>> Aggghhhh.
>> Yet another "differing perspective" issue.

> Well Russell, whose fault is it? :)  I am of the opinion that if you don't
> want to be misunderstood, just come out and say it as it is, without 
> dancing
> around the issue. I've been on this list far too long, there aren't many
> things one can do to hurt my feelings. ;-))

Well. IMHO, if it must be anyone's fault, it's yours ;-)
But, I would not have used that term.
I THINK (of course) that I actually said what I meant clearly enough 
(perhaps unusually) for it to be parsed correctly without too too much 
effort.

But I realise that
1. I may be wrong.
2. It's easy to read alternative meanings into such material
3. I may be wrong :-)

> [snip]
>> And, in fact, to address your latest question, while the firing of people
>> in
>> the greater scheme of things may be an utter necessity (" ... it is 
>> better
>> that one man die fpor the good of the people... " *)
>
> I think the comparison is neither relevant nor fair.

I think it is relevant. ie if that's what jhappens then that's what happens 
and it affects people's perspectives of managers and management. Give the 
sadist a 100 or so people to report to him and things may be different ;-).

As for fair - I'd hope that people never expect their treatment at the hands 
of the masses to be fair, or reasonable :-). Hope, yes. Expect, no.

>> you will often enough
>> find such things referred to as "a necessary evil" even by those 
>> involved.
>
> If you mean it in the same spirit as in "government is a necessary evil", 
> I
> agree.

Government is NA
Managers are NA
Firing is NA
Road rules are NA
...

>> NOW it may be that the firing decision(s) was in fact by far the best
>> thing
>> that the manager/ .../sadist could have done and was even truly
>> beautiful/compassionate/apple pie /... . BUT for each worker it is almost
>> always bad or a disaster or effectively an evil deed intheir order of
>> things.

> It need not necessarily be so. The manager can make an effort to explain
> what has been done to prevent the situation, explain why it is inevitable,
> and show sympathy.

Knowing it is the optimum choice for the masses and paying your subprime 
mortagge at month's end are usually two almost independent things.


> FWIW, the question "why me?" shows a degree of selfishness. Another way to
> ask the same question is "why not somebody else?"

Aye.
What relevance has that got to how people feel :-) ?

>> As the doers of such are necessarily managers, then yes, managers with
>> such
>> powers are by definition doers of evil - even if it may be a lesserr evil
>> or
>> a greater good. It goes with the territory. Longish ago I was in a middle
>> management position in a largish by NZ standards corporate. I hated the
>> peripheral responsibilities that went with such a role. Not me at all.
>
> Yet somebody needs to do it, right? :)

Possibly. Thaty's for a manager to answer. I've opted out.

Well. Almost.
Seeing you ask ... :-)
The optimum decision MAY be for the majority opf the workers BUT it may be 
for the majority of the shareholders or ... .
If the fairness of equity distribution and the ownership of the workers 
capital which they have endowed the company with have not been sorted out to 
everyone's satisfaction then optimising party X's position may not seem 
totally optimum to party Y. In fact, it seldom does.

But, I imagine that, as a manger, you are very well aware of that.



    Russell



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist