I don’t know if this is a factual question per se. But from what I’ve read there are multiple negative effects of having a rude boss.
More absenteeism
More turnover
More stress and depression (which increase healthcare costs)
Workers spend more time dealing with interperonal issues instead of working (I once read roughly 1/6 of CEO time is spent mending interpersonal rifts, meaning roughly 8 weeks out of the workyear)
Less workplace cooperation
However is having a rude boss considered a bad thing in the corporate world by and large, or is it just largely ignored? I would assume the so called spirit of capitalism would encourage companies to take up the most cost effective method of running a business as possible. A method of running a business that resulted in low productivity, higher healthcare costs and higher turnover would be a major liability but I don’t know if I really see companies taking this issue seriously.
Companies try to promote healthy behavior in workers (to lower stress, lower healthcare costs, increase productivity, etc) but do they take this issue seriously?
Hard to give a factual answer to this. IMO, all else being equal, all those things you cite would be considered as a liability.
However, many in management believe that having a rude boss also produces benefits. That is, there may be a lot of unhappy people, but projects get down, profits flow, etc. Whether that’s actually true I don’t know, but it is a common perception. This can be the culture of the whole company. If the CEO on down are all rude people, then they will probably not view it as a liability.
In my experience, no. Companies are not in business to make or keep employees happy. They suffer employees the same way they suffer taxes–an expense that they can’t get rid of, but will try to minimize as much as possible. While positive, team-building types of bosses may indeed improve employee health (mind you, as reasonable as it sounds, it’s just an untested hypothesis, and not fact) and therefore the overall health and success of the company, companies are generally more interested in whether or not a boss can wring more profit from the business. So abusive bosses only usually get replaced if (a) they aren’t able to produce as much profit/growth as the higher-ups wish or (b) the abuse is so flagrant as to risk lawsuits.
Supply and demand. My company is extremely nice to its employees, because they can’t find enough people with adequate skills to work for them–so they do everything to hold onto the good employees.
OTOH, one of my first summer jobs was folding clothes in a laundromat without air conditioning and surrounded by dryer heat. I earned only $1.50 above minimum wage then. Was I happy? No. But were there lots and lots of teenagers waiting for the opportunity to make above minimum wage? Yes. How would it have benefited the owner to pay thousands of dollars extra in wages and health insurance?
Rude managers: First your try to develop them and teach them soft skills, then you eventually realize that many people are actually born with soft skills, and that some people just can’t ‘learn’ them.
“Rude” managers in my company may have tangible ‘hard skills’ (programming background, server admin, proj mgmnt) and thus are taken along a career path more suited to them.
Mgrs (ahen, such as myself) who are more naturally a people’s person, are developed to lead large groups, diverse workforces, etc…in which case we are judged by how are people (not us) perform and improve (usually measurable based on numbers).
In summary, I can say that 95% of all mgmnt level failures (people getting canned) is due to failings of their soft skills.
It depends on the business. In my line of work, managers are heavily pressured to make their employees happy, but this is related to the overall turnover rate and the high cost of finding and training new employees that we have right now. We pay less than competing businesses and the job is harder; it’s been made clear to us that having pleasant and receptive managers is one of the things that we can do to keep employees and in turn reduce costs.
The boss is graded by his own boss based on how well he produces. If he doesn’t get the most out of his employees that he can (because he’s too nice), he’ll be knocked. If he drives people to underperform or quit (because he’s too mean), he’ll be knocked.
My wife’s company is about to fire a high level boss for a personality disorder. He is very rude to everyone but otherwise does pretty good work. Moral in the company is suffering so they have to do something about it.
I worked worked at a large company once that had a boss that had a terrible temper. Other people saw the same thing. Several people, including me, were instructed to report rude outbursts. I used to turn them in every other day. He was fired sooe thereafter.
It depends on the company. If you work for several different companies, you will find out that companies have personalities much like people do. It is very noticeable. Some reward aggressive rude behavior and others stamp it out. I have worked in both types of companies.
Over a period of ten years I was a general manager for two different large corporations ($8 and $12 billion in sales) and I can tell you for a fact that nastiness to lower level employees would get you fired faster than practically anything else.
On the other hand medium to high level managers were fair game for practically any kind of abuse. One time, at our headquarters in Pittsburgh, I was giving a financial presentation to a bunch of executive vice presidents and I had my ass ripped for about ten solid minutes and then told to get out, redo my presentation so the numbers were right, and get back and re present within an hour. I remember wondering if the jerk was rolling ball bearings in his hand.
The last job I held seemed to encourage their bosses to treat their underlings like crap. The bosses that were decent to work for were fired.
We struggled to get a union in and the company used dirty tactics to keep it ut, bad enough that the union trying to get in was able to take them to court over it and WIN . Still didn’t get our union tho, and of the 9 employees that testified against the company- including myself- all have been fired but 1 , who has turned into an ass-kisser.
In theory, at least. In practice, the manager’s superiors might not catch on that his abrasiveness is causing people to underperform or to leave the company.
What’s more, an abrasive manager can often produce impressive short-term results by causing projects to be completed on time, etc. The longer term results are not so easily noticed, though. For example, the higher-ups might be blissfully unaware of the manager’s negative impact on morale. Additionally, if the manager’s bluster produces a breakdown in communication, this could result in design flaws or other subtle problems that might go unnoticed for years to come.
**Ezstrete ** - I’ve worked in a bunch of different companies with different attitudes, so I know that environments vary a lot. But the one thing I’m surprised to hear is that any company was happy about worker complaints. At the very least H.R. grievances are considered a serious annoyance, because they generally requires some investigation and some formal action to be taken just to prevent litigation in the future.
Generally things have to be really bad before most corporations start to do anything about it. If the manager delivers the goods, whatever the business is, then that usually takes preference.
I agree that upper management can get away with being bigger assholes than lower management, but maybe that’s because they drive BMWs
Coincidentally, I’ve read two articles in the last couple of weeks about this and a similar subject. The first reported that rude, pushy bosses actually get worse results, all things being equal, than polite ones, The second reported that extra-long working hours (a frequent demand of a rude boss) are counterproductive.
I guess we haven’t clearly defined what a “Rude boss” is. A boss who demands results and holds his employees accountable isn’t “rude.” Rude means, you know, rude. Abusive. There’s no real benefit to that behaviour, and a lot of drawbacks. If a boss could be an asshole and still get results he’d probably do okay, but in most situations I don’t think its easy to do both.
A boss like that would probably get his ass fired in my company; civility and calmness are generally expected here.
I agree with everybody who says “It depends on the company.” Those that trumpet progressive management will say people perform better in a good work environment. Those that quietly encourage power-tripping and intimidation will excuse it by saying tough people are needed in a tough market.
I have yet to hear anyone take the line that a good work environment is needed in a tough market. It seems to be a perk, like an employee gym or childcare. When the numbers turn down, it’s taken away.
This is rarely the case. When things get bad enough people start to write anonymous letters to upper management (usually to HR execs.) These then tend to instigate at least a cursory investigation and if anything can be substantiated the suspect manager is watched very closely.
One of the plants that I ran had a sister plant in Visalia California and this very thing happened to the plant manager. It took about a year but he was ultimately demoted to a position with no subordinates.
I knew the him well and thought he was a pretty good guy, but I could also sense that there would be no way I’d ever want to work for the guy. In any case what happened should have happened: in a big corp. it’s tough to get away this kind of abuse.
In large companies, maybe… especially when they have multiple levels of heirarchy. In small companies, I daresay that most people wouldn’t attempt such a thing. There’s too much risk that this will come back to bite them later on.