Table of ContentsOrganizational Behavior and LeadershipIntroductionStupidity Today. The Myth of KnowledgeFive Types of Functional Stupidity: Leadership-Induced StupidityStructure-Induced Brand-Induced StupidityCulture-Induced StupidityCulture-Induced StupidityManaging StupidityConclusionOrganizational Behavior and LeadershipIntroductionThe primary goal of any business is to grow by terms of lucrative activities while allowing its employees to become their future assets. But in the real world, we often see organizations hire smart people and they end up making stupid mistakes. The book emphasizes that the organization depends on well-educated and bright people, eager to learn, but what seems to be observed is that the organization ends up creating corporate slaves who follow dictation, discipline and will to be seduced by many ridiculous ideas. We need to understand why the organization employed intelligent people? Why smart people do stupid things and give bonuses to the organization for making such mistakes is what the book highlights. They were successful for a short period of time, but in the longer term it hurts the organization as well as 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original Stupidity Today essay. The Knowledge MythWorld has witnessed an anomaly in the knowledge-based economy. In a way, we have seen a remarkable progression in the knowledge of individuals, but contrary to this, we have not been able to witness a rapid increase in the demand for these individuals in our employment sector. Instead of an increase in knowledge-based jobs, we have seen a gradual increase in low-wage gig jobs. The irony is the attitude of today's organizations that, instead of tackling this problem, try to cover it up by using different tactics, such as giving attractive job titles to convince individuals that they are doing something innovative and useful. But in reality, we found that these organizations and individuals are busy doing routine office work. This does not mean that acquiring knowledge is useless or dangerous. But the ever-increasing gap between the supply and demand curve of highly intellectual individuals and knowledge-based jobs fuels the frustration and other ills of today's generation. This frustration can be gauged by a rapid increase in university pass-outs since the 1960s and the number of people who expected to be given a field to showcase their abilities and aptitude, but were ultimately not allowed than performing repetitive office tasks on a daily basis. .Not too intelligent: Individuals in the organization are rational people. They try their best to use their knowledge and experience practically, but face many obstacles. It has been found that most decisions within the organization are based on limited information and less time to think about it, resulting in a satisfactory but not optimal outcome. It has mostly been observed that intelligent people join the job market on the basis of their intelligence, but are not fully capable of using it. If they choose to do somethingsomething different, they will be arrested by their boss or faced with criticism from their colleagues: this is the dilemma of our culture. You can see that after a few years of experience, they will find themselves in corporate oblivion. One of the barriers to this type of skill incompetence is that it prevents people from learning. They are deceptive with comforting routines that allow them to ignore the troubling problems of daily life. We often see in an organization that people are discouraged from asking questions. They were given a particular script to follow and act accordingly. Generally, asking difficult questions or thinking too deeply seems like a big waste for businesses. This ends up restricting the thought process of employees. Employees who learn to change their brains are rewarded. If they think too hard, they can get the job done. Following the corporate line set by the company, thoughtless employees are considered leadership and promoted. We generally see a policy of ignorance within the organization, where people avoid informing senior management of issues. Indeed, seniors do not want to be faced with many complicated problems. This helps them to not be aware of the situation when something has gone wrong in order to take all the burden off of it. Functional Stupidity: The observation is that the company goes out of their way to prevent employees from thinking about their ideas, to dissuade them from thinking innovatively, and to prevent them from giving or asking for justification for their decisions and actions. actions. In doing so, they create functional outcomes for both individuals and the entire organization. The consequences can be disastrous, leading to the collapse of the organization. Although functional stupidity can be useful and produce short-term results, it can nurture harmony, encouraging people to continue their work. Like the example of Pepsi was given, where the culture was that leaders should focus only on results, work diligently and employees gave a lot of importance. less time for their social life or the outside world. The type of workaholic or militaristic environment prevalent at Pepsi affects the productivity of employees and they are always preoccupied with office work. Functional stupidity is so prevalent in organizations that it is simply considered normal. Following leaders without seeing their credentials and without careful verification often results in stupidity. Functional stupidity fundamentally reduces conflict, levitates anxiety, and increases self-esteem. The problem arises when the organization is affected in the long term, resulting in a large loss. Functional stupidity is deeply rooted in the organization and it is very difficult to eradicate it at the root. But there are steps we can take that will be discussed later in this chapter that can help us mitigate it. Five Types of Functional Stupidity: Leadership-Induced Stupidity All the adjectives like superior, innovative, critical, cautious, etc. attached to leaders are purely a myth. In reality, leaders are self-centered individuals. Who takes charge of everything. Most of them think that everything they say is praised by their subordinates, but the reality is different. Most of the time, people take the words of their leaders superficially and take them for granted. Now, the impact of a leader on the life of the organization is minimal. Structure induces stupidity Structure in the organization.