GUEST COMMENT: How to evaluate a potential boss
My experience in hiring and in being hired is that, while we might correctly try to project the right image of ourselves, we sometimes invest too little effort in evaluating our potential boss.
Some years ago I came up with a simple way of classifying bosses and colleagues for myself: a 2 x 2 matrix with "Effective/Ineffective" on one axis and "Good/Evil" on the other.
It looks like this:
You can interpret the terms "Effective/Ineffective" and "Good/Evil" in your own way. For me, "Effective" usually means being smart and creative, and/or possessing some other vital quality needed to do one's job effectively, for example having good interpersonal skills and a good network if you are in sales. "Ineffective" means someone who does their job poorly. If the Ineffective person is your boss, he/she can be a danger to your own job stability.
"Good" speaks for itself: someone who puts getting the best result for the company first, who is a team player and is fair and supportive with their colleagues and direct reports - in other words, a real positive role model in many ways. "Evil" usually means the politically-minded, scheming, manipulative pagan that stalks the City in great numbers.
Detecting good and evil
So how do you discern good, evil, effective and ineffective qualities in your potential boss?
Well. Effectiveness can be deduced from the quality of the questions that
come your way. It can also be deduced from the quality of answers to the questions you ask. Does your potential boss appear to know as much about your job as you do? If not, you might be facing a "generalist" who will be less convincing with clients and might not carry a great deal of credibility with peers who know their own trades more thoroughly.
As for "Good" and "Evil", here there is no substitute for having a good antenna for human behaviour You could also ask about the most impressive achievements of the interviewer's department. If he/she replies using the word "I" more often than "we", you have reason to be cautious - unless you don't mind someone else claiming credit for your contributions. Other
signals include condescension, belittling of your genuine achievements and
a general air of arrogance.
Some post-interview networking is also vital: ask around about your potential boss - your background will be checked, why not do some checking on your own?"
The matrix and me
The Matrix also has had some predictive value for me over time. The "Effective" and "Good" bosses have tended to rise towards the top, although not always without some of life's inevitable setbacks. The "Ineffective" get side-lined somewhere along the way: the banking biz is nothing if not Darwinian. And "Evil" people tend to get their own back in time, usually if they stumble.
The more manipulative people are generally seen as such by their superiors, who are usually no slouches at judging human behaviour having managed to rise so high in an organisation. "Evil" people get cut a lot less slack if they slip up. I've always thought of being "Evil" as a career strategy with a higher risk/return profile, even if you are "Effective".
I analysed all my past bosses and I came up with these results:
52% of my career spent working for "Effective/Good" bosses
9% of my career spent working for "Effective/Evil" bosses
29% of my career spent working for "Ineffective/Good" bosses
10% of my career spent working for "Ineffective/Evil" bosses, thankfully most of which was spent working on guaranteed bonuses.
No prize for guessing which kind of boss I like best. But I might have made a mistake investing so much time working for people whom I judged to be Ineffective but Good. I guess I am a sucker for the "Good" part. I believe in karma to some extent, at least the part about good begetting good. But perhaps I am naive in believing that a boss who is "Good" can compensate for some degree of ineffectiveness on his or her part.
Ad meliora!
