guess is that you’d like me to cut to the chase and cough up the effective strategies. I could do that, but they won’t work if you don’t know what you’re dealing with. No horse whisperer worth his or her salt would walk into a corral to tame a horse without a basic understanding of horse behavior—they need horse sense. The same holds true for taming abrasive bosses. Trust me, you don’t want to enter the corporate corral without insight into their abrasive behavior. The next chapters will provide you with exactly that: boss sense. You’ll learn who these abrasive bosses are, what they do, why they do it, why they don’t see what they do, why they don’t seem to care, what you can (and can’t) do about it, and the risks involved. But before we get to that, there’s something I’ve got to do. I’ve criticized other authors for their sensationalistic classifications of abrasive boss types, but it turns out I’m no different—even I can’t resist the lure of labeling. Some people gotta dance, and I gotta categorize!
Actually, I am different, because my labels don’t resemble the names of comic book villains—no Satanic Supervisors or Maniac Managers here. Instead, my labels describe behavioral styles without demonizing or denigrating. I chose the abrasive boss label because I believe it is descriptive without being disrespectful. You’ve probably noticed that I don’t refer to abrasive bosses as ‘‘bullies.’’ I dislike that label, for two reasons. First, I believe that calling someone a bully implies that these individuals want to hurt others, that they intentionally set out to do harm. I found the opposite case. I discovered that abrasive bosses don’t intend to harm—their intent is to motivate. And if they do cause harm, more often than not they’re blind to the fact that they’ve wounded others.
There’s a second reason why I don’t refer to abrasive bosses as bullies. I think it’s unprofessional. When I reviewed the popular literature on abrasive bosses, I couldn’t get over the fact that the so-called expert authors of these bully-battling books behaved like bullies themselves, indulging in derogatory, disrespectful descriptors of abrasive bosses. As I’ve noted, this phenomenon is peculiar to workplace abuse; researchers don’t label those who engage in domestic abuse ‘‘bitch’’ or ‘‘bastard,’’ so why do so-called ‘‘expert’’ authors feel free to use the bully label in reference to workplace abuse?
I suspect we treat abrasive bosses in this manner because we find it difficult to empathize with them. With child abusers we can put ourselves in their shoes to understand the intense psychological stressors that can drive parents to vent their distress on children. But it’s much harder to step into the shoes of an abrasive boss. Empathy, schmempathy—aren’t bosses supposed to have their psychological acts together? Aren’t they grown adults, capable of managing people, projects, and their own psyches? Well, I hate to break it to you, but bosses are human, just like us. And just like abusive parents, some bosses lack the ability to manage their psychological stressors and end up venting their distress on those around them. As long as we demonize abrasive bosses, we can hold ourselves apart and avoid the challenging work of learning why they do what they do, and what we can do about it.
Definitions and Categories
Here’s a list of definitions for terms that I will be using throughout the book. These may differ from how you’ve used these terms in the past, so please read carefully:
Boss: any individual charged with managerial authority, from CEO to mailroom supervisor. This authority may be formal (the individual has defined reporting relationships with others) or informal (the individual is empowered to exert influence over others without formally defined relationships: for example, a physician may direct nursing staff even though they do not formally report to the physician).
Manager: a boss’s immediate superior; the abrasive boss’s boss.
Management: collectively, the individuals who hold positions that are higher than the abrasive boss’s position or who are authorized to exert influence over abrasive bosses (such as human resource or legal staff).
Peers: individuals who hold positions roughly equivalent in status to the abrasive boss’s.
Subordinates: individuals who report directly to the abrasive boss.
Coworkers: all employees at any level who have contact with the abrasive boss; anyone working in the same organization.
Now, on to my boss categories. I’ve found these categories useful in my work with abrasive bosses; I have yet to encounter a boss who didn’t fall into one of them. Please also note that I classify bosses according to their interpersonal conduct rather than their work performance. Conduct refers to interpersonal competence: the degree to which one interacts effectively with coworkers. Performance, in contrast, refers to technical competence: one’s ability to execute the technical aspects of work. Conduct and performance aren’t necessarily linked—a person can be technically brilliant and interpersonally dim or interpersonally expert but deficient in technical expertise. The best bosses have solid social and business expertise that inspires loyalty and augments the horsepower of their teams. The worst bosses are deficient in one or both competencies—working for a bungling nice guy can be equally as arduous as working for a proficient tyrant.
The Adequate Boss
The interpersonal competence of adequate bosses ranges from good enough to great. They have enough emotional intelligence to know how to relate to coworkers in socially acceptable ways that promote smooth working relationships. Adequate bosses aren’t perfect, but they’re insightful enough to consistently behave in ways that coworkers perceive as respectful. These skills help them maneuver successfully through the inevitable interpersonal rough patches present in any workplace, keeping emotional distress to a minimum.
The Annoying Boss
Like physical irritants that produce minor, transient rashes, annoying bosses behave in ways that cause mild, temporary irritation in coworkers. Their annoying behaviors can be a pain, but the pain is not enough to damage work relationships or organizational functioning. Annoying bosses are somewhat deficient in the social skills department, and the ways in which they irritate coworkers are endless—they can be loud, long-winded, or late. They can tell too many jokes or belabor too many details. The list goes on, but I won’t continue and risk becoming an annoying author. Annoying bosses are perceived as irritating but harmless—we don’t take their missteps personally.
The Abrasive Boss
Abrasive is defined as harsh or rough in manner, describing the characteristic interpersonal style of abrasive bosses. Abrasive bosses rub their coworkers the wrong way, inflicting lasting wounds. Their behaviors, characterized by aggression, damage work relationships to the point of disrupting organizational functioning. Coworkers report feeling mistreated when they experience aggressive behavior ranging from mild offense to open attack. The words and actions of abrasive bosses are perceived as harmful and are frequently taken personally, producing intense emotional distress.
The Avoidant Boss
In the case of avoidant bosses, coworkers complain not about their presence but about their absence. Avoidant bosses avoid interpersonal contact with coworkers and isolate themselves physically or emotionally (or both) whenever possible. Avoidant bosses hold their coworkers at arm’s length, remaining distant, unresponsive, and uninterested in those around them. These bosses will go to great lengths to avoid dealing with potentially difficult interactions whenever possible. Coworker distress results not from abuse but from neglect, which drains
