A friend of mine sent me an article about the "psychopathology of Corporate management". It was usual collection of rants about corporate middle level management. I wrote back an email to him sharing my opinions. After reading it back, i realized how funny my reply was. Here it is:
Its an interesting article, and it does hold some truths about Corporate America. its always the people like that who become middle level managers. i have always theorizied that the people who can do the work and get it done competently either 1-leave and go out on their own (like i did) or 2- don't get promoted because if they do, there would be nobody to do the work. the people in example (2) were often told that they didn't fit into the corporate mold or they lacked some basic trait to become management. they are never told what this trait is that they are lacking (because it often doesn't exist), nor are they given direction to Move Forward (since its not in anyones best interest to see them move forward).
This leaves us with the insecure, bloodsucking, corporate hound. These are people who can make great power point presentations, print them out with a great color scheme, present an idea or architecture that is not understandable by senior management, but by law of attrition it gains favor. These people tend to project themselves as corporate architechts, while the contempable lot beneath them are the carpenters. The message the worker-bee are often given is "don't hit your thumb with the hammer, boy, and don't forget to give a 'yazsir mazster' once in a while".
So while the murphys laws always states that people rise to their level of incompetence, it's patently not true. The level of Middle Management is far less competent, and the competent few are punished for their advanced skills.
I'm reading this book by Stuart Kaufmann now, about self organization and complexity. His theory is that order reigns on the edge of stagnation and chaos. the paradigm fits very well for corporate america. unfortunate for most, but good for me, as the overall effect is a need to bring in companies like mine that can mitigate incompetent middle management and a frustrated, begrudging staff.
Its an interesting article, and it does hold some truths about Corporate America. its always the people like that who become middle level managers. i have always theorizied that the people who can do the work and get it done competently either 1-leave and go out on their own (like i did) or 2- don't get promoted because if they do, there would be nobody to do the work. the people in example (2) were often told that they didn't fit into the corporate mold or they lacked some basic trait to become management. they are never told what this trait is that they are lacking (because it often doesn't exist), nor are they given direction to Move Forward (since its not in anyones best interest to see them move forward).
This leaves us with the insecure, bloodsucking, corporate hound. These are people who can make great power point presentations, print them out with a great color scheme, present an idea or architecture that is not understandable by senior management, but by law of attrition it gains favor. These people tend to project themselves as corporate architechts, while the contempable lot beneath them are the carpenters. The message the worker-bee are often given is "don't hit your thumb with the hammer, boy, and don't forget to give a 'yazsir mazster' once in a while".
So while the murphys laws always states that people rise to their level of incompetence, it's patently not true. The level of Middle Management is far less competent, and the competent few are punished for their advanced skills.
I'm reading this book by Stuart Kaufmann now, about self organization and complexity. His theory is that order reigns on the edge of stagnation and chaos. the paradigm fits very well for corporate america. unfortunate for most, but good for me, as the overall effect is a need to bring in companies like mine that can mitigate incompetent middle management and a frustrated, begrudging staff.
