Follow up work email
This time sent to the 'smart people at (Company A)'
The problem is not that so much what I wrote, but that (Company A) and everyone who has used (Company A) products already knows it. (Company A) ignores the customer when it comes to support their currently released products, and ‘addresses’ problems (albeit cherry-picked) as ‘new features’ in their next product. This is where the ‘sin’ of feigning ignorance meets low-sales. Addressing customer issues by making them shell out thousands of dollars on an update (renamed upgrade) is just plain dumb. Customers know this, (Company A) knows that customers know this (if they take time to read the support forums), and yet they refuse to adapt their business model. If anything, this economy should serve as a wake-up call, and yet (Company A) is still pretending to sleep and hoping nobody notices.
This is not a complaint. We’re people who want to help our company. We are people who can’t work in an environment where they can’t make a difference. Corporate ladders be damned. If the people in the middle aren’t moving they’re useless in a sinking ship.
To quote from Geoffrey Moore:
“-risk reduction is often a form of camouflage used by underperforming and disaffected employees who seek to avoid accountability or act out their frustrations in minor acts of passive-aggressive terrorism, pulling down anything that ventures to soar up. This creates huge frustration among leaders who cannot understand why everyone does not collaborate for the greater good... In order to break away, we must overcome risk-reduction mentality and lack of corporate alignment. Neither is a natural act.”
Now, I’m not privy to what’s going on in the BU’s heads/meetings, but what I do know is the output of them, and frankly, it’s crap. It’s not making (Company A) money, it’s lowering customer satisfaction and adoption rates, etc.. By being risk-adverse they’re actually increasing risk in the competitive market.
There are a lot of smart people at (Company A) who know this. It’s not rocket-science. It’s fear that’s keeping them from being pro-active. Like in any hierarchical system, people are so afraid of upsetting their bosses that they end up outputting what they think they’re boss ‘wants’ and aren’t doing their job. They’re afraid to ‘disagree’ and so presentations are catered to what they think others want to hear. Job security/personal issues aside, this doesn’t help an employee’s growth and it definitely doesn’t help their company to succeed.
It’s not about idealism, and ‘fighting an oppressive force’. It’s about stepping back and seeing things from the customer’s perspective if you truly care about your and your company’s success. We’re getting plenty of ‘input’, and aren’t succeeding because our ‘output’ isn’t inline with it.
I agree that we need to have a ‘procedural methodology’, especially in a company as large as ours, but we need to adapt it so that things can actually be done.
The CEO, Big Boss B, Big Boss C, are fellow CO-WORKERS. They’re not gods, and they (we) shouldn’t think of themselves as such. As history has shown us, while through politics or business, good leaders know the value of those who work with them to innovate and grow. Leaders who rule through fear and intimidation eventually see their empire crumble around them.
So again, it’s not idealism which drives my mails, but knowing that if we don’t change our output, the company we work for WILL fail.
The problem is not that so much what I wrote, but that (Company A) and everyone who has used (Company A) products already knows it. (Company A) ignores the customer when it comes to support their currently released products, and ‘addresses’ problems (albeit cherry-picked) as ‘new features’ in their next product. This is where the ‘sin’ of feigning ignorance meets low-sales. Addressing customer issues by making them shell out thousands of dollars on an update (renamed upgrade) is just plain dumb. Customers know this, (Company A) knows that customers know this (if they take time to read the support forums), and yet they refuse to adapt their business model. If anything, this economy should serve as a wake-up call, and yet (Company A) is still pretending to sleep and hoping nobody notices.
This is not a complaint. We’re people who want to help our company. We are people who can’t work in an environment where they can’t make a difference. Corporate ladders be damned. If the people in the middle aren’t moving they’re useless in a sinking ship.
To quote from Geoffrey Moore:
“-risk reduction is often a form of camouflage used by underperforming and disaffected employees who seek to avoid accountability or act out their frustrations in minor acts of passive-aggressive terrorism, pulling down anything that ventures to soar up. This creates huge frustration among leaders who cannot understand why everyone does not collaborate for the greater good... In order to break away, we must overcome risk-reduction mentality and lack of corporate alignment. Neither is a natural act.”
Now, I’m not privy to what’s going on in the BU’s heads/meetings, but what I do know is the output of them, and frankly, it’s crap. It’s not making (Company A) money, it’s lowering customer satisfaction and adoption rates, etc.. By being risk-adverse they’re actually increasing risk in the competitive market.
There are a lot of smart people at (Company A) who know this. It’s not rocket-science. It’s fear that’s keeping them from being pro-active. Like in any hierarchical system, people are so afraid of upsetting their bosses that they end up outputting what they think they’re boss ‘wants’ and aren’t doing their job. They’re afraid to ‘disagree’ and so presentations are catered to what they think others want to hear. Job security/personal issues aside, this doesn’t help an employee’s growth and it definitely doesn’t help their company to succeed.
It’s not about idealism, and ‘fighting an oppressive force’. It’s about stepping back and seeing things from the customer’s perspective if you truly care about your and your company’s success. We’re getting plenty of ‘input’, and aren’t succeeding because our ‘output’ isn’t inline with it.
I agree that we need to have a ‘procedural methodology’, especially in a company as large as ours, but we need to adapt it so that things can actually be done.
The CEO, Big Boss B, Big Boss C, are fellow CO-WORKERS. They’re not gods, and they (we) shouldn’t think of themselves as such. As history has shown us, while through politics or business, good leaders know the value of those who work with them to innovate and grow. Leaders who rule through fear and intimidation eventually see their empire crumble around them.
So again, it’s not idealism which drives my mails, but knowing that if we don’t change our output, the company we work for WILL fail.