Impossible Interviews

Hi James,


Interesting post! A couple of quick thoughts:

Why would the boss promote the best worker out of the job?

Because if that worker wants to be promoted then they will leave if they are not promoted internally - then you've completely lost their skills from the organisation. That said, that's not a reason to promote them if you think that they are very good in their present role but maybe don't have the attributes for another. In which case maybe you can make them happier in their present role somehow.

And occasionally the Dunning-Kruger effect creeps in to people's beliefs that they should be promoted (and, indeed that they are invaluable to the organisation), which I think is summarised neatly in the title of their original study:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".

- Kruger and Dunning 1999

(The full study is great fun, basically saying that the more incompetent you are the more competent you think you are! Which does occasionally worry me about the very small number of areas where I think I'm competent  )

 

How does the lower-skilled boss know the relative ranking of the junior against others with that skill?

Because the boss may be lower skilled in how to do they job, but (hopefully) they will be able to judge the output - quality, quantity and timeliness. It does take experience and education - one thing that frustrates me is that it is often seen that management is easier than engineering, and then people complain about the huge number of bad engineering managers around! I'd say it took me about 7-8 years experience and a Master's level education to become a reasonably competent manager.

 

As you might have guessed the 'designer' was our group leader - he had been promoted beyond his level of incompetence - lousy designer, great leader.

Absolutely. It is not sensible to assume that a good engineer will become a good manager, or a bad engineer will become a bad manager, or a good manager will become a good leader, or a bad manager will become a bad leader (ditto engineer and leader). They are all to some extent orthogonal - they're different skill sets.  This is why I don't enjoy organisations with a linear hierarchical progression, "good" organisations (organisations which I enjoy working with and which seem to be pretty successful) appreciate that some people will go up one route, some another, and most definitely without necessarily going through all the stages. But in that case it does need to be clear that there are multiple routes to higher "status" (I really don't like the rather ill-defined word "status" but I can't think of a better one at the moment). So that a senior engineer can be seen to be treated with the same "respect" (another not very useful word) as, say, a senior project manager. This is a very, very complex area!!!!!


P.S. For the difference between leaders and managers (and engineers, the "producers") my favourite quote is:

You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers cutting their way through the jungle with machetes.  They’re the producers, the problem solvers.  They’re cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.


The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for machete wielders.


The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation, and yells, “Wrong jungle!”


– Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, page 101

There have been many times when I have had to stop my team cutting a path through the "wrong jungle", often they really didn't like it - "but we were getting on so well!" 


Cheers,


Andy

Hi James,


Interesting post! A couple of quick thoughts:

Why would the boss promote the best worker out of the job?

Because if that worker wants to be promoted then they will leave if they are not promoted internally - then you've completely lost their skills from the organisation. That said, that's not a reason to promote them if you think that they are very good in their present role but maybe don't have the attributes for another. In which case maybe you can make them happier in their present role somehow.

And occasionally the Dunning-Kruger effect creeps in to people's beliefs that they should be promoted (and, indeed that they are invaluable to the organisation), which I think is summarised neatly in the title of their original study:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".

- Kruger and Dunning 1999

(The full study is great fun, basically saying that the more incompetent you are the more competent you think you are! Which does occasionally worry me about the very small number of areas where I think I'm competent  )

 

How does the lower-skilled boss know the relative ranking of the junior against others with that skill?

Because the boss may be lower skilled in how to do they job, but (hopefully) they will be able to judge the output - quality, quantity and timeliness. It does take experience and education - one thing that frustrates me is that it is often seen that management is easier than engineering, and then people complain about the huge number of bad engineering managers around! I'd say it took me about 7-8 years experience and a Master's level education to become a reasonably competent manager.

 

As you might have guessed the 'designer' was our group leader - he had been promoted beyond his level of incompetence - lousy designer, great leader.

Absolutely. It is not sensible to assume that a good engineer will become a good manager, or a bad engineer will become a bad manager, or a good manager will become a good leader, or a bad manager will become a bad leader (ditto engineer and leader). They are all to some extent orthogonal - they're different skill sets.  This is why I don't enjoy organisations with a linear hierarchical progression, "good" organisations (organisations which I enjoy working with and which seem to be pretty successful) appreciate that some people will go up one route, some another, and most definitely without necessarily going through all the stages. But in that case it does need to be clear that there are multiple routes to higher "status" (I really don't like the rather ill-defined word "status" but I can't think of a better one at the moment). So that a senior engineer can be seen to be treated with the same "respect" (another not very useful word) as, say, a senior project manager. This is a very, very complex area!!!!!


P.S. For the difference between leaders and managers (and engineers, the "producers") my favourite quote is:

You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers cutting their way through the jungle with machetes.  They’re the producers, the problem solvers.  They’re cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.


The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for machete wielders.


The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation, and yells, “Wrong jungle!”


– Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, page 101

There have been many times when I have had to stop my team cutting a path through the "wrong jungle", often they really didn't like it - "but we were getting on so well!" 


Cheers,


Andy