It’s a story we’ve now come to expect. A high-flying executive leading an important industry turns out to be a bully, a toxic influence on their workplace, and a bad manager. Troy Young, the former chief executive of Hearst, is only the latest in a long line of top executives to face accusations before falling on his sword. Like many senior officials, the allegations against Young include sexually offensive remarks. His resignation follows the firing of Peter Lenkov, a former CBS showrunner. Lenkov was accused of creating a hostile work environment by screaming at writers on MacGyver. In December 2019, French courts gave France Télécom’s former chief executive Didier Lombard, his former deputy Louis-Pierre Wenes, and the company’s human resources director Olivier Barberot a one-year jail sentence for bullying that led to 35 suicides. In one study of 4,500 German employees, 13.3 per cent said that they had been bullied by their boss, and from June this year, Japan’s companies must clarify policies and create internal reporting systems to prevent what one psychologist has called pawahara, Japan’s own version of workplace abuse.
Every story of managerial bullying is unique but what every incident has in common is arrogance: the manager’s belief that their position allows them to get away with anything they want to do. Their unique talent and the special knowledge that they believe they possess has won them a position of responsibility. If their subordinates were as skilled as they are, they believe, then those subordinates would be in charge. Therefore, they know best, anything they do is justified, and they shouldn’t be questioned.
It’s an approach that triggers plenty of pushback and not just from employees who want a more pleasant place to work and from companies concerned about lawsuits. Managers, particularly in the West, are increasingly encouraged to drop the formality and increase their approachability. Servant leadership, a management style popular in the technology industry, attempts to leave as much agency with employees as possible. Instead of telling subordinates what to do, servant leaders clear the path, allowing team members to do best what they already know how to do. In this system, managers might be responsible for their teams’ efforts but their job is to serve team members so that they can put their own special knowledge to work.
But is there a price to that kind of humble leadership? Clearly, managers should keep a rein on their self-assurance and avoid the kind of bullying behavior that makes workplaces toxic, but what effect does closing the distance between managers and the managed have on productivity? Should managers try to build respect among their subordinates by making their position clear, demonstrating their superiority, and showing off their skills? Or should they aim for closeness by portraying themselves as organizers rather than leaders, mentors not managers?
Xin Qin and Chen Chen of Sun-Yat Sen University, together with a group of researchers in China and Singapore, conducted a study. They recruited 161 full-time workers in industries including manufacturing, service, real estate, and information technology, and divided them into four groups. One group was asked to recall a time when they had proposed ideas to a supervisor, and their supervisor responded in either a humble or a neutral way. A humble response was characterized by the supervisor acknowledging that the employee had more knowledge or skills than the supervisor possessed. A neutral response consisted of the supervisor simply providing feedback on the subordinate’s idea.
The researchers then gave the volunteers one of two passages to read. One passage explained that when a supervisor relates to an employee with humility—when they acknowledge a subordinate’s expertise—it’s because that employee has unique skills and makes particularly valuable contributions to the company. The other passage stated that studies have found that when a supervisor treats a worker humbly, it has nothing to do with that employee’s skills and contributions.
Finally, the volunteers completed questionnaires that described the relationship between themselves and the supervisor they described in the test and measured their sense of entitlement.
The researchers found that when people were led to believe that their supervisors are being humble to them because they themselves are so talented, they displayed a high degree of psychological entitlement. That entitlement in turn promotes “workplace deviance,” say the researchers. Subordinates might drag out work in order to receive more overtime pay. They might publicly embarrass co-workers who they believe aren’t contributing to the same degree. Studies have found that individuals with a high sense of entitlement are also more likely to put their needs ahead of others, act selfishly, and engage in unethical behavior in the workplace.
“Entitled employees act in deviant ways because they truly believe they are owed, and their actions are simply their way to ‘get even’ with their organization and its members,” the researchers said. “To them, deviant behaviors are considered fair responses to their work outputs although these outputs are highly inflated by their sense of entitlement.”
Arrogant bosses may sometimes engage in harmful behavior but what these researchers are saying is that humble managers can also create problems. They risk exacerbating a team member’s sense of entitlement and lead them to believe that they deserve more and are undervalued. Apart from the toxic atmosphere that that behavior can produce in the workplace itself, it’s also likely to lead to talented staff looking for new opportunities. It makes otherwise good employees poachable by rival companies who will promise to give them the respect they deserve.
When You’re Being Too Humble
So what is “humble behavior”? What does a manager do that can provoke a worker’s sense of entitlement? The researchers argue that humility has three components: a willingness to view yourself accurately and acknowledge personal limits, faults, and mistakes; an appreciation of the strengths and contributions of others; and openness to new ideas and feedback. Those components are seen in three forms of behavior.
First, humble leaders acknowledge their own limitations in front of their subordinates and admit when their subordinates know more than they do. Subordinates with a “high self-serving attribution”—a high sense of entitlement—are less likely to hear their supervisor’s humility and more likely to hear an acknowledgment of their own superiority.
Humble leaders also tend to compliment subordinates’ strengths and express appreciation for their contributions at work. That behavior, claim the researchers, makes subordinates believe that they can contribute to their company in ways that other people can’t. They’re uniquely valuable, the company depends on them, and they’re worth more than they’re receiving.
Finally, humble leaders tend to show openness to other people’s feedback and ideas. Their doors are always open. They encourage people to speak at meetings, and they solicit contributions. It’s the kind of management style that should make everyone feel that they can influence the business and are responsible for its success.
According to the researchers though, subordinates with a high sense of entitlement will respond to those leadership requests for suggestions by believing that their managers are less competent than they are. Instead of appreciating the invitation to contribute more to the company, they’ll feel that the company’s managers aren’t capable of contributing themselves, and have to look for ideas outside their own offices.
The findings sound counterintuitive. Workplace surveys have consistently shown that what most motivates employees is the sense that they’re doing important work well, and that they’re appreciated for what they do. One review of 40 years’ of motivational studies found that while employees express the importance of pay as a motivator, the primary motivation that adequate pay provides is psychological. “It is not the material value of the reward, but the boost in self-esteem that public recognition associated with monetary compensation affords,” say the reviewers. And companies are coming up short. One survey found that little more than one employee in five felt that they were valued at work.
In other words, what employees are looking for is exactly that sense of worth that is most likely to generate what Xin Qin, Chen Chen and others describe as “deviant behavior,” the damaging acts that belittle colleagues and try to extract from the company more than the company has agreed to pay them.
The Right Amount of Managerial Distance
So how much distance should managers leave between themselves and their subordinates? How much humility should they show?
Cultural differences may make that line between confidence and humility variable. The study performed by Xin Qin, Chen Chen and their colleagues took place in China. It’s possible that local expectations affect how subordinates relate to managers in different parts of the world. Dan Harris, a lawyer who has worked in both China and Japan, has described how companies in those two countries would regard different kinds of work habits. An employee who arrived early, stayed late, worked at the weekends, but produced only adequate work would be regarded as an ideal employee in Japan, Harris suggests. In China, a talented employee who completed their work quickly then did nothing else, would be seen as a quality hire. For Japanese companies, detail is everything; Chinese managers, Harris argues, are not interested in how a job is performed as long as it’s performed.
It’s possible then that the response that the study describes is unique to China’s workplaces. Perhaps employees in Chinese firms expect their supervisors to constantly demonstrate their superiority, and lose faith in them when they don’t. It’s also possible that workers in other parts of the world respond more positively and show motivation after they’re praised and consulted. It’s possible too that employees in some region need that kind of appreciation in order to feel motivated.
But cultural differences only ever describe generalizations, and no two places are entirely unique. The kind of response the study describes might not be common in US workplaces but that doesn’t mean that it’s completely absent. Part of the art of personnel management is managing each worker individually.
The first step to building the right managerial distance then is knowing how much distance each employee needs. Some employees may respond well to consultation and praise; others will let that attention go to their heads and allow themselves to believe that they’re special. A smart manager will bear the warnings of the study in mind and tell each subordinate what they need to hear to feel motivated without feeling underappreciated.
But what all managers can do is to make sure that they’re always demonstrating their own expertise. The danger identified in the study is not that subordinates believe that they’re valuable, but that they believe that they’re more valuable than their position suggests. A manager who relates to them with humility can make them feel that they’re also more useful than their manager, and that the company has made a mistake in not promoting them in their superior’s place. One solution to that risk, even for employees with a high sense of entitlement, is to show what’s required to take that place. Ask for contributions, even from employees who might let the invitation go to their heads, but instead of accepting their ideas entirely, point out flaws in the plan or enhancements that they missed. When you offer praise, also show how they could have performed their work even better. Demonstrate that you’re in your place for a reason, even as you appreciate the contributions of subordinates, and you should help to make sure that everyone knows why they’re in their positions and what they have to still do in order to move up.
Of course, if you can’t demonstrate the reason that you’re in a management position, you might have a reason to be humble.
Recent Comments