When I used to do the 9-5 thing, I always found success to be a matter of ‘who you know, or who you blow’. That’s probably why I wasn’t too successful in a ‘real world’ job.
I can probably guess, not knowing anything about you more than this sentence.
You probably went to work at some company and while you may have been a hard worker, you probably didn’t “fit in”. Other people seemed to be getting ahead through their relationships with management or whatever “inner circle” existed there, while you did not have the same opportunities. Eventually you probably got frustrated and left. Maybe you were told you had a “bad attitude” which seems to be the usually blanket euphemism for “you aren’t really doing anything wrong, we just don’t like you.”
I’ve had this job. It’s a “dream job” for about 10 minutes, then you get so bored slitting your wrists seems like a good idea because at least it would be interesting.
You have my sympathies.
The main problem with work is that there’s this overwhelmingly popular concept that Management adds value. To the extent that technical guidance for delivering expected product with regards to client requirements, it does, but that aspect of Management is not what people who hire Managers look for (nearly enough); they tend to overfocus on the Type A, domineering psychopathic Ubermensch who instills fear and loathing in their workforce, just like the good old days/good old boys system that the Manager-hirer came up through. Until this type of behavior is changed (I’m beginning to think that violence might be the only way), we’ll be complaining about the same old shit for the rest of our lives.
So, in summation, I think the question should be “What kind of job/compensation do the Type A psychopathic Ubermensch deserve, now that we’ve determined that their definition of Management is horribly inefficient and loathsome?”
Been all over the different situations presented here.
Face Time is hugely valued by far too many Managers, even over real performance. They don’t care what you’re doing or how long it takes you to do it as long as you’re there when they walk in the door and there when they walk out. That’s “dedication”.
Relationships, friendships, drinking buddies are another road that is often more highly valued by Managers than actual work. I had one IT Manager hired to build an entire department, with me the only existing person. He hired all his drinking buddies and gave them really fast promotions. Me, I got nothing. Hell, one fine and sunny day I walked past the Director’s cube to hear him lobbying to fire me on nothing more than that he didn’t like me. Turned out that he had another drinking buddy he wanted to hire. Fortunately, they didn’t let him. Six months later he left, and all his buddies started filing out the door shortly thereafter.
I think the workplace is competitive - so yes, its fair when those who accomplish more are rewarded (which often, but not always, goes with working harder). But at the same time, it SHOULD be recently competitive. Getting into Harvard 25 years ago or graduating at the top of your law school class fifteen years ago shouldn’t give you an advantage today against people who are currently performing at your level. Having done one kick ass project ten years ago shouldn’t put you in the vice president’s chair today (unless, maybe, you are the guy that invented Post It Notes - that level of contribution may be rewarded by an emeritus type position).
I can’t speak to the types of Managers you have worked with, but I can tell you that I am NOT a Type A personality, nor domineering. I am a Pyschopath so you do have me there 
But I am a lovable pyschopath and my teams like me.
However you do seem to labor under the impression that everything would work dandy without managers. Do you honestly believe that? I have worked with people who would sit at a desk all day and watch the screen collect dust without someone assigning them as task to do and a time limit to do that task. They take no initiative to do something, nor do they have the ability to look at the broader aspect of their work. So you think that a team of those folks would function well without management? How would things get done? Who would meet a schedule if one didn’t exist? You seem to labor under the illusion that an employer pays someone to sit there–when you are employed you have a specific job to do, that is what you get paid for.
Some people are great planners, some are great ‘big picture’ people, some are wonderful at finding the seam through paperwork to get the task accomplished, some are great at handling multiple task at the same time and falter when you give them too little to do, some need constant reassurance that they are doing a great job, some resent that and want you to go away and let them do their job, some people work great from 9 to 6 whereas others are more productive from 5am to 3, and then there are those who can’t find their way back to their desks after going to the toilet.
A manager (at least a good manager) finds a way to harness all those different talents for the employer (you recall the reason you go to work?) and makes the team productive and a fun and exciting place to work. I don’t disagree that there are shitty managers out there just as their are shitty employees–that is part of the work force. Any given office some of the people graduated at the bottom of their class and some at the top. It is a hodge podge.
If a manager isn’t listening to his staff he probably is doing a poor job and isn’t really sure of what he is supposed to do in my opinion. He likely was elevated to his level of incompetence. But to broadbrush all managers like you did here is insulting and shows a lack of understanding of the importance of that role.
My wife is an excellent manager, she is in the final stages of a very difficult project that she has handled extremely well. She is getting kudos up and down the chain of command and that includes those below her. She created a work plan that outlined everything that needed to happen on this project, the timeline when it had to happen and the key people needed to make those things happen at the right time. The last time a project of this scope went out the Manager had a short written guideline to assist him and the project failed miserably, huge time delays, huge customer revolt, etc. This time–NONE of that. Do you think that just happened by itself? Or maybe you could be so generous as to give the Project Manager (the lovely and beautiful Bin-Gay who posts occasionally here) some credit for her work?
Yeah, sorry to paint with a broad brush; you and your wife sound like the kinds of managers that are sorely needed, but are rarer than they should be.
My perception is colored by the fact that I’ve been a government (or utility) contractor for most of my career. Of course you might think that I was carping about the government folks, but actually it’s the contractor managers who fit the description at least as often as them. The thicker the carpet, the worse it is. Line managers/project managers aren’t usually as prone to be infantile psychos, as they’ve got actual work to do.
ETA: Your last paragraph is actually music to my ears…I’m a scheduler…
I guess I am not following - the only thing that matters is results. I don’t care how hard you worked - frankly I want to hear if you figured out a way to deliver great results and spend time on the golf course or whatever.
Get me the freakin’ results. When someone comes to me with an “I work hard” issue - we talk about results and what choices they need to make differently in order to work smarter and how they need to own their work/life balance and demonstrate to me that they are making smart choices - obviously if they are prioritizing well, making smart choices and still up against a wall, then that must be addressed. But that is rarely the solution the first time out when a person comes to me - by a long shot.
Well, given that I am a manager and spend most of my time in meetings with other managers, directors and VPs discussing ideas for things that we never do, it’s hard to disagree with this.:dubious:
In reality though, your attitude is typical of someone very young (and thus junior in an organization) or someone who works in a sort of environment where “management” is a firmly distinct class from “labor” (ie most blue collar or low level service and secretarial jobs).
The purpose of “management” is to provide direction and guidance to the employees so the work they perform is consistant with the goals and objectives of the company or division (as defined by the executives). When you have management that does not do that effectively (as is the case of my job), you end up with people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and nothing to do.
Very few people get promoted to Vice President of a division if they went to Harvard a quarter of a century ago and did nothing in between. What generally happens is that going to a school like Harvard opens doors and contacts that are not available to what is an initially qualified candidate. Those doors, in turn, open more doors until 25 years later, your Harvard guy is that much further ahead.
One thing is clear to me though. In my current job of having not a lot to do, it will take me a hell of a lot longer to be recognized as someone who is deserving of promotions than it would take me in my last job running multiple project teams 70 hours a week.
And when that happens its fine, but at the same time I’ve know a few bitter Ivy League or former top performers who complain about what they did 25 years ago NOT getting them ahead. Its the same gripe as “he got ahead and I didn’t” - but there is the added “and I went to HAAARVARD!” to the whine. i.e. going to Harvard and then taking two hour lunches and coming in half an hour after everyone else gets you sitting at the same management meeting with the guy who went to the University of Idaho and comes in late and takes a two hour lunch. And the University of Alabama guy who is working his ass off - he might be your boss - despite your Ivy League degree.
Sure you can, if your firm operates on a flat-fee basis. My old firm did for the vast majority of its work (projects that basically required predictable expenditures of time). I loved it - I could kick some billing ass, because I knew how to get the stuff done efficiently. And I could still go home at a reasonable hour.
And there you would be wrong. My attitude towards (certain types of) managers is earned though 20 plus years of direct experience. I am a senior, well-enumerated professional. It is not only possible, but actually not uncommon, for experienced professionals to have this attitude towards “management”; titular managers that just got out of B-school and work for a consultant but aren’t anywhere near as skilled and important as they think they are are just as lame as older ones who think they can get by on sheer dominance. Parroting the management line is particularly unimpressive.
Exactly this. Good managers focus on results, and how to get them given the hand they’re dealt. The whole hero mentality is a recipe for failure. Good managers do not fall into this trap or set these types of expectations in their organization. If I hear a manager tell me everything’s under control, unless it’s a small project or he really is that good, I assume he’s not telling the whole truth. Then again, if I ask a manager a few simple questions and every one of them is met with hemming and hawing, I assume he’s out of his league. If a manager tells me about problems and shows me how his organization is going to address them, I know that his project is not as at risk as the other two.
missed the edit window…
Oh and just for the record, and to answer the OP, I certainly don’t think that stupidity or incompetence should be rewarded. But I also think that if a manager can get past their condescending attitude towards their workers, they will find that most people want to do a good job, and it takes a certain skill (the “art” of management) to bring that out. Many managers fail miserably at this, unfortunately. It could be that Manager hirers place too much emphasis on Type A characteristics, as opposed to actual skills. It may be that people from places like Harvard simply don’t have the perspective to deal with people that don’t share their values.
An Arky - You mention you have been a working professional for 20 years but am I correct in that you are not in a management position? It’s very easy to criticize management when you are an individual contributor. Everyone criticizes their manager. They think they know everything or that the boss is a pompous jerk or an idiot or whatever. Personally, I try to manage by understanding as much about the project as possible, making my people understand what’s expected in clear and certain terms and doing what it takes to make them effective. But sometimes, you get a real jerkoff and those are always tough to deal with.
You’re also talking about project managers. The guys who supervise the actual work. Once you get another level or so up you get kind of removed from the day to day of the work. It all becomes sort of theoretical and abstract. It becomes all about managing relationships and giving intelligent sounding bullshit speeches. You get these guys coming up with pie in the sky strategies and they drive everyone crazy trying to actually implement them.
You’ve been counted a lot?
The only way America can regain her former prosperity is a return to the iron, no-exceptions, Puritan work ethic. I therefore propose that anybody who cannot be a good corporate citizen be put in the stocks and pelted with rotting vegetables.
Did you actually have a serious point to add? Because the whole point of the OP is if the “good corporate citizen” is working hard and putting in the extra effort while you’re cracking wise, do you really expect that you should reap the same benefits in terms of compensation, quality of life and job satisfaction.
My general philosophy has sort of evolved to be that you bust your ass not so you can be a “good corporate citizen” but so that you have more options for deciding how you want to live your life. The lazier and more directionless you are, the more likely you will be forced into taking whatever work is available (because you have to work at something unless you are independently wealthy). And that work very well may be something you don’t want to do for someone you wouldn’t want to work for.
An Arky - Another point, there seems to be two schools of thought on picking managers. One is you grow them internally. You promote the people who are your best performers. The problem is you often run into the “Peter Principal”. Most people erroneously think that means people get promoted to their level of incompetance. What it really means is that when you take someone who is an good performer at one job and promote them, they may not have the skills to perform the new job. They way you help get around this is either through training or the second method of selecting management.
You create a class structure where your “best and brightest” come in at the higher level. The obvious downside to this is while you are hiring people specifically trained and experienced in management, you are taking away upward mobility from staff who actually performs the work. You can also create management that has no real experience or understanding of how things actually work in your organization.
Some companies do this but also have their new managers do a training rotation with the actual producers. But this leads to other problems as they are typically just there only as long as they need to be and aren’t particularly interested in those training stints.
It’s obvious where you want to take this. So let me take it there.
I work as a lawyer. I studied for 8 years at university to get the qualifications I needed to do what I do. I graduated in the top 5 in all my degrees. I do complicated work, for people who, for example, invented ways to grow human insulin on plants. In order to represent them I must understand their invention at a very deep level. In order to defend them when Dow and Monsanto come breathing down their necks, I have to be very clever.
When Mr. X of financial products Co.Y takes down 200 million in a year, as salary and bonus, do you really think he worked 1000 times harder/smarter than I did? Or did 1000 times more for the world?