The management of experts

[studiot]

Say you are in charge of some operation and you draft in an expert in some activity that you need performed.

The expert may be highly qualified for example a computer consultant, or she may be highly skilled, say an excavator driver.

 

How do you approach the management of those more expert in something (knowledge or skill or both) than yourself?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Tell them what you want done; let them decide how to do it.

[Endy0816]

If time permits try and learn the basics of what they are doing(ideally from another source). You will then be able to ask more relevant questions and have a better understanding of their responses.

[EdEarl]

Tell them what you want done; let them decide how to do it.

This communication between an expert and non-expert sometimes leads to a misunderstanding with the manager not getting expected results.

[StringJunky]

Like JC said, once you've ascertained their qualifications and experience, you tell them what you want doing and they'll tell you what they need to do it. If you were employed for a job, in the capacity of expert, you wouldn't want to be micro-managed would you? If it's a time-limited project, you could cut it into agreed phases and you both agree to review what has been done at the end of each. Subject to your satisfaction, allow them to proceed onto the next part of the job. This is not unusual in works on Government or City Council property contracts,

Edited March 15, 2015 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

If time permits try and learn the basics of what they are doing(ideally from another source). You will then be able to ask more relevant questions and have a better understanding of their responses.

This kind of manager has a better chance of communicating accurately with the expert than one who knows nothing about the expert's knowledge, but communications between the two may also suffer from misunderstanding and poor performance.

[studiot]

 

Tell them what you want done; let them decide how to do it.

 

 

 

No discussion involved?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

No discussion involved?

In principle, no.

Of course the level of discussion depends on how much you know about their field of expertise.

 

If there's anything you need to discuss, it's because you didn't specify what you wanted properly.

And, if they are the expert, what's the point of the discussion? You are just going to end up agreeing with them because they are the ones who know what they are talking about.

[Endy0816]

This kind of manager has a better chance of communicating accurately with the expert than one who knows nothing about the expert's knowledge, but communications between the two may also suffer from misunderstanding and poor performance.

 

Agreed. Still possible, but lessens the chances of their boss asking outright idiotic questions or the reverse situation, an employee utilizing overly technical jargon to bamboozle their boss.

[studiot]

 

 

 

studiot, on 15 Mar 2015 - 1:58 PM, said:

No discussion involved?

John Cuthber

In principle, no.

Of course the level of discussion depends on how much you know about their field of expertise.

 

If there's anything you need to discuss, it's because you didn't specify what you wanted properly.

And, if they are the expert, what's the point of the discussion? You are just going to end up agreeing with them because they are the ones who know what they are talking about

 

My experience has been that approach soon leads to spectacular failure.

[StringJunky]

 

My experience has been that approach soon leads to spectacular failure.

They were not experts then or the failure was on the conractor's part not communicating effectively their needs.

[EdEarl]

They were not experts then or the failure was on the conractor's part not communicating effectively their needs.

The worst situation I have been in was a military contract with requirements to follow a MIL Spec, but my non expert retired Col boss provided a commercial tool that could not follow the MIL Spec, and I was supposed to use the tool to complete the contract, which was impossible. It took months to resolve. The tool was scrapped. And, I suspect that phase of the contract was way over budget.

 

The more expert a manager is, the better a project can be done. I believe Elon Musk and Howard Hughes are examples of expert managers, who have done projects masterfully. No project I have worked on has been done nearly as well.

[StringJunky]

The worst situation I have been in was a military contract with requirements to follow a MIL Spec, but my non expert retired Col boss provided a commercial tool that could not follow the MIL Spec, and I was supposed to use the tool to complete the contract, which was impossible. It took months to resolve. The tool was scrapped. And, I suspect that phase of the contract was way over budget.

 

The more expert a manager is, the better a project can be done. I believe Elon Musk and Howard Hughes are examples of expert managers, who have done projects masterfully. No project I have worked on has been done nearly as well.

If I've read your post correctly, this is why experts should not be told how to do their job and what with. All you need to judge is make sure you've hired an expert and let them get on with it.

Edited March 15, 2015 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

If I've read your post correctly, this is why experts should not be told how to do their job and what with. All you need to judge is make sure you've hired an expert and let them get on with it.

It was a total mess.

[studiot]

EdEarl +1

 

StringJunky

They were not experts then or the failure was on the conractor's part not communicating effectively their needs.

 

 

Or the set task was impossible in the first place.

 

Incidentally I did not specify an absolute 'expert', just someone more so than the promoter.

 

Of course the 'no discussion' approach precludes the expert offering that there may be another (better) way that the 'manager' has not heard of.

 

Or how about this scenario.

 

We wanted a new shrub to go in a particular dry sunny corner of the garden. We settled on a hydrangea.

 

I am really glad we discussed this with the nurseryman as we have never heard of the variety he came up with, but it has certainly thrived there.

He also said that most of the more standard varieties we had heard of would struggle in that location.

[StringJunky]

...

