When the Bully Is the Boss


Senator Amy Klobuchar’s nascent marketing campaign is keeping off a stream of tales from former staffers that she was a risky, highhanded boss who typically demeaned and humiliated individuals who labored for her. She has considered one of the highest charges of turnover in the Senate.

“Am I a tough boss sometimes? Yes,” she mentioned in a current CNN discussion board. “Have I pushed people too hard? Yes.”

The presumption that robust bosses get outcomes — and quick — in contrast with gentler leaders is widespread, and rooted partly in the printed life tales of profitable C.E.O.s. Bobby Knight, the Indiana University basketball coach and creator of “The Power of Negative Thinking,” was notoriously harsh, and enormously profitable. So was Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple.

But researchers who examine organizations, productiveness and management types attribute the achievements of such figures to distinctive capability. The analysis so far has discovered no proof to assist the axiom that more durable bosses get higher outcomes.

“We’ve been looking for it,” mentioned Rebecca Greenbaum, a professor in Rutgers University’s faculty of administration and labor relations, who previously labored in the insurance coverage trade. “We’d love to find out if there are good aspects of abusive leadership. There’s been a lot of research. We just can’t find any upside.”

The examine of management fashion has blossomed in the final decade. Psychologists, enterprise analysts and group specialists have carried out every kind of investigations, from nameless surveys of staff to research of employee habits over time. Various measures of productiveness, efficiency and well-being have been referred to as upon.

By nature, any examine of group dynamics in a real-world setting is affected by design limitations, together with the lack of a management group and the hidden private grievances of the staff. But the overwhelming majority of findings level to the similar conclusion: Bullying bosses are likely to undermine their very own groups. Morale and firm loyalty plunge, tardiness will increase and sick days are extra frequent.

“Productivity may rise in the short term,” Dr. Greenbaum mentioned. “But over time the performance of the staff or team deteriorates, and people quit.”

In Ms. Klobuchar’s case, any dialogue of management fashion invitations suspicion of a double normal primarily based on gender. That double normal definitely exists; in lots of conditions, male leaders are given better leeway to be robust.

“People judge women very harshly, even if they do the same behaviors as a man,” Leigh Thompson, director of staff and group analysis at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, mentioned in an electronic mail. “As for Amy K., my guess is that if she were Andy K., well, he’d be considered tough but he gets things done.”

Still, girls are no less likely than men to be abusive as bosses, across all levels of management, although they are slightly more likely to be targets of workplace abuse, researchers find.

If an abusive management style provides so little benefit, then why do so many abusive managers and bosses rise in organizations? One clue comes from social psychologists who have studied how teams of people behave and solve problems in the absence of a hierarchy.

Leaders tend to emerge organically, and common traits of those who assume the role include boldness, a healthy ego and a sense of entitlement. Confidence, too: People who take charge in these simulations tend to be decisive, making calls from the gut, and quickly.

A series of studies led by Jennifer Overbeck, an associate professor of management at Melbourne Business School, has found that, in simulated work groups, people gave high ratings to leaders who made quick decisions, particularly in moral dilemmas. It’s not that snap decisions were correct more often than deliberate ones. Rather, they were perceived to be more correct, and the decision maker seemed more morally assured than other potential leaders.

People tend to give individual leaders the benefit of the doubt, at least for a time. Dr. Overbeck calls this tendency the “leader’s rosy halo.” The presumption is strong enough that people in power “do not need to be transparent regarding their decision-making processes to be seen as moral and to receive support from their subordinates,” Dr. Overbeck wrote in a journal article.

As these individuals rise through the ranks, they internalize the belief that they are natural, morally instinctual leaders. This belief, in turn, affects how they view the people under them.

In a 2013 study, Dr. Overbeck and Vitaliya Droutman of the University of Southern California randomly assigned 50 students to groups, to be managers or team members. The researchers administered a series of standard tests to gauge how the participants judged their own traits and others’.

The managers were aware of their own personal strengths and weaknesses, but also concluded that their staff members “shared their negative, but not their positive, traits and feelings.” That is, managers often misread team members’ emotions as being in line with their own — “She’s as frustrated with herself as I am” — even though this often is not the case.

“We argue that when someone powerful is in a group, they see themselves as representative of that group, and it can be difficult for them to disentangle what the group wants from what they want,” Dr. Overbeck said in a phone interview. “They use themselves as a reference point.”

Abusive supervisors come in many flavors, including the insecure, the overmatched and the garden-variety sadist who picks on underlings solely for the pleasure of exercising power. But even mini-tantrums and put-downs can be counterproductive, undermining the efforts of a normally civil person and an otherwise effective boss.

“What our findings suggest is that this kind of behavior is typically not premeditated,” Dr. Greenbaum said. “It comes out when people fail to control themselves, and it is worse when supervisors have a bottom-line mentality — that they’ll do anything to achieve their goals.”

A boss who “demands” excellence is no more likely to produce it than the boss who requests or nurtures it, and likely less so, the research suggests. Demanding excellence often is just a handy excuse, said Bennett Tepper, a leading researcher of the effects of abusive leadership at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business:

“That kind of explanation, after the fact — that I hold people accountable — it’s lame. Well, me too. A lot of us do. That doesn’t mean we belittle people and scream at them.”



Source link Nytimes.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *