THE ANTI-LEADER: SYMPTOMS OF A MANAGER THAT DESTROYS THE FUTURE OF COMPANIES AND PEOPLE
Many times, to think about a concept, in this case The Anti-Leader, the best way is to go to the antagonistic side, and see the effect of this “other side of the force”, to see how interesting and positive it is to abound in the “light” side.
We do not contribute anything if we say that the crisis has brought to the surface a different social model of values. The enormous and prolonged pain that the crisis has caused in companies, families and individuals has been enormous, with few references from people active in the labor market.
But if I can contribute if I share some evidence, -scientific-, with you that highlights how the bosses are who destroy the levels of commitment in our companies.
scientific? Indeed, based on identifying among 270,000 people to whom we have measured their levels of commitment in their companies with respect to the project they are offered, those with direct bosses, and from these, select those who destroy the commitment in their teams. In our model, Fourflags Engagement Model ©, they are the ones that “generate” levels of commitment between 1 and 150 points (zone of active disaffection or “burned”) and between 151 and 250 points (zone of destruction of commitment or “toaster”) .
AND? Well, well, excuse me for embellishing myself, because the work, although with our EBIT tool (Engagement Business Intelligence Tool) is more agile and we avoid errors… but it has its own!!! Here we go!!
Imagine that you are who you are, but you are the General Director of USA Foods, and you have decided to do a 360 assessment of Josele Fante, Director of Logistics for USA Foods in Iberia, with 26 people under your supervision, because you know that the team is not giving the minimum results required of a group of that professional level.
A few weeks later, you receive the report, with 4 blocks of analysis and 14 behaviors or variables identified as evidence, it is what we call the Fourflags Express Model.
The first block deals with the assessment that his collaborators have of the company, and how Josele manages these 5 variables:
How the values live in her Department and the Mission of our Company.
How it drives continuous improvement and innovation in the Department
How objectivity, meritocracy and equity are perceived in the experience in the Department.
How the quality of the resources that the Company makes available to employees to carry out their work is valued.
How the quality of communication and contribution of ideas from collaborators is perceived.
The second block of analysis is regarding the Direct Manager of the Collaborator, that is, Josele. Here we analyze 4 variables:
You want to know the ability to be a reference and example for your Josele team
Josele’s quality to set quality objectives and go through the Evaluation process properly.
Josele’s ability to set the tasks for the members of her team well, and see if she knows what each one of them does and should do, how they do it and even why they do it.
Evaluate Josele regarding how they perceive her level of knowledge in the subjects that make up her area of responsibility.
Josele does not command, he does not direct, they do not see him as an authority or as a leader whom he would like to follow. None of the 26 have said that they would follow him if he changes departments or goes to another company.
The third block of analysis focuses on how the Manager generates commitment through the management of the team he manages. We look at this third block from 2 variables.
Evaluate how the team welcomes the people who join it and to what extent a team spirit is generated.
Evaluate the self-demand of the team with the members that make it up. Evaluate the passion for achievement and the pursuit of continuous improvement and excellence in their tasks.
The fourth block of analysis will focus on how the Manager generates commitment through the management of the tasks that professionals perform in their daily work. We analyze this block from 3 variables.
It will be seen to what extent the collaborators see meaning in the tasks they perform, knowing what they respond to, what they contribute to the Company or the Department.
In the same way, the report must reflect to what extent the tasks carried out by the members of the Manager’s team fit the description of their positions.
Finally, we have to identify and evaluate what percentage of the tasks provide added value and what other percentage of them are identified with routine and administrative work.
LET’S SEE THE REPORT THAT REACHES THE GENERAL DIRECTOR ABOUT JOSELE FANTE, AND WHAT SYMPTOMS THE ANTI-LEADER PRODUCES IN HIS TEAM:
1 PERCEPTION OF USA FOODS IN JOSELE FANTE’S DEPARTMENT
The Department believes that USA Foods Iberia does not represent the values and Mission of USA Foods to employees and customers, nor does it align with the values of the professionals that comprise it.
USA Foods Iberia is a company that is reluctant to involve and think across the board. It does not encourage and promote continuous improvement and Innovation between Departments or countries.
