Complex Power Dynamics
Article by Dr. John E. Kello
Frontline Supervisors: Complex Power Dynamics
Working as a supervisor of others in an organizational setting is one of the most important roles one can play at work. It is a great privilege and a great responsibility, especially as a frontline supervisor, who by the nature of the role is providing leadership to line employees “where the work gets done”. That leadership role is mission-critical.
Frontline supervisors have been identified as the linchpin of the organization, linking the top of the organization (where strategic decisions are made) with the rest of the organization (where the work of the organization gets done). It is also the level of the organization where the perceived stress level is highest. One of several reasons that the frontline leadership role is stressful is that the role has such a high level of responsibility (and visibility), but a relatively low level of control; frontline supervisors are charged to “take care of it,” but they generally don’t have the decision-making authority to carry out that responsibility. Another reason is that frontline supervisors are often promoted from within the work group they now lead. There are obvious complexities associated with transitioning from a member of the team to the coach and leader of that team. I have seen more than a few newly appointed leaders really struggle with being in charge of former peers. Yet another reason for a high stress load in the role is that frontline supervisors are often put in the frontline leadership role with little or no formal training or other preparation.
Recent behavioral science research on the challenges experienced by new managers (frontline and above) identified “motivating others” as the biggest challenge they faced, followed closely by “directing a team” and “exercising authority.” Related research on first timer managers’ self-reported weaknesses identifies “communication skills,” “managing conflict,” “managing others,” and “exerting power.” Note that all these perceived challenges and weaknesses are in the arena of interpersonal skills, broadly defined.
Some supervisors figure it out for themselves and become effective leaders, the kind that people want to work for. The ballpark figure floated in the popular sources is that about half of managers are seen by their employees as “effective leaders.” What about the other half?
Some supervisors cope as best they can with the many challenges of the task of leading others by adopting a stern, authoritarian, command-and-control style of leadership. Lacking the knowledge and skill to engage others, motivate them to their highest level of performance, build a team, etc., they just take charge and tell people what to do. As the old saying goes, they do the work of ten people, literally. In such a scenario, leaders, however well-intentioned they may be, are prone to micro-manage and disempower their direct report employees. They keep their individual employees and their collective team at a level of dependence, which generally results in employee disengagement and a “why should I bother?” attitude. They foster low morale and underperformance in their employees.
Some supervisors go further and actually become hostile and abusive to their employees. At one of the annual conferences of one of my professional organizations, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, there were numerous presentations on the topic of “abusive supervision,” suggesting that actively hostile “leadership” is common enough that scholars are turning significant attention to it. A recent review of the literature published identified 82 scholarly research papers aimed directly at this topic. Not surprisingly, a bottom-line conclusion is that truly abusive supervision strongly affects morale and performance in a negative direction. And interestingly, it is not just the targets of abuse who are affected; a boss’s hostile behavior in relation to any employee is shown to affect the morale and performance of all. Affected employees rarely directly retaliate, though some level of intentional production sabotage by action or inaction is not unheard of. Instead, they are much more likely to just disengage from their work.
One of my areas of consulting is leadership coaching. For many years I have worked with individuals in leadership positions to help them develop their fullest potential. Happily, most of them have been high-potential managers with very bright futures. Their interest, supported by their bosses, has been to have an external partner challenge and stretch them as leaders. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, their strengths are always in the technical arena. Their developmental needs are almost always interpersonal-skills related.
In the subset of cases where the client was in a remedial situation (much less fun than the former), the problems are virtually always in the interpersonal area. While some of these struggling leaders are passive, low-key, non-players, more fit the abusive supervisor profile. Beyond micromanaging, they are given to outbursts and meltdowns, with their employees as convenient captive targets.
While there are some unequivocally abusive behaviors, more subtle verbal and nonverbal behaviors can be open to interpretation. There are supervisors who would be rated as abusive by all of their subordinates, but there are also some who are seen as abusive only by one or a few of the whole group of subordinates. Was Steve Jobs an abusive supervisor or a charismatic leader (who pushed his people very hard at times)?
The perception of abusive behavior depends not just on the actions of the supervisor, it depends on the expectations and judgments and the personality of the employee. A supervisor is touring a top customer through her operation, and sees trash and hoses in the walkways. Having picked up the mess along the way, she calls a team meeting as soon as the customer has left, and tells the crew in an unusually loud voice, “…the poor housekeeping in our area has to stop… now! We all know better than to walk past a spill or trash in the aisle. Is it going to take an accident before we start doing it right? Not on my watch folks, not on my watch!” Is that supervisor being abusive? Some employees might say yes. Others may take the kick in the pants and redouble their efforts to keep a clean work area. Some might even respect and appreciate the fact that the supervisor is taking a no-nonsense stand on an important, ongoing problem, and is just demanding high (and fair) standards of performance. “Way to go, boss!”
But suppose we are past the gray area, and it is clear that the boss is bullying. What are the options?
As I suggested in a column I wrote in 2008 on “working with jerks”, there is no simple, magic formula for addressing abusive supervision, certainly not from below. Clear and unequivocal support from the top of the organization is essential. Top leadership must make it clear that anything other than professional respect and adult-to-adult communication is out of bounds and will be stopped. HR hotlines and legitimate open-door policies, if followed up on, can support employees in addressing abusive bosses.
If you are the boss, be aware of the costs of abusive supervision. If you are not the boss, leave this article where the boss might see it.