Evidence Employees Are MORE SATISFIED With Their Bosses: Why It May Be So

I got a note from my book publicist, the relentless and civilized Mark Fortier, about an interesting new study.  Here is what the inquiry said: "A new survey by Adecco (http://bit.ly/9jvwdW) finds that more than three-quarters of bosses say their relationships with workers has improved in the past three years because of the recession."   When I clicked on the link, I saw that, indeed, the survey of 1000 employees and bosses found "78 percent of bosses say they feel closer to their teams than they did three years ago (pre-recession) and 61 percent of employees agree."   I would take this survey with a gran of salt, as it does not appear to use a representative sample, but it is interesting when taken together with other recent research (using better samples) that show about 80% of U.S. employees report feeling respected and supported by their bosses and the 2010 WBI/Zogby survey that shows the percentage of U.S. employees who report being bullied at work has dropped from about 13% to 9% since their 2010 survey. 

Mark asked what might explain these findings, why despite all the fear, layoffs, and extra hours worked, bosses and employees might be feeling better about each other than before the meltdown, and might even be treating each other better too!  Several reasons occlude to me, and I would love to know other reasons that might occur to you:

1. Fewer rotten bosses. The downsizing and such that so many firms have gone through during the last three years mean that bad bosses of all kinds have been weeded-out, or put on notice that if they don’t improve, they will be shown the door. So incompetent bosses of all kinds have been shown the door, which includes those who are not respected by their followers and who treat their followers like dirt.  Certainly, plenty of civilized and competent bosses have been shown the door during the downturn, but perhaps organizations have used it to get rid of the rotten apples -- and as I discuss in Good Boss Bad Boss and here at HBR, rotten apples do massive damage.

2. The civility movement.  During the last few years, perhaps the tolerance for nasty and disrespectful bosses has decreased.  I see the popularity of The Power of Nice,  The Civility Solution, The No Asshole Rule as symptoms of this movement, as it would delusional to view a few books as a cause.   Perhaps the weight of one press report after another on bullying and lousy bosses helped with the cause.  And perhaps the lawyers have played a role as there are more cases of bully bosses – even equal opportunity bossholes – getting sued and paying big sums.   So between the “opportunity” to get rid of nasty bosses with the downturn, the increasing society pressure to not tolerate such behavior, and the realization by more bosses that being a good boss entails treating people with respect, a bit of change has occurred in the composition and behavior of the workforce.

3.  Thinking about money less.  Another explanation, which I heard from a CEO of a company that has gone through numerous rounds of layoffs, is interesting. When his company was growing like crazy and competitors were as well there was a sense on strong competition is his firm as people believed that they had to battle to “get mine.”  And indeed, this is consistent with research that shows, when the focus in life is on money, people become more selfish and see others as “the enemy.” 

4. Compassion and mutual support. The multiple rounds of layoffs that occurred in some companies appears to have encouraged some bosses  and “surviving” employees to their attention turn attention to the “humanity” part of the job, to giving people support who have lost jobs and -- among survivors -- to bond together to get through the stressful times.  An inspiring example from Intel ends Good Boss, Bad Boss:

Intel executive Patricia (Pat) McDonald demonstrated similar awareness in 2006 when managing a factory in Hillsboro, Oregon.  As part of a company-wide reduction, several managers at the plant lost jobs.  An engineer who worked for Pat, Sumit Guha, told me how “she recounted the contributions of these employees in an open forum, wishing them luck, acknowledging that these employees were being let go for no fault of their own, and we all gave these employees a hand in appreciation of their contributions.”   Things got worse in early 2009 when Intel announced the factory would cease production at year’s end because it was using older technology – and approximately 1000 workers would lose their positions. Pat not only expressed concern and compassion, she took a stance demonstrating that she had her employees’ backs.   Pat quickly announced to her team that although output metrics would continue to be important, helping people get through the transition was a higher priority – especially finding affected employees new jobs inside and outside of Intel.  Pat and her team not only provided extensive outplacement counseling and related services, they personally visited numerous local employers to campaign for new jobs for their people. Managers and employees emulated this behavior.  For example, employees shared job search leads and helped each other prepare for interviews, even as they were vying for the same positions. 

Sumit emphasized that Pat’s dogged efforts to “earn trust and respect from a process of engagement” and her ability to understand “the implications of decisions from the employees’ point of view and adjust her course of action accordingly” were what separated her from ordinary bosses.  This “deep sense of benevolent care” was especially constructive after the end of production was announced because, “At a time when the economy was collapsing, her actions helped maintain a sense of calm amongst us.”  Pat’s emphasis on people and connection with them not only instilled calm, her priorities helped many find good new jobs.  And plant performance didn’t suffer a bit; productivity, efficiency, and quality reached record levels in 2009.

Pat’s people admired her because she was in tune with what it felt like to be them and she focused on how the things she said and did shaped their moods, efforts, and loyalty – whether they lost jobs or remained at Intel. 

