And you could have just as easily had a shitty teacher fresh out of college. Anecdotal information about the “Oh Captain My Captain” experiences doesn’t help.
Very few people would say in any other industry that a single example of a good hire with no training or experience means that the entire industry should move to hiring people with no training and no experience. But in the educational field, it’s encouraged.
I walked the halls of Scholastic with a fucking flamethrower.
When told by one of my managers I seemed “Very comfortable thinking outside the box” I replied “Thats because you didn’t budget me a box”
To be fair, there’s also a time when senior management and everyone else gets locked into “THIS is our core competency”, when in fact, that’s just the business and product they’ve been in for 20 years.
I worked for a place like this that made electronic testing equipment from scratch- we designed circuit boards, we had mechanical engineers who designed the testing enclosures, we had a software engineering team that wrote the software, and we even had a machine shop to fabricate custom parts.
We could have done almost anything, but our management was absolutely convinced that we made electronic testing equipment, and that was our core competency. In fact, we could have made all sorts of stuff, and only a small (20) or so segment of our engineers and salesmen would have been out of jobs.
When the Koreans and Chinese reverse engineered our equipment, and items like processors and memory quit being extensively tested, the bottom fell out of the burn-in and test business, and the company went under, despite having all that capability.
All because the senior management didn’t have the vision to branch out.
There is substantial evidence that neither experience in the education field, nor even education degrees, actually does anythying much for improving teacher success. Teaching is ultimately a human skill, part of what most people do. And the people who get Masters in Education are not even remotely the same set as those who do well teaching. In fact, you’re flat wrong: you’re more likely to get a good teacher who’s just some kid straight outa college than if you draw the 20-year veteran.
You know, I just don’t believe this. Not for a second.
My daughter just started Grade 1, so I’ve had the opportunity to meet her new teacher and visit her classroom. I will say with complete sincerity and total conviction that teaching a Grade 1 class absolutely is NOT something “most people” can do, is not a naturally held skill, and IS something that must be learned. I find it preposterous to think you could teach that class just because you have a “human skill.” It appears to me to be a very complicated job with a hell of a lot of acquired skills.
I’m a pretty smart guy but there’s not a chance in hell I could teach that class with 1/20th the effectiveness of my daughter’s teacher. Not a chance in hell.
People who look at jobs and say “anyone can do that” don’t understand the job.
And frankly, I think this is true of management, too. You guys think it’s easy? Give it a shot. You’ll find out how easy it isn’t.
You’re both right. Most people are totally capable of imparting some level of knowledge or skill to someone–if you’ve helped a pre-schooler say the alphabet or showed him how to tie his shoes, or trained someone on how to use a piece of equipment, or explained to someone at the track what the little notations in the program mean, you’ve taught somebody something. It’s something we all do, and it’s largely intuitive.
What is not largely intuitive is carrying on that process with 30 people at once when most of them have totally different goals from yours, when 1/4 of them are talking or writing notes to one another, 1/4 of them are pinching/poking/flicking/shoving each other, and another 1/4 are busy picking their noses/eating paste/chewing the erasers off their pencils/daydreaming. There are a lot of acquired skills that go into just keeping all that from affecting the 1/4 who are actually interested in learning what you have to teach, much less trying to bring any of the 3/4 into the fold.
That’s true, but my point is that it can’t be taught. Anyone can teach, some can teach ina classroom, and that particular skill doesn’t really follow degrees or years of experience.
Wow I disagree with that completely. Class management skills are not something that everyone can learn but they are definitely teachable.
I wasn’t talking about teacher success, I was talking about the educational system. And I won’t even bother addressing the wrongness of the rest of your statements.
If anyone is reading this, I assure you that processors and memory is still extensively tested. The ATE business is indeed consolidating, but the problem isn’t that we don’t test any more.
The board manufacturing business is in the crapper also, at least as compared to the good old days when big companies did it in house.
Yes, someday, you too will be made a senior manager. But you have to work on your skills at identifying the limits of the envelope. Once you master that box, the world is your pancake, or something like that. Here’s your promotion, don’t spend it all in one place, and shit…
One of the problems with gaining power is understanding your limits and creating your own filters.
I have had supervisor level people get crazy with power and assume that all the rules of behavior and treating people go out the window because they are the ones in charge.
I’ve seen people hold to limits and filters until they got to a level where they thought those unnecessary.
I’ve seen far too many specific examples where bad ideas that would otherwise be filtered out by the rest of the organization or by a person’s peers and superiors get implemented because no one is going to tell Joe Bossman that his stupid clueless command is just that. I’ve seen plenty of those blow up in their face, and just as many of those be blamed on everyone BUT the clueless boss who demanded the changes in the first place.
So why does Joe Bossman look like a clueless senior management fuck? Because he isn’t being properly filtered by the organization.
I am finding this thread interesting - a few thoughts:
I think the main conclusion coming out of this thread is: being a senior manager must be very hard to do, because most of you think that most of them are getting it wrong.
“senior manager” is a very tough in-between place - more than a tactical manager, but not quite a full-on business leader.
The transition from Manager to Leader is hard. Managers oversee the execution of plans created by others; Leaders create plans. Executing a plan is NOT necessarily an indicator that you can create a plan. Also, being the bridge/interpreter between a plan creator and a bunch of manager/executors is hard.
Being a Leader introduces far more complexity and risk to your decision-making processes. The managers who report up to a Leader often don’t have an appreciation for the risks and complexities that inform some decisions - and some Leaders are not effective at laying out their case - so the Leader thinks they have struck a thoughtful path through a tough issue while their managers think the leader is an idiot who has not made the “obvious” decision, i.e., just backed the managers’ agenda.
There are a whole lot of reasons why threads like this crop up regularly…
My $.02
This reminded me of a case where the problems we had didn’t come from the top, but from somewhere in the middle.
Mind you, this was a corporation with so many subsidiaries (1) and organizational levels that people would play “how many companies do the people in our team work for?” over coffee breaks. In any case, the company has three subgroups, each of which has a different stock market code. Let’s call them Eng. Inc., Chem. Inc. and IT Inc.
Eng. Inc. was the origin of the company. At one point, they decided that being in Engineering Design and in Construction Subcontracting is nice and all, but it depends too much on Construction being strong, so they branched into the Chemical sector (this wasn’t as crazy as it may sound). Eventually, they realized that their IT contractors were mainly agents, “meat market vendors”, and created their own IT branch.
The top of the company knows that the three businesses are different; that their processes are different; that you can more-or-less shove the IT part into the same mold as the engineering part, but the chemical factories are a completely different animal. In fact, they went into those chemical businesses because they are completely different.
The ones who are a royal pain in the ass about wanting the chemical factories which work 24/7 making the same item by the megaton to do things in the exact same way as the project-based engineering group are the “internal auditors”. No, a magnets factory does not work like building a bridge, damnit!
What I would have given for a chance to grab the General Manager’s ear… sadly, the ones with that access were my bosses and they didn’t have the cojones to say “dude, your dogs don’t understand their job” 
1: In Spain and for several different reasons, you run into a lot of corporations which, from a legal point of view, aren’t a single entity but an enormous bag full of tiny subsidiaries. The guys from Costing hate all the rearranging this involves, but as one put it, “it sure keeps the work coming”.
Of course it can. I’ve watched my mother teach classroom management skills to lots of newbies over the years. Some folks have more natural aptitude and/or willingness and ability to learn than others, though. Same as any other skill.
An article about why jerks get promoted into management jobs:
High-level managers only like to listen to people who Know Stuff. My employer recently spent non-trivial amounts of money hiring outside consultants and engineers to do the usual improving efficiency, streamlining, and such things.
The sad thing is, 90% of what they came up with were <i>exactly what all of us who work there have been saying for years.</i> But of course when we’ve said these things, they’re ignored at any level above our immediate supervisors. I can seriously picture a very Dilbert-esque PHB in some office saying “Ooh, they’re ENGINEERS! THEY KNOW THINGS! Let’s do what they say!”
Multiple times in my IT time I had to fight the Auditors. I was always told I couldn’t win that battle, yet given a little bit of time, I won every time. I just had to present my case clearly enough.
“You can no longer be allowed to have access to production data”
But I’m the day-to-day IT support for that process
“But the data is confidential and you can’t have it”
Ok, so when we make a change to the production code and you want to test it side by side with the current code, what are you going to do?
“We’ll have to create test datasets”
That’s all well and good, but how will you be 100% certain that the new process comes out with the same numbers over millions of records, sufficient to certify it’s accuracy to replace the mission critical program involving $7 billion in funds and SEC oversight?
(long pause)
“Um, we’ll run it side by side with the current program, like you said”
I thought so. So you’ll be telling the Auditors to fuck off then?
“Yes”
Good. Anything else they said I can’t do that I have to explain otherwise?
“No, that will be all”
I wish it were true, but all I see, in the media as well as personal former colleagues is:
tens/ hundreds/ thousands of normal employees are laid off when the company is driven against the wall by dumb manager’s decisions, and months and years later still have no new job because of lousy economy
the same senior managers who caused half a dozen companies to crash already keep getting one new job after the other.
Oh, and even those few who “loose their trophy wife and can’t find a job and look all pathetic” - they still refuse to see how it’s their own fault. It’s them who are okay and did their job well, and the rest of the world was so mean to them, and they don’t deserve this hardship at all.
I was about to post…well, essentially this. If I hear everyone agreeing that ‘this is our core competency’ I get very, very nervous - it usually means we’re focusing on the Thing That Was Important Five Years Ago.
I left a particular company in the early/mid 90s just as they were trying to sign a global printing deal. In other words, one company would handle the global hard-copy print run for thousands of clients world-wide, including shipping, different language etc. It was a very extensive and expensive contract, lasting at least 3 years at several million dollars a year. Several of us on the team were pointing to this new ‘PDF’ format that could be sent out by something called ‘email’.
That company lost a major chunk of time and money by getting locked in to a hard-copy printing contract just as everyone started going to email. At the time, ‘hard-copy printing is our core competency’ was completely correct - but far too short-sighted.
I’ve had crap bosses with great front-line experience. I’ve had good bosses with zero relevant front-line experience. I don’t think it really hinders nor helps except I suppose in specialized cases. No, more important I think is general managerial skills + broader industry knowledge to understand what core competencies are and when they should change.
I think part of the problem is that too many people are promoted precisely because they have the ‘front line experience’ but without actual managerial experience, and very little experience or aptitude for the broader strategic thinking needed to be effective in senior management.