Dave Schutz (6/14/2013)
To me it depends on the skills that people are being rewarded for. If we are rewarding people for doing a good technical job, then I'm in favor of that. Too often people are rewarded because of who they befriend and not what work they produce.When a company promotes people because they are nice and go along with the flow, then expects to get improved performance they are often disappointed. People who just go along with the flow often are unable to drive improvement because improvement requires change from the way you are doing things.
Quite agree. In technical fields, I absolutely believe in a meritocracy (at least as far as remunerations goes); without technical excellence it's hard to achieve performance excellence with any kind of efficiency. Where most companies (that I've worked for at least) struggle is in identifying not the abilities of the individual, but their potential. Being a good technical manager means you have to understand both the technologies you and your team work with and the people you manage. A good manager can tell the difference between issues that have a technical root and an emotional root, and act appropriately. I've seen so many people achieve rank simply because they've stuck around longer than anyone else, all the while perpetuating a 'least common denominator' mode of doing business, to no advantage to anyone.
"The personal courage to be different and the self-confidence to take the lone and often unpopular position are clearly basic characteristics of leaders in both management and technology.
...
All too often those who obey the rules and don't make waves are rewarded with steady advancement. The evidence suggests, however, that the most promising leaders are often the wild ducks, and that it might be wise to consciously look for talent among the ranks of the rebels.
...
People choose to be different for many reasons, but some of them take this path because they see opportunities for improvement that the rest of us have missed."
- Watts S Humphrey