Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan Risner who wrote (7749)	10/2/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: Bob Walsh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Dan, yes Paul Skinner was hired to move GPGI from it's R&D state to a production state. I am unsure whether he was reporting to Jensen or to Wayne Palmer (who sort of reports to Jensen). Perhaps Skinner was the wrong man for the job. Perhaps politics or egos got in the way. Perhaps Jensen gave mixed signals or flipped flopped. I do not know where or if Skinner fits in now. GPGI has been and is a Mom and Pop operation (unlike IPM who had many "professional" people on their staff) since that is the only way they could survive. The couldn't afford to hire many people or consultants - they would be out of business or they would have diluted the stock by a huge amount. Once they are in a ongoing production state and have a positive cash flow then they will have to change their management structure. McKay may be a transitional step. Regards, Bob

To: Dan Risner who wrote (7749)	10/2/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Dan, this has concerned me as well. If Mr. Skinner's technical authority is being in any way second-guessed by Mr. McKay's , I wonder what Skinner's morale is like! Of course this may be my simplistic worry - I'm only worrying in the absence of fly-on-the-wall facts. Maybe he welcomes the help, who knows? Hope so.... Actually, while we're on the topic of morale and "procedural manuals", I have to say that I am always a little nervous when nerdy "process engineers" (with the de rigeur below-average social skills -- present company excepted!) take it upon themselves to write down procedures for (living, breathing, occasionally non-rational) people. [I was trained as a clinical psychologist and had coursework in industrial + organizational psych.] The scorn workers may have for supervisors (very recently discussed here) will readily attach itself to a poorly-designed (from a people POV) "procedural manual". I worked in a small data & software company where precisely this unintended opposite result appeared. I would like to urge Mr. McKay to remember to a) consider the individuals as a very different class of "objects" among those things-that-do-things in the process, and b) include those individuals directly in the planning and production of that manual. Both will help facilitate ownership and empowerment of the job and encourage buy-in on the goals (and thus reduce alienation). For the same reasons, I would like to also suggest we discourage discussion here regarding the topic of "incompetence" at the mill. Even if it were the case, using this public forum to indict non-specifically will only be hurtful to the mill workers generally and thus can serve no good purpose. Criticize management, if you must, for they are responsible for the selection, training and supervision of the workers.