Characteristics that distinguish effective managers from ineffective ones

¶ … Bad Boss

My Boss... "

Ten Measures of an Effective Boss

Traits of "Good Bosses" and "Bad Bosses"

CHARACTERISTICS of a "BAD BOSS"

You're fired!'

No other words can so easily and succinctly reduce a confident, self-assured executive to an insecure, groveling shred of his former self."

Louchheim, (1984 (1988).

My Boss

"My boss is a... jerk! Bosses beware, your employees will notice even the smallest things," Myke Folger (2003) warns bosses they are being watched. Folger (2003) relates the experience of one twenty-something aeronautical mechanic, employed in a secure job with benefits, airplane repair. When the company began laying off employees shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, this mechanic, although regarded to be a good mechanic, was not part of the boss' "buddy system." Consequently, he lost his job. "It came down to whoever bought the superintendent more beer got the better jobs," the former employee contends. "That's pretty much how the layoffs went, too." Favoritism, as mirrored in this mechanic's experience, counters professionalism and constitutes one qualification of a "bad boss."

Ten Measures of Effective Bosses

In "How to be a better boss: 10 measures of effective managers and leaders," Madsen, (2005) states: "Incompetent bosses, poor managers, and lousy leaders are easy to identify when you work for one.... Employees know that they are respected, rewarded, and that work is more enjoyable and gratifying when their boss is at his/her best."

Traits of "Good Bosses" and "Bad Bosses"

The following list includes list of traits effective leaders, managers and bosses have perfected.

1. "A great boss is accessible and has an 'open-door' policy"(Madsen, 2005) a "good boss" is available for employees when they need help. A "bad boss" is not.

2. "A great boss develops healthy relationships with employees." (Madsen, 2005) a "good boss" will at times share personal information with employees to help them know him/her better. A "bad boss" either shares entirely too much information or none at all.

3. "A great boss customizes his/her approach for individuals." (Madsen, 2005)

"good boss" provides what an employee needs, when possible.

"bad boss" plays the favoritism game; frequently blocking people out of his life.

4. "A great boss recognizes accomplishments and issues praise regularly." (Madsen, 2005)

"good boss" makes a point to catch employees doing things right. A "bad boss" makes a point to catch employees doing things wrong and brings this to their attention.

5. "A great boss coaches employees and addresses under-performers." (Madsen, 2005) a good boss conducts regular reviews of his/her employees' performance. A bad boss sporadically reviews his/her employees 'performance. 6. "A great boss delegates work and trusts employees to use the skills/strengths they were hired for." (Madsen, 2005) a good boss permits employees to make decisions and to complete the jobs they were hired to do a bad boss micromanages his/her employees or does not perform any management duties at all.

7. "A great boss is a great communicator (and listener)." (Madsen, 2005) a good boss succinctly communicates goals to his employees. A bad boss provides a are directed as to his/her employees.

John P. Kotter, author of Leading Change, recommends that a good boss"

Keep it simple (avoid jargon).

Use metaphors, analogies, and examples.

Communicate in multiple forums (i.e. memos, meetings, informal interactions, etc.)

Be repetitive.

Back up your statements with actions.

Address any inconsistencies.

Monitor ongoing evaluations

In the article, "How to spot the boss from hell Classic signs of a Mr. Nasty," Oliver Finegold's (2005) notes that a current study "details the 10 signs of a bad boss - from having complete disregard for employees' need for a life away from work to delegating the toughest tasks." (Finegold, 2005) also relates characteristics of a good boss, which include expressing reasonable expectations from teams, along with being positive Findings from a survey of 1000 workers by the Good Boss Company consultancy group note that approximately one in four employees identified their boss to be "bad" or " dreadful." More than two thirds of the participants surveyed reported their bosses had publicly humiliated and/or bullied them. Some bosses established impossible deadlines and then when the employee could not meet them, set them up to "feel worthless and angry."

Key findings from this study include:

Six out of 10 people with a bad boss have looked for a new job, just to escape them Almost 70 per cent of workers regularly criticise their boss to their colleagues.

Only one per cent are made to feel proud and wanted.

Bad bosses mean more absenteeism. More than a third of staff admitted to "sickies."

Staff have some sympathy with their tormentors; almost half believe their bad bosses haven't had enough training to do their jobs, while a third concede they are overworked. (Finegold, 2005)

This study notes that a "good boss" and contributes to employees feeling positive about their organization, as well as their role in the business. On the other hand, a "bad boss" can contribute to devastating employees' morale. Andrea Gregory and Lisa Smale, the reports' authors, state that managers are failing British workers. "A simple change in attitude that sees more bosses willing to listen, support and develop their teams will increase employees' motivation to do a good job." (Finegold, 2005)

Finegold (2005) notes: The Worst or "Bad Boss"...

Leaves things to the last minute.

Provides little or no direction.

Goes for easy, quick-fix solutions.

Keeps changing decisions.

Is stressed by a lack of organizational skills.

Disregards work-life balance.

Is poor at identifying problems.

Provides no career options.

Over-commits the team.

Delegates difficult and unpleasant tasks. (Finegold, 2005)

While the best or "good boss":

1. "Defend team when necessary.

2. Do not let personal life affect work.

3. Give credit where it is due.

4. Support career development.

5. Always support team members.

6. Are cheerful and positive.

7. Are gently persuasive.

8. Challenge decisions with which they disagree.

9. Face up to difficulties.

10. Have reasonable expectations." (Finegold, 2005)

In regard to a "good boss," he/she "like low-fat diet and plenty of exercise are not the only ways to ward off heart trouble. Having a fair-minded boss who takes the trouble to listen can also help, scientists have found." In fact, a study of British male civil servants finds that individuals who feel positive about "justice at work" were determined to experience approximately 1/3 lower rate developing heart disease than individuals and who contend they were not treated fairly. ("A good boss..., 2005) Lawson (2005) reports that surveys indicate that approximately half of workers have "a shaky, if not downright miserable, relationship with their supervisors." A recent Gallup poll notes that an employee having a bad relationship with the boss is the "number one reason for quitting a job. Supervisor problems outpace all other areas of worker dissatisfaction, including salary, work hours or day-to-day duties." The Gallup report emphatically states: "Employees leave supervisors, not companies."

Lawson (2005) posits that a worker's health is also impacted by the way he/she feels about his/her boss. Nadia Wager, a psychologist at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College in the U.K. agrees and documented an open old adage: "Hatred for the boss makes the blood boil," as she notes the way employees feel about their bosses affects physical health. From a study of hospital workers, Wager found that nurses working for hospital supervisors with poor management styles, whose bosses also lacked respect, sensitivity and/or fairness, all experienced dramatically higher blood pressure during the day than individuals who worked for bosses, judged to be empathetic and sensitive.

Nurses with "bad bosses" have been found to experience approximately 20% higher risk of heart disease. Bosses possess this invisible power, Lawson (2005) reports Annie McKee, a workplace coach and cochair of the Teleos Leadership Institute in Philadelphia to state, as humans are particularly sensitive to each other's emotional cues, even those beneath the surface. "Emotions are literally contagious. In the case of an unhappy boss, it's easy to pick up the negativity, the insecurity, the stress that he is spreading around." (Lawson, 2005) Intimate partnerships and power relationships are particularly susceptible to emotional contagion, Richard Boyatzis, coauthor with McKee of the new book Resoneadership and also a professor of organizational psychology at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, explains:

In romantic relationships, emotions are symbiotic. If one partner is feeling bad, the other suffers. One person's good mood can give the other a lift, too. But between boss and employee, emotion tends to flow in one direction -- downhill. A supervisor's negativity pools with employees bike stagnant water. (Lawson, 2005)

When an employee works for a productive, boss, Boyatzism a former psychotherapist who diagnoses leadership problems in major companies, as well as in the federal government, says. (Lawson, 2005) When an employee works for a negative or bad boss," both the employee and the organization are brought down. To counter the "bad boss," scenario, Boyatzis (Lawson, 2005) also suggests that employees attempt to establish an emotional connection that doesn't focus on the latest project or deadline. She encourages employees to discover what their boss loves in general and talk to him/her about what's going on. Simply listening to an individual talk about their dreams and that use helps a person understand them." In regard to a "good boss," he/she "like low-fat diet and plenty of exercise are not the only ways to ward off heart trouble. Having a fair-minded boss who takes the trouble to listen can also help, scientists have found." In fact, a study of British male civil servants finds that individuals who feel positive about "justice at work" were determined to experience approximately 1/3 lower rate developing heart disease than individuals and who contend they were not treated fairly. ("A good boss..., 2005) Lawson (2005) reports that surveys indicate that approximately half of workers have "a shaky, if not downright miserable, relationship with their supervisors." A recent Gallup poll notes that an employee having a bad relationship with the boss is the "number one reason for quitting a job. Supervisor problems outpace all other areas of worker dissatisfaction, including salary, work hours or day-to-day duties." The Gallup report emphatically states: "Employees leave supervisors, not companies."

Lawson (2005) posits that a worker's health is also impacted by the way he/she feels about his/her boss. Nadia Wager, a psychologist at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College in the U.K. agrees and documented an open old adage: "Hatred for the boss makes the blood boil," as she notes the way employees feel about their bosses affects physical health. From a study of hospital workers, Wager found that nurses working for hospital supervisors with poor management styles, whose bosses also lacked respect; sensitivity and/or fairness, all experienced dramatically higher blood pressure during the day than individuals who worked for bosses, judged to be empathetic and sensitive.

Nurses with "bad bosses" have been found to experience approximately 20% higher risk of heart disease. Bosses possess this invisible power, Lawson (2005) reports Annie McKee, a workplace coach and cochair of the Teleos Leadership Institute in Philadelphia to state, as humans are particularly sensitive to each other's emotional cues, even those beneath the surface. "Emotions are literally contagious. In the case of an unhappy boss, it's easy to pick up the negativity, the insecurity, the stress that he is spreading around." (Lawson, 2005) Intimate partnerships and power relationships are particularly susceptible to emotional contagion, Richard Boyatzis, coauthor with McKee of the new book Resoneadership and also a professor of organizational psychology at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, explains:

In romantic relationships, emotions are symbiotic. If one partner is feeling bad, the other suffers. One person's good mood can give the other a lift, too. But between boss and employee, emotion tends to flow in one direction -- downhill. A supervisor's negativity pools with employees bike stagnant water. (Lawson, 2005)

When an employee works for a productive boss, Boyatzism a former psychotherapist who diagnoses leadership problems in major companies, as well as in the federal government, says, he feels better about him/herself, his/her boss and the organization. (Lawson, 2005) When an employee works for a negative or bad boss," both the employee and the organization are brought down. To counter the "bad boss," scenario, Boyatzis (Lawson, 2005) also suggests that employees attempt to establish an emotional connection that doesn't focus on the latest project or deadline. She encourages employees to discover what their boss loves in general and talk to him/her about what's going on. Simply listening to an individual talk about their dreams and that use helps a person understand them." In " Managers: must be present to win!," MedSurg Nursing, December 1, 2006. Donna Middaugh, (2006) shares a personal account about the prize concept: "You must be present to win."

Middaugh, (2006) notes the following points regarding this particular contest theme:

1. Present. Be in appointed place, to appear, especially at an appointed time and place; arise, to come into being or happen.

2. Win. Gain support, to persuade somebody to do something or agree to something, or to gain somebody's sympathy or support; make somebody succeed in getting something, to be the reason why somebody is first in something or receives something as a prize.

3. Involvement. Cause somebody to participate, to make somebody part of, or make somebody take part in, an event or ongoing process; connected, connected with or participating in something.

4. Return on investment: Percentage income from investment, profit from an investment as a percentage of the amount invested. do not get involved, someone else will... And we might not like the results."

Employees notice when their boss is not tuned in to what they are saying and/or is distracted or not involved. Although this practice is not specifically a sign of someone not caring, it is frequently perceived as that. Just showing up, made do harm than good if a boss he's not "involved." An individuals' involvement indicates they are participating by taking part connecting to someone and/or an event. To be involved, an individual commits to giving something of him/her self. True involvement, on the other hand, includes not only giving turn, but also input and energy. John C. Maxwell, an expert on leadership and management, suggests that managers focus on building relationships with their staff. When a "bad boss" or a good boss invests time to connect with his/her employees, he/she sends the message he/she really does care.

Walt Disney's philosophy purports that managers do not only sit and behind desk, but should also "be out in the park, watching what people are doing and finding out how they can make Disney theme parks more enjoyable." Middaugh, (2006) Middaugh, (2006) relates components relating five major reasons for managers to employ a strategy of frequent human contact.

1. Obtain information and make timely decisions. Managers need to be right there in the field to see things firsthand and act quickly.

2. Understand what people think and feel. Seek personal contact to know how others feel.

Keep people informed. Knowledge is power. Empower employees by keeping them abreast of changes and plans.

Obtain feedback. Personal growth and comfort come from giving and receiving praise and constructive criticism.

5. Inspire and innovate. Visible managers can act quickly and remind their staff what they are fighting for -- quality, safe care! (Middaugh, 2006)

According to Karelene Kerfoot (2006) in: "Authentic leadership: 1) People hunger for personalized leadership that speaks to their hearts and inspires them. 2) Authentic leaders love, challenging people to do what they didn't believe was possible. 3) Authentic leaders generate the energy to make the impossible possible by their passion for their people, their [customers] and for doing the right thing." Kerfoot (2006) purports, "There is leadership, and then there is authentic leadership." If an individual is not willing to engage others through his/her heart; to work passionately for front-line staff, along with pushing him/her self to the ultimate limit to make things happen, Kerrfoot (2006) states that even after doing these things, he/she may not be perceived as an "authentic leader." "Authentic leaders love, challenge people to do what they didn't believe was possible, and generate the energy to make the impossible possible by their passion for their people, their patients, and for doing the right thing"

