Do most bosses rule by fear?

[Mckarsafra]

My current boss is a generally a nice person. She's very patient with her subordinates and never says an unkind word even when bringing a mistake they made to their attention. Her boss, though, who I have only occasional contact with, is by all accounts the precise opposite. She's a perfectionist who rules by fear. When she enters a room, I notice every one stiffen up a little. When people make mistakes, she reprimands them harshly. It's not that she corrects them -- it's the remarks that she makes after the correction is made that seem unnecessary. Like, "What part of four paragraphs didn't you understand!?" I haven't been on the receiving end of her tantrums (yet) but I've heard stories and seen a bit of it myself. She all but calls her subordinates incompetent. People then do the task the way she wants, but I think it has a demoralizing effect on the employees who feel her wrath.

 

Since I'm coming to the age where I'm moving up the ladder and my next job will probably require me to supervise employees myself, I wonder what kind of boss I would be, and what kind of boss it takes to run a successful department or business, etc.

 

I've read stories about how Steve Jobs wasn't the nicest person to work under. Is it really necessary to act like a jerk in order to run a department or a business the way it should be? I sure hope not. What do you think? How often have you encountered managers with this type of style?

Edited April 16, 2016 by Mckarsafra

[losangelena]

I've experienced both, and it's never fun having to work with someone like that. I personally feel like it creates a hostile work environment.

 

Managing people is hard! I think some people think they have to instill fear in others in order to get their respect and loyalty, but that's not true. I can understand being tough but fair—demanding a lot of your employees—but to be intentionally intimidating and mean or belittling is not necessary. Maybe some feel as if they need to be tough because they think, "oh well Steve Jobs was like this," but not everyone is a Steve Jobs; being a demanding harda** doesn't make you Steve Jobs.

[amaysngrace]

I worked for a lady who prided herself as being like Miranda from Devil Wears Prada.

 

We all hated her.

[Mckarsafra]

I've experienced both, and it's never fun having to work with someone like that. I personally feel like it creates a hostile work environment.

 

Managing people is hard! I think some people think they have to instill fear in others in order to get their respect and loyalty, but that's not true. I can understand being tough but fair—demanding a lot of your employees—but to be intentionally intimidating and mean or belittling is not necessary. Maybe some feel as if they need to be tough because they think, "oh well Steve Jobs was like this," but not everyone is a Steve Jobs; being a demanding harda** doesn't make you Steve Jobs.

 

I agree with everything you said. Being firm is reasonable; it's the intimidation and the condescension and excess that I think is uncalled for.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Mckarsafra

[loveweary11]

Only weak, unsuccessful managers use fear/intimidation/etc to manage (construction companies excluded).

 

Successful management involves treating each person individually while at the same time giving them a clear framework/path to work within.

 

It requires leading by example (no skipping out for golf, etc)

 

It requires feedback, both positive and negative, as well as having everyone on your team working toward personal bests all the time.

 

It involves clear metrics so everyone can see how they are doing.

 

Not to sound like too much of a d$%k, but I'm so good at this that I had my entire company willing to work a month without pay when we were ripped off by a municipality in NJ. Every one of them worked without pay for a month. That's good leadership.

 

I've also had a lot of employees tell me I'm the best boss they ever had.

 

Another huge philosophy of mine is this golden rule:

 

"Do whatever the f you want... so long as the work quality is amazing and everything is done on time."

 

My employees can be wasted, high, come in late, take a nap, anything necessary, so long as they do a near perfect job, on time.

 

This has worked in every industry I've owned businesses or managed people in from tech companies to boat building to all sorts of things.

 

If you give people the chance, they'll more often than not surprise you with great work.

 

Happy people do better work. Period.

 

So no... we don't all manage through fear/intimidation. Only the stupid ones do.

[Emilia]

The higher you go, the more narcissts you find.

[Mckarsafra]

The higher you go, the more narcissts you find.

 

That's generally the pattern I've seen. Actually, the way I came into this current job is related to this whole issue. I was part of an exodus of employees who couldn't stand the hostile atmosphere the boss had created. We were never openly critical of the way we were being managed, just voted with our feet. We left several positions needing to be filled at that place.

[Tayla]

Since working for 35 years... the characters have evolved.

Met my fair share of the intimidator boss's who's ears were closed and mouths constantly ranting orders.

