Bosses behaving badly

Wayne Hochwarter likes his work and respects his bosses, but he doesn’t mind admitting that in previous jobs that wasn’t always the case.
In his past working life, he had some bosses that he says were just plain bad, people who made coming to work
every day a chore. And he’s the first to point out that translated into not just personal dissatisfaction for Hochwarter, but a disconnect with the job and ultimately a reduction in productivity. Faced with the option of working late to complete a project or going home, he confesses he would go home. If his boss was bad,
Hochwarter was much less likely to put in extra hours or effort on a weekend than to head to the golf course.
Hochwarter is far from alone. The abusive boss has been well documented in the media, including Fox’s television show, My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, and on websites such as www.hateboss.com and www.badbossology.com. A wide range of books is geared at employees who feel abused with titles such as
Brutal Bosses, When Smart People Work for Dumb Bosses: How to Survive in a Crazy Dysfunctional Workplace and You Want Me to Do WHAT?
Hochwarter wants business owners and supervisors to understand that there is a price to be paid for poor employee relations—and it is far from just the employees who pay it.
“When you talk to people about work, a big part of the reason they like or don’t like their jobs has to do with their boss,” says Hochwarter. “If your people don’t respect, like or tolerate you, it will affect your business.”
An associate professor of management at Florida State University’s College of Business, Hochwarter recently completed a study that shines some light on the magnitude of the problem of bad bosses. Among the findings:
Almost a third, or 31 percent, of participants reported that their supervisor had given them the “silent treatment” in the past year.
Thirty-seven percent reported that their supervisor failed to give them credit when it was due.
Thirty-nine percent noted that their supervisor failed to keep promises.
Twenty-seven percennoted their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
Twenty-four percent reported that their supervisor invaded their privacy.W\
Twenty-three percent indicated that their supervisor blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
When word began to circulate about Hochwarter’s study, calls and e-mails began to arrive at his Tallahassee office from far and wide, he says. People wanted to share their experiences with the boss from hell. One woman even asked for advice on ways to get revenge.
“I don’t know if she was expecting me to give her a list or something,” Hochwarter says, somewhat bewildered. One thing he realized is that the implications of bad management on employees can be surprisingly deep.
“There were a lot of people who really, really suffered over this. They had health problems, trouble sleeping, mental breakdowns, even. Some of the stories were just tragic,” says Hochwarter. “It illustrates how important a supervisor can be—not just on work but on people’s lives.”
Many bosses either don’t understand, don’t care or are unaware of the bad feelings they generate, Hochwarter says. “I don’t think most people wake up each morning and say to themselves, ‘Today I’m really going to get them,’ ” he says. They’re just unskilled, insensitive or unprepared to lead people.
In today’s business world, a good manager is flexible, treats people as individuals and makes an attempt to understand what motivates and inspires them. His or her job is to get the best out of employees. “A lot of it has to do with trust, thoughtfulness, consideration, getting people involved and just honesty,” Hochwarter says.
The issue is more than a quality-of-life question for workers. Employers should note that unhappy employees are less likely to show initiative, function well as part of a team or take on additional tasks. Not surprisingly, they are also more likely to quit, requiring expensive searches for replacements.
Many other sources also have documented the value of good management. The recently released book 12: The Elements of Great Managing draws on the famed Gallup data bank as well as extensive research to provide a picture of the effective manager. The book outlines a dozen common-sense keys, from communicating clear expectations to making sure employees believe they have an opportunity for growth as they contribute to the business.
According to authors Rodd Wagner and James K. Harter, creating a work atmosphere that employees find satisfying is “one of the few determinants of profitability largely within a company’s control, [and] is one of the most crucial imperatives of any successful organization.”
For those still unconvinced, 12: The Elements of Great Managing uses Gallup research on thousands of companies to outline why having “engaged” employees is so important:
In the companies that are better places to work, millions of small actions—statistically insignificant in isolation, but significant when considered as a whole—contributed to higher customer satisfaction, led to fewer accidents, boosted productivity and increased creativity. Overall, this led to a more profitable enterprise.
Engaged employees average 27 percent less absenteeism than those who are actively disengaged. In a 10,000-person company, absenteeism from disengagement costs the business about 5,000 lost days or about $600,000 annually. While the cost to smaller businesses is lower, the impact can be greater since each absence is felt more intensely.
Business units with many actively disengaged workers experience 31 percent to 51 percent more turnover than those with many engaged employees.
Turnover driven by disengagement costs businesses millions of dollars every year. Replacing an entry-level or frontline employee costs 25 percent to 80 percent of that person’s annual wage. Replacing an engineer, a nurse, a salesperson or other specialist costs between 75 percent to 400 percent of his or her annual salary.
Workgroups with an inordinately high number of disengaged workers lose 51 percent more inventory to “shrink”­—a
euphemism for theft—than do those with a higher number of engaged workers.
To the outsider, the most obvious connection between employee engagement and the way a business operates is its customer service. Employees who had a higher range of team engagement (feeling a close connection with their workgroup or team) showed 12 percent higher customer service scores than those in the bottom tier of team engagement.
The various effects of engagement on absenteeism, turnover, accidents, shrink and customer service combine to create an appreciable competitive advantage for a charged-up team. Highly engaged teams average 18 percent higher productivity and 12 percent higher profitability than disengaged teams.