Random Terror…and Other Workplace Challenges

OK, so there’s not enough money on the planet to get me to watch the Fox TV show “Glee.” Nope, that’s not my thing, although – surprise, surprise – my wife and daughter both love it. Well, at least I thought I didn’t like it, until I figured out who Sue Sylvester was. Suddenly that show is almost worth suffering through just to hear Ms. Sylvester’s proclamations (I said almost). Here’s one of my favorites:

“I’m all about empowerment. I empower my Cheerios to live in a state of constant fear by creating an environment of irrational, random terror.”

Cheerios? That would be the cheerleaders at the fictitious high school in the show. Sue, of course, coaches the cheerleaders, which, based on the quote above, must be quite an experience. Sure, it’s only television, but it’s funny because there is just enough truth in her attitudes to make you wince. Like me, I’m sure you have known several managers that share some of her….uh, less flattering traits. You know what I mean – belligerent, critical, condescending, insulting. Like that.

But, whether you classify Sue’s verbal jabs as insults or proverbs probably depends on your point-of-view. There are just enough of those kinds of managers in the workplace that achieve some definition of success that allows them to continue to exist, even flourish. Their bosses justify their behavior with statements like “Hey, he hits his numbers” or “You might not like her, but she gets results” or “We need someone to crack down on that department.” Apple CEO Steve Jobs, for example, is well known as a difficult guy to work for, but HOLY COW does he get results. Since he makes it work, it obviously must be OK to adopt his style of management.

Probably not. While fear, criticism, bullying, humiliation and other similar tactics may produce short-term results, the long-term results are also predictable: disengagement, high turnover, falling productivity, morale issues, and worse. Very few individuals have the absolute power and the unlimited budget to sustain such an environment, and they have to be willingly accept the inevitable results of their leadership style to sustain it. In Jobs case, it’s a style that more 8th century monarch than 21st century manager, as a recent HBR article attests:

Jobs, for all of his virtues, clings to the Great Man Theory of Leadership — a CEO-centric model of executive power that is outmoded, unsustainable, and, for most of us mere mortals, ineffective in a world of non-stop change. A Wired magazine cover story from last year made the point well. The article begins with a memorable anecdote — the CEO, in search of a space in the company’s crowded parking lot, regularly leaves his Mercedes in a handicapped space, sometimes taking up two spaces. The pattern became so noticeable that employees, according to the article, put notes on his windshield that read, Park Different.

“Jobs’ fabled attitude toward parking”, writer Leander Kahney says, “reflects his approach to business: For him, the regular rules do not apply.” That means shrouding his company in secrecy; treating his employees to tyrannical outbursts; and refusing basic accommodations that would make beautifully designed products more customer-friendly.

The High Cost of Abusive Managers

Unfortunately, the Sue Sylvester-style of leadership is quite commonplace. Recent studies indicate that over one-third of employees have been bullied at work by their managers with management behaviors ranging from from gossip or slander to verbal and emotional abuse to physical intimidation. While not every manager guilty of abusive behavior is a bad person, even well-meaning managers can be guilty of repeated harsh criticism, ostracism, and even public humiliation. The cost to the organization is more than significant, as described in this article:

Workplace bullying directly impacts the bottom line by affecting productivity, wellness (with subsequent rise in employer benefit costs), attrition, attraction and retention. One study by John Medina showed that “adults with chronically high stress levels performed 50% worse on certain cognitive tests than adults with low stress.” Other studies estimate the financial costs of this lost productivity (at work) at more than $200 billion a year — and that’s a conservative estimate.

While most critics believe that the injection of more rules and regulations – that is, state and federal legislation – is the answer to abusive management styles, I think the solution is far more simple. With clear and compelling evidence that this management style costs companies enormous amounts of money, companies should be more than enthusiastic about making the following changes:

1. Evaluate management hires/promotions as much on leadership capacity as much as technical skill.

2. Rigorously train managers and supervisors in critical leadership skills – creating trust, effective communication, conflict resolution, delegation, empowerment, and coaching.

3. Regularly survey employees to determine engagement level and to determine if abusive management practices are present in the workplace.

A company simply cannot afford to continue to assert that training has no tangible ROI. The business case for management leadership training is well-established. The challenge is to have a greater sense of the impact of that training than the current quarterly financial results. Behavioral change takes time, but the long-term results are more than worth the investment.

Of course, you could simply let your managers continue to lead like the incomparable Sue Sylvester:

“I’m gonna make it a habit to not stop and talk to students because this has been a colossal waste of my time.”

Tagged as: Abuse, Culture, Micro-management, Optimism, Workplace