« Are You Using Your Influence? | Main | Stop lazy content creation - Go "old school" with George Orwell »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c03bb53ef00e5549e48308833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When Things Go Wrong:

Comments

Thank you for responding, Geoff.

I agree that not everything is for public consumption; that's why I am perplexed that you released so much information, anyway.

My point wasn't that journalistic standards should be adhered to; it was more that your statement had no background; I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, basically. And, as you have just said, you're keeping it! (I'm not saying that you should drop the shoe; it's more an observation of how you presented this issue.)

I wasn't suggesting that you are arrogant; my apologies for the too-cute wording. I did note that such charges would be unfair; I just didn't do it very well.

I guess the basic point I was making is that none of us should assume that our readership knows what we're talking about, if the story is spread over a few posts or pages. And that presenting only part of the story doesn't leave the audience wanting more - it just leaves them wondering what they missed, and frustrated. Considering that, I'm not entirely sure what your point was?

Again, thank you for responding.

Carolyn Ann

Karen and Rebecca: Thank you for yours support.

Carlyn Ann: Not everything is for public consumption. Many people were aware of the situation, and the original post I provided had links back to the situation.

Regardless, many who read blogs insist that bloggers act like journalists, with factual full reporting. I am not a blogger who caters to them and am OK with being considered arrogant if it means not trashing the people I do business successfully or unsuccesfully with publicly.

I can't help but be a little concerned.

I do believe Mr Livingston is being sincere in his explanation - but this post, and the video, could have addressed the why this was important. If you are, Mr Livingston, going to "kick butt" (I think you said), over the forthcoming years, maybe the lack of merger is enough in itself? I'm guessing you had a try-out period - something that is almost unheard of - and decided that this merger of companies would not work. This is common, as you're probably aware, in the tech field: very few want to be second string. It's the antithesis of being an entrepreneur! All I can offer is "congratulations!" that you found this out now, rather than later when it would be impossible to un-merge, if I may use atrocious English. (Something that appears to be common in business, but provides me with no excuse, I hasten to add.)

I must admit to some interest in the "lessons learned" piece you don't mention. At all. As a Network Manager, in charge of a network that failed at every opportunity - I'm well aware, still painfully aware over 10 years later, that "lessons learned" is not just a part of the post-mortem process that everyone avoids. It's the reason Heads of Departments take time out of their schedules to go see the Network Manager. (Well, I went to see them, but you get the point, I assume?)

In your case, you have a prominent place in the folklore of the IT industry; I'm not sure it's enough to say "I'm sorry, this didn't work", and assume that everyone will be okay with it. Why was it important to say "sorry", in the first place?!?

Valeria, if I may after such an absence be so familiar, recently wrote about the press. One of the differences between "the press" and bloggers is that all too often bloggers assume you've been following them; a newspapers' reporter has an editor who ensures that such assumptions are not made. In this particular case, I must admit to having neither any knowledge of the merger, what it was intended to do, nor why it broke up. "Management differences" can mean a lot; I could tell you of the time I nearly landed a punch on my old boss. That's a real management difference. Why did the merger not work? Why no reference to the other side of the merger?

I do not offer this as an attack; merely as a suggestion that might help you explain things to those who may not be aware of the whole story. You are, I gather from your writings and this video, an arrogant man - but the assumptions you make open you to those charges, and that would be grossly unfair. As I say, please don't take this in any way other than the spirit it's intended: as a constructive criticism.

And I still have no idea what you're talking about. :-)

Carolyn Ann

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advisory Boards


As seen on

Social

Marketing that makes business sense


Conversations


Book Reviews


Comment Policy and Social Guidelines

  • This is my blog and not a public space. Critical discourse is welcomed. However, inappropriate comments will be deleted. See my social guidelines for reference.

Disclaimer

  • The opinions blogged herein represent only those of Valeria Maltoni and do not reflect those of her employer, persons or companies mentioned herein, or anyone else.

© Valeria Maltoni


  • This work is protected by copyright. It may be quoted and excerpted. Beyond a sentence or two, you should ask for permission before publication.

  • Conversation AgentTM

  • © 2006-2014 Valeria Maltoni.