Slashdot Mirror
The Fine Art of 'Boss Science'
BoredStiff writes "NYMag has up an article that explores Boss Science and the minds of American corporate leaders. In the real world, bosses are known to suffer from a long list of social pathologies: naked aggression, credit hogging, micromanaging, bullying, you name it. Leadership research shows that subtle nasty moves like glaring and condescending comments, explicit moves like insults or put-downs, and even physical intimidation can be effective paths to power. Research also shows that employees tend to see the jerk as boss material. The article goes on to discuss some of the science bosses apply to making an operation run smoothly: 'A researcher reported that one law firm deconstructs its HR needs by personality traits. It insists on extremely bright employees who are also extremely insecure. 'They want them to think that working really hard matters,' he explains. Through this prism, personality types can even be mixed and matched to make a team function more efficiently.'"
Or! You can find the best talent there is, treat your employees with respect, compensate them fairly (or very well if they are particularly valuable) and work from the perspective that a place of work is a place of education where people will gather skills and hopefully work to the best of their ability. The danger of this is that they will not stay because they are hired away, but honestly if your employees are not being recruited by everyone else out there, they are not the best and brightest.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"employees tend to see the jerk as boss material."
And voters tend to see the jerk as presidential material.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
It insists on extremely bright employees who are also extremely insecure. 'They want them to think that working really hard matters,' he explains.
Then what really does matter in the workplace?
It's not just your workers, it's what the workers want out of the job. Do they want to be seen as the heros? Do they want the drama? Do they want to it to be done exactly right? Do they want to tell other people to do the work?
There are a number of books focused on that. The Enneagram covers 9 different styles.
Take that and apply the Peter Principle and you have a good understanding of why bosses are such jerks. 8 out of 9 times, they won't have the same goals that you have (and the other time they'll be in active competition with you) and they're not skilled enough to handle the situation.
Simple. It's been said already. They suffer from a few pathologies. Micromanagement ("look, he's puttng work into the fine details and doesn't ignore the minor things"), credit hogging ("And Smith from dpt. X was again the one who did it"). So who gets promoted? The guy with the toughest ellbows.
Of COURSE it's the jerk. And that also proves true the old saying "Those who can do, those who can't supervise". If they could, they'd be busy doing instead of trying to bully, hog the limelight and putz around with petty details.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Those aren't the heros I was referring to. I'm talking about the ones who skip steps that they know aren't needed
Drama r0xx0r in advertising and entertainment and fashion and so forth. If you're doing tech, drama SUCKS!
Not when you're managing a nuclear plant. (Which is also a bad match for the heros and drama queens.)
What personality types you want on your team (if you even want a team) depends more on what the job is. If you get the right mix at the right job, you won't even need a boss. But that's extremely rare.
But I think the biggest problem with that article is that it mentions some of the different types
And they only really covered one type: the narcissistic who won't even stick around but hops to a new job as soon as one is available.
Now imagine working for a perfectionist jerk (do it over and get it right this time).
Or a drama queen jerk (watch "The Devil Wears Prada").
Or a hero jerk (nothing leaves his desk until it's a crisis).
First of all there is agency costs. Jerks -- people who exploit people for their personal benefit -- don't confine themselves to screwing their underlings. They just exploit their superiors more carefully.
Come to think of it, buying into the notion that being a jerk makes you an effective manager may explain a lot of things. Like Enron.
The second problem is that there is a much more obvious explanation for why most bosses tend to act like jerks. They're over their heads. Most negative behaviors are defensive behaviors to cover up for the fact that things are out of control. Most people never receive any trainign in leadership. In fact they don't receive much traning in the mnagement tasks they have to do. They're just promoted until they reach a level where their dysfunction is so severe only a moron would promote them any higher. And a few of them work for morons.
Imagine a person in a boss role who happens to be splendidly equipped for that role. He has strong people and communication skills, a knack for organization, a good knowledge of the field he is working in as well as management techniques. Is he likely to be a jerk?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
See The Godfather parts 1 and 2 for a fine illustration of this principle at work.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
A few secrets:
- Management typically sees engineers as a means to an end, and an interchangable means at that. You pay market rate for engineering and they get the job done. Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do. If you want to make money as an engineer, you do NOT do it as an employee. You do it the way lawyers do - the retainer and contract model. Engineers are STUPID for agreeing to be employees. You sold your soul (and market power) for an easy paycheque.
- Profit comes from managing capital, NOT engineering. Managers are paid more because they manage the capital. That's what makes companies work.
I don't agree with all this, but it's based on my observtions of how the world works. If you want to make money as an engineer, look at how lawyers do it. Otherwise, you better be an entrepreneur, or willing to work the corporate management ladder.
..don't panic
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Management typically sees engineers as a means to an end, and an interchangable means at that. You pay market rate for engineering and they get the job done. Engineers do NOT make companies money - products do. If you want to make money as an engineer, you do NOT do it as an employee. You do it the way lawyers do - the retainer and contract model. Engineers are STUPID for agreeing to be employees. You sold your soul (and market power) for an easy paycheque.
There's a lot to be said for stability if you can find it. When you're young and times are good, contracts and retainers serve you well. When times get leaner, or there are other priorities in life, having a secure job is a much better proposition. I think it's obvious you're young and probably don't have family commitments. I think you'll change your mind if you're ever ill for a substantial period, or have a sick child, or there's a large downturn. Summarily calling engineers who take full time paid jobs stupid is at best arrogant.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer