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.'"

Comments

Conversely

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Conversely

[mdkess]

I think one of the big issues with this is that becoming a manager is the only way that an employee can advance their career. So when your brilliant engineer decides that he needs more money, his or her only option is to go into management, and the company ends up losing a talented engineer and ends up with a bad manager who probably wishes they could be an engineer again, and all of a sudden doesn't like his job anymore. Also, you might have an average engineer who would be a great manager, but the system fails again in this regard because this guy won't get noticed.

Re:Conversely

[BWJones]

Sure, you can do that and sleep like a baby...

Or, you can stay far enough in front that nobody else knows or is ready for what you are doing. Admittedly this is easier in the hard core sciences (where I live). When you start making widgets or providing services, all bets are off here.

And what's more, once someone starts bending the rules, everybody *has* to do the same or be left behind to shrivel and die.

Alternatively, you could act in an honorable manner and expect, no demand that those companies who work with you/for you/supply to you also act with honesty and respect for their employees and customers.

Yes it would be nice if the world was fair. It might even be the sign that we're a civilised society. However currently the world is what it is (i.e. certainly not fair at all) and that is one of the most important lessons to be learned, bitter as it is.

This is the problem we are currently facing with big business and politics. Everybody has come to expect that our politicians and industry leaders are pathological liars with no ability or willingness to do the right thing. Is this acceptable? If we accept this, does it mean the fall of our culture/civilization? The USA is only a couple hundred years old you know...

On a side note, it might be useful to remember that the legal system doesn't have anything to do with being fair.

Funny, in civics class back in high school and college, fairness was what we were taught the legal system was all about. The establishment of rules and laws that enabled the Constitutional structure that this country was built upon.

Would you expect physics to be fair ?

Physics is what it is... A set of rules and laws that govern a reasonable set of expectations that are set in a framework of understanding. Law should be like that, but we have this little notion called free will. Humans fsck it all up, but physics itself is pure. The trick is that humans can be punished when they violate cultural laws while physicists are celebrated for violating physical laws.

Re:Conversely

[Dun Malg]

People are trained from the cradle onwards to compete against against one another, never to cooperate. That's not actually true. People are taught to cooperate for most of their formative years. Cooperate with your team, compete against the other guy's team. This is as old as the cavemen. Our tribe good, their tribe bad. It can be seen at scales from "family" to "nation". Seriously, haven't you ever met one of those creepy fucks who've been taught by their sicko parents to "win at all costs"? Full of anger and jealousy at the slightest victory by someone else? That's what someone "trained from the cradle onwards to compete" looks like.

Works for elections too!

[Hoi Polloi]

"employees tend to see the jerk as boss material."

And voters tend to see the jerk as presidential material.

What matters then?

[touch0phgmail.com]

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?

Re:What matters then?

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Getting shit done.

Some people can get shit done without working really hard.

Some people work really hard and never seem to get anything done.

Which would you rather employ?

It depends upon the job.

[khasim]

Heros I can take working for me. They tend to work very hard, are people pleasers and can often be trusted (they make good classified materials risks).

Those aren't the heros I was referring to. I'm talking about the ones who skip steps that they know aren't needed ... and then show everyone how great they are when they fix the problems. Even though those problems would have been caught earlier or prevented if all the steps had been followed. On the other hand, heros make good firefighters (real ones, who put out real fires).

These people I *don't* want to work with. They are always sabotaging productivity in the name of something happening where they are at the center of attention.

Drama r0xx0r in advertising and entertainment and fashion and so forth. If you're doing tech, drama SUCKS!

Fine, but allow them the opportunity to see failure as a learning experience.

:D
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 ... but then doesn't try to look at the "jerk's" relationship with those other types. What happens when you have two narcissistics on a team? They can't BOTH be the boss. What if you have two assholes? Two jerks? THREE?

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).

Re:management and pay scales

[xtal]

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.

Re:management and pay scales

[syousef]

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.