Discussion
Here's something interesting about this season's Willis car... According to a podcast from testing the longest stint the car ever had was 15 laps.
So it's going into a GP having never run close to race distance.
No suggestion as to why they never did a long run. Hope they manage one on Sunday!
So it's going into a GP having never run close to race distance.
No suggestion as to why they never did a long run. Hope they manage one on Sunday!
skwdenyer said:
Agreed on all that. I suspect the private jet for Frank, the large houses for the Williams family, the flashy HQ, the large board of Directors are all factors in hindering progress - if the Williams family are running it as a profitable business, the staff will be much less inclined to dig in than in a more "scrappy" operation like FI (where it was clear that VJM was putting money in, not taking money out).
I'm not sure that CW see that.
This isn't really on topic, but more an observation on this stuff. I've been involved with a few companies, small startups that went bust and were bought etc and currently working for a larger firm but we've ended up splintering off to setup a division etc etc.I'm not sure that CW see that.
A common theme seems to be that as soon as any decent money shows up, things get quite top heavy. Lots of people on big salaries who seem to spend all day in meetings. Programme manager this, chief that, director of basket weaving etc. All the while the same 2 people (me and another bloke) are doing all the actual work. Same as before. The only difference is the wage bill has risen considerably!
Not sure if that is just a fact of life thing, or whether its a typically British business thing.
It's quite annoying because I'd quite like the promotion i've busted my balls for. But they can't do it. They can however, grow the executive team with their telephone number salaries and benefits to go with.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Not sure if that is just a fact of life thing, or whether its a typically British business thing.
It's quite annoying because I'd quite like the promotion i've busted my balls for. But they can't do it. They can however, grow the executive team with their telephone number salaries and benefits to go with.
I don't think it's just a British thing...I would have said it was american. But it's probably just "human".It's quite annoying because I'd quite like the promotion i've busted my balls for. But they can't do it. They can however, grow the executive team with their telephone number salaries and benefits to go with.
TheDeuce said:
Here's something interesting about this season's Willis car... According to a podcast from testing the longest stint the car ever had was 15 laps.
So it's going into a GP having never run close to race distance.
No suggestion as to why they never did a long run. Hope they manage one on Sunday!
Nigel Mansell won his first race for Ferrari in a car that had hardly ran at all in testing and when it did, it broke down (electronic gearbox). Wasn't expected to last 10 laps and Mansell had booked an early flight home on this basis.So it's going into a GP having never run close to race distance.
No suggestion as to why they never did a long run. Hope they manage one on Sunday!
Different eras and all that but strange things can happen
StevieBee said:
Nigel Mansell won his first race for Ferrari in a car that had hardly ran at all in testing and when it did, it broke down (electronic gearbox). Wasn't expected to last 10 laps and Mansell had booked an early flight home on this basis.
Different eras and all that but strange things can happen
Yes they can, but normally the fairly predictable things are what happens Different eras and all that but strange things can happen
Good luck to them is all I can say. And good luck to the drivers!
StevieBee said:
Nigel Mansell won his first race for Ferrari in a car that had hardly ran at all in testing and when it did, it broke down (electronic gearbox). Wasn't expected to last 10 laps and Mansell had booked an early flight home on this basis.
Different eras and all that but strange things can happen
A slight difference being though that it may not have been reliable in testing the Ferrari was at least fast. Testing doesn't always give the full performance of the cars but it's safe to say that the Williams isn't fast. Different eras and all that but strange things can happen
DanielSan said:
A slight difference being though that it may not have been reliable in testing the Ferrari was at least fast. Testing doesn't always give the full performance of the cars but it's safe to say that the Williams isn't fast.
