Entry 851, on 2008-09-15 at 21:18:26 (Rating 5, Comments)
I recently read an opinion by Robert X. Cringely, the well-known IT commentator, which suggested that many managers are fairly ignorant and incompetent and that, in the situation where job cuts are necessary it should be them who go, not the staff further down the hierarchy. Every situation is different and should be treated on its merits but overall I think he's right.
Why should the manager's job be cut when things go wrong? Well first, he probably gets paid as much as two or three programmers or consultants so you save more. Also he is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the organisation so why shouldn't he have to accept the consequences. Also many of them don't actually seem to do anything so whether they are there or not doesn't really matter.
Many people I talk to about this find their managers really are useless. A comment at Slashdot made one interesting point. It was this: "The very best manager you could ever have manages the people above him, not the people below him." In other words, your manager should be there to protect you against the actions of other managers.
So this seems to imply that the only purpose of managers is to protect the real workers from the idiotic ideas of other managers. Why don't we just get rid of them all? I don't know why not if all they do is sit around in meetings with other managers trying to find ways to make the people who do the real work less productive by introducing more paper work or other forms of bureaucracy.
I have heard from some people that they have good managers so I suppose that my tirade above is a bit unfair to those people who actually do a good job, but as a profession managers don't seem to get a lot of respect so maybe my criticism is justified.
You might be right saying that some managers are useless but what would happen if we had none? Why would anyone come to work and how would their pay get processed and other important management tasks happen?
Comment 2 by SBFL on 2008-09-18 at 20:22:22:
My goodness OJB, please tell me this is a satirical post!!
Assuming it is not, can I ask you a question? Have you ever been a manager, and if so, in what capacity?
I have no idea how you came to your interpretation of the Slashdot comment. Quite bizarre.
Your tirade is so insane I don't have the effort to break it down. But what I will say is that your attitude is very typical of that of unionists - establishing an "us and them" mentality, putting up barriers, playing the victim, quoting extreme examples. Yes there are poor performing managers out there, just like there are poor performing programmers, poor performing consultants etc. And you will find managers are also in the firing line for job losses, especially in recent times when more flat structures are preferred by companies.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2008-09-18 at 22:04:15:
Ah no, sorry to say I am fairly serious (although I recognise I am raving against the worst cases and that good managers probably exist somewhere). The weird thing is that people who defend managers are often enthusiastic about ridding the world of what they see as useless bureaucrats elsewhere but can't see that a significant proportion of managers could be described this way.
I have never really been a manager although I have managed small projects and had informal control of some staff on occasions. Whenever the subject arises I say that I would have no respect for myself if I was one!
How would you interpret the comment?
Well the us and them attitude is already there and is very strongly encouraged by management. I think many workers would respond to a more balanced interaction between management and other staff but I guess its up to management to implement that!
Comment 4 by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 20:51:48:
Heh, I would see bureaucrats more akin to consultants, but unnecessary middle managers can join that group as well. Efficient private companies will generally remove any abundance of middle managers, not so sure I could say the same thing about the civil service.
Let me give you a real (but thankfully not everyday) example. A worker on some machinery deliberately doesn't follow safety procedures and accidentally kills himself in the workplace. While he is responsible for his actions, the managers above him in his line all the way to the CEO/MD are accountable. What they now face is immense pressure and stress: informing and dealing with the workers family, the investigations, the fallout, the media, the Dept of Labour etc etc. Being able to cope with a situation like this and handle it well takes a certain set of skills; and it's usually an ability one can't learn in the classroom. Generally speaking, part of their income reflects their level in this skill.
I don't see how the Slashdot comment has anything to do with protecting the employees lower down the ladder. My interpretation would be that a good manager is able to influence the influential (managers above him) which would give him a greater impact (in whatever he wanted to achieve) than if he just bothered with the proletariat!
What rag have you been reading lately? Pray tell me what motive there is for management to "very strongly encourage" and 'us and them' culture.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 14:38:07:
Having worked in private companies and at a University I don't think the management are really much different. And this idea that companies will always remove useless staff to become more efficient is a bit simplistic.
So the worker does the work and risks death and a manager risks some minor inconvenience due to having to investigate the accident. Yes, I can see why the manager gets paid the big dollars for that!
I guess we are both saying the same thing. I'm putting a negative spin on it and you are pretending managers live in that happy world where everything works the way it should!
Managers need power over others. Clearly they can't have this if they treat the workers as equals. They also need to stay separate from workers so their incompetence and laziness isn't revealed to all (OK, I know, an extreme case there).
Comment 6 by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 20:16:47:
My goodness, you're accusing me of being simplistic!! Why don't you try re-reading your original post? I would say you took my bait on that one.
Touche! I guess I shouldn't have used the workplace death example though in my defence I did say "...deliberately doesn't follow safety procedures". Funnily enough looks like the Fonterra directors are in need of safekeeping now!
Actually my interpretation of the Slashdot comment was neither in favour or against managers. I am just trying to understand what they guy meant by what he said.
My goodness (again!) - you actually believe that is the reason for an 'us and them' culture, that it is of the managers doing (predominantly)? I'm sure there are plenty of power-hungry managers that like to feel self-important, but lets talk general terms here.
I am surprised a person as intelligent as you forms this opinion (referring to the original post really, not just this point). One has to wonder where you get the empirical evidence!
Comment 7 by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 20:50:37:
I'm not sure what your background is. Maybe you are a manager yourself or don't work in a large organisation. Most people I know who do work in large organisations with extensive management structures find it very frustrating and do have difficulty figuring out what the management really do. Of course, I have been deliberately provocative and exaggerated things a bit here.
Comment 8 by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 21:34:57:
Let's put it this way, I've spent may years on both sides of the fence.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 22:05:16:
Are you, or were you ever, a manager in a large organisation?
Comment 10 by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 23:14:50:
Yes, I am. A useful one I hope, not useless!
Comment 11 by OJB on 2008-09-21 at 11:33:19:
Well of course you think you're useful! All managers think they are useful. Who knows, maybe you are. I guess there are some good managers around or things would be even less efficient than they already are!
Comment 12 by SBFL on 2008-09-21 at 12:20:34:
Try not to take me too seriously there. Generally all people think they are right, but often that's not the case. It's also convenient for people to blame their leaders when things don't go right for themselves, whether it's warranted or not.
I have to say that even Chris Trotter and Matt McCarten on a particularly bad mood day wouldn't have written the radical comments you did in this post. I'm sure even they realise that "uselessness" is a trait found at all levels in an organisation.
Comment 13 by OJB on 2008-09-21 at 17:13:19:
Yes, I agree with most of that: it is convenient to blame "leaders" when its often not their fault, and you are totally correct that uselessness exists at all levels: 90% of everything is crap (Sturgeon's first law).
But my contention is that the very profession of manager itself is useless, or at least it is in its modern form. So that goes beyond a certain percentage of individuals in that profession being useless, they are all (by definition) useless! (I did mention I'm being provocative here, right).
John Ralston Saul wrote some interesting stuff on this subject. I'll see if I can find a reference (unless you are already with it).
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE