Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Sunday, December 1, 2024
Monday, December 18, 2023
Monday, June 13, 2016
Outsourcing Plans at the MBTA
Wishful Thinking at the MBTA
For over 15 years, the MBTA has subcontracted its Commuter Raile Service to private companies. It is generally viewed that the Commuter rail has not been well run.
Now, the T -- relying on hope over experience -- plans to outsource its maintenance activities to the private sector. This is madness. Managing a contrattor is at least as difficult as managin in-house employees. In house, you have diorect influence over employees' behavior. With contractors you don't. All you can do in the face of poor performace is abrogate the contract and then suffer the disruption of trying to find a replacement.
It is an embarrassment that in a city with half a dozen world class business schools full of Operations Managemnt faculty memebers that the T cannot manage its maintenance operations effectively. This is not rocket science; this is a well undertood process.
The T should not outsource this problem. It should work hard to get its house in order and improve its operations.
Sent to Boston Globe
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Friday, May 16, 2014
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Let Romney be Romney
The reason Republicans are lukewarm (Cartoon, Economist, March10, 2012:
14) toward Romney is that his business experience is irrelevant to the
problems being faced by the nation (Economist, March 10, 2012: 18).
Romney was very successful at the leveraged buyout. He made a lot of money from firms that amassed, at his instigation, a lot of debt, some of which was used to payoff the investors.
The problem, as Republicans see it, is that America has already amassed and is continuing to amass a lot of debt.
The Republicans would like to support a candidate who is skilled at paying down the debt.
Sent to the Economist
Romney was very successful at the leveraged buyout. He made a lot of money from firms that amassed, at his instigation, a lot of debt, some of which was used to payoff the investors.
The problem, as Republicans see it, is that America has already amassed and is continuing to amass a lot of debt.
The Republicans would like to support a candidate who is skilled at paying down the debt.
Sent to the Economist
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Time for American Business to Step Up To the Plate
a bit naive op ed on Employment in Cambridge Chronicle
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Business Focus
Two stories in today's New York Times discouraged me. First was the continuing and long standing complaint that the Nuclear Regulatory Commisision was a captive of that industry and that important safety precautions were not made and those failures were not punished by the NRC (Nuclear Agency Is Criticized as Too Close to Its Industry. New York Times, May 8, 2011: A1). Second was the failure of major data archives to protect the identity of the data stored therein (There's No Data Sheriff on the Wild Web. New York Times Week in Review, May 8, 2011: 2).
In both cases, essential security features were not put in place because they were "too expensive."
When was it that American Industry turned from an emphasis on technical rigor and pride in doing an excellent job to the present focus on parsimony? Parsimony, that is, when it comes to providing adequate products and services but generosity in rewarding the top echelon of the managerial team.
We have to return to that focus on a job well done despite the cost or we will suffer unimaginable problems in the years ahead. Let's start with really tightening up the safety levels of our aging Nuclear Reactors. Apropos Vermont, lying about the existence of underground pipes should be a clear basis for not issuing an operating permit for another twenty years.
In both cases, essential security features were not put in place because they were "too expensive."
When was it that American Industry turned from an emphasis on technical rigor and pride in doing an excellent job to the present focus on parsimony? Parsimony, that is, when it comes to providing adequate products and services but generosity in rewarding the top echelon of the managerial team.
We have to return to that focus on a job well done despite the cost or we will suffer unimaginable problems in the years ahead. Let's start with really tightening up the safety levels of our aging Nuclear Reactors. Apropos Vermont, lying about the existence of underground pipes should be a clear basis for not issuing an operating permit for another twenty years.
Furloughs, but Paydays for the Brass
Your story about the management excesses at Gannett at a time when the firm was laying off staff and insisting that the survivors take furloughs shows the disconnect between the executive suite and the ordinary worker in America today (Furloughs, but Paydays for the Brass, New York Times, April 11th., 2011: B1, B3).
But it is a disconnect that will come at a price. All the research on downsizing, except that following a merger, shows that the economic benefits of downsizing are unlikely to occur unless a firm's top management share the pain -- something that Gannett claimed would happen but then failed to implement (with top team bonuses totaling $3 million). We can therefore expect that Gannett will continue its inexorable financial decline.
There is one simple way to change the situation. Let differential responsibility be reflected in basic compensation. But let every employee share the same percentage bonus (based on overall firm performance) as that of top management.
But it is a disconnect that will come at a price. All the research on downsizing, except that following a merger, shows that the economic benefits of downsizing are unlikely to occur unless a firm's top management share the pain -- something that Gannett claimed would happen but then failed to implement (with top team bonuses totaling $3 million). We can therefore expect that Gannett will continue its inexorable financial decline.
There is one simple way to change the situation. Let differential responsibility be reflected in basic compensation. But let every employee share the same percentage bonus (based on overall firm performance) as that of top management.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
De Leo's Plan
The only vision that Speaker DeLeo's plan will instantiate is a world enjoying a downward spiral of inferior jobs, and inferior pay, and inferior benefits (Editorial, Boston Globe, April 21, 2011).
State and local government employees are not overcompensated compared with private sector employees. The perceived differences are due to comparing public sector employees who are mainly in professional jobs with private sector employees who are in entry level jobs.
Compensation is not simply pay, it is also pensions and health-care benefits. In previous contract negotiations, public sector workers gave up larger pay increases in order to purchase health-care and pension benefits. Let us be clear. They (the employees, not the cities, towns, and states) are paying for those benefits with deferred or redirected compensation.
The reason that the citizens of the Commonwealth are balking at the increased costs is that, over the past 25 years, private sector compensation has stagnated (except for the top 1% of the earning population).
Corporations have starved most of us; the motto starve the beast was directed at government but impacted us all. Now they want the public sector to join in the race to the bottom and are using ordinary people, who are struggling to pay their bills, to achieve their goals.
Sent to Boston Globe
State and local government employees are not overcompensated compared with private sector employees. The perceived differences are due to comparing public sector employees who are mainly in professional jobs with private sector employees who are in entry level jobs.
Compensation is not simply pay, it is also pensions and health-care benefits. In previous contract negotiations, public sector workers gave up larger pay increases in order to purchase health-care and pension benefits. Let us be clear. They (the employees, not the cities, towns, and states) are paying for those benefits with deferred or redirected compensation.
The reason that the citizens of the Commonwealth are balking at the increased costs is that, over the past 25 years, private sector compensation has stagnated (except for the top 1% of the earning population).
Corporations have starved most of us; the motto starve the beast was directed at government but impacted us all. Now they want the public sector to join in the race to the bottom and are using ordinary people, who are struggling to pay their bills, to achieve their goals.
Sent to Boston Globe
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Dual Pay Structures
Dual Pay structures are a bad idea (Unions Yield on Two-Tier Wage Scales to Preserve Jobs, New York Times, November 20, 2010: A1, B2).
They create major inequities between employees hired at different times. In our modern economy, we are told that collaboration between workers and between management and workers is essential for the development and manufacture of new products. The management of these companies will regret their coercive actions as these two-tiers pay scales will inhibit the development of a cooperative climate.
These lower pay scales for new hires will also contribute to the large income inequities in the country. It is the Tragedy of the Commons all over again. It may make sense for one company to improve its profitability (and the managers' bonuses) by cutting wages, but the enlarging of a large pool of people lacking purchasing power will do little to improve demand in the long run.
Sent to New York Times
They create major inequities between employees hired at different times. In our modern economy, we are told that collaboration between workers and between management and workers is essential for the development and manufacture of new products. The management of these companies will regret their coercive actions as these two-tiers pay scales will inhibit the development of a cooperative climate.
These lower pay scales for new hires will also contribute to the large income inequities in the country. It is the Tragedy of the Commons all over again. It may make sense for one company to improve its profitability (and the managers' bonuses) by cutting wages, but the enlarging of a large pool of people lacking purchasing power will do little to improve demand in the long run.
Sent to New York Times
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Two Cultures
Let me apply some psychological analysis to one of the phenomena described by David Brooks (The Two Cultures, New York Times, November 15, 2010).
