever go away but one will dramatically improve on the other. Push past the other. Thus, civilisation advances.

pipeline clogged up

Education policy over the last 40-years has a lot to answer for. Not at its best. Sadly, its best is only available to less than a quarter of the population. When you have classes on how to design a cereal packet taking precedence over how to cut a piece or wood or wire a plug or cook and egg or check a shopping bill then we are in ridiculous territory.

Do I jump on the bandwagon and blame Margaret Thatcher? We’ll it’s a nice conspiracy theory of politics. That said, there’s a hint of truth in the assertion. The Thatcher governments did start the drive towards a service-based economy where the importance of manufacturing industry was diminished. So, practical and vocational skills training were reshaped. They became unrecognisable. Then successive governments took money out of post 16 education.

Waking up in 2026 to a drift that started in 1986 is great, if a little late. A new education and training transformation is surely needed but is it the one that the current Prime Minister (PM) has in mind? His writings suggest that he’s a nostalgic sentiment towards vocational skills.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is working on the subject. His report is expected soon. Recommendations centred on a redistribution of government funds towards employment support are likely to be on the cards.

I know it’s a repetitive complaint to make because it’s said often. Now, what schools are obliged to teach and life as it’s lived are miles apart. In fact, life as it will be lived, in the lifetime of pupils in school now. A gap, that has always been there has been encouraged to grow.

Shall I blame another Conservative politician? An admirer of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. That “ever-popular” past Brexit promoting ex-Minister. Mr Gove to be precise. Yes, that blame would be more than appropriate. Obsessions with narrow national performance statistics was misguided. Not unimportant but overly prioritised.

It’s time to urgently get more young people into places that provide opportunity and personal growth. Totally regardless of their background and the places where they grew-up.

One recent comment I’ve heard from industry is this; we’d like to take on more apprentices if we had more experienced people to mentor them at work. Not only that but the apprentice levy hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that but business is tough so the focus must be on the here and now, if we want to be here tomorrow. In otherwards, the recruitment pipeline is clogged up.

There’s a degree of uncertainty too. Not that this is new either. The shape of the jobs of 10-years’ time isn’t easy to plan for given the race to implement ever more advanced technology. I say that’s not new. What I may be underestimating is the pace of change.

The plus here. Young people are the digital natives. They stand a much better chance of adapting to the rapid pace of change than anyone who, like me, grew up in the analogue world.

If Burnhamism is to mean anything this problem must be cracked[1]. It’s urgent. A subject for several red boxes. For the PM to push hard on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0melgpre23o

Servicing the future

Extrapolation is a dodgy game. That is to take a set of figures from past performance and then projecting them into the future. All too often, even in the world of artificial intelligence, a linear projection is deemed sufficient. Having a mass of collected data and then plotting a line that nicely fits somewhere in the middle. Assuming that there’s a value that is atypical of the accumulated data set.

It’s well accepted that predicting the future is fraught with assumptions. Real life is multidimensional and full of combinations and permutations of possibilities that are off the charts. However, everyday there is enough stability to make planning a useful activity.

There’s the phenomenon of the step change. Overnight a new law may be applicable. In the morning a new system may be switched on. In the evening, a major crash may stop transport links for hours. Events, both predicable and unpredictable throw a spanner in the works.

Trying to predict future workforce needs based on current facts and historic trends is something every major industry must do. I say “must” accepting some struggling and pathological organisations survive on a day-to-day basis.

So, if I start with a 100 people and expect a growth of 5% each year, it’s not unreasonable to think that I might need 105 people next year. It’s surprising how often this basic calculation is presented. Same with the predicable response from a chief executive who would prefer an improvement in productivity. Deliver the same output with the same, or less, people.

Predicting one year ahead is a must. Predicting 10-years ahead is nice. However, in certain industries where, say the products have long lives or the demand for services isn’t going away a long-term projection has meaning.

The search for productivity goes on. Digitisation has made inroads into the paper-based world of a couple of decades ago. I remember when I first held a digital camera in the office. In the mid-1990s it was a whizzy bit of kit to be loaned out on rare occasions.

Artificial intelligence, and all the technology wrapped around it, are reshaping business strategy, risk assessments and workforce planning. Everyone is seeking a competitive advantage.

This morning when I woke up, I was introduced to a new word. It was a BBC radio broadcast called: Rethink: manufacturing or services?[1] It doesn’t exactly roll off the tong. It’s servitization.

The premise is that the line between organisations manufacturing products and those who provide services isn’t a ridged one. Progressively, whatever the product, train, plane or automobile, they use masses of data not only to make but to operate. The data flows rapidly backwards and forwards between maker and operator. And lots of it too.

So, if I had to estimate the number of service engineers that would be needed in the next 10-years, I’d better be aware that their jobs are going to change dramatically. Radically.

However, overall will the numbers of people needed by an industry decrease or not? Or is it just that the nature of work will change for roughly the same overall numbers? That’s not so easy as a straight-line graph. Maybe, as productivity increases so it becomes possible to take on new tasks that previously were not viable. The performance of a product continuously improves.

I’d buy a service and not so much a product. I’ll buy 100,000 miles, not a car.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00325dd

AI Now

Without a long and tendinous epical on the ethical concerns raised by AI it might be as well to consider several of the practical changes that it has brought about in everyday life. Let’s go for something as simple as applying for a job. An experience that has changed considerably.

I think it’s well written up that this is not a great time to leave school or graduate. The prospect of applying for hundreds of jobs and getting a pile of rejections is an unsettling experience. Fine, during recessions, such as have happened in the past, this is not entirely unusual.

I’ve done my fair share of recruitment. That’s recruitment applying a paper based but highly bureaucratic process to address a pile of job applications. The writing of vacancy notices and setting criteria for a recruitment can be a time-consuming task. That is if the aim is to uphold the best practices that are current or even mandated. at the time.

It’s unsurprising that employers and recruitment agencies are now using AI tools to process applications as they arrive, most often via e-mail. Paper is going out of the window. That world I knew of having a file busting at the seams, and methodically working through it, are gone.

Like a vast electronic funnel applications are pushed in, are sieved through a filter, and some pop out at the at the other end of a hidden process. Hundreds of automated rejections are then created and scattered like confetti amongst those who failed to get past the AI gate keeper.

No wonder young people get a bit dejected as they accumulate masses of machine generated rejections. It’s not them, it’s a process. Easy to say but rejection can feel very personal.

However, there’s a smart fight back. AI can help (or can it). Let’s say I want a job that fits my profile. My ambitions, experience and talents. Just ask one of the AIs out there to generate a “prefect” CV. Feed it the relevant information. Next ask the AI to survey all the current vacancies for jobs that I could apply for with my generic CV. Then select the ones of interest. Having that list, feed the results into AI asking it to tailor a CV and application to fit the requirements of each one. Then automatically fire off the job applications. Error free, formatted to suite the style of the moment and fully customised.

I think you can see where I’m going with this description of events. Yes, it is dehumanising. If both applicant and potential employer are using AI, without human intervention, there’s a battle of the machines going on. Noone need communicate a single word.

It’s like a human – machine – human sandwich. There’s no malicious intention in all this processing. Objectives are set to try and match people with opportunities, but the unintended consequences are ruinous. In fact, it’s like a Monty Python sketch for today.

Not for one moment am I saying that a process is not needed. What’s getting into the realms of science fiction is the escalation that is possible with AI tools. That interface between aspiring employee and potential employer becomes an algorithmic battle.

Because AI costs are so low then this mechanism can be applied at all levels, whether it’s applying to flip burgers or become a commercial pilot.

I’m not having a downer on AI. It’s just that we much never forget the need for the human touch. More than that, if the end results of the above mass processing is cynicism and demotivation again the results are unintended consequences. So, think before creating a new process.

More Than Just Fashion

This strikes me as being beyond the normal selection of freaky and nuts News stories.

Shoes are a part of life that we can’t do without. At least given the climatic conditions in our temperate region of the world. They are primarily put on to protect the feet from the cold and wet and any sharp objects that littler the ground. I found the BBC radio interview with the foot specialist Professor Anthony Redmond fascinating. Doctors Chris and Xand van Tulleken[1] make a point of finding interesting people to address the myths and realities of medical subjects.

Me being me, it’s impossible to mention the subject without reference to the HHGTTG[2]. Douglas Adams was attuned to people’s obsession with footwear. The Footwarriors, were robots specifically designed with poor fitting shoes so that they would limp. This meant that they couldn’t lay chase, much to the advantage of anyone who encountered them. The story of their makers the Dolmansaxlil Galactic Shoe Corporation is a classic.

[I guess Adams chose the name Dolman because it sounded right. it’s an ancient Anglo-Saxon name. Close to where I live, the Dolman’s were a wealthy English family who owned Shaw House[3] in the 17th Century. I’d recommend a visit.]

Improperly fitting footwear is a good a way of slowing down opponents. One sure way to hobble or cause discomfort to the wearer. The fictional purpose in the HHGTTG was as a marketing rouse. Bad shoes forced people to buy more shoes in the hope for better shoes, but they were always bad, by design.

Now, I don’t know if you can imagine it. Let’s say that Lucius Junius Brutus had poor fitting shoes, or sandals or whatever Romans wore. Would his approach to Julius Caesar have been thwarted and history have been written-up different? Would he have stumbled and failed to dispatch the dictator of the Roman empire? It’s a question.

Back to 21^st century everyday tales. No fiction or intriguing historic figures. No wacky robots or corporate shenanigans. It’s reported that US President Trump likes shoes. Specific shiny shoes. So much so that he’s been giving them to colleagues[4]. Demanding that they wear them too.

I don’t think this is Fake News. Plenty of people in the world are obsessed with shoes. With her massive collection of pairs of shoes, this is the one thing people remember about Imelda Marcos[5]. Shoes can become the stuff of legend.

Corporate uniforms are not new either. The love of a conformal identity and the sense of unity that this superficially portrays. Having everyone in a team dress like robots is a way of stamping a leader’s authorly on a wayward group.

I started by writing that this development was freaky and nuts. I could be missing a vital part of a deep and detailed strategy here. It’s theorised by some management thinkers that the grit in the oyster is a key part of making change happen. So, why bother with grit. The same effect can be created by wearing shoes of the wrong size. An ill-fitting irritation. Could I be wrong?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ncgb9j

[2] “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” a comedic science fiction series by Douglas Adams.

[3] https://www.westberkshireheritage.org/shaw-house

[4] https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/trump-florsheim-shoes-tucker-carlson-jd-vance-bessent-448567ab

[5] First Lady of the Philippines for 21 years.

Email Overload

So called snail-mail is in an inevitable decline. One day it will be necessary to explain the concept of an envelope, and what it’s for, to younger people. To write, with a handheld pen, place a piece of paper inside an adequately formed folded paper enclosure and sealing it. This may involve moistening a surface or removing a strip of paper. To take account of the costs associated with this procedure a small, preprinted paper stamp is attached to one corner of the enclosure. The enclosure must meet regulations to then be accepted by a carrier who will take it from a bright red box. This artifact, called a “letter” is then piled up with lots of others to eventually be sorted and directed towards a specified destination. If the process is successful, a recipient may then destroy the envelope and read the letter.

When spelt out like so, it’s no wonder that e-mail has taken over the world. After centuries of operation the popular paper-based means of communication is now a novelty. Classical mail hangs on mostly as a means of getting birthday cards, and other celebratory cards, from A to B.

Even ardent official users, like the taxman, a trying to entice us all to become paperless. Major banks are also exhibiting this aversion to paper. Often more for their convenience rather than ours as their administrative systems become exclusively digital.

There’s a universal aspect that’s shared by the old world and the new world. It’s one that’s almost impossible to shake off. Filter it as we may, the piling up of junk mail is as bad on the doorstep as it is in the in-box. Junk splits into a whole series of categories. Putting aside the malicious and criminal variety, there’s a mass of mail that’s devoted to sales and marketing. I’ve ranted about this bombardment before, even if it makes no difference. The likes of:

“We are always looking to improve your experience with us, and we invite you to give your feedback in this short survey.”

Breaking this e-mail request down, it proports to be to my advantage to spend time answering the sender’s questions. Obviously, it’s to the questioner’s advantage and not mine. To sweeten the pill there’s a chance to win a small prize. Probably with odds set at a billion to one.

If this experience was occasional and advantageous to me, complaining might not be the right way to go. Sadly, the reality is the stream of e-mails, from multiple services, gets so annoying that I wish these tedious e-mails were paper. Then at least my recycling bin would benefit.

My approach is to instantly delete these e-mails. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this one. Customer feedback can go and take a hike. Naturally, I want the coffee shop I regularly use and my main bank to improve their services. But if these organisations think this is the way to do it, I think they have a big hole in their thinking.

Yes, if quick enough, it’s possible to opt in or out of marketing communications but endless feedback surveys seem to be exempt. They are the confetti of the marketing world.

“How did we do?” Is ticking a box really going to provide an answer to that question? “Thanks for your time” Nice, but as insincere as an algorithm can be.

Some forward-thinking organisations may eventually eliminate junk mail. In time there must be a better way of interacting. It’s about time they hurried up.

Myth or Productivity Booster?

A four-day week. It’s true that there’s nothing magical about the conventional five-day week. It’s an invention of modern times. There are plenty of self-employed people who’d say there were working a seven-day week. So, is the claim made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) advocates merely a sales pitch or does it have any substance?

Much depends on how seriously we take this mythical word called “productivity”. I’ve put it like this because there’s a million and one ways of determining what needs to be done as opposed to what people want to do and, when things go wrong, are forced to do.

A beaver is extremely productive. There’s an ingrained motivation to use what nature has provided to build a dam and a home. It’s non-stop. Come setbacks or successes this innovative creature keeps on going. It doesn’t watch the clock. Rarely discouraged.

I’m going to bring up a small paperback that cost 3 shillings and 6 pence when it was published. It’s one of those books that is both comedy and seriousness wrapped up in one. Parkinson’s law or the pursuit of progress is older than I am. It was first published in 1957.

The plot is simple but there are several messages. One for example, relates to the provision of resources. It goes something like this – if only we had a couple more staff and a state or the art information system we could double our efficiency. That’s contrasted by a view of past statistics that often shows a growth in staffing (or computing power) and roughly the same or even less being achieved. Why it’s suggested that AI will circumvent this nicety, I’m not sure. Speed and multiplication don’t always add up to building better projects or being more “productive”.

What a wonderful world it was going to be. The future now. I remember that clunky personal computer on my desk, in about 1996. The sounds of the dial-up modem connecting to the information superhighway of the day. The world wide web was so new we had to keep reminding ourselves of what the www stood for. Boxes of floppy disks replaced filing cabinets.

Here we are 30-years later and what do I find, or not find as the case may be? Tens of thousands of files generated by Apps on my smart phone, tablet and desktop. Whereas once I’d mastered constructing folders with logical names and placing documents exactly where I could find them in their latest version, now I’ve got an unfathomable messy clutter.

Have I become more “productive”? That entirely depends upon what is meant by that word. Decluttering digital information isn’t that much different from decluttering piles of paper on an over weighted office desk. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Where does a four-day week sit in that equation? Parkinson would likely say that whatever the length of the working week we’d fill it with activity. It’s almost transparent to the tools used whether they be paper based or applying the latest powerful computing capabilities.

Remember decades ago, we said; public services were going to be dramatically improved because we could be contacted by e-mail. Scrapping the paper in-tray was a day many people longed for. Files wouldn’t be delayed as they passed from office to office. Desk to desk. Or so it seemed. I don’t think we’ve stopped complaining about public services – have we?

There is one possible new element. If AI use means that humans abdicate from decision-making, then a new situation comes about. This needs to be a choice. Forcing humans out of the loop to chase the God of productivity is a dangerous pathway.

Disruption and the Gods

Always the most impressive artifacts to come out of archaeological digs are those made of gold. It’s an element that comes down through the millennium unhindered by the turbulence of the daily News. It’s been a repository of wealth for as long as we have walked the Earth. That might be a brave statement. Let’s say people have admired and desired gold for that long.

A strange hold over people. In the last couple of years, the chart of the gold price has resembled that of rocket taking off. If you thought house prices have shot up a lot in the last decade have a quick look at the gold price. From 1978 to 2008 the curve looks relatively flat. Once past that date renowned for the financial crisis then the value of gold goes mostly one way.

Is this good or bad? One might even say – who cares. Well, geopolitics, inflation and monetary policy all play their part. I’m not talking about a precise indicator of these factors, but the linkage is clear. Many people see gold as a hedge against the declining value of other assets.

Geopolitics is a nebulous term. It can mean a million and one things. I guess on the one side of the coin is stability and on the other is instability. To relate the rapid rise of the value of gold to anything it may as well be the growth in the influence of disruptive forces.

Disruption has become incredibly fashionable in the last few years.

It’s like a newfound management trend. Although it’s not. Once upon a time, everyone was supposed to be rational, to create a harmonious world in which we could prosper. Management gurus who said as much thrived. Classical theories flourished[1].

However, they did warn us that institutions and organisations would change dramatically, in time. And that’s the component that disruptors have latched on to. Impatient to change in a softly-softly manner, the current mode is more along the lines of – to hell with it, do it now, come hell or high water. Don’t bother me with any of that risk assessment stuff.

I think, the downside of this pursuit of disruption is instability, insecurity and a latent fragility. Yes, it’s hidden. When a powerful disrupter succeeds the surface reaction is a round of applause. Under the surface the lack of long-term thinking invites an avalanche of negative repercussions. If the current gold price is a crude indicator, then there are potentially a lot of nasties just over the horizon.

An example to consider is the radical move to privatise the water industry in the UK. You bet that was disruptive. A politically fashionable move at the time. Surely a commercial mindset would serve the consumer, improve efficiency and increase investment. Ho Ho.

In the management of change, disruption has its place. If it’s the only card that a leader holds, and couple that with impatience, and outcomes are not going to be good. If they are good then it’s sheer luck.

[1] https://www.waterstones.com/book/gods-of-management/charles-b-handy/9781788165624

Legacy of Dilbert’s Humour

Cartoonists capture reality. Or at least, a snapshot of an ephemeral or enduring moment. It’s not photography. A cartoon’s realism isn’t about fidelity in the capture of a scene. It’s more focused on our perception of reality. No need for representative images full of depth and detail.

Absurdities and peculiarities captured by ink and pen can be sharp and masteries of observation. The flash of “who said what to whom” is a moment that displays the strange assortment and madness of everyday life.

To me the creator of Dilbert nailed a decade. That’s the 1990s. A time when management styles favoured open plan offices littered with cubicles. A time when of the evolution of computer networks connected office workers in a new and unfamiliar way. “You’ve got mail” was a positive thing.

Scott Adams[1] has passed at a relatively young age. His reputation not entirely intact. Now, I must decide what to do with the books I have of his. Charity shop or not? Element of his humour don’t fit the world of the 2020s. In some ways an even more absurd world than past decades.

Where he hit the mark, in my mind, centres around 1995, or so, a time when I was travelling to America. Visting giant aerospace manufacturing companies. I can close my eyes and see a hangar like building of enormous proportions where every square inch was covered by naturally coloured cubicles. Neutral coloured partitions coming up to shoulder hight. Water coolers. Glass windowed offices. Notice boards with the latest dictate.

Of course, Dilbert was an engineer. An engineer shoehorned into a modern management world that challenged his sensibilities. A hierarchical place where systematic pseudo-science clashes with logic and rationality. Where human frailties and social pressures are turned into office management speak to justify unjustifiable actions. Pushing a rock uphill to meet unrealistic project plans.

It’s a tiny thing. Dilbert’s upturned tie smacks my experience of standing at a drawing board in the late 1970s. He’s a cartoon character that is inevitably dragging his heals as he’s being forced to come to terms with a maddening corporate culture. That’s an encounter that a lot of people can relate too. It compelled office workers to play games that seemed to work in the opposite direction to any that was intended. Later, TV comedy picked up on this with series like: The Office[2].

This work day phenomenon hasn’t passed. Modern managements’ more barmy methods and theories are so ingrained that it seems wrong to highlight. Somehow our reaction to this has changed.

For a while Dilbert’s humour put up a mirror to those of us in senior management roles. Here’s a model that, if you start behaving like the “classic” boss, it’s time to do a double take. When encountering that slippery slope, look far and wide for a cynical talking dog.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y320k72vyo

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jd68z