# Does the cream rise to the top?



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

In your expirience and observation, does the cream rise to the top or are there hard working, smart, talented people that are overlooked?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

crazyquik,

Depends on the organization. If an organization is well run and not hampered by egomaniacs then generally yes, I think talent wins the day though there are some exceptions.

If an organization is a disaster then usually not. 

Karl


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Definitely there are some people that are overlooked and underused.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

In my experience, there are almost always smart, talented people who are overlooked.

It takes a skilled, exceptional _*manager*_ to spot these people and use their time and abilities in ways that ordinary managers overlook.

Then again, I am a lawyer, where even the most basic managerial (and interpersonal) skills are as rare as hens' teeth. As managers of offices, lawyers tend to fall into two camps:

Those who say, "What have you done for me lately, you inferior sub-human?," and those who say, "Who are you again?"


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> In my experience, there are almost always smart, talented people who are overlooked.
> 
> It takes a skilled, exceptional _*manager*_ to spot these people and use their time and abilities in ways that ordinary managers overlook.
> 
> ...


So the managers have to look for the good workers?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

In my opinion the cream doesn't rise to the top as quickly as the curd. From my experience those who have a hard work ethic and pride themselves on doing a good job are not the ones overly concerned with playing the "games" to get ahead. I think these people eventually make it up the ladder, but it is because they've been there so long they're too qualified and have to be moved up. For the most part the fast ladder climbers focus more effort on looking good (not referring to their clothing) than they do on being good.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

I agree in large part with Trenditional's take.

I think the part that can be hard to see is that talented and good at your specific job only goes so far. After that, you need the networking, communication and other "soft skills" to stay on track.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is really one of those topics where there is no simple answer as there is often so much more involved. For instance, in the OP, the "cream" was described as "hard working, smart, talented". Well what if you are all three of those but your personality is exceedingly rude and grating? In most settings, this will hinder your rise. Or what if you are all three but are a single parent of five kids and the job requires travel? Unexpected late nights?

I think it should be clear what I am trying to say. Just being "good" is often not enough, there are other parameters to think about. The people that get ahead are usually those with a good "fit". I can tell you as someone that hires high level people, I will take an 8/10 on hardworking, smart, and talented that is a 10/10 for "fit" vs. a 9/10 on the trio and only a 5/10 for "fit". And just to forestall the usual PC claptrap, "fit" has nothing to do with race, sex, religion, etc. It has everything to do with how well someone will mesh with you, their co-workers, and their subordinates.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Given the quality of those in both parties who have been running for our country's top elected office presently and the last couple of election cycles, I would have to say no.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> In your expirience and observation, does the cream rise to the top or are there hard working, smart, talented people that are overlooked?


I am afraid I have seen good qualities like brains, talent, and effort systematically marginalized to preserve a comfortable status quo as The Worthless drearily trudge towards retirement.

The opposite of "the cream rising to the top" is the term "the bottom rail is on the top." That refers to the custom of rotating the rails on split rail fences so that the one on the bottom doesn't completely rot away. So every few years, they would take the rotten one off the bottom and put it on the top to dry out, and in doing so , move all the other rails down a notch. I'm afraid I have seen more of that.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> So the managers have to look for the good workers?


Yes, of course. That's what managers do -- marshal the organization's resources and guide the activities of employees.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Not in the law....

Good luck in school


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

When doing this remember that managers are human with all the same strengths and weaknesses most people have. Also, people are naturally inclined to see what has "worked" for them as what will work for most people.

I think that being a better "fit" will probably make you a better manager.

I am an accounting manager in a two person department (in a 10 employee company.) While I am very strong with computer skills and have a strong work ethic, I am very hesitant about confronting people and this makes me a mediocre manager, even though I am a really strong accountant. 

While I am a mediocre manager, I am exceptionally good at learning how to do things. (You would probably be surprised by the level of my musical skills.) In a small company, this versatility and combination of skills is far more important than it would be in a larger company, where different people can specialize in the variety of tasks I can do.

I resolve this by working in smaller organizations where my mediocre managerial skills are not as great an issue. In a larger organization, it would take a truly exceptional accounting manager to not be intimidated by my knowledge (that would not use my dislike of conflict against me so I would not threaten his position.)

However, I should not be this person's manager.

I'm just using this to illustrate a point that it is not so easy to separate people into the "cream" and "milk" categories.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

As you may or may not know I do a lot of mentoring in my consulting practice. I'm literally right now observing a situation where the only honest, hard-working management member is being run out to cover for the thieves and slackers during a time of EBITDA losses in a mid-market organization.

I believe we are in an ethical crisis in America and one of the symptoms is there is no longer an implicit bargain where the honest, hard-working, talented people rise to the top. This specific person in this specific field has a high probability of uncovering things as part of their job function and has had to "start over" before. Their last boss is under federal indictment for corporate fraud.

The good thing is - cream is still cream even if it isn't rising to the top and there is a good market for cream. This specific person has already found a new position starting one month before the last position was scheduled to end. A solid skill set and a clean reputation are extremely rare in this environment. A growing percentage of the talented people have already separated their conscience from their work; particularly so bonusable management employees. I don't think it's anywhere near a majority, but I do think the odds are high enough that if you are a bonusable manager or executive there is at least one somewhere in your management team. I've heard CEOs claim that couldn't be possible and then found 2 or 3 in their inner-circle. It's a real shame. I have watched good people (formerly cream) cry as their career and financial future were being destroyed and explain the pressures they were under and how they had to choose between losing their job or taking the money "with everyone else" many times now. Often these good people are taking care of an ill relative or have other non-work responsibilities that good people tend to pick up.

I tell people to work on maintaining their market security and not worry so much about job security. I just received a recent survey that showed the average time in an F&A job is now 3.5 years, but that includes babyboomers who as a group still average 11 years. Gen-X averages 2.5 years; Gen-Y 14 months. A good friend of mine advises some C-level financial executives and one of his tips is not to take a high-level job unless you have as much cash as your annual compensation so you are capable of walking. IE if the money is that much of a step up above what you are used to making or you have been making that type of money for a while, but your personal life and finances are that screwed up; you are bound to be targeted and face an ethical challenge. I think he told me once it usually happens in the first week as the predators 'feel out' the new team member and begin testing your ethical boundaries.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

The cream rises to the top is often trumped by the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## nikwik (Oct 29, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Given the quality of those in both parties who have been running for our country's top elected office presently and the last couple of election cycles, I would have to say no.


Politics is a completely different world. There you do not have any cream in the first place so the only thing rising to the top is some ersatz stuff which can´t be used in any other way...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

nikwik said:


> Politics is a completely different world. There you do not have any cream in the first place so the only thing rising to the top is some ersatz stuff which can´t be used in any other way...


In politics, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "the curds" rise to the top?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

AlanC said:


> The cream rises to the top is often trumped by the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


I agree, Alan.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

In some organizations, yes. In others, no. I have worked in both, and seen both.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I've noticed a regional trend over the years. In some places the power of the mind is all important. In other places, especially those with a low level of education, it is only the scum that get ahead. Those in charge may not have the capacity to recognize superior capability and are overlooked. That's my theory at least.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Yes, of course. That's what managers do -- marshal the organization's resources and guide the activities of employees.


So,I guess the ones that aren't doing so well get the boot?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> So,I guess the ones that aren't doing so well get the boot?


Howard, this act has really grown tired.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

What _*is*_ the act, anyway?

If you can't get to the punchline in three posts, I dare say you aren't never gonna get there.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

If you are talking about organizations, then no the cream does not make it to the top, nor does the crud make it to the top. In the case of organizations there is little difference between the talent up top and the talent at the bottom.

_The Cream_ are the ones who establish these organizations as founders, i.e., Rockefellar, Ford, Gates, Carnegie, etc. What comes afterwards is variety of caretakers and bloodsuckers. The true second class.

M8


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I believe we are in an ethical crisis in America and one of the symptoms is there is no longer an implicit bargain where the honest, hard-working, talented people rise to the top. This specific person in this specific field has a high probability of uncovering things as part of their job function and has had to "start over" before. Their last boss is under federal indictment for corporate fraud.
> 
> The good thing is - cream is still cream even if it isn't rising to the top and there is a good market for cream.


