Surviving the Bully Boss

Many people think they have the world's worst boss.

These bosses are domineering, unreasonable and downright ornery.

They make our lives so miserable that we dream of the day when we can walk out and begin to live normally.
Bosses like this affect not only us, but our families, as well.

We go home each night exhausted, frustrated and so unhappy that it becomes impossible to enjoy our family and friends.

We create our own "happy places" where we can escape from the tyrant that is running - and ruining - our lives. Winning the lottery takes on a whole new meaning for people who are being bullied at work.

We ask ourselves why this is happening to us. We re-live each traumatic moment, asking ourselves what we can do to stop the torment that our jobs have become - short of quitting, that is.

Abandoning a job means giving up any seniority we have gained and accrued benefits, as well.
Insurance, vacation and other perks are what keeps us going, in many cases.

My own experience has led me to some basic conclusions:

Dealing with a bully boss may require going to a higher source to seek remedy.

- If you've exhausted all efforts to deal with the boss directly, file a formal grievance with the company. Keep accurate, detailed notes about what happened and when so you'll be prepared to adequately back up your claims.

- If you receive no relief from this grievance, or, heaven forbid, there is no formal grievance policy, don't give up!

- If you and your boss work for a company that is owned by a larger company, go on the Internet and look up the parent company. Check to see if there is a mission statement and/or code of ethics that guide the larger company. Your smaller arm of the parent company is obliged to follow the guidelines of the parent company, so it could be that your boss is in violation of the company's policies.

- If either a mission statement or a code of ethics is posted, and either is contrary to the behavior of your boss, report the bullying conduct to the parent company.

- If you fall into any of the EEOC's protected groups - age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, race, religion or pregnancy - go to that website and get information on how to file a harassment complaint.

Finally, don't forget your friends and colleagues.

If you've been suffering through the grief your bully boss is dishing out, your co-workers probably have been, too. Engage them to join in your mission to help get your company back on track. Keep in mind, however, that if this bully's tactics of coercion, intimidation and threats have been effective, your friends may be afraid to come forward.

If this happens, just keep on keeping on in your own, professional way. Your perseverance will be silently appreciated by others who are suffering, and this alone can be a great morale booster, giving you the energy to keep up the good work.

In the end, everybody will be a winner, including the bully. He or she can either learn a whole new management style or practice his bullying at another company where it is acceptable.

As someone who has been through the agony of a bully boss, I've found it quite helpful to understand a little bit about the nature of the beast.

After a good amount of research, I've come to the conclusion that the axis of this evil often lies in the management style of the one who is torturing us, and understanding the different styles and what professionals have had to say about them is very helpful.

To narrow this, most bosses can be categorized one of two basic ways - either he/she is authoritative or he/she is democratic.

Experts say these two styles of management both have their merits and shortcomings, so it's hard to find any source that will say which is more effective.

They add that the management style policy of a company depends on the general nature and cultural framework of the organization.

Likewise, the country where a business operates is important because laws and employment policies of the country weigh in heavily on decisions that companies make regarding management styles.

Unfortunately, many American employees live in Employment-At-Will states, where the company nearly always holds the upper hand and employees have little recourse in protecting themselves against these so-called bully bosses.

Wikipedia says that "at-will employment is a creation of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:
any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

"Several exceptions to the doctrine exist.

"Although at-will employment allows an employee to quit for no reason, the rule that either party can terminate the relationship is most often invoked when an employer wants to fire an employee at any time. Since this practice virtually eliminates job security, it can create an atmosphere of fear that may contribute to workplace bullying.

"However, there are limitations upon the employer's ability to terminate without reason. As a means of downsizing, say closing an unprofitable factory, a company may fire employees en masse."

Still, the aim of any management style is to motivate employees to produce their best work, so a company's chosen management style will either increase its employees' work morale and thus their overall productivity, or it will diminish both.

And, if both are diminished, the profitability of the company will head south. And if that happens, customers, investors and even the employees themselves are negatively affected.

In deciding on the management style it advocates, a company has to determine its goals - both short- and long-term. Then, it must study the behavioral profile of its employees.

When both of these tasks are complete, the company will determine the most suitable management style.

No matter which style the company chooses, an effective flow of communication between all levels of the organization is necessary, for without adequate communication, no management style can operate.

Those who support the authoritative management style believe that, by nature, people do not like to work.

Further, they believe that without coercion and intimidation, people will generally not give an organization their best work performance.

Thus, those who subscribe to this style believe that the only way to get the best performance from employees is to force them to work through these coercive management policies and guidelines.

They believe that employees must tow the line, without benefit of the ability to express their opinions or participate in any aspect of the decision-making process.

Further, they believe that the motives of the employees will always conflict with that of the company, so allowing the employees to make contributions or express opinions will only lead to problems within the company.

Shackleton (1995) wrote that leadership is about recognizing a goal and having the motivational power to influence a group towards achieving that goal. Thus, successful leadership means that the goal is achieved by the leader and the group.

Thus, with autocratic leadership, the manager retains the maximum amount of power that is possible. All decisions are derived from this leader and no consultation takes place.

Autocratic leadership is said to be "more traditional and classical," relying upon threats and punishment to influence employees.

UT (2001) argued that this style of management is effective:

- When there is limited time to make a decision;
- When there are new and untrained employees who do not know how to perform certain tasks;
- When effective supervision can be provided only by orders and instruction;
- When employees do not respond to other leadership styles;
- When work must be integrated with other departments.

Mintzberg (1979) described situations in which an autocratic style was most applicable.

Entrepreneurial organizations embody one of those situations. They are normally smaller businesses which develop from the ideas and entrepreneurial spirit of one person, who is responsible for their organization and makes all the decisions - the characteristics of an autocrat - so this style of management is commonplace in the entrepreneurial workforce, where stability is limited and the environment is rapidly changing.

Disadvantages to the autocratic style, again, according to UT, are:

· - When employees expect to have their opinions heard;
· - When employees become dependent upon the manager;
- When there is low morale, high staff turnover and absenteeism;
· - When employees become fearful, tense and resentful

Thankfully, autocratic leadership is becoming less and less feasible in the workplace today.

According to a research report by Steers et al (1985), there are five predominant reasons for low employee productivity:

- unappealing rewards,
- weak reference to performance-rewards,
- distrust of management,
- desire to have greater job control,
- lack of involvement.

And so, it would seem that an autocratic management style results in reduced productivity, as employees today are more resistant to exerted influence and power and this shows in their work.

Other of the more generally accepted management styles are democratic, bureaucratic and laissez-faire.

The bureaucratic style of leadership is closely associated with authoritarian, as these managers play by the rules, acting as a rule enforcer.

Like the authoritarian style, bureaucrats are more successful in more at-risk organizations, where legislation and procedure are large factors and where vast sums of money can be lost.

Also, the bureaucratic style is useful where employees are performing dangerous tasks. The setting of a routine method and standards are the key in these situations.

The danger of bureaucracy, according to my sources, is that employees may feel disinterested and get bored with their prescribed tasks - they may do only what is expected of them and nothing more. This leaves no room for creativity which is hugely important today in terms of innovating and prospering.

Thankfully, autocracy and bureaucracy have become outdated for several reasons, including poor motivation and work performance and the growth of trade unions.

Mutual communication and consultation are vital to ensure a healthy working relationship. If contemporary employees do not feel they have desirable conditions to work in then they will make this known and work will suffer as a consequence, wrote Bennis et al (1994).

So what do workers want?

The Institute of Personnel and Development (1997) named pay, trust of management, job satisfaction, fairness and delivery of managerial promises as prime motivators.

Equity theory is a philosophy proposed to explain these motivations in simpler terms. The basic premise of equity theory is that treatment is fair and that fundamentally I get an equated reward from my work that you get from your work.

A democratic leadership style may deliver some of these key motivational triggers. A democratic leader will develop a plan to help employees to improve their own performance and job satisfaction.

They will also encourage employees to share in decision-making processes and recognize quality performance.
Democracy encourages team building and participation and can benefit the organization in allowing increased creativity and morale.

Employee Involvement (EI) is a means of allowing employees to become more involved in decision making and have more influence over their jobs.

Marchington et al (1992) write of means of implementing schemes based around EI such as quality circles whereby a representative cross-section of employees are chosen to meet and resolve problems in conjunction with the democratic leader.

This, according to a study by Pasmore and Friedlander (1982), is of great benefit to the organization. They found that when the suggestions of the employees were taken up, overall employee performance grew significantly.

EI is related to autonomy, which gives employees a sense of freedom. It is argued that employees work far more productively when they are allowed to work without supervision and are allowed freedom to decide for themselves how their job is done - the polar opposite of autocracy.

However, this is largely dependent upon the individual as it can also be argued that this lack of supervision may lead to the worker's taking liberties and slacking from their task.

Mullins (1999) suggests several democratic philosophies which may lead to improved relations and improved productivity. They are:

- Consideration, respect and trust;
- Recognition and credit to employees;
- Involvement and availability within and to the employees;
- Fair and equitable treatment; and
- Individual treatment of employees

These philosophies relate further to the relationship between employee and leader.

This is where democratic leadership is beneficial in opposition to autocracy in that in the vast majority of scenarios the workforce will respond better under this style of command.

Democratic management allows employees the feeling of involvement and increased freedom. This in turn leads to job satisfaction and improved motivation which in turn lead to increased quality of work.

Democratic leadership, while attractive to employees, is not especially appealing to many managers - particularly those who class themselves as entrepreneurs.

Leaders such as this may feel threatened by a more democratic style. Likewise, when time is short and mistakes cannot be made, then autocracy is the better style in terms of decision making.

Laissez-faire leadership - whereby employees are left to make their own decisions with total autonomy - is more applicable when the skill level and competence of employees is high or when employees are known to be trustworthy and have a high level of pride in their own work.

Where laissez-faire falls down is when the decisions made are poor. This style lends itself to a scenario in which there is insecurity due to a lack of support and feedback.

To put it simply, the main leadership styles fall into two main categories - autocratic and democratic - with many sub-styles bridging the gap.

These different styles are applicable in different situations and organizational contexts. The chosen or adopted leadership style is the main factor that influences employee motivation and hence it is vital in ensuring sound productivity.

Finally, if your boss is a bully, don't give up on trying to rectify the situation.

Document, report and search for ways to improve your workplace situation. Your efforts may mean a great deal to your company, to your colleagues - and to your mental health.