5. Lowered expectations.  Finally, if I put on my psychologist hat, I could make a more cynical argument -- that even if nothing objective changed between bosses and their charges, people would report being more satisfied.  The average employee has fewer choices of bosses and jobs then before the bust.  So if they believe their boss is bad, but can’t exit, it leads to constant unhappiness.  To avoid unhappiness, reality aside, people with good mental health will simply adjust their attitudes and beliefs such that they see the same old boss as OK.  This is so sort of like “If you cant be with the one you love, love the one you are with.”  To put it another way, research on happiness shows that it is not so much driven by how objectively wonderful everything is, but rather by the difference between what you have and what you expect.  So the lowering of expectations that comes with a downturn may lead people to appreciate what they have more – so the same old thing, the boss in this case (or the boss's opinion of his her team) may seem better than in the past. 

I offer these five explanations as hypotheses.  I am not really sure why people report liking their bosses more and bosses report liking their teams more, it is an intriguing question.

 

Comments

[Jason Telerski]

This is an interesting thread. I hadn't really thought about things being better now then they were 3 years ago, but in many ways they are.

I have fewer employees so I get to spend more time with each of them and as a result my relationships with them have improved.

I also have fewer customers and get to spend more time focusing on their individual needs. This has made them much happier and easier to work with.

Taken together these factors have resulted in a better day-to-day experience for me at work. Perhaps the combination of a more focused and attentive boss and happier customers is also making things better for my employees.

[Bob Sutton]

DB,

Thanks for finding this and telling us about it. Both studies use bad samples, they arent representative of the US workforce, the better samples are the bullying and -- I think -- the other one that show bullying is going down and most Americans rate their boss's pretty highly. The one you found is really crummy, it is just 231 people who completed an online survey. Note the description:

The October 2010 Spherion Bosses’ Day Workforce Survey was conducted online within the United States by Monster Worldwide on behalf of Spherion Staffing Services between September 29 and October 7, 2010 among a U.S. sample of 231 working adults, aged 20 years and older. Respondents represent those invited to participate in the survey, which includes full and part-time workers.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Monster feels the use of "margin of error" is misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published surveys come close to this ideal.

[DB]

I've just come across another survey (published today) which suggests exactly the opposite:

"A noteworthy aftershock from the economic recession emerges as nearly half (45 percent) of U.S. workers indicate their relationship with their boss has been affected by the recession. Of these workers, 74 percent say the recession has weakened their relationship with their boss negatively.

These are findings of the most recent Spherion Staffing Services Snapshot survey. The 2010 Boss Day Survey, conducted by Monster on behalf of Spherion Staffing, also found that more than one-third of workers (34 percent) say they are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their relationship with their boss."

The three reasons cited:

1. Bosses offer little support in career development, with many undermining their workers.

2. Eroding trust in bosses.

3. Workers have little admiration, respect for bosses’ jobs

The full release is here: http://www.talentmgt.com/industry_news/2010/October/5273/index.php

[shannon]

This post is a bit confusing, because the title suggests that employees are more satisfied with their bosses, while the text emphasizes that bosses are more satisfied with their employees. Could it be that, as employees become more afraid of losing their jobs like so many others, they behave in a more deferential and obsequious way to their bosses? If so, that would definitely give the bosses the impression that their employees were happier with them, and they with their employees, even if it were not the case.

Employees may be running so scared now that they are also afraid to be truthful on a survey like this, afraid that if they are negative about the boss, it might get back to him or her.

[Ellie]

There's a really interesting talk on TED this week by Tim Jackson (http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html). I'm in no way an economics expert, but he seems to be arguing that the current consumer and growth based economy is unsustainable (which makes intuitive sense, I've been wondering for a long time what it was about our economic model that I didn't understand the meant it could go on growing for ever once every economy was "developed"). The system he would like to replace it with is one of reduced profits and investment in society by business as well as the other way around - in other words, the chasing of a better society rather than simply seeking more wealth. He suggests that the increasing number of successful ethical businesses are evidence that we are moving in that direction. It's not just that it would be nicer, either, he is arguing that it is truly sustainable, in both environmental and economic terms, and so may actually be our only choice.

And finally, onto my point: it seems likely that sustainable ethical business are more likely to also subscribe to a "no asshole" attitude, so perhaps the rising numbers of the two are linked?

Obviously, very few share holders are going to support a move from high profit to a more modest ethical income while the current system is still functioning, but that would seem to be in doubt and, equally, no sensible investor is going to turn down a modest income in favour of a certain loss.

It also seems likely to me that the modest and ethical companies will be more efficient and successful if they are employing non-assholes, and, as this possible new economical model takes over (I hope!), perhaps we will see much fewer rewards for assholes as their "talents" become less useful and they become anachronisms?

We can but dream!

[Dean Zatkowsky]

Sometimes, resentment between bosses and employees results from the bosses' tolerance of incompetent employees. Cutting a lot of dead wood during downsizing can raise everyone's spirits. Even if bad leadership remains in place, other obstacles to better performance are removed. And most people like to perform well.