inept managers: do you recognize one in your company? Employees 
Author's note: In keeping with the style I tend to write my articles, the contents of this paper, we discuss the author in the third person even as the ideas and proposals raised here are my own and the product of my research in management science.
After several years of interacting with base personnel, coordination, monitoring and some levels of management, it is impossible to ignore one of the best known secrets of modern management: just over 80 percent of the staff considers to be under the supervision of an inept manager. Or worse, it seems a prerequisite for managing in certain and specific companies, not knowing anything of the business, management and basic aspects of dealing with staff, to a position of such importance.
ineptitude should be defined as lack of fitness for one thing, the inability and incompetence, and even the sign of foolishness or incapacity for something in particular.
is a manager is inept when it is unable to accept their limitations (but you know you have them), to generate a pleasant and inspiring environment at the workplace and when, consciously or not, induce subordinates to experience a feeling of rejection or disapproval.
This expression is not meant to offend anyone, it is a reality that any person is exposed, because the lack of capacity can be properly detected and corrected in most cases.
very difficult to address this issue without resorting to subjectivity. In fact it is inconsistent not to do so because such statements from the manager's perception on the part of subordinates and, of course, perception is not objectively. Sentencing
an inept manager depends on many factors, but in some cases, these statements seem to make sense, situations where it is an obvious lack of skills and even theorists who have responsibility for leading a business unit, which , with an amazing ability, make use of transaction management features that monitor equipment.
situations are clear and obvious to those who live and experience, but (for an incomprehensible way) not for the rest of the staff working in the company, and especially for senior management.
seems enough to ask anyone and noted that eight of ten had complaints from the way they are managed, and the same was repeated when asked if his supervisor know enough about business or work they perform. Of course, with respect to the second option, this proportion does not apply to fast food chains or franchises where the fundamental requirement is to know the process well enough, but seems to have the same tendency in these businesses, when it examines on the first option.
is no secret: employees complain at times when they feel that the supervisor can not hear them. They do so clandestinely in the bathrooms, stairs, kitchens or any area that provides some safety to express openly and without censorship as saying of his superior. The complaints range from simple contradictions to the psychological effect that generates knowledge that is being managed by a person who does not have the minimum skills to do so and, on occasion, are under their supervision.
Based on the expressions of employees who experience this type of situation (regardless of reporting level), where the manager appears to be a kind of walking example of ineptitude, lacking the inspiration and model management capabilities typical of those who should be leaders, you can list some of the reasons why such characteristics go unnoticed before the senior management. These are:
* They are valued because they are people with long-lived relationship with the company: the time spent in the same position suggests that they handle and know fully, even more so if the transaction flows without significant errors or these are not the knowledge of superiors.
* They are not evaluated objectively because they are related to the owner or influential people in the company: are relatives, acquaintances or friends of a person's weight in the organization, recommended and sold as "good people" are individuals or who are owed favors debt or is there some "moral", sentimental, political or any other measures required to keep them in those positions. Usually hold some sort of experience that involves the assimilation of operations by contrast.
* They are considered important because they are people with major titles and awards: they have, in theory, all that is required to manage a successful operation, the above academic achievement and therefore taken for granted the experience. Sometimes this situation is presumed only because there is no evidence of the degree.
* You lose the opportunity to question them because they are individuals with significant ability to speak: his uncanny ability to convince the audience in doubt or conflict situations and the proper handling of information, even if they themselves understand it, suggests a level of involvement of managers own apt.
* The above is as or more inept than he: when ignorance of the operation, business or any practical or theoretical element is absent in the levels of reporting, it is much more difficult to identify the existence of ineptitude, as there are grounds to oppose the proposals or actions that arise.
The existence of inept managers is a reality, there are everywhere, and in most cases show the same characteristics. Some These include:
Confusing action manage to govern: a manager can get involved in the operation and looking for ways to facilitate the process by making use of teamwork, however inept manager only requires solutions from office setting times and specifying the content of the results without having the slightest idea what he asks.
* Always show occupied and lack of time: a good manager organizes and manages time, set priorities and know that not everything is urgent. Understands and appreciates the needs of your team and is aware of the curve of mental and physical exhaustion and the very personal. For an inept manager required thirty days and six hours, everything is urgent and "yesterday", he puts all processes the same sense of priority and is justified by noting that "this is the company" requires effort to triple its staff, forces to work regardless of the time, but when you have a commitment outside the work environment does not hesitate to withdraw.
* Showing insurance for their staff but nervous about their supervisors, a manager knows the details fit your operation and is able to defend their arguments and positions with solid and irrefutable explanation. Instead, an inept manager yells and screams at his subordinates, using the power conferred upon the position, but certainly hesitant or silent before questioning him do any higher.
* No delegate functions depend on its people: good managers know the operation. Therefore, in an unexpected situation, are able to take control of any part of the process so that it does not stop. Incompetent managers are dedicated to justify the lack of good results in situations where staff have been assigned to a particular task does not go to work. Do not know how to keep the flow of the process and depends on its staff so that it is maintained.
