Would You Fire Your Boss?

Popular media often lampoons the boorish behavior and limited intellect of the stereotypical corporate manager. From the clueless supervisors such as Michael Scott (on NBC's sitcom The Office) and Bill Lumbergh (from the cult comedy film Office Space) to the pointy-haired boss in the popular comic strip "Dilbert," pop culture is littered with examples of dimwitted directors and belligerent bosses who are often pitted against the protagonist -- the modern employee. And though these characterizations are created for punch lines, chances are, most employees have encountered at least one or two bosses like these during their careers.

But what are employees' options? If they were fictional employees at Dunder Mifflin, they could make fun of Scott behind his back. If they worked at Initech, they could try to avoid answering Lumbergh's calls to work over the weekend.

But what would happen if Dilbert could tell his pointy-haired boss exactly what he was thinking in those comic thought bubbles? Would he fire the head honcho? It's likely that the employees managed by Scott and Lumbergh would show their boss the door. But how do the opinions of these pop culture personas compare with those of the actual U.S. workforce? The answer, it turns out, depends on whether employees are engaged in their workplace.

Survey says . . .

The Gallup Management Journal (GMJ) surveyed U.S. employees to discover if employees would fire their boss -- and what effect workplace engagement might have on their willingness to give their boss the boot. Gallup researchers studied employee responses to see which factors differed most strongly among engaged employees (26% of respondents) and those who were not engaged (56%) or actively disengaged (18%). (See graphic "The Three Types of Employees.")

The results of this poll show that 24% of employees in the United States would fire their boss if given the chance. Not surprisingly, engaged employees aren't the ones wanting to bid their manager farewell. Just 6% of engaged workers say they would fire their boss if they had the chance, while 51% of actively disengaged associates would get rid of their leader if they could.

This finding is consistent with earlier GMJ research, which indicates that engaged employees consider their relationship with their manager to be crucial to their success. Of engaged employees, 49% strongly agree that "A strong positive relationship with this person is crucial to my success at work," while just 12% of actively disengaged employees strongly agree with the same statement. In contrast, just 6% of engaged employees strongly disagree with this statement, compared to 33% of actively disengaged employees who strongly disagree with this statement. (See "Getting Personal in the Workplace" in the "See Also" area on this page.)

Gallup uses its employee engagement survey, the Q¹², to measure workplace engagement and glean insights about the kinds of manager behaviors that are most likely to cause employees to disengage from their workplaces. (See "Feedback for Real" in the "See Also" area on this page.) The GMJ survey results show that employees who doubt that their manager cares about them as an individual are far more likely to want to oust their boss.

Slightly more than half (53%) of employees who say they would fire their boss if they had the chance disagree with the Q¹² item "My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person." Conversely, just 8% of workers who wouldn't fire their manager disagree with the "supervisor cares" item. It seems simple enough: If workers feel like their supervisor or someone at their company cares for them, they aren't as likely to want to fire their boss, according to workplace engagement research.

Less likely to recommend their company

Pop culture provides extreme examples of what can happen when employees don't want their boss to supervise them anymore. Gallup research, in contrast, reveals a more subtle impact on business outcomes, but one that can profoundly affect a company's workforce and its sales and service. Workers who would fire their boss, for instance, are more than twice as likely as those who wouldn't dismiss their manager to not agree with the statement "I will be with my company one year from now" (37% versus 17%). Just about 20% of the U.S. workforce overall disagrees with this statement.

So, if employees who want to fire their manager are less likely than others to be working at their company a year from now, who will take their place if they leave? Probably not a friend or family member. Just 11% of workers who would fire their boss would recommend their current company as a great place to work to friends and family; but more than 40% of workers who would not fire their leader would recommend their company as a great place to work. Once again, the answers to this question among those who would not dismiss their boss are closer to those of the overall U.S. workforce (49%).

Employees who want to fire their manager not only won't recommend their company as a place to work to friends and family, they also aren't in a hurry to recommend their company's products and services. Only one-third of these workers (33%) say they would endorse their organization's goods and services. This is a significantly smaller percentage compared to responses to this question from those who would not fire their boss (54%) and the overall U.S. working population (49%).

Employees who want to fire their boss -- especially workers who are actively disengaged -- aren't likely to burn down the office building. They probably limit their grousing about their boss to their own inner monologues or to quiet exchanges with other employees over cubicle walls. But employees' disengagement with their supervisor can have real -- and negative -- consequences for their companies.

Results of these surveys are based on nationally representative samples of about 1,000 employed adults aged 18 and older. Interviews were conducted by Gallup by telephone quarterly from October 2000-October 2002, then semi-annually thereafter. For results based on samples of this size, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects could be plus or minus three percentage points. For findings based on subgroups, the sampling error would be greater.

Emily A. Killham was a Senior Consultant for Gallup.

Bryant Ott is a writer and editor for Gallup.

Reader Comments

Mike Posted On 9/13/2007 2:29:50 PM

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

Report This Comment as Offensive

Steve Horvath Posted On 9/13/2007 5:03:45 PM

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.

lawrence hurst Posted On 9/13/2007 7:18:29 PM

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.

Prabhakar Karve Posted On 9/13/2007 10:42:46 PM

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.

Prabhakar Karve Posted On 9/13/2007 10:45:19 PM

Tom Birch Posted On 9/14/2007 9:16:41 AM

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%.

Fast Indigo Posted On 9/14/2007 10:53:45 AM

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!

LeRoy Trusty Posted On 9/14/2007 11:57:54 AM

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.

David Lyons Posted On 9/14/2007 2:11:09 PM

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!

Sergio Nuñez del Prado Posted On 9/15/2007 11:53:53 AM

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.

estee Posted On 9/15/2007 1:18:14 PM

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.

SF Posted On 9/18/2007 8:29:24 AM

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.

Dalia Castello Posted On 9/19/2007 7:17:56 PM

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.

Please Login to Comment

Comments Usage Policy

Would You Fire Your Boss?

Half of actively disengaged workers -- and one-quarter of all employees -- would, according to a national survey

Wellbeing