Winning: The Answers: Confronting 74 of the Toughest Questions in Business Today (5 page)

Y
es and yes. But what a loaded question!

Loaded because how you define
tough
matters a lot to the answer. And loaded too because how tough a boss seems may very well depend on your own performance.

Look,
tough
is a multilayered term that is open to discussion. But there can be little debate that top performers with great results tend to worry and complain a lot less about “tough” bosses than people struggling to meet expectations. That may sound tough itself, but it’s reality.

Let’s talk about the meaning of
tough
first.

Without doubt, there are tough bosses who are nothing more than bullying, power-drunk jerks, and they’re brutal to work for. They callously push their people, take credit when things go right, point fingers when they don’t, and generally go very stingy on praise and rewards. They can also be moody, political, manipulative, secretive, or outright mean, or all of the above. Now, as you say, sometimes these tough bosses get good results. But it’s rarely for long. At any decent company, they are removed or they self-destruct, whichever comes first.

But bosses exist along a spectrum, and the tough, destroyer types we just described are at one far extreme. At the other end—and equally damaging to the business—are the “Is everyone happy?” variety. Yes, they may be enjoyable to work for—getting paid was never so easy!—but their spinelessness typically translates into mediocre results. Why? At least three basic sins are at work: these “nice” bosses treat everyone with the same gentle, loving wimpiness; they explain away misses without meting out consequences; and they change direction according to the needs and wishes of the last person in their office. In a word, they have no edge!

Somewhere between the two extremes—and probably much closer to the hard end than the soft—are bosses who define the notion of tough the right way, and because of that manage to get strong, long-term performance from their people. It is not too much to say that these kinds of bosses are actually the heroes of business, not the villains. They might not make everyone feel warm and fuzzy, but their good results create a healthy, fair work environment where people and the company prosper, job security for employees who perform well, and value for shareholders. What more could you want?

To these types of bosses, tough means
tough-minded
. They set clear, challenging goals. They connect those goals with specific performance expectations. They conduct frequent, rigorous performance reviews. They reward results accordingly, with the most praise and the highest bonuses going to the most effective contributors, and commensurate compensation levels down the line, ending with nothing for nonstarters. They are relentlessly candid, letting everyone know where they stand and how the business is doing. Every single day,
good
tough bosses stretch people. They ask for a lot and they expect to get it.

Does that make them hard to work for? Of course! But here’s where individual performance comes into play. If you’re up to the challenge, working for a tough boss can be incredibly energizing, as you achieve in ways you never thought you could. But if a tough boss raises the bar to a point that you are out of your league, then you’re likely to hate the experience. And thanks to human nature, chances are you won’t blame yourself—you’ll blame the “tough” boss.

A perfect example of this dynamic in action is Bob Nardelli, CEO of The Home Depot, and a
good
tough boss—demanding, to be sure, but fair, transparent, and results focused.

In a recent
Business Week
article lauding Bob’s five-year turnaround at Home Depot, the usual “other side of the story” came in the form of complaints from former company executives, who claimed that Bob had created an oppressive “culture of fear” at the company. Note that these executives—none of whom agreed to be identified—no longer work at the company. You have to wonder why they left.

Was it because Bob was too “tough”?

Or was it because his tough-mindedness created performance standards they could not meet?

We bet on the latter. The point is: there are good tough bosses and bad ones, and which is which is often in the eye of the beholder.

Again, we’re clearly not talking here about the egregious cases of jerk bosses who berate, belittle, and beat up their people. Everyone hates them, and they deserve their universal loathing.

We’re talking about bosses who operate in the middle ground—bosses who are tough but fair, push hard but reward in equal measure, and who give it to you straight.

Weak performers usually wish these bosses would go away.

People who want to win seek them out.

C
onfront him, and then fire him if he refuses to change. Because if you have ever opened your mouth at work and praised values like fairness, transparency, and information sharing, you have to. By stark contrast, to let Charles stay is to inform your employees that everything you say is meaningless drivel.

Look, if you want certain behaviors from your people, and you advocate for them as part of a winning approach to business and life, then you have to reward the people who demonstrate them.

Just as important, you have to get rid of the people who don’t.

And this is key: don’t get rid of “value offenders” surreptitiously with excuses like, “Charles left for personal reasons, to spend more time with his family.” You need to stand up and publicly announce that Charles was asked to leave because he didn’t adhere to specific company values.

You can be sure Charles’s replacement will act differently, not to mention anyone else doubting your commitment to the values.

Now, obviously, every company wants people who deliver great results, like Charles. Your goal is to make sure your employees can do that and demonstrate good behaviors at the same time. No one should get ahead on the backs of other people. All that does is build an atmosphere of resentment and fear. Sure, you can win with that kind of culture—but not for very long.

So, grit your teeth and get rid of Charles. It might be painful for a minute, but you’ll quickly be surprised by the increased effort—and improved results—you get from the rest of the team as a result of your decision to stand up and “walk the talk.”

S
mall companies really have a raw deal when it comes to letting people go. Big companies can carry turkeys for a long time; there are so many other people to cover for their mistakes. And when an underperformer
is
finally asked to leave a big company, he or she can usually slide out a side door without showstopping trauma to the individual, organization, or the work.

In small companies, by contrast, the blunders of bad performers usually hit the bottom line hard and fast. And just as bad, when it comes time to let them go, there is something that just feels so personal about it. A departure can feel like a death in the family. And that doesn’t even take into account the impact on the work. Even if the fired employee was more bad than good, his removal can significantly affect operations, not to mention client relations.

Still, as you know in your bones, Mark has to go.

There are really only four kinds of managers in the world, classified by how well they perform—i.e., deliver results—and how well they demonstrate good values, such as candor and customer responsiveness. Managers who deliver great results and adhere to good values are easy. They should be praised and rewarded at every opportunity. Managers with poor results but good values deserve another chance, maybe in another position within the organization. The third kind of manager, with great results and lousy values is the kind that usually destroys organizations. They deliver the numbers, but usually on the backs of their people. Companies very often keep these jerks around for way too long, destroying morale and trust as they do. But that isn’t even your problem.

With Mark, you have the easiest kind of manager to deal with. He’s got poor performance and poor values. You mention, for instance, his “double agenda.” Not only did he blow a major project, he’s out for himself and playing politics. He’s “loyal,” he says. Doesn’t sound that way.

Look, the game is over. You may very well miss Mark’s technical expertise until a replacement can be found, but when you finally get the guts to cut the cord, you’ll wonder why you didn’t do it sooner.

W
e have a question for you. How much courage have
you
got, because you are going to need it in the difficult change campaign that awaits you. Difficult, because you need to turn your department upside down to get things right, and even when that’s done, some people may still have to go.

You don’t say so, but we would guess that your department is lacking three critical organizational components: an inspirational mission, a clear set of values, and a rigorous appraisal system. A mission will illuminate your department’s overarching purpose and give your people a sense of excitement and urgency. A set of values will describe how people need to
act
in order to achieve the mission. (Another word for
values
, incidentally, is simply
behaviors
.) For instance, in a learning and development department like yours, the values might include “Connect all coursework to changing market conditions,” or “Spread best practices to every corner of the company.” Whatever—these are just examples of the kind of concreteness that makes values come alive. Finally, a candid, rigorous appraisal system (conducted at least twice a year to start) will let your people know how well they are delivering results and demonstrating the values. The appraisal system must differentiate, by the way, or it will be meaningless. In other words, it must result in praises, raises, and promotions for the people who buy into the new mission and values, and just the opposite for those who don’t.

The change campaign we’ve just described is major and disruptive, and it will take time and steel nerves, even in a small department like yours. But once a mission, a set of values, and an appraisal system are in place and relentlessly communicated by you, people will know what it takes to succeed. That, in and of itself, should decrease the frequent requests for personal time. How? By making it clear that time off is fine—as long it has been
earned
with good performance and the right values. Eventually, you should see an overall improved work ethic and higher productivity. That said, there are sure to be some people who can’t change their ways, even with your encouragement and guidance. Don’t wait too long; let them know they need to move on to an organization where their values are a better fit. They don’t belong in yours.

Now, we realize you are part of a larger company with its own culture and practices. Indeed, that’s often what we hear from people in your predicament—“I can’t change things because that’s not the way it’s done here,” they say, or, “The bosses won’t support me.”

We sympathize—but not totally. Yes, you may be an outlier, but in our experience, it is rare for an organization,
especially
its bosses, to reject a change initiative that improves performance and productivity. Very few people want to shoot a team member who is delivering results. They may be jealous, but they’re not stupid.

But even if you are working within a company where your plan is “outside the box,” don’t give up. Just move more judiciously. Make sure the reasons for your change initiative are transparent to everyone. Keep your bosses informed of where you are going, and your team even more so. And finally, don’t lose faith along the way. Some people will resist change. They always do. But as soon as results start rolling in, your new approach will make its own case, loud and clear.