On Good Questions

From data SELF-REPORTED by the individuals (not gleaned from automation of their workspaces). Will those reports be higher or lower than "actual"?

I've yet to see how updating a facebook page is considered in anyone OTHER than the individual's self-interest.

But the aforementioned time *isn't* "problem appreciation" or problem solving! It's just "goofing off".

If I choose to watch a movie in the middle of my work day, I don't try to claim this helps me get my job done -- even if it gives me a well-needed break/distraction. The difference is, I can't do that at a 9-5 job -- without raising eyebrows of my superiors and annoying (envious) my peers. EVEN IF I AM

*KNOWN* TO STAY AT WORK MANY HOURS PAST CLOSING!

I've been to coworkers (and employers/clients) weddings, funerals (for family members), family barbeques, hospital bedsides, vacation homes, etc. Had them at my home for home-cooked meals. Babysat their children. Called on them to drive 30+ miles to fetch me and bring me to a dentist on a weekend for an emergency root canal. Invited them to make the 150 mile (each way) trip to *my* wedding (paying for their hotel own accommodations). Been invited to fly in their private aircraft, etc.

So, I guess our experiences are very different.

Or, perhaps I'm just way more gregarious than you?

Would *napping* count as "spending time" as well?

IME, the separation often made for healthier relationships. You could count on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of "goofing off" -- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that environment. You didn't worry about them opting to "waste time" when it was precious (to you and those around you).

I don't think others have seen it as such. I found most "grumbling" tended to come from folks who were trying to get work done -- while someone else was obviously "goofing off". It breeds resentment and gets folks thinking about poor management (how could this person have "spare time"? Or, how could he be allowed NOT to make progress on his portion of the project -- which will be part of the critical path that we all share)

Ah, but her work was getting done! Why should she care? This CLEARLY can't be "wasting time" if the workload is being met! :>

So, you spent much of your time doing what we did in a weekly meeting. And, in our case, ANYONE who wanted elaboration on a particular issue could freely ask -- and be heard by the person queried along with all others present. They ask and are answered "in their own words" -- instead of words *you* have chosen to express that issue (ASSUMING the issue is ever brought to your attention!)

I guess you have a problem with "office politics". IME, meetings are chances for all of the team members to share their experiences and concerns. No one is out to "impress" anyone. Or, embarassed to admit their problems/difficulties. If the project hits a snag, the entire team feels the heat so it behooves everyone to identify potential problem areas early rather than late.

No. That only happens when the engineers (drafstmen, purchasing agents, etc.) *happen* to interact in the normal course of events.

E.g., the opto interrupter "problem" involved the mechanical folks (the guys designing the case and packaging), the marketing folks (for usability issues as well as "consumables"), the manufacturing folks (who had to consider how they were going to assemble and align the various bits), the guy who designed the main processor (which would have to interface to "whatever" sensor), the guy who designed the software (who would have to interpret the signal from the sensor) and the guy who designed the ribbon transport mechanism (motors, etc.)

*I* was "none of the above". Yet, it was *my* solution -- offered ONLY because one of the above folks mentioned the problems they were having addressing this "simple" issue IN A WEEKLY MEETING. Had someone written it up in a "newletter"/status report, the problem would never have risen to my attention.

Instead, having *all* of these people present, I could query the mechanical guy about what they were trying to do and how they were

*currently* approaching the problem ("Gee, that's going to be a real PITA for a user to replace the ribbon and get the sensor aligned properly: 'Hmmm... it still says LOW INK'"). Then, in the next breath (IN FRONT OF EVERYONE LISTENING IN TO OUR DISCUSSION), query the guy who had designed the takeup motor driver: "Your driver attempts to keep the ribbon under constant tension, right? As the amount of ribbon decreases, the motor's speed appears to change to ensure the same tension remains on the web. This is manifest as a change in voltage across the motor. When the mechanical load disappears, what will the motor see? What will the voltage across the motor *do*?"

