I've never heard any stories of things being the other way around: management was great, and they almost did some spectacular things, but all they had to work with were a bunch of incompetent slacker jerkoffs, so nothing good ever came of it.
I'm wondering why that is.
There are a number of possibilities:
- Sampling bias -- both situations are equally common, but I don't know the right people to hear the stories about good management, lousy workers.
- Observation bias -- people blame bad management when things go to hell because it's visible, even though the root causes are often something difference
- It's accurate, in which case there are a number of different possible reasons:
- It happens for structural reasons -- hierarchy magnifies the effects of any individual manager's failings, while minimizing the individual weaknesses of the rank-and-file.
- It's an intertial effect -- the higher up someone is, the harder it is to replace them if they do badly.
- It's rooted in corporate culture -- people who are good at their jobs get promoted until they're not good at them, and the upward path generally leads to management.
- It's a personality thing -- wankers are attracted to positions in management.
- Other reasons.
- It happens for structural reasons -- hierarchy magnifies the effects of any individual manager's failings, while minimizing the individual weaknesses of the rank-and-file.
- Confirmation bias -- complaining about your supervisor is socially approved; complaining about underlings is not.
- Something else entirely.
- Several or all of the above.
What's your experience? I'm curious to know what people think.
