Slashdot Mirror
Is Your Boss An Idiot?
Dracos writes "CNN Money is running an article entitled "Is Your Boss An Idiot?" Advice on how to cope with a PHB is prefaced with humorous, though suspiciously anecdotal, examples of how to identify one."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
If I tell the truth my boss will feel bad.
And he will tell his wife.
And then she will get on his case about how I'm a bad.
So the boss is just fine. Honest.
The highlight of this article, as far as I'm concerned, is the poll "Is your boss an idiot?" When I checked it a few hours ago, 51% said yes, 49% no. Now that the superior-to-all-bosses /. crew gets to vote, what are the odds that by the end of the day CNN will find that 90% of bosses are idiots?
As for the article, it's short, lightweight filler. It could've been funny if a little substance went into it. As it it's it's only a few apocryphal anecdotes, some of which shouldn't even be in there. IMO.
Disclosure: I'm a slasdot reader, so I voted 'yes'.
The danger with "idiot" bosses is that they often become "blame you" bosses when they are in danger of being discovered. It's like a form of Darwinism - idiots who take responsibility for mistakes tend not to survive, while idiots who blame others for mistakes tend to hang around to be an example for future idiot bosses.
I would take the articles advice and get out - as soon as possible. Even if things seem tolerable.
God is real unless declared integer
Fun anecdotes to be sure, but the article has nothing more intelligent to say than (pretty closely paraphrased quote from the article) "If your boss sucks, get over it or get out of there." Anyone have mod points to rate the article "over-rated"? *mutters* Slow freakin' news day.....
Why? It's the Peter Principle...
In companies, people get promoted on merit, status and capabilities, going further up in the company until... they reach a position that they're incompetent or ineffective in. Why? Because they will get promoted no further and it's incredibly hard to demote people without causing harm to the way the company structure works.
In theory you could increase productivity in a company by demoting everybody by one position. That way everybody is operating at the edge of their abilities, not way beyond them.
I mean, everyone's always so negative around here. Is there anyone that really likes their bosses?
*crickets*
Most people, and therefore employees, are also idiots.
I've worked for many people and also for myself and my boss has never been an idiot. I would have been an idiot to work for an idiot, and the one time this almost happened (reorganization in the company I worked for), I quit and found another job.
It does not say much for someone who knowingly works for an idiot! Yes, tell me about job insecurity and so on, but if your boss really is a fool, your job ain't safe either.
Work for competent people. It's so much more fun, more secure, and generates more money.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Anyway, compared to a lot of these comments, I feel quite lucky. My boss (her name is Kari), is very nice. She's not too nosy, trusts me to do my job correctly, and takes enough time off for her family that she doesn't mind when I take a "sick day" here or there. Others I've heard, aren't so lucky. I have a Worst Case Scenario Handbook for work (quite humorous), and it lists three different types of bosses in there. The Micromanager, The Workaholic, and The Buddy.
The Micromanager - I think everyone has had one, a boss that wants to be into absolutely everything you do, and is basically breathing down your neck 24/7. The advice the book gives is to flood this boss with information. Copy them on every e-mail, no matter how miniscule the subject matter.
The Workaholic - I've never had this type of boss, but this certainly seems like sound advice: put vacation pamphlets on their desk, tell them about your family, show them pictures of your kids, etc. This type of boss has lost touch with the real world, they say. Unless you bring him back to some degree, or show him you're not the same, and that you have a family (or computers) that need your love and attention, this boss will demand the same performance from you.
The Buddy - I've been accused of being this way in other positions. I like to get to know the people I work with, and I'm constantly giving them too much information about my personal life. I'm a bit nosy too, so I ask a lot about things that they did over the weekend. I'm a people-person, I can't help it! ;) The book recommends that you either avoid this boss at all costs or you "make up" a hobby that you can safely tell them about without divulging any information that is of any consequence.
+5, Female
I've had some really good bosses and some so-so bosses. But if you ask them I'm sure they'd say they've had some really good staff and some really bad staff.
From my own experience I would say having a bad employee work for you is worse than working for a bad boss.
I've always thought people complaining about their bosses generally ends up sounding like teenagers complaining about their parents.
Many people's attitude changes onces they've had staff of their own.
Fireing your boss is simple. Find another job. He is no longer your boss. Maybe he someone else will take him on as boss. A company with very high turnover is not a place for a career.
With that in mind, most people should not have rated their boss as an idiot because as a good employee, you should have replaced the bad boss long ago. I had a bad boss. I ditched him 6 years ago. It's the shortest time I had a boss.
The truth shall set you free!
This would lend itself to abuse fairly quickly. Imagine a 4- to 10-person team. Somone puts the boss up on RateMyBoss and then rates the boss negatively. The boss finds out about his or her neagtive rating and is now out for revenge, especially if the boss is an idiot.
Make the team smaller and you'll get people trying to get their colleagues in trouble by rating bosses negatively whether the bosses deserve it or not.
Fireing your boss is simple. Find another job.
Yeah! And if you don't have any bread, just eat cake instead!
Ah, this leads to the Dilbert Principle, which is (perversely) even worse than the Peter Principle. Technically adept people don't get promoted because they're so good at doing the actual work. Subsequently, people who are "less adept", so to speak, are promoted instead because there's no great loss to productivity at the bottom and maybe they'll be better at managing. Under the Dilbert Principle, people are not only promoted beyond their level of competence, but those chosen for promotion are selected because they're the least useful.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I've seen plenty of idiots in charge of things, but mercifully haven't worked under one for a while.
I think good management is a culture that comes down from the top. In the company where I work, there are around 50 of us. The MD (also owner of the company) is a very down-to-earth guy, knows the technical side but is also the kind of manager who reminds you to take regular breaks because they're good for you. He hired a smart guy to lead the half of the company I work in, and he in turn hired/promoted smart team leaders for each individual project. Working conditions are among the best I've ever seen, and almost no-one ever leaves...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Its really sad commentary about the so-called planned economies of the Soviet Union, etc. that this "system" is still more efficient than any planned economy.
This is because there is Darwinistic filtering going on: if a company gets too stupid, it goes tits-up. In a "planned" system, the extreme idiocracy remains. It is not that capitalism is super-efficient, it is that it filters out the bottom end of the stack, unlike the alternative.
Table-ized A.I.
IMO, the problem is not how technically knowledgable the boss is but rather how inept he/she is and whether there is too much micromanagement involved. I would suspect that an inept but knowledgable boss is invariably more dangerious than an inept and unknowledgable one.
The worst bosses I have ever had were the inaccessible micromanager types-- you know the kind-- the kind that thinks they know exactly how best to do your job and assume that they don't ever need to be available to discuss issues with the employees. I have seen this happen with both technical and nontechnical bosses and the result is always the same-- teamwork simply isn't, and the boss is resented by everyone.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Err, um, no. The Peter Principle says nothing about any individual in a particular position. It only explains why there is a tendency for people rise to their level of incompetence. Any person in any position may or may not be competent to hold that position. A person who is in a position who is incompetent to hold that position probably got there by the Peter Principle: they were competent to do the subordinate job and got promoted.
The Peter Principle especially doesn't apply to the presidency since it requires a management chain and promotion by management to the next spot. Somehow I don't recall Slick Willy naming Dubya as his hand picked replacement. It does opperate somewhat in parliamentary democracies since there is more of a "pecking order" amongst the various MPs up to the point they become minister for some particular post or Prime Minister.
The Peter Principle sounds dark and sinister when stated the I and other usually put it but it isn't. It makes sense to promote someone who is competently doing a job both as a reward and because it beats the alternative since it makes no sense to promote someone who isn't competent to do the job they are currently doing. The Peter Principle exists because there is no viable alternative.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben