????針對(duì)這個(gè)問題，以下是在Quora網(wǎng)站上征集到的答案。

????回答者：邁克爾?O?丘奇，程序員

????與你所期望的（具體答案）相比，這個(gè)回答可能比較籠統(tǒng)，但在我看來這也是為什么大多數(shù)公司的管理一團(tuán)混亂的癥結(jié)所在。

????1.權(quán)力悖論。最想獲得權(quán)力的人就是這個(gè)世界上你最不愿意看到他掌權(quán)的人。在篩選負(fù)責(zé)人的過程中，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)越激烈，挑選出來的人就越差勁。

????2.他們的老板。大多數(shù)經(jīng)理都沒有足夠的權(quán)力（這也許讓人感到意外），他們只能向上級(jí)匯報(bào)；由于激勵(lì)方法有誤，他們都不把下屬當(dāng)人看。

????3.難以衡量。與更具體的可實(shí)施任務(wù)相比，很難衡量管理的質(zhì)量如何。

????4.利益沖突。在大多數(shù)公司，對(duì)人、項(xiàng)目、團(tuán)隊(duì)（或者技術(shù)）的管理都由同一個(gè)人負(fù)責(zé)。鑒于上述第三條原因，這種做法有問題。經(jīng)理往往會(huì)限制人員流動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗麄兊捻?xiàng)目或團(tuán)隊(duì)需要人手，需要完成任務(wù)，即使人事管理優(yōu)化方案可能需要進(jìn)行人員調(diào)動(dòng)。

????5.看似多此一舉。如果管理做得特別好，大家都感覺不到經(jīng)理的存在。一切進(jìn)展順利，人們就會(huì)覺得理所當(dāng)然。

????回答者：克里夫?吉利，產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理

????我要說我基本同意這種說法，大部分經(jīng)理都沒有為其團(tuán)隊(duì)的成功或成長(zhǎng)做出貢獻(xiàn)。但我也要坦率地指出，這并不總是他們的錯(cuò)。通常情況下，他們之所以能夠晉升到管理崗位，是因?yàn)榇饲八麄冋宫F(xiàn)了高效而出色地完成分內(nèi)工作的能力。從某種意義上說，他們作為個(gè)體貢獻(xiàn)者的表現(xiàn)使他們有了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊(duì)的“資格”。

????很明顯，這樣做并不合理。要成為出色的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者和經(jīng)理，就必須具備某些能力和才干，而且這些才能并不全是天生的。但身處商業(yè)世界，人們就是希望這些得到提拔的人立即具有管理才能。經(jīng)理很少得到關(guān)于團(tuán)隊(duì)管理方面的培訓(xùn)和教育，尤其是在小公司。在他們?cè)俅蔚玫缴w后，其繼任者就會(huì)求師無門，得不到幫助。這種情況最終會(huì)導(dǎo)致整個(gè)企業(yè)都對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力缺乏理解。

????最后的結(jié)果就像問題所描述的那樣，是一種非常無能的行為，處于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)崗位的人不知道該如何管理，他們絕不想表現(xiàn)出自己沒把握的狀態(tài)。所以他們就會(huì)出現(xiàn)過度補(bǔ)償?shù)男袨椋袝r(shí)候甚至很嚴(yán)重。別人問個(gè)問題就被視為對(duì)他們權(quán)威的挑戰(zhàn)；每份報(bào)告都得追根溯源，極其詳細(xì)，這樣他們就不用對(duì)高層說“讓我來查一下”；他們無法分派權(quán)力和責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗麄儾恍湃蝿e人，而別人可能比他們更勝任管理工作。

????The following answers originally appeared in Quora for the question:Why do most managers add no value to their teams?

????Answer by Michael O. Church, programmer

????This answer may be more general than what you’re looking for, but there are a few things that come to my mind about what makes management such a mess in most companies.

????1. The Power Paradox.The people who want power the most are the last people in the world that you want getting it. The fiercer the competition you set up for people to acquire power, the worse people you’ll have doing it.

????2. Their bosses.Most managers have a (perhaps surprising) lack of power themselves and are forced to manage up, and treat their subordinates like crap because they’re badly incentivized.

????3. Hard to measure.It’s hard to measure the quality of people management, as opposed to more objective deliverables.

????4. Conflicts of interest.In most companies, people managers and project or group managers (or tech leads) are the same person. Related to (3), this is problematic. Managers often restrict mobility because they need to keep their projects or groups staffed and to hit deliverables, even though optimal people management might call for a transfer.

????5. Seems unnecessary.When people management is done extraordinarily well, managers almost become invisible. People are unaware of the things that are not breaking around them.

????Answer by Cliff Gilley, product manager

????I would say that I generally agree with the premise – that there is a large percentage of managers who do not contribute to the success or growth of their teams. But I would say that, quite honestly, it’s not always their fault. It’s often the case that people are promoted into management because they demonstrate that they can perform the daily tasks that they’re asked of efficiently and effectively – that somehow their performance as an individual contributor alone “qualifies” them to lead a team.

????And this, quite simply, is not the case. There are certain skills and talents that one must have to be an effective leader and a good manager. And these aren’t always innate abilities – but we in the business world just expect someone to be promoted and hit the ground running. It’s rare, especially in small companies, for a manager to get any real training or education in how to manage a team – and when they then get promoted later, the person who steps into their shoes has no mentor to help them out; what you eventually wind up with is an entire organization that lacks any real understanding of or appreciation for actual leadership capabilities.

????How this winds up displaying itself is in the very ineffectual behaviors that you apply there – when someone is in a position of authority, but doesn’t know what to do, the last thing they want is to show that they’re uncertain. So they overcompensate, sometimes massively. Anyone who asks a question is challenging their authority; every single status report has to be detailed down to the roots, so that they don’t ever say “l(fā)et me check on that” to the Exec team; they’re unable to delegate authority and responsibility because they simply can’t trust other people, who may be capable of doing their job better than they are.