What makes a “Good Boss”?

Everyone would like to know what makes a “good boss”. Of course, the candidates themselves – each one of you - who is hoping to be one or considered to be one as well as the employees or colleagues who hope to choose one or be assigned to one. First, let me immediately eliminate a risk of misunderstanding: a “good boss” is not just a good person, even though that is an important component of a working relationship. Especially from a staff standpoint, the good behaviour (ethical, responsible, respectful) of a boss is of course essential, and a good boss is first and foremost someone who is respectful of others and ideally someone one’s happy to work with or for. And each boss should remember that he/ she heavily influences the behaviour of his collaborators: I do remember the shockingly bold style of a Dutch EA, that was only acceptable because it was a mimic of her bosses’ attitude??. So, a “good boss” is not someone that is good to you, but someone that is good for the overall organization!

·??????? Let’s be clear: Performance is key to define a “good boss”. That does not