Crete's Corner

osubuckeye4 said:
I get where you're going with it, crane operators are typically subcontracted out by unions.

I highly doubt that the President of the IUOE is capable of doing every one of the jobs that the 400,000 members of the union perform though.

Ditto with other large unions, Teamsters union has 1.3 million members and is lead up by Sean M. O'Brien.. O'Brien has a background in rigging and heavy equipment delivery and there are definitely roles within the Teamsters that he could perform, but he's also representing airline pilots and zookeepers.. you don't want Sean O'Brien piloting your commercial airline. It doesn't mean he's an ineffective leader though.


Let's use a business example. In my company the entire org chart ultimately rolls up to the CEO, who reports to the Board of Directors. Our CEO is very competent, but there are many technical roles within our company that our CEO could not step into and perform. Things like regulatory compliance, cybersecurity/IT and legal are not going to be within his wheelhouse and that's why he has hire people to perform those roles.

The more expansive an organization grows, the less a leaders job revolves around knowing how to do everything... and more around knowing how to identify people who know how to do particular things very well, and then ensuring they are performing them to the necessary level.
Click to expand...
Ok, but a union leaders job isnt to provide the services that everyone in a union can provide, it's to lead the union, no more than a project leader is needed to be willing and able to do specialist work if all they need to be willing and able to do is outsource competantly. In your company. The CEO is expected to be able to competantly hire the right person who is then able to competantly hire the right person to further the company like you said. While the responsibility rolls all the way up, the delegation has a limit down I reckon. The ceo doesn't ask the new recruit in legal to find the data, the leader of the legal department does and as such should be willing and able to. If the factorial tree of your company is that big, then for sure you can't get absurd about 1 individuals reach. But as you step up that tree it is reasonable to look down and learn the side of a converging path if its blind to you 1 factor down so you can understand that what you're asking of the person down only reasonable things you're willing and able for yourself. That could still leave a huge poryion of that tree blind to you, but competant delegation is an ask down, like you reasoned
 
I think it really depends on how big the organization is and what the end goals are. There are companies out there that do nothing else other than manage subcontractors and grift off the top. There is no way they know how to do the jobs they get awarded.

For instance, there is the GSA (general services administration) that controls the distribution of federal contracts to small business vendors. We used to have a GSA contract, which allows us to bid on jobs that non-contract holders cannot. You are classified by your service code and can bid on jobs within those codes. What I quickly discovered once I was in was that there are what I call 'umbrella' companies that exist that cover every service code imaginable. And they are the ones landing the BIG contracts. You look on these company's profiles and their service area is office supplies, video production, legal services, transportation, building contractors, etc etc. How the F can one company cover every area under the sun? And if they do, how can they possibly be classified as a 'small business'??

Well, they don't actually cover all these areas themselves. They are strictly a collection of 'project managers' that hire out subs to handle the job. 50 or so project managers that specialize in a particular field... so if I got hired by them I'd be the video guy. They also have a food guy. And a transportation guy, etc. No one else works for the company other than these PMs, so that is how they stay a 'small business'.

So if there was a media project for the Navy, this company would land the prime contract and then they would hire one video vendor for the videos, one vendor for the web stuff, one vendor for the print stuff, etc. My company as a singular entity had 0 chance to land any jobs or part of the jobs on our own. We have to partner up with one of these big dogs. In fact the GSA actively tells you to partner up with one of these big dogs or else you ain't getting the contract. This is NOT how that program is sold to you before you get in. It is sold as a way for small businesses can get a in to federal contracts. They conveniently leave out the grifting part. IMO it's a giant fucking scam... who is running these 'umbrella' companies with the collection of random PMs?? My opinion is these companies are all run by 'friends' of the government... the people who created and manage this shady ass system. It's a great set up to ensure your friends get a shitload of business and hide it.

Anyway.... kind of got onto a tangent there. But the point I was originally going for was that these companies and PMs in no way shape or form can do any of the stuff they actually get hired for. Yet they are the one landing multi-million dollar contracts on the regular.

Probably not the same thing because I really do think that entire system is a scam. As a small business you can play ball and potentially get work if you cozy up to one of these umbrellas. But it is all so slimy.
 
cmvideo75 said:
I think it really depends on how big the organization is and what the end goals are. There are companies out there that do nothing else other than manage subcontractors and grift off the top. There is no way they know how to do the jobs they get awarded.

