Are Rude and Aggressive Managers Destroying Your Business?

We have become accustomed to the hard nosed manager that guides employees on the really important aspects of business. The problem is, such managers, even though well intentioned, lower satisfaction in the workplace and are counterintuitive to development. A study of 200 full-time adults found that positive relationships superseded mentoring even though both contributed to organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010).

The image of the strong and tough manager that gives it to their employees straight is something that should be left in the manufacturing plants of yesteryear. The same can be said of the sarcastic and aggressive personality we often associate with upward mobile career oriented people. Their ability to develop greater commitment and satisfaction among employees is likely as them having a sunny disposition.

Researchers found that mentoring behaviors and positive verbal communication created higher levels of communication satisfaction, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The opposite occurred when the managers were seen as verbally aggressive. Rude and aggressive managers may just be destroying your organization.

In a nutshell people didn’t like working with aggressive managers and often shun interacting with and listening to their needs. Companies that fill their ranks with gruff management personalities may find their turnover rates, absenteeism, industrial unrest, and commitment at rock bottom (Hargie, Tourish, & Wilson, N., 2002). The end result can be expected, as employees opt for better environments.

The next time your organization seeks to select a new manager consider the personality as an important predictor of results. Doing so may just help your organization foster the motivation and commitment needed to master the complex environments it navigates in. Seek those personalities that can hold people accountable, mentor them to the next level, and still maintain positive communication.

Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of

increased information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39,

414-436.

Madlock, P. & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of supervisors’ verbal aggressive and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47 (1)

Funny Reasons Why Employees Call in Sick

Career Builder recently released statistics on some of the most outrageous excuses for missing work. Over the past year 28% of employees called in sick which is an improvement over the 32% the previous year.  When probed for a reason 30% stated they simply didn’t feel like going to work, 29% said they wanted to relax, 21% to attend a doctor’s visit, 19% to catch up on sleep and 11% wanted to avoid bad weather. 

Considering that employees in professional positions don’t generally provide a reason to use their personal/sick days there is little reason to track these statistics. One could simply decide to watch reruns of Lost and that would be excuse enough under company policies. Those who do not have an allotment of sick or personal days must call in with a reason or risk termination. 

Some of these excuses boarder on being quit funny and seem to beg employers to question their legitimacy. A few interesting top responses employers reported are:

1. Employee just put a casserole in the oven.
2. Employee’s plastic surgery for enhancement purposes needed some "tweaking" to get it just right.
3. Employee was sitting in the bathroom and her feet and legs fell asleep. When she stood, up she fell and broke her ankle.
4. Employee had been at the casino all weekend and still had money left to play with on Monday morning.
5. Employee woke up in a good mood and didn't want to ruin it.
6. Employee had a “lucky night” and didn’t know where he was.
7. Employee got stuck in the blood pressure machine at the grocery store and couldn't get out.
8. Employee had a gall stone they wanted to heal holistically.
9. Employee caught their uniform on fire by putting it in the microwave to dry.
10. Employee accidentally got on a plane.

Employers sometimes require the employee to provide some type of proof.  Sixty-six percent (66%) of employers required a doctor’s note, 49% called the employee and 15% drove by an employee’s house.  When unconvinced 18% of employers stated they fired employees for not being honest about their reasons. 

Employers should use wisdom when cracking down on employee sickness in low-wage fields where employees don’t have the same flexibility as other jobs. At times managers may not allow employees to schedule a day off in advance, may not want to discuss their medical issues with their employer, or may have an appointment they can’t get out from.  

On a positive note a total of 53% have gone into work even though they were actually sick. A total of 38% went into work sick because they could not afford to be set back on their paychecks.  It would appear that the far majority of employees seek to come to work even when they are not ill and generally don’t miss work when unless they have to. Managers should consider these statistics before assuming employees are being dishonest.

The Career Builder Survey

Conference: Legal & Effective Discipline & Documentation

In our litigious society, it has become more and more important for supervisors to know how to document and discipline employees to avoid law suits and manage employee performance effectively.
“If It Wasn’t Documented It Didn’t Happen: Legal & Effective Discipline & Documentation” on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 .

