Our initial axiom seemed to be, well, a no-brainer, but it generated some perhaps surprising topics for discussion. Here it is again, with its first corollary:
- The dumber they are, the smarter they think they are.
- The smarter they think they are, the dumber they are.
The first addressed the common problem of dealing with people whose high regard for themselves is not warranted, and whose false confidence sometimes even seems to be a peculiar by-product of their incompetence. With limited imagination, they fix on something, and generate undue certainty and confidence from their presumptive grasp of it.
That attitude – not theirs, but ours for noting it – is actually the target of the corollary: more often than we would care to admit, those self-deluding knuckleheads are, well . . . us. And that leads us to the next point. Here is the second corollary built from our base axiom:
- The dumber they think they are, the smarter they are.
This one will admit of more exceptions than the others, but it is a valid generalization nonetheless. And if you’re a truly good manager, it should give you some comfort, because truly good managers are the ones who continuously question their own ability.
After all, if they didn’t do that, how could they possibly improve it?
Remember: the ones we envy, the ones who seem so sure-footed, confident, never slowed by self-doubt or daunted by criticism – they are the dangerous ones. You can never be as sure as they what’s beyond the turn they’re careening around: a new vista of opportunity or an empty chasm; and, what’s more, they don’t know either – they’re simply clinging to some talismanic management mantra they’ve picked up somewhere, or some snippet of personal experience they’ve glimpsed along the way, and are betting the farm – your farm – that it’s the real thing.
I’m certainly not advocating that you cultivate paralyzing self-criticism, or that you avoid developing confidence and the ability to instill it in others, particularly in hard times. What I caution against is that you develop that confidence uncritically in yourself, ask that your bosses or staff invest it uncritically in you, or that you adopt it uncritically about others.
The third rail of management is the sort of overweening arrogance that we’ve discussed the past few days. The problem is that we’re all vulnerable to it – to exhibiting it or falling in thrall to it. But if it strikes you, it will run you through like a bolt of imbecility, paralyzing your critical analytic ability, and ruining you as a manager. Stay away from it, and let it ground itself harmlessly alongside you.
The twin currents that power professional management are purpose and self-examination. If you are to be sure of anything, it’s that you’ve got the purpose part right. If you are to be unsure of anything, it’s whether or not you’ve got the execution part right. That combination is what will make you an irresistible force in management.
Let’s say that again: what you should be sure of is not your ability, but your goals. What you should constantly question, with the aim of continuous improvement, is your ability to attain those goals.
This is an awfully interesting combination, so we’ll talk a bit more about it. See you tomorrow!
—
Here is a list of all the posts in this popular series:
- Radiating Imbecility
- Rays of hope
- Pulsating inconsistency
- Radiating confidence
- Blind faith
- Mirror, mirror . . .
- Socratic genius
- Socratic ignorance
- Socratic method
- First principles
- The Socratic attitude
- Why we do what we do
- Recon by fire
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: dumb, smart, false confidence, incompetence, imagination, certainty, confidence, manager, self-doubt, criticism, opportunity, management, experience, boss, staff, arrogance, imbecility, professional, purpose, self-examination, execution, ability, goal, improvement, Dunning-Kruger effect
Sphere: Related Content
Jim,
I love how this topic is unfolding!
“If you are to be sure of anything, it’s that you’ve got the purpose part right. If you are to be unsure of anything, it’s whether or not you’ve got the execution part right.”
Indeed. So much effort is directed at the execution part at the expense of purpose. Unfortunately, the execution focus is on methodology, models, and planning – utilized as crutches – with little or no continuous improvement on the individual manager.
Hi Joe,
That’s right, isn’t it? First things first, otherwise we’re just kidding ourselves. And what’s the meaning of improved execution that isn’t directed at a critically examined and validated purpose? It’s like seeing a dog begin to sit, issuing the order, and looking around to see if you can convince anyone it was at your command.
Thanks for your comments and support – and for your work and writing, of course; your current series is terrific – thanks for it!
Love this series, Jim. And I agree with you and Joe about being sure of purpose, but I think we also need to be sure of values. We need to know the relative importance of beliefs and actions in our own system and how far we’ll in any direction with them.
In GE’s 2000 Annual Report, Jack Welch said that GE made its great leap forward when they starting tying in values to evaluations and not just rewarding managers based on their numbers. An important part of this was getting rid of managers who made their numbers but did so in violation of GE culture and making it clear why those managers were let go. Welch says that otherwise those managers would corrode the trust-based culture they were trying to develop.
Hi Wally,
Absolutely! Results without values will eventually kill a company.
I worked for Jack Welch’s GE – he let go three senior executives during the company’s annual executive meeting in Boca Raton, FL in 2001.
The right culture, with the right leader sending the right message. Having the values as guiding principles helps focus and hone purpose.
Hello Wally and Joe,
Wally, thank you so much for adding this important element to the discussion. I agree with you completely.
I suppose we could look at purpose and process as polar tips that would probably destroy each other without the intermediation of values, as you refer to them. In this light, Joe’s statement, “Having the values as guiding principles helps focus and hone purpose,” helps us understand that.
It also underlines something that I think is important, and that I suspect you would agree with – that values (again, as you are referring to them) should be woven in to purpose, really – not bolted on later, or grafted onto execution.
If you try the latter alternatives, the whole thing will spin out of balance or unravel. But if you successfully accomplish the former, it is easier to learn how to manage the machine and to make it hum.
Thank you both again for insisting on and so powerfully illustrating this point – it demands insertion, and I will try to do justice to it.