For instance, there is the GSA (general services administration) that controls the distribution of federal contracts to small business vendors. We used to have a GSA contract, which allows us to bid on jobs that non-contract holders cannot. You are classified by your service code and can bid on jobs within those codes. What I quickly discovered once I was in was that there are what I call 'umbrella' companies that exist that cover every service code imaginable. And they are the ones landing the BIG contracts. You look on these company's profiles and their service area is office supplies, video production, legal services, transportation, building contractors, etc etc. How the F can one company cover every area under the sun? And if they do, how can they possibly be classified as a 'small business'??

Well, they don't actually cover all these areas themselves. They are strictly a collection of 'project managers' that hire out subs to handle the job. 50 or so project managers that specialize in a particular field... so if I got hired by them I'd be the video guy. They also have a food guy. And a transportation guy, etc. No one else works for the company other than these PMs, so that is how they stay a 'small business'.

So if there was a media project for the Navy, they would hire one video vendor for the videos, one vendor for the web stuff, one vendor for the print stuff, etc. My company as a singular entity had 0 chance to land any jobs or part of the jobs on our own. We have to partner up with one of these big dogs. In fact they actively tell you to partner up with one of these big dogs or else you ain't getting the contract. This is NOT how that program is sold to you before you get in. It is sold as a way for small businesses can get a in to federal contracts. They conveniently leave out the grifting part. IMO it's a giant fucking scam... who is running these 'umbrella' companies with the collection of random PMs?? My opinion is these companies are all run by 'friends' of the government... the people who created and manage this shady ass system. It's a great set up to ensure your friends get a shitload of business and hide it.

Anyway.... kind of got onto a tangent there. But the point I was originally going for was that these companies and PMs in no way shape or form can do any of the stuff they actually get hired for. Yet they are the one landing multi-million dollar contracts on the regular.

Probably not the same thing because I really do think that entire system is a scam. As a small business you can play ball and potentially get work if you cozy up to one of these umbrellas. But it is all so slimy.
Click to expand...
Ok, but if as a subcontractor you buy a service from me (this is what I've done for 20 years btw), we agree to the service and reasonable fluidity should force majeur apply, you have not become my leader, you have become my customer. So what do these outsourcing managers jobs actually entail and is THAT what they are willing and able to ask a subordinate to do? Research, vet and run a value estimate?
 
QuarterCircleForwardPunch said:
Ok, but a union leaders job isnt to provide the services that everyone in a union can provide, it's to lead the union, no more than a project leader is needed to be willing and able to do specialist work if all they need to be willing and able to do is outsource competantly. In your company. The CEO is expected to be able to competantly hire the right person who is then able to competantly hire the right person to further the company like you said. While the responsibility rolls all the way up, the delegation has a limit down I reckon. The ceo doesn't ask the new recruit in legal to find the data, the leader of the legal department does and as such should be willing and able to. If the factorial tree of your company is that big, then for sure you can't get absurd about 1 individuals reach. But as you step up that tree it is reasonable to look down and learn the side of a converging path if its blind to you 1 factor down so you can understand that what you're asking of the person down only reasonable things you're willing and able for yourself. That could still leave a huge poryion of that tree blind to you, but competant delegation is an ask down, like you reasoned
Click to expand...

Yes, this an actually an interesting topic that I've talked about at length with people offline.

I usually use the sports analogy: "Games are always won by players, championships are generally won by organizations"... but I'll go the war analogy since that's a hot topic here.

Individual battles are absolutely won by soldiers and soldiers are essential to any successful campaign. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Entire wars though? Those typically come down to organization and logistics combined with the heroic actions of soldiers.

Audie Murphy (one of the greatest American war heroes) dies in Sicily if US logistics break down and Company B doesn't get food/munitions in order to continue their campaign.

That's in no way to dismiss Audie Murphy at all. It's just that in order for individuals to succeed at hard things, it generally requires a ton of people behind the scenes providing unseen and generally unappreciated support. In order for all of that to come together, it takes leaders... generally multiple leaders who are working together.

To expect those leaders to be able to perform every aspect of the operation they are overseeing is impossible as you continue to scale the level of the project/mission/season outwards.

