I write to admit to arrogance. There is a specific conceit that I know I am guilty of, not only as to my own skills but also in assessing others’ abilities. It is the assumption that someone who is higher in a hierarchy can do anything better than anyone else who is lower on the org chart. I strive to disabuse myself of this dangerous belief. To the contrary, any good supervisor should realize her direct reports are by and large more capable in their jobs than she herself could be if she replaced them. I see others displaying the same immodesty. The attitude afflicts lawyers, academics, and, more generally, probably almost all professionals who are well-educated and well-compensated. Most likely it arises from their own individual accomplishment. The feelings are conventional and should not surprise us, because any contrary supposition would imply unfairness in the world. We want to be assured that increased formal training leads to a superior job title, which entitles us to a raise. That may well be, notwithstanding my personal skepticism. My point is not to argue over the ideology of meritocracy. My objection is rooted in practical sensibilities. An executive who is in charge of a project is not necessarily capable of fulfilling the specialized responsibilities of the people whom she oversees. Maybe she is; maybe she isnt. While a person who is promoted into a managerial role should be familiar with the technical work she is assigned to look after, as she progresses she becomes further removed from the substance. Even if she does keep her hand in it to a limited extent, she will be better off respecting that someone else should be performing the tasks to be done in a direct sense. Yet on a daily basis people who are quick studies suppose that a cursory review of a subject enables them to substitute their spontaneous judgment for reasoned recommendations made by others who, lacking fancy credentials and earning half the salary, possess years of experience in the area. Self-appointed experts presume to evaluate what they have been exposed to only a moment ago. This tendency is morally wrong in my opinion, not to mention maddening to those who experience the effects. Even someone who disagrees with my assertion about what is proper or is indifferent to how they insult those presumed to be subordinate, however, will suffer the risk of error they have created needlessly. In my role, I see no evidence that I can do what my administrative assistant does with any more accuracy or efficiency than she does it, except in the rare instances I have peculiar demands — which only means I can read my mind and she cannot do so (though she isn’t bad at it). It is proven to me repeatedly that my interference impairs our office functioning optimally, such as when I ask her to schedule an appointment and simultaneously proceed on my own to try as well. The studies I have read indicate that none of us should be especially impressed by our own confidence in our competence. It appears that the correlation between confidence and competence is weak or even inverse. The most obvious aspect of incompetence, obvious to everyone else, is inability to recognize itself. Curiously, competence seems to be uncertain; it is defined by doubt. What is at stake is shared effectiveness, both the “shared” and the “effectiveness.” I admonish myself more than I would others. Everything I have said here applies if the person who is running things has hired well, trained appropriately, and supported their employees. In other words, it requires that the boss herself be good as a boss. That is its own calling.
Posted on: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:30:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015