爲什麼大多數經理都沒能提升他們帶領的團隊價值

The following answers originally appeared in Quora for the question:Why do most managers add no value to their teams?

針對這個問題，以下是在Quora網站上徵集到的答案。

Answer by Michael O. Church, programmer

回答者：邁克爾oOo丘奇，程序員

This answer may be more general than what you’re looking for, but there are a few things that come to my mind about what makes management such a mess in most companies.

與你所期望的（具體答案）相比，這個回答可能比較籠統，但在我看來這也是爲什麼大多數公司的管理一團混亂的癥結所在。

1. The Power Paradox.The people who want power the most are the last people in the world that you want getting it. The fiercer the competition you set up for people to acquire power, the worse people you’ll have doing it.

1.權力悖論。最想獲得權力的人就是這個世界上你最不願意看到他掌權的人。在篩選負責人的過程中，競爭越激烈，挑選出來的人就越差勁。

2. Their bosses.Most managers have a (perhaps surprising) lack of power themselves and are forced to manage up, and treat their subordinates like crap because they’re badly incentivized.

2.他們的老闆。大多數經理都沒有足夠的權力（這也許讓人感到意外），他們只能向上級彙報；由於激勵方法有誤，他們都不把下屬當人看。

3. Hard to measure’s hard to measure the quality of people management, as opposed to more objective deliverables.

3.難以衡量。與更具體的可實施任務相比，很難衡量管理的質量如何。

4. Conflicts of interest.In most companies, people managers and project or group managers (or tech leads) are the same person. Related to (3), this is problematic. Managers often restrict mobility because they need to keep their projects or groups staffed and to hit deliverables, even though optimal people management might call for a transfer.

4.利益衝突。在大多數公司，對人、項目、團隊（或者技術）的管理都由同一個人負責。鑑於上述第三條原因，這種做法有問題。經理往往會限制人員流動，因爲他們的項目或團隊需要人手，需要完成任務，即使人事管理優化方案可能需要進行人員調動。

5. Seems unnecessary.When people management is done extraordinarily well, managers almost become invisible. People are unaware of the things that are not breaking around them.

5.看似多此一舉。如果管理做得特別好，大家都感覺不到經理的存在。一切進展順利，人們就會覺得理所當然。

Answer by Cliff Gilley, product manager

回答者：克里夫o吉利，產品經理

I would say that I generally agree with the premise – that there is a large percentage of managers who do not contribute to the success or growth of their teams. But I would say that, quite honestly, it’s not always their fault. It’s often the case that people are promoted into management because they demonstrate that they can perform the daily tasks that they’re asked of efficiently and effectively – that somehow their performance as an individual contributor alone “qualifies” them to lead a team.

我要說我基本同意這種說法，大部分經理都沒有爲其團隊的成功或成長做出貢獻。但我也要坦率地指出，這並不總是他們的錯。通常情況下，他們之所以能夠晉升到管理崗位，是因爲此前他們展現了高效而出色地完成分內工作的能力。從某種意義上說，他們作爲個體貢獻者的表現使他們有了領導團隊的“資格”。

And this, quite simply, is not the case. There are certain skills and talents that one must have to be an effective leader and a good manager. And these aren’t always innate abilities – but we in the business world just expect someone to be promoted and hit the ground running. It’s rare, especially in small companies, for a manager to get any real training or education in how to manage a team – and when they then get promoted later, the person who steps into their shoes has no mentor to help them out; what you eventually wind up with is an entire organization that lacks any real understanding of or appreciation for actual leadership capabilities.

很明顯，這樣做並不合理。要成爲出色的領導者和經理，就必須具備某些能力和才幹，而且這些才能並不全是天生的。但身處商業世界，人們就是希望這些得到提拔的人立即具有管理才能。經理很少得到關於團隊管理方面的培訓和教育，尤其是在小公司。在他們再次得到升遷後，其繼任者就會求師無門，得不到幫助。這種情況最終會導致整個企業都對領導能力缺乏理解。

How this winds up displaying itself is in the very ineffectual behaviors that you apply there – when someone is in a position of authority, but doesn’t know what to do, the last thing they want is to show that they’re uncertain. So they overcompensate, sometimes massively. Anyone who asks a question is challenging their authority; every single status report has to be detailed down to the roots, so that they don’t ever say “let me check on that” to the Exec team; they’re unable to delegate authority and responsibility because they simply can’t trust other people, who may be capable of doing their job better than they are.

最後的結果就像問題所描述的那樣，是一種非常無能的行爲，處於領導崗位的人不知道該如何管理，他們絕不想表現出自己沒把握的狀態。所以他們就會出現過度補償的行爲，有時候甚至很嚴重。別人問個問題就被視爲對他們權威的挑戰；每份報告都得追根溯源，極其詳細，這樣他們就不用對高層說“讓我來查一下”；他們無法分派權力和責任，因爲他們不信任別人，而別人可能比他們更勝任管理工作。

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.

此外，他們當上領導後，最糟糕的是他們認爲這是自己應得的，而且應該獲得更大的權力，這次不是因爲他們工作出色，而是因爲他們是“經理”，本來就該這樣。與實際情況相反的是，把沒有成功領導經驗，也沒有在有效領導方面受過培訓的人放到管理崗位上絕對不划算。

Answer by Mike Dugas, statistician and entrepreneur

回答者：邁克o杜加斯，統計師兼創業者

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.

首先，讓我們看看一個人怎樣才能成爲經理。經理們都有一個決定性的特質，那就是他們有權告訴別人（比如自己的下屬）該做什麼。換句話說，他們有權做決定，無論下屬怎麼想或者怎麼說。

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.

經理提升團隊價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，並且能把這些知識傳授給下屬。

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.

然而，如今企業的實際情況是，在一線員工和首席執行官之間有許多中層經理。爲了讓這樣的企業結構順利運轉，各個層次的經理都必須比下一級人員能幹。但我們都知道，實際上不可能如此。“知識工作者”就是一個非常好的例子，他們往往都很有能力，掌握恰當信息後，都能做出很好的決定。出於本能或潛意識，經理們知道這一點，奇怪的是大多數經理都會阻撓別人獲得所需的知識（從而變成了“守門員”），只是爲了證明自己的決定非常英明。

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?

所以我們不禁要問，我們需要經理嗎？如果提升一個人當經理，就是賦予其指揮權和酬勞控制權，這樣的企業結構合理嗎？