In the last 15 years, we've seen an explosion in the number of popular books focusing on terrible leaders. These books usually advise people on how to handle their toxic or incompetent managers. The writing highlights the many ways bosses fail to engage their employees -- whether through a lack of communication, authenticity, imagination or emotional intelligence. The employees, in contrast, are depicted as well intentioned, competent and -- if decently managed -- able to perform well.
Yet there are situations in which subordinates, individually or collectively, place their bosses in no-win situations. Managers need to understand why subordinates would do that, and they need to understand how to minimize these dysfunctional dynamics -- not just to make sure their companies perform well, but also to save their own jobs.
To avoid acquiring an undeserved negative label, managers should take four important steps.
First, they need to understand the situation they're walking into -- both in business and in human terms. Is it a turnaround? A realignment? Before taking charge, managers should find out if employees believe their organizations should be changing. Prospective bosses should also find out how employees will likely perceive their arrival. What was the predecessor like? What were the circumstances of his or her exit? If the last boss was especially weak or tough, employees may be hopeful for the newcomer. Or, if the new boss comes in after several bad bosses, employees may be suspicious. When Bob Eckert took over as CEO of Mattel Inc., he asked his top team to submit him anonymous questions. "I've heard you are an in-the-trenches manager who listens to the lower levels. Does this mean you'll go around us and make decisions without involving us?" Eckert realized, "I had completely underestimated their wariness ... They had done as much homework on me as I had done on Mattel."
Second, managers should invest early in their subordinates, spending significant time with them. That will help managers understand how employees see company challenges. It will also help them realize how employees viewed and related to their old bosses and what they expect of new ones. Further, it will let managers assess what strengths, weaknesses and other characteristics these employees bring to their jobs.
Being in close contact with new employees also helps managers clarify expectations and explain key aspects of their leadership styles. That kind of clarity goes a long way toward preventing bad dynamics, which are often fueled by people not stating their expectations and misunderstanding one another's priorities. Finally, investing time in individuals will signal to employees that managers are committed to them. It helps decrease anxiety and defensiveness that accompanies feedback, and minimizes employees' reluctance to approach managers for advice.
Third, new leaders must be mindful of their own behavior and not overestimate the extent to which their good intentions and good character will be apparent to others. That requires managers seizing everyday opportunities to demonstrate that they are trustworthy, supportive and fair. An employee interviewed for the study recalled: "When I first started working with him, I had the feeling that he was not very open to employee input. So I would go: 'Yes, yes, OK. I'll do that. Whatever you say.' And the second or third meeting he said: 'You can push back on me, you know. I'm not always right.' So I've tested him on this over time, and he's never reacted badly."
Fourth, intervene early. When managers feel they're not getting the credit they deserve from subordinates, or sense that certain members of their team aren't engaging, they need to make efforts on two fronts. The first is to be aware of labeling. Some people may take longer than others to come around to a new leader's approach. That puts the onus on new managers to resist coming to hasty conclusions about them, or writing them off prematurely. Managers must remind themselves that they want to give team members a real chance to connect, and they must recognize that this process isn't instantaneous.
However, if these proactive efforts aren't working and a bad relationship is developing, act quickly. Managers often withhold negative feedback at the outset, assuming it might spoil the development of a working relationship. But managers should tell employees their concerns sooner rather than later. Delaying saying anything only raises the threat and embarrassment attached to the issue, which increases the likelihood that subordinates will see the feedback as punitive. And if they think that, they're not going to act constructively. Managers shouldn't assume that employees understand that they're lacking in skill, or judgment, or effort. And, of course, there could be misunderstandings at play -- one person not understanding the other's conduct or motives, or overlooking mitigating factors such as a lack of training. Bosses should explain what they notice early and let employees feel that they're being evaluated fairly.
While managers certainly need to work on their own behavior, it's important to consider that employees are not blameless or powerless victims. They have collective histories and individual sensitivities and mental biases, and all of these things contribute to it being difficult for leaders to be effective. Bosses must be aware of what they're walking into and continue to be aware of it. As Mahatma Gandhi put it: "The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted."
This article is adapted from "Are Your Subordinates Setting You Up to Fail?" by Jean-François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, which appeared in the Summer 2009 issue of MIT Sloan Management Review. The complete article is available at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/.