* suffer the "syndrome of Anath" good managers are concerned with ingenious solutions to problems in their area, are open to listening to your personal and publicly acknowledge authorship of the contributions that they make to their management. An inept manager sells the ideas that their staff had suggested as his own. In some cases asking them to send the proposal or the development of a work in electronic form and, after some minor modifications, presents them to his superiors as if they were the result of their efforts.
* are sycophants, and exhibitionist subservient to their bosses do not need to fit a manager promoted within the company: quality of results and the good atmosphere that produces its management are important enough elements to be reviewed and considered by those I supervise. But in the case of inept managers not true: they're always echoing what they do, highlighting only what they value in the eyes of their bosses, they serve and indulge in a servile and unethical, regardless of forge the image to their subordinates. Against their superiors are shown tireless and dedicated, saying that if not for his "management style" operation would not be a success, completely ignoring the efforts of your team.
* Suffer the "Cronos syndrome": a manager can find a way to grow your people, however inept manager is always in search of limitations to prevent your staff to reach it.
* For them there is always a crisis: Good managers seek a balance between the company and his staff know that the only way to reap good results are achieved. Inept managers, constant and repetitive, its staff say that things go from bad to worse and therefore must accept the conditions he imposed on them in the work environment, otherwise it would be risking their jobs. For them there is always a crisis that requires attention and care, and they are the only ones able to circumvent.
* It is foolish and stubborn: A capable manager handle stress and emotional intelligence, listening recommendations and promotes creativity and innovation, while an inept manager shows constantly stressed and cranky, insists that things must be done as he says, and specifies the smallest of details, even if you just want to express not reflected on their demands. Often used terms such as "try not to be creative." Notably
the above is not satisfied in all cases, there are inept managers whose type is unique and particular, it is almost impossible to frame them in features similar to those discussed, but whose impact on staff generates the same classification of ineptitude.
However, and this perhaps most importantly, a manager may be unfit for some things but show a unique and extraordinary ability to others, otherwise it would be so obvious their lack of skills that would not last long enough in the company to allow classification. Incompetent managers are usually very skilled at word, in the assembly of scenarios that favor, to give a good impression on the people who know or are not in your area and even in apparently true lights in the administrative field. Study and arrange their superiors have expectations of them and they manage to look good in front of them, no matter the cost in human capital that it generates. In most cases know their limitations, but not accept them, so that use of gadgets to align with people who can offer solutions or ideas that later appear as the fruit of their experience and reflections.
How does the presence of staff inept managers? You can say that in many ways, but the main are: * generate
feelings of frustration when an employee discovers that his experience and academic level are by their supervisor Holm, soon experience a deep sense of frustration. This occurs because the individual strives to attain university degrees and experience in different fields thinking that only thus can grow and occupy important positions in business, so it is contradictory to a stage where he is better prepared than his boss. However it may be that even if the academic level separates them, is the attitude and style of the manager clear that generate frustration, it is no answer to the question how this inept could get to that position?
* Reduced motivation: the individual loses motivation when the scenario in which it operates contrary to their principles, values \u200b\u200band motives that led him to take a position on it. A basic principle is the principle that the right people must be in the right places, and this is contradicted when a person who is incapable of managing has that responsibility.
* Produces loss of interest in the work: it is simple, if an inept person can occupy a major position in the company, why try?
However, as discussed in previous works, the presence of incompetent managers can be useful for the type of person who experiences it. This can be viewed from two angles:
* People with implosive pride: it will be consumed by feelings of frustration, discouragement, and indifference, leaving aside their expectations and dreams to accept without question be managed by people who lack the basic capacity to do so. Be limited to express their anguish, disagreements and opinions in safe places such comments did not reach the ears of their bosses to ensure that they stay on the job.
* People with pride explosive: strengthen your goals and objectives to achieve your dreams, fight for not swayed by negative feelings that prevent progress in its development, observe the situation experienced by a passenger and seek to highlight and demonstrate the management optimal operation. If they can not on the same stage seek their participation in another.
Those with the responsibility of running a company must maintain objectivity and seek to make recruitment really qualified to hold management positions. In some cases it may work for some time tenure inept managers in charge of an operation, but sooner or later it will bring negative consequences to the organization, which can jeopardize its operations.
is a fact that a number of employees do not give up the company but the manager of your unit, what should be a point of reflection for anyone who owns their staff and who knows, somehow, that is not able to manage it.
This is one reason why there is brain drain and good employees in companies, people who decide to withdraw from strong organizations and promising due to the existence of an incompetent manager in front of the area worked.
Sometimes what seems obvious may be simply an illusion or the result of the action of a paradigm that obscures reality, it is advisable to be attentive to the personal management style that has at that level and pay attention to environment and turnover rates of these areas, because a company may be losing the human talent for exercising an inept manager. Socorro Felix
http://www.sht.com.ar/archivo/temas/ineptos.htm
