The «Bad Boss» in Context

THEE Note: The framework of 7 Levels of Work Responsibility is an essential aspect of this analysis. See summary here. See a full account here.

Symptoms of Dysfunction

The «Bad Boss» is a stereotype that too often seems harsh reality. However, a person should only be called «bad» if a severe personality disorder exists. In the majority of cases, bosses are «bad» because the management system and management culture allows or even encourages them. See some timeless findings.

When asked for specifics, criticisms of bosses include:

  • Uncooperativeness and unhelpfulness
  • Lack of energy and enthusiasm
  • Acceptance of mediocre results
  • Lack of clear vision and direction
  • Unwillingness to walk the talk
  • Failure to recognize and learn from mistakes
  • Inability to lead change or innovate
  • Failure to develop subordinates
  • Inept interpersonal skills, especially arrogance
  • Displays of bad judgement: short-termism, mindless expedience, dumping excessive amounts of work on staff.

It is evident that all these behaviours interfere with subordinate effectiveness. In THEE terms, this is because they undermine creativity and autonomy. The management system may force such behaviours (as a matter of survival) or it may simply allow them (as a matter of expedience or policy). Induction into expected management relationships is often absent or inadequate. So such «bad» qualities are best viewed as symptoms of organizational dysfunction. We should target the cause.

Relationships that Matter must be Defined

Work disruption by a «bad boss» can drive a subordinate to the edge of despair, leading to psychosomatic illness, excessive drinking, and family disruption. Yet the malfunctioning relationship may be easily remedied once recognized—if the organizational will is there. Understanding what the organization needs rather than labelling a person as «bad» is both the most humane and most effective way forward.

In many cases, the organization fails to specify and enforce the components of line-management and complementary authority relationships. At one extreme, a boss is a petty dictator humiliating and terrorizing subordinates. At the other extreme, subordinates do not know who their boss is and bosses are vague about who their subordinates are and what to do with them.

As a result, an employee, as a manager or as a subordinate, lacks appropriate expectations. Without these, it is simply impossible to handle any human relationship well.

However, even if authority relationships are unequivocally specified they will not be workable if the organization's management spine is not structured in accord with the framework of levels of work. This controversial view as been demonstrated in hundreds of organizations and the remainder of this topic is based on this fieldwork.

Levels of Work, Capability & the «Bad Boss»

As night follows day, ignoring levels of work responsibility (and talent management in its terms) leads to the «bad boss» syndrome. When there is:

  • confusion about responsibility in terms of THEE Levels specifying progressive work contexts,

    and

  • staff capability is not judged in terms of progression through these levels,

    then

you have a recipe for installing ineffective line management and creating «bad bosses» in the ensuing struggle to cope and get ahead.

THEE Rule: The boss should always work at one THEE level of responsibility above the subordinate. If this is not explicitly ensured then problems emerge:

  1. Intra-level Arrangements. Line-management may be set up with both boss and subordinates in the same level of work. The boss is then limited in regard to altering the context to help subordinates when their work is blocked. The subordinate will be tempted to appeal to a «real boss» who can change the context, even if this bypasses (and humiliates) the nominal boss. Appraisal will also be weak because the boss lacks a valid vantage point. The relation is liable to be over-competitive with the boss tempted to micro-manage.
  2. Omission of a Level of Work. Line-management may be set up with boss and subordinates separated by two levels. The boss will find themself inexorably dragged down into work at the missing level while being unwilling to work there and getting criticized for it; while the subordinates will often be working in a vague context without proper direction.
  3. Neglecting Responsibility. Roles are liable to focus excessively on specific tasks or results/performance rather than on general responsibilities. This then conflates the responsibility for needs/priorities (context—boss role) with a responsibility for activity/outcomes (content—subordinate role). The result will be clashes and expedient dumping of work. Anticipation and planning will be poor, choices will be disputed, and crises will erupt for which no-one is obviously responsible.
  4. Promotion to Incompetence. Work capability will be treated as synonymous with task performance. Successful performance may then be associated with an employee rising inexorably in the ranks until they are appointed to a post beyond their capability—as popularized by the Peter Principle. Performance crudely defined as meeting output targets may have little to do with the temperament and skills needed to handle a line-management relationship.
  5. Mishandling Potential. Organizational policies may not require the manager-once-removed to perform assessments of potential to complement managerial appraisal of performance. This is necessary as part of talent pool management. It also deals with bosses who treat high potential staff as a threat, or who block transfer so as to retain their services. Even a naturally effective boss can become too critical or dismissive of a highly talented subordinate who seems somehow different.

Levels of Work, Culture & the «Bad Boss»

Where the culture is highly pragmatic or excessively bureaucratic, the following situations are likely:

  1. A boss is allowed to ignore the work level of their own role i.e. to spend personal work time performing at a lower level (much easier!) rather than delegating that task and tackling real challenges at their own level.
  2. A boss is allowed to avoid difficult decisions at their work level—e.g. in regard to spending or saving, or reducing workload, or disciplining staff—even though this puts pressures on others. Persistent rejection of responsibility (e.g. by inappropriate delegation) is indicative of insufficient capability for the role.
  3. A boss is allowed to appoint staff lacking the calibre (in work level terms) to fill the role. Because that person will certainly fail, the boss may well act down (as in A.) The subordinate will be over-stretched and liable to be continually criticized.
  4. A boss is allowed to appoint staff expediently despite unsatisfactory qualities e.g. even if capable of working at a particular work level, not everyone can flexibly handle the pressures of line-management authority. If appointed nevertheless, their subordinates will suffer.
  5. A boss is allowed to avoid appraising staff, avoid reporting incisively and avoid confronting mistakes in their assessments. Alternatively, a boss is given free rein to appoint and deselect («hire and fire») regardless of organizational policy.
  6. A boss is allowed to distance themself from their subordinates' projects and problems. If the boss does not zoom in to determine what is going on, they cannot uncover their own mistakes: e.g. poor task definition, contextual errors (e.g. re funding, schedule &c), misjudgement of subordinate expertise or capability, banning or removing support staff.
  7. A boss is allowed to remain confused about the nature of levels of work and ignores the level-based differences in outlook, relationships, and practices. The work-levels framework is understandable by anyone, but not without specific explanations and confirmation by higher management that it is being taken seriously.
  8. A boss is allowed to avoid setting expectations in levels of work terms. As a result, subordinates know the kind of work for which they are responsible, but fudge the level. Either party may then neglect what has to be done or interfere and clash with each other.
  9. A boss is allowed to expect work-outputs beyond the capability of a subordinate. This reflects either a failure of appraisal i.e. assigning work that is too complex (too high level) or a poor personal fit; or a failure to grasp the sheer quantity or expertise entailed by what is demanded.

Authority Relations are Stressful

Tolstoy: Closed "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Anna Karenina, Chapter 1, opening sentence.

While poor boss relationships seem to be all alike, effective relationships are effective in their own way. Even when set up as well as possible, the status/power inequality naturally generates tension within line-management, and indeed in allauthority relationships.

This framework of employment expectations is the basis for understanding the dual sets of human demands that exist in organizational work—see summary diagram. These lead to tensions as elaborated in two separate tree frameworks, handling employment and being employed, which are developed in the next section.

While there are far too many issues to summarize here, it is essential to recognize that the handling of authority and influence is central to organizational life. While evolution has adapted us to use and respond to brute power, it has not given us instinctive ways to act responsibly in large groups. We need to design ethical and intuitively appropriate tools, and use them with awareness—which is what this part of THEE is about.

Originally posted: 16-Nov-2012