Board 8 > Do you think that managers are usually smarter than the workers below them?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Llarian posted...

This is what leads employees to think of managers as 'stupid' because they don't have immediate recall of all the details - they don't have to. That's your job, not theirs. They just need to ensure that the machine in general is running smoothly.

I think the reason employees think some managers are stupid is because they often fail at this very thing.

They don't keep the machine running smoothly - if anything, they actively interfere in its function.

Emotional intelligence is a thing, yes, but I think social intelligence is absolutely a skill that should be necessary for anyone in a position that has to deal with people, especially workers. Unfortunately, social intelligence is seen as the realm of the weak nowadays.
---

Yeah a good manager doesn't necessarily need to be able to perform or even entirely understand the details what their employees do.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that all managers suck, just that they suck more on average (mostly cause you can't get rid of the ones that do).
---

KamikazePotato posted...

They are entirely different skill sets. Most managers aren't going to be able to code, or speak a foreign language, or play professional sports, or any number of things their employees are specialized to do.

I think you're choosing some highly specialized professions to make your point. Look at some of the larger workforces out there. I think a school principal could teach more easily than a teacher could be a principal. A plant manager could learn the machinery better than the low level operator could manage the plant (unless it's something specialized you need a 2 year degree or apprenticeship for). A doctor could be a nurse more easily than the other way around (though a doctor isn't technically a manager).

We do joke at my firm that the partners would have a hard time preparing a tax return. But they know waayyy more than I do, and there's no way I could advise clients on major issues the way that they do, at this point in my career.
---

Very largely depends on what kind of job and what kind of company.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

A doctor could be a nurse more easily than the other way around (though a doctor isn't technically a manager).

Bad example, I'd argue that the opposite is true for non-specialized doctors.
---

Holy shit SoiledSnake is back and in rare form
---

charmander6000 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

A doctor could be a nurse more easily than the other way around (though a doctor isn't technically a manager).

Bad example, I'd argue that the opposite is true for non-specialized doctors.

I know the nurse's job is harder and sucks more. My mom is a nurse in labor and delivery, and you would think she's the most important person in the room. But the doctors do a lot behind scenes and have to have a higher level of knowledge.
---

Professions are really specialized these days! I also think you're not respecting certain professions. Doctors could not do what nurses do without going to nursing school. Operating machinery safely takes time to learn. And being a good teacher is very hard - Most managers would completely suck at it.

With time, managers could learn those trades. But with time, employees could learn to be managers as well.
---

(Also doctors aren't managers for nurses)
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

I think a school principal could teach more easily than a teacher could be a principal

That's also a bad example, the principal would get destroyed in the classroom
---

The problem is that any job that a manager could do as well as or even better than the average worker requires that the manager is already doing that in addition to their managerial duties.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Llarian posted...

This is what leads employees to think of managers as 'stupid' because they don't have immediate recall of all the details - they don't have to. That's your job, not theirs. They just need to ensure that the machine in general is running smoothly.

I think the reason employees think some managers are stupid is because they often fail at this very thing.

They don't keep the machine running smoothly - if anything, they actively interfere in its function.

Emotional intelligence is a thing, yes, but I think social intelligence is absolutely a skill that should be necessary for anyone in a position that has to deal with people, especially workers. Unfortunately, social intelligence is seen as the realm of the weak nowadays.

If management can keep the machine running smoothly, they're seen as intelligent. If they actively interfere or otherwise sabotage productivity, they're seen as stupid.

What is the difference between emotional and social intelligence, in your estimation?

The problem is that any job that a manager could do as well as or even better than the average worker requires that the manager is already doing that in addition to their managerial duties.

Agree completely.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

So no, I'm not inclined to believe that managers are usually more intelligent than workers. If anything, I think intelligence is usually an anti-requirement for the position.

I think you're letting bad experiences prevent you from realizing that there are plenty of "workers" who are incompetent morons too and if anything, the dumb managers usually get to where they are by being a bit less dumb than the competition
---

Llarian posted...

If management can keep the machine running smoothly, they're seen as intelligent. If they actively interfere or otherwise sabotage productivity, they're seen as stupid.

Yep. Even for the workers' opinions, this is usually how it works.

Llarian posted...

What is the difference between emotional and social intelligence, in your estimation?

Emotional intelligence would relate to being able to control your own emotional reactions (being stoic when necessary, or knowing when to display positive emotion, or being stern when necessary). A modicum of empathy goes a long way, too, so long as you don't become too empathic and allow that to cloud your judgment entirely. (A lack of empathy also clouds one's judgment though.)

Social intelligence has to do with understanding other people's emotional reactions and understanding that your words have impacts - you can't please everyone, but you can avoid throwing gasoline on a fire, so to speak. Having tact, diplomacy, and knowing just how harsh you can be without negatively affecting someone's life and performance are signs of social intelligence.

That's my estimation, at least.

And worth noting that I would say some jobs require more social intelligence than others. For a rocket scientist, while they may drive their peers away with social stupidity, social skills are relatively unrelated to performing their job well. For a manager, however, social intelligence is an absolute must because you're constantly dealing with other people, and how you deal with them affects your performance.

Unfortunately, bad managers can pass the blame onto their workers and because they're seen as less disposable, the managers are usually believed over the workers.
---

I can't speak for human medicine, but in animal medicine doctors are all taught the same thing as nurses. I've taken classes for both. They're almost identical for the first two years.

Llarian posted...

If they actively interfere or otherwise sabotage productivity, they're seen as stupid.

Not at all. They're seen as frontline soldiers rolling up their sleeves to fix the hard issues.

If you're a manager in a meeting and there are no issues, you are rewarded for speaking up and creating an issue out of nowhere.
---