IndexOrganizational behavior and leadershipIntroductionStupidity today. The Myth of KnowledgeFive Types of Functional Stupidity: Leadership-Induced StupidityStructures Induce StupidityBrand-Induced StupidityCulture-Induced StupidityManaging StupidityConclusionOrganizational Behavior and LeadershipIntroductionThe main purpose of any company is to grow in terms of business having profitable business and at the same time enabling its employees to become their future resource. But in the real world we often see the organization hire smart people and they end up making stupid mistakes. The book highlights that the organization depends on educated and brilliant people who are willing to learn, but what seems to be observed is that the organization ends up creating corporate slaves who follow dictates, discipline and willingness to be seduced by many ridiculous ideas. We need to understand why the organization employs intelligent people? Why smart people do stupid things and get rewards from the organization for making such mistakes, this is what the book highlights. They succeeded for a short period of time, but in the long run it hurts the organization and also their progress. Later in this chapter we will discuss the role of stupidity in today's workplace and profession. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Stupidity today. The Myth of Knowledge has witnessed an anomaly in the knowledge-based economy. In a sense we have observed a remarkable progress in the knowledge of people, but in contrast to it we have not been able to observe a rapid increase in the demand for such people in our field of work. Instead of a surge in knowledge-based jobs, we have seen a gradual increase in low-wage casual jobs. The irony is the attitude of today's organizations that instead of addressing this problem they try to hide it by using different tactics such as giving attractive job titles to convince people that they are doing something innovative and useful. But in reality we have seen that such organizations and individuals are busy doing routine office work. This does not mean that gaining knowledge is wasteful or dangerous. But the ever-widening gap between the supply and demand curve of highly intellectual individuals and knowledge-based jobs is fueling frustration and other ills in today's generation. This frustration can be gauged by the rapid increase in college passouts since the 1960s and by the number of people who expected to have a field to showcase their skills and abilities, but were ultimately allowed to perform only repetitive office on a daily basis. .Unintelligent: Individuals in the organization are rational people. They try their best to use their knowledge and experience in a practical way, but they face many obstacles. It has been seen that most decisions in the organization are based on limited information and less time to reflect on it, which results in a satisfactory but suboptimal outcome. Above all, it has been seen that intelligent people enter the world of work on the basis of their intelligence but are not fully capable of using it. If they choose to do something different they will be stopped by their boss or face criticism from colleagues: this is the dilemma of our culture. You can see that after a few years of experience they will end up in corporate meaninglessness. One of the obstacles to this type of incompetence in skills isthat prevents people from learning. They deceive with comforting routines that allow them to ignore the problematic issues of daily life. It is often seen in organizations that people are discouraged from asking questions. They were given a particular script to follow and act accordingly. Usually asking tough questions or thinking deeply seems like a big waste for companies. Ultimately it ends up limiting the thinking process of employees. Employees who learn to change their brains are rewarded. If they think too much they can get the job done. Following the corporate line set by the company, reckless employees are seen as leadership material and promoted. We usually see the politics of ignorance in the organization, where people avoid informing seniors about the problem. This is because older people do not want to deal with many complicated issues. This helps them to remain unaware of the situation where something has gone wrong so as to get rid of all the burden. Functional Stupidity: The observation is that the company is going out of their way to prevent employees from thinking about their own ideas, to dissuade them from thinking innovatively, and to resist them from giving or asking for justifications for their decisions and actions. In this way they create functional results for both individuals and the entire organization. The consequences can be disastrous and lead to organizational collapse. However, functional stupidity can be useful and produce short-term results, it can cultivate harmony, encourage people to get on with the work. As was the example of Pepsi, where the culture was that the manager should focus only on results, work diligently and the employees give a lot. less time for their social life or the outside world. The kind of workaholic or militaristic environment that prevails in Pepsi affects the productivity of employees who are always worried about office work. Functional stupidity is so widespread in the organization that it is simply seen as normal. Following leaders without seeing their credentials and without careful scrutiny often leads to self-stupidity. Functional stupidity substantially reduces conflict, relieves anxiety, and increases self-esteem. The problem is when the organization is affected in the long term, which results in a big loss. Functional stupidity is deeply rooted in the organization and it is very difficult to eradicate it at the root. But there are some measures you can take, which we'll talk about later in this chapter, that can help you mitigate it. Five Types of Functional Stupidity: Leadership-Induced Stupidity All adjectives such as superior, innovative, critical, prudent, etc. associated with leaders are purely a myth. In reality, leaders are self-obsessed individuals. Who assume themselves as masters of everything. Most of them think that whatever they say will be praised by their subordinates, but the reality is different from this. Mostly people take the words of their leaders superficially and take them for granted. From now on, a leader's impact on organizational life is minimal. Structure Induces Stupidity Structure in the organization is necessary, but sometimes creating too many structures and norms can create a communication gap between top management and those below. We have heard the word delegation in our management system which is used to empower employees and encourage them to take equal parts in the business process. But unfortunately we can see in most of the organizations that dominant or dictatorial rule is followed. Top management neglects subordinates to provide their own contribution which can be valuable to.