I think that is oftentimes overlooked.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
Yes, this an actually an interesting topic that I've talked about at length with people offline.

I usually use the sports analogy: "Games are always won by players, championships are generally won by organizations"... but I'll go war analogy since that's a hot topic here.

Individual battles are absolutely won by soldiers and soldiers are essential to any successful campaign. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Entire wars though? Those typically come down to organization and logistics combined with the heroic actions of soldiers.

Audie Murphy (one of the greatest American war heroes) dies in Sicily if US logistics break down and Company B doesn't get food/munitions in order to continue their campaign.

That's in no way to dismiss Audie Murphy at all. It's just that in order for individuals to succeed at hard things, it generally requires a ton of people behind the scenes providing unseen and generally unappreciated support. In order for all of that to come together, it takes leaders... generally multiple leaders who are working together.

To expect those leaders to be able to perform every aspect of the operation they are overseeing is impossible as you continue to scale the level of the project/mission/season outwards.

I think that is oftentimes overlooked.
Click to expand...
I'm Irish and don't recognise your analogy, but should I find the time to read it up, I will. Just if I don't get back to you about it, I'm fuckin swamped atm is all
Respect
 
osubuckeye4 said:
Yes, this an actually an interesting topic that I've talked about at length with people offline.

I usually use the sports analogy: "Games are always won by players, championships are generally won by organizations"... but I'll go the war analogy since that's a hot topic here.

Individual battles are absolutely won by soldiers and soldiers are essential to any successful campaign. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Entire wars though? Those typically come down to organization and logistics combined with the heroic actions of soldiers.

Audie Murphy (one of the greatest American war heroes) dies in Sicily if US logistics break down and Company B doesn't get food/munitions in order to continue their campaign.

That's in no way to dismiss Audie Murphy at all. It's just that in order for individuals to succeed at hard things, it generally requires a ton of people behind the scenes providing unseen and generally unappreciated support. In order for all of that to come together, it takes leaders... generally multiple leaders who are working together.

To expect those leaders to be able to perform every aspect of the operation they are overseeing is impossible as you continue to scale the level of the project/mission/season outwards.

I think that is oftentimes overlooked.
Click to expand...
Maybe not expect them to but wouldn't be surprised if they can do most of the tasks their underlings are assigned to do. @bconcrete @Eranys is this reasonable to expect?
 
QuarterCircleForwardPunch said:
Ok, but if as a subcontractor you buy a service from me (this is what I've done for 20 years btw), we agree to the service and reasonable fluidity should force majeur apply, you have not become my leader, you have become my customer. So what do these outsourcing managers jobs actually entail and is THAT what they are willing and able to ask a subordinate to do? Research, vet and run a value estimate?
Click to expand...
Technically these PMs are the project leaders. Yet all they do is sub out the work. Within their own organization I guess you are right... they are there to vet subcontractors and vet the vendors which they probably excel at. In the bigger picture though, they landed a project they can't actually execute on their own.

That's what I mean, it's not exactly the same. But the PM is definitely the leader of the project and has final say on who does what regardless of whether they can actually do that work themselves in this scenario.
 
cmvideo75 said:
Technically these PMs are the project leaders. Yet all they do is sub out the work. Within their own organization I guess you are right... they are there to vet subcontractors and vet the vendors. But in the bigger picture, they landed a project they can't actually execute on their own. But you are right, they then contract out work to other vendors so technically they competency for completing that portion of the job is on them.

That's what I mean, it's not exactly the same. But the PM is definitely the leader of the project and has final say on who does what regardless of whether they can actually do that work themselves.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from the specialist sub standing, I have never viewed a PM as my leader, just a customer and I would, and often do, set em straight anytime they over reach or try flex or any bs on me or now my company. They manage their project, that management is only applicable to me insofar as they make sure they are ready for our services as contracted, keep us informed of delays or over run and agree to any required budgetary changes that occur. Outside of that, I'm an island on your project if I choose to be. I'm no asshole, always happy to run a gig as a team if you're cool. But also always happy to remind you, you ain't my boss, just another customer
 
nubbynub76 said:
Maybe not expect them to but wouldn't be surprised if they can do most of the tasks their underlings are assigned to do. @bconcrete @Eranys is this reasonable to expect?
Click to expand...

