In the world of quality, the sentence is very often referred to: "In order to change the quality of the things that people do, it is necessary to change the quality of the people who do things". Reality that must be reviewed from time to time, even more if it is related to profitability in companies.
In 1995, an interesting book was published entitled "What Bad Bosses Cost" (Grijalbo), in which he did not refer precisely to the economic cost of poor managerial quality regarding work, product, use of tools, bad processes, losses, etc.., but with regard to the indirect impact that the personality and leadership style of managers has on productivity, costs, income and in general on the competitiveness of the company.
Although it is true that this aspect is an unknown reality, it is also true that little is done to effectively quantify this variable despite the fact that there are multiple studies that strongly and positively correlate job satisfaction with employee productivity and this with final income.
Therefore, it is important that employers never stop asking about the real cost generated by a manager who is not well regarded by his collaborators, or how responsible for the results is a manager indifferent to the minimum expectations of his workers, or a gossip, harassing, aggressive, critical, who does not print enthusiasm and commitment, who does not communicate properly, who mistreats or who does not generate sufficient confidence.
I do not deny that there may be managers with these characteristics and apparently successful in achieving economic objectives, but the million dollar question is , how much more would have been achieved with the support, identification, involvement and commitment of their collaborators?
Many analysts attribute the global crisis to business schools, due to their radical orientation towards training managers with a short-term vision and a lot of concern about the numbers to the detriment of other factors; Added to this is the disdain for training aimed at taking into account management indicators that cross profitability and leadership.
In our country there are no statistics on this topic, but in the United States of America it is reported that one in two workers has an abusive boss and one in five or six feel constantly emotionally abused at work.
This definitely has devastating effects in the short and long term, since it is known that approximately 80% of the work environment is derived from the personality and leadership style of the boss. It is also a time to ask ourselves more seriously about the relationship between rotation, talent drain, absenteeism, the rate of psychosomatic illnesses, lack of commitment, discouragement, rumors, etc. in our businesses, with the way of directing the direct bosses.
Now, let's imagine, if this happens with certain frequency in the private company, what is the cost that the enormous quantity of bad managers in this area would be causing to the State? If it were possible to determine (which should be done), rest assured that it would make any Minister of the Economy stand on end because of the tremendous impact on the national budget that this means.
Given this, there is a general qualitative and quantitative conviction that companies concerned about being good places to work attract talent, investments, reputation, customers and, like a tube, income. However, we can always find managers for whom it is difficult to see their collaborator as a person.
These are times to put aside the stereotypical and damaging idea of " no matter what the manager does, what matters is that it generates profitability " or the self-suggestion of economic efficiency at any cost, since this cost can not only represent hell for Your capital stock can also devour the reputation of the organization in the medium term.
For all this, I think it is more appropriate to refer to bad managers for their fruits and not to bad managers. If you want to know what category you are in, you can answer the following assessment test.
