LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

or late. They can tell too many jokes or belabor too many details. The list goes on, but I won’t continue and risk becoming an annoying author. Annoying bosses are perceived as irritating but harmless—we don’t take their missteps personally.

      The Abrasive Boss

      Abrasive is defined as harsh or rough in manner, describing the characteristic interpersonal style of abrasive bosses. Abrasive bosses rub their coworkers the wrong way, inflicting lasting wounds. Their behaviors, characterized by aggression, damage work relationships to the point of disrupting organizational functioning. Coworkers report feeling mistreated when they experience aggressive behavior ranging from mild offense to open attack. The words and actions of abrasive bosses are perceived as harmful and are frequently taken personally, producing intense emotional distress.

      The Avoidant Boss

In the case of avoidant bosses, coworkers complain not about their presence but about their absence. Avoidant bosses avoid interpersonal contact with coworkers and isolate themselves physically or emotionally (or both) whenever possible. Avoidant bosses hold their coworkers at arm’s length, remaining distant, unresponsive, and uninterested in those around them. These bosses will go to great lengths to avoid dealing with potentially difficult interactions whenever possible. Coworker distress results not from abuse but from neglect, which drains motivation and morale. As one coworker of an avoidant boss said, ‘‘He acts like we don’t exist.’’

      The Aberrant Boss

      Aberrant bosses are psychologically abnormal, exhibiting behaviors symptomatic of diagnosable emotional disturbance, such as paranoid, narcissistic, and antisocial (sociopathic) personality disorders. Their psychopathology is reflected in extreme and socially deviant behaviors that wreak havoc on individuals and organizations alike. These behaviors may be premeditated (intentional) and may reflect sadistic tendencies. Examples include the boss who strolled up to his male subordinate’s desk, unzipped his pants, and ‘‘jokingly’’ draped his penis in the subordinate’s in-box (no joke—this really happened), and the human resource manager who took pleasure in decorating his desk with a filled glass jar labeled ‘‘Ashes of Complaining Employees.’’

Additional Reflections

      Adequate bosses treat coworkers (including their subordinates) with respect. They may make unpopular decisions that are hard to swallow, but their interactions with others are consistently courteous. An adequate boss’s decision to transfer your group to your company’s Siberian division may have a negative impact on your career and family, but if it is made for reasons of business need (as opposed to retaliation) and conveyed respectfully, you’re dealing with an adequate boss: ‘‘I didn’t always agree with his decisions, but he was okay to work for.’’

Annoying bosses, although irritating, do no harm, unlike abrasive bosses who inflict interpersonal injury. I am frequently challenged on this point: ‘‘So what’s your definition of harm? Behaviors that harm one person may not even irritate another—so where do you draw the line?’’ Let’s consider that question in light of a specific behavior: the act of interruption, variously perceived as acceptable, annoying, or abrasive, depending on whom you talk to. Personally, I don’t mind being interrupted. Yes, it’s aggressive behavior, but I enjoy vigorous conversations where participants feel free to challenge each other and express their passion. I also know people who hate being interrupted, who perceive it as rude and controlling. Who is right? Surprise: everyone is right, for perception lies in the eye of the beholder. I may perceive the interrupter as harmless and relish the prospect of a stimulating conversation, whereas another perceiver may feel harmed and experience resentment. Our differing perceptions are both ‘‘right.’’

      So how do we draw the line between harmless and harmful? How do we resolve this perceptual paradox to determine whether a boss is abrasive, or just annoying? Do we poll the workforce for a consensus vote on harmful versus harmless? Flip a coin? Ask the boss in question for his or her opinion? It’s a good question, and one that I originally struggled with, but in the absence of any better options, I settled on the following definition of abrasive, or harmful, workplace behavior: any aggressive interpersonal behavior that causes emotional distress in coworkers sufficient to disrupt organizational functioning.

      In this definition the boss whose aggressive social behaviors disrupt the smooth flow of work is an abrasive boss. This definition allows for variations in work cultures, for what is acceptable in one culture may be destructive in another. Fishmongers at Seattle’s Pike Place Market happily shout and throw fish at each other, but I can assure you that shouting and throwing surgical instruments wouldn’t be viewed as positively in hospital operating rooms. I’ve coached many bosses whose behaviors were perfectly appropriate in one work environment (most notably, the military) but proved disastrous in another. Abrasion is defined contextually, in the eyes of the beholder; however, workplace abrasion is distinctive in that it causes sufficient emotional distress to disrupt operations—work no longer works.

Abrasive Boss Identification: A Test

      It’s time for a test. Your challenge is to identify the type of boss described in this case study. Your options: adequate, annoying, abrasive, avoidant, or aberrant.

      Dick and Jane: A Case of Foot in Mouth

      Jane had been in her corporate role for only six months when she received a frantic call from Dick, Director of Finance. Dick was scheduled to give a presentation that morning for the company’s biggest bigwigs at their annual corporate retreat. Unfortunately, he’d neglected to bring critical documents prepared by Jane’s department. He made a frantic call to Jane, begging her to deliver the documents ASAP. Jane agreed to navigate the icy roads up to the mountain resort where they were meeting, and slipped into the back of the conference room. Up on the stage, Dick spotted Jane. Visibly relieved, he called out, ‘‘Hey, bitch, what took you so long?!’’ Dick laughed and Jane froze—had she actually heard what she thought she’d heard? Bitch? Bitch?! Jane’s mind raced, but unwilling to let anyone see her shock, she handed the papers over without comment and exited.

Jane didn’t sleep that night—she tossed and turned, practically shredding her pillow in rage. First thing the next morning she called Dick and requested a meeting. He sounded genuinely happy to hear from her, inviting her over that minute. In cold, measured tones Jane told him that she found being called a bitch unacceptable, and added that she would lodge a formal complaint with the company if he didn’t apologize immediately. Dick was totally astounded: ‘‘I didn’t say that! Gosh—did I say that? I can’t believe I would have done something like that.’’ Jane could see that the Dick was sincerely confused—the poor guy was notorious for his social blunders. He promptly and profusely apologized; he obviously felt terrible. Dick then offered to issue a public apology, cc’ing all those who were in attendance at the retreat. Jane declined the offer. Being called a bitch was bad enough—did we need to put it in lights?! Dick repeatedly expressed remorse: ‘‘I’m so sorry. . . . I’m so sorry—please forgive me,’’ Jane accepted his apology and returned to her work, satisfied that Dick would forevermore tread carefully in her presence.

      Let’s analyze Dick in the context of our boss categories. He clearly doesn’t fit the profile of an adequate boss—his grossly disrespectful behavior reflects the emotional intelligence of a walnut. One might be tempted to leap to the conclusion that Dick is a certifiable abrasive boss because of his aggressive behavior; however, did this behavior cause emotional distress in coworkers (namely, Jane) sufficient to disrupt organizational functioning? Certainly, Dick disrupted Jane’s sleep, but did he disrupt the flow of work? The answer is no, and I know this for a fact because I am Jane—this actually happened to yours truly. True, I was furious with Dick, but his sincere apology and obvious remorse defused my outrage. I felt no need to complain to the powers that be of his transgression, thereby

Скачать книгу