Areas covered in the topic

• Analyzing poor work performance & help employees turn it around
• Avoiding the negative consequences of inadequate documentation & discipline
• Utilizing the range of disciplinary options.
• Responding quickly and appropriately to common disciplinary infractions
• Keeping a legal Performance Log
• Distinguishing between subjective and objective documentation
• Working with employees to develop Performance Improvement Plans
• How to write a performance improvement plan
• Filling out formal HR disciplinary paperwork
• Protecting yourself and your organization from legal landmines
• And much more!! 

Exclusive Q&A session following the live event to get advice unique to your situation, directly from our expert speaker

If interested, please click the following link to register and get your early bird discount :

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Please apply discount code "E99NACK2" at checkout to get an additional $20 discount on registration.

Call 800-223-8720 for special discount on group pricing.

Biology and Personality Influence Communication Styles

The authors Waldherr and Muck (2011) discuss how biology and personality contribute to communication behavior. They advocate embedding language into the Five-Factor Theory to better assess language as a characteristic adaptation to personality. The arguments put forward in their literary research lean more heavily on personality as a key factor that has two major running themes. 

Communication is a circular process as each of the actors is both the communicator and the recipient at various times during a discussion (Schramm, 1954).  Each person encodes, interprets and decodes messages differently making the communication process unique. Most of this process is internal to the individual and cannot be easily evaluated. Focusing on verbal, non-verbal and para-verbal language cues can help in evaluating communication patterns. 

Communication is seen as a reoccurring behavioral pattern that is personality based. It is expressed in varying ways in different situations to achieve directed goals. How one communicates in one situation or in a next will have similar deeply embedded goals and expressive styles even though the terms, words, and mannerisms may be situational. 

Communication behavior can be seen as “the way one verbally or para-verbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood” (Norton, 1978, p. 99). It is viewed as a stable pattern of behavior that stays relatively consistent across varying situations.  It is commonly believed that the two major themes of assertiveness and responsiveness exist across all communicative behavior (Burgoon and Hale, 1987)

Personality and communication can also be integrally tied together. Communication is personality driven and is based within a person’s biology (Beatty and McCroskey, 1998).  Individuals are predetermined to communicate in certain manners based upon their genetic makeup expressed within the environment. How a person communicates and whether or not a person communicates is rooted in their personality development.

Behavior and personality often mesh within the Five-Factor Theory of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa, 1996). The biology of a person predisposes them to certain types of traits that mix with their personality which are expressed in certain ways that are influenced by situational factors. These situational factors are dependent on culture, education, experience, and other life influences.

A person’s can also influence communication through a self-construct. This construct is dependent on how a person views themselves in terms of being independent or interrelated to others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Self-construct is how a person views themselves in relation to others based upon values, beliefs, manners, skills, and a whole host of other issues. When self-construct changes it creates natural changes in communicative patterns.

The authors believe that it is important to define communication as personality rooted in the Five-Factor Theory. They also believe that communication follows two general patters of assertiveness or responsiveness. Assertiveness is the desire to dominate others while responsiveness is more closely akin to love and interrelatedness. These two themes make their way throughout the varying learned communication skills people develop over time.

The implications of the study suggest that learned skills and experiences enhance an employee’s communication skills. The patterns of communication will remain relatively the same but the complexity by which they express themselves will grow and develop over time. Business students should learn proper communication skills in order to fully express themselves in appropriate ways to others within the workplace. The learned skills can influence everything from workplace conflict to customer service and could have an impact on the bottom line. This is why it is important to hire for personality and train for skills.

Beatty, M. J. & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. A. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41_67). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Burgoon, J. K. & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19_41.

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224_253.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51_87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Norton, R. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99_112.

Schramm, W. (Ed.). (1954). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Waldherr, A. & Muck, P. (2011). Towards an integrative approach to communication styles: the interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor theory of personality as frames of reference. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 36 (1).

