What's always been a bit surprising to me is that the conductor Leopold Stokowski had enough 'cultural cachet' that there was some expectation that people watching the cartoon would recognize the reference to him ("Leopold!"):
Not sure that the general public would have any kind of awareness for conductors or anyone in the classical music world today: perhaps Yo-Yo Ma, and some years ago 'The Three Tenors' were a thing.
I'm pretty sure the general cinema-cartoon-watching public would've known who Stokowski was, having likely watched Disney's Fantasia (1940) where he appears prominently.
In my college daze, Chuck Jones dropped by to give a talk to a packed auditorium. Of course, what he showed was What's Opera Doc. We all loved it, and Chuck enjoyed our enthusiasm.
> To get the extra work done, Jones and his crew secretly shaved a couple weeks off other, easier films and faked their time cards. It was something they did on occasion. (The mysterious price increases angered the managers, Jones said, but they were “not very bright” and didn’t figure out the trick.)
How many companies work just because the average worker is the one making it work? In my experience a lot of them.
It is sad that the money always accumulates at the top even when so often that same people at the top are an impediment for doing better work.
I had a conversation with an engineering manager a few years ago. He told me his daily job was to visit each engineer report, and ask them what they were working on. Then he'd gently guide them back to what they were supposed to be working on.
A business has limited resources, and somebody has to decide which hill they're going to conquer.
The reason managers make more is because their decisions can make more / lose more money than the workers.
BTW, in every company I've worked for, all of the workers thought they were smarter than the manager (including yours truly). The funny part would be when one would be promoted into management, and instantly became incompetent in the estimation of the other workers.
Clashing priorities. Generally speaking, workers want the business to work, i.e. to do the thing for which it was ostensibly created. (If they didn't want that, they would go work somewhere else.) Management wants the business to make money, which is increasingly poorly aligned with the business fulfilling it's ostensible purpose well.
Now, without money, the business stops working. But increasingly - by which I mean, every for-profit business for which I've worked in the last 25 years - what I see is management trading the long-term health of the business for short-term profit, trusting that they won't be the ones to face the consequences.
It's the officers of a ship who are only interest in getting this cargo to its destination (after which they'll move to a different ship or retire) no matter how badly the ship and its relationships are abused in the process vs. the crew, for whom the ship is their life and their home.
>The funny part would be when one would be promoted into management, and instantly became incompetent in the estimation of the other workers.
This isn't such an unexpected outcome. Junior & senior dev roles rarely prepare staff for the type of meta responsibility that's involved in managerial work, and there's almost no exposure to the majority of your manager's duties. It's typical that the only exposure a non-manager gets to their manager's role is a 20 daily minute standup, some tickets shuffling around a Jira board, and a fortnightly 30-45 minute catch up. Then when your mastery of .NET/python/K8s/whatever is sufficiently well established, the business takes that as evidence that you'll be an adequate manager of humans, and promotes you with little additional training, and you often stop doing hands-on dev work.
Meanwhile, if you're a junior staff member at a supermarket, you're doing managerial-type work daily, and throughout your time, you get exposure to low-stakes managerial responsibility. You work alongside your manager for 9-12 hours/day, and you see pretty much everything they do. Over time, you're given more and more of the meta-managerial work, and when you finally get promoted, it's because both you and the business already have evidence that you can do the managerial work. You then continue stacking shelves 9-12 hours per day, as a manager.
I think there's something the software industry could learn from the supermarket industry's approach. They have a much smoother gradient between non-manager and manager.
> It’s one of the really famous cartoons. If you’re reading this newsletter, you’ve probably watched it yourself.
I've never heard of it and would have appreciated at least a cursory definition. I thought I was going to see an article about an ad for Opera the browser.
They're writing for a newsletter called "Animation Obsessive" - given that, I think they're 100% correct, you're a random driveby :-) That said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJI_gygXsfs has the first three minutes if you want to get the gist (I don't know where to find a full version, but that's an official-looking Warner Bros. channel, not a bootleg.)
I can't hear "Ride of the Valkyries" without hearing "Kill the Wabbit" in my head. Also "Spear and magic helmet" :-)
What's always been a bit surprising to me is that the conductor Leopold Stokowski had enough 'cultural cachet' that there was some expectation that people watching the cartoon would recognize the reference to him ("Leopold!"):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Stokowski#Hollywood_Bo...