This is where it comes back to the distinction between workplace supervisor and leader.

100% I expect a direct supervisor to be able to do the role of the people being supervised (or if they are too old and it's a physically demanding profession, to be able to oversee training of a replacement). If my quit my job today our director would be able to step in and complete my tasks until a replacement was hired (or AI was trained up). If my director quit our VP would be able to fill in. If our VP quit, the CFO would be able to fill in temporarily.

I'm just saying that I don't expect an organizational leader, especially as the organization grows and expands, to be able to perform every single role within the organization. That in and of itself doesn't make them a bad leader.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
This is where it comes back to the distinction between workplace supervisor and leader.

100% I expect a direct supervisor to be able to do the role of the people being supervised. If my quit my job today our director would be able to step in and complete my tasks until a replacement was hired (or AI was trained up). If my director quit our VP would be able to fill in. If our VP quit, the CFO would be able to fill in temporarily.

I'm just saying that I don't expect an organizational leader, especially as the organization grows and expands, to be able to perform every single role within the organization. That in and of itself doesn't make them a bad leader.
Click to expand...
But that implies a monarchy bro. The leader status can be fractionalised, no one is reasonably saying otherwise. And that meets your description. Department leader ain't the same as workplace supervisor.
 
bconcrete said:
Crete Thoughts #2:

Pit got me thinking about this when he talked about his record collecting and the finds he had today. Music is such a part of all of our lives to some.vsrious degree or other, and I personally believe that our taste in music is heavily influenced by what were exposed to early on. For example, I'm a rock guy through and through. My #1 genre and nothing else comes close. And I can't tell you how many days in YoungCretes life were spent listening to 94.9 KCCO Classic Rock in the pickup with PapaCrete.

But at some point, our tastes diverge a bit and become our own. So my question for everyone today: what's the first album/vinyl/cd/8-track/cassette/whatever you had that made your parents or other caregivers go "ugh, wtf is that?!"

For me, I can think of two: a Weird Al Yankovic CD I got as a prize at a friend's birthday party (I still know Amish Paradise by heart) or Blink-182s Enema of the State CD (still my favorite band to this day, probably because of how much my mom hated that CD)
Click to expand...
My parents were in their 30's when I was born in 1972. Their parents were older as well, so both of them grew up with 50's music as their defining generation. A lot of doo wop, early folk music, and crooners. They were working/military in the 60's and full fledge family in the 70's, and their musical tastes did not change, so I grew up with mild music. Buddy Holly, Beach Boys, Paul Simon, ABBA, CSN, etc.

My father lost his shit when I was blasting The Four Horsemen from Kill 'Em All by Metallica in 1984/1985 on my new cassette stereo. Funnily he became a moderate Ramones fan as their style of punk was very 50's Beach Boys with distortion when I became a big Punk fan in the late 80's.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
The Offspring - Smash

Released in 1994, so I would have been 12-13 at the time. I remember my dad being like, "wtf is this nonsense?".


It wasn't like, "that's it, you're grounded!" it was more like, "um... if you want to listen to some decent music go put L.A. Woman from The Doors on the vinyl, because I hate to break it to you but this sucks"

In retrospect, my dad was correct. I was 13 though so the stuff they liked was stupid.


And of course my daughter is just like me... though I did get her last week when her beloved Olivia Rodrigo performed with Smashing Pumpkins at Lolla. When I brought it up she was like, "ughhhhh, I'm aware, shut up already!!!"

Dad 1 - Daughter 0
Click to expand...
My kids like vocaloids.
 
Ulf Murphy said:
My parents were in their 30's when I was born in 1972. Their parents were older as well, so both of them grew up with 50's music as their defining generation. A lot of doo wop, early folk music, and crooners. They were working/military in the 60's and full fledge family in the 70's, and their musical tastes did not change, so I grew up with mild music. Buddy Holly, Beach Boys, Paul Simon, ABBA, CSN, etc.

My father lost his shit when I was blasting The Four Horsemen from Kill 'Em All by Metallica in 1984/1985 on my new cassette stereo. Funnily he became a moderate Ramones fan as their style of punk was very 50's Beach Boys with distortion when I became a big Punk fan in the late 80's.
Click to expand...
Damn, a lot of parents hatin on Metallica!
 
