Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Interesting story; thanks. I have a few reactions to it:

First, it seems like a marketing photo-op for the CEO. In your opinion, is the author trying to make Rockefeller relatable? You can see how it works with HN readers.

These days his success is attributed to business acumen and notorious practices, not engineering, but I haven't read much about him. What impression does the book give?

Also, I would argue that the time he spent on solder drops was a waste of company resources much more valuable than solder: his time. What would he say if he saw the machine operator similarly wasting company time or resources? Rockefeller would have helped his company much more by improving his own efficiency.

Finally, in most companies when Rockefeller asks if you can reduce the number solder drops and you are the lowly solder machine operator, you reduce the solder drops no matter what. There is no way that story could have ended differently, and nobody would reveal that the boss's idea had bad consequences: The barrels had to be handled more carefully, they leaked at a higher rate, they had to increase some other sealing process to compensate, etc.

All my cynicism may be unfair, however.

EDIT: A bunch of edits

It's certainly a PR piece. The story may even be apocryphal. But there is a rational reason for him to take such a small action.

Promoting such a story within the company spreads the word that a good way to impress the boss is to question processes and look for improvements. Especially if he asked similar questions frequently.

People could start to think, what if the boss comes by, is there anything inefficient in my task that I can improve before that happens.

Good point. The following is something I thought of before and after I replied to the comment below, but which escaped my mind when I wrote it:

It depends on how the author represents the story. If he represents it as an example of Rockefeller's leadership technique and skill, that's one thing.

If the author represents it as Rockefeller's exceptional efficiency and engineering acumen, or is trying to show how relatable Rockefeller was, then the author is doing PR too.

I would argue that you can combine two parts of your cynicism to create something very wholesome!

1) "It seems like a marketing photo-op for the CEO."

2) "Rockefeller would have helped his company much more by improving his own efficiency."

Surely the photo-op helped create a culture of efficiency and optimization throughout Standard Oil?

Agreed, and very well put. Who knew you could combine cynicisms like that? The mind boggles at the possibilities ...

It was right in front of my eyes and I didn't see it. Humbling. Thanks for pointing it out.

In related news, Titan just got bumped to the top of my reading list.

To me the 40 drops suggests that the operator only "guessed" how many drops are enough, to the nearest multiple of 10, and left that as good enough; and rhe 38 suggestion was basically saying, "find out exactly how much is enough instead of being ok with good enough"

Optimizations like this one with Rockefeller sells well, i.e., relatable, to many people because they tend to optimize locally themselves. As you alluded, local optimizations could lead to problems at the global level, e.g., lack of system robustness. Unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, manufacturing has taken this road in developing fragile products. Even the food industry "optimizes" production to maximize taste preferences at the expense of nutrition: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/6/1424.full

I don't think that sort of thing makes him more relatable to anyone except bean counters and engineers. It might have been company lore, though.

In general the book shows him to be very good at seeing opportunities and at optimizing. I recall similar behavior in the sections about issuing stock and shipping via rail as well.

Your point about the lowly solder machine operator is belied by the fact that he first suggested 38, then went back up to 39 after there were too many leaks. One other trait which is omnipresent in the book is that he was very careful with the ledger. He would have noticed if costs were increasing elsewhere.

Thanks for responding ...

> He would have noticed if costs were increasing elsewhere.

My guess is that you haven't worked in many large organizations! :)

The reason I say that he would have noticed is that the book has many examples of him being careful with expenses and the numbers in general. From the same chapter as the quote above:

As a former bookkeeper, Rockefeller devoted special attention to ledgers. One accountant recalled him stopping by his desk and saying courteously, “Permit me,” then flipping quickly through his books. “Very well kept,” he said, “very, indeed.” Then his eye leaped to a tiny error. “A little error here; will you correct it?” The accountant was flabbergasted by the speed with which Rockefeller had scanned so many dense columns of figures. “And I will take my oath,” he reported, “that it was the only error in the book!”

http://erenow.com/common/lifeofjohnrockefeller/12.html

Thanks. I really appreciate your contributions and it has changed how I think of Rockefeller; it makes me ask the question of his genius, if that's the right word. I'm still not seeing anything that distinguishes, for me, between genuine genius and much more common hagiography and myth, but I know very little about the subject and now will keep looking and asking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com