Are You Training Your Managers to Motivate or Alienate?

Turning alienated employees into committed employees isn’t easy. However, managers can make the job easier if they know something about themselves and what they may be doing to create alienation in their direct reports.

Psychological Associates has developed models — systematic descriptions — of human behavior. One of these, the Dimensional^® Model of Managerial Behavior, casts a searching light on some of the things managers do that alienate direct reports. (See Figure 1)

What effect do these patterns of management have on alienation?

Well begin with Q1

A manager whos autocratic and manipulative (behavior that the Dimensional^® Model of Managerial Behavior labels as Q1) is almost sure to breed alienation in some direct reports.

Autocracy and Alienation

Alienated workers feel that they don’t count for very much. This feeling is reinforced, or perhaps even engendered, by autocratic managers who constantly put down their direct reports.

In effect, they say, “I’m paid to think. Youre paid to do what I tell you. When I want your opinion, I’ll ask for it. Until then, don’t give me any back talk.”

Even if they don’t actually say this — and most autocratic managers aren’t this blatant — they imply it by their actions. Their refusal to delegate serious responsibility, their insistence on keeping an eye on their people, their arbitrary decisions, lack of interest in direct reports ideas, and dogmatic insistence that things be done “my way” — all imply distrust and disdain.

Of course, not every employee is “turned off” by autocratic management. Some people, in fact, find “Big Brother” tactics reassuring; they take comfort in not having to think. However, unfortunately for the organization, employees who have the most to contribute are the most likely to be put off by overbearing authoritarianism. Their first reaction is likely to be frustration, which is followed by resentment and then, perhaps, activism. The intelligence, ingenuity, and inventiveness that should be turned to the company’s advantage end up being used against it.

Some Vital Distinctions

Unfortunately, managers rarely see themselves as their direct reports see them. What the manager considers decisive (“I don’t beat around the bush”), direct reports see as closed-minded (“Nobody else’s ideas are ever considered”). What the manager considers resolute (“I know how to stick to a decision”), direct reports see as “bulldozing ahead without listening to reason” — and so on.

In the end, of course, it’s the way direct reports see things that determines whether they’re going to be alienated. When a managers direct reports see autocratic, heavy-handed, and exploitative behavior day after day, expecting them to be dedicated and committed is totally unrealistic.

How About Q2 Management

Managers who are intent upon job security (behavior that the Dimensional^® Model of Managerial Behavior labels as Q2) operate on the premise that it’s harder to take shots at a low profile.

Therefore, they keep their profile as low as possible. In fact, they sometimes seem “invisible” — out of sight and, they hope, out of mind, especially their boss’s mind. Aloof and often inaccessible, they mind their own business and stay out of the line of fire; as they see it, managers who risk exposure are vulnerable, while those who dig a trench and stay in it are safe.

To make their offices a refuge from company politics and troubles, security-seeking managers are tight-lipped and noncommittal (“Managers who keep their mouths shut keep their jobs”). They consider inaction and vacillation "smart” (“Hot-shots come and go in this company — I came and stayed”).

Security-seekers are apathetic managers. The result, of course, is that many people who work for them gradually lose heart. Reporting to an alienated manager, the employees become alienated themselves.

A look at Q3

If ever there were a pattern of management you would not immediately associate with alienated direct reports, it would be the easygoing, benevolent pattern (behavior that the Dimensional^® Model of Managerial Behavior labels as Q3). Ironically, outgoing, relaxed managers can — and surprisingly often do — produce alienated direct reports. Believing that people will work their hearts out for a manager they like — a manager who exudes affection and concern — they sometimes succeed only in producing frustrated or indifferent direct reports.

In fact, the paradox of Q3 management is this: The harder managers try to make their departments “one big happy family,” the more they strain to be forbearing or even lax in their demands, the more likely they are to turn off and alienate some of their best employees.

The fact is that many people don’t want a womb-like job that envelops them in constant warmth and comfort. Nor do they want to work in a one-big-happy-family setting where constant good spirits prevail, failings are always condoned, and pressure and strain are as rare as glaciers in the desert.

For many people, the most disheartening thing about working for an acceptance-seeker is his/her persistent refusal to face unpleasant facts. Convinced that people are only happy in tranquility, and bent on making their direct reports happy, the acceptance-seeker spends much time fending off the ominous, the foreboding, and the troublesome. If a direct report comes to them with bad or dispiriting news, they either gloss over it (“Take it easy; it’s probably not as bad as you think”), promise to take action (“Ill fix the matter fast”) but never do, or pretend not to hear and change the subject. The idea is to make sure nobody gets demoralized or upset.

However, sometimes thats exactly what does happen. By refusing to heed bothersome facts, managers frequently upset their direct reports. They begin to feel a sense of futility and ineffectualness.

This is not to suggest that some people seek unending tribulation in their work. However, many people want and need challenges; they want to surmount barriers and contend with opposition. Only by testing and proving themselves do these people find satisfaction and fulfillment. By acting as pacifiers, acceptance-seeking managers cheat them of this opportunity. Like well-meaning but self-defeating parents, they never understand that, after a certain age, a security blanket may be an impediment to growth.

The Q4 Option

Because alienation is rarely, if ever, entirely the managers fault (many other factors usually contribute), it would be wrong to assert that Q4 management never alienates direct reports. However, it can be said that, other things being equal, its far less likely to alienate direct reports than the Q1, Q2, or Q3 patterns. Why?

The growth-seeking manager (behavior that the Dimensional^® Model of Managerial Behavior labels as Q4) generates commitment, as opposed to alienation, through participation — getting people involved in goal setting, problem solving, and decision making. Theres nothing wrong with this answer — as far as it goes — but it doesn’t go far enough.

It risks leaving the impression that the manager abdicates his/her responsibility by following the group, no matter where it leads. Participative management is sometimes seen as a “cop-out,” a high-sounding way of getting off the “managerial hook” by renouncing one’s power and surrendering to "popular demand."

Actually none of this is true. The growth-seeking manager does practice participative management, but he/she does so discriminatingly — only in certain situations, with certain direct reports, and with certain purposes in mind. It is never used to dodge responsibilities. It is one managerial tool among many — not a panacea, not a cure for every case of alienation. However, when used intelligently, discerningly, and selectively, participative management can diminish alienation.

How can a manager use participation intelligently, discerningly, and selectively? By keeping three things in mind:

• NOT ALL DECISIONS CALL FOR PARTICIPATION. Decisions fall into three categories: independent decisions — those that managers make alone because either time or the nature of the decision precludes consulting others; person-to-person decisions — those managers make after consulting one direct report; and team decisions — those managers make after consulting all (or most) of their direct reports.

Growth-seeking managers dont spend their time in an endless round of committee meetings, searching for the golden mean that will make everyone happy and relieve them of the burden of decision. In fact, they call all (or most) of their direct reports together only when the matter under discussion affects all of them and can best be settled by getting multiple viewpoints. Even then the consultation is precisely that: a consultation. The group meets not to take a vote, but to express ideas and contribute information.

The final decision is always the managers. No matter how much he/she seeks out others ideas, the weight of the decision is on the manager, and so is the accountability.

In the end, the managers are wholly answerable for whatevers decided. When they practice participative management, they do so to improve the quality and acceptability of their decisions, not to pass the buck.

• NOT EVERY DIRECT REPORT WANTS TO PARTICIPATE. Much of the literature on the subject makes it seem as if everyone is eagerly panting after the opportunity to sit down with the boss and “tell it like it is.” This is hogwash. Quite a few direct reports (the number varies from company to company) want nothing to do with participation. Quite a few others prefer game playing to participation.

For example, security-seeking direct reports usually want to be left alone; they feel threatened when asked to “participate.” If forced to do so, they usually freeze up and contribute practically nothing. Acceptance-seeking direct reports, on the other hand, usually seem fervent about participation, but what they call “participation” is really a gabfest in which they mostly socialize with one another.

They rarely speak out candidly or usefully. This doesn’t mean that Q4 managers should “give up” on such direct reports. However, they shouldnt demand participation or force it. Constructive participation (as opposed to “going through the motions”) cannot be coerced or compelled.

• LIKE IT OR NOT, HEAVY IS THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN. Growth-seeking managers don’t kid themselves by thinking that participative management makes their lives easy. Participative management helps them get better data, but it doesnt relieve them of the lonely — and sometimes painful — act of deciding; it helps some of their employees find greater fulfillment, but it doesn’t lighten their load of responsibility. When all’s said and done, they remain the managers — the only managers in their particular assignments. They cannot allocate or apportion or allot or assign their responsibilities to anyone. Participative management is merely a way of carrying out that responsibility more effectively; it is not a way of getting rid of responsibility.

Conclusion

As was said at the outset, turning alienated employees into committed employees isnt easy. However, it can be done. Growth-seeking, participative management — management that tries to make people feel they count for something — can actually eliminate alienation in some cases and lessen it in others. It may not be the whole answer, but it’s usually a big part of the answer. That’s a good enough reason to try it.