I.e., at this point, everyone in the room understands the idea -- and why it works. The MechE's can see that the problem has been shifted to the electrical domain. The software guy can see that the MOTOR DRIVER will now be reporting "ink" status -- in a different manner than a "simple" photointerrupter signal. The manufacturing guys know they can skip the "remote sensor placement and alignment" steps. The sales/marketing folks know they can now tout the EASE of replacing consummables!

And, everyone can comment on other issues that could be consequential to my approach. Everyone sees who is impacted by the change as well as the relative benefit of the new approach. All in the course of a couple of minutes out of a 60 minute meeting!

How many mini-meetings would have had to transpire if I had read that in a "report"? How much more difficult to get a "meeting of the minds" to come to a quick concensus -- and, have it *blessed* so it can be a genuine action item and not something "up for review next week"!

Perhaps I didn't emphasize things enough -- this was all with JUST ONE BOSS.

Mr. Employee could wrap Mr. Boss around his finger, whether it to get his old job back, or to get laid off.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Ages ago, the rule was "never tell anyone you work on TVs"! Now, it's "never tell anyone you work on computers (etc.)"

(Just yesterday, approached by an acquaintance complaining about a problem with his "computer running slow"... "Gee, maybe you need a NEW ONE!" )

Best answer I have ever heard - I'm going to use it. :-D

of their workspaces). Will those reports be higher or lower than "actual"?

Labelling them as "wasting time surveys" does activate a particular point o f view.

occupied in ways that don't immediately or obviously advance the employees perceived interest.

R than the individual's self-interest.

Knowing what a "facebook" page is implies that you've wasted more time on f inding out about "facebook" than I have. I'm on LinkedIn, because several o f my nieces and nephews are, as well as a bunch of ex-colleagues, but I hav e managed to avoid facebook. Clearly you've wasted more time on it than I h ave.

traight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of "distracti on"?

it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.

problem solving! It's just "goofing off".

That's your opinion.

claim this helps me get my job done -- even if it gives me a well-needed b reak/distraction. The difference is, I can't do that at a 9-5 job -- witho ut raising eyebrows of my superiors and annoying (envious) my peers. EVEN IF I AM *KNOWN* TO STAY AT WORK MANY HOURS PAST CLOSING!

Choosing to watch a movie in the middle of a work day isn't something I've seen happen at work.

cal times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's d ime" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).

actions with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and effective - col laborators.

mily members), family barbeques, hospital bedsides, vacation homes, etc. H ad them at my home for home-cooked meals. Babysat their children. Called on them to drive 30+ miles to fetch me and bring me to a dentist on a weeke nd for an emergency root canal.Invited them to make the 150 mile (each way) trip to *my* wedding (paying for their hotel own accommodations). Been in vited to fly in their private aircraft, etc.

So they have become friends. This can make for a good working environment.

Probably not.

Impossible to say, but unlikely. I'm not wildly gregarious, but quite a few ex-colleagues are still friends.

on the quality of *your* work experience:

-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and t aking long breaks while at work.

Can be. Reading standards documents is definitely soporific.

acts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their w ork from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.

unt on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of"goofing off" -- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that environment. You didn't wor ry about them opting to "waste time when it was precious (to you and those around you).

I didn't much care how my colleagues divided up their time provided that th ey got the job done.

What did upset me was a guy who spent weeks not getting anywhere on a proje ct and failed to ask for help. When we finally found out where he'd got stu ck someone else did that critical bit of high-level design (me) and he got on with turning it into detailed schematics and working out how to arrange the parts to meet the timing constraints.

If we'd been closer, I might have realised that he'd got stuck sooner.

ed to come from folks who were trying to get work done -- while someone els e was obviously "goofing off".

"Obviously goofing off" is a political judgement.

ould this person have "spare time"?

More office politics.

oject -- which will be part of the critical path that we all share).

The critical path through a project is one of many. It tends to move around as one activity or another takes longer than expected. "Making progress" o n an activity isn't necessarily a reflection of gross time spent. You often have to explore a lot of what turn out to be blind alleys before you can m ove on to the next activity.

were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I* do! Cou ld you please leave me to get my work done?"

tc. to ensure *her* work gets done!

l working hours, so they don't know about that.

CLEARLY can't be "wasting time" if the workload is being met! :>

It could be, but worrying about "wasted time" in that context is pure offic e politics.

me".

collaborations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulde r to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.

r again requires a less driven environment.

ULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from purchasing to s ales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering! If everyone visited each ot ehr team member individually over the course of each week, you'd have litt le time to actually *do* any work (on teams that have more than "a couple" of individuals).

y weekly reports to my boss to the rest of the team fairly early on, for reasons that made sense at the time.

some ten to fifteen people - the weekly reports had metamorphosed to a tea m newsletter. I'd spend Friday morning going around the team, having a few words with everybody, and put together a couple of pages of text in the aft ernoon, that got circulated to everybody. About a year before the project f inally got cancelled, I'd pointed out to my boss that this was taking up a significant part of my time, but he told me to keep doing it - the benefits in terms of team morale were worth the time invested. And from time to tim e the information I picked up helped me do the systems engineer part of my job a little better.

Where everybody was present and paying attention, using up our collective t ime budget fice times as fast.

could freely ask -- and be heard by the person queried along with all other s present. They ask and are answered "in their own words" -- instead of wo rds *you* have chosen to express that issue (ASSUMING the issue is ever bro ught to your attention!)

Listening to somebody tell as story is a lot slower than reading an edited version of that story.

current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express their progress

-- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them to benefit from the idea s and expertise of their team-mates in a more expeditious manner.

There's nothing expeditious about having the mechanical engineers sit there while the software guys ventilate their complaints about careless nomencla ture.

or the lack of it - is often seen as playing office politics. People tend to be more open when there isn't an audience.

nces for all of the team members to share their experiences and concerns.

I have a problem staying awake through long - and largely repetitive - expo sitions of much the same experiences and concerns. I've heard it all before , many times.

admit their problems/difficulties.

Dream on.

everyone to identify potential problem areas early rather than late.

hen one engineer is explaining a problem to another, who recognises it as a variant of a familiar problem with a familiar solution.

etc.) *happen* to interact in the normal course of events.

In my experience that happened a lot.

ys designing the case and packaging), the marketing folks (for usability is sues as well as "consumables"), the manufacturing folks (who had to conside r how they were going to assemble and align the various bits), the guy who designed the main processor (which would have to interface to "whatever" se nsor), the guy who designed the software (who would have to interpret the s ignal from the sensor) and the guy who designed the ribbon transport mecha nism (motors, etc.)

ecause one of the above folks mentioned the problems they were having addre ssing this "simple" issue IN A WEEKLY MEETING. Had someone written it up in a "newletter"/status report, the problem would never have risen to my attention.

Depends who writes the newsletter.

al guy about what they were trying to do and how they were

*currently* approaching the problem ("Gee, that's going to be a real PITA f or a user to replace the ribbon and get the sensor aligned properly: 'Hmm m... it still says LOW INK'"). Then, in the next breath (IN FRONT OF EVERY ONE LISTENING IN TO OUR DISCUSSION), query the guy who had designed the tak eup motor driver: "Your driver attempts to keep the ribbon under constant tension, right? As the amount of ribbon decreases, the motor's speed appea rs to change to ensure the same tension remains on the web. This is manif est as a change in voltage across the motor. When the mechanical load di sappears, what will the motor see? What will the voltage across the motor *do*?"

it works. The MechE's can see that the problem has been shifted to the el ectrical domain. The software guy can see that the MOTOR DRIVER will now b e reporting "ink" status -- in a different manner than a "simple" photo-int errupter signal. The manufacturing guys know they can skip the "remote sen sor placement and alignment" steps. The sales/marketing folks know they ca n now tout the EASE of replacing consummables!

Some of the people in the room might have understood the idea - obviously e nough for it to be adopted. In any reality that I've lived in, most of them would have needed quite a bit of hand-holding before all the implications hit home.

my approach.

I've had to sit through those kinds of comments. Some of them have been con sequential, but useful is rare.

it of the new approach. All in the course of a couple of minutes out of a

60 minute meeting!

That only happens if the meeting has been carefully prepared. Are you sure that your boss wasn't trying to feed your ego or get you promoted out of hi s hair?

a "report"? How much more difficult to get a "meeting of the minds" to com e to a quick concensus -- and, have it *blessed* so it can be genuine acti on item and not something "up for review next week"!

It seems likely that there were quite a few mini-meetings to prepare the wa y.

-detector "fork". If you didn't want to run your ribbon through a slot, the re's a "reflection" variant, where the emitter is mounted next to the detec tor, and only illuminated the detector is there's something in from of the emitter to reflect some of it's output.

s correspondingly more elegant, but it is less direct.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's what THEY ARE THINKING! So, why disappoint them??

I worked at a non-profit that (among other things) provided "free" computers for "folks of limited means".

The machines would inevitably come back a month or so later, "broken".

No, it's not broken. It's just full of so much spyware and related cruft that the CPU doesn't have time to do any REAL WORK! You'd grumble and set about cleaning things up for these "unfortunate folk". And, return a re-restored/"working" machine to them.

One day, I noticed the high speed CATV internet connection on the machine I was working on: "Huh? They can't afford a computer OR a repair service (for all the pron sites they are visiting, etc.) yet they can afford cable TV *and* high speed internet?" Sorry but I'll donate my time to more worthy causes! :-/

You're reasoning is specious, at best. For the record, I have NO social media accounts -- not even LinkedIn (so, by your reasoning, YOU have wasted more time than I!). AFAICT, I can't even *view* Facebook pages!

I don't own a cell phone -- but that doesn't mean I don't know what a cell phone *is* or how it is *used*!

Please explain how updating a facebook page is "problem appreciation"? Or, scheduling a doctor's appointment? Or stopping by the post office? Bank? etc.

None of these needs to be done "during work hours". I've scheduled outpatient surgery to occur during lunch breaks, etc. (clearly I could have taken a day off for those)

You've never seen a coworker watching a YouTube video? Or, streaming video from some other source while at work?

*I* can watch a movie in the middle of my workday -- as I imagine any of the other folks who are freelance workers can. Just like I can choose to post to USENET during the middle of my workday (returning, AGAIN, to Anand's question)

They sure *seem* to be based on your reporting, here! People afraid to speak up in meetings? I've seen that among the Brits (don't speak until boss speaks to you) but it is definitely not a common practice in any of the US firms that I've encountered! I've never seen a technician afraid to voice a concern about a hard to test/service design -- in front of the board's designer, project manager, sales/mktg staff, etc. Better to address it -- and his concerns -- *now* than catch a bunch of flack after it's released to production!

From what I have seen, coworkers tend to grumble when they see someone else "not working" (or apparently being treated differently) regardless of how well they have done their job.

"Lunch" and "after work" are never more than a few hours away on any day of the week. You can defer your socializing, goofing off, etc. until then.

Discussing "work" over lunch is fairly common. One particular client would insist we always "lunch" at a particular sandwich shop in town. While there, he would *forbid* me from "talking shop". Odd, why spend lunch together if we're not going to get some business done? This is NOT billable time so seems a perfect opportunity for him to "get something for nothing"!

Actually, his purpose was to listen in on the conversations of the employees of his competitor(s) who worked proximate to the sandwich shop! Counting on *them* to chat casually about the projects they were working on, the problems they were having, deadlines, pricing, suppliers, etc. He'd just soak it up and file it away for later use. NOT getting my time for free over lunch was a small price to pay for that "recon"!

(sigh) I truly feel sorry for you! Your work experiences seem absolutely DREADFUL! You should try working somewhere where your peers respect your efforts and are grateful for your assistance! It is *far* more rewarding. And, usually, considerably more innovative -- because the FRIENDLY competition pushes everyone towards a better end result!

I know *I* enjoy being impressed by my peers -- and assume they are equally pleased to learn something new/clever from me!

Any employer who hires this individual twice is nuts. Probably had pictures of the boss and mistress.

THER than the individual's self-interest.

on finding out about "facebook" than I have. I'm on LinkedIn, because sever al of my nieces and nephews are, as well as a bunch of ex-colleagues, but I have managed to avoid facebook. Clearly you've wasted more time on it than I have.

media accounts -- not even LinkedIn (so, by your reasoning, YOU have wasted more time than I!). AFAICT, I can't even *view* Facebook pages!

So you know even less about FaceBook than I do, but feel confident to asser t that "updating a facebook page" is a waste of time from the employer's po int of view.

cell phone *is* or how it is *used*!

I do own a cell-phone, but it's not data-enabled, unlike my wife's which is paid for by her employers.

My grasp of what she does with it, and what her graduate students do with t heirs, is correspondingly limited, but I do know enough to know that I don' t know all that much. You seem to be less well-informed, and more confident that you know enough to pontificate about the subject.

speak up in meetings? I've seen that among the Brits (don't speak until boss speaks to you) but it is definitely not a common practice in any of the US firms that I've encountered! I've never seen a technician afrai d to voice a concern about a hard to test/service design -- in front of the board's designer, project manager, sales/mktg staff, etc. Better to addr ess it -- and his concerns -- *now* than catch a bunch of flack after it's released to production!

I worked in the UK for 22 years, but I'd worked in Australia before that - which is definitely more egalitarian than the the US or the UK - and I work ed in the Netherlands - on and off - in the 1990's. Meetings are distinctly artificial environments.

a few ex-colleagues are still friends.

ct on the quality of *your* work experience:

co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the t op time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.

mpacts on their behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.

count on your fellows to get their job(s) done -- instead of"goofing off"

-- and also enjoy their company *outside* of that environment. You didn't worry about them opting to "waste time when it was precious (to you and tho se around you).

t they got the job done.

lse "not working" (or apparently being treated differently) regardless of h ow well they have done their job.

Most people seem to need something to grumble about. Other people's working conditions are prime grumble-fodder.

any day of the week. You can defer your socializing, goofing off, etc. until then.

would insist we always "lunch" at a particular sandwich shop in town. Whil e there, he would *forbid* me from "talking shop". Odd, why spend lunch t ogether if we're not going to get some business done? This is NOT billabl e time so seems a perfect opportunity for him to "get something for nothin g"!

employees of his competitor(s) who worked proximate to the sandwich shop! Counting on *them* to chat casually about the projects they were working on, the problems they were having, deadlines, pricing, supplie rs, etc. He'd just soak it up and file it away for later use. NOT getting my time for free over lunch was a small price to pay for that "recon"!

project and failed to ask for help. When we finally found out where he'd got stuck someone else did that critical bit of high-level design (me) and he got on with turning it into detailed schematics and working out how to arrange the parts to meet the timing constraints.

s.

n that context is pure office politics.

blems/difficulties.

y DREADFUL! You should try working somewhere where your peers respect your efforts and are grateful for your assistance!

They always did. It didn't stop the office politics.

- because the FRIENDLY competition pushes everyone towards a better end res ult!

Friendlier environments still contain people who want to look good to their co-workers and superiors. I've seen a few who took it more seriously than others - at least two of them went on to fairly stellar careers, but the ot hers crashed and burned when reality caught up with them.

are equally pleased to learn something new/clever from me!

That's fun, but it's rarely the whole of what's going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Oh, Mr. boss is in the clear then -- it was way more than twice.

And no, it wasn't goat pictures.

(You have to know both of them. I couldn't stand working there, but after I'd been away for a few years Mr. Boss and I became friends.)

--
www.wescottdesign.com

don't

Not sure if i am narrow or not. I am certainly uneven over the domain of electrical engineering. Some licks in arc flash, medium voltage switchgear, fiber optics, cellular data communication, CCTV, computer programming and other areas.

That is more like me. I tend to get drug in every time the going gets rough. Kind of a specializing generalist (here learn this an a few days though the person you are supposed to help had months).

be

expert)

I am expecting to take a similar route. I can do the same thing for some years running but it gets boring. I want to keep learning. This is a good time for it as well.

?-)

I know people who have done THE SAME THING for 30+ years. Each new version teaches them "nothing" -- but, it is "safe" and "nonthreatening". I've been known to tell clients/employers who would make comments like: "Maybe we'll do that in the NEXT version" that "Well, I won't be here for that..."

(I don't learn anywhere near as much doing something AGAIN as I do The First Time)

Often, people can't see outside their own past experiences. So, they instinctively want to repeat a previous design/approach to a problem -- without thinking if there might be a better/different way to approach it IN THIS SITUATION.

For example, pharmaceuticals are controlled by their dosages -- i.e., the weights of their active ingredients. "100mg Tylenol3", "10mg Valium", etc. You obviously don't want a 120mg tablet dispensed as if a 100mg tablet!

But, weighing individual tablets is virtually impossible. They are produced at speeds of ~100 per second. Heck, you couldn't even weigh a batch of 100 in the time the NEXT 100 were produced!

So, you don't look at "weight". Instead, you look at something RELATED to weight... something that you can measure at ~100Hz!

Most tablets are produced on rotary tablet presses. A fixed geometry "die" ("mold") is filled with "granulation" ("tablet in powdered form") and then compressed (up to 10tons) to give the tablet its cohesive, solid form. The die has fixed outer dimensions and a variable (servo controlled) *depth*. Increase the depth, and there is more volume available *in* the die for the granulation --> increased weight!

In one scheme, the cavity is compressed to a fixed final dimension (essentially, the final dimensions of the tablet, more or less). If you watch the pressure exerted on the tablet as it is compressed to that size, you can correlate this with an actual mass/weight! If the force is too high, that particular tablet is too heavy; too low and it is too light. In each case, you can choose to discard

*that* tablet in real time.

In another scheme (e.g., patent issues!), the force exerted on the powder is held constant and the dimensions are allowed to vary (small amounts). If the measured dimensions of a tablet AT THE TIME OF COMPRESSION are greater than expected, it's too heavy; similarly, too small indicates too light!

In each case, you can use observations to control the depth of the cavity so that FUTURE tablets trend to the correct target weight (as indicated by size or force).

Someone focusing on weight will invest lots of effort trying to come up with a scale that operates (and settles) in < 10ms. A foolhardy goal! You need people who are able to step back and look at other disciplines to see more realistic solutions in a given set of circumstances.

It's great because YOU set the goals, YOU set the criteria, YOU set the timeframe, etc. YOU drive the process -- wherever you want it to go! Instead of a boss/client/marketdroid/beancounter telling you what/how to design!

Half a lifetime ago I was backpacking around Europe and ended up living in a cave (literally, albeit with all mod cons) at Oia in Santorini looking down and across The caldera. Not buying such a place was probably the biggest missed financial opportunity in my life, but I digress.

The owner was away: he spent six months working his 'nads off in Saudi during the winter, and six months recuperating in that cave.

The reasons I didn't do something similar was that I enjoyed my work more, and I have an aversion to working anywhere where you need an exit visa.

Whenever/wherever I've been an interviewer it has been a priority to weed out people with "10 years experience" that is really "10*1 years experience".

I meet people with all sorts of "track histories". You can find someone who's been stuck in a really lengthy project for a LONG TIME; or, someone who has been dealing with little "bite sized" projects.

I like to let them describe something they are comfortable/proud of -- in enough detail taht I have a basic idea of what was involved. Then, ask them what they did "wrong"... what they would do *differently* if they started the same project, NOW.

If technology has changed in the intervening time (recall, I let

*them* pick the project to describe), then they might offer up something like, "instead of a bunch if discrete TTL, I would implement the entire machine in a fast MCU (or FPGA or full custom or...)". If it was something coded in language X, they might offer up doing it in a different language and/or programming paradigm.

The point is to see what they have *learned* -- if they have developed the skills necessary to criticize their past efforts... or, if they just dismiss them and move on once they are "done".

I once became fairly good friends with a guy who became my boss. We were out to diner one night and his wife asked how he was to work for. I said he was a great guy but a terrible manager. She laughed and said that she suspected as much. Neither of us wanted me in that department, basically because I was working for his manager (who was my previous manager) and always went around him. If there is something keeping me from doing my job, it is my job to go around it, even if it is my boss. ;-)