Not sure that the general public would have any kind of awareness for conductors or anyone in the classical music world today: perhaps Yo-Yo Ma, and some years ago 'The Three Tenors' were a thing.
I'm pretty sure the general cinema-cartoon-watching public would've known who Stokowski was, having likely watched Disney's Fantasia (1940) where he appears prominently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oWuvfBP8so
I've been known to mumble "Leopold!" at inappropriate times.
Oh, what a great cartoon that is!
In my college daze, Chuck Jones dropped by to give a talk to a packed auditorium. Of course, what he showed was What's Opera Doc. We all loved it, and Chuck enjoyed our enthusiasm.
> To get the extra work done, Jones and his crew secretly shaved a couple weeks off other, easier films and faked their time cards. It was something they did on occasion. (The mysterious price increases angered the managers, Jones said, but they were “not very bright” and didn’t figure out the trick.)
How many companies work just because the average worker is the one making it work? In my experience a lot of them.
It is sad that the money always accumulates at the top even when so often that same people at the top are an impediment for doing better work.
I had a conversation with an engineering manager a few years ago. He told me his daily job was to visit each engineer report, and ask them what they were working on. Then he'd gently guide them back to what they were supposed to be working on.
A business has limited resources, and somebody has to decide which hill they're going to conquer.
The reason managers make more is because their decisions can make more / lose more money than the workers.
BTW, in every company I've worked for, all of the workers thought they were smarter than the manager (including yours truly). The funny part would be when one would be promoted into management, and instantly became incompetent in the estimation of the other workers.
Clashing priorities. Generally speaking, workers want the business to work, i.e. to do the thing for which it was ostensibly created. (If they didn't want that, they would go work somewhere else.) Management wants the business to make money, which is increasingly poorly aligned with the business fulfilling it's ostensible purpose well.
Now, without money, the business stops working. But increasingly - by which I mean, every for-profit business for which I've worked in the last 25 years - what I see is management trading the long-term health of the business for short-term profit, trusting that they won't be the ones to face the consequences.
It's the officers of a ship who are only interest in getting this cargo to its destination (after which they'll move to a different ship or retire) no matter how badly the ship and its relationships are abused in the process vs. the crew, for whom the ship is their life and their home.
4 replies →
>The funny part would be when one would be promoted into management, and instantly became incompetent in the estimation of the other workers.
This isn't such an unexpected outcome. Junior & senior dev roles rarely prepare staff for the type of meta responsibility that's involved in managerial work, and there's almost no exposure to the majority of your manager's duties. It's typical that the only exposure a non-manager gets to their manager's role is a 20 daily minute standup, some tickets shuffling around a Jira board, and a fortnightly 30-45 minute catch up. Then when your mastery of .NET/python/K8s/whatever is sufficiently well established, the business takes that as evidence that you'll be an adequate manager of humans, and promotes you with little additional training, and you often stop doing hands-on dev work.
Meanwhile, if you're a junior staff member at a supermarket, you're doing managerial-type work daily, and throughout your time, you get exposure to low-stakes managerial responsibility. You work alongside your manager for 9-12 hours/day, and you see pretty much everything they do. Over time, you're given more and more of the meta-managerial work, and when you finally get promoted, it's because both you and the business already have evidence that you can do the managerial work. You then continue stacking shelves 9-12 hours per day, as a manager.
I think there's something the software industry could learn from the supermarket industry's approach. They have a much smoother gradient between non-manager and manager.
Stop fixing the tech debt, add more adds instead for virtual promotion points. And remove the old working products. The organization be agonizing.
Sure, but this is an animation studio. How very HN bro response.
> It’s one of the really famous cartoons. If you’re reading this newsletter, you’ve probably watched it yourself.
I've never heard of it and would have appreciated at least a cursory definition. I thought I was going to see an article about an ad for Opera the browser.
They're writing for a newsletter called "Animation Obsessive" - given that, I think they're 100% correct, you're a random driveby :-) That said, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJI_gygXsfs has the first three minutes if you want to get the gist (I don't know where to find a full version, but that's an official-looking Warner Bros. channel, not a bootleg.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/looneytunes/comments/1d0oqsr/whats_... (currently) has the full version (close to 7 minutes)