Layoffs in I.S.

[Metoo]

Me thinks it is Rick Moranis on the rampage, he and DJS are just puppets - aren't they all. There is only one puppet master. No plan just accountability. Cut costs. Accountability is good, just long overdue. It is tough when it is obvious but as some of the posts said, it is business. Real issue is that nobody has held portfolio managers accountable - it was not just one person that got these people where they are now - diversity, fast growth, and being in the right place at the right time did it (not Khien Lacey, not Dhavida). Then that sends the message that the manager's behavior is okay. Current situation is okay, just should have been done about 10 years ago. We have an issue of pre-IPO IS and post-IPO IS culture - haves and have nots. Hard to motivate the have-nots when they perceive that the haves are fat & wealthy - not always the case. We need leaders and not followers/listeners and puppets. We do a lot of great things but have no real sense of purpose to execute a strategy. PFT is in and being tweaked, we have the ENTERPRISE release (mistake - too complex, expensive) and too many prioritization layers to get to what we really need to sell to the customers. All are busy and we will execute on what our short term tasks are as good UPSers do. No real next great things - other than telematics to help improve our service levels. Don't forget non-US requirements - that is our growth engine.

What we need is a well educated sales force that can sell small package and SCS products and have solutions that are quick to market and are affordable for our customers. Joining the IT groups is required. We can't grow if we are always shrinking. Frank Erbrick had a good approach - waste anything but time (not the words, but the intent. If we are frugal then we won't be what we need to be. Now SCS is being constrained and it is our growth engine. We need to loosen the reigns to let them execute the IT strategy.) With the right emotional and financial leadership we will kick in the industry. If we don't, all of the previous posts apply - we risk becoming an asterisk in US business history.

Thoughts, comments, improvements????

 

[Need4Speed]

Quite honestly, I think our I.S. function is nothing short of an abortion, and it's time for a total flush and refill. Not one day goes by when I don't come to the painful realization that I'm never so UNPRODUCTIVE as I am when I'm at WORK! That should be considered a very powerful statement, and should be taken very seriously by IS; but it won't. Rather than have all systems work together, and available after the first login, I have to login to each system separately. Then every different system has different criteria for USERID/PWD. Some have to be changed periodically; some don't... how do you keep up with it? I now have to keep a file to track the different USERID's and Passwords for each system. Then, once you're in to any of the UPS applications, very few of them are even marginally intuitive to use (who, BTW, came up with that awful QPR system). Bottom line... the goal of any I.S./I.T. group should be to make everyone as productive as possible. We score an "friend".

 

[Dfigtree]

Well if you must quote FXE, then a Mr. Douglas C. Caffrey Fields quote or two is in order.

"Without a plan, failure is a certainty." DCF Corporate's strategic plan is meant to flow into your new evaluation form but has that ever happened? You always have to fake your own goals. No strategic plan leads to no marketing plan leads to failure.

"Dig your trenches deep and keep your head down." DCF The best advice, the only sensible advice, he ever gave me and I did not listen. This has to do with the WEAKEST LINK theory of management selection where, on the show, the weakest contestants always vote off the strongest contestant early in the game because they could. They have the strength in numbers. If they wait too long then they will be the prey, That is how you get weak management. Do you really think Rick Moranis (of course not his real name) is qualified for his position?

 

[ncrtscisme]

Everything is based on seniority or length of service at UPS, not performance. The TSG cuts were based on how long you were with the company. I was a Tech II, but Tech I's that were about as dumb and lazy as you can get kept their jobs because they had been there for 10 years part time unloading trucks.

I was there, too, and you ain't kidding. I saw TSGers with less seniority than me (I was at the helpdesk) get jobs as drivers because they were in good with HR people at their hubs...while us helpdesk folks, who didn't have the luxury of being out in the hub making friends with important people, had to choose between working graveyard shift at CACH and a severance pay.

It's all based on seniority at UPS...saying that performance really matters is just not true when it comes to laying people off.

 

[disillusioned]

In some instances, performance matters. More correctly, potential performance matters. You can be the best shinning star in the past but if the outlook isn't that good for what you may be expected to do, then sorry. There's no loyalty for past performance.

Look, this is just a different company than it was. There was a time when UPS was a great company to work for. We largely took care of our own. We promoted from within. We had long range plans. We developed people. Yes, in operations, you were barked at. I was, and I also did my share of barking. But, when the sort was over, we'd all end up at the same place for beer.

That company, that entity, the family you knew and sometimes hated as UPS, is no longer. That family you knew was sold during the IPO. We made this mistake once before. In the 1920’s we needed money to expand out of the west coast and sold our stock to investment bankers. In 1929, we bought ourselves back and Jim Casey vowed we’d never make that mistake again. Ooops! Today, UPS is the equivalent of any blue chip company (minus the increasing stock value). Today, the outlook of UPS is next quarter and to a lesser extent, next year.

People with little real knowledge of what we do (deliver packages) and what customers want are doing what they think is the right thing to build the business. Unfortunately, the view is that UPS needs more structure and control (gotta keep costs down). Consequently, people like center, division, district and IS managers are not allowed to make any decisions about their operations. This approach also leads to what some in this thread are complaining about. When an organization seeks to increase control from the top, it requires more resources at the top simply to keep an eye on, and a lid down on, the rest of the company. These people don’t need to be terribly competent to keep an eye on things, just able to take direction and perform. (Individual thought tends to erode that whole control thing).

Simply put, UPS is what it is. The days of glory and 2 and 3 + MIP are gone. We are running head long down a road of strict control; cost and otherwise. The future will be one of minor (if any) stock value growth, diminishing compensation, increasing demands on employees to “share the burden of health care” and increasing demands to do more with less. This will be true for both union and management. So, hold on if you can. I don’t know of a way out of this future since there is more stock out there than we can afford to buy back. And with the contract coming due soon….

In the past, UPS’ vision and purpose were things like “best service, lowest rates” and “to run the tightest ship in the shipping business”. Today, our reason for being is nothing more than “to maximize shareholder value”. We have become nothing more than grist in the wheels of the stock market.

 

[alwaysaware]

OK - Lots of problems mentioned and lots of people to blame.

Yep, we are now the post IPO UPS IT department. The look and feel I sense is not good, not productive. Not everywhere, but we lost our synergy.

Does anyone have any solutions??

 

[upscorpis]

I believe the accountability trend is about creating opportunity for talented people that cannot move forward due to dead wood. The scenario is something like this:

Red Chief: Why is it we have no two and three unit people on the bad apple list. Are you trying to tell me each and every one of those folks is performing up to expectations? We need to raise the bar and if some cannot make it, we'll be able to make room for the more talented, younger folks below them.

Portfolio Chiefs: Got it, Boss.

The result has been each Portfolio has acted on this call to action in a different way. Some have gone ballistic while others have taken a more measured approach. I personally think it's high time this issue was addressed. I can't say I agree with every approach to it.

Those throwing stones at IT due some internally facing applications are only seeing part of the picture. Our customer facing applications are consistently ranked above those of the competition. The DIAD is a big success. Some of our Airline systems are world class. It's safe to say you cannot throw a blanket over all of IT and call it a problem. I personally have witnessed ineptitude and brilliance in the IT function. It all depends on where you look.

Those that cannot understand the technology need to be moved out. The days of, "I can be a successful IT manager by just managing people", need to end. My experience is those that feel that way have bailed out on the technology side because they can no longer keep up. The "business reps" in IT for the most part do not have what it takes to be truly effective. Most don't know technology. I cannot tell you how many times my IT business rep (you may know that group by a three letter acronym) tells me how un-technical they are. Yet, the represent IT to the business. In today's world, technology decisions represent cost and competitiveness. Why would I want some non-technical person making those decisions?

For IT to provide maximum value, IT needs to be closer to the sponsors of projects. I personally see no need for a "business rep" to be in the middle. Additionally, VP level territorial conflicts need to end. It's pathetic to watch how some of these people draw their lines of demarcation and act as if they know more than the rest of us. We all work for the same company so lets start acting like it.

 

[alwaysaware]

I heard and know about the 'Red Chief' to Portfolio Chief decree. Should never of come to that beacuse some take it way beyond the limit as if it's part of their QPR to all of the sudden whack down a few people.

Accountability - absolutely.... To ourselves and our partners.

We lack direction.

Business Reps - those are the folks who complain about IT and how much of their MIP is being eaten away at by the cost of IT. 'Their MIP'... Their the reason we can't get anything done.

Anyone hear about the Systems Manager who walked out because he would accept being dowgraded ?? There have been others (not SM's, but others).

Unfortunately - there are some well protected SM's at UPS who cannot cut it but get by, all the while their portfolio manager is watching the clock.

 

[disillusioned]

It's unfortunate that the decree is being handled in the manner it is being handled in. Having started in operations and migrated to IS, I remember when accountability was king. I also remember that managers would address non-performers individually. Instead it sounds like none of that is happening and the "Red Chief" (CIO) is phrasing things in a way that suggests a hunting process. Why aren't employees, managers & portfolios being held accountable?

I recently needed to get approval from my portfolio on something. S/he, of course, waited well beyond the drop dead date we needed to stay on plan, but yet I'm expected to make up that time and stay on plan? Why can't the portfolios be held accountable for their impact due to lack of leadership or action?

Simply raising the bar in an attempt to identify poor performers will result in a spiral, eventually resulting in the bar reaching the level where one must walk on water, cure the common cold, heal lepers and so on. I'm not convinced that raising the bar (expectations) alone is the correct thing to do. In addition, why should it be the CIO that needs to raise the bar? The real issue, in my opinion, is accountability at the higher levels. Frankly my portfolio Mgr has trouble determining the difference between a computer chip and a potato chip (except one of them tastes good). However, s/he has an excellent knack for publicly tearing someone down to their ankles over something the portfolio Mgr could not hope to understand.

 

[SimpleUPSer]

I have been following this thread and finally decided to add to it. Please also note that this is my first post to Brown Cafe!!!

Many of the comments seem to make sense, and while I do not get to observe any of the antics of the portfolio managers myself, based on the details posted, it sounds like the atmosphere leaves something to be desired.

Some of the items I would like to comment on:

• Comments of accountability past versus present - There are so many more applications and systems to support, and the growth of the IS infrastructure most likely contributed to the accountability issues - that being said, it should have at lease started to improve by now...

• I disagree about the comment about an IT background being needed to be a successful manager in an IT/IS environment. Understanding the job is important, but is a technical background a necessity? Are not most of the positions based on planning, organizing, priortizing, direction and leadership? I have known many technical people who can write code like no tomorrow, but when it comes to the traditional skills needed to run the business they fall short. The mix of people should compliment the entire team. If leadership is lacking, then many of the other items noted will suffer. If leadership is good, then these issues seem to go away...

• The debate about which job is more important, the package handler, service provider, network engineer or technician are moot. People for the most part have jobs they enjoy. Based off of that, most others will never truly understand, or want to try the other jobs. Granted, there are some who have done multiple things and have the insight and the big picture of how it all comes together, but each position is equally important to the success of our organization. I know service providers that think of technology as their DIAD, and are totally unaware of all of the other IS/IT tools that they are exposed to each day. I also know IS people who have never set foot in a package facility (center or hub). Both have serious drawbacks. Unfortunately, I do not have an solution (at least one that everyone would like anyway ).

• I looked back and was unable to find it, but I thought someone mentioned that we needed to get more sales folks to get business. Consider this; we are no where near competitive when it comes to price. I say this without factoring in the incented customers, or those who benefit from an integrated solution. All things being equal, our prices are higher than our competitors. What does that leave us with? Service. We can get all of the new customers that are out there, but if we cannot deliver packages to our customers timely and without paying GSRs, it will not matter. Misloads, LIBs, and damages are at levels that are downright embarrassing, and ALL of us are to blame. Our excuse is that "it is just a part of doing business", as opposed to "it needs to improve if we want to stay in business".

Forgive my rants, and my intent is not to offend anyone if I did. All of the people at UPS can impact the organization. The way in which we choose to impact UPS, positively or negatively, is contingent upon our attitudes.

Comments welcome!

 

[alwaysaware]

SimpleUpSer - Welcome aboard. You have a central theme, or I detect one; Accountability. All of our jobs are important. If we didn't do them right, well let's just say we would be waking up in the morning watching our neighbors going to work and not because you've retired.

IT people in some cases make the worst managers. I've come across them. Some IT people make good managers - it's how you are groomed and mentored. The business folks I've come across have a low opinion of IT - I hope it's not universal.

As far as competetion - We are getting are backsides busted. We lost our hunger. We are NOT the only game in town. Project Lead - Sales people in the centers were ignoring them.

We need to be hungry again.

 

[Salesguy]

Did you make sure you've openend an TSG self service order, before you opened this thread?

 

[upscorpis]

• I disagree about the comment about an IT background being needed to be a successful manager in an IT/IS environment. Understanding the job is important, but is a technical background a necessity? Are not most of the positions based on planning, organizing, priortizing, direction and leadership? I have known many technical people who can write code like no tomorrow, but when it comes to the traditional skills needed to run the business they fall short. The mix of people should compliment the entire team. If leadership is lacking, then many of the other items noted will suffer. If leadership is good, then these issues seem to go away...