Yup. If there car is fast, even if their are reliability concerns it won't fail every race.Williams:
-Arrives late
-Is slow
-Reliability totally unknown (by us at least, there must have been a reason for no longer runs)
-Run out of spare parts so finish early
-Some of the car is disallowed by FIA
Yea, it'll be a roKit ship in Melbourne
Otispunkmeyer said:
skwdenyer said:
Agreed on all that. I suspect the private jet for Frank, the large houses for the Williams family, the flashy HQ, the large board of Directors are all factors in hindering progress - if the Williams family are running it as a profitable business, the staff will be much less inclined to dig in than in a more "scrappy" operation like FI (where it was clear that VJM was putting money in, not taking money out).
I'm not sure that CW see that.
This isn't really on topic, but more an observation on this stuff. I've been involved with a few companies, small startups that went bust and were bought etc and currently working for a larger firm but we've ended up splintering off to setup a division etc etc.I'm not sure that CW see that.
A common theme seems to be that as soon as any decent money shows up, things get quite top heavy. Lots of people on big salaries who seem to spend all day in meetings. Programme manager this, chief that, director of basket weaving etc. All the while the same 2 people (me and another bloke) are doing all the actual work. Same as before. The only difference is the wage bill has risen considerably!
Not sure if that is just a fact of life thing, or whether its a typically British business thing.
It's quite annoying because I'd quite like the promotion i've busted my balls for. But they can't do it. They can however, grow the executive team with their telephone number salaries and benefits to go with.
Statistically something like 95% of startups fail. Why? Not because of the idea or the passion of any of that jazz. No, because more often than not the people who need to grow up and run things, bring order to an operation, navigate through the growth phases...just don’t have those skills. Unless you go to LBS or have a prior career in industry, then a lot of these startup founders are playing in the dark. Some make it. Many don’t.
In large corporates there is often another range of challenges: there’s nothing worse than coming across someone, early-mid thirties, in charge of a department of a few hundred people, risen up through the management grades and now doesn’t want to do anything to mess up the really big promotion; and you can see in their eyes, that they’ll do anything but make a decision or offer assurances on execution or delivery. No courage or necks on the block. The fear of losing that bonus or even getting a D-grade in the new year just paralyses these guys who’ve just made their first move into a nice big house in the suburbs with a juicy mortgage, chunky seasonal train fare, wife or partner not working and looking after the young family, and trying to build up that school fees fund.
One corporate I knew, the joke was the management grade before the top tier - the life expectancy was 18 months.
You simply can’t grow and maintain a culture of high performance business management and leadership with the way a) we allow people to enter industry cold and b) how they are managed to in turn grow that skill and ability through their career. But if you’ve got a hint of sociopathy then that can help.
TheDeuce said:
Petrus1983 said:
TheDeuce said:
Petrus1983 said:
Only the team have said he left for personal reasons. He may see differently.
I did wonder as I typed if that was the case. But I figured he would have disputed what the team said if it wasn't an agreed statement.He hasn't disputed it.. make of that what you will.
So, a leave of absence while the lawyers work out how the actual dismissal/termination can be done in the least expensive way.
Comms on senior people living an org is usually as follows:
Good leaver or found another job: a bit of a friendly career bio, mention of new opportunity, or sorry to see them go, “we value their leadership blah blah”, nice stuff.
Bad leaver or bounced out: “we wish them all the best for future endeavours” or “so and so is leaving for personal reasons”, or a restructure of teams has meant that so and so wants to pursue other interests external to...
Likely situation: Paddy Lowe walked in to Grove on the 5th March or thereabouts. Directed from his office to be sat down in a glass room with HR and whoever. “It’s not working”. PL says under what measures has this decision been made. HR slide across a compromise deal. PL says he will take time out to consult (a lawyer). Off he goes to the car park, Willams announce “personal reasons”, in the meantime, PLs solicitor is looking at the final negotiation deal to leave with certain agreements in place (not blabbing to media etc). He sends building pass etc in the post when he formally leaves, IT already cut his access days before etc....
tigerkoi said:
The official wording by Williams appeared clumsy, but in essence it’s no different to what you see in many organisations.
Comms on senior people living an org is usually as follows:
Good leaver or found another job: a bit of a friendly career bio, mention of new opportunity, or sorry to see them go, “we value their leadership blah blah”, nice stuff.
Bad leaver or bounced out: “we wish them all the best for future endeavours” or “so and so is leaving for personal reasons”, or a restructure of teams has meant that so and so wants to pursue other interests external to...
Likely situation: Paddy Lowe walked in to Grove on the 5th March or thereabouts. Directed from his office to be sat down in a glass room with HR and whoever. “It’s not working”. PL says under what measures has this decision been made. HR slide across a compromise deal. PL says he will take time out to consult (a lawyer). Off he goes to the car park, Willams announce “personal reasons”, in the meantime, PLs solicitor is looking at the final negotiation deal to leave with certain agreements in place (not blabbing to media etc). He sends building pass etc in the post when he formally leaves, IT already cut his access days before etc....
Im sure that's a fair approximation of the event. I only questioned the 'personal reasons' bit as I'd forgotten that was only in relation to his time out, not a given reason for dismissal.Comms on senior people living an org is usually as follows:
Good leaver or found another job: a bit of a friendly career bio, mention of new opportunity, or sorry to see them go, “we value their leadership blah blah”, nice stuff.
Bad leaver or bounced out: “we wish them all the best for future endeavours” or “so and so is leaving for personal reasons”, or a restructure of teams has meant that so and so wants to pursue other interests external to...
Likely situation: Paddy Lowe walked in to Grove on the 5th March or thereabouts. Directed from his office to be sat down in a glass room with HR and whoever. “It’s not working”. PL says under what measures has this decision been made. HR slide across a compromise deal. PL says he will take time out to consult (a lawyer). Off he goes to the car park, Willams announce “personal reasons”, in the meantime, PLs solicitor is looking at the final negotiation deal to leave with certain agreements in place (not blabbing to media etc). He sends building pass etc in the post when he formally leaves, IT already cut his access days before etc....
I'm sure in the end it will be quietly made official once a settlement is agreed behind the scenes. I doubt we'll hear any more about it. The headline was moment has already been and gone.
Poor sod though. I know we can't really judge how much of a wizard he is/isn't, but I get the impression you could transplant the entire Mercedes tech Dev team into Williams and they'd also fall out and get told they're not doing it right.
TheDeuce said:
tigerkoi said:
The official wording by Williams appeared clumsy, but in essence it’s no different to what you see in many organisations.
Comms on senior people living an org is usually as follows:
Good leaver or found another job: a bit of a friendly career bio, mention of new opportunity, or sorry to see them go, “we value their leadership blah blah”, nice stuff.
Bad leaver or bounced out: “we wish them all the best for future endeavours” or “so and so is leaving for personal reasons”, or a restructure of teams has meant that so and so wants to pursue other interests external to...
Likely situation: Paddy Lowe walked in to Grove on the 5th March or thereabouts. Directed from his office to be sat down in a glass room with HR and whoever. “It’s not working”. PL says under what measures has this decision been made. HR slide across a compromise deal. PL says he will take time out to consult (a lawyer). Off he goes to the car park, Willams announce “personal reasons”, in the meantime, PLs solicitor is looking at the final negotiation deal to leave with certain agreements in place (not blabbing to media etc). He sends building pass etc in the post when he formally leaves, IT already cut his access days before etc....
Im sure that's a fair approximation of the event. I only questioned the 'personal reasons' bit as I'd forgotten that was only in relation to his time out, not a given reason for dismissal.Comms on senior people living an org is usually as follows:
Good leaver or found another job: a bit of a friendly career bio, mention of new opportunity, or sorry to see them go, “we value their leadership blah blah”, nice stuff.
Bad leaver or bounced out: “we wish them all the best for future endeavours” or “so and so is leaving for personal reasons”, or a restructure of teams has meant that so and so wants to pursue other interests external to...
Likely situation: Paddy Lowe walked in to Grove on the 5th March or thereabouts. Directed from his office to be sat down in a glass room with HR and whoever. “It’s not working”. PL says under what measures has this decision been made. HR slide across a compromise deal. PL says he will take time out to consult (a lawyer). Off he goes to the car park, Willams announce “personal reasons”, in the meantime, PLs solicitor is looking at the final negotiation deal to leave with certain agreements in place (not blabbing to media etc). He sends building pass etc in the post when he formally leaves, IT already cut his access days before etc....
I'm sure in the end it will be quietly made official once a settlement is agreed behind the scenes. I doubt we'll hear any more about it. The headline was moment has already been and gone.
Poor sod though. I know we can't really judge how much of a wizard he is/isn't, but I get the impression you could transplant the entire Mercedes tech Dev team into Williams and they'd also fall out and get told they're not doing it right.
The reality of the situation is probably quite unfair for Lowe, but I still stick to my Peter Principle assertion about his predicament.
Bear with me: all these people who’ve variously been seen as the back-office gurus to a team’s success in F1 - Brawn, Byrne, Newey, Barnard, Murray, Head etc - all these guys have varying levels of ability in differing fields from each other. I mean Barnard’s pure skill set compared to say Brawn is completely different, but in certain eras of F1 these guys are seen as the ‘man behind the car’.
My understanding of Lowe’s original background was he was in control software or something. Obviously a pivotal role. Probably something that Newey couldn’t do, or Murray would delegate off, but important all the same.
Lowe’s move to Williams, to my mind, just exposed one thing. He struggled to solidify his position and power in the team as the Technical Principal. This doesn’t undermine all the great work he’s undoubtedly done prior as part of larger or more defined teams. But he probably doesn’t have that alpha tendency that a TP needs to have to bring the project over the line.
Poor sod. Reflects more poorly on Willams in terms of failing to understand where his strengths ultimately lay, and rather that they put him in a position he might not have been cut out for.
tigerkoi said:
Yeah I agree.
The reality of the situation is probably quite unfair for Lowe, but I still stick to my Peter Principle assertion about his predicament.
Bear with me: all these people who’ve variously been seen as the back-office gurus to a team’s success in F1 - Brawn, Byrne, Newey, Barnard, Murray, Head etc - all these guys have varying levels of ability in differing fields from each other. I mean Barnard’s pure skill set compared to say Brawn is completely different, but in certain eras of F1 these guys are seen as the ‘man behind the car’.
My understanding of Lowe’s original background was he was in control software or something. Obviously a pivotal role. Probably something that Newey couldn’t do, or Murray would delegate off, but important all the same.
Lowe’s move to Williams, to my mind, just exposed one thing. He struggled to solidify his position and power in the team as the Technical Principal. This doesn’t undermine all the great work he’s undoubtedly done prior as part of larger or more defined teams. But he probably doesn’t have that alpha tendency that a TP needs to have to bring the project over the line.
Poor sod. Reflects more poorly on Willams in terms of failing to understand where his strengths ultimately lay, and rather that they put him in a position he might not have been cut out for.
Maybe you're spot on. I say maybe as we don't really know his true skillset. But whatever the details are, I can well believe that Williams are seeking relatively low cost solutions and failing to then properly support the people they do choose. I can believe that as old businesses in trouble inevitably start reducing costs in the wrong places which in turn make things worse still, at which point far from support they end up putting pressure on the teams they effectively crippled to 'make it better or else'.The reality of the situation is probably quite unfair for Lowe, but I still stick to my Peter Principle assertion about his predicament.
Bear with me: all these people who’ve variously been seen as the back-office gurus to a team’s success in F1 - Brawn, Byrne, Newey, Barnard, Murray, Head etc - all these guys have varying levels of ability in differing fields from each other. I mean Barnard’s pure skill set compared to say Brawn is completely different, but in certain eras of F1 these guys are seen as the ‘man behind the car’.
My understanding of Lowe’s original background was he was in control software or something. Obviously a pivotal role. Probably something that Newey couldn’t do, or Murray would delegate off, but important all the same.
Lowe’s move to Williams, to my mind, just exposed one thing. He struggled to solidify his position and power in the team as the Technical Principal. This doesn’t undermine all the great work he’s undoubtedly done prior as part of larger or more defined teams. But he probably doesn’t have that alpha tendency that a TP needs to have to bring the project over the line.
Poor sod. Reflects more poorly on Willams in terms of failing to understand where his strengths ultimately lay, and rather that they put him in a position he might not have been cut out for.
I'm not saying Lowe was on himself a cheap solution, but they also dispatched a number of other senior members of the development team, which apparently were not replaced. Even a man who can technically do it all can't himself do all there is to be done. The normal path in engineering is for the chap at the top to do almost nothing other than guide workflow down through the heads of each department and oversee the bringing together of all the separate efforts. That process can involve a lot of senior specialists between the technical director and the guys with the oily fingers doing the shop work. It sounds like it's those key specialists that might be a bit thin on the ground at Williams.
But it's not all bad. In another article I read that Frank oversees technical development personally on a daily basis. So the team have that to 'help them along' :/
tigerkoi said:
Yeah I agree.
The reality of the situation is probably quite unfair for Lowe, but I still stick to my Peter Principle assertion about his predicament.
Bear with me: all these people who’ve variously been seen as the back-office gurus to a team’s success in F1 - Brawn, Byrne, Newey, Barnard, Murray, Head etc - all these guys have varying levels of ability in differing fields from each other. I mean Barnard’s pure skill set compared to say Brawn is completely different, but in certain eras of F1 these guys are seen as the ‘man behind the car’.
My understanding of Lowe’s original background was he was in control software or something. Obviously a pivotal role. Probably something that Newey couldn’t do, or Murray would delegate off, but important all the same.
Lowe’s move to Williams, to my mind, just exposed one thing. He struggled to solidify his position and power in the team as the Technical Principal. This doesn’t undermine all the great work he’s undoubtedly done prior as part of larger or more defined teams. But he probably doesn’t have that alpha tendency that a TP needs to have to bring the project over the line.
Poor sod. Reflects more poorly on Willams in terms of failing to understand where his strengths ultimately lay, and rather that they put him in a position he might not have been cut out for.
The process of considering - and taking-on - a new role is a two-way street. If Paddy was successful in talking his way into a role he was unsuited for or unable to carry out then it isn't "poor Paddy" but "poor Williams" for being taken-in.The reality of the situation is probably quite unfair for Lowe, but I still stick to my Peter Principle assertion about his predicament.
Bear with me: all these people who’ve variously been seen as the back-office gurus to a team’s success in F1 - Brawn, Byrne, Newey, Barnard, Murray, Head etc - all these guys have varying levels of ability in differing fields from each other. I mean Barnard’s pure skill set compared to say Brawn is completely different, but in certain eras of F1 these guys are seen as the ‘man behind the car’.
My understanding of Lowe’s original background was he was in control software or something. Obviously a pivotal role. Probably something that Newey couldn’t do, or Murray would delegate off, but important all the same.
Lowe’s move to Williams, to my mind, just exposed one thing. He struggled to solidify his position and power in the team as the Technical Principal. This doesn’t undermine all the great work he’s undoubtedly done prior as part of larger or more defined teams. But he probably doesn’t have that alpha tendency that a TP needs to have to bring the project over the line.
Poor sod. Reflects more poorly on Willams in terms of failing to understand where his strengths ultimately lay, and rather that they put him in a position he might not have been cut out for.
There's no magic "assessment machine" by which Williams can guarantee that he has / has not the right abilities - these thing are mutual. It is not as if they promoted him to a role "he might not have been cut out for" (having had years to assess him).
This reflects badly on both sides. I think Paddy knew it was coming - he admitted in public to (paraphrasing) allowing himself to adapt to the prevailing Williams culture rather than getting a firm grasp on it early on. He sounds like he acted like an employee, not a leader, when a leader was needed. I'm sure he tried to make up time, butt possibly too little too late. First 100 days and all that...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff