Weebly



On Managing Your Boss/Power Play

One of the key challenges of the workplace: Your boss. We know from numerous surveys that, even in the de-layered organizations of today, one’s relationship with one’s boss plays a crucial role in determining how one goes on to perform in the job. The tie with the boss is also a key reason for job turnover. Good bosses can be a key conduit for resources, knowledge, and advice. Bad bosses can screw you on your performance evaluation, give you a bad reputation with those higher-up in the hierarchy, keep you away from the best assignments, and generally make life hell. All this we know.

The question is: What makes so many bosses such jerks? Why does it seem that we are so often in the position that Jamie Turner finds himself in? The readings for this session are designed to help one appreciate two fundamental points that together are part of a possible answer to this question.

First, consider the piece “Becoming the Boss” (also see slide 3 in the file “mbaclass2015jamieturnerpower.pptx”—posted on course website). This article identifies several common myths about bosses (i.e., that they have a lot of influence because of their formal position/status). It then seeks to dispel each myth with a dose of reality (e.g., far from being able to get things done through fiat, managers have to recognize that they are embedded in webs of relationships that are both a resource and a source of constraint); and it provides some practical advice to help a new boss manage effectively. One key take-away from this piece should be that one needs to see what the world looks like from the boss’s perspective. Although it may seem like simple advice, we often fall prey to the tendency to focus on ourselves rather than trying to understand the world from our boss’s perspective.

(I used Slide 4 in class to drive home the point that when you are in a position of formal authority, resist the urge to think that it is your formal authority that will get others to bend to your will/get work done. People, as this slide notes, want more than a formal relationship with their boss: they want to know that the boss cares about them and wants to help them grow professionally (and often personally, too). If you do try to boss them around with formal authority, they might disagree with you; think other things are more important; and so on. The key point, one that the readings on motivation also made (especially Herzberg’s theory of motivation), is that: (a) you want commitment not mere compliance from employees; and (b) using your formal authority as a boss will rarely be the way you can win your subordinates’ commitment.)

Second, take Pfeffer’s argument in the piece “Power Play” (see slide 5 for reference). He suggests that, like it or not, getting things done in organizations requires more than logic—it requires power. So, he says: make your peace with power. He urges people to resist the urge to shy away from power (he enumerates the reasons why people do so), and he provides practical advice for how to be more politically savvy.

Together, these two articles suggest that boss’s may so often be jerks because, well, they seem like jerks because we rarely bother to understand the forces and presses operating upon them (recall the fundamental attribution error). If we did, they might not seem like jerks after all (or at least not like mindless jerks). They also provide some practical advice on how one can start to recognize that one needs to recognize and mobilize sources of influence other than formal power (see the list on slide 7—we did discuss these ideas in class (and the readings make reference to them), so please study it for the exam) to get one’s way in the workplace. And all this, of course, is advice that Jamie Turner could have profited from…

Jamie Turner: Case Synopsis

What the case is about:

A cautionary tale: MBA to rising star to jobhopping underperformer…

•Interpersonal mismatch (but not inevitable) leading to confusion and flawed interpretations of a new middle manager in a challenging new job.

•Turner’s fails to understand and seek explanations for his boss’s behavior at MLI and the bigger issues boss is facing at Triple S

•The lack of a solid working relationship with boss means that both perform poorly and the company suffers

What seems to be the problem?

Neither Cardullo nor Jamie understands the other (but each seems to think he does: both think Turner’s marketing skills will save MLI)

–Carduillo was the champion at Triple S to favor MLI acquisition– leading MLI and own $600 million division

– Pressures from COO Lipsky and CEO Oliver

–Carduillo: “importance of accurate cost estimates in calculating required margins” for govt. contracts

–Turner: preoccupied with his own role and autonomy: commits marketing to improving MLIs market share through higher volume, price reductions, resulting in lower margins

–Carduillo steps into Turner’s territory: takes over pricing (arbitary 24% margin; when Turner complains, he answers: “when did I ask you to worry about volume?”)

-Implications of MLIs performance for succession plan involving Lipsky replacing Oliver as CEO and Carduillo replacing Lipsky as COO are not understood/appreciated by Turner.

Part of the problem has to do with differences in management style, differences that Turner seems not to fully understand/appreciate

- Carduillo: Conflict avoidant; neurotic

- Turner: self-absorbed; unable to see how he is contributing to his worsening situation (e.g., relations at Lambowland were poor); seems to bait controller Julie Chin (who is in boss’s inner circle) and executive asst. Richard Garcia (hires Bill Cook away from Chin, over her protests; stands by as product manager Swenson noses aroun in Chin’s financial projections)

Were their specific points in the relationship when Turner could have tried to clarify expectations and learn about his boss’s perspective? Yes, here were some of them:

•Earliest stages– e.g., interviews?

•When discussing taking charge of sales?

•When Swenson suggested that company’s cash position was perilous?

•Regarding Carduillo telling Ernie Denis to change inventory system?

•When Carduillo objected to pricing order below break-even back in July?

•When Carduillo demanded to be in staff meeting to see how Jamie handled the leaking of sensitive information?

•When Carduillo took over pricing in early August?

•When Swenson was told she would be reimbursed for lunch?

•When Kansas City salesforce was fired?

What are some key lessons from the case?

How a lack of shared assumptions and expectations, if not explicitly developed, can hinder effective communication. And the importance of seeing the forces operating on the boss from the boss’s perspective.

Fundamental attribution error: Turner doesn’t seem to appreciate the business and personal challenges facing his boss… who may be in as much trouble as Turner if the acquisition founders.

Cardullo faces pressure from his boss/mentor, the COO Lipsky, and from CEO Oliver. Hires Turner to relieve pressure and assumes Turner’s marketing skills will save the acquisition.

Cardullo signals importance of margins– the importance of accurate cost estimates for calculating required margins for government contracts.

1.

1.

How differences in personal managerial styles (e.g., Turner’s self-absorption; Cardullo’s conflict avoidance/mercurial nature) can cause a subordinate-boss relationship to degenerate.

Turner: obsessed with his own career; overly confident in his managerial skills Had difficulty with Lambowland colleagues

Worsening relations with Julie Chin (Controller) and Richard Garcia (exec. Asst.)

Hires Bill Cook away from Chin

Hires Swenson who irritates Chin by questioning the company’s cash flow position

1.

Cardullo: Conflict avoidant/neurotic

Other issues:

Turner: (over) confident from his past success seems mostly concerned with his own autonomy and with boosting MLI’s market share through higher volume and selective cost reductions. Fails to appreciate the importance of the new context which might have led to a clarification of how the marketing requirements at Triple S and MLI might differ.

Attributional style: Turner tends to attribute problems to the organization and others’ dysfunctions; even when he confronts Cardullo, he tends to deliver monologues consisting of a litany of his own complaints… he tells rather than listens.

Take-away

1. A lack of shared assumptions and expectations, if not explicitly developed, can hinder effective communication. The importance of seeing the forces operating on the boss from the boss’s perspective.

2. Differences in personal managerial styles (e.g., Turner’s self-absorption; Cardullo’s conflict avoidance/mercurial nature) can cause a subordinate-boss relationship to degenerate.

3. The importance of managing upwards and laterally. To appreciate the importance of managing upwards and laterally (slide 14 in “mbaclass2015jamieturnerpower.ppt” summarize how to manage upwards—please read for exam).

4. How to communicate when relationship with boss is on the rocks: Don’t present litany of your complaints; learn to appreciate the other’s perspective. Take a look at the Managementor Worksheets (slides 11-13 of the powerpoint file “mbaclass2015jamieturnerpower.ppt on your website) on how Jamie could have systematically thought about working on the relationship with his boss.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download