BAD BOSS PROGRAM

1. Poor role models — Before they became the boss, they worked for other ineffective bosses. These experiences defined for them what it was to "be the boss" and, lacking a model of effective management, they are simply using the methods they know.
2. No training — Technical skill is often the basis for promotion to supervision and it's not uncommon for the best technician in the group to become the boss. Supervising people is a whole different ball game than being a technically competent individual contributor. Supervision requires a specific skill set and, without quality training, a person thrown into a supervisory role is likely to be ineffective.
3. Bad system — Just as you can take perfectly normal humans, put a uniform on them, place them behind the counter of a fast food restaurant, and watch in horror as they instantly become rude and unresponsive, so too can you transform an effective employee into a dysfunctional manager. Much of what we see in the form of supervisory behavior may be driven by the system or the culture in which we place the supervisor. Managers in organizations where the culture encourages "brutality" are going to act brutally.
4. Inadequate feedback — Getting honest feedback and using it constructively are necessary ingredients in learning how to be an effective manager. Lacking these ingredients, little behavior change — that is, growth and development — is likely to occur. Feedback from employees is especially valuable. Without it, managers don't have a chance to learn how to be more effective from those people in the best position to identify their development needs.
5. Deadly traits — Some people are predisposed to be suspicious, overly protective, over-controlling, hyper-vigilant, rigid, arrogant, avoidant, eccentric, impulsive, risk averse, volatile, narrow thinking, resistant to change, approval dependent, imperceptive, self-promoting, perfectionistic, argumentative, or just plain ornery. ⁵ None of these traits is particularly compatible with being a supervisor. Unfortunately, these traits sometimes do not come to the fore until the person is thrust into a supervisory role, when the demands of the new role magnify the detrimental effects of the trait.

• To identify supervisors who are poor managers of people
• To get ineffective supervisors to adjust their supervisory practices and build their supervisory skills, or to remove them from supervision

• Supervisors are expected to supervise effectively, treat employees with respect, and manage employees' performance in order to achieve the work unit's goals. If these expectations are not being met, the agency is obligated to take the actions necessary to correct the situation. A "bad boss" program is one approach to correcting the situation.
• The program should be initiated at the direction of top management, supported by top management, and overseen by top management. Decisions to "enroll" supervisors in the program and to remove them from their supervisory roles should be, at minimum, endorsed by next-level management and by Human Resources.

• Are the agency's supervisors selected based on their ability to supervise and have they been trained in supervisory skills? If not, it is unfair to place the blame on supervisors for poor performance when it is the agency that has not done its job of properly selecting and training its supervisors.
• Will ineffective supervisors be removed from their supervisory roles or will they be remediated — given a chance to improve? This decision, regarding removal or remediation, is fundamental to the program's design. If the program's focus is on removal, then the main functions to be carried out by the program are (a) identify ineffective supervisors and (b) remove them. If the focus is on remediation, the program is more complex, requiring (a) identification, (b) development (possibly including temporary removal), and (c) providing a second chance. The removal approach is to be preferred on the basis of simplicity. However, the remedial approach would be required if the agency does not have a sound selection process and does not provide supervisory training early on.
• What will happen to supervisors who are removed or who fail to remediate? Supervisors hired from outside may be covered by the rules for probationary employees. Supervisors who have been promoted internally were presumably effective performers in their individual contributor roles. Agencies probably would not want to lose a talented employee who was simply not cut out for supervision. The flexibility to move the person back into an individual contributor role would be a plus.
• Does the program have the support (and oversight) of agency leadership? Do not attempt to launch this type of program unless the support is there.

"Bad Boss" program is a pretty straightforward title for the program, but may be too straightforward. Some possible program titles that would be less abrasive:

• Supervisory Audit Program
• Supervisory Remediation Program
• Second Chance Program
• Promoting Employee Engagement Program
• Supervisor Intervention Program

• A coordinator to run the program.
• A data collection process.
• If the remedial approach is chosen: Access to programs, either internal or external, for supervisory skill building.

• The program coordinator scans multiple data sources periodically to look for signs of poor supervisory performance.
• When the data indicate certain supervisors may be doing an ineffective job of managing their employees, the data are checked and the diagnosis confirmed.

Criteria should be as objective as possible and multiple criteria should be used. Supervisors who score low on two or more of the chosen criteria should be considered for enrollment. Supervisors who score low on a single criterion may be enrolled only if the criterion in question is particularly important or their scores are exceptionally low. Possible criteria include:

• Consistent failure to meet results expectations of the unit supervised
• Low employee morale
• Behavior incompatible with effective supervision
• More than the average number of requests for transfer
• Failure to make training and development opportunities available to their employees
• Greater than average voluntary, preventable turnover among top performing employees
• More than the average number of complaints or requests for conflict resolution
• Consistent failure to meet results expectations of the unit supervised
• Infrequent or poor communication with employees
• Employee work plans not written
• Performance ratings of employees blatantly inflated
• Late performance appraisals, or appraisals not completed at all

Some of the above criteria can be measured using existing operations or personnel data. Some will require special data gathering processes. An employee survey, for example, can be used to detect work units where morale is low.

Three-sixty feedback programs can more specifically zero in on supervisory weak spots. It should be emphasized, however, that the "bad boss" program is not for supervisors who have normal development needs but rather for supervisors who, if they continue in place, could cause significant problems for the agency in terms of turnover of valued employees, loss of productivity, employee grievances, and failure to achieve important goals.

Another possible source of data is to set up a tip line that concerned employees could use. They would respond to a series of questions regarding the supervisor's behavior, and their responses would either make the case that the supervisor in question needs to be enrolled or not. The questions would help to structure the tip line and minimize personal politics.

The program coordinator would be responsible for confirming the data by making inquiries and corroborating the information that has been received.

• The program designer will need to make several decisions about how the program will run and exactly what participants will do. Keep in mind that the purpose of the program is to either improve participants' supervisory skills (the remediation approach) or remove them from supervision (the removal approach).
• In the case of a remediation approach:
  • Place a time limit on how long supervisors stay in the program. A one-month limit would put pressure on supervisors to take the call for change seriously.
  • It would be advisable to remove participants temporarily from their supervisory roles, while they are in the program. Consider giving them temporary assignments to non-supervisory roles.
  • The program itself should be highly structured but not require significant resources. (Recall that in a performance culture, developmental resources should be concentrated on top performers, not problem performers.) A refresher workshop, an online program, or shadowing an effective supervisor would all be viable options.
• In the removal approach:
  • Following confirmation that they are ineffective supervisors, program participants can be reassigned to individual contributor roles. If they have been newly promoted to supervision, an option is to move them back into their prior positions.