How many bosses does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: One. He holds up the light bulb and expects the universe to revolve around him.
Are you laughing yet? Or has the joke hit too close to home? Whether it stems from experiences you may have had dealing with bad line managers, disgruntled employees and possibly even an unhappy relationship with your own boss, all HR practitioners know that dealing with workplace conflicts and bad managers is no laughing matter.
But the modern workplace is beset with assholes, says Robert I. Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule which talks about workplace behaviour and management. Sutton is also the professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University.
By Sutton’s book definition, an asshole boss is someone who leaves a subordinate (or another co-worker) demeaned and de-energised through actions such as yelling or screaming. However, when he was in town to speak at the Singapore Human Capital Summit recently, Sutton told Human Resources that he’s been revising his definition of a workplace asshole to a person or boss who constantly puts his or her interests above everyone else's.
While some of the overt asshole behaviours such as screaming and outright bullying are easy for HR to clamp down, other bad behaviours are subtle and may be harder to pick up. Terming these behaviours as belonging to one of a “camouflage asshole”, Sutton says these passive aggressive behaviours include sarcastic jokes and teasing used as insult delivery systems, rude interruptions, two-faced attacks, treating people as if they are invisible and even excluding and ostracising others from important meetings or social events.
People leave their bosses, not their jobs. It is well-documented that the cost of a high attrition and turnover can cost organisations money, especially after you take into account the money spent on job advertisments, interviewing time, on-boarding and training costs as well as the loss in contacts and business relationships.
Furthermore, such behaviours do not just impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the deviant. Adrienne Wong, HR manager for Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia & Cambodia at Chevron International says the impact would affect other colleagues around them as well – thus hampering overall productivity.
But do you know that working under a bad boss can also impact your personal health as well? In a Work, Lipids, and Fibrinogen Stockholm study of more than 3,200 employees, even one year of working under a manager with poor leadership skills raised men’s age-adjusted risk of cardiac death or heart disease death by a significant 24%.
After four years under the same stressful conditions, men were at a 39% elevated risk of having a ischemic heart disease event. (Ischemic heart disease is typically characterised by reduced blood supply to the heart muscle.)
In short: Having a bad boss can literally kill you.
On the other hand, the Swedish researchers also speculated that a good manager may counteract negative, stressful processes in work groups. Furthermore, Wong cites a recent survey by the Chevron Corporate Leadership Council which found that a manager who demonstrates strong commitment to diversity can result in an increase of 36.5% impact to stay, leading to a reduction of turnover costs.
With such facts, it is almost impossible to see how these incompetent and badly behaved bosses still manage to roam free among our offices today.
Preventive measures
This raises the question: Why are there so many bad bosses around? And why do they keep flouting the rules of civil behaviour at the workplace?
One root cause of errant behaviour Wong cites is miscommunication and lack of understanding of the diverse background of affected parties through mis-reading of signals and the use of languages which may be foreign to others. “As someone once said, ‘Misunderstanding is the norm!’”
As such Wong says Cheveron prides itself on diversity at the workplace and requires that employees all “learn from and respect the cultures in which we work”. She adds, “We promote diversity within our work force and have an inclusive environment that helps each of us to fully participate and contribute to Chevron’s success.”
In Sutton’s view, there are several reasons why companies do not take any action against such bosses, one of which is due to the company culture that fosters a “me first” behaviour and even rewards employees who display individualistic behaviour.
One such offender was Merrill Lynch, Sutton says, where the most popular way for staff to get ahead was to put themselves above others and backstab their colleagues. By comparison, he says Goldman Sachs was “very civilised culture” and a place “where you cannot survive unless you treat others with respect and are a team-player”.
Other times, Sutton says companies actually reward managers who display aggression and asshole behaviours and model it as the “profile of being effective in an organisation”. Having worked with some law firms in the United States before, Sutton says, “There are some law firms where the culture was that it is okay to be a jerk where you yell at your staff and just be this nasty, aggressive person. Not only is that tolerated, but that is what a good lawyer is.”
Also, “giving people power simply turns people into jerks”. He points to a study conducted by American business schools which found that more power a person has, the more focused they become on their own needs and the less capable to take another person’s perspective. (See boxout)
However, Sutton warns that there are certain cases where HR should see this behaviour not as a personality flaw, but as one that stems from situational circumstances. Certain times, a person may just be reacting in a negative way due to stress or sleep deprivation.
“There are some people who are just jerks all the time because of their upbringing or their personal history. But if you put people under pressure, surround them with jerks and give them power and maybe a little sleep deprivation,” that is almost a surefire way to turn anyone into a grumpy, inconsiderate person, Sutton says.
However, there are smart companies such as Chevron and FedEx who recognise the huge role that managers have to play in the environment of which the employee works in.
The direct supervisor has a very large role to play in an employee’s work motivation, says Clifton Chua, managing director of FedEx Express Singapore. During exit interviews, he says it is generally common for employees to talk about how much they like working for the company but often have to leave due to soured relationships with their direct supervisors.
And because every line manager at FedEx Express is considered a business manager as well, Chua says the company recognises that a rigorous process in selecting its managers is important.
For employees looking to move into a managerial position, they first have to undergo a programme called GOLD, which is short for Growth, Opportunity, Leadership and Development. GOLD is a dedicated pre-management training programme. Would-be managers are first required to spend a Saturday taking a programme called “Is Management For Me?”. This gives employees a realistic look at the fundamental requirements managers often need as well as some of the situations managers often find themselves dealing with.
After an evaluation, if the employee still wants to take on the managerial position, he or she would go through a self-paced modular study with their supervisor as their coach. “So for an employee to actually apply to for a managerial position, they need to be endorsed by the GOLD programme,” Chua says.
In addition, Chua says FedEx managers would also be trained in other basic core management skills such as coaching, negotiation and communication skills and certain functional skills spread out over two years.
But in order for managers to hone their management skills, the company also has a “Survey-Feedback-Action” process. Held on an annual basis, employee surveys are conducted among workgroups to determine attitudes, preferences and opinions about working at FedEx, including opinions on FedEx leadership. It also measures employee engagement and morale.
After collecting the survey data, line managers would have a “feedback” session every quarter with their workgroup so that employees would have the opportunity to elaborate on the concerns expressed in the survey. Line managers would then require to write a report on their feedback sessions and submit it to Chua, who will personally review the reports himself.
Providing clear definitions of errant behaviours at the start of the employees’ career also prevent such behaviours from cropping up. This is why during Chevron’s orientation, employees are informed from the get-go that showing respect and treating each other with dignity is a required behaviour. New employees are also taught about The Chevron Way, which outlines the company’s vision and core values of integrity, trust, being a good partner, diversity, ingenuity, protecting people and the environment as well as high performance.
“The Chevron Way explains who we are, what we do, what we believe and what we plan to accomplish,” says Wong. Not only do employees have the responsibility to understand the values of the company, their behaviours and roles need to be aligned to The Chevron Way as well, she adds.
In addition, Wong adds that supervisors and managers also have the responsibility to develop and maintain good discipline to ensure sound working relationships, a safe environment, and efficient operations.
Taking matters into your own hands
However, sometimes it is almost inevitable that minor altercations or disagreements will arise from working relationships. Sometimes when this happens, Sutton says a little feedback can go a long way for bosses who are clueless and unaware of their behaviour. This means “having somebody who can tell you when you’re being a jerk and to calm you down,” he says. And that is where executive boards, coaches and an honest feedback system all have a part to play.
Which is precisely how Chevron does it, as employees are allowed able to bring work-related questions, complaints or problems to the attention of their immediate supervisor without the fear of censure or retaliation, says Wong.
“While the matter may not always be mutually resolved or satisfactorily settled, grievance procedure provides an opportunity to clear up any possible misunderstanding,” she says, adding that managers and supervisors are responsible for assuring employees that they will not be retaliated against for utilisation of this policy to resolve their concerns.
When conflict arises at FedEx, Chua says FedEx managers would go through a “probing process” with the aggrieved parties involved. Employees who have raised concerns would be allowed to take ownership of the issue and managers would probe into the issue by asking the employee questions such as: What would you do in that situation? What would you like your manager to have done in that situation? Did you think about the other employee? Why do you think it think the other party took that action?
