The skillset needed to manage people is completely different than actually doing the job. It doesn’t automatically mean you’ll be a bad supervisor, but judging how well someone does their individual contributor job as a metric for promotion is how you get supervisors that don’t understand people or how to motivate/disipline them effectively. They can make great trainers b/c they know the job inside and out well, but that also isn’t a given.
We’ve all had that one sup or trainer that was just gawd awful at explaining things despite knowing how to do them very well. The guy that has been there 20 years but has a terrible attitude toward co-workers or anyone with any new ideas.
I think we need to evaluate our supervisors better before promotion by different metrics than ‘good at the job’ they are supervising.
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I don’t think this is really unpopular
The opposite of this is unpopular.
Not unpopular.
Having availability on weekdays doesn’t make you a good supervisor either, but it’s the reason most “managers” at any food or retail establishment are in the role they’re in
Most popular opinion ever.
This is called the Peter Principle created by Laurence Peter in which people in a management position will rise to their level of incompetence.
I was average at the job, but great as a supervisor. I have gone from operator to manager in three years. Cause i was average at the job but i was solving problems that should be managers to solve all the time. And I was loud about it cause i wanted to grow.
Sure there is Peter principle. But realistically, what would you suggest? Let’s say we have someone who worked hard and is eager to be promoted.
Do we stick to the principle that ‘a good worker doesn’t always make a good supervisor and potentially let them go? Or do we take a chance, promote them, and hope they grow into a strong manager? Do you want to show your other employee that, no matter how hard you work. You would never get what you want?
In theory, you’re right. But in most situations, the best move is to promote them.
Ofc, supervising vs doing the job are 2 different things, sure it does come in handy knowing about how the job is done, but it doesn’t automatically makes you good at it.
So I think this is pretty popular, people skill are not the same as the skills you need to do a good job
A supervisor or any manager is promoted based on being liked by the promoting manager. They will always defend the candidate’s merit. That’s how that will never change.
You’re saying Wayne Gretzky wouldn’t be a good hockey coach?
You could do it like the USPS and hire managers who were bad at the actual job (if they ever did it in the first place) AND have absolutely no people skills or management ability.
This shouldn’t be an unpopular opinion.
You need both.
Management has plenty of skills that go with it, whether that’s learning what motivates different people (everyone’s different), allocating projects, performance management, or more.
But you need to know how the actual job works as well, because you need to know if your reports are lying to you, and if different people are telling you different things you need to know who’s right.
What metrics should be used then?
Someone didn’t get the promotion they applied for.
That’s right. And that’s why I refuse to move to a leader position, even if it’s better paid, or because it’s the “logical next step in career.