'Children should be seen and not heard' is an old adage, several hundred years old, that I came across often in children's books when I was a child. Our parents never used this phrase, but I understand that it probably was used more often in their grandparents' generation. In any case, it speaks for itself. Children should not say much, should 'not speak until spoken to' and should not bother adults.
I remembered this adage yesterday when I had lunch with a friend who was commenting on the behavior of the leaders in her workplace. Her opinion was that there are too many leaders with nothing to do and since they have nothing to do, they have to micromanage their employees. They dissect every little thing, they treat their employees like children who need to be brought up correctly, and they argue and criticize ad nauseam. The readers of this blog know how I feel about most leaders. With some few exceptions, most leaders are not worth their salt and not worth what they're paid. 'To become a leader' is the career goal of many young people, and society accommodates that goal by allowing unprofessional and shockingly unknowledgeable individuals to become leaders. Leadership in and of itself has become a career, a profession. If you've taken leadership courses, the assumption is that you are automatically qualified to be a leader, whether it's of a bank, a hospital, or any other organization that should actually hire leaders on the basis of their professional knowledge of the field. But since the early 2000s, that seems to be a bygone idea. Thus you have the merry-go-round of leaders, who move from leading a hospital to leading a bank to leading a biotech corporation. The key word is that they are 'leaders', that's what's important. This way of thinking has permeated the work world to the point where there are too many unqualified leaders and not enough qualified workers to do the real work. How could there be, when most departmental budgets go to paying the enormously inflated salaries of said leaders. In my former workplace, the end result was that the qualified employees were told by unqualified leaders to strive to work more effectively, as though they hadn't done so before. 'Working more effectively' translates to 'do the work of several people, not just one'. It's just more bullshit to add to the ever-growing pile of bullshit that average ordinary employees are expected to tolerate.
So my twist on the old adage is 'leaders should be seen and not heard'. My friend agreed. It would go a long way toward making her workplace more tolerable. It would be wonderful if most leaders stayed in the background and let their employees do the jobs they were hired to do, without micromanaging and dissecting every little thing they do. It would go a long way toward creating stable and effectively-functioning workplaces. Let employees do their jobs in peace, without having to listen to the endless and monotonous motivational nonsense that permeates modern workplaces. There should be fewer leaders overall; there is no need for most of them if they cannot justify their positions. It's not enough to have the title and salary of 'leader'. You need to know what you are doing in the field that you lead, and you need to step back and get out of the way of your qualified employees. If they need your help or advice, they'll ask for it. But they will not do so of leaders whom they deem to be unqualified for their positions. The title of 'leader' does not automatically qualify you for respect; you have to earn that.
