Be the boss, but don't be a jerk.
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
The Gunnery Sergeant's words came back to me after over forty years: "You're defending a democracy, son. You're not working for one."
I'd just finished reading George Cloutier's article in Entrepreneur, "Your Company is not a Democracy." I thought the article was one of those frequent, macho-leader, we-don't-need-no-stinking sensitivity articles.
Usually they're a reaction to what I think is an overemphasis on the manager's role in creating a great place to work. Usually they overreact. Usually they're forgotten pretty soon after reading.
Not this time. Mike Henry wrote an impassioned post calling the article "A Biased Justification for Poor Leadership." The hue and cry went up on LinkedIn and Twitter.
No comments were allowed on Cloutier's article. There are lots of great comments on Mike's post. And there are other posts. A good summary is at HR Web Café with the title, "Point - counterpoint: do benevolent tyrants make good leaders?"
Lots of thoughtful people have had a lot to say on this. I thought I'd join the party.
If you're the boss, be the boss. That's your job. You're supposed to make decisions. Make them. You're supposed to confront underperformers and toxic actors. Do that, too. Just remember that there's no rule that you have to be a jerk while you do it.
Every boss has two jobs. You do, too. Your job isn't to be "large and in charge." It's to accomplish the mission and care for the people. Not one or the other, both.
Your job is to help your team accomplish the mission. That means today's mission and tomorrow's mission. It's to help the team succeed.
Your job is to care for your people. Keep them safe. Help them grow and develop. Help them stay out of trouble.
Boss's Bottom Line
Don't make this into some kind of moral crusade. Just do your jobs. Both of them.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Concur completely that the Cloutier article was a piece of crap. BUT, I honestly think the average leader is more inclined to see things from his perspective than from ours.
with respect to your points, is it really the bosses job to make decision, or is it her job to ensure decisions get made? There is a big difference. I think someone that thinks of herself as "the boss" behaves entirely differently than someone that thinks of herself as a leader. I'm not trying to be PC, framing matters, and the words we choose are some of the best pictures of our frames of reference. Thanks! Bret
Reply to this
Thanks, Bret. You always add something important to the discussion.
You're right about the decisions. I should have written that differently. The boss should make the decisions only he or she can make.
On many teams, the boss is also the "default decider." If the team can't reach a decision another way, it's the bosses job to make it. In my Working Supervisor's Support Kit, I urge bosses to make that explicit.
I disagree with you on the choice between "leader" and "boss." I think that the term "leader" is so weighed down with the baggage of "leader vs manager" that some people who use it to describe themselves see it as a state of being, not a kind of work.
I agree that the words we use on these matters are important, but I don't see a single good choice out there.
Reply to this
Well said. You can't create a high performing organization and fail to provide a good place to work. Most likely, you can't avoid any requirements that someone finds annoying.
I often find managers don't even know what their staff dislike, would like to see changed or improved, would like to avoid... Avoiding the negative is just a part of creating a good place but many managers (I would guess the vast majority) don't have a decent idea of what those things are for each person. I always try to find out, show I can try and think of how to improve the system taking those things into account.
I find managers who just ignore problems exceedingly annoying. They chose to make everyone suffer so they can avoid dealing with touchy situations.
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by, John. You're right. There are places where productivity is high that are simply awful places to work. I think of them as efficient slave ships.
As for knowing what matters to team members, we know that the way to solve that is simple. Wander around. Have conversations with your team members. Take the advice my father used to give his preaching students and interns. He said, "If you visit your parishioners during the week, you won't have to worry about what to preach about on Sunday."
Reply to this
I have to agree that Cloutier's article goes too far. There is a huge difference between being a boss and being a jerk.
I have worked for bad bosses and I have worked with good bosses. the good bosses ultimately get more out of their folks, get better results and people LIKE coming to work. The good bosses weren't worried that you like them or liked coming to work. They obsessed over the employees working effectively, then working efficiently.
Bad bosses could be "benevolent tyrants" or worse, "incompetent tyrants." Either way, the work wasn't as effective as the boss wanted and not at all efficient. Tyrants always foment revolt or desertion.
Do you want to know who the good bosses are?
1) Who is getting effective, efficient results?
2) Who is getting 1) with less than average turnover?
A Cloutier-like tyrant may get good results for a while, but the turnover WILL come and then results will dive. A good leader will achieve and sustain effective and efficient results, with reduced turnover.
Some smart guy said it first: "accomplish the mission and care for the people." Everything else is rhetoric.
-Kirk aka Desertcat
Reply to this
Thanks, Kirk. One thing worth noting in Cloutier's defense is that he is a turnaround consultant. The businesses he deals with often need to do unpopular and difficult things quickly to save the business and the jobs it provides. But that's an emergency situation.
Even in that situation it's sometimes possible to engage everyone in the decision-making and recovery process. A good example is Springfield Remanufacturing (now SRC) where open book management was developed as part of that process.
Personally, though, I think we make too much of the idea that "they don't have to like you but they do have to respect you." That's true as far as it goes, but in real life it's not one or the other. I've had bosses and watched bosses who were both liked and respected.
Reply to this
1) I find it difficult NOT to like someone I respect. I may not always agree. I may not always like what I have to do. But I can always respect a Respectable Boss. And 9 times out of 10, that leads to liking the Boss.
2) I agree that in the middle of combat, fire-fighting or heart surgery, the person in charge is telling and not asking. I knew that when I was 13...I haven't forgotten it 37 years later. Tyrants forget they are working with adults and that everything isn't business isn't combat, fire-fighting or heart surgery. The tyrants need to get a grip and a clue and talk to us like adults. -Kirk
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing those comments, Kirk. Apropos of tyrants, I love the following quote: "Dictators are leaders who look good until the last 10 minutes."~ Jan Masaryk
Reply to this
I couldn't agree with you more on your 5 point views on being 'The Boss'. I learned somewhere that a vast majority of high turnover of employees are due to the immediate superior's view or negative attitude on their subordinates and their job. The pay is sometimes just a secondary reason for leaving the company. I still believe if an employee is happy with the working environment wherein there is room for growth as an individual and is treated with respect by his/her superiors then you get the most out of that person to do the job. Being a boss and a leader are two different things. Anybody can be a boss, but it takes a lot of skills, people skills that is, to become a good leader.
J. Villanueva, Assistant to Shea Ellison
Reply to this
Thanks for coming by and adding your comment, Joanne. You're right that the boss has the most impact on the working environment and, thus, on both morale and productivity. That's why people may join a company, but often leave bosses.
Reply to this
I agree there's no need to romance the topic. I'm not even against the benevolent dictator, as long as he or she is exactly like Capt. Kirk. But I have to smile a bit trying to imagine someone in their first management role trying to act like a benevolent dictator to an older, more experienced team.
Reply to this
Thanks, Laura, that's a good point. I don't even like the term "benevolent dictator." For me that describes someone who makes sure you have "stuff," but takes your soul in the bargain.
Reply to this
I agree with Cloutier that a company is not a democracy, as you said you’re the boss, be the boss. That means that once you make a decision your people need to execute. There is a time for input and debate and there is a time that if an employee does not like my decision and fails to execute accordingly they can find someplace else to work.
Even in the role as “default decider”, as you discuss with Bret Simmons above, the team needs to move forward once the decision is made. In a democracy a decision can be made and debate over if it was right or wrong, and if we should change it, can go on for years, very counterproductive in a business.
Also, even if you let the team make a decision you are ultimately responsible for the outcome as if it were your own. If the VP of Marketing let’s the team pick a campaign that fails and is standing in front of the board of directors answering why, telling them “it was not me, I let the team decide,” is the fastest way out of a job. You will have to own your decisions, even if your decision is to let the team decide.
I do not agree that you need to be respected and feared because then you have a culture where people will not share their insight. Simply being respected is sufficient; being feared will leave you with no team.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the conversation. Your point about moving on is a good one. As for respect, I think it has to be there. The best compliance is always willing compliance and without respect you don't get that.
Reply to this