Why Incompetence Spreads through Big Organizations

No, not at all.

It's because in big organizations, there's planning and human resource management that is in charge of continuously monitoring people in order to provide the maximum possible production. To accomplish that, the less skilled and dedicated people must be repositioned to where they will not cause troubles in the line: leading / management jobs!

If they promote good hard workers, who is going to do the job? BTW, its one of the principles of being promoted: more important than doing your job in a superb maner, is to keep good personal relationship and transmit your job knowledge every time is possible. Or you may be stuck in your position because there's no one to put in your place.

After all, if you think you are not recognized by your good job, go for it. Find another place or another thing to do, and say goodbye to your boss. I have already presenced some good raising offers in such situations. Not mine, unfortunately.

Based on my almost 40 years experience in Engineering in both Shipbuilding and Aircraft industries, most middle and senior management positions are filled by outsiders who were later found out to be incompetent.

my boss in every organisation i worked for last 40years used to say i am looking for managers not engineers, hence all middle and top management positions were filled by incompetent outsiders who were injecting more incompetence in to the organisations and pick a higher paying job quit and leaving the organisations in mess!

crm

& the ever popular choice of hiring managers from a company that just went bankrupt, they in turn bring " their " culture .

One way you could handle this.

First, you have to know the actual duties of the position and what kinds of persons can do those. If you want a customer service supervisor, there's no point in considering a cranky grouch.

Identify the people who have already shown those qualities or skills. Potential shouldn't count.

Rotate the position among those people, changing every six months or so. If a company is so screwed up it needs a "Lone Ranger" to save the day, it might as well go into Chapter 7 anyhow.

After a year or three, you've got several candidates whose qualities you know. Either continue the rotation or else let the qualified ones decide among themselves who gets the job. Some will stay and be happy with their boss (they chose him/her) and will be available when you need to replace the boss. Others might be unhappy and leave - they were maybe prima donnas anyway. Let them go and think about hiring them back after they get some sense.

Train your replacement as a method of cross training.

If incompetence only spread through Big Organizations that would be a great reason to work for a small company. Unfortunately, I have worked for both big and small companies and found that either can have incompetent leaders; but either can also have good competent leadership. I personally believe it goes to the issue of the top corporate management knowing the people in their organization and their qualities and capabilities. Perhaps that is easier to do in a smaller organization. In a smaller organization a true leader will have a better grasp at which managers are the sycophants and which are the personnel who truly care about the success of the organization.

As long as the only way to get more money is to be promoted above your competence people will have a strong incentive to take on positions that they know they are not suited for.

In the Big Organizations the concept of working with your work mates, instead of for the Boss, is often lost. I believe that this leads to decay within the organization.

Some Big Organizations that became Authoritarian, as is Disney, end up partnering with a Company like Pixar, that is co-operative, so as to succeed in tandem through Institutional balance.

I myself posit that those Organizations that are primarily co-operative among themselves are superior. This could well be a personal preference. Still we are talking about Big Organizations.

My study of the US Civil War, and the differences between the styles of leadership if we compare Jefferson Davis and Lee, to Lincoln and Grant would tend to support my thesis since the Confederate States were led into defeat by Aristocratic Autocrats.

Grant was known for not stopping, but also for a very low key style of leadership with his officers.

The basis for Western Civilization which has wrought elevated standards of living come out of the conflicts between the Persians and the Greeks, and Athenians is also evidence to me of the superiority of co-operative cultures over autocratic cultures in competitions.

The flat out poverty and desperation of the peoples of North Korea now, further exemplifies the failures of Autocratic leadership styles.

This is a post on a blog in a thread, and not all of the factors can be addressed, or stories told.

In essence all I can do here is say that if within an organization, large or small, from my study and experience those organizations that inculcate the spirit of working with each other, instead of working for the one authority, will triumph in competitions.

Dear RCE, You and I are in complete and utter disagreement.

Yes many do misunderstand Democracy and don't know the difference between Mob Rule, Democracy, or a Republic.

In the short term an authoritarian will achieve protections, but in the long term all will come apart.

Dammit, everytime I think, I find reasons to agree, in part, with my adversaries.

Still I am not in favor of Dictatorships, and there is strong evidence that they are not the way to go for the long haul.

Jared Diamond did get upset about how the history of Haiti and Santo Diomingo was different because of one man. Later... Dinnertime. It gets in the way of the keyboard.

have a look at this:

http://www.profitadvisors.com/maverick.shtml

Good Article; however, I do not believe this will become widespread in fully developed nations because they are mostly a "class-based" culture.

It does work, but is usually described as team based organization.

There is no difference between true democracy and true communism, except as it pertains to property ownership. There is no reason that you can't have a true democracy, where the property and wealth are communal. Both rule by a principle of equality. We've never seen either. Russian and Chinese communism were/are simply dictatorships. Suffice to say, all political systems will evolve to serve the powerful. It is human nature at work. We must be smarter than the beast within.

Chris

"There is no reason that you can't have a true democracy, where the property and wealth are communal. Both rule by a principle of equality."

It appears you can have property and wealth communal, in families, small hunter-gatherer tribes, and, perhaps, monasteries. For those who believe that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, large scale equality is impossible. As with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we have a need for self-actualization, which requires freedom and the right to property. He who cannot keep the fruits of his labor is a slave, and slavery is a no-no. Apart from our socialistic educational system, does anyone beleive you should lose some mental abilities in the name of equality? What, you understand calculus! Are you some kind of elitist?

But you can not even do it in a family or hunter gatherers really. There are in these groups some who receive greater benefits for less work, the spoiled or favorite child, the father, the tribal chief or medicine man. Plus Hunter-Gatherers and Families are very strongly authoritarian, it is just that sometimes the authority asked the advise of those who follow, but they ultimately decide not the children. Pure democracy always leads to mob rule, even the athenians had limitations on who was allowed to vote and considered included in their democratic process. Plus they had mandatory involvement requirements for all citizens, while still having non citizens such as slaves who had no voice (many, many slaves). And still one good speach and they rally to would build an army and attack a bigger stronger neighbor to expand their empire and gain wealth. True democracy is a farce, it always degrades into mob rule.

Nonsense,

corporations are not the same as people.

Money is not free speech, money is access!

Fox news is the opposite of fair & balanced

The qualities that get people securely embedded into a corporation (tireless self promotion, aggressive toadying, game playing, aversion to innovation and risk, etc.) are often not evident in the more useful members of the workforce.

Many Engineering types are happy to "beaver away" learning new things, solving self generated problems and developing cool stuff while they neglect the far more important things like interpersonal relationships, number of subordinates and title.

I hope that doesn't sound bitter, I'm not, the pills wont let me be bitter anymore.

That is hitting the nail on the head. GA. And it just keeps coming, never the less. The chain will be the weakest link in the end.

Garthh

The annual promotion results are of thrill and a matter of curiosity in all organizations. I would like to add few points from my experience.

*The so called organization structure, grade structures, scales, bench marks etc are all mere hum bucks ,particularly in the corporate sectors. These decorations are for company structure presentations and work less closer to reality.

* In management of humans the carrot and donkey story, a constant run [performance] for the never reaching carrot game is set.

*In many of the corporates people on the evaluating cadre, Key H.R managers are constantly on the move or fired of their positions.frequently. Over all there seems instability in the top lines, and reasonable stable bottom line suffers continuity of opinion from superiors.

*Most of the promotions are granted by the top management, based on the M.D/Chairman"s discretion. In the management's scaling on promotions, the following factors are in favour of facilitation criteria for promotions. Stability of the person, reliability, trustworthiness, honesty,efficiency, leadership,contributions to organization, concern to the organization, dedication and commitment, cost cutting contributions,product development, competitor counter strategies, impressive presentation of ideas, image and acceptance by fellow employees, consistency, acceptance to criticism,attitude to change himself and change others, positive influence over others,knowledge,learning skills,adaptability to changing phases,problem solving skills, loyalty,creativity and innovation skills.

*Many employees assume mere passing of years get criteria or a hierarchy in seniority levels can fetch promotions. Many adapt tact ices to impress upon bosses.

*The major defaults occur by the unfair evaluation and recommendation process fostered by nepotism,biased opinions, suppressing a potential person as competitor,short sight narrow views of the bosses,revenging attitutes to show powers, that many minds are suffering.

It is clear that it is shear game of survival and usually the strongest wins and managements favour long term averages than short lived super stars.

*For people looking for due promotions ,your coherent relation to your superiors and management, impressive presentation skills on your contributions without hurting any superiors views are critically important. This process requires careful planning. Many people take emotional decisions of resignations etc, find new jobs, find incompatibility in the new atmosphere , leading to frustrations.

*If one is sure his ideas are not considered, quit and jump into the game of entrepreneurship. You will perform much better and become more responsible towards your goals.

*A well drafted self appraisal system with clause for value based ratings and freedom to express contributive worthy ideas and a fair evaluation system can minimize these promotion issues and de motivation problems.

*Proper time is to be allotted by one and all concerned involved in the process.

I once worked for an excellent company which paid its engineers more than its managers. They deliberately employed managers with degrees in "the classics". Of course you could still climb up the "engineering ladder" or the "management ladder", but, there was no incentive for good engineers to become bad managers which I've seen in so many other organisations.

Then of course there are the "human resources" managers who generally do the initial screenings for hiring & promotions. These people tend to value the traits that make good HR mgrs. above all else. You would think the focus on soft [people] skills would give insights. Nah they fall victim to their own flawed mindset & promote the best bullshitter. There are probably good HR people, I hope one day to meet one.

The care & feeding of technical people is tricky stuff.

Hi my friends,

That's like and old "deja vu". See for example http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26552/Why-Employees-Leave-Organizations

I'm more and more sure every passing day that "Peter's principle" is obsolete and has been replaced by "Dilbert's principle" It's even easier to apply!!!!!

Kind regards

My experience has been that the people who diligenly apply themselves to do the best job that they can get to stay in that job.

The people who have little competence in their jobs generally try to push their assignments onto others, rush through with hack work, and spend the better part of their efforts towards more face time with the boss claiming as much credit as they can get away with. These are the ones who end up promoted.

For this reason, you end up with managers that are utterly clueless about what they are managing, as evidenced by edicts issued by fiat without regard to the consequences (hence the clueless) to their staff.

In my former employment, we used to note that the shit floats to the top. Upper ranks tend to be narcissistic bullies who promote their careers rather than the mission of the organization. One, who had just been promoted, confided in me that I could not be promoted until I learned to tell lies. Ambition leads to a consciencectomy.

I once tried to alert the manager of an aircrft program to a major fault (one of many) in the design. His reply was this: I don't care. I'll never have to fly it. My job is to bring it in on time and under budget. He was promoted, to manage an even bigger program, which he screwed up against the advice of good engineers, resulting in it being years late and over budget. Having demonstrated his incompetence (or his managerial ability to salvage a lost cause, his ability to sell excrement as chocolate ice cream), he was promoted again to overall management of all new aircraft programs.

The company I work for employs about 100 VP's just in the HR organization alone. That is why incompetence spreads throught big organizations.

And that is why you can not have a democratic business structure. Those 100 HR VPs will all want more assistants, enough to have a personal assistant and a staff to do the work. Those HR guys, just like the marketers/sales, will want fund reallocated from the technical billable side of business. They will just figure add a little more to the overhead mark up on projects, since winning the projects is actually the responsibility also of the technical billable professionals.

The company Steve work's for is certainly not a democracy.

The good ol' boys are always gonna get paid [in whatever currency] no matter what the alleged structure...

Management always makes more than talent.

What structure minimizes management?

Where is the line between effective leadership & needless overhead?

Well there are a few cases, in mostly mid to small sized companies, where you see management promoted from the most talented personnel. This kind of promotion structure leads to the respect of the new talent as they know their boss knows what he is talking about. Additionally, frequently if you use talented people for management you get talent in the staff, as they are to some degree mentored and learn along the way. The ability and desire to manage and mentor staff may not initially seem suitable to talent, but the thing is intellectually talented people learn extremely rapidly (assuming there is some rational behaviors to learn as some corporations behave totally irrationally to favor indiviual managers self preservation).

Perhaps not a democracy, but there is such a consensus culture that it might as well be. Our new CEO has made a lot of noise that sound like he wants to move us toward being a leaner and more nimble company, but then as we go through a reorg instead of making crisp, quick, decisions we are going through a HR hand wringing exercise where everyone ends having to reapply for their job. Keeping those 100 HR VPs gainfully employed....

CYA

Reorgs used to be described as turnarounds

You do the hokie pokie & you turn yourself around, that's what it's all about....

Years ago I was working in a job shop at a valve company. We were on our 3rd CEO & 2nd "turnaround". He would try to be one of the boys, wanting to joke & chat, but it never rang true. We would spin around as he walked away...

The US Army is a Big Organization. Somehow, it functions, even without the discipline of a profit and loss statement. I'd like to recommend a book:

Muddy Boots Leadership -- Real Life Stories and Personal Examples of Good, Bad, and Unexpected Results

By John Chapman, Major, USA (Ret.) ISBN 0-8117-0166-2

Basically, it's about getting the most out of those who work for you and avoiding the chicken sh*t. Anybody in even a minor supervisory role could benefit from reading it.

A random quote: "Do not foster a "zero defect" atmosphere. No one can grow in that environment." Backed up with "authority": "You must be able to underwrite the honest mistakes of your subordinates if you wish to develop their initiative and experience." -- General Bruce C. Clarke

Another: "Leadership by statistics is the refuge of cowards... That said, it's a pretty common way for senior raters to sort out their subordinate's evaluation reports. Plan accordingly."

Or another: "The most consistent trait of the new guy is his refusal to ask for help, even when he is chin deep in shit and sinking fast." -- Capt. Randy West

"A form letter (with a personal note from you on the bottom) to your subordinates on their birthdays is effective. More effective is the same letter to their spouses on _their_ birthdays, with a note on the bottom. Only a handwritten note counts: use of digital signatures, or worse -- your secretary's handwriting -- will generate an embarrassing nickname."

of course a bolt provided to the US Army will have a 1000% mark up on it, and they will pay it without any concerns or questions (unless of course a news agency in an important congressmans district is reviewing the cost). The US Army is a perfect example of no matter how unskilled the management and labor force is for a particular task, if you throw enough money and over priced consultants (and believe me the consultants charge a premium to deal with the innane bureaucracy of the army) at the problem it will eventually be solved.

This sounds descriptive of US Grant.

He would not stop. He spent no time on blame. He wrote another order.

He cried when he failed.

To me he was a real man, a real general, somebody who knew his business, and knew it was a tough business more determined by tenacity than miracles, fashions, or politics.

Technically, Grant was a very poor general, He was just a drunk man willing to sacrifice any number of his better equipped men of which he had a much greater number of. I am not sure that the concept of winning by bing the most willing to sacrifice an overwhelming force of men and equipment is necessarily a sign of great skill, but rather a sign of either some degree of amorality or immorality. Though a lack of moral qualms about sacrificing men is a necessity for a good general. Sherman was probably a better General than Grant, more technically adept and he felt he could justify huis actions as a means to force the ends to the war. Keep in mind too that Grant had one of the most corupt presidencies in our history, amongst many others.

Thanks esbuck, I enjoyed reading that.

I don't enjoy it still going on though. (Dubya in his fighter pilot out fit.) I know he is no more at the helm but I have met other guys in positions that should not be there. Not related to the army, but with the same dire consequences for the people involved. Hitler called them "Volksschaedlinge", a pest to the people, roughly translated.

Loosing a job, house and family due to the fault of some coke (drug) driven psychopath and his illustrious fellows is just as disgraceful. They should be Court Marshaled but have the legal eagles sharing the same habits and so get Scott free, or so those types still think. Shame, shame, shame!

I, myself, have an Australian heart pumping German blood, make of it what you will/like.

It is going to be an up hill battle, Ky.

this is fabulous stuff... please continue! (ga)

In my readings of Shelby Foote's History Trilogy of the Civil War, as well as due to my readings of McFeely's biography of Grant, as well as companion readings of works about Lee, I have a much different view of U.S. Grant, than you.

Certainly Sherman was a fine and vicious General who we can safely say had high regard himself for Grant, who knew obviously whom to trust and work with to end a horrible war. If you look at the Union waste of lives in both prior battles of the Wilderness Grant's superiority as a General is clear. His actions at Vicksburg really turned the tide of the war, whereas Lee's politically motivated assault on Gettysburg showed a complete lack of strategic comprehension. Pickett's Charge is one of the great tactical failures of all time, as well.

A leadership style long exhibited by Grant, who did win, by the way, that I find extremely worthy of note, and attempt myself, was Grant was known for simply writing a clear and effective order that addressed the changed situation on the battlefield when presented with bad news. He was known not to spend time on blame, and just move on.

As a style of leadership, I feel strongly that this fostered a certain respect for his leadership, that spread throughout his officers and army. Even Lee is known to have remarked on hearing of Grant's appointment, "Oh No, that man will not stop."

Persistence is a valuable trait, though an autocrat married to the wrong set of strategy and tactics, may well destroy what is good about it.

Grant's reputation for excessive drinking was mostly based on 6 months when he was separated from his wife, and under the thumb of a Superior officer withwhom he did not get along. His reaction was to resign his commission and return to living with his wife and much reduced in status, which he handled with humility and hard work.

Far as his Presidency some of its failures are attributed to the loss during the war of some of his key officers, friends and advisors. Some of its failures are also attributed to the interests of his wife in fortune. Certainly his Presidency had a lot going against it.

In his Memoirs U.S. Grant shows humility, regret, wisdom, and humanity in heroic proportions. If he had a flaw, it was that he needed friends, which is a flaw many of us share. As a Leader and Manager, I still maintain that for others engaged in leadership and management roles, Grant is one to look to as a good example to emulate in difficult situations. P.S. I have been accused of being long winded. This accusation hurts me to the quick. I have made attempts to shorten my posts. However in some cases I still feel that my response requires more, and truly Grant is one of my heroes.

I'm into Susan Sarandon too, but that's different. I'd like to combine into myself aspects of Grant, Franklin, and Susan Sarandon. Hey everybody needs a feminine side!

In Grant's case you are really comparing the last in a long succession of Generals who got successively more competent in using their superior numbers and technologies, until they finally wore the enemy down. The deck for the South in the civil War was extremely stacked against them unless they could win some huge battle s and get allied support from France and England. through political manuevering, however, Licoln headed that off. Grant, unlike his predeccessors, was willing to sacrifice huge numbers of men, since he had far more to use. He might be attributed with the concepts used in the first world war of win by attrition. Sherman, being a student of History, used old techniques shown by many, including the romans and medeival English of slash and burn, poisoning the well, and destroying the enemies resources along the way and will to fight. Had the north the technical skills of the southern Generals and the moralities of Sherman, the Civil war would have been over much quicker. Sometimes, however, superiority in numbers and technology wins over skill and quality, if enough time is allowed. However, on a overall comparison of generals Grant would not rate very well if compared with the like of Julius Caesar, Edward III, Henry V, Alexander the Great, etc..

I'll check with my person to person advising historian and political science guy.

Overall I feel and think Grant proved he knew what he was doing. I myself think if you look at the numbers he lost, once he was Commander of the Union Army, it is implied that the Union would have lost half as many as they did. Neither McCleanian or Meade had the stomach for it. Grant did, and did it.

He was a practical thinker. One of the only times during the Civil War Lincoln is reported to have been found smiling was the result of a question from Grant about whether or not to let the Union Calvary go, or turn them into infrantry, since Grant was out of horses.

When asked by a Cabinet member why Lincoln was smiling about the telegram. Lincoln said, "Every other general would have asked for more horses."

We could make a case that Cold Harbor was as bad as Picketts Charge. However since US Grant had a finer sense of the overall Strategic issues, he still won, whereas Lee lost. If it is justification of Lee's foray into Pennsylvania, for the purpose of getting shoes, obviously this was not a good idea, since control of the Mississippi meant more to the infrastructure of the South, than shoes for the Army.

There were even at the time smarter ways to get shoes. When playing Chess I am one of those players who wants control of the board. In some ways Microsoft has control of the board now in a new world we live in.

Course I use a Mac, which takes a lickin, and keeps on tickin.

Anyway, as far as aspects of the original thread, I did not focus on the yes man factor of why pliant company men and women are promoted over the more competent, but focused on leadership and management styles and tactics that were winners.

You can do what you will.

A good read:(a NY times best seller)

"The No Asshole Rule", by Robert I. Sutton, PhD

It tells how to combat those workplace bullies, despots, and egomaniacs who destroy morale and productivity.

I have seen managers get promoted just to get them away from the action. Engineers do not get promoted unless they are very good and they ask for it. Just a pattern I have seen.

How incompetence spreads, and doesn't:

"Lee's politically motivated assault on Gettysburg showed a complete lack of strategic comprehension. Pickett's Charge is one of the great tactical failures of all time, as well."

Lee had good reasons to go to Gettysburg. One was that his men needed shoes, and Gettysburg had them. Pickett's Charge was tactically correct as tactics were taught at West Point. It might have worked at Waterloo, but long range rifled muskets and good artillery made a long bayonet charge inappropriate. To Lee's credit, he learned from his mistake and did not repeat it. Other generals did not learn and went "by the book", sending men with fixed bayonets across no man's land against modern artillery and machine guns, over and over from 1914 to 1918.

In many respects, the War for Southern Independence was an off-Broadway try-out for WW-1. It had huge armies, enabled by a draft and funded with phony money and inflation. There were railroads, the telegraph, mines, trenches, observation balloons, armored steamships, a submarine, and, toward the end, breech loading rifles and machine guns. (There were also experiments with poison gas, rejected as inhumane, and one might suggest that the tank was invented at the Battle of Lexington, MO)

The Eurpopean powers had observers, but only the Prussians seemed to have learned from their observations. They recognized the advantages of breech loading rifles and adopted them in 1866, while the rest of Europe had muskets. The Prussians whomped the Austians in seven weeks, establishing Prussia as top dog in Europe. The French adopted new rifles and then waged a pre-emptive war against Prussia in 1870, a big mistake. The French lost Alsace and Lorraine, their best coal mines, had to pay reparations, and were humiliated by watching the German Empire (2nd Reich) being established at the Palace of Versailles.

The behavior of large organizations, and a reluctance to take advantage of new technology, is illustrated by the story of the USS Wampanoag. Concerned by the prospect of the British supporting the Confederacy, four contracts were let, to four different shipyards, to build long range cruisers, commerce raiders, to threaten British commerce, if it came to that. Three of the ships were unremarkable. The Wampanoag, however, was revolutionary, a kind of pre-dreadnought. It was the second fastest ship in the world, after a French mail packet, twice as fast as any other warship. It was armed with big guns, capable of engaging at long range. It handled beautifully. Thus it could catch any ship it wanted to, could engage warships beyond the range of their guns, and could run away from any fight it wanted to avoid. The ship was delivered at the end of the Civil War, when there was no one to fight. The US navy decided the function of ships was to train sailors, not stokers, and deck officers, not engineers. The Wampanoag was unsuitable as a training ship, since it was so different. They promptly decommissioned it, then scrapped it.

Feeling Warehoused in Army Trauma Care Units
By JAMES DAO and DAN FROSCH
Warrior Transition Units were intended to be sheltering way stations where injured soldiers could recuperate. But the units are far from being restful sanctuaries.

My sister was shocked at the way damaged soldiers from Iraq are treated. My response: big organizations are full or ordinary (ignorant) people. Why should she expect the army to be more compassionate than the Internal Revenue Service?