CHICAGO, April 10 (UPI) -- Workers have more trouble with incompetent bosses than abusive ones, according to a study by an Ohio State University professor.
"Nobody likes abuse, but employees can find ways to work around abusive managers," said sociology professor Randy Hodson, who presents his findings in a new book, "Dignity at Work."
"Employees don't want to be involved with chaotic, mismanaged workplaces where nothing gets done well and people feel like they can't be effective. The thing that undermines dignity more than anything is incompetence and mismanagement."
Hodson said more than anything, people want to take pride in their work and feel a sense of accomplishment. He and a group of graduate students analyzed 108 book-length studies of employees in various industries, including meatpacking, medical and transportation.
"Employees cannot take pride in their work or be expected to give extra effort when they face abuse or when those in control have made it impossible to work effectively," he said.
Hodson said mismanagement takes many forms such as failure to replace outdated or broken equipment in factories. As a result, employees often withhold "maximum effort," resorting to such behavior as absenteeism, playing dumb, sabotaging rules and procedures and subverting managers to demonstrate their disapproval.
Moreover, employees rarely get along with abusive or incompetent managers.
"Although resistance is one answer to a lack of dignity in the workplace, we found that many workers go out of their way to be productive," he said. "It feels good to do a superior job and that's part of what dignity means in the workplace -- there's dignity in a job well done."
A study by Cornell University's International Workplace Studies Program found open offices -- those devoid of cubicles and private offices -- afforded the most productive work environments, providing managers more face-to-face time with those being managed and fostering closer relationships.
Part of why employees perceive management as incompetent could be a lack of communication.
Daniel O. Lybrook, an associate professor of organizational leadership and supervision at Purdue University, said companies would be better served by giving new employees a real indoctrination to the "culture and history of the business or organization" rather than just showing them where the break room is.
"The new hire needs to know not just what the company espouses but also the truth about what it really values," Lybrook said. "This requires organizational self-awareness and reflection."
It also requires an effective evaluation process, not just a once-a-year pat on the back.
Lybrook urges managers to tell the truth.
"It sounds simple but the No. 1 fault of managers is performance inflation in evaluating employees," he said. "Managers tell people what they want to hear. But that's a short-term, conflict-avoidance mentality. Good managers think long term. Tell your employees how they're doing, honestly. This is how you build respect and trust."
Efforts to boost worker performance through performance-based pay has largely backfired, according to a separate study by Michelle Kaminski, a professor at the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign. Kaminski studied 86 companies in metal fabricating, machinery and plastics, and found performance-based pay led to higher injury rates and lower productivity.
Scott Snell, director of the Institute for the Study of Organizational Effectiveness at Penn State's Smeal College of Business Administration, said companies would be better served by implementing an evaluation process that focuses on the "developmental side of performance management."
"A better approach is mutual goal setting. When managers and subordinates develop mutually agreeable goals, several things happen," Snell said. "This discussion leads to better information exchange. Employees have greater influence over the goals and therefore are more likely to accept the standards."
