As a Unix/Linux sysadmin, I’ve worked at many places, compared to many people I know, who have been where they are for 5 years or more. I’ve done several kinds of jobs (thankfully, most of them related to my skills), and met many colleagues… and bosses.
And I tend to have a problem with the latter.
Not real “conflicts”, I don’t usually have them. But I’ve been in several places (and, indeed, am in one now) where everything would be almost perfect - colleagues, environment, the work itself - except for one imbecile who ruins everything - and who happens to be my boss.
For examples of what these bosses are like, see this entry on my wiki. But, in short, they take all the joy out of our work, because we quickly learn that, by being good, they don’t think they hired a good worker - instead, they see us as a threat. So they try to smother us with stupid, useless tasks, like making reports (and reports about reports - a colleague of mine is now doing one, and she surely is more patient than I am).
I don’t have a solution for this. Somehow, these people are almost never fired, no matter how much they hurt the company, no matter how many competent people quit because of their bosses’ stupidity and have to be replaced (which costs more money). It seems that there’s almost never a competent boss - that almost sounds like a contradiction in terms.
So, a few years ago, I “invented” a simple test, that should be followed in every company, but unfortunately never is.
The test is just this: compare the boss (or candidate for the position), in terms of benefit to the company, to a potted plant.
No, really, I’m serious.
A potted plant costs:
- a vase
- some earth
- some sunlight
- periodic watering
A boss costs:
- a relatively big salary
- paid vacations
- possibly, a company credit card
- possibly, a company car
- a health plan
- an office
- a secretary
- a company cell phone
- several paid courses
- business trips expenses
So far, everything is way to the advantage of the potted plant, right? Now, let’s consider what each gives us.
A potted plant gives:
- oxygen
- improves room aesthetics (that is, it looks nice)
While a boss…?
A completely neutral boss, who did nothing, either good or bad, would still lose completely to the potted plant - sunlight and water are quite cheap, while a boss can cost thousands or millions per year to a company.
To compensate for that huge disadvantage, a boss would have to contribute a lot. Good leadership, organization, project management, smart and cost-effective choices, and the ability to motivate the workers, even during the worst periods. That just might balance things out, and make the decision between having a potted plant or a boss NOT be an obvious choice.
But what about a boss who actually HARMS the company? Who makes stupid decisions, which cost millions and then don’t work or are cancelled midways? Who makes the working environment hell instead of pleasant and inspiring? Who refuses to give the smallest raise to the employees, but uses company money to buy himself cars and to go on golf tours with his pals? Who makes decisions not on what is best for the company, but on what increases his power base? Who sees brilliant employees as a threat and does everything in his power so they hate their job and quit?
Me, I’d take a potted plant every day.
So, does your boss pass The Potted Plant Test? 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I red in GQ this month how often the wisest (not necessarily the best, cleanest, happiest, or ‘good’-est) course of action in case of an idiotic boss is to tell him to take a flying fu## at a fu##ing box of rolling fu##ing doughnuts.
You won’t get fired, because saying that is tantamount to ‘quitting.’ And if your job-situation doesn’t improve, well … fu## …
Potted plant would beat most of the people any day given a fair chance.