The Fine Art of 'Boss Science' 209
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.'"
Conversely (Score:5, Insightful)
Works for elections too! (Score:5, Insightful)
And voters tend to see the jerk as presidential material.
What matters then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then what really does matter in the workplace?
The Enneagram (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The reason why the jerks become the bosses (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What matters then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conversely (Score:3, Insightful)
However, to more directly answer your point, smarter companies distribute managerial duties amongst a number of senior people yet still allow those people to participate in the work. Of course they need to understand that a manager does not necessarily mean a pay scale increase. Rather they need to continue to reward their productive employees with different pay scales for say engineering (apprentice, junior, blah blah blah, senior, fellow).
Re:What matters then? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
There are two problems wih that theory. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:One of the greats.. but still an @$$hole (Score:3, Insightful)
See The Godfather parts 1 and 2 for a fine illustration of this principle at work.
Re:management and pay scales (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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:Conversely (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:management and pay scales (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:management and pay scales (Score:5, Insightful)
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.