Of course the 'no discussion' approach precludes the expert offering that there may be another (better) way that the 'manager' has not heard of.

 

Or how about this scenario.

 

We wanted a new shrub to go in a particular dry sunny corner of the garden. We settled on a hydrangea.

 

I am really glad we discussed this with the nurseryman as we have never heard of the variety he came up with, but it has certainly thrived there.

He also said that most of the more standard varieties we had heard of would struggle in that location.

That's the right way. I want x, what are my options and which do you recommend?

Edited March 15, 2015 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Leaders don't need to be experts. They need to be good leaders.

 

Hire the right people. Clear obstacles from their paths. Get them the resources they need. Include them in the decision whether or not to take on specific projects and whether or not they're feasible. These are the qualities of a leader.

 

A leader is not just someone more expert at a given task than those under their charge and they should be able to garner the respect of their team even when the leader knows nearly nothing about the specific work said team is doing.

 

The skillsets required to be a leader differ wildly from those required to be a strong individual contributor or technician with a specific expertise.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Of course the 'no discussion' approach precludes the expert offering that there may be another (better) way that the 'manager' has not heard of.

Like I said, tell them what you want and rely on them knowing how.

[studiot]

There have been many examples of deaths around the world due to the dogmatic approach offered by posters here.

 

In general the dogmatic approach has, IMHO, more to do with apportioning blame and ass covering than achieving satisfactory results.

 

The safety 'expert' says there should be fire exits.

 

The security 'expert' says all doors should be locked.

 

Result?

 

Tragedy.

 

Experts can disagree. What then

 

One expert's 'solution' may be excessively costly or onerous.

 

One 'expert' may tell you that margarine is better for you than butter.

Another may tell you the opposite.

What then?

[John Cuthber]

The one who says he's a security expert is a liar; if he were then he would know about fire doors that can only be opened from the inside and have an alarm.

 

An expert in nutrition would tell you that the merits of margarine and butter are not fully sorted out.

 

If the expert's solution is too expensive then what you asked for is too expensive. (Or broadly equivalently, you didn't remember to include price in the specification.- sometimes the expert will tell you what you want is impossible)

Edited March 15, 2015 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

There have been many examples of deaths around the world due to the dogmatic approach offered by posters here.

 

In general the dogmatic approach has, IMHO, more to do with apportioning blame and ass covering than achieving satisfactory results.

 

The safety 'expert' says there should be fire exits.

 

The security 'expert' says all doors should be locked.

 

Result?

 

Tragedy.

 

Experts can disagree. What then

 

One expert's 'solution' may be excessively costly or onerous.

 

One 'expert' may tell you that margarine is better for you than butter.

Another may tell you the opposite.

What then?

It is beholden upon you to assess their track record to indicate if they will meet your needs. There are many roads to Mecca.

[studiot]

 

StringJunky

It is beholden upon you to assess their track record to indicate if they will meet your needs.

 

How does that play with financial experts advice and their stock disclaimer

 

"past performance is no guide to future gains or losses"

[John Cuthber]

One interpretation would be that none of them is an expert.

[iNow]

Another is that it's the leaders job to navigate often ambiguous situations with competing priorities to find the least worst path forward.

[swansont]

Leaders don't need to be experts. They need to be good leaders.

 

Hire the right people. Clear obstacles from their paths. Get them the resources they need. Include them in the decision whether or not to take on specific projects and whether or not they're feasible. These are the qualities of a leader.

 

A leader is not just someone more expert at a given task than those under their charge and they should be able to garner the respect of their team even when the leader knows nearly nothing about the specific work said team is doing.

 

The skillsets required to be a leader differ wildly from those required to be a strong individual contributor or technician with a specific expertise.

 

Bingo.

 

Managers should provide their people with the tools they need, and try to not get in the way. They also need to communicate well, so that they can deal with people and get what they want, rather than what they ask for.

 

The example of security vs safety is not so much a management issue; if it's a construction project there should be someone in charge of construction who can coordinate all of those things. Or you need someone smart enough to recognize the conflicting requirements and deal with them. I've been there (I helped build a building). You need ventilation plus fire safety, which conflict, you need physical security but also access for data and ventilation, which conflict. And more. What's needed is to make the right people aware of the conflicts, and find what actually works. I think that most example of disasters already given boil down to poor communication.

 

There are jobs where you can't be a manager simply by virtue of the fact that you have an MBA; if you need technical competence, then the manager who hired the MBA without it failed at their job. The "tools that people need" might have to include hiring the right people. Also having people around who know that they shouldn't be making promises when they don't have the technical skill on which to base their decisions. You don't want someone promising to deliver a unicorn. Basically, don't be like the cartoon Dilbert.

 

The worst managers I've experienced were micromanagers who basically turned me into a drone, and the worst management style has been a one-size-fits-all approach, making normal government bureaucracy even worse. IMO one of the worst things management can do is to overly restrict options of the people carrying out the work.