Would You Fire Your Boss?

It isn't rocket science to understand that people need to feel a sense of belonging to their workplace, including all levels of management.

Managers of direct reports are most often the enablers of career enhancement, either through fending off the wolves, or providing training encouragement and rewards. I am of the personal belief that one does not manage people, but rather processes or equipment.

A truly effective manager, extended to the company, is one who actively seeks to understand the employees under his/her leadership. That manager then takes that knowledge and creates an atmosphere of shelter and growth potential. By providing this platform and clearly defining expectations, better than average performance can be obtained from even moderately disengaged employees after a small period of time.

Losing an employee is most often times a failure of the direct supervisor, or the managerial chain immediately above the supoervisor. It is therefore critical to treat the subordinate team member as a valuable resource and to allow them to do their job with guidance and assistance from management and the other team members around the individual. Failing to do so results in negative opportunity costs associated with legal fees, recruiting and training costs to be incurred in dealing the the problem of departure and subsequent replacement hire.

Mike Rowland
4.70 Gallup Engagement Score, 07

It would seem an easy leap, based on the findings reported in the article to assume that desengagement breads contempt for one's boss. Shame on those disengaged employees.

I think another conclusion could be drawn. If a leader is a poor leader he may well create an environment of disengagement. If he does he may well deserve to be fired.

Guess I'm having a bit of trouble getting the horse and cart in the proper orientation.

Five times during my career I was intimately involved in helping to fire or get rid people I reported to. In four of the cases the people above them came to me to help them accomplish the task. No fun, distasteful, but in every case the person being kicked out deserved it. In one case it was absolutely wrong and the person pushing to get it done later got sacked themselves. I also do a lot of training and most employees will move earth and sky for a good leader with good management skills. On the other hand a poor manager with poor leadership skills drives the organization down. One of the best and simple books on leadership lately is Abrashoff's "It's Your Ship."
Thanks for listening.

I agree with Mike when he says "one does not manage people, but rather processes or equipment".

It is job of the manager (and the organization) to create structured freedom where the self-disciplined employees who care for others find a protective environment which enables them to learn, grow, contribute and enjoy their work.

On the other hand, same structure is challenging for others with a clear no-nonsense signal that they need to change their approach and attitude.

Once an organization provides such "Structured freedom", it would automatically and consistently tackle the problem of disengagement.

I agree with Mike when he says "one does not manage people, but rather processes or equipment".

It is job of the manager (and the organization) to create structured freedom where the self-disciplined employees who care for others find a protective environment which enables them to learn, grow, contribute and enjoy their work.

On the other hand, same structure is challenging for others with a clear no-nonsense signal that they need to change their approach and attitude.

Once an organization provides such "Structured freedom", it would automatically and consistently tackle the problem of disengagement.

It's the leader's engagement with individual employees, not employee engagement, that is measured here.

Even in circumstances where managers have to implement unpopular change, dismiss people or cope through difficult times, a good leader will retain engagement, whereas a poor leader won't even improve it in good times.

Adding to the lexicon of well-worn phrases, such as 'keep it simple, stoopid!' and 'it's the economy, stoopid.', can I add 'it's the people, stoopid.'? It may not be original, but like 'walking the talk', it's all to do with treating people with respect.

Guess that doesn't say much for some of the bosses of the 24%.

In an organization where leaders are encouraged to take the initative to get things done and demonstrate thought leadership, an ineffective manager is actually a blessing in disguise! You pretty much have a free reign to do the things you want - in fact, it gives you a perfect platform to be more strategic and get the right things done for the larger benefit of the function, team and the organization. I think of it as an opportunity, rather than a show stopper. I'd like to put a positive spin on this kind of a situation. This not only enables you to build your credibility, but also demonstrate the fact that you are made of a different calibre as compared to the boss!

I went to a seminar this last week that dealt with the disengaged employee. Much of what is stated here and at the seminar directs us to the manager as being one of the mainstays for disengaging. Of course I am a manager and I am always looking at ways to engage the employee. Trust is one big issue.

I agree with the critical role a manager has on the engagement level of their employees. However, I respectfully suggest that like leadership, engagement is everyone's business. Placing all the accountability on the manager let's the employee off-the-hook and creates dependency. I would rather see employees be encouraged to take ownership of their own engagement which would encourage the right kind of dialog with their managers. Talk about transformational!

I've learned through years of engaging that in most cases the limitations shown by employees are nothing more than the reflection of the limitations of the supervisor or manager. We engaged individuals should try and enlightened our meager supervisors and if this does not work let them share their limitations with another organization.

Wow, I love what Mike wrote:

"A truly effective manager, extended to the company, is one who actively seeks to understand the employees under his/her leadership. That manager then takes that knowledge and creates an atmosphere of shelter and growth potential. By providing this platform and clearly defining expectations, better than average performance can be obtained from even moderately disengaged employees after a small period of time."

Our organization has put the responsibility for engagement, growth, and development on the employee--and that's where we are at risk of disengagement. I've had several managers; the two who actively got to know me have left the organization. I miss the environment of shelter and growth that they provided--I felt incredibly valued, like I had great potential.

While I do agree with most of the comments,at some point we have to discuss the accountability of the employee. Far too many articles are written about the roles and responsibilities of line managers. Yes, we do have a certain leadership mandate but at the same time, I would also like to see more articles on how employees can take charge of their own level of engagement. The end result will be a shared mandate and one of less parental control. At the end of the day, employees are being paid for a certain level of commitment in an 8 hours day. More and more, there is a feeling of entitlement without the commitment from both ends. Let's rethink the partnership.

As a recipient of both great and terrible leadership I will be kinder to the poor leader I think organizations have a responsibility to the employees at the bottom of the ranks to train and/or make sure those in leadership positions have the proper training. A disengaged employee is the guy/girl who is not properly fitted or has grown and has lost interest and is ready to move from the position in which he/or she is placed to bigger and better things. The poor leader has not been trained to manage the careers of the individuals nor see what is occuring within the ranks he manages, nor does he create and encourage dialogue in respect to where these individuals would like to see themselves down the road within the organization. I think it is a two way street when it come to being engaged at the job. I don't have the need to be particularly cared for by an employer/manager I just want to have a job where I am growing and learning more and as long as I have this at the job I am engaged.