Job Discussion Forums

[eha]

Some interesting points on this topic just came up in the thread on ECAE ; it's a subject which seems to me to merit a thread of its own.

When I first got involved in the tefling scene in the Gulf in the early 90s, the corporate Dilbert-worthy nonsense which constitutes managerialism was being taken VERY seriously. It was all very 'Friendly-Fascist': if you spoke up against all the pseudo-efficiency measures, you were attacked, undermined, marginalised in very unprofessional ways indeed. Under this system, which focused almost entirely on surface, many highly unlikely lads and lasses were given positions of power, which they didn't hesitate to abuse. Naturally, those who were doing well under this system supported it, while those who disapproved were seen -- and treated--- as the enemy. It's a bit galling now for some of us, to see the turnaround in attitude on the part of many of those who were the strongest supporters of this sysem while they were doing well out of it, to being critical of it now that criticism is beginning to be fashionable again.
Any of this sound familiar to others out there?

[Iamherebecause]

Well, I haven't been here as long as eha has but management here seems weird. If I look at UGRU for example management positions go to those who want to trample on others rather than those who have aptitude. There is little or no training for those who are hitched up into the management ranks - for example they go off and do recruitment without any training in selection and interviewing skills, they don't understand the importance of clear and courteous communication. I don't think employers in other fields would promote people from the shop floor, as t'were, without a bit of training in basic management techniques.

Who do they promote? Well I said it before. Men get promoted on height and/or girth, but size is definitely what matters not quality of CV (unless for political reasons they want a person with an Arab name, in which case never mind the quality at all) and women are promoted if they don't have a real life outside work.

[veiledsentiments]

Education management... I know that there are specific MBAs offered in US universities, but I never encountered anyone who had one. Nor do I recall that any of the direct supervisors... or even the level above them... had an education in management. Mainly it was ex-teachers who had experience 'managing' elsewhere in overseas education, if that. (The top management in places like HCT and ZU are usually people who have been in educational management in their home countries for some years, but we deal little with them... it is lower management that we deal with directly.)

But... would you want to be managed by someone who has never been in the trenches... never actually taught a class. Personally I can't imagine a worse situation...

How many people have a background in both management and have been in the classroom teaching? A handful? Certainly only a tiny percentage of those that are needed.

I found that the managements that I worked for tended to be two types. Those who actually disliked or were bad at teaching and considered this a way to get out of the classroom. Those who were ambitious and considered management more prestigious and you made MORE money!! That said, some of them were good at it... much of good management is personality, just as with teaching.

The educational institutions take what they could get. I think that the problem will continue as long as we are dealing with transient expats... here a couple contracts and gone... both the teachers and the management.

VS

[eha]

Transience has something to do with it--- but lack of professionalism, as the concept applies to education, has more.

iamherebecause:
I like the idea that these positions were allocated on the basis of girth; I hadn't given that one any serious analytical thought before. Very suggestive; lends a whole new dimension (! sorry!) to the concept of Middle Management potential.
I remember on one occasion someone asking what qualifications were required for these (I think they were called then 'co-ordinator') positions, and a colleague replied that you had to WANT one. There's actually more in that than might at first appear: my ex-tutor, a humanist if there ever was one, once said that anyone who isn't uneasy with power, shouldn't have it.

[trapezius]

[eha]

Oh dear; am I being un-P-C again? Didn't mean for the sarcasm to come across quite so heavily--- oops! Can't put finger to keyboard these days--- anyway, it wasn't me, it was that boy over there said it first!

[veiledsentiments]

Interesting that most of the management that I dealt with didn't seem to fit under the 'height and girth' rule. Plenty of the men were shorter than average and skinny... though some of them did bring Napoleon to mind.

VS

[eha]

'this only applies to about 10% of the people in power (being uneasy with power)'

10%???? You're a lot easier on them than I am! I'd say most people who go for positions that give them power over others, quite like having it. Of course, power isn't the same as authority--- the latter is more likely to be negotiated, and it can be earned through experience or skill, with any luck, 'people' skill. Those situations mentioned before in this and other threads are examples of the misuse of power in the wrong hands.

At least that's how it seems to me.

I've encountered one Good Guy in Management in the last twenty years, a person of wide understanding and culture, who could have done great things for the institution concerned. Unfortunately, his very virtues made his tenure impossible; he only lasted a year!