Tomorrow is the official publication day for the Good Boss, Bad Boss paperback. It contains a new chapter called "What Great Bosses Do," which digs into some of the lessons I learned about leadership since publishing the hardback in September 2010. I have already published excerpts from the new chapter on power poisoning, bad apples, and embracing the mess at Fast Company.
As I am teaching all day tomorrow, I am publishing another here today excerpt here to mark the occasion. It considers one of the most personally troubling lessons I've learned (or at least am on the verge of believing). I am starting to wonder, as the headline says, if nice but incompetent bosses are even worse (at least in some ways and at certain times) than competent assholes.
Now, to be clear, they both suck and having to choose between the two is sort of like deciding whether to be kicked in the stomach or kicked in the head. And I have even suggested here that there might be certain advantages to having a lousy boss (and readers came up with numerous other great reasons). But I have seen so much damage done by lousy bosses who are really nice people in recent years that I am starting to wonder...
Here is the excerpt from the new chapter (the 4th of 9 lessons):
4. Bosses who are civilized and caring, but incompetent, can be really horrible.
Perhaps because I am the author of The No Asshole Rule, I kept running into people—journalists, employees,project managers, even a few CEOs—who picked a fight with me. They would argue that good bosses are more than caring human beings; they make sure the job gets done. I responded by expressing agreement and pointing out this book defines a good boss as one who drives performance and treats people humanely. Yet, as I started digging into the experiences that drove my critics to raise this point— and thought about some lousy bosses—I realized I hadn’t placed enough emphasis on the damage done, as one put it, by “a really incompetent, but really nice, boss.”
As The No Asshole Rule shows, if you are a boss who is a certified jerk, you may be able to maintain your position so long as your charges keep performing at impressive levels. I warned, however, that your enemies are lying in wait, and once you slip up you are likely to be pushed aside with stunning speed. In contrast, one reason that baseball coach Leo Durocher’s famous saying “Nice guys finish last” is sometimes right is that when a boss is adored by followers (and peers and superiors, too) they often can’t bring themselves to bad-mouth, let alone fire or demote, that lovely person.
People may love that crummy boss so much they constantly excuse, or don’t even notice, clear signs of incompetence. For example, there is one senior executive I know who is utterly lacking in the necessary skills or thirst for excellence his job requires. He communicates poorly (he rarely returns even important e-mails and devotes little attention to developing the network of partners his organization needs), lacks the courage to confront—let alone fire—destructive employees, and there are multiple signs his organization’s reputation is slipping. But he is such a lovely person, so caring and so empathetic, that his superiors can’t bring themselves to fire him.
There are two lessons here. The first is for bosses. If you are well-liked, civilized, and caring, your charms provide
protective armor when things go wrong. Your superiors are likely to give you the benefit of the doubt as well
as second and third chances—sometimes even if you are incompetent. I would add, however, that if you are a truly crummy boss—but care as much for others as they do for you—stepping aside is the noble thing to do. The second lesson is for those who oversee lovable losers. Doing the dirty work with such bosses is distasteful. But if rehabilitation has failed—or things are falling apart too fast to risk it—the time has come to hit the delete button.
Thoughts?
the best boss is a fake asshole
one who put on the asshole face
when he see's a problem to kick everyones ass into gear to solve it and move on
those who are nice but incompetent are far worse because when the shit hits the fan they someone below them gets fired quite often a better man
and just flat out assholes are by definition simply incompetent as they simply do the same but more often purposly pick out the better people and have them fired as they see them as threats
Posted by: will | April 02, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Hi, Dr. Sutton. I agree with most of what you wrote, but in my experience, this advice is not very practical:
"if you are a truly crummy boss—but care as much for others as they do for you—stepping aside is the noble thing to do."
The reason is that I'm yet to find an incompetent and nice boss that isn't also deluded into thinking that, because people like them, they are doing a great job.
As a consultant, I met a few who would always blame some external factor as the cause of the poor performance of their teams, when clearly other teams facing the exact same circumstances, but led by a competent boss, were doing much better.
Posted by: Adriana B. | March 18, 2012 at 04:43 PM
A nice, but incompetent asshole is still, in short, an asshole.
Either they need performance-modifying feedback to improve, and a timeline in which to achieve that improvement, or they need to seek opportunities for fulfillment in a different role (either themselves, or led to that action by others.)
The carnage caused by the "nice and ineffectual" is almost as bad as the straight out assholes.
Posted by: DrewCM | March 16, 2012 at 01:24 PM
"Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." – Sandy Koufax
Posted by: Joe Marchese | March 16, 2012 at 09:29 AM
I think that almost all bosses sometimes seems to be more "a good boss", sometimes "not a nice one", sometimes "an incompetent" and sometimes "competent but an asshole". I think it is much more a matter of what you want to be or in what your people is identifying you. I don't know exactly which is the best role in the right moment but I realized that some times been to good competent boss makes people around you to be more "lazy" or don't care too much about deadlines or whatever or to just rely too much on you in case of problems. Sometimes I've discovered that not being present, not caring so much and so on, forces people to cover what "is missing" and to do their best. Anyway I do not know in the long term which one is the most efficient strategy.
Posted by: Ivannovello.wordpress.com | March 14, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Steve
Nice post, just tweeted it out
Bob
Posted by: Bob Sutton | March 14, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Ultimately, we want to work for people who are competent and benevolent.
Sometimes we can trade a little of one of those to get a little more of the other, as situations and frustrations allow.
I know that's not much, but it sums up my whole experience so far, and I've outlasted a great many bosses and organizations.
Thanks for your work. I've enjoyed the way it crystalizes so much research and experience.
Posted by: Tim Ottinger | March 14, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Dr. Sutton: I wrote about this very topic in a blog post titled, "When Clowns Run The Circus." http://workplacepsychology.net/2011/04/11/when-clowns-run-the-circus/ Here's a quick excerpt: When the boss is “too nice,” the jerks, bullies, and bigmouths who report to them will actually be the ones running the show. Sadly, these poor bosses are viewed as powerless pushovers, leaders by title but not by respect. In these situations, the clowns in the office are running the circus (aka, the workplace).
Posted by: Steve Nguyen | March 14, 2012 at 03:31 PM