However, in the management sense, a boss is someone who is responsible, usually for other staff members, and is accountable for company goals and developing employees. Being a good boss means understanding the management styles covered in this article.
Related: 7 Manager Interview Questions and Answers. The short definition of the word boss is "a person in a supervisory role who takes on important responsibilities within an organization. Making important decisions that impact everyone in a given department is not a task to be taken lightly.
An authoritarian manager is sometimes called autocratic. Autocratic managers can be very effective in how they handle conflict and poor conduct. They tend to dole out punishment to eliminate negative behavior and reward positive behavior. This makes autocratic leadership an effective choice for some managers. A democratic leader is quick to consult their team for opinions. These managers are more likely to call meetings to strategize over current events and initiatives in the workplace.
Democratic leaders are collaborative individuals that understand the importance of delegation and how to do it correctly, and work to empower their team to become a part of the decision-making process. A hands-off leadership style that is considered the least effective of the three management types is Laissez-faire leadership. In this approach, leaders let employees do as they will and give them full autonomy.
A strong laissez-faire leader will check in with employees routinely to ensure progress on goals is being met. We said earlier that the set-up-to-fail syndrome usually starts surreptitiously—that is, it is a dynamic that usually creeps up on the boss and the subordinate until suddenly both of them realize that the relationship has gone sour.
But underlying the syndrome are several assumptions about weaker performers that bosses appear to accept uniformly. Our research shows, in fact, that executives typically compare weaker performers with stronger performers using the following descriptors:.
It is not surprising that on the basis of these assumptions, bosses tend to treat weaker and stronger performers very differently. Members of the in-group are considered the trusted collaborators and therefore receive more autonomy, feedback, and expressions of confidence from their bosses. The boss-subordinate relationship for this group is one of mutual trust and reciprocal influence. Members of the out-group, on the other hand, are regarded more as hired hands and are managed in a more formal, less personal way, with more emphasis on rules, policies, and authority.
Why do managers categorize subordinates into either in-groups or out-groups? For the same reason that we tend to typecast our family, friends, and acquaintances: it makes life easier. Labeling is something we all do, because it allows us to function more efficiently. It saves time by providing rough-and-ready guides for interpreting events and interacting with others. Managers, for instance, use categorical thinking to figure out quickly who should get what tasks.
The downside of categorical thinking is that in organizations it leads to premature closure. For example, a manager might interpret a terrific new product idea from an out-group subordinate as a lucky onetime event. Unfortunately for some subordinates, several studies show that bosses tend to make decisions about in-groups and out-groups even as early as five days into their relationships with employees.
In fact, the bosses we have studied, regardless of nationality, company, or personal background, were usually quite conscious of behaving in a more controlling way with perceived weaker performers. By and large, however, managers are aware of the controlling nature of their behavior toward perceived weaker performers.
For them, this behavior is not an error in implementation; it is intentional. When the subordinate senses these low expectations, it can undermine his self-confidence. This is particularly problematic because numerous studies confirm that people perform up or down to the levels their bosses expect from them or, indeed, to the levels they expect from themselves.
I exert more control over my underperformers, but I make sure that it does not come across as a lack of trust or confidence in their ability. That is, we believe that they do try hard to disguise their intentions. When we talk to their subordinates, however, we find that these efforts are for the most part futile.
All they have to do is compare how they are treated with how their more highly regarded colleagues are treated. The reason? When people perceive disapproval, criticism, or simply a lack of confidence and appreciation, they tend to shut down—a behavioral phenomenon that manifests itself in several ways.
Primarily, shutting down means disconnecting intellectually and emotionally. Subordinates simply stop giving their best. They grow tired of being overruled, and they lose the will to fight for their ideas.
Shutting down also involves disengaging personally—essentially reducing contact with the boss. Partly, this disengagement is motivated by the nature of previous exchanges that have tended to be negative in tone. Besides the risk of a negative reaction, perceived weaker performers are concerned with not tainting their images further. I should have kept my mouth closed. I do now. Finally, shutting down can mean becoming defensive. Many perceived underperformers start devoting more energy to self-justification.
Anticipating that they will be personally blamed for failures, they seek to find excuses early. They end up spending a lot of time looking in the rearview mirror and less time looking at the road ahead. Yet there are other costs to consider, some of them indirect and long term. The boss pays for the syndrome in several ways.
It can be quite a strain to keep up a facade of courtesy and pretend everything is fine when both parties know it is not. The set-up-to-fail syndrome also has serious consequences for any team. A lack of faith in perceived weaker performers can tempt bosses to overload those whom they consider superior performers; bosses want to entrust critical assignments to those who can be counted on to deliver reliably and quickly and to those who will go beyond the call of duty because of their strong sense of shared fate.
An increased workload may help perceived superior performers learn to manage their time better, especially as they start to delegate to their own subordinates more effectively. In many cases, however, these performers simply absorb the greater load and higher stress which, over time, takes a personal toll and decreases the attention they can devote to other dimensions of their jobs, particularly those yielding longer-term benefits.
In the worst-case scenario, overburdening strong performers can lead to burnout. Team spirit can also suffer from the progressive alienation of one or more perceived low performers. Great teams share a sense of enthusiasm and commitment to a common mission. One manager recalled the discomfort experienced by the whole team as they watched their boss grill one of their peers every week. If one member is suffering, the whole team feels that pain.
In addition, alienated subordinates often do not keep their suffering to themselves. In the corridors or over lunch, they seek out sympathetic ears to vent their recriminations and complaints, not only wasting their own time but also pulling their colleagues away from productive work. Finally, the set-up-to-fail syndrome has consequences for the subordinates of the perceived weak performers.
Consider the weakest kid in the school yard who gets pummeled by a bully. The abused child often goes home and pummels his smaller, weaker siblings. When they have to manage their own employees, they frequently replicate the behavior that their bosses show to them. They fail to recognize good results or, more often, supervise their employees excessively.
The set-up-to-fail syndrome is not irreversible. Subordinates can break out of it, but we have found that to be rare. The subordinate must consistently deliver such superior results that the boss is forced to change the employee from out-group to in-group status—a phenomenon made difficult by the context in which these subordinates operate.
It is hard for subordinates to impress their bosses when they must work on unchallenging tasks, with no autonomy and limited resources; it is also hard for them to persist and maintain high standards when they receive little encouragement from their bosses. Furthermore, even if the subordinate achieves better results, it may take some time for them to register with the boss because of his selective observation and recall.
Indeed, research shows that bosses tend to attribute the good things that happen to weaker performers to external factors rather than to their efforts and ability while the opposite is true for perceived high performers: successes tend to be seen as theirs, and failures tend to be attributed to external uncontrollable factors.
The subordinate will therefore need to achieve a string of successes in order to have the boss even contemplate revising the initial categorization. Clearly, it takes a special kind of courage, self-confidence, competence, and persistence on the part of the subordinate to break out of the syndrome.
Instead, what often happens is that members of the out-group set excessively ambitious goals for themselves to impress the boss quickly and powerfully—promising to hit a deadline three weeks early, for instance, or attacking six projects at the same time, or simply attempting to handle a large problem without help.
Sadly, such superhuman efforts are usually just that. And in setting goals so high that they are bound to fail, the subordinates also come across as having had very poor judgment in the first place.
The set-up-to-fail syndrome is not restricted to incompetent bosses. We have seen it happen to people perceived within their organizations to be excellent bosses. Their mismanagement of some subordinates need not prevent them from achieving success, particularly when they and the perceived superior performers achieve high levels of individual performance.
However, those bosses could be even more successful to the team, the organization, and themselves if they could break the syndrome. As a general rule, the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that one exists. This observation is especially relevant to the set-up-to-fail syndrome because of its self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing nature.
It would be difficult—and indeed, detrimental—to provide a detailed script of what this kind of conversation should sound like. A boss who rigidly plans for this conversation with a subordinate will not be able to engage in real dialogue with him, because real dialogue requires flexibility. As a guiding framework, however, we offer five components that characterize effective interventions.
Although they are not strictly sequential steps, all five components should be part of these interventions. He must, for instance, select a time and place to conduct the meeting so that it presents as little threat as possible to the subordinate. A great boss stops by and says hello. She makes herself available. She tries to get a better appreciation for the entire person inside the employee. Employees who feel that their boss is caring and interested in who they are will be more committed to their work.
A great boss observes her employees to find out what they do best. She talks to them about what aspects of their job they enjoy the most. A great boss taps into and leverages the instincts and skills her employees have. This creates a win-win as she is able to reap the rewards of employee satisfaction, and employees grow increasingly inspired and confident about their work, skills, and talents. Moreover, they feel appreciated, that someone has their best interests in mind.
She takes the time to sit down and discuss their goals with them and she does what she can to help them achieve such ambitions. An effective boss encourages her employees not to be scared of making mistakes along the way. The mentality a great boss puts forward is one that encourages learning — not one that instills fear of making a mistake.
Fear only inhibits growth. Instead, a great boss uses mistakes as tools. A great boss is direct, but sensitive.
0コメント