I think we're in agreement here. I know plenty of people that can do project management that are not effective running an IT project. I have also seen plenty of talented programmers that cannot manage their own time let alone someone else's. There are many people that can understand the technology and can also do project management. Being able to live in both worlds makes for a much more effective IT manager than the a manager the can live in just one. Having balance on a team is important. I would not equate having a non-technical manager as balance - it's a disadvantage.

 

[CleverNick]

In my corner of the Corp IS world, I don't see any layoffs going on. However, there has been an increase in retirements and people leaving the company. I am not sure if any of those people were "encouraged" to leave ot not.

If there is a move to eliminate poor performers, like some people have suggested, I HOPE management will apply those standards uniformly and fairly, and I HOPE the decision is based upon REAL criteria and not some BS thing like "he left 5 minutes early one day last month" or whatever.

One challenge management will face is that it is hard to suddenly hold people accountable if they've been allowed to slide for awhile. As any parent knows, it makes no sense for you to let your child get away with something 1000 times without disciplining them, and then out of the blue you ground them when they do it the 1001st time. That is bad parenting, plain and simple.

Also I just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this debate about whether you need to be technical to be a good IS manager. I have seen non-technical people be excellent managers of technical project. Usually, they have one or two technical people that report to them that they rely on heavily. Of course, that is one of the principles of good leadership: surround yourself with good people and value their opinions.

The bad non-technical managers usually don't surround themselves with good technical people and/or they don't listen to their technical opinion.

 

[Dfigtree]

<<Also I just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this debate about whether you need to be technical to be a good IS manager. I have seen non-technical people be excellent managers of technical project.>>

Then you must agree that a person without a non-transportation background would make a great NEXT UPS CEO. Too bad Chainsaw Al is unavailable.

 

[an anonymous guest]

DFIG....

I do believe the quote from the mighty DCF was 'without a plan, failure comes as a complete surprise.' My corrolary was 'you can't change a plan unless you have one.'

INteresting posts...although the mentioning of names I find somewhat inappropriate.

Go UPS!
P71

 

[ImpactedTSG]

DFIG....


INteresting posts...although the mentioning of names I find somewhat inappropriate.

Why? It's all about accountability, and what better way than to be called out for decisions you make?

 

[constructively dissatisfi]

If there is a move to eliminate poor performers, like some people have suggested, I HOPE management will apply those standards uniformly and fairly, and I HOPE the decision is based upon REAL criteria and not some BS thing like "he left 5 minutes early one day last month" or whatever.

The only way any effort to eliminate poor performers could POSSIBLY be successful is if it starts at the top. If there are poor performers at the top deciding who the poor performers below them are it will just turn into a bigger mess than it already is. What do you think are the odds that any of the incompetent portfolio managers from friend&A will get the boot? Pretty much zero IMHO.

 

[Dfigtree]

The only way any effort to eliminate poor performers could POSSIBLY be successful is if it starts at the top. If there are poor performers at the top deciding who the poor performers below them are it will just turn into a bigger mess than it already is. What do you think are the odds that any of the incompetent portfolio managers from friend&A will get the boot? Pretty much zero IMHO.

It's the Weakest Link theory in practice.

Don't get me wrong. IMHO there were some great leaders in I.S. or is it I.T. I may be in the minority on this, but I thought FXE was a great leader and motivator, fits and all. GBL was terrific. JXS was, up until near his last working days, super. I've been gone for a while now but as far as the decline of I.T. is concerned, it began when JXS began planning to leave and then left. He went sailing down the intercoastal and I.T. went sinking like the Titanic.

 

[upscorpis]

Also I just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this debate about whether you need to be technical to be a good IS manager. I have seen non-technical people be excellent managers of technical project. Usually, they have one or two technical people that report to them that they rely on heavily. Of course, that is one of the principles of good leadership: surround yourself with good people and value their opinions.

The bad non-technical managers usually don't surround themselves with good technical people and/or they don't listen to their technical opinion.

Interesting timing that I ran across this quote today in the May 21st ComputerWorld in a column by Frank Hayes Sr. who's covered IT for more than 20 years:

"... IT needs people who understand the technology and understand the business - people who can talk the business talk and walk the technology walk. That's the kind of IT that delivers maximum business value...."