Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««123»»

Smart Companies Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 9:16 AM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:08 AM
Points: 214, Visits: 620

It's interesting to note something of a division between private industry and government within these posts.   It's not so much a direct comparison of smarts vs stupidity, but of cupidity vs stupidity.  Whilst both sectors can and do exhibit "stupid" behaviour, only private industry has the motivation -- cupidity -- to act "smart"; the marketplace eventually rewards smarts and punishes stupidity.  Government, on the other hand, exercises a monopoly, or near-monopoly, over the services it renders to its "customers", and extacts its dues, regardless of its performance. 

Perhaps it's odd for me to admit all this, as I am both a government employee, and politically rather liberal.  But after years in both the private and public sectors, the differences can only be described as undeniable and profound.

Cheers.

 

 

Post #360017
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 9:21 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:59 PM
Points: 473, Visits: 606

Judging the smartness of the company by its financial performance is a weak indicator in my opinion. It might be smart to invest money in a company which is doing well financially but it might not be smart to work for one.

I would define smartness by the way the company treats it’s employees and customers and on the level of greed of the Chief Officers. Look at Enron – at one point they could have been judged smart based on their financial performance…

I think (based on the news only - because I did not work for them) Google might be one of the smartest companies out there.

 

From what I have seen the more money the company has the more stupid it is. Also the stupidity comes with the territory (type of business - I think banks and insurance companies are among the most stupid) and very often size (the bigger you get the more politics go on and how brilliant the politicians are … we all know…)

I worked for a company at one point in my life where most of the time was spent on kissing up and dividing influences instead of getting the job done that I think if that company fired 50% of it’s IT staff the rest of the company would not notice the difference in IT performance.



---------------------------------------------
Nothing is impossible.
It is just a matter of time and money.
Post #360020
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 10:21 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:08 AM
Points: 1,821, Visits: 595

I've worked for a not for profit for 9 years and don't think financial performance is our key measure of performance. Ours is a balance of mission and business. Our mission is number one, but we can't fulfill our mission without business (money). We've been in business since 1970 so I guess we're doing okay.

Before that I spent 20 years in the U.S. military; 200+ years of tradition unencumbered by progress or change. Many smart people dragged down by government red tape.

Post #360043
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 10:41 AM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:29 AM
Points: 1,800, Visits: 154

If you want to judge smartness by line of business, then the floor covering industry is BY FAR the dumbest on the planet.  I worked for two of the largest manufacturers and let me tell you; the cumulative intelligence of the industry wouldn't add up to that of a bag of door knobs!



Take care,

Bert

"Speculations? I know nothing about speculations. I'm resting on certainties. I know that my Redeemer lives, and because He lives, I shall live also." - Michael Faraday

Post #360046
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 1:30 PM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:26 PM
Points: 400, Visits: 549
One of the more interesting rationalizations I hear in the government office in which I work is that just because what works in the private sector (planning, project management, communication and a few other nifty concepts) doesn't mean it will work in government agencies. No review of best practices, no initiative to change the way government business is done.

Post #360078
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 3:25 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:03 PM
Points: 27, Visits: 38
I've been working for about 5 years now and have been in three companies. The first company (about 100 people) that hired me out of university was a VERY SMART company. There was "Vision" and "Mission" and a "Quality Statement" that most of us knew (and even believed). There were quarterly business reviews where we saw what was going on in all parts of the company. At one point, early on, the SW group realized that it's people weren't super happy, so they started to actively work on that problem. The results... they built a very open culture. Individuals were encouraged to take (calculated) risks and learn from mistakes. We adopted agile development when I was there. And a bunch of other cool stuff.

Company 2 NOT SMART. The ruthless pursuit of the quarterly numbers lead to cutting corners and looking the other way. I only stuck that place out 8 months.

Company 3 is actually satellite SW development group within Company 1. Unfortunately, the culture building & strong leadership from Company 1 didn't translate to company 3. I'd have to say Company 3 is NOT SMART, but has potential.

So my point is that a company overall can be a smart company. But within its own walls there can be some smart and not-so-smart groups.



Post #360089
Posted Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:48 AM


Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:32 AM
Points: 769, Visits: 256
I work for a smart company, Bryan Cave LLP.  I think Bryan Cave is smart because of the culture and how it welcomes diversity.  People are respected for their work and dedication.  It doesn't matter about your race, gender, political beliefs, religion or sexual orientation, if you are talented you can succeed at Bryan Cave.  They also invest in the professional development of their employees.  Each year I have gone to the PASS conference and attended other local classes and events.  They expect a lot, but they have helped me grow a lot, too.

Aunt Kathi
Microsoft
(Former SQL Server MVP)
Post #360139
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 7:29 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:11 AM
Points: 1,151, Visits: 1,100

The fact that you say that shows you have no idea about the NHS.  The words 'fixed' and 'quickly' are not often put together in a sentence concerning the NHS!

 

Post #360240
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 7:50 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:20 PM
Points: 1,276, Visits: 1,135

I noticed the same differences since I'm a "weekend warrior" with the government and work in the private sector during the week.  The best theory I can come up with is that to succeed in the private sector a business has to be proactive -- anticipating and dealing with issues before they become big issues.  Government is mostly reactive -- for the most part they have to react to existing conditions after they're already big issues.

Of course that's a good thing, since most people wouldn't want the police kicking in their door for some crime they anticipate you'll commit at some point ("Minority Report" anyone?)

BTW - I noticed in the rankings that they assign a "knowledge value per employee", but it doesn't appear to single out groups of employees (i.e., IT, marketing, etc.)  According to this ranking, the guy who says "Would you like fries with that?" contributes as much to Burger King's "smartness" as the guy who administers their distributed database servers, who contributes as much as the VP of Sales, etc.

This ranking doesn't seem to really measure IT-related activities and employees specifically.  It's hard to directly measure the value of good IT people in most companies, since we don't usually do sales, marketing, etc.  Basically we don't usually contribute directly to the bottom line (of course there are always exceptions, and really big ones at that).  We do, however, always support the decision makers and the people who do contribute to the bottom line.  It would be far more interesting to me to see a methodology for measuring the impact that IT departments have on businesses.

Post #360247
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:09 AM
Points: 131, Visits: 1

Mike,

Sometimes it is too late to be reactive (9/11).  However, proactive government has not been mastered in the West yet (Iraq).

Post #360248
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««123»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse