Do you join or leave an organisation for its own sake or due to a boss?
There is no right or wrong here. Each experience is unique. To generalise would be a fallacy.
The overall work culture in the company and how it looks after its employees play a big role in shaping the latter’s perspective towards the former.
If the environment at work is not conducive or congenial, just having a good boss may not alleviate all the suffering. But it sure can buy time for the employee to give the organisation a chance, hoping things work out or get better.
Why do employees leave?
There is one universal truth though. A good or bad boss has a significant bearing on how employees perceive the workplace.
That is not to say that an employee will never quit if she has a good boss. A new opportunity, a chance to relocate to a place of choice, a promotion, a considerable salary hike, an offer from a great company or one which can’t be refused, etc. are good reasons to make the switch. But the chance of leaving is minimised if you have a boss who challenges, encourages, inspires, motivates, trusts or helps you evolve as a professional.
Likewise, a boss who is condescending, dishonest, insecure, suspicious, tyrannical or unfair paves the way for your exit. We have all heard stories how an arrogant, brash, cruel boss makes it impossible to function, leaving you with no choice but to leave.
How the boss can shape your experience?
Organisations need to pay heed to this. Often the boss determines the employee’s experience in a workplace.
It’s not only about leaving the job. This determines one’s motivation and level of engagement towards work. A good boss can keep you enthused, thereby increasing your productivity and boosting overall output of the team.
How a bottom-up evaluation can work?
A periodic evaluation of leaders is imperative, not just by the reporting manager but also the team reporting to the leader. Managements would do well to ask their HR managers to institutionalise a mechanism where a team can rate the boss on several parameters. This could be anonymous or the voting choice of individual could be strictly confidential.
If a certain percentage (this could be determined by team size) feel the boss does not meet expectations, the management should go into the merits and consider if there’s a case for speaking to or even replacing the leader. A thorough evaluation is necessary before making an informed decision. This would bring in transparency and hold a leader accountable to the team.
It is almost impossible for any boss to have the entire team rooting for her. Every boss will have a few members in the team who are disgruntled. Usually this could be due to receiving a negative rating which is below the subordinate’s own self-assessment.
Sometimes, the insecurity of losing one’s job due to a poor rating as part of the appraisal process, could cause an employee to provide adverse feedback about the boss. This could hold true for a few members in each team.
For this reason, in teams with over 25 members, the 20% rule is a fair measure to begin with. According to this rule, if one-fifth of your team feels unhappy with your performance as a boss, HR should bring this to the notice of the top leadership.
Organisations may change the threshold if they so feel or as the process evolves over time. At no stage should it fall below 20% of the team size. It will just give the truants an opportunity to make mischief. The team members who loathe being disciplined by a boss who is particular about it, may use this as leverage to get rid of their boss.
How will it help?
It may not be easy to introduce this in a running organisation. One could argue that it could be misused by those with an axe to grind. And every organisation has a few such individuals. The reverse argument is that the process discounts such troublemakers by choosing a threshold number.
Every process has pros and cons. As long as the pros outweigh the cons, and it is in the interest of the organisation to continuously improve the workplace, it is worth adopting.
Such a bold move can only work if it is mandated by the top leadership and relentlessly driven by HR managers. Checks and balances need to be built in to make it more robust before laying down the process. It needs to be institutionalised and embedded into the organisation’s culture to help it evolve towards being an admired company.
Companies that can follow this are likely to richly benefit. Such organisations potentially stand to be great places to work in. The big question is, how many can bite the bullet.
If you were the MD, CEO or CHRO of your company, would you?