He takes at face value that business leaders are accurately reflecting the causes of their behavior when they say that "she is holding off on investing because she is scared about the future..."
But we are not very good at identifying and reporting on causal attribution. When things are going well for us, we tend to identify the causes internally: we developed new products, we designed them well, our manufacturing was of high quality, and we marketed the products well. When things are not going well, we make attributions to the environment: the market collapsed, there is too much uncertainty, and so on.
This pattern of attributions has been well documented in the Management Letters of many firms as they confront the ups and downs of the business cycle.
The fact is that firms can enact their environments. If the 300,000 members of the Chamber of Commerce were each to hire one new employee next week that might well start a virtuous cycle of increased demand (hopefully for goods and services made in the US) leading to increased hiring and so on.
Sent to the New York Times
He takes at face value that business leaders are accurately reflecting the causes of their behavior when they say that "she is holding off on investing because she is scared about the future..."
But we are not very good at identifying and reporting on causal attribution. When things are going well for us, we tend to identify the causes internally: we developed new products, we designed them well, our manufacturing was of high quality, and we marketed the products well. When things are not going well, we make attributions to the environment: the market collapsed, there is too much uncertainty, and so on.
This pattern of attributions has been well documented in the Management Letters of many firms as they confront the ups and downs of the business cycle.
The fact is that firms can enact their environments. If the 300,000 members of the Chamber of Commerce were each to hire one new employee next week that might well start a virtuous cycle of increased demand (hopefully for goods and services made in the US) leading to increased hiring and so on.
Sent to the New York Times
Massport: Director's pay hike doesn't fly
I have only lived in Massachusetts for eight years so I am puzzled by the way in which employment contracts seem to be written in, at least part, of the Public sector.
You report that when he retires, Mr Thomas Kinton (Massport) will be entitled to draw on $400,000 in "sick pay" (Massport: Director's pay hike doesn't fly, Boston Globe, November 16, 2010: A22).
Sick pay should be just that, payment for days when you are prevented from working because you are sick. Properly administered, sick pay does two things. It allows the individuals to recuperate more quickly than they might if they came to work, this would enhance the organization's productivity; it also protects the organization by not having coughing and sneezing individuals in the workplace who might infect their colleagues, this too enhances productivity.
If, however, you can claim payment for unused sick days at retirement, these incentives are reversed. To get a big terminal bonus, the individual is encouraged to come to work, to work at a torpid pace because of sickness, and possibly infect colleagues with the illness.
How did such contracts come to be written?
Sent to the Boston Globe
You report that when he retires, Mr Thomas Kinton (Massport) will be entitled to draw on $400,000 in "sick pay" (Massport: Director's pay hike doesn't fly, Boston Globe, November 16, 2010: A22).
Sick pay should be just that, payment for days when you are prevented from working because you are sick. Properly administered, sick pay does two things. It allows the individuals to recuperate more quickly than they might if they came to work, this would enhance the organization's productivity; it also protects the organization by not having coughing and sneezing individuals in the workplace who might infect their colleagues, this too enhances productivity.
If, however, you can claim payment for unused sick days at retirement, these incentives are reversed. To get a big terminal bonus, the individual is encouraged to come to work, to work at a torpid pace because of sickness, and possibly infect colleagues with the illness.
How did such contracts come to be written?
Sent to the Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Bureaucratic Failure in the case of Shirley Sherrod
The indecent haste with which the Department of Agriculture engineered Ms. Sherrod's
resignation suggests a major failure in the bureaucratic protections that the Federal
Government has in place for its employees.
To be fired without any attempt to hear her side of the story, without a full
consideration of all the facts suggests gross incompetence in senior management of the
agency.
They should be disciplined.
--
resignation suggests a major failure in the bureaucratic protections that the Federal
Government has in place for its employees.
To be fired without any attempt to hear her side of the story, without a full
consideration of all the facts suggests gross incompetence in senior management of the
agency.
They should be disciplined.
--
Friday, April 23, 2010
Federal Positions Unfilled
Article in Transforming Management. Manchester Business School, April 19th., 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)