Please tell me this is crazy....
This isn't in the Wall Street Journal itself, it was in a WSJ blog:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/04/16/how-bosses-stay-in-charge
There is a lot of what seems like galactically stupid advice:
Only give simple, easy-to-follow orders, because you don't want employees to undermine your authority.
Don't hire people smarter than you. The boss should be 20% smarter than the employee.
Tell workers that "it's company policy." It's always easier to refer to requirements from HQ.
You have no way to deal with an employee who isn't sufficiently deferential. And deference is the most important thing a boss gets.
And bonuses and raises - it's most important to be fair to everybody. Employees who are doing a good job should be a raise or a bonus, or they'll be unhappy.
The bottom line is that the main thing a manager needs to do is bolster their authority.
Wow.
Just to pick one item: I look for people who are smarter than me. Everybody on my team that I've picked (I inherited some of them) is better at something than I am. That's why I picked them. I've picked three people who were better managers than me, and sent them off to run their own teams. I pick software guys who are better and faster than me, and ask them to do spectacular things. I expect people to do complex, complicated things on their own, with little more than an objective and a need date. Somehow, I still manage to get results.
What was I thinking?
md-144
Yes it is crazy.
This article does a great job of stereotyping those manager who think of themselves in terms of being the BOSS, it’s all about the authority. The managers in companies who are most successful are the opposite of the BOSS, they are LEADERS. True LEADERS aren't afraid to hire intelligent, motivated, overqualified employees who expect to be paid based on a meritocracy. They realize the value added by an employee who can follow complex orders rather than having to be continually given orders in a serial fashion to complete a complex process. LEADERS don’t rely on being seen as a rigid authoritarian rule enforcer in order to manage their staff, they rely on being flexible enough to move forward with solutions that provide benefits to both company and staff and allowing staff to propose such solutions. By hiring fully qualified and even over qualified staff leaders look for them to bring advanced knowledge and skills to the role which can ultimately provide additional long term benefits and enhancements to the role and the company, and when a managers staff provides real tangible benefit to the company that wasn’t previously provided by the role, managers look to provide incentives to the employee to ensure that that employee and others continue to add value.
I’d rather invest in, and work for, a company where managers and staff are always looking to improve products and services rather than one that is paralyzed by managers who are afraid of having their authority usurped by intelligent, motivated, overqualified employees who expect to be paid based on a meritocracy.
Steve Simmons
CGEIT, CISA, CISM, CISSP
Yes, I am currently tasked
Yes, I am currently tasked with leading my group. But I do a much better job (I think, and my reviews suggest) when that leadership is tempered with servanthood. That does not mean being a doormat. But it does not mean that I'm the most important person on the team. In a sense, we are all the most important person, at different times and in different ways. Contrary to the oft-used management economics, I'm also not the highest paid person on the team, and that's also not a a bad thing.
Respect Mai Authoritay!
Sorry, all this makes me think of is south park. ;p
What a very sad little essay.
I agree with Bruce and Steve--I'm always looking for bright young things. The more they can do, the more I can delegate to them to help them develop.
There is a great joy in seeing employees surpass me and reach for new things. I have not reproduced biologically, but I have a whole bunch of ex-interns and employees that I think of as successful progeny. Why would I not be proud of their successes?
And how in the world can you know that you are "20% smarter" than your employees? That's an assumption rooted in the idea that intelligence is a fixed, static quality that you can measure.
Bah Humbug, I say.
</rant>
Wow.
That may be one of the worst articles on management ever. Only hire people less smart than you? Then, when your folks get promoted, they'll hire folks less smart than themselves... Where does that lead? If only we'd hired someone smart enough to figure that out...
John Hack
If you follow the rules from this article,...
If you think this article is valuable, it will be though to find candidates to hire who are NOT smarter than you ;)
I am only confused by "pay a fair wage", everything else could be posted on 1st of april:
> Give employees simple orders
Dont't you ever think that there is intelligence around you
>reference rules from HQ
The bosses say so, its not my opinion
>resist hiring overqualified job candidates
Maybe he really meant "dont hire the WRONG" candidate?
> and pay a fair wage.
This really does not sound stupid...
persiflage?
-gernot