There was an interesting article in the New York Times a few days ago about how sometimes the people with the most talent for a particular field actually make the worst teachers of that subject. For me, it's an interesting opening into thinking about what skills are actually required for various jobs - a topic I suspect isn't as intuitive as it might seem at first glance.
The example provided of teachers is a good place to start, since while they obviously require knowledge of the field they are teaching, they also require clear communication skills and the ability to understand their students. The fact that not every physicist, computer scientist, or other expert necessarily needs those skills is what creates the problem from the editorial.
Leaders and managers in a wide variety of fields are similar to that example, if not more so: many require more skill with communication, planning, and listening than they do in the actual subject matter that the people they lead use. In practice, of course, knowledge of their field is helpful enough that it's a requirement as well, but many leaders run into trouble when they focus on that skill to the detriment of their ability to communicate and lead.
And just about any job requires the ability to work well with others in a number of different ways. This is why it's possible to get fired for being racist, sexist, or just generally hard to get along with; if your bosses can't have you work together with coworkers without risking work-damaging drama, they may choose to get rid of the person causing the drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment