In a conversation with a couple of former colleagues recently, the conversation came round to how their bosses, or their bosses boss, were horrible and the culture of fear that they had created.
In all cases this was seen as a bad scenario, not one of them said yes, this has really helped increase our productivity, our staff morale or helped us achieve our targets.
Fear isn’t really a motivator, for sure there are times when fear can help, but they are usually when we find a hungry lion right behind us and we need to run like hell to survive, or some such similar scenario.
Fear shouldn’t be a tool that we as Leaders include in our leadership toolbox.
Fear doesn’t inspire our teams, it doesn’t build trust, it doesn’t encourage people to follow us. On the contrary it achieves the exact opposite.
In the conversations I had, all of the people said, given the opportunity they would leave and take another job in order to work for someone else.
As someone who strongly believes in servant leadership, leading through fear isn’t really a concept that I can understand, nor do i understand why it would be anyones preferred leadership style. The benefits can only be short terms, if any.
Although in each case discussed the leader was very, very senior. It wasn’t clear whether that had used the culture of fear to arrive at the top, or had only started to use fear once they had reached the top.
If anyone can explain to me why and how this works I would be very interested to hear it.
Steve Jobs was an excellent example of a tyrant manager. Did he get the best out of people? Possibly. Did he leave a legacy of high performing individuals? Time will tell. Did he get Pixar and Apple to be two of the best companies of all time? I’d say so.
What amazes me (and I’ve been unfortunate to experience it first hand) is that the tyrant leader can actually achieve a lot. They can drive people through negativity to perform outside of their comfort zone and get the job done. However, over time they become a parody of themselves. They can cause too much noise, erode emotional strength, cause unnecessary effort, repeatedly change direction, or just treat people like crap. As long as they “manage upwards”, they can shoot up the ranks – they can be high achievers, but for the teams below them fear can only be a motivator for so long. Ultimately they lose the respect of their teams and this eventually leads to resentment, disillusionment and burnout. This doesn’t just need to be by fear – neglect can also be a factor. People move on, the companies survives, but there is no legacy no generation of future leaders or independent thinkers/doers.
Given the choice, most people want to have the opportunity to develop with an inspirational servant leader. Only a few will opt to work for a tyrant in the hope that the source of the tyranny is the genius of that individual.
Unfortunately for most, the choice is not their own and finding out you work for a tyrant can be a interesting dilemma. Do you “ride it out”, go head to head, move on? All of these are a test of character and none are an easy way out.
What did I do? All three. The result? I outlasted the previous burn out record by a factor of x2. I look back now at the time spent and think “why didn’t I move on sooner?” However, I know I achieved some great results, built and protected a strong and motivated team and learnt a lot about my own limits. Humour got me through it, as well as team and peer support against a “common enemy”, and dogged determination.
Would I do it again? Not by choice. I’ve seen the other side – true leadership. That IS the way.
But I know I will survive if it ever come across a tyrant leader again.
If you think you work for a tyrant, start here http://raincoaster.com/2006/09/01/intimidation-a-poster-from-despaircom/ Oh, and http://www.despair.com is always good to give you smile.
Great feedback. I do think some leaders can be tyrannical and be successful.
Maybe the journey is not a pleasure for the teams they employ and they themselves may believe that
by working people hard and buying them out they are ultimately getting more out of their teams.
Monica, good point, i think the intense is a much better word. Personally i haven’t read any of the biographies of jobs, so i can’t really comment on how he is perceived.
I am sure from the the outside there are lots of people who would love to have had the opportunity to work with him. Whereas with someone who is truly a tyrant, people who see them from the outside would not want to work with them.
Fortunately i haven’t worked for any tyrants, for sure i have worked for some tough managers, especially in my previous company. There we had a senior leader who people feared when they had to present to him. Usually though, that fear was based on them not having done a good enough job, or not understanding their area, and they knew they would be grilled intensely. If you had done a good job, or if the problems encountered were not self inflicted and you had done your best to remedy them, then he was always reasonable, although not always happy.
I think consistency is key, if you are tough on people when they have done a bad job and good when they have done a good job, then they know what to expect.
If they have no clue as to how they will be treated irrespective of performance, then this can create fear, even when good work has been done.
Thanks for the comment.
I would not call Steve Job a tyrant manager. The word I find most precise to describe his style is Intense. His intensity is supported by a clear purpose and this can be generally acceptable. It is different from the type of managers you describe. I think the reason behind of those people who lead by fear is because they are not confident in themselves. The combination of lead downward by fear but manage upwards well is the worst. The only solution to this problem is ” run” away from them.
Monica, There’s a massive difference between intensity and tyranny. People who are intense build a belief culture around them, lead others to excel – they develop people and foster loyalty. A tyrant manager uses people for what they are, has no interest in their development, oppresses ideas not their own, are frequently cruel or self important and uses this capital for their own gain.
The dictionary definition of a tyrant is:
A cruel and oppressive ruler.
A person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way
If you haven’t read his autobiography, I suggest you do. SJ was totally brilliant, but a tyrant nevertheless.
As a refugee from the corporate world, I have witnessed and personally had my life affected by executives who lead through fear. It is the main reason I left that atmosphere. The ever-perplexing Machiavellian debate over which style of leadership is more productive will always depend upon success. However, I have suffered under leaders who headed successful businesses and I have always said to myself, “Yes. We are successful. But just think how much more we could do if we had better leadership. Think how much more we could get out of our employees if they didnt come to work everyday worrying about on which side of the bed their manager woke up, if they didnt fear getting fired for every misstep or poor choice of words.” Talented people tend to leave situations like that and look for less oppressive companies for which to work. This leaves many businesses with “yes-men” or employees who may be capable of keeping the business operating on a daily basis but will never be able to contribute to carrying the company into the future. Businesses can be successful and still not reach their full potential.
I have always believed that leaders who are “control freaks” or who lead by fear or intimidation are masking a fear of their own: not a fear of failure, but a fear that they may not be as accomplished or as capable as they think they are. Many of these leaders, when they make a decision affecting one of their employees are more likely to order a subordinate to enforce their decisions. In many of my experiences with such people, I have found them to be disingenuously dismissive of confrontation (i.e. they command that HR deliver the bad news to an employee because “I don’t have time for those things. I’m the President of the company, after all.”) They use procedure, or “proper channels” as excuses even though they personally made the decision. In my opinion, if a manager doesn’t have the courage to tell an employee him or herself that they are fired, then that manager is admitting that they are making a poor choice or an unsubstantiated decision and are fearful that someone may call them out one day. After all, that person no longer works for you. Therefore, they may speak freely. All bullies are cowards at heart and bullies who use their status as power are worse. I believe that in many instances, fears of their own and paranoia drive certain people to lead through intimidation.
It is not clear which method Machiavelli was promoting in The Prince, but I think an objective look at leaders throughout history proves which is more effective in the long run: neither, exclusively. I agree with those who say that consistency in fairness is the key. In my opinion, exercising the Golden Rule in my personal life and my business life has been the key to my success as a leader. It is good to be respected and loved, but an even better feeling is to know that even the people who may not love you, at least respect you for your integrity and fairness. Unfortunately, I have started to see an increase in tyrannical business leaders, some who get great results and some who don’t, and have therefore realized that it isn’t the atmosphere for me.
Excellent comment and i fully agree with you. I think the best results are achieved in a safe environment. Yes we can be successful in a culture of fear, but i’m convinced it would be even greater success without the fear.
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink