Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Apr '13 16:10
    April 23, 2013
    Stupidity may actually be good for business.

    Lund University economics professor Matt Alvesson found organizations are often more efficient because functional stupidity means workers do not question critical decisions or the vision of the company or project. That lack of critical reflection allowed companies to streamline work. According to Fortune, the study found a workplace suffers when too many people make suggestions about the direction of the organization. Those questions can disrupt productivity.

    The opposite was true of functional stupidity. Those individuals were able to come to a consensus more easily, and, as a result, workplace productivity and efficiency increased. "It is a double-edged sword," Alvesson, who wrote the study with colleague André Spicer, told Science Daily. "It is functional because it has some advantages and makes people concentrate enthusiastically on the task in hand. It is stupid because risks and problems may arise when people do not pose critical questions about what they and the organisation are doing." . . . .

    However, it isn't all bad news for brainiacs in the workplace. Researchers found critical questions can have a long-term impact on the future harmony and productivity of the company. Those workers can also spot problems before they become issues, saving valuable time.

    This article made me think of how the Republican Party might benefit from the rampant stupidity among their rank-and-file and leadership.

    http://www.chron.com/jobs/article/Study-finds-value-in-stupidity-in-the-workforce-4456173.php
  2. 24 Apr '13 16:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    April 23, 2013
    [quote]Stupidity may actually be good for business.

    Lund University economics professor Matt Alvesson found organizations are often more efficient because functional stupidity means workers do not question critical decisions or the vision of the company or project. That lack of critical reflection allowed companies to streamline work. Acc tp://www.chron.com/jobs/article/Study-finds-value-in-stupidity-in-the-workforce-4456173.php
    This also explains the USA's rise to world prominence in the business sector.
  3. 24 Apr '13 18:41
    I guess the large number of low scoring blacks and hispanics that make up the backbone of the Democrat party (especially the Barak Obama wing of the party) demonstrates the superior IQ of the Democrat party. Lol
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Apr '13 18:45
    The article mistakes unquestioning obedience for stupidity.

    To say that stupidity is good for a company is, well... stupid.

    Unquestioning obedience does not require stupidity, only a particular view of one's role in an organization.
  5. 24 Apr '13 19:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    The article mistakes unquestioning obedience for stupidity.

    To say that stupidity is good for a company is, well... stupid.

    Unquestioning obedience does not require stupidity, only a particular view of one's role in an organization.
    I'm not sure if I would specifically call it stupidity, but I know in one instance the head of the transit company in my home town (not Chicago..) got himself into PR trouble because he admitted that if a potential bus driver appeared to be too smart or educated then they wouldn't get the job.

    The reasoning was that they had found that bus or subway train drivers who were too educated or smart tended to day dream or get distracted while doing their job because generally it wasn't all that intellectually challenging to them.

    In corporate environments it's usually about knowing when and who to ask your questions. That may not be best for the company, but unquestioning obedience rarely gets you promoted, it usually gets you sitting in the same job until you get sick of it and quit.
  6. 24 Apr '13 19:39
    Originally posted by moon1969
    April 23, 2013
    [quote]Stupidity may actually be good for business.

    Lund University economics professor Matt Alvesson found organizations are often more efficient because functional stupidity means workers do not question critical decisions or the vision of the company or project. That lack of critical reflection allowed companies to streamline work. Acc ...[text shortened]... tp://www.chron.com/jobs/article/Study-finds-value-in-stupidity-in-the-workforce-4456173.php
    The study may explain the conformity of members of the Democratic party.
  7. 24 Apr '13 19:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    The article mistakes unquestioning obedience for stupidity.

    To say that stupidity is good for a company is, well... stupid.

    Unquestioning obedience does not require stupidity, only a particular view of one's role in an organization.
    I am absolutely with sh76 on this.

    Most companies expect obedience and loyalty
    from their employees and if they don't get it
    well then that particular employee who may be
    outspoken may be severely dealt with.

    I am talking anything from a disciplinary hearing,
    right up to the ultimate sanction of job loss.
    In this age of austerity, anyone who has a job
    no matter how crummy the job may be, they
    want to keep it in order to earn a living, put food
    on the table and pay their bills. Being critical of your
    boss or the company policies is not an option.

    I would not put much faith in that survey at all.
  8. 24 Apr '13 20:11
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I'm not sure if I would specifically call it stupidity, but I know in one instance the head of the transit company in my home town (not Chicago..) got himself into PR trouble because he admitted that if a potential bus driver appeared to be too smart or educated then they wouldn't get the job.

    The reasoning was that they had found that bus or subway t ...[text shortened]... you promoted, it usually gets you sitting in the same job until you get sick of it and quit.
    You summed up my thoughts pretty much. Management doesn't want a never ending stream of second guessing, but they don't want people in production to ignore obvious errors which will result in great expense later.

    It is a matter of discretion, as to when to speak and when to shut up. That takes intelligence.
  9. 24 Apr '13 20:27
    Makes you wonder how companies like Microsoft, Google, etc got so big with all those intelligent employees. At least the theory explains the success of Apple, stupid workforces sure make a good market for Macs and iPhones.
  10. 24 Apr '13 20:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Makes you wonder how companies like Microsoft, Google, etc got so big with all those intelligent employees. At least the theory explains the success of Apple, stupid workforces sure make a good market for Macs and iPhones.
    Right... Google and Microsoft are successful because of smart people, but Apple is successful because of stupid people. Sure..
  11. 24 Apr '13 20:57
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Right... Google and Microsoft are successful because of smart people, but Apple is successful because of stupid people. Sure..
    They used to have a policy in Japan,
    where an employee had the power to stop an
    assembly line by pressing a button if he saw
    something amiss or if he had an idea for an
    improvement.

    I think this policy didn't last very long.
  12. 24 Apr '13 21:11
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    They used to have a policy in Japan,
    where an employee had the power to stop an
    assembly line by pressing a button if he saw
    something amiss or if he had an idea for an
    improvement.

    I think this policy didn't last very long.
    I might agree if it was just that they saw something amiss.

    An idea for improvement can probably wait until you're on break.
  13. 24 Apr '13 22:15
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I might agree if it was just that they saw something amiss.

    An idea for improvement can probably wait until you're on break.
    I have a friend that works for a mailing company, which handles massive billing operations. A single machine operator may process 20 to 30,000 documents in a run. If the operator detects that they haven't been dated, or aren't being fed into the envelopes properly, stopping the line may save thousands of dollars.

    There is a big difference between that and a brain fart.
  14. 24 Apr '13 23:38
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    They used to have a policy in Japan,
    where an employee had the power to stop an
    assembly line by pressing a button if he saw
    something amiss or if he had an idea for an
    improvement.

    I think this policy didn't last very long.
    Companies usually learn the hard way to encourage criticism that is aimed at improving quality and avoiding liabilities. I was in a corporate group (that I eventually managed) whose function was to audit operations against manufacturing standards and report conditions that could jeopardize product quality or regulatory compliance. In one case we advised that a contractor be abandoned and it was done. In other cases we recommended telling the FDA about particular product problems so they could decide whether a recall or consent decree was needed, and it was done. This is not unusual in my industry (pharmaceuticals). BTW I audited operations in Ireland. They were among the best.
  15. 24 Apr '13 23:42
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I have a friend that works for a mailing company, which handles massive billing operations. A single machine operator may process 20 to 30,000 documents in a run. If the operator detects that they haven't been dated, or aren't being fed into the envelopes properly, stopping the line may save thousands of dollars.

    There is a big difference between that and a brain fart.
    Exactly. I audited several patient insert printers and container suppliers and they all empowered their printing crew to stop a run immediately when they suspected a problem, without first informing their supervisor.