QuarterCircleForwardPunch said:
Damn, a lot of parents hatin on Metallica!
Click to expand...
They really took the rock of Led Zeppelin/Jimi Hendrix and even Black Sabbath and did something completely new with their faster than light riffs. It was loud, and it was obnoxious to those that like comfort music like my parents.

Sort of like NWA changing the entire scope of rap into hardcore. Honestly, the late 80's/early 90's had SO many divergent strains of music. Hardcore Rap from clean rap like Sugar Hill Gang. Heavy Metal (head bangers) from rock like mentioned. Hardcore (skater rock/thrash metal) from the Punk of The Ramones and The Clash. Even Metal Funk (early Chilli Peppers). Then Grunge changed rock music forever.

Honestly, it was an amazing time to be alive and be young enough to enjoy it without todays technology getting in the way.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
The initial post literally said that a leader should be both able and willing to do the responsibilities they are delegating to others.

My only point is that not being able to do every task that you're delegating to someone else shouldn't automatically disqualify you from being an effective leader.


Bigger picture, I guess I just feel like if you're unwilling to do something you're capable of doing unless your lead shows you they can do it... that says more about you than it does about them.

Put it this way, if my CFO told me to get him a control deficiency report to him... I would never think to ask him to demonstrate that he was capable of running the report before I provided it to him. I'm assuming if I left he would be able to figure it out, but I don't need him to prove he can do it before I'm willing to do it.


Could you imagine if Patrick Mahomes was like, "Andy, I'm not going to run a bootleg and throw the ball 40 yards downfield unless you get out there and demonstrate how it's done in a full gametime environment with defenders flying at you trying to kill you". Of course Andy Reid can't run a bootleg... he doesn't get paid to do that, he gets paid for the management and analytical shit... Patrick Mahomes gets paid to run bootlegs and throw balls 40+ yards downfield on a rope to receivers. That doesn't mean that Andy Reid is a shitty leader or that he can't teach Patrick Mahomes things about the game of football from an analytical perspective.
Click to expand...
I think you're taking it a bit too literally.

Imo it doesn't mean, "able to do the actual task given" but "able to meet the standard that they set."

If I demand someone do their best, I better be giving my best effort. If I expect asses in seats at 8am, I better have my keister in mine by 730. If I expect accuracy I better be accurate. If I expect someone to be an expert in their role, I better deliver be one in mine. If I expect someone to work late, I'm working late too.

So it's not a matter of being able to do all specialized tasks, but being able to meet the standard you set for the job being done. I do my job to X level, I expect you to also be at X level. That's what "willing and able" means.
 
Ulf Murphy said:
They really took the rock of Led Zeppelin/Jimi Hendrix and even Black Sabbath and did something completely new with their faster than light riffs. It was loud, and it was obnoxious to those that like comfort music like my parents.

Sort of like NWA changing the entire scope of rap into hardcore. Honestly, the late 80's/early 90's had SO many divergent strains of music. Hardcore Rap from clean rap like Sugar Hill Gang. Heavy Metal (head bangers) from rock like mentioned. Hardcore (skater rock/thrash metal) from the Punk of The Ramones and The Clash. Even Metal Funk (early Chilli Peppers). Then Grunge changed rock music forever.

Honestly, it was an amazing time to be alive and be young enough to enjoy it without todays technology getting in the way.
Click to expand...
It's wild so many parents hating on Metallica, my Dad would intentionally play Metallica for me growing up 😂😂😂
 
bconcrete said:
I think you're taking it a bit too literally.

Imo it doesn't mean, "able to do the actual task given" but "able to meet the standard that they set."

If I demand someone do their best, I better be giving my best effort. If I expect asses in seats at 8am, I better have my keister in mine by 730. If I expect accuracy I better be accurate. If I expect someone to be an expert in their role, I better deliver be one in mine. If I expect someone to work late, I'm working late too.

So it's not a matter of being able to do all specialized tasks, but being able to meet the standard you set for the job being done. I do my job to X level, I expect you to also be at X level. That's what "willing and able" means.
Click to expand...

I always take thing too literally :D

Also, @nubbynub76 I wasn't trying to say you were outright wrong. Just trying to create discussion, but probably pontificating because it's a Friday and the thought on my end isn't matching the word count/output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top