This probing process allows the aggrieved party to see and understand the situation from another person’s perspective and to arrive with the answers to their problems themselves, says Chua. “Very often, when you walk through that probing process, the employee would come to the same decision as the other party or manager. And I think that is a great way for conflict resolution.”
However, should deeper issues surface at the workplace, companies such as Chevron and FedEx have specific channels where employees can lodge or file their complaints or concerns with.
At Chevron, employees have access to existing support and conflict resolution channels, the HR department, the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), the Ombuds programme and the Chevron Hotline.
Under the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), employees who have personal, family or work-related concerns can utilise this consulting service. Staffed by psychiatrists and counsellors, these advisors assist employees with their problems and help them develop plans to resolve their issues, such as issues surrounding difficult colleagues. This EAP service is a free service for all Chevron employees.
Under the Ombuds programme, employees can contact a neutral group of individuals called the Ombudsmen for assistance on work-related problems such as conflicts with supervisors, disputes over current evaluations, promotions, performance assessment, pay, job placement, or assignments, issues of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, violations of law or the company’s principles of conduct. The purpose of this unit is to provide an additional avenue for employees to resolve workplace issues and the unit reports directly to the global chairman.
Lastly, as part of the organisation’s strong commitment to compliance, the company also has a Chevron Employee Hotline for employees to report any activities that may violate the law or the company’s business conduct, ethics code or company policies. The aim of the hotline is to provide a direct and effective, risk-free way for employees to report activities that may violate the law or company policies.
Through this, callers to the hotline choose to remain anonymous and a trained communications specialist will prepare a report based on the employee’s feedback. The report will then be forwarded to the company’s management for review and follow up. Some of the suspected violations of improper activity employees may call the hotline for includes conflicts of interest, harassment or discrimination, data privacy, potential criminal violentations, questionable accounting or auditing matters, thefts, bribes, kickbacks or travel & entertainment or corporate credit card abuse.
Wong adds that Chevron does not tolerate any form of retaliation for reports against violation made in good faith. This includes blatant actions, such as firing, transferring, demoting, or publicly attacking someone, as well as more subtle retaliation, such as avoiding someone or leaving him or her out of professional or social activities.
At FedEx, there is also a Guaranteed Fair Treatment (GFT) practice which employees can utilise if they feel that they have been unfairly treated, whether it is having been passed up for a promotion or if they feel that they have received a disciplinary letter unfairly. The GFT practice provides employees with a chance to voice their concerns to management and ensure a fair evaluation.
For instance, if an employee feels that he or she has been unfairly passed over for a promotion, under the GFT practice, the employee’s formal concern will be sent up to the country’s managing director. The managing director will be given seven days to investigate on the matter and can either choose to uphold the previously decided upon decision, overturn or modify it.
Should the employee still be unhappy with the decision made, the issue would then be brought to the vice president level, and finally if necessary, it would be brought to the Asia Pacific president. While Chua says he does receive a “few” invoked GFTs a year, he says the fact that employees voice their concerns through the system proves that employees have faith in it and would use it if ever aggrieved.
But what would Sutton’s advice be for employees working with an asshole boss?
“If you can possibly get out, get out. That’s always my main advice,” adding that there is overwhelming evidence which show that having a bad boss can negatively impact a person’s mental health.
Another strategy Sutton suggests is to “fight back against the boss”. This would entail carefully documenting each errant behaviour, and if possible, banding together with other employees who have been adversely affected as well. “You basically get a group of people together to go to HR to say, ‘Look, this is not [just affecting] me, it is affecting all of us.’”
But for those stuck with an asshole boss and unable to switch jobs, Sutton says employees can firstly try to reduce communication with their boss – such as reducing face-time and communicating via phonecalls or emails instead.
And defying usual HR theory, Sutton says employees can also learn “the fine art of not caring”. While many consultants and bosses advocate passion for work, Sutton says for those working under asshole bosses, learning how to prevent their vicious words and deeds from touching their soul is more important instead.
“So it’s the art of indifference in caring. It’s emotional detachment,” Sutton says. “I’m not Buddhist, but I have a couple of Buddhist friends who talk about how important emotional detachment is in a bad situation.”
