Management

Posted on 2004/11/09 11:55:41 (November 2004) by john.

The dead weight holding back industrial progress in the western world.

Since the dawn of time humans have been gregarious creatures; as we evolved from the primates, for many thousands of years we stuck to our tribal groupings. Still today traces of this old pack mentality can be observed. Most animals in nature, unless they are generally solitary, don't function too well as autonomous collectives (spot the deliberate error here, solitary creatures of course do not form collectives). So typically some kind of hierarchy has to be imposed on these groupings to maintain some kind of order, and thus in human tribes, much the same as troupes of other primates, dominating figures would emmerge.

In more primitive times, and among less evolved species, the pack leader is likely to be the strongest, and would have quite literally fought their way to the top. Despite not being an anthorpologist, it seems obvious to me that as our species relied more on its intelligence, rather than its physical attributes, to prosper, the pack leader would perhaps tend more towards the best thinker or the most charismatic member of the group. Indeed, one might even argue that without our society having rewarded these more modern leadership traits (intelligence and charisma) such individuals may have not been so likely to contribute toward the gene pool, and our race may not have become more intelligent and sociable as a whole.

Nowadays it seems natural for most of our society's hierarchical structures to bear some kind of analogy to these ancient instinctive role assignments. We would like to think that nowadays the roles of individuals are decided more as a matter of group consensus, rather than purely individual ambition. Whether or not this is actually true, remains a different matter, but we have at least distanced ourselves slightly from the days when the pack leader was determined by finding out who could tear the most flesh off his rivals, with his bare teeth.

So typically we'd like to think, as a society, that we assign people to roles based on their aptitude, and this is of course the most basic of common sense. Politicians are an obvious example. Prior to an election, a politician attempts to woo us into voting for him or her, by telling us what their policies will be should they win. We then, supposedly, chose the person we find most intelligent and charismatic. I mean god forbid any country should elect a head of state who is both famously stupid and globally hated. Errrr... But I digress, if nothing else, successful politicians do have some kind of ability, the ability of fooling us into voting for them. I guess that has to count for something.

So, I will finally get to my point - the world of business, and - gasp - managers. Scott Adams, author of Dlibert, famously pointed out that, as a general rule, managers are promoted for their ineptitude. This flies in the face of everything nature has taught us: natural selection, survival of the fittest and so on. Anyone who is actually good at doing their job is almost certainly required to continue doing that job, so will never be promoted to management. Any company will, generally, consider it needs some managers, and now and again, so as not to offend the masses by bringing in someone from the outside, will attempt to promote from the ranks. Given that, in terms of the skills deficit it will create, this kind of promotion is effectively akin to firing someone, they're not going to "promote"* the most talented individuals are they?

* For "promote" read: stop them being able to provide a service to the company which is actually of some use.

Perhaps in more of a manufacturing environment the model works. Where you have hundreds or thousands of people in a factory, doing a job (let's say packing toilet roll) which is essentially unskilled, then there is no loss in taking one person away from the production line to put them in a management job, as those skills (or lack thereof) are easily replaced. Plus it makes sense that in a large workforce, employed fairly indiscriminately as regards qualifications, there will occasionally crop up the odd bright spark who has an aptitude for leadership.

However, this scenario is often not the case in modern businesses in the western world today. Typically we provide "soft services" nowadays, where the skill level required by individual employees is much higher, and the workforce is much smaller. We're still hanging on to the old fashioned desire to be "promoted" up from the new equivalent of the shop floor, but this simply cannot work - not everyone can become a manager. However, pay scales, benefits and the level of respect continue to enforce the belief that this is what you should be aiming at.

So in my opinion, part of the problem lies in the fact that management is considered a promotion - an elevated status. Given the fact that the truly skilled workers are the people who are really making the company work, and that, as already pointed out, managers are often people incapable of doing the job they originally applied for, this simply doesn't make sense any more. Giving prestige and higher renumeration to management is ultimately a waste of money, a poor strategic decision, and a constant kick in the teeth for those at the other end of the scale, the highly skilled workers who are harder to find in the first place, and ultimately more important to hang on to.

A far better model would be to have management as something akin to admin staff or receptionists. The people who answer the phones at a company need to know which deparment does what, in order to work out where to direct incoming queries to. Managers are really not so different to this are they? They don't ever actually do anything useful or productive themselves, they simply pass tasks on to other people to work on. At best we might consider them as assistants or agents to the real skilled individuals, but certainly not as personnel with a higher standing or worthy of a higher income.

Remember, a company could still work with only its skilled staff, and no management (albeit perhaps in a more disorganised fasion), but what exactly would it get done if it only had the managers...?

The modern world of business is something of a mess - who do you know that hasn't at some point complained about their company? Consider The Office - Ricky Gervais wasn't exactly short for material was he?

...and the reason? Because it has all been turned on its head. We are rewarding ineptitude and incompetence, and ignoring skill and real ability. Make managers lowly paid lackeys to their highly skilled worker counterparts, and you'll see a massive improvement.

don't hold back, will you.

Posted by hmmm at 2004/11/09 13:52:25.

Nope, no intention of holding back. It has been a while since the last decent rant, and I sort of feel like I've come home again now.

Posted by John at 2004/11/09 14:02:44.

The Management has duly taken onboard the comments that have been pointed out, and as such, the current status-quo visa-vi the manager-employee working model will be discussed at an up coming managers meeting. Hopefully we can therefore syndicate any potential threats to the relationships paridigms between afore-mentioned parties.

signed
The Management

Posted by The Management at 2004/11/09 17:22:03.

Managers. Sigh.

Posted by tom at 2004/11/09 21:40:00.

You might also be amused by the Peter Principle, a very old concept documented in business.

The Peter Principle basically says that, if people get promoted as a reward for doing their job well, then logically they will stop being promoted at the point where they stop doing their job well. Thus the promotion system works to match each employee with the lowest ranking job that they are NOT capable of doing.

Posted by Mark at 2004/11/09 23:50:04.

I always move jobs if someone mentions "management potential". That way I get a whole bunch of new people to fool for a while.... ;-)

Posted by tom at 2004/11/10 13:43:47.

John, because your post is poorly structured, so is mine.

"They don't EVER actually do anything useful or productive themselves..." - JH

The definition of manager is essentially; someone to organise work to be done by someone else. A manager of a kitchen for instance. A good manger doesn’t strictly need to be disciplined or competent in the technical aspects of the job they might preside.

The fact people often feel they could do the job better, and are more valuable than their boss, is what drives us all on to bigger and better things.

Usually, managers are paid more because the job is more stressful and harbours greater responsibility. What is the point in doing a job (for the same money) which is not as good a job as the one you’re leaving?

If you didn’t have ‘managers’, you would have chaos. Who would handle the personnel issues? Try not to prejudice your opinion based on limited resent experience.

“Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

“Water finds it’s own level”.

Posted by Karl at 2004/11/11 22:50:16.

There are certain necessary evils, for example: Sales. Have you ever tried to 'design' the kind of company you'd like to work in? Its well difficult.

Posted by dsp at 2004/11/15 17:09:14.

Ahhh, I remember the "Peter Principle" !! Inverted pyramids and so on...

I like the other well-known office phrase - "Meetings - the satisfying alternative to work."

Trouble is John, you're a bright, intelligent, programmer-type person with a brain and a viewpoint. A lot of people do not have your skills. Who is to lead them?

Trying to be politically correct about it is hard - but some people *need* leading. True, those that lead are inherently the ones least suited to do it!

I've recently moved from a hands-on IT role to a public-facing role (not promotion!) and so relinquishing my hold on the techy side.

I was told at a recent promotion-panel that my skills were too specialised to give me the background I needed for said promotion. So I wasn't going to get any (couched in more conciliatory words of course).

Time is marching on (ok, I'm getting old!) I took things in to my own hands and moved away. Trouble is I then lose my "currency" of knowledge. (though forgetting about IP, wiring and UNIX has its attractions!)

I suspect that you might feel that *you* would make a good manager because you have a lot of good ideas. Well my own view from personal experience is that the "powers that be" don't always share your view.

I guess the best way to meet all ends is to set up business on your own...

Phew! That was deep. Where's mi coffee...!

Posted by Nigel at 2004/11/16 10:52:49.

Oi, Timmy, what's wrong with SALES!?

Anyways, I guess Karl is right, the problem is that managers are there to coordinate the job to be done, and effectively they do not need to know the job precisely. What is required from them is interpersonal skills, organization skills and sometimes the guts to deny a request from a worker...

Posted by Lox at 2004/11/27 08:18:24.

Just thought I'd respond, albeit a bit late now, to John's original article. In fact, the views expressed are so close to some of what I've been saying in relation to the restructure of my own organisation that the person bringing it to my attention wondered if I'd been writing under a pseudonym. Although I do take on board some of what is said by others who have responded about the coordinating role of management, fundamentally John is spot on. Nice to know I'm not alone!

Posted by David at 2005/02/14 24:23:34.

Post a comment