"Management screwed up"?
Nov. 30th, 2006 12:33 pmI have heard plenty of stories from friends or acquaintances about working at places that could have been stellar, but everything went to hell because people in management were a bunch of wankers.
I've never heard any stories of things being the other way around: management was great, and they almost did some spectacular things, but all they had to work with were a bunch of incompetent slacker jerkoffs, so nothing good ever came of it.
I'm wondering why that is.
There are a number of possibilities:
Confirmation bias -- complaining about your supervisor is socially approved; complaining about underlings is not.
Something else entirely.
Several or all of the above.
What's your experience? I'm curious to know what people think.
I've never heard any stories of things being the other way around: management was great, and they almost did some spectacular things, but all they had to work with were a bunch of incompetent slacker jerkoffs, so nothing good ever came of it.
I'm wondering why that is.
There are a number of possibilities:
- Sampling bias -- both situations are equally common, but I don't know the right people to hear the stories about good management, lousy workers.
- Observation bias -- people blame bad management when things go to hell because it's visible, even though the root causes are often something difference
- It's accurate, in which case there are a number of different possible reasons:
- It happens for structural reasons -- hierarchy magnifies the effects of any individual manager's failings, while minimizing the individual weaknesses of the rank-and-file.
- It's an intertial effect -- the higher up someone is, the harder it is to replace them if they do badly.
- It's rooted in corporate culture -- people who are good at their jobs get promoted until they're not good at them, and the upward path generally leads to management.
- It's a personality thing -- wankers are attracted to positions in management.
- Other reasons.
- It happens for structural reasons -- hierarchy magnifies the effects of any individual manager's failings, while minimizing the individual weaknesses of the rank-and-file.
What's your experience? I'm curious to know what people think.