Great post!

So basically, the cream might be better off moving laterally to a different company and then up vs trying to move up in thier own organization?



> The Cream are the ones who establish these organizations as founders, i.e., Rockefellar, Ford, Gates, Carnegie, etc. What comes afterwards is variety of caretakers and bloodsuckers. The true second class.


 Good point....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> Great post!
> 
> So basically, the cream might be better off moving laterally to a different company and then up vs trying to move up in thier own organization?
> 
> Good point....


Actually, I think the best way is to add new skills and look for a promotion. Even if you are degreed-out, something like a Six-Sigma belt for example is huge in the market. A green belt only costs you about $3k and most companies will pay for it. Yet, it will increase your market value many times that initial cost. There's a lot of things depending on your industry like PMI-Certification or in the current environment even an HR/Employment law certification brings a nice premium. Conversely, if you have a law degree some type of EMBA is nice to have or things like CPA,CMA,CFP, yada yada. Even a technology or vendor certification can be worth an extra 10%-20% per year depending on your tree/ladder. I know a guy with a Honeywell certification that more than doubled his base. It cost $14k for the training which was re-imbursed career development. Another example is, Controllers that have SPHR or CHRS make about 30% more than those that do not. I suggest this open-enrollment program at Rollins College / Crummer School of Business fairly often it's $1,000 and ten nights of your life.

I wouldn't coach you to take a lateral unless it was a bigger organization and that is not really a lateral per se. IE if you have X title in a $20M organization that same title in a $20B organization is not really the same job and probably doesn't pay the same. Sometimes they pay less and that is a real wake up call.

It's a little counter-intuitive, but with the high turnover it's harder to rise in place IMHO. You can get the responsibilities of a higher position easily enough, but your salary and title won't rise in the proper proportion. However, if you keep getting re-valued in the market and you are truly cream you can easily see 20% bumps when you move to a new position (until you reach the highly compensated realm). In our market (Central Florida), things top out for COOs and CFOs in SMB at $120k base and then it's a different game altogether - all about the bonus. Most I know make almost their annual salary or more in each quarterly bonus. I have a bunch of guys making $120k+$80-$90k per quarter and a few guys making $120K+$120-140K per quarter. Up north that base might be $240-$300k.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

At least once a week I'm asked by the public why I'm not a manager. I tell them them that I refuse to kiss up to people who are socially and intellectually inferior to myself. It's good for a chuckle but the truth is that what it takes to get ahead where I work. In a unskilled working class enviroment like where I'm in there are lots of ugly things going on in the background by people who are striving for that brass ring. I've been there long enough and have seen enough. The title and the slight extra pay is not worth it to me at all.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

In healthy organizations, the cream rises in a controlled manner. However, not all organizations are healthy organizations.

There are competing forces at work. Those currently at the top need new blood to stay at the top. But new blood is always dangerous. Those who embrace talent always risk being replaced by that talent. Those who ignore talent risk that talent being recognized by competitors and stolen from them, or at the very least risk becoming a less talented organization as a whole, which can have very bad long-term consequences. 

The goal is to allow talent to rise and benefit an organization without dominating it or destroying the current infrastructure. This is a lot harder to do than it sounds. So a lot of times you end up with the worst of both worlds, bureaucratic bloat from a highly structured environment and inefficiency and stupidity from a lack of talented people in key positions.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

katon said:


> In healthy organizations, the cream rises in a controlled manner. However, not all organizations are healthy organizations.
> 
> There are competing forces at work. Those currently at the top need new blood to stay at the top. But new blood is always dangerous. Those who embrace talent always risk being replaced by that talent. Those who ignore talent risk that talent being recognized by competitors and stolen from them, or at the very least risk becoming a less talented organization as a whole, which can have very bad long-term consequences.
> 
> The goal is to allow talent to rise and benefit an organization without dominating it or destroying the current infrastructure. This is a lot harder to do than it sounds. So a lot of times you end up with the worst of both worlds, bureaucratic bloat from a highly structured environment and inefficiency and stupidity from a lack of talented people in key positions.


Great post Katon. You've summed up my organization well.


----------

