Mary was running late for the weekly management meeting. She was typically on-time and hated to be late. She rushed in, worried about whether she would find her manager in the reasonable-boss mood or the mean-boss mood. When she walked in her manager looked at his watch, then glared at her. Drat. Didn’t her years of reliability earn any good will?
I am fortunate to work with talented committed executives in my coaching practice. After all, leaders who engage in leadership coaching are those already aware of their strengths and dedicated to improvement. These leaders are continually striving to increase emotional intelligence, expand their skills, take on bigger responsibilities, and develop leaders who work for them.
We know the benefits of good leadership: employees are more motivated, creative, committed and productive. As most leaders know, fostering conditions for employees to be empowered in this way is no longer regarded as “soft.” That’s because those attributes result in companies that are more profitable. Having a great boss is an essential element to a good quality of life. It is not a stretch to recognize the ripple effect on personal lives, families and communities. A positive result which benefits us all.
Most of my leader clients have at some point worked for a manager who was not so effective, or they may have promoted managers who were not up to the task and ended up being abrasive, abusive or inconsistent, and had to be reassigned. In other words, they know what a bad boss is. But recent research reveals a curious nuance.
Unpredictable
What is curious is that those employees with an unpredictable inconsistent manager perform worse than those who have a consistently negative relationship with their manager.
Some research focuses on leader qualities and attributes. Allan Lee’s research on inconsistent managers aggregates research on follower attitudes. In other words, he looks at what happens to an employee’s commitment, productivity, and creativity based on their reaction to their manager’s behavior. Follower information is not regarded as objectively accurate in these studies but rather, correlated with their own subsequent behavior. If their attitude is positive, how do they act? If they are fearful, how do they act? If they are uncertain of the reaction of their manager, how will they act?
Not surprisingly the answer is they are less productive, less engaged, and more cautious.
This is consistent with David Rock’s work on NeuroLeadership. He developed a model based on research showing what happens in our brain during interactions. His findings point to caution as being a hallmark of environmental biology. Over millennia, those who were vigilant to perceived threats tended to survive long enough to pass on their genes. Those who were bold and risk taking, maybe did not.
Uncertainty creates anxiety. Rock’s article in the NeuroLeadershipJournal notes, “Even a small amount of uncertainty generates an ‘error’ response in the orbital frontal cortex (OFC)… [which] cannot be ignored. Until it [uncertainty] is resolved, it is difficult to focus on other things. Larger uncertainties, like not knowing your boss’ expectations or if your job is secure, can be highly debilitating.”
Uncertainty is debilitating. Especially as it relates to a manager’s predictability. This helps explain why a consistently poor manager is less stressful than an unpredictable one. But with today’s high employment rates, and employees willing to change jobs for better opportunities, neither situation is good for business.
Case study
One client, I’ll call Riley, had a strong relationship with his manager for many years. Small startups often put managers in charge of more than one area. In this case, Riley managed Finance and Human Resources. Being an HR professional in my earlier career, I’m always alert to this organization structure. Finance has an obligation to not only report on revenue and expenses, but to do what they can to control expenses. While cash flow management is important to continued survival, companies do not grow only on expense management. Capital investment in equipment, new product development, salaries and commercial space are essential to growth, as any executive knows. Growth is the result of prudent investments; investments are necessary.
Human Resources on the other hand typically has a different charter: recruit, retain and grow the talent within. All of those activities are associated with initial costs, and, managed well, result in huge savings and return on investment. For example, an increase in retention saves on recruiting, orienting and training costs, not to mention the overwork and overtime of staff who pitch in while a position is vacant.
Over time, the company grew and the job outpaced Riley’s ability to manage both functions. Riley had outgrown the dual role, and had significant competence in only one of these areas: Finance. As the company grew, he was unable to provide adequate oversight to HR, and began being criticized for the results of that part of his department. His HR manager saw the role as more strategic and holistic than he did, and was therefore eager to report to the growth-oriented CEO, not finance. The more Riley’s manager asked for different results, the more stressed and anxious he became. This resulted in his becoming inconsistent, a natural result of stress and anxiety. To compound that problem, the more stressed he became, the less open he was to feedback. In the end he was given the opportunity to manage just the Finance department, but chose to leave instead.
Causes
One source of inconsistent effective leadership is not enough sleep, as cited in my last blog. Sleep deprivation caused managers to be more abusive, less inspiring. When leaders demonstrate positive emotion, subordinates feel good. When leaders are sleep deprived, they spread the impatience and negativity. Christopher Barnes cites research that individual managerial behavior can vary significantly from day to day. This difference is often due to the quality and quantity of a manager’s sleep.
What helps
• Leaders: be aware that those who manage up don’t always manage their staff as effectively
• Be attentive to reports of inconsistent behavior, which may come from different staff
• Provide support for managers to be successful; help them navigate competing priorities
• Make time for mentoring; share your own successes and mistakes and learnings
• Insist on good leadership; don’t delay intervening when you observe erratic behavior
• Support a culture of mutual support which helps mitigate the stress of uncertainty
Resource
For more on becoming aware of your reactions and their impact on others, see my book Zoom Leadership: Change Your Focus, Change Your Insights. The chapter on the “Feel” lens highlights ways to zoom in to what feeling might impact behavior. In this example, Mary’s boss could get closer to the anxiety he may feel about late comers to a meeting, perhaps realizing he was anticipating his own boss’ judgment of him and his staff for being late. Zooming out of his feeling, he may realize that Mary’s lateness was a very small element in the list of things affecting his emotional state. Zooming in on the feel lens, he might consider the impact on Mary, and assess whether there is a better way to convey his reaction, whether it was intended to be a criticism, or whether it was just a nervous habit on his own part. Zooming out in the feel lens, he might review the tone of the team he wants to create, reflecting on what team spirit he want to foster, and how can he best create that.