The bad and the ugly: The worst bosses I ever had and how they compare to the best.

People want to be led, not browbeaten or humiliated or worse.

We hear a lot about psychological safety these days, almost ad nauseam. But I will agree that some leaders are a risk to psychological (and even physical) safety.

Let me explain.

Over a career that spans nearly half a century, I worked for many people, some good, some bad, most who were mediocre but did their best. Occasionally a great leader came along, but they were as few as the bad ones. (There's a Bell Curve in there somewhere with the best and worst at the tails). The number of 'bad' and 'ugly' is very small compared to the overall group (maybe 5% of leaders). I think that's important because LINKED IN consistently points to terrible leadership as the norm. That's not my experience, and I doubt it's the experience of most people.

Yet, as the New Year 2024 begins, I think this may be one of the most important posts I've written because I describe behaviors that describe the worst of leadership. Like many of you, I have endured some terrible situations with bad and downright ugly leaders. Maybe this post will be a wakeup call to some leaders: you don't have to be jerks to get the job done. People want to be led, not browbeaten or humiliated ... or worse.

For the benefit of those who read my posts, and maybe for some leaders who haven't figured out why people react to them with concern, I offer these distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly.

Most of these experiences are decades old, but I still remember them. That alone should tell you the power of bad and ugly leadership, for all leaders must ask themselves "How do I want to be remembered when I am no longer in a position of power, and I meet one of these people in the grocery store?"

The big differences

First: The overriding difference between the two is this: the good ones wanted to get the work done for the sake of the work; the bad ones wanted to get the work done for their sake of their own reputations. Anything that reflected poorly upon them was fodder for severe retribution. In short, one group of leaders did the work for the achievement; the other group did the work for personal prestige. And it showed in how they treated their people. Personal motives matter.

Second: The way they treated their people was more of a punitive parent-child relationship than a peer-to-peer respect. In some ways, they were downright petty.

Characteristics of the bad and the ugly

#1 - They were always angry - Whatever indigestion was bothering them, they rarely seemed to enjoy work. And their anger transformed into unpleasantness when I worked with them. Their drivenness was obvious and intense. There's nothing wrong with being driven, but it needs self-regulation because of how it influences others.

Each of them carried a chip on their shoulder like they had something to prove. And they could turn 'dark' in seconds. It could be terrifying. I told one of them to fire me because his mercurial temper was so unpredictable. Fact is, I was honest with him and told him details he hadn't heard from other who feared his wrath.

I worked for scores of leaders throughout my career. As I mentioned above, the great majority of them were mediocre to good (and there were some who were flat out legends!).

Occasionally I'd get a really bad one. I worked for one guy who was constantly fighting some battle in his head and he took it out on everyone. During the time I worked with him, I kept a blood pressure card, because though I was a young man and in good shape, my blood pressure was off the charts. My wife told the kids to give me 20 minutes to decompress every day I worked with this guy. I finally moved to a different role. One day about six months later, he called me and another guy to have dinner. A couple beverages into the dinner, he revealed the purpose of getting together. "Jimmy" (this is always a 'tell'), "I want you to come work for me again - you got stuff done and you're a good man." I proceeded to take the blood pressure card out of my wallet. His name was printed at the top. I said, "I will never work for you again." There was laughter, but the point was made. The man was a tyrant.

How the good ones were different

They were driven to achieve, but not by exerting power. To them, influence was the magic of leadership. The used influence of argument and careful strategy deftly communicated and implemented to engage team members. They stayed the course. They kept their eye on the ball. They liked the big challenges and the big accomplishments. And if there was an issue with someone, it was always dealt with privately, so much so that most of the team never knew if someone has missed the boat.

#2 - They were impatient with a hair trigger temper - Say the wrong word or mention the wrong manager and you could expect a thundering response and it wasn't pretty. Within seconds, veins would stand out on their foreheads and the yelling would begin. They could snap at any minute - even if they drank decaf. (Most hilarious was that the one who responded to my article on managerial patience was the least patient of the bunch.)

How the good ones were different

Although the good ones were all about high expectations (they could be quite demanding) and getting the job done, one never felt the danger presented by the bad and ugly. The good ones built pressure to get the job done, stay on schedule, break down barriers, but it was never personal. The good ones would point out error or challenge thinking, but it was always with a listening ear. There was no vindictiveness. They would push hard to get things done, but you knew they were in it with you. They were smart beyond belief, but smart enough to know even the person sitting across from them, maybe lowest on the corporate rung, might have something important to say.

#3 - They were intolerant of any failure "Where's Jim?!" shouted one across a room of fellow workers as I had made a mistake on a design project. I could feel my gut clenching knowing I was in for a lecture about my incompetence. And they held grudges for mistakes.

How the good ones were different

No one likes failure - and we've all had our share. But the good ones would sit down, analyze it and give clear - and often direct - feedback about what not to do next time. I could often sense their frustration with failure, for clearly it impacted them, but they managed it and didn't unleash the fury of their pent-up anger. They gave feedback. But that was it. No ongoing grudge or constant reminders. They moved on.

I recall utterly failing one leader. He was furious at my calculations and my missed deadline. It put him in a terrible spot. He spoke hard and direct to me and told me to immediately fix the problem. I did, and I never heard anything about it ever again. He was one of the best leaders I ever knew.

#4 - They were often self-important At one event, a group of about 100 of us were boarding buses to go back to our hotels. One exec immediately took the front seat of the bus, like he was entitled to it. He had a rich and golden opportunity to walk back and meet with his leadership team. But the front seat was his and the rest of us could find our way back.

Another element of their self-importance was non-stop critique of other leaders.

Leaders - whether you realize it or not, symbolic actions are extremely powerful.

#5 - Some took joy in humiliating people - I recall an episode where one of them pointed me out in a meeting, pulled me out and berated me within earshot of the team. All their heads went own, because they knew they could be the next target.

How the good ones were different

None of the good ones would have even considered doing something like this. They were far too professional and mature to demean people in front of others.

#6 - They kept people on defense. I think they took some pernicious pleasure in keeping people on their back feet, using uncertainty to keep someone guessing whether they were in the good graces of the moment. It was a psychological ploy of uncertainty.

When a person feels their job is constantly at risk, they become averse to failure and move toward self-protection, dramatically diminishing their effectiveness as team members.

How the good ones were different

Clearly if I was off track or had missed the boat on a job, I would get direct - sometimes VERY DIRECT -feedback, but I never felt like my job was in jeopardy. Good leaders know when to address an issue and then move on because an employee in doubt will spend more time protecting themselves than producing for the organization. As one of my best leaders said, "You're going to judge yourself more harshly for this failure than anyone else." He was right.

#7 - They were punitive and held grudges Once you failed in their eyes, they wouldn't let you forget it. One guy held one of my 'failures' over my head. He had the power to impact my career. He could influence hiring and promotional opportunities. He didn't like me after a certain circumstance and never let it go. It was his chip to play at any time.

How the good ones were different

I never sensed a grudge from the good ones. As far as they were concerned, the issue was addressed, and they moved on.

#8 - They were often unpredictable. What's more, they liked it. One day they could be your best friend, the next they'd turn on you like a tiger. One of them, under the influence of painkillers, asked the team for feedback on his leadership style. (I was very young at the time). Reluctantly we spoke our minds. Next day, he called each of us one-on-one to task for our words. It was awful.

How the good ones were different

No good leader I ever had took pleasure in setting people on edge. They didn't play psychological mind games to keep people in line. They were mature adults who simply wanted to get the job done. They wanted to build motivation, not squelch it.

#9 - One of them was physically abusive - I believe all of the bad ones had the capacity for abuse because of their short fuses, but one of them punched me in the sternum because he didn't like a challenge I issued. It was humiliating but also revealing. I did not respond, but I have not forgotten.

No good leader would even consider such an action - they had too much self-regulation and self-respect.

Conclusion

Each person reading this has encountered some form of the leadership abuse I described.

Or, worse, you've demonstrated these behaviors.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Work can get done with influence, expertise and great vision. You don't need to play mind games or abuse power. May the New Year be a personal wake up call to correct these useless behaviors. Your team will thank you and your organization will be stronger.

I welcome your thoughtful insights. And Happy 2024.

Dr. Jim

People Development: The Best part of leading a team.