At USA Foods Iberia there is no leadership model that promotes treatment, teams and people subjectively. Comparative sides and grievances are often created. Decisions are not usually based on merit and contribution but on cronyism and personal sympathies.
At USA Foods Iberia, there are no adequate resources so that teams and professionals can adequately carry out their work: collaborative tools, digitization of management processes, knowledge management and agile and transparent communication models, meeting rooms with access to on· line to video meetings, relaxation rooms or rooms to innovate, rooms to concentrate and keep discretion in meetings or specific topics, etc.
At USA Foods Iberia, it does not encourage collaboration, cooperation or communication and contribution of ideas between the Departments.
2 NEXT, HOW THE 26 EMPLOYEES PERCEIVE JOSELE FANTE
None of the 26 collaborators has said that their Director, Josele, is an example for them. Josele is not a benchmark that the team wants to follow. None of the collaborators would follow Josele if he changed company or department.
Josele does not set the goals of his team members well or take seriously. The objectives are standard, they are not aligned with the objectives of the company, they are not credible and achievable and if they are achieved or not, nothing happens.
Josele does not know what tasks each member of his team does, or why he does them, if he knows how to do them optimally or not, if he dedicates the most necessary time and resources, etc.
Josele is not seen as a benchmark in his knowledge and professional prestige within his area of activity and responsibility, neither internally nor in the professional market.
3 ALSO, HOW DO THE 26 EMPLOYEES PERCEIVE THE LOGISTICS DEPARTMENT
In the Logistics team that Josele directs, there is neither a spirit nor a feeling of a team seal. The reception is not taken care of when a new member arrives.
The Logistics team is not self-demanding with the members that make it up. There is no passion for achievement, for reaching and exceeding planned objectives and continuous improvement, innovation and excellence in their main tasks are not driven.
4. OTHER, HOW THE 26 EMPLOYEES PERCEIVE THEIR TASKS AND ACTIVITIES
None of the 26 collaborators in Josele’s team see meaning in the tasks they perform or know exactly what they respond to, what they contribute to the Company or the Department.
In most cases, the tasks carried out by the members of the USA Foods Iberia Logistics Department team match those that appear in their job descriptions.
The perception of the 26 members of Josele’s team is widespread that the tasks they perform hardly add value and that the majority identify with routine and administrative work.
WHAT THE MANAGER TRANSMITS AND MAKES HIS TEAM FEEL IS:
FIRST, HOW THE COMPANY MAKES IT LIVE
COMPANY WITHOUT SEAL (WITHOUT DIFFERENTIATION)
COMPANY WITHOUT PASSION TO IMPROVE
COMPANY THAT PREFERS THE “SPA”
COMPANY WHERE INVESTING PEOPLE IS AN EXPENSE
COMPANY WITH INDIVIDUALIST CULTURE
THEN, HOW ARE YOU PERCEIVED AS A DIRECT BOSS?
THE BOSSES ARE NOT A REFERENCE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES
THE BOSSES DO NOT KNOW OR SET GOOD GOALS
THE BOSSES DO NOT KNOW THEIR EMPLOYEES, EXAMPLE OF THE ANTI-LEADER
HOW HE MAKES THE TEAM LIVE
THERE ARE NO TEAMS, THERE ARE GROUPS OF PEOPLE
FINALLY, HOW ARE THE TASKS DONE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT PERCEIVED?
THERE IS NO MEANING IN WHAT IS DONE
NOT DOING WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
WHAT IS DONE DOES NOT PROVIDE VALUE
And now, answer….
What will he do as CEO? What decision will he make?
WOULD, WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO WORK HERE WITH A MANAGER WHO CAUSES OR DOES NOT MANAGE THESE SYMPTOMS IN HIS TEAM?
These companies, with these managers, are the biggest organizational cancer for companies. The bad thing is that, like many oncological pathologies, the symptoms are only noticed when there is no longer a solution.
To finish, now, put it in the positive, and you will have the keys that a direct manager must manage in his teams to generate commitment among his members with the business project that is offered as a goal and objective.