Well, ideally one's reaction should depend on the idea. If it is a good idea, then the reaction should be positive. If it is a bad idea, then the reaction should be negative (with allowances for diplomatic language.)
Should.
That is not how one reacts to my boss, DC. The only correct response is, "Yes." Of course the "Yes." is presented with differing levels of enthusiasm. A "No." is out of the question.
Often it is impossible to directly refute the declaration, even when your gut tells you that the statement is bunk:
"I talked to the client and they said that if we have this feature they will switch to our service."How does one refute this without calling him a liar to his face. The fact is, I have been in touch with the client more than he has and the client thinks we are a swell bunch of guys doing cool things; but, they have no interest in ever leaving the solution their team (of approx 100,000) is using for our untested (and largely unimplemented) service. They are not even interested in a small pilot project as "...the senior management loves the current system and it would be politically unpopular to suggest a change at this time".
Again, how to react. The new feature that is going to guarantee the client's investment will delay our release by 6-8 weeks. We are still busy implementing the new features from two weeks ago....
I often forget that the intention is NOT to bring a product to market; but rather, to make a company look like it is a buy-out candidate.
This brings me back to my question. How is one to react to an obvious falsehood that will delay rollout of the product by up to two months and will create the expectation of immediate success the moment the feature is complete?
Well, as this is a con, and as I know it is a con, the only possible reaction is to support his bunk.
So moving are these occurrences that I vividly recall every one.
Of course there is another nefarious reason for the speech. If it flies with us, it will fly with the investors. You see, many of them came on board for a short cruise over a year ago and they want to go home. The plan is simple, as the investors are clamoring for a return on their investment, they need to be fed constant good information to keep their mind off of the money they have tied up in a low yield, high risk venture.
The great thing about dodges like this is that they are so much more than a bid for time. Sure enough at the next BOA meeting, the message is not just that "We have this great tie-in with this new feature and this great client." No, the patter has evolved to, "This great client has asked for this new feature and we need another 75k over then next couple of months to secure the business."
By calling him on his lie I could have moved up the launch date of the project and I could have saved the investors 75k. But I would have been interfering with the con.
If you are ever in a meeting with both DC and me you will immediately know when one of these statements is presented. Just watch my face for a blank stare of disbelief.
Aarrgghh.
