1.
The Peter Principle states that people will be promoted to the level of their incompetence. I want to talk about a problem that, is in a sense, both an opposite and a collorary- the Bear postulate. If people are promoted by talent- even if they genuinely have all the talent they need to do the task- they’re not going to have a realistic sense of how much they can get out of employees precisely because they’re more talented and/or motivated than them.
Imagine if you pick, as your manager of the admin team, a real organizational whiz. A clerk who does all the stuff that policy says you’re supposed to, but no one does because it’s too slow. A clerk who remembers all their tasks, but writes them down in triplicate anyway. A clerk who actually understands how the database software works- and hasn’t just memorized the necessary sequences of actions. A clerk who spends three minutes running a double check for something that only has a 1 in 1000 probability and wouldn’t even be that bad if it happened.
Suppose that after this clerk takes over clerks start quitting in droves- to such a degree that the organization has trouble replacing staff. Why do you think this might be? Their new boss has a little knowledge (how the tasks work) which is a dangerous thing, because they lack the additional knowledge of how much they can expect- in terms of both skill and motivation. A boss who approaches the question of how much they can expect holistically, instead of just thinking “how long would it take me to do this” may well be preferable for a company having trouble with retention on hiring. The problem with workers chosen for their skill in the area they are managing is they may be more likely to allocate time by projecting their exceptional self into the shoes of their staff.
Now, I know that these days every company on the planet has formed a belief that however much they pay, whatever their conditions, they are entitled to elite employees with the ability, skills and desire to optimize every moment of their work and never check their phone, but that’s not going to happen, is it? The average worker spends about half their shift working. If you push for much more than that, you might get more work, or you might get tasks done quickly and sloppily. The average worker goes by heuristics they’ve developed with their co-workers, not official management processes. The average clerk is not concentrating hard on their spreadsheets for 8 hours consecutively, because people aren’t built like that- thank god. If you push them too hard, they quit, processes break, or you just give up.
I imagine a similar dynamic occurs with doctors, chefs, scientists, bricklayers, morticians, lawyers, gardeners…
2.
I think there’s a frankly sexist image of the clerical work that it’s something not very demanding which people, mostly women, do for a bit of extra pocket money. As if the role was primarily to be a greeter. In reality, clerical work is increasingly highly skilled but low credentialed.
The underlying problem for clerical work- which might come about by a bear principle style manager, or might just come from managers who don’t appreciate clerical work is hard- looks like this:
Just one more thing. It’ll take five minutes- tops.
Why don’t we ask for X information about our customers/patients/clients, it’ll only take a few more seconds. It’s good to know X.
Clerks keep stuffing up this complicated process, so let’s just add on a little check to the procedure. How long could it take, thirty seconds?
What do you mean we shouldn’t ask about X, surely you agree X is important?
If we add in Y field, it will help out group G in the firm so much, and it’s only an extra field- let’s do them a favor.
Really, how resource intensive could it be to keep records of Z?
It’s okay to bring in process P that takes a little extra time, ICT have assured us they’ll have it mostly automated sometime in the near future.
I wouldn’t stress to much about the extra tasks we’re creating. We’ll be getting in new people soon.
Give the night shift a bit of extra work, they’re not doing anything right?
Come on, it’s not another thing you have to remember during your shift, it’s only fifteen seconds.
The only way out of this trap is to recognize that every demand for ongoing repeated labor, no matter how seemingly trivial, is a big deal.
I think you make some valid points. I spent the first half of my worklife as a laborer. I am fortunate (or unfortunate) in having more endurance than the majority. I don't think it's a gift of god, but quite the opposite. I was never quite as talented at things so I worked twice as hard developing talents and so i developed, consequently what seemed to bosses better work skills so I would be promoted and then expected to have everyone equal my productivity skills.
The bosses always failed and productivity decreased. As a laborer others were often inspired to produce more to keep up with each other. If they removed from the line there was neither my example to inspire, nor my own efforts in accomplishing what was generally expectations and productivity generally halved when I was promoted.
But the same is true in our educational system.. No one is too inspired by the "a" student in the front row with their hand raised. but if students are arranged into study groups instead of rows in a classroom, I found (when I finally began attending college in midlife) we often inspired each other. I think our educational system would also improve if instead of marking on individual performance they marked on group achievement. That way the "weaker" were strengthened by the "more" talent in any particular discussion.
In work, in school, in life, we are always more inspired when we dispense with having those we are supposed to follow and follow those who do inspire us the most by encouraging the group to excel and not those who seek to excel above the group by leaving others behind.