The Ideal Boss

If I were to ask people to describe an ideal boss – we’ve had the opportunity to do this around the world – you would expect to have disparate information. People would say that an ideal boss is someone who is kind, who is approachable, who listens, and who is supportive. They feel that a boss who is honest and fair, who gives me an opportunity to learn and who is knowledgeable would be a perfect description. What we end up getting is a huge bag of words. But what becomes apparent is that there are synonyms in the bag. You can simplify the bag, reduce it to some core themes.

Care and Growth

Essentially, we can reduce the findings to two core themes:

1. Care – One of the primary concerns is care, because someone who listens and who is compassionate, cares for me. What the subordinate is really saying to the boss is: have a genuine interest in me, don’t just be in this relationship to get something out of me. Care about me.

But then there’s a harder theme.

2. Growth – If you are looking for someone who is honest, they won’t always be nice. They may sometimes say things that are upsetting. The reason why you want the honesty is not that you are masochistic – no-one enjoys being upset – but it’s the person’s honesty that helps you to understand where you are, where you can learn and where you can grow.

Employees Want The Same Thing

Astonishingly, if you ask employees the same question, they will tell you the same thing! They would also want their bosses to care for them and grow them. It turns out that the worker has exactly the same expectation that the manager has, and that is that those people in charge of him should care for him and give him an opportunity to grow. I have found these criteria to be completely universal. They are held by all people. I would like to offer an explanation for this phenomenon.

When I work for someone willingly, because I really want to, it implies that I have given that person the right to demand delivery from me. I have given this person the right to exercise power over me, to tell me what to do. This suggests that this care and growth criterion is the criterion which accounts for legitimacy of power. This makes sense when we examine the first relationship of power, namely the relationship between the parent and the child. In this relationship there are two people, a big one and a little one. The job of the big one for the little one is quite specific. The big person has to care for and grow the little one. Now, in so far as the parenting relationship is the first relationship of power, it is significant because it is therefore a principal relationship. From it we learn the basic principles of legitimacy are. It is therefore not at all surprising that all people will invoke these criteria when they consider their commitment to powerful others. It sits in their deepest intuition.

The tragedy is that while managers have these expectations of their bosses, they themselves do not consider it necessary to act consistently with these criteria themselves.  This fundamental incapacity of managers to “do as they would be done by” places accountability for the malaise of carelessness and expediency that characterises the relationship between employer and employee squarely at the door of those who are in charge at every level of the hierarchy. In the most absolute sense managers deserve the workforce that they have.

The Essence of Growth is About Accountability

Finally, it is important to understand that the essence of growth is about accountability. If we use the standard metaphor for empowerment as enabling people to fish rather than giving them a fish, it is immediately apparent that there are at least two things at issue. The one is to give the person the means to do what is required, which in the case of fishing would include things such as the rod, the reel, authority to fish and so on. Then, clearly you need to foster the ability to fish, in terms of skill and knowledge.