Discussions

[1] 2 3 Next »

• 
  techguy322
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  07/06/2009 02:03 PM

  CEO's can read!

  alapkd, you must be a CEO...but at least you can read :)

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    spaq.yetti@gmail.com
    

    Posts:
    2

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    07/06/2009 04:43 PM

    True

    This makes perfect sense.  Every large organization I've worked with, for, or been part of falls into this paradigm.
    
    Example:
    
    The Army, in the 60's and 70's you could be an E6, E7, E8 and not be a people manager.  You were the Lead Specialist.  Now you have to be a manager or you can’t get promoted and thus forced out. 
    
    Sales role, you are an excellent salesperson blowing out your number YOY.  However, you are expected to take over as a Sales Manager.  Completely failing because you're not a manager and don’t have the ability to manage.
    
    General Manager, excellent at running the regional market.  Leading and strategically guiding that specific sector. Promoted to VP of multiple sectors and fail because you don't have the necessary broad vs deep knowledge and management style.
    
    Each of this instances are exactly what they are talking about.  The best of the best and the worst of the worst all because of a promotion, either forced or otherwise.  Sometimes it's just better to leave those in a specific position in that position and allow them to do what they are good at.
    
    But, that's not the real problem is it.  People stop doing what they are good at because they've peaked in a specific role and can't grow (financially).  Which forces them to stay there indefinitely, leave, or get promoted.  Perhaps the real problem is that Big Organizations pay based on title rather than experience and excellence.  Or maybe, we're just geared towards an upward momentum and haven't learned that staying where you are isn't a bad thing.
    
    Then again, you could go the route of the Federal Government and promote people that fail at one level…  look where that promotion style got us.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      bmpress
      

      Posts:
      1

      Reply

      07/12/2009 10:35 AM

      Re: What About Competence?

      It seems that in addition to spreading incompetence throughout a big organization, there is also widespread competence. Just like in a body with both good and defective genes, the corporation will always have both types. Then assuming this is correct, the key to avoiding business failure, such as with General Motors, is a larger, overriding issue that points to the need for competent control and direction over a defective, non-perfect organization.

      Rate this comment:
• 
  sparrowhawk2000
  

  Posts:
  2

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  07/06/2009 03:57 PM

  Wrong

  This makes no sense.
  
  If you judge somebody by an objective standard:
  
  Ability to learn
  Capable of adapating
  Core characteristics
  
  You will find that a person can reach endless heights. From the mailroom to the boardroom.
  
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    ZephirAWT
    

    Posts:
    104

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    07/06/2009 05:17 PM

    Re: Wrong

    Indeed, but such universal personalities are quite uncommon from statistical reason. Most people tends to specialize in their abilities: most of them are good in holistic general approach, while other one are experts in details - and such specialization is the more pronounced, the larger is common scope of interest.
    
    While many brilliant theorists are good in formal math approach, their ability to follow nonformal logics remains quite low, so they cannot be recommended as a conceptual leaders - and vice-versa, indeed. For example W. Pauli was known as a inventive theorist, but a poor experimenter, tending to occultism.
    
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17023-why-two-geniuses-delved-into-the-occult.html
    
    True is, flagrant cases of such duality are rare in the similar way, like true universal renaissance personalities.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    dumaal
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    07/09/2009 07:16 AM

    lol... I have few questions

    1. how much time will take for the average competent guy to become incompetent to be promoted?
    2. how can u choose? Most competent it is one. Incompetents are usually many.
    3. Does motivation counts for anything?
    
    When random is a success, it always means there are too few cases in the study and the fact that the study ignores some essential rule that actually makes the good results appear.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  ZephirAWT
  

  Posts:
  104

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  07/06/2009 04:59 PM

  Meritocracy of science

  Unfortunatelly, contemporary science (conservative theoretical physics in particular) isn't immune against such incompetence as well, being driven by meritocracy. From AWT follows, such evolution is an emergent phenomena, which is undeniable for all large particle systems. Their translation is compensated in mutual particle collisions, but their vorticity not. We can consider black holes as a result of gradual cummulation of surface spin of particles, forming space-time.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    mike7491
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    07/08/2009 02:26 PM

    Re: Meritocracy of science

    Uhhh. That statement makes zero sense to me. In general terms, how does a "Meritocracy" EVER result in incompetent people (no merit) being promoted unless they're being promoted as described in the article or, more commonly, based on cronyism masquerading as "merit"? By definition, "Meriticracy" requires reward for TRUE merit, presumably, merit (e.g. "qualified") for the NEW position in question. Of course, we can debate until Hell freezes over about HOW "merit" is identified with certainty. But that was not a condition of your assertion.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      ZephirAWT
      

      Posts:
      104

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      07/08/2009 10:05 PM

      Re: Meritocracy of science

      ..HOW "merit" is identified with certainty...
      Well, merit is measured in number of citations for instance, but every measure will introduce a systematic error into estimation of competence of people. For example, while pioneering works are rewarded by higher number of citations, their real contribution to understanding remains often overestimated, especially at the case, they only describe phenomena without further explanation or when they propose solution without specification of details. Typical case of such deformation in science is famous case of Einstein, who never obtained a Nobel price for "his" theories, although the were quoted often.

      Rate this comment:
• 
  fixedd
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  07/06/2009 07:20 PM

  Paradox?

  I suggest we look up the definition of the word "paradox".

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    ZephirAWT
    

    Posts:
    104

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    07/08/2009 09:39 AM

    Re: Paradox?

    Paradox means "an expected dependence" in scientific journalism.

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 Next »