What attracts people to organizations? Why do they stay? What is the magnet that pulls people in and keeps them attached? What inspires them to achieve unbelievable outcomes? Consistently, research tells us that the leadership traits of the person in charge works either as a magnet to attract, retain, and inspire, or as a force that repels. A common quote is, "I came to work for this hospital, but I left because of the manager." People hunger for personalized leadership that speaks to their hearts and inspires them to do things they didn't know they were capable of accomplishing. It is not fun going to work in an atmosphere where you don't feel a sense of synergy with your boss. When you feel you are relating to a machine and not a real person who cares, bleeds, cries, or loses sleep over serious problems, you disengage. The ability to bring your soul and heart to your work is an essential human hunger of nurses, but something that unfortunately many nurses will not experience when they do not have the experience of an authentic leader(s) in their environment. Unfortunately, too many nurses leave work every day believing they weren't the nurse they could be that day because they work for an inauthentic leader. When there is a divide between what we traditionally call "labor and management," everyone suffers: the patient, the nurse, and the leader. It doesn't have to be this way. Authentic leaders bring love, hope, relationship-centered principles and inspiration to the workplace every day. They inspire excellence.

Dealy & Thomas (2004, p. 33)) contend in Defining the Really Great Boss, that "Being a great boss requires moral authority. Followers have to see enough integrity in the boss's life that high levels of trust can be built." Results from a survey implemented to determine what inspires an individual to join a specific leader over an extended period of time, noted integrity near the top of every list. Being a "good boss," rather than a "bad boss" is not determined by charisma. Teammates follow a boss with congruent character. "What's going on here?" prompted one employee to report problems he was experiencing regarding his "bad boss."

For one thing, he sets meetings and then he doesn't even show. He rarely returns phone calls and often we don't know where he is." When a boss or manager gives his/her word he/she will be "at a certain place at a certain time and you don't show up, that's a character issue. That erodes trust in followers." This boss was given the option to follow through with what he said or move on.

The Dark Side: When Good Leaders Go Bad

Holly Dolezalek (2007) in: " Dark Side: When Good Leaders Go Bad," contends that "When it comes to leadership, everyone likes to focus on the positive-Abraham Lincoln and Oprah Winfrey rather than Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones. "

As Dolezalek (2007) notes, albeit, history, as well as business relates accounts of good and bad leaders. She purports the question: "How can you be sure your training is bringing out the very best in leaders?

In the meantime, the news is full of just the opposite. CEOs who had once been the darling of the business press regularly appear on the cover of Fortune, Business Week or Fast Company with a headline like "Flameout" or "What Went Wrong?" Others face messy public trials for the high-profile skullduggery that went on either under their noses or on their OK.

But these are the very leaders who have often received the most intensive and painstaking training in how to lead, whose natural ability to lead has resulted in their being sent to seminars, workshops and long-term programs to hone and refine that ability. If the doctors who received the most training turned out to be the most spectacularly flawed, medical school would be undergoing some serious scrutiny.

But leadership training doesn't. Why not? Why does a whole industry continue to do things the same way, when its products sometimes turn out so terribly wrong? In part, of course, it's because those products are human beings who respond to training in complex ways and who throw that training out the window when they want to follow other dictates. No training facilitator can be held responsible when his or her participants choose not to turn out the way they were supposed to.

But a gap in skills can often, if not always, be addressed by different training. If leaders are consistently turning out poorly in certain ways, there might be a gap in leadership training that needs to be closed. When it comes to leadership, clearly it's important to teach people how they can go terribly wrong as well as how they can go remarkably right.

But it's not as simple as that, because focusing on the negative is a dicey business. Part of the reason that the leadership industry has embraced the idea of focusing on strengths instead of weaknesses is practical, but part of it is existential: In making someone more aware of themselves, you can't afford to do it in a way that undermines their confidence. But even for the strongest and most effective leaders, it's essential to acknowledge that leadership can have its darker side -- and to know how to keep that side from taking over. (Dolezale,2007)

What needs to take over more in the realm of organization management, albeit is the practice of Authentic Leadership. This type leadership was deemed so important that the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) "chose to include authentic leadership as one of the six standards necessary for establishing and sustaining Healthy Work Environments (AACN, 2005). (Kerfoot, 2006) Authentic Leadership? Another force society needs to promote is "LEAP: "Love, Energy, Audacity, and Proof to describe his concept of leadership."

"bad boss" may not care about leading his employees in love. A "good leader," however will make a point show love to the people he/she servers each day?" When a good leader shows customers and employees he/she loves them, and they. In turn, love the "good/bad" boss, this "becomes the ultimate retention strategy. Along with sharing love, Farber (2004(Kerfoot, 2006) believes a leader generates energy. When he/she shares authentically his/her "higher purpose, passion, noble principles, and compelling vision of the future, and connecting human-to-human through your heart," "good leaders" generate energy in him/her self and those around him/her. Love-inspired audacity also purports to change the world "bosses" serve the common good and create a belief in people that they can reach capacities they could not even imagine.