????此外,，他們當(dāng)上領(lǐng)導(dǎo)后，最糟糕的是他們認(rèn)為這是自己應(yīng)得的,，而且應(yīng)該獲得更大的權(quán)力,，這次不是因?yàn)樗麄児ぷ鞒錾且驗(yàn)樗麄兪恰敖?jīng)理”,，本來(lái)就該這樣,。與實(shí)際情況相反的是，把沒(méi)有成功領(lǐng)導(dǎo)經(jīng)驗(yàn),，也沒(méi)有在有效領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方面受過(guò)培訓(xùn)的人放到管理崗位上絕對(duì)不劃算,。

????回答者：邁克?杜加斯,，統(tǒng)計(jì)師兼創(chuàng)業(yè)者

????首先，讓我們看看一個(gè)人怎樣才能成為經(jīng)理,。經(jīng)理們都有一個(gè)決定性的特質(zhì),，那就是他們有權(quán)告訴別人（比如自己的下屬）該做什么。換句話說(shuō),，他們有權(quán)做決定,，無(wú)論下屬怎么想或者怎么說(shuō)。

????經(jīng)理提升團(tuán)隊(duì)價(jià)值的唯一途徑是他們做出比下屬更高明的決定,，或者掌握所需的知識(shí),，并且能把這些知識(shí)傳授給下屬。

????然而,，如今企業(yè)的實(shí)際情況是,，在一線員工和首席執(zhí)行官之間有許多中層經(jīng)理。為了讓這樣的企業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)順利運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn),，各個(gè)層次的經(jīng)理都必須比下一級(jí)人員能干,。但我們都知道，實(shí)際上不可能如此,?！爸R(shí)工作者”就是一個(gè)非常好的例子，他們往往都很有能力,，掌握恰當(dāng)信息后,，都能做出很好的決定。出于本能或潛意識(shí),，經(jīng)理們知道這一點(diǎn),，奇怪的是大多數(shù)經(jīng)理都會(huì)阻撓別人獲得所需的知識(shí)（從而變成了“守門(mén)員”），只是為了證明自己的決定非常英明,。

????所以我們不禁要問(wèn),，我們需要經(jīng)理嗎？如果提升一個(gè)人當(dāng)經(jīng)理,，就是賦予其指揮權(quán)和酬勞控制權(quán),，這樣的企業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)合理嗎？（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????審校：Lina

????And, once they’re in that position of authority, the worst case is that they begin to think they deserve it – and that they deserve more authority and more power, not because they’re good at their job anymore, but because they’re “the manager” and that’s how it works. Contrary to how things work in reality, it’s just not good business to place people in positions of leadership without a history of leadership success or the training to help them be effective leaders.

????Answer by Mike Dugas, statistician and entrepreneur

????First, let’s define what makes a manager a manager. A manager has one unique, defining characteristic- namely, the right to tell others, i.e. their subordinates, what to do. Put another way, managers have the right to make decisions regardless of what their subordinates want or say.

????The only way for a manager to add value is to either be better at the decision making than their subordinates or be able to coach their subordinates by possessing and conveying needed knowledge to their subordinates.

????But here’s the reality of companies today. There are many layers of managers between the doer and the CEO. In order for this organizational structure to work, every layer must have a manager better than the people below her. But we know this can’t possibly be true. A great example comes from so called “knowledge workers” who often are capable people who can make good decisions given access to the right information. Instinctively, or unconsciously, managers know this to be true, so oddly most engage in preventing access to the needed knowledge (they become gatekeepers) in order to justify the great wisdom they bring to decisions.

????So we need to ask the question: do we need managers? Is, in fact, the organization structure that says to some “you can tell these people what to do and you have control over their compensation” make sense?