From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: "Larry Elmore" Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/11/29 Message-ID: <65p7v8$f0j@netra.montana.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 293642633 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <65iclc$cms$5@darla.visi.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: montana.edu Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-11-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ... >In article <65iclc$cms$5@darla.visi.com>, seebs@plethora.net says... >> In article , wrote: >> >There are no bad employees, just bad managers. >> >> I disagree, having met bad employees. I will grant, I've met more bad >> managers... I suspect that's because being a good manager requires a lot more of some skills and personality traits than most employees need. Lord knows I've met a _lot_ of people who have a difficult enough time keeping _themselves_ organized and coordinated with their coworkers, let alone trying to keep a group of people working together productively and amicably. >> Still, I've met people who start by lying about what they can do, and >> then try to cover up for it. Now, you can blame part of this on the >> manager not inspiring them, or firing them if they won't work, but the >> employee is responsible for some of this too... > >My guess is the person was, in most instances, not lying but rather >"believed" he/she could do it (shine; take a short term risk to realize >longer term results, for example) given the opportunity. Given enough >time, I'll bet they could have too. Yeah, right. Many times, these are the same people who cheated in school to get through with higher grades (or even to get through at all). You seem to be under the persistent delusion that all incompetent, and/or dishonest, and/or evil people end up as managers, CEO's and shareholders, while all employees are at worst misunderstood angels. What a crock. I wonder just how much real-world experience you have? As an employee in some real low-end jobs, I've worked with some other employees who were scum of the earth. People who lied, cheated, stole, pawned off as much work as possible on their co-workers, etc., etc., ad nauseum. > Other times visions of what is >required, agreed to and what the potentials are, are seriously >misinterpretted by one or both parties. Nothing to resort to name >calling or ill feelings about however. It's just learning. It takes a >pretty "big" person to give someone real opportunity for achievement, >self-worth etc. Sometimes doing good may cost you something in the short >term. So you'd be willing to allow managers the chance to learn, and would be a "big" person and allow them the opportunity for achievement, self-worth, etc.? After all, there are no bad managers, just bad employees who can't see the "big picture" and blame all their problems, including the fact that it rained on their picnic, on bad management... Get real. People are people, whether employee or manager or shareholder. Some are bad, some are good, most are a bit of each. Larry