Laura Crawshaw

Taming the Abrasive Manager


Скачать книгу

course or behave ‘oddly’, sometimes being ‘eaten’ by the crushing effect of the gravity pulls from the black hole. . . . For those who study negative behavior at work, ‘the bully’ is the parallel of black holes—almost invisible to us. We gain all our data regarding bullies from other people and events that happen around them. . . . Finding and studying the bully is like trying to study black holes—we are often chasing scattered debris of complex data and shadows of the past [p. 47].

      Actually, I am different, because my labels don’t resemble the names of comic book villains—no Satanic Supervisors or Maniac Managers here. Instead, my labels describe behavioral styles without demonizing or denigrating. I chose the abrasive boss label because I believe it is descriptive without being disrespectful. You’ve probably noticed that I don’t refer to abrasive bosses as ‘‘bullies.’’ I dislike that label, for two reasons. First, I believe that calling someone a bully implies that these individuals want to hurt others, that they intentionally set out to do harm. I found the opposite case. I discovered that abrasive bosses don’t intend to harm—their intent is to motivate. And if they do cause harm, more often than not they’re blind to the fact that they’ve wounded others.

      There’s a second reason why I don’t refer to abrasive bosses as bullies. I think it’s unprofessional. When I reviewed the popular literature on abrasive bosses, I couldn’t get over the fact that the so-called expert authors of these bully-battling books behaved like bullies themselves, indulging in derogatory, disrespectful descriptors of abrasive bosses. As I’ve noted, this phenomenon is peculiar to workplace abuse; researchers don’t label those who engage in domestic abuse ‘‘bitch’’ or ‘‘bastard,’’ so why do so-called ‘‘expert’’ authors feel free to use the bully label in reference to workplace abuse?

      Here’s a list of definitions for terms that I will be using throughout the book. These may differ from how you’ve used these terms in the past, so please read carefully:

       Boss: any individual charged with managerial authority, from CEO to mailroom supervisor. This authority may be formal (the individual has defined reporting relationships with others) or informal (the individual is empowered to exert influence over others without formally defined relationships: for example, a physician may direct nursing staff even though they do not formally report to the physician).

       Manager: a boss’s immediate superior; the abrasive boss’s boss.

       Management: collectively, the individuals who hold positions that are higher than the abrasive boss’s position or who are authorized to exert influence over abrasive bosses (such as human resource or legal staff).

       Peers: individuals who hold positions roughly equivalent in status to the abrasive boss’s.

       Subordinates: individuals who report directly to the abrasive boss.

       Coworkers: all employees at any level who have contact with the abrasive boss; anyone working in the same organization.

      Now, on to my boss categories. I’ve found these categories useful in my work with abrasive bosses; I have yet to encounter a boss who didn’t fall into one of them. Please also note that I classify bosses according to their interpersonal conduct rather than their work performance. Conduct refers to interpersonal competence: the degree to which one interacts effectively with coworkers. Performance, in contrast, refers to technical competence: one’s ability to execute the technical aspects of work. Conduct and performance aren’t necessarily linked—a person can be technically brilliant and interpersonally dim or interpersonally expert but deficient in technical expertise. The best bosses have solid social and business expertise that inspires loyalty and augments the horsepower of their teams. The worst bosses are deficient in one or both competencies—working for a bungling nice guy can be equally as arduous as working for a proficient tyrant.

      The Adequate Boss

      The interpersonal competence of adequate bosses ranges from good enough to great. They have enough emotional intelligence to know how to relate to coworkers in socially acceptable ways that promote smooth working relationships. Adequate bosses aren’t perfect, but they’re insightful enough to consistently behave in ways that coworkers perceive as respectful. These skills help them maneuver successfully through the inevitable interpersonal rough patches present in any workplace, keeping emotional distress to a minimum.

      Like physical irritants that produce minor, transient rashes, annoying bosses behave in ways that cause mild, temporary irritation in coworkers. Their annoying behaviors can be a pain, but the pain is not enough to damage work relationships or organizational functioning.