Thomas Paine wrote:There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
I read this paragraph and thought: this is EXACTLY the problem with every corporate manager/director/vice president/etc that I have ever had the misfortune to work under. I can recall no co-worker ever who felt comfortable with telling a manager things he/she didn't want to hear. And as for breaking "bad news" to such people... that required the development of special verbal skills, possibly to avoid getting entire departments or divisions fixed with the evil eye of directorial wrath.
In fact, it seems that an awful lot of the reasons why Paine said it only made sense to get rid of kings entirely can apply directly to all of the managers I have ever encountered in my life.
Now, I understand that I may be wrong, and that the dozens of managers and directors and so forth that were pitiful examples of humanity and had no regard at all for the morale or even basic health of the people they drove to the brink of breakdowns and mental illness... it's very possible that they are not representative of managers in the whole corporate world. I'd have a lot easier time believing that, if it weren't for the existence of Dilbert.
What's the solution? Could HUMAN, caring management in any corporation make for a successful company? Could installing people who understand in advance that no project in any industry will ever go through with zero errors still handle the difficulties of life in the business world? I know of no place where this sort of thing exists... but I'd be willing to bet that putting people with "common sense" in management positions would not only not HURT productivity, but they could very well end up being a competitive advantage. Were there any companies willing to hazard the risk of breaking a long and entrenched tradition of hiring a$$holes for those jobs.
Just a thought.
