Subscribe to our blog!

Your email:

Leverage Points Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Why Do Bosses Behave as Dictators? A Systems Perspective

 

By Chetan Dhruve

If you’ve worked for any length of time, you’ve almost certainly Chainhad a bad boss. A bad boss can blight our existence in a way that no one else can.

The thing is, although bad bosses are a common phenomenon the world over, we still react the same way when we have one. We say, “My boss is bad.” The implication is that it’s the fault of the individual boss. But since bad bosses are everywhere and have been around practically forever, it’s time to address the issue in a radically different manner. We need to ask: “Rather than bosses being individually bad, is there something about the system that automatically produces bad bosses?”

So instead of blaming individuals, let’s examine the system. As a reader of the Leverage Points blog, you’re already familiar with systems thinking (ST). But ST has many variants, offshoots, and philosophies. Hence please bear with me while I describe the version of ST I’m going to be using—the version developed by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy.

The Bertalanffian System

In this version of ST, a system is defined as an entity that maintains its existence due to the mutual interaction of its parts. The critical part of this definition is the word “interaction”—without the interaction, the entity cannot exist.

Take water as an example. Water is a system—without the interaction between hydrogen and oxygen, water cannot exist. A property of water—liquidity—is termed an “emergent property.” This is because water emerges from the interaction of its parts (hydrogen and oxygen). The emergent property of liquidity cannot be found in the constituent parts, which are gases. It’s quite incredible, when you think about it, that a gas interacting with another gas produces a liquid.

What does this have to do with you and your boss? Well, every human relationship is a system, because the existence of a relationship depends on the interaction of its parts (human beings). Since all human relationships are systems, the relationship between you and your boss is also a system. What kind of system is it? To answer this question, let’s look at what bosses are called in the workplace.

Bosses in today’s organizations are labeled “leaders”—team leader, group leader, project leader, and so on. Presumably this is done so that bosses behave as leaders. But are bosses really leaders? To find out, we first need to define the word “leader.”

In the context of interpersonal relationships, there’s only one objective definition: A leader is someone’s who’s elected to lead by those s/he is leading. You can be a tremendous orator, a great visionary, an inspiring figure, a consensus-builder, or whatever. But if you’ve not been elected, you’re not a leader.

Similarly, let’s define “dictator.” A dictator is someone with power over you, over whom you have no voting rights. Hence, your boss is a dictator by definition. It’s important to understand that this is true of all bosses—not just the nasty ones. Further, because your boss is a dictator, you are a subject. And the relationship between you and your boss is a dictatorship system.

What are the emergent properties of a dictatorship system? For the subjects, it’s fear. For the dictator, it’s the abuse of power. At the workplace, fear doesn’t have to be body-shaking terror. It could be something as simple as someone not speaking up in a meeting. Remember this is an emergent property of the boss-subordinate relationship—the subordinate could be a very assertive person outside of work. Power abuse doesn’t mean being nasty; it could be your boss stating, “Any questions?” in a way that means, “I don’t want any.” Again, this lack of openness is an emergent property—this boss could be perfectly nice and approachable outside of work.

There’s more to this dynamic. Sometimes, subordinates do muster up the courage to speak, only to be labeled “whistleblowers.” They lose their jobs and have their careers ruined because the dictatorship system hits back with a vengeance. The consequences, while terrible for the individual whistleblower, can be disastrous for organizations too. Take, for example, the recent BP oil spill.

(Check here for the second part of this post, in which Chetan explores how this organizational structure can lead to crises such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and presents ideas for shifting this counterproductive dynamic.)

Chetan DhruveChetan Dhruve is the author of Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss (Marshall Cavendish, 2007). He has worked for IBM, Cisco Systems, and the Department for International Development. He is also the cofounder of several Internet start-ups. Chetan has an MBA from Cass Business School (London), an MA in international journalism from City University (London), and a BSc in Mathematics, Physics, and Electronics from St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore University.

 Chain photo by Toni Lozano

systems thinker free issueStop giving in to inefficiency.

Find out how systems thinking can maximize your organization's potential.

Get your free issue of The Systems Thinker newsletter today!  

Comments

I the use of the term "Dictatorship" as a container for the discussion. Wondering what alternatives to "Dictatorship" could exist in the workplace, and what examples of alternative methods are there.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:04 AM by Chris M Abbey
Chetan, 
 
Thanks for taking the lead in this very important topic. It is really all around us, yet we often take it for granted and even play a significant role ourselves as subordinates. 
 
Keeping quiet in the meeting and lamenting with colleagues about "bad boss" in the kitchen is the start of a vicious cycle - for the health of the team, group. 
 
The ones that say something in the meeting, even only asking questions are often pushed out by others (colleagues and bosses), pretty much the same as a new liver or heart, only that the impact is more subtle and will come over time (long after the person is out of the "game"). Then nobody understands, what really has happened and can see the dynamics in which everybody has played a role. 
 
Why not changing the roles for some time? So everybody gets a feeling what it is to stand in someone's shoes. 
 
Cheers, Ralf
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:14 PM by RalfLippold
Chris, the key is to aim for a power balance between the boss and subordinate, so that the resultant emergent property is freedom. I've talked about the alternative in the next post coming out.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:08 AM by Chetan Dhruve
Ralph, the example of the new liver or heart being pushed out is brilliant.  
 
That's pretty much why training doesn't really work – because the 'new' person (after the training) goes back into the old system, which will reject anything new that doesn't fit in.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:21 AM by Chetan Dhruve
Chetan -  
 
This is a very insightful article! I've started reading your book and love it so far! 
 
Having "been there done that" from both a manager and employee perspective, it does come down to the "work environment" being "the common denominator system"... both from the perspective of limiting the manager and the employee. There are other factors that greatly affect the manager-employee relationship basis and the success of the business: 
1. The core Founding business vision and mission 
2. The strength of the personal philosophy of the leaders ... CEOs, etc. 
3. The priority of creating an open, stimulating, innovative workplace where respect, equality and fairness is paramount in the implementation of the Business' Vision and Mission statement. 
 
I've had the good fortune of working in a startup where the Founder's vision held true (for the most part) to the above. However, a few months after the founders departure, the work place environment and the "system of systems", some of which you describe, went in to disrepair. This was about 5 years after the founding event; 4 years after the environment had degraded into a "common place" environment subject to some of the rules and observations that you mention here in your article and more in depth with your book. 
 
I feel that these Businesses and these situations "self-correct" by either going out of business or becoming "just another workplace". However, by then, severe damage to both the employee and the business is done; most of the top talent observe these system dynamics and leave for a better manager and work environment. 
 
I feel that there is no substitute to having a strong set of leaders and managers that focus on some of the above priorities in a "Continuous Improvement" fashion and are bold enough to "throw away" value systems that simply do not add long term business, employee and workplace value. Awareness and education helps, but the large and legacy workplaces are subject to most of the weaknesses of the human condition - power, greed (management bonuses!), decision by committee and fear (both the manager and employee).  
I can't wait to read part two of your article! 
Cheers, 
Atul 
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:01 AM by Atul Patel
I wish you could explain this to Atlanta's Chamber of Commerce, Board of Education, Dr. Beverly L. Hall, Bill Gates, Broad, Arne Duncan, Mr. Obama, and those proponents of running schools like businesses.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:52 PM by Patrick Crabtree
Hi Patrick, 
 
PeterSenge, had some interesting thoughts on "running schools [NOT] running like businesses". 
 
http://www.theconnection.org/?s=peter+senge
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:37 PM by RalfLippold
Atul, 
 
Thank you so much.  
 
You hit the nail on the head when you speak about the weaknesses of the human condition (power, greed etc). The problem is that most organizations act as though these weaknesses don't exist, and pretend that all boss/leaders behave as idealized human beings. Hence, organizations (particularly the human resource function) do not have a “bad boss” policy, ie there is no process in place that tells an employee what to do if s/he feels s/he has a bad boss.  
 
I absolutely agree that there is no substitute for having a strong set of leaders – strong on values, principles, ethics, open-ness and so on. Given the weaknesses of the human condition, we need to take these weaknesses into account while designing the workplace system. Instead, these weaknesses are currently glossed over or worse, applauded when the going is apparently good (eg power hungry CEOs going all out for profits, ignoring risks - eg investment banks, BP etc).  
 
As you've also said, situations are self correcting (business dies), but the damage has already been done. Individuals' lives are damaged forever – with a lot of collateral damage to the family of the individual and even colleagues. This is particularly true of whistleblowers. When they do their jobs by revealing unpalatable truths, they are targeted, hounded out and have their careers ruined.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 12:36 AM by Chetan Dhruve
The attitudes mentioned above are often tacit and deep-seated,  
making them very difficult to change. 
I'm 55, and there has been more than one occasion in my career where 
I left an organization because  
management did not want to interfere with a bullying or  
dictatorial supervisor. 
I told them as much when I left, but they felt their approach  
was the only viable one.  
A number of them are no longer in business, perhaps due to different  
factors than management style. 
People become obsessed with their  
position and power; deep-seated  
psychological issues contribute to  
this. My experience tells me the  
people who push hardest to get  
management positions are often  
those with deep-seated needs to  
have power over others. Some  
overcome the initial impetus to  
bully, becoming good or great  
managers. Unfortunately, others never overcome this, and their  
organizations' mission suffer.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 9:24 AM by Tom Clifford
i fully agree,,, 
 
 
 
solution 
 
all people need to be educated to know the diffrence on what is a serving leader what is a bully.. 
 
this became very important. 
 
 
 
group who can not distinguish the diffrence are leaning towards thinking bully behav\iour is a sign of leadership.. 
 
which is not.. 
 
but this behaviour is getting tobe accepted and copied by young.. soooo what is happrning is we are floding the world with bullies as leaders.. 
 
 
 
please lets help bulies they are in need of help as health and threaphy.. not ceil.. but first we need to define all different models of leadership for diffrent sectors and departments.. 
 
there has to be a slight diffrence in military leadership model and nursing home director model. 
 
the school administrator and the church administrator and the university and the shopping mall administrator. 
 
 
 
lets think aND DO SOME WORK. 
 
 
 
nnm
Posted @ Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:09 PM by nihal "nicky" muradoglu
Comments have been closed for this article.