Analysis Of Justin Racz's 50 Bosses Worse Than Yours

The ability to identify and solve a workplace problem is an integral managing ability. Cliffe et al.’s article, “What a Star—What a Jerk,” (2001) focuses on a manager in a new position who is having problems with an aggressive, but talented, employee. Though the difficult worker in the article is a subordinate, I view the manager, Jane, as the cause of most issues. Jane demonstrates that she is not manager material by running to her old co-worker with every problem, gossiping about her subordinates, complaining about basic managerial duties, and handling insubordination poorly. Through her behavior as a manager, Jane reminds me of Susan , a manager whom I recently had to suffer through working under. Although my situation is not exactly like that in the article, I understand how it feels to work for someone who acts inappropriately, causes conflict in the workplace, and lacks crucial leadership skills.

There are more than 11,000 employees employed at the Navy Federal Credit Union. There are 250 branches around the world. A good majority of the employees work in a traditional working environment. A survey on the Navy Federal Credit Union was conducted and showed that 94 percent of the employees think that they have a great boss. Within that category 74 percent of the employees said “managers often or almost always act with integrity and care, are competent in their positions and provide clear directions and vision for the organization. Another 15 percent say their managers sometimes display these characteristics” (http://reviews.greatplacetowork.com/navy-federal-credit-union). Overall the employees feel that their jobs are secure, the

In the article, “How to Deal with a Difficult Boss”, by Donna Brown Hogarty, she discusses the many types of “bad” bosses. The article focuses on these specific groups: The Bully, The Workaholic, The Jellyfish, The Perfectionist, and The Aloof Boss. The topic of this essay will be that of the Perfectionist Boss. The Perfectionist Boss is described by Nancy Ahlrich, a college graduate, as someone who would appear over her shoulder and inspect her work. She states, ‘I felt belittled by his lack of confidence in me’ (99). In this article we learn that the Perfectionist Boss can be nit-picking, discouraging and someone who ‘needs to find something to worry about’, as stated by Leonard Felder. (99).

I believe that for bosses to be effective that they should take the steps needed to ensure that they are feared rather than loved as seen as many rulers of various countries of the world. If they are feared rather than loved then that country that has the feared leader will be a strong country as seen in multiple times periods throughout history. We will look at the time period where Cesare Borgia was a feared leader and not a loved ruler. We will also look at the time period where Joseph Stalin was a feared leader.

I was shocked to witness others, who in fear of their jobs, partnered themselves with such a negative individual. Proverbs 22:24-25 warns us to “make no friendship with a man given to anger, or go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare” (NEV). In contrast to narcissism, Fischer (2012) recommends for leaders to be people-focused, building a covenant with employees. I often wonder if this person ever changed his management style and found happiness in

Throughout history, the concept of “Bad Bosses” has been displayed in various types of literature. These various types of literature range from plays, to poems, and even short stories. Although the literature stated above may be different types, they all have potential to share the same aspect. The aspect that is similar to all the literary works we have reviewed over the course of the semester was bad bosses and how bad bosses have changed for the better or for the worst as time progresses.

The boss Bill Lumbergh plays favorites, doesn’t run the office effectively, and lacks the principles that a leader should have. This steers employees to be very unhappy at their job, to be treated unfairly, and not want to respect the company. None of these characters seem to think through any of their decisions. They all acted and awaited the consequences. I think many of these ethical issues could have been avoid if the company was ran appropriately, leaders acted in a way to be respected, and the employees enjoyed their job and were rewarded suitably. It is hard for employees to be motivated when the ones who were not doing their job promoted and those who work hard were seen getting

My experience with a poor supervisor led to my change in changing divisions in my organization. In 2003, my supervisor was such a bad leader that I was forced to change from operations to information systems. His leadership style was corrosive due to his passion for his own success and not the others around him. Callousness leaders are uncaring for their subordinates and others around them (Manning & Curtis, 2015). This attitude created a high turnover rate in his department due to his insensible behavior toward others.

Corporate environments and up-to-the-minute organizations are breeding grounds for bossy administration. Org charts and denomination skew power toward the top and bake in incentives for sullenness-level staffers to shut down and comply. The result is straitjacketed thinking—with little flow of knowledge from followers to leaders. In this sort of civilization, diminishers may turn tyrants, heaping on anxiety. So when they ask for, or even imposition, employees’ boldest thinking, they hardly receive it: The more treacherous nine members feel, the safer their ideas

Managing the boss begins with understanding the boss. As followers, we need to recognize the pressures our superiors face, their strengths and weaknesses, and their preferred working styles. Some leaders seek detailed background information, whereas others want only the facts. Some leaders are readers who like information in report form, whereas others are listeners who prefer information presented in person so that they can ask questions. High-involvement bosses want to be consulted every step of the way; low involvement managers delegate instead.

J.J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter (1993) claim that the key to managing up is to remember that you are involved in a "mutually dependent relationship between two fallible human beings," as stated in the article titled "Managing Your Boss" in the Harvard Business Review. The article explains that bosses may be more dependent on their employees to develop practical solutions to problems all the while striving to achieve the bosses’ goals, which in turn should align with the organization’s goals. (Gabarro/Kotter, 1993)

Until a few decades ago, it was a commonly prevalent notion in the corporate sector that organizations are operated by capital and top leadership where as the employees are to follow the lead as they are told to. This meant that employees were simply expected to walk on the line given to them to attain the desired results without giving much of their own input. Under such circumstances, leaders were defined as commanders and controllers and were assumed to be people who held certain authority and position in the organizations, while the rest of the employees were treated as mere subordinates, whose only motivation was considered to be financial incentives.

Adding fuel to an already explosive situation, by making changes to company policy should be avoided at all costs. However, as Machiavelli suggests that a boss “by birth [has] less need to harm his[/her]” employees, thus putting some of the fears towards the new boss to rest (8).

Leaders that are successful in today’s business environment must understand that success does not happen overnight. The process is long and sometimes very time consuming, making the percentage of successful leaders very small. When planning an important group to take into account is human resource. Having the trust and buy in from the line staff is critical to the overall success as a leader. We have all had that leader that seems to only be number or result driven, that only makes decisions based on what is best for the bottom line. Usually these leaders have high turnover and do not last as long as the employees that are able to stick around through their tenure. In this paper I will provide examples of leaders that have fell into these six pitfalls, how it affected the team and what they could have done differently.

Gone are the 1950s, where the domineering “Mad Men” style run rampant through many corporations. Also absent are 1990s Fortune 500 bosses that treated employees like weekend surfing buddies. While those may have worked for the time, there are a few specific traits that a leader of the 21st century needs to employ.