From Tom Evslin's interesting account of working for Microsoft in the early 90s (http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/05/microsoft_memor.html):

"So you're in there presenting your product plan to billg, steveb, and mikemap. Billg typically has his eyes closed and he's rocking back and forth. He could be asleep; he could be thinking about something else; he could be listening intently to everything you're saying. The trouble is all are possible and you don't know which. Obviously, you have to present as if he were listening intently even though you know he isn't looking at the PowerPoint slides you spent so much time on. At some point in your presentation billg will say "that's the dumbest ****ing idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft." He looks like he means it. However, since you knew he was going to say this, you can't really let it faze you. Moreover, you can't afford to look fazed; remember: he's a bully."

Didn't we have a thread about the effect of Power Point slides a while ago? I believe this goes as proof of the theory stated there :D

No one likes a jerk, unless...

There IS an unless, mainly because this type of management/leadership is indeed effective when it comes to getting things done. I've worked for both types of managers myself, one that knew what he was doing but was too timid to get things done effectively, one that knew what he was doing and was great at getting things done quickly and effectively through bullying.

I've always kept the mentality that i'd rather work for a bully of a boss that gets things done, than for a nice boss that doesn't. Certainly there are bosses out there that are nice and get things done, I just haven't met one yet.

For the time being though I prefer a boss that can accomplish goals and complete tasks over one that can't. If this means he's a bit rude, well so be it, I'd rather tolerate rude behavior than have my work not acted upon. A boss that gets work accomplished is a resource to me for getting my work accomplished.

I guess billg doesn't feel that he needs to explain himself (I guess I wouldn't if I were as successful as he is), but the main question is "How does this method support the company's strategy and vision?"

If Tough Love is the management development theme, fine--but one should be aware that the method is bound to limit the amount, depth and type of input a boss receives.

I guess he figures such a limit is no big deal since he's got such a large pool to draw his managerial samples from.

Let's not forget this is a slanted view and applies primarily to employees who are pitching new products or markets and are asking a mogul to commit resources to an untried process.

In my investment bank, we were similarly "brutal" to folks pitching us for money on projects with no history of profitability. The reasoning we voiced to each other (the fellow decision makers at our investment bank) was that we wanted a project where the guy had done a good job with what we in Quality call FMEA [Failure Mode and Evaluation Analysis.] An additional factor was that we wanted to gage the "fire in the belly" and personal commitment of the guy or team asking us to commit money (always a limited amount, requiring a choice of one project over another) to his project. The last thing we wanted to back was a guy who would bail out if the going got a little tough.

From what I have seen of Appeals Court panels and read of the Supreme Court, the justices are similarly "brutal" to the attorneys from both sides in an effort to determine that all possible research had been done in the aspects of a case to assure there were no "sins of omission."

The reasoning we voiced to each other (the fellow decision makers at our investment bank) was that we wanted a project where the guy had done a good job with what we in Quality call FMEA [Failure Mode and Evaluation Analysis.]

We in quality call it Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (or Modes and Effects).

We in quality call it Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (or Modes and Effects).Yes! Brain freeze on Monday am! I'll leave the foulup as a personal lesson and reminder to
"put brain in gear before putting keyboard in motion!":o

We in quality call it Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (or Modes and Effects).

At the risk of hi-jacking this thread and seeming like a pedant, it's Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis..........;)