Having Difficult Conversations with Employees

Serious conversations within the workplace can be difficult for even the most seasoned managers. Managers are often at a crossroads when trying to determine whether to avoid or initiate conversations of destructive employee behavior. Jacquelyn Polito discusses four related approaches that may help managers break through those difficult barriers while still addressing the essential issues (2013). As with all highly emotional discussions, there are a number of considerations to think about before moving forward.

Stone’s Five Steps to Productive Conversation (Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2010):

            1. Understand the three points of view that are going to be seen within the conversation.

                        -Get the facts and be open to new facts.

                        -Understand your emotions with the issues.

                        -Understand what is at stake.

            2.  Ensure that the conversation is worth having and if it is the best approach.

            3.  Explain the story from a third party’s point of view to reduce conflict.

            4. Explore both your and their sides of the story.

            5. Problem solve to rectify the situation. 

Leebov’s Caring Feedback Model (Leebov 2010): To provide caring feedback without stepping down.

            1. State your purpose in positive terms.

            2. State the situation and behavior in clear terms.

            3.  State the consequences on others when such behavior continues.

            4. Use empathy.

            5.  Make it a dialogue, allow for responses, and ask questions.

            6.  State your request and expectations in clear terms. 

Ury’s Break Through Strategies (Ury 1993): A model to break through the barriers to resolution that include emotions, power, position, dissatisfaction and reaction.

            1. Imagine you are looking down on your conversation and avoid reaction or giving in.

            2.  They may show anger, hostility, resentment, or aggressiveness. Avoid engaging in argument in the way they expect and continue to work on problem solving.

            3. Don’t reject their position only reframe it.

            4. If the employee doesn’t want to see the mutual benefits don’t push simply explain how it benefits all parties.

            5. Educate them on the futile nature of not working with others and achieving mutual goals. 

Crawford’s Workplace Issue Discussion (Crawford 2008): The manager should assume the leadership role, be calm, and directly address the behavior while being concise.

            1. Describe the purpose of the meeting.

            2. Describe the behavior.

            3. Listen to the reaction.

            4. Agree on the resolution and set expectations.

            5. Hear employees side of story.

            6. Work on problem-solving and collaboration.

            7. Document discussion.

            8. Reinforce.

Crawford D. (2008). We need to talk: ten scenarios to practice handling needed conversations. Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM. Retrieved October 7^th, 2013 at http://www.shrm.org/education/hreducation/documents/we%20need%20to%20talk.pdf

Leebov W. (2010). Elevating performance: how to raise the bar. Wendy Leebov, Inc. Retrieved  October 7^th, 2013 at http://www.quality-patient-experience.com.

Polito, J. (2013). Effective communication during difficult conversations. Neurodiagnostic Journal, 53 (2).

Stone, D., Patton, B., and Heen, P. (2010). Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. New York: Penguin Books.

Ury W. (1993). Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

Book Review: When Generations Collide

When Generations Collide, by Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman, provide insight into the manners, decision making choices, values and work habits of four generations within the workplace. The Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists each have their own perception and needs within the workplace. Understanding how these generations act and interact with their environment fosters better ways of encouraging cross-generational understandings.

The book discusses concepts including generational turbulence, WWI to WWII, race, religion, gender, language, and different approaches to management. Understanding how each generation views the workplace and sees their contribution to the environment is important for managing these different vantage points within the workplace. Furthermore, the book also provides some insight on how to get these groups to work more closely together and understand each other.

There is an outline of the approximate generational groups:

1.) Traditionalists
2.) Baby Boomers
3.) Generation X
4.) Millennial

The work is written through a case study and employee perspective. It doesn't provide a lot of hard facts on the concepts but does offer a level of discussion that the majority of managers will understand. The book is not also academic by nature but would have been a worthwhile read in the past. The book is now considered out of date and uses some incorrect terminology. It is suggested you find an updated version

Blog Ranking: 3-1 (age of book)=2.0
Additional Source: Website for an overview.
Cost:  $7.00 New (I bought mine for $1.00 used).
Pages: 384

Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide. New York: HarperCollins. ISB: 0-06-662107-0