When crappy (and often expensive) employees are promoted?

[Anonymous]

Why do public organizations not only hold on to but promote into management roles terrible employees who mistreat staff and clearly are disliked? Some old colleagues and I just found out that an abusive former low level supervisor was just promoted into a director role, even after her treatment of a few staffers brought a lawsuit. I can’t believe it, but yeah, I should. What’s new, right?

[Anonymous]

Your guess is as good as mine. The supervisors I work with are astonishingly bad, mostly. Lien so dumb and inept it took me a while to accept it.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, at every workplace I’ve had, hiring decisions are made by people who have zero clue about the day to day performance level of an existing staff member. They hire based on “ vibes”and if they remind them of their predominantly white middle class kid and how good someone is at bullshit. It has nothing to do with who will be the best or even good at the actual job.

[Anonymous]

Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.

[Anonymous]

Reasons people gets promoted:
- they are someone's illegitimate kid
- they have a picture of an executive leaving a hotel with a person who isn't their spouse
- they have other forms of dirt on someone (graft, improper accounting entries, etc.)
- unbelievable kiss ass capabilities
- they have superior cognitive and people skills

The last one is about 35% of all promotions

[Anonymous]

Managing up and managing down are two different skillsets, and people who are good at one are often not great at the other.

Sounds like the former supervisor knows how to manage up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.

Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.

Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.

Explain why anyone would do something which is not in their personal best interests? It doesn't happen - basic human nature. Every action we take fundamentally is in our own interests one way or another.

[Anonymous]

It is always about managing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.

Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.

Explain why anyone would do something which is not in their personal best interests? It doesn't happen - basic human nature. Every action we take fundamentally is in our own interests one way or another.

Only sociopaths think this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplaces are incentivized to put people in places that maximize profits or otherwise advance the mission. If you see people being promoted, int he end, it is because they do those things, or the hiring official believes they do.

Consider whether your perception of them is not even close to the whole picture of their value to the employer.

(And as an employment attorney, I would say that at least 65% of the suits I have seen filed were against a manager who did nothing wrong.)

This is correct. It's illogical to presume that rational employers promote people who they perceive as unlikely to advance the company's interests. Executives are compensated directly and/or indirectly based on company profitability or, in some cases, on public perceptions of future profitability. To deliberately limit that is to act against their own interests, and that's not how people behave. That said, of course sometimes employers are mistaken in their judgments, but they usually don't take too long to correct their mistakes once those become evident.

Eyeroll. Says the Republican employment defense side attorneys.

Explain why anyone would do something which is not in their personal best interests? It doesn't happen - basic human nature. Every action we take fundamentally is in our own interests one way or another.

Only sociopaths think this way.

No, you're not thinking broadly enough about the definition of self interest.

[Anonymous]

In any company, your are promoted based on 60% ability and 40% playing the game.

[Anonymous]

I am in public sector, and it didnt make sense how this one incompetent person who never did any work kept getting promotions until I learned they were having an affair with a higher status person in a different section (so no direct management ties, but close enough to probably put in a good word).

[Anonymous]

Usually they are huge brown nosers.

One would have been hired for a senior level position at work, but we went en mass to the supervisor and said we would all quit if she was hired. She was not hired and thankfully left.