When Managers Fear Their Employees

Here's how mediocrity takes a deep-rooted hold in organizations: managers become afraid of their employees.

I think managers are afraid of their employees more than employees are afraid of their managers and that's why instituting change initiatives are so difficult. Managers want to be liked more than they want to be respected. They don't want to be the first to try anything for fear it falls flat. They don't want to be the target of a union grievance. They don't want to be reported to upper management for shaking things up a bit.

When managers take a "don't do anything to draw attention" position, then it becomes apparent that they are only interested in their own well-being and not the well-being of their company or their employees.

Most managers don't want to initiate Cultural change programs, initiatives and opportunities to innovate because of a possible push-back from their employees that may make them look dumb. So, managers do just enough to get the job done without rocking the boat. Make no waves, attract no attention, create no problems. Just get through this day and they are one day closer to collecting that pension. Sorry, but that philosophy is a prison sentence and trust me, it is reflected in the Culture of the organization.

If you're going to manage, then manage. Manage what is in the best interests of the employees and the organization as a whole. Doing nothing so as to avoid difficulty is not a strong position that attracts the best workers and the best opportunities. Avoiding difficulty is selfish and does nothing to improve the performance of your people, their performance or the company as a whole. And it creates a Culture of walking on egg-shells. Now doesn't that sound like a great place to work?

Everything Needs To Be Broken

Here is the one Attitude that I believe is necessary in any top-performing senior team: assuming that everything within the organization is broken. Nothing within any organization should be "hands-off." No aspect of any organization should be taboo. If one thing is untouchable, then everything is untouchable.

No senior management position can be untouchable. No mid-level management position can be untouchable. No entry level position can be untouchable. Every aspect, every employee, every process, every interaction and every idea must be allowed to face the chopping block. If you don't run your business in this way, you are not maximizing your organization's power.

Attitude Adjustment: Everything is broken. And if some things are not broken, they should be allowed to be broken. The more senior executives approach the board room table with the belief that every aspect of the business can be improved, only then will true creative discussion occur.

Every aspect of the business needs to be up for discussion, and that includes the senior executives who run the place.

As Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon once said, "A brilliant idea and a dumb idea sound exactly the same to a mediocre mind." Anyone attempting to maintain the status-quo within an organization will find that their senior team is no longer top-performing, but instead, simply mediocre.

Now, how many things at work are you prepared to break today?
-- --

Management By Fear?

Question: I feel that Fear may be one of the best motivators of performance. I have seen several leaders who are strict and tough with their people...to the extent that people fear the recoil of not living up to their expectations and therefore start shaping up. Low performers become high performers because of fear. Any views would be appreciated.

Answer: First of all, you said, "I have seen several leaders who are strict and tough with their people.." Let me correct you. Those people were NOT leaders. Leaders don't bully. They may have been tyrants or crappy managers but don't ever call them leaders. A manager is not automatically a leader because of his title. Managers manage. Leaders lead. If someone is shouting at you and putting fear into you, they are not leading you - they are chasing you - which means they are behind not in front.

People may seem to dig down and get a job done when they feel threatened but the truth is that when you threaten someone, the relationship changes forever. Your people will now start working on an exit strategy on their terms. They will no longer be engaged in their work - they will tolerate and humor their bosses until such time that they can leave on their own terms. In the meantime, they will do just enough to not get fired.

As for the people who are suddenly able to increase production because of fear, well they were obviously coasting and taking advantage of the company prior to the threat - otherwise there would have been no need for a threat. They should be fired regardless of their current performance. If the only time an employee performs is when threatened, then fire him. He's worthless and dragging the company down - others are having to carry him and his load and it's unfair to the people who do their work diligently. The employee in question wasn't doing more because more wasn't expected. That's just bad management.

Although, it may seem like productivity rises after a threat - the truth is that employees end up doing just enough to placate their bosses and not get fired. It's the illusion of productivity and it will be short-lived because the damage has been done - disconnected feelings of mistrust, frustration and regret will settle in.

Threats and intimidation are so 1950's and any manager who still uses them needs to be fired and enrolled immediately into anger management before they are ever allowed to supervise again.