How Should HR Tackle the Challenge of Bad Bosses in the Workplace?

I read the presentation that Ramkumar provided (for those who have not read it, I have re-attached it to this post), and what the presentation said is completely right, that employees are not formally allowed to talk about bad bosses.

This is really true, and in so many topics on CiteHR, I am finding it impossible to find a topic with the subject of bad bosses. We all know that bad bosses exist but I think those of us in HR have a bigger responsibility in doing something about it. What should HR's role be? And firstly, I think we should formally (in our processes) start with the recognition that bad bosses exist. Until we do this, HR will be not be dealing with the no. 1 issue for employees, ie the boss.

Sorry, I forgot to attach the presentation. It is now attached to this post.

Hello nidhisk:

>... what the presentation said is completely right, that employees are not formally allowed to talk about bad bosses.<

Perhaps that is the case because there would be too much talk considering how many bad bosses there are.

>This is really true, and in so many topics on Cite HR, I am finding it impossible to find a topic with the subject of bad bosses.<

How many bad bosses would like to see themselves discussed in a public forum?

>We all know that bad bosses exist<

About 11% of the workforce are well suited to be managers of people.

>but I think those of us in HR have a bigger responsibility in doing something about it.<

I agree, but HR professionals must know how to identify future bad bosses before the job offer is made.

>What should HR's role be?<

HR is the first line of defense against bad bosses.

>And firstly, I think we should formally (in our processes) start with the recognition that bad bosses exist.<

More than we care to believe I suspect.

Bad bosses are bad for the health of their direct reports.

>Until we do this, HR will be not be dealing with the no. 1 issue for employees, IE the boss.<

If HR introduced the concept of hiring for talent, then the bad boss problem could be almost completely avoided.

How do you define talent?

How do you measure talent?

How do you know a candidate's talent?

How do you know what talent is required by each job?

How do you match a candidate's talent to the talent demanded by the job to be filled?

Managers who hire for talent know the answer to each question.

Attached again, please remember it is a PDF file, not a PowerPoint presentation.

Bob,

"HR is the first line of defense against bad bosses."

I agree, but I think very few people in HR think like this. And that is precisely the problem. In fact, I don't know of any organization in which HR staff are clearly told, "You are the first line of defense for people with bad bosses." This is because, short of doing anything illegal, bosses get away with anything, especially because of the need for subordinates to be seen as "team players" and "tough enough to take the heat".

Hello nidhisk:

"HR is the first line of defense against bad bosses."

"- I agree, but I think very few people in HR think like this."

I agree.

"And that is precisely the problem."

Even if they did think like that, would they do things differently? Probably not.

"In fact, I don't know of any organization in which HR staff are clearly told, 'You are the first line of defense for people with bad bosses.'"

I agree since the top executives don't know it either.

"This is because short of doing anything illegal, bosses get away with anything, especially because of the need for subordinates to be seen as 'team players' and 'tough enough to take the heat'."

You are correct.

The solution must start at the top. The CEO must be the spark that sets the organization on fire. CEOs are either fire starters or firemen who put out the fires of change.

When we show CEOs how to make the changes so that HR becomes the first line of defense against bad bosses, HR managers often protest the changes since it points out their failure to correct serious problems, e.g., bad bosses and high employee turnover, attrition.

Bob, the very fact that so few people have responded to this post shows that the issue of bad bosses is definitely not being taken seriously enough by HR professionals. No wonder HR is often seen as either irrelevant or simply an admin role, rather than a serious value-adding player to employees.

Dear Sir,

I'm preparing for an interview on the 5th. Please tell me the answers to your questions:

- How do you define talent?
- How do you measure talent?
- How do you know a candidate's talent?
- How do you know what talent is required by each job?
- How do you match a candidate's talent to the talent demanded by the job to be filled?

Thank you.

Dear Nidhi,

The issue of bad bosses is certainly a very sensitive issue and something which is present in every company. I agree with Bob that many HR people also do not have an idea that they are the first line of defense, but I believe that openness can come only when the top management supports you. Companies where your top management themselves don't have an idea of what HR is, what its role should be, and why it exists in the company, and they limit the HR purview to mere admin work, nothing of that openness in the culture can be inculcated.

Dear Shikhas,

CEOs look to HR to identify problems and offer solutions, and it is not an excuse for us in HR that the CEOs don't know about the issue or do not do anything. If the top people don't know about the issue, we should educate them. We should not just sit back and say, "this is not my problem," especially because employees are looking to us as their first line of defense.

Also, openness is impossible without changing the system, and if you haven't already read the presentation on systems thinking and leadership, please do so. Let me know if you are not able to open the file, and I will re-attach it.

The problem is that we in HR have bosses too, and we are as scared of our bosses as the regular employees. So, we are not going to do anything. I can guarantee that.

Nidhi,

What you are referring to is someone with "poor leadership qualities." I have seen many companies these days that provide training on "Leadership Skills," which helps managers to some extent. The business unit head and HR head have a huge role to play in guiding/coaching leaders with poor leadership qualities.

Per me,
- A leader with high performance but lacking leadership qualities must be provided training and close guidance/coaching by the unit head and HR. Ideally, the person should improve; if not, consider moving them to an individual contribution role.
- A leader with average performance and lacking leadership qualities must be placed under performance improvement or terminated.

As we know, prevention is better than cure. It's always good to stay in touch with team members, unit head, and HR to monitor how things are progressing and address issues at the initial stage. The unit head and HR play a major role in identifying such concerns and finding solutions.

Cheers,
KK

Hello nidhisk,

The very fact that so few people have responded to this post shows that the issue of bad bosses is definitely not being taken seriously enough by HR professionals. Perhaps they take it seriously but do not want to risk getting fired? It is the responsibility of the CEO to fix the organization. The HR department can offer to lead the way, but the CEO gets what he wants and what he deserves. No wonder HR is often seen as either irrelevant or simply an admin role, rather than a serious value-adding player to employees. I place the blame on the executive team, especially the top executive.

Employees are not stupid; they know when their assistance is wanted and when it isn't. Too many supervisors, managers, and executives never ask, and if they do ask, they reject the assistance if it doesn't conform to their preconceived ideas.

Hello kkhrprof:

Bosses do not need to be good leaders, but they do need to be effective managers.

Employers that train for leadership are hoping that their employees will lead themselves to job success&mdash;thus relieving the management team of actually having to manage their employees.

Employers need to train their employees to be good at their jobs, then train some employees to be good at supervising, and then train some supervisors to be effective at managing. Future executives then need to be trained as well.

The business unit head and HR head have a huge role to play in guiding/coaching leaders with poor leadership qualities.

Are all employees leaders?

A leader with high performance, who lacks leadership qualities, must be provided training and close guidance/coaching by the unit head and HR. It's good if the person changes; otherwise, move him/her to individual contribution.

I agree.

A leader with average performance and lacks leadership qualities must be kept under performance improvement and terminated.

I agree.

As we know, precaution is better than cure, it's always good to be in touch with team members and the unit head to see how things are happening and try to fix them at the initial stage. The unit head and HR play a major role in identifying such concerns and fixing.

If we assess for talent before the job offer, we can avoid most performance problems. Of course, the assessed applicants must also be competent and qualified to be hired.

Bob,

Thank you for the comments. It's my mistake that I have placed a leader in place of a supervisor :(..
I have learned how important it is to use the right words - once again, thanks Bob.

Cheers,
KK

KK, I would really urge you to read the "manifesto" that Ramk posted... you can pick it up from here.

ChangeThis :: Why Your Boss is Programmed to be a Dictator

It really brings home the importance of using the correct words.

Hello nidhisk:

The very fact that so few people have responded to this post shows that the issue of bad bosses is definitely not being taken seriously enough by HR professionals.

Could readers believe there is nothing that they can do about their bad bosses?

No wonder HR is often seen as either irrelevant or simply an admin role, rather than a serious value-adding player to employees.

I agree, but employees quickly learn their place. Job security may be more important than corporate change.

Bob,

"I agree, but employees quickly learn their place. Job security may be more important than corporate change."

I agree; employees quickly learn their place because their survival depends on it. And as you say, job security is more important than corporate change. But nonetheless, I feel that HR has a special responsibility in changing things. How else can HR justify being a value-add?

I am sure that the top executives of any organization look to HR for solutions, not just push paper. Since HR rarely, if ever, offers solutions, it is no small wonder that HR is routinely thought of as an admin department.

If not HR, then who? Employees are not in a position to change things as they are too caught up with their professional roles. Besides, it is not their main job.

By the way, have you read the "manifesto" ChangeThis :: Why Your Boss is Programmed to be a Dictator [URL="http://changethis.com/19.bossdictator"]

Thank you.

Hello nidhisk:

"... employees quickly learn their place because their survival depends on it."

Therefore, should we expect employees to put their careers at risk to do the job the CEO is paid to do?

"... job security is more important than corporate change."

I do think that this explains why most employees fail to take a stand for the good of their employer--it is not rewarded and all too often it is punished.

"... I feel that HR has a special responsibility in changing things."

Only if the CEO agrees.

"How else can HR justify being a value-add?"

HR may have a hard time justifying it but if the CEO fires the HR Manager how does that help?

"I am sure that the top executives of any organization look to HR for solutions, not just push paper."

Executives seldom ever mean changing their behaviors and most always mean changing other people's behaviors yet it is the executives' behaviors that must be changed.

"Since HR rarely, if ever, offers solutions, it is no small wonder that HR is routinely thought of as an admin department."

How many times does a new HR Manager need to have his recommendations rejected before he stops making recommendations?

"If not HR, then who?"

The CEO.

"Employees are not in a position to change things as they are too caught up with their professional roles. Besides, it is not their main job."

What is the CEO doing?

>By the way, have you read the "manifesto" [ChangeThis :: Why Your Boss is Programmed to be a Dictator](http://changethis.com/19.bossdictator)

We get what we hire.

If we want different behaviors from our managers, we need to change who we hire.