You Are Not The Boss of Me!

Jason-

Good stuff on dealing with a bad manager. Bad managers is probably a topic that we could spend a lot of time on and our Bad Managers Suck series could probably go on for a very, very long time. I think that a big part of the reason that things like The Office and Dilbert resonate with so many folks is that as ridiculous as they often are, they are also hit very close to home especially regarding our relationship with supervisors. There are a lot of things that contribute to bad management and we could spend a lot of time and energy cracking that issue open, but what about this…

Why don’t we just get rid of it? Why don’t we do away with management as a title, as a role, as a philosophy, as a source of so much unnecessary drama? In our manifesto we tell leaders to "get out of the way"...maybe they should really get out of the way?



What would happen if did some real “re-engineering” and let all managers go? We could of course allow them to apply for other open positions within the company, we’re not complete a-holes! Would things grind to a halt? I kind of doubt it. I am sure that there would be some initial confusion, but there would also be a lot less management related dysfunction.

What would a world without management look like?

What if “the organization” became a network of self-organized teams?

What if we went to an organization and took everyone that was in a supervisory role and we changed their role from supervision to resource coordination…they would have no authority over anyone but were responsible for helping the team that they were assigned to coordinate with other teams and access to the tools that they needed to be successful…whether it be budget, training, equipment, policy change, etc. Their purpose was solely to coordinate and make available resources and support for the department or team that they were assigned to.

What about, rather than fixing management, we do away with it?
-joe

Bad behavior, good results

Joe,

I recently went back and re-read The Talent Anarchist's Manifesto again as I do from time to time. I'm really proud of our work on the Manifesto and it resonates with me to my soul. I feel when I read it like I'm reading the immutable laws of business success.

But there's a question that lingers in the back of my mind that I just can't shake. So, I put this to you and anyone else who might have the answer.

How is it that there are so many companies who are doing so many things nearly opposite of what we describe in the Manifesto, and yet they seem to be very financially successful?

I'm a bit perplexed.

Jason

The Whole "Generational" Thing - Response

Joe,

Thanks for braining up this list that Jamie Notter presented from the book Generations at Work. I think it's dangerous to start listing liabilities and assets of the generational groups. When you make the jump from describing characteristics of a generation to describing assets and liabilities, you've inserted judgments. These judgments about generations are generally colored by our own biases or even our own generation.

For example, as a Gen X'er, I have often criticized Generation Y for the fact they have grown up in a world where they aren't told they do anything wrong. They have been coddled and supported more than any generation in history. We commonly talk about the fact that they are the generation that has grown up with no winning and losing in PE class and instead, everyone is a winner because everyone all participated. This goes against my nature as someone who believes that healthy competition can bring out the best in people. So, I have been one to say that Gen Y isn't equipped for the workforce because they don't know how to take and use negative feedback.

On the flip side of this argument would be that Gen Y is equipped to succeed in a very different way than the generations before them because of their confidence. Since they have grown up with parents and schools that didn't punish them for losing or failing, they don't see failing as fatal. This means that they are more fearless with new things. They are more willing to experiment and test out new approaches because they aren't as concerned about having to get things right every time. In many ways, they are far better equipped for our new rapidly changing world of technology and multimedia.

In my opinion, judgment is dangerous and borders on irresponsible, particularly when talking about generational stereotypes. But, I guess they need to sell books and give people like us something to debate about.

And to your comments about the Manifesto, I do think that it is definitely colored with our Gen X perspective. I think that the message underlying the manifesto definitely comes from the cynicism and skepticism we have developed as a result of our experiences growing up. The Manifesto is a handbook for organizations who want to evolve their workplaces to attract and retain not only Gen X but also the generations of the future. I'm not sure that the actual changes we call for in the Manifesto are specific to only Gen X, but our tone surely is.

What do you think?

Jason