 

I cringe at working in such environments. it's true what LW stated, content and happy workers tend to produce and care about their company.

 

I recall management, best advice was- encourage, resolve , and restructure. not one of my staff ever required breathing over or cracking the whip. perhaps treating them as valued and able bodies. They often gave some great suggestions so that helped. who was running the ship? each one of us because at the end it really was a group effort and not the "great I'm am the boss " and I said "so"mentality.

Thank goodness some people understand we are adults and not inept creatures to be ground down.

[thecrucible]

I think it's a balance where the boos has suitably high expectations so that the employees are motivated and respect their authority but also shows an interest in them as individuals and offers support where necessary and enough individual attention. I also think that a good boss never puts someone down but would be diplomatic when responding to ideas because ultimately people want to be steered in the right direction but not gain a knock to their confidence. I don't know anything about being a boss though - just imagining what a good boss would be like for me.

[ft yacht]

The higher you go, the more narcissts you find.

 

ive seen more in middle management than upper management. but dont know if thats a trend

[loveweary11]

The higher you go, the more narcissts you find.

 

There is a reason for that.

 

1) It takes a special kind of person to put all the extra work in to be management.

 

2) You need bulletproof confidence to handle management positions. You have to *know* you're the best and can handle anything thrown your way. When everyone else is collapsing, confused, tired and listless, you have to be stronger than the rest and lead them.

 

Note: This doesn't mrean you think you're smarter than anyone else, just that you can lead/steer the ship better. A great manager surrounds themselves with people who are smarter than them.

 

So, it's only natural to find more ego/narcissistic tendencies in management. It's a requirement of the job.

 

Note: This is one reason I was laughing when amaysingrace (sp?) was saying maybe I had no confidence in another thead. I'm a damn ego maniac who thinks he can do literally anything, get any girl, shoot to the top of any business activity and you know what? I always do. Due to the old Henry Ford quote: "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." I hide it though,by acting humble. lol

Edited April 17, 2016 by loveweary11

[Tayla]

Top ten quailities of successful leaders:

1: honest

2: commitment

3: delegates

4: sense of humor

5: endurance of set backs

6: monitors/mentors

7: Listens

8: engages feedback

9: knowledge of product/system

10: faith

 

Even the greatest of leaders admitted that sometimes they didn't have the "right" answers, but they often had faith that whatever they tried was more worthwhile then giving up. They had faith in their efforts .

 

I tend to think a bully boss lacks most of these qualities sited above...

[Mind-Chants]

My current boss is a generally a nice person. She's very patient with her subordinates and never says an unkind word even when bringing a mistake they made to their attention. Her boss, though, who I have only occasional contact with, is by all accounts the precise opposite. She's a perfectionist who rules by fear. When she enters a room, I notice every one stiffen up a little. When people make mistakes, she reprimands them harshly. It's not that she corrects them -- it's the remarks that she makes after the correction is made that seem unnecessary. Like, "What part of four paragraphs didn't you understand!?" I haven't been on the receiving end of her tantrums (yet) but I've heard stories and seen a bit of it myself. She all but calls her subordinates incompetent. People then do the task the way she wants, but I think it has a demoralizing effect on the employees who feel her wrath.

 

Since I'm coming to the age where I'm moving up the ladder and my next job will probably require me to supervise employees myself, I wonder what kind of boss I would be, and what kind of boss it takes to run a successful department or business, etc.

 

I've read stories about how Steve Jobs wasn't the nicest person to work under. Is it really necessary to act like a jerk in order to run a department or a business the way it should be? I sure hope not. What do you think? How often have you encountered managers with this type of style?

 

Check the links

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_Z

 

First of all as a boss, you don't have to command subordination, you have to earn it. I believe there are 3 types of management. One is compliance, identification and internalization. Leadership style could be one or combination of the above. Compliance is by virtue of position and hierarchy. Then identification is based on expertise. Then internalization is based on charisma. So you can see the relevance there.

 

I would like to talk about my current boss. First of all he is super awesome. Very broad minded. We disagree with each other a lot as we differ a lot in our working philosophy and management style. But there is mutual respect for each other's opinion. Since we differ a lot, we cover various perspectives before making decisions. That's our working style. Very assertive but doesn't humiliate anyone. Also defends my team and myself when something goes wrong.

 

I return the same favor to my subordinates. Many of them are self initiating and really passionate about their job. When they make mistakes, I defend them but also make them aware of the damages done. Emotional intelligence is big part of a being a boss, else you lose your talent pool.

 

So it is a top down process.

[Mind-Chants]

ive seen more in middle management than upper management. but dont know if thats a trend

 

The Dilbert principle refers to a theory stating that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management (generally middle management), in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing.

[Mind-Chants]

 

Even the greatest of leaders admitted that sometimes they didn't have the "right" answers, but they often had faith that whatever they tried was more worthwhile then giving up. They had faith in their efforts .

 

 

Well Said. You don't have to always take a right decision, sometimes you just have to take a decision and make it right.

[Emilia]

ive seen more in middle management than upper management. but dont know if thats a trend

 

Narcissists often don't make it beyond a certain point because they refuse to learn new things - an important trait of an actual narcissist.

 

You need decent skills in general to be successful higher up. The household name I worked for until recently survives well by being part of the infrastructure in the UK and that breeds a certain type of complacency. Also an environment that lacks accountability. Hence those higher up aren't necessarily particularly gifted, very competitive though.

 

Where there is more demand for talent, they wouldn't get far, no.

[thefooloftheyear]

At the end of the day, you have to be true to who you are..,.

 

If you own your own company, you should use the management technique that best suits your own personality...If you try to be someone you aren't, you will be exposed quickly and your people wont respond to you...

 

If you work for a company, and are a manager, its probably best to tailor your management style to the objectives and goals of the company you work for as a whole..

 

I've seen all sides...And a lot depends on the type of business..

 

I know a guy that is an absolute tyrant at his company...Rules with an iron fist..Its a tight ship that makes money, is always in demand, and has the best reputation in the industry...He gets the best terms from vendors and suppliers...It works....Not that he just rips people for no good reason, but he will if you aren't in line with the company's objectives..he does pay his people well...

 

As a business owner myself, I lead by example...I think its respect more than fear....I have a reputation and usually they know it before they ever get the job..... I do expect a lot from my people..I wont allow any behavior like(slackers/stoners/workplace lawyers, etc)-even if it meant I had to forego profit to accommodate it.....I like to believe that people in my company work hard and do whats expected because they don't want to let me down...I get angry, but only on rare occasions...I cut people loose, rather than try to fix them or have them cause me aggravation....Too much on the line and I just don't have the time or patience anymore..I was a bit more tolerant in the past, but I lost that...

 

I know of another guy that doesn't care what his employees do,. as long as he isn't in red ink...he has employees he knows steal from him and he wont fire them...They know the job and he considers that the cost of doing business...But in his case, he is mostly a shell type of boss, mostly absentee...His businesses are treated more like investments rather than businesses....As long as they turn a profit, the end justifies the means...It works, I just dont think I could ever operate that way...

 

TFY

[Got it]

No I don't think most managers manage that way but a good number do. A lot of people are promoted into management because they are successful in the lower position they were doing and so assumed to be successful managing. Managing is a skill set and isn't something that everyone can do nor should do and it is something that isn't always taught outside of trial and error.

 

There are 100 roads to Rome and many will use different techniques to get there, some good some bad. Sometimes "fear" is also in the eye of the beholder. One can say that a manager is a tyrant because they are holding them accountable.

 

Most who move up in a company/positions tend to be (looking at the DISC) tend to be high dominance or high Is.

 

I am a strong personality so I know that those that aren't doing what need to be done, over the years, have described me as too strong, too direct, scary, etc. Those that have not conflict avoided and worked with me know that while all of that is true, I am doing it because I am trying to develop, one's lines of logic are off, one isn't following company procedures/directives, one is not doing their job.

 

I work best with those that are type A, control freaks, with guilt complexes because, one, they are like me, and two, they self manage. I have learned a lot from those that aren't that way and have added more tools to my toolbox because of it. The one thing I have never learned how to work with are others/subordinates who conflict avoid/aren't honest. I do not insult, demean, etc. But I will have a very strong argument that one has to counter.

 

We all manage different and personality and company culture will dictate accordingly.

 

I have also found that people seem to react more strongly to women that are stronger personalities than men. There is an assumption that men will be direct in their directions, feedback, etc and that is expected and okayed. With women it seems to be of an affront and gets more push back.

[loveweary11]

More agreement with TFY.

 

His whole post.

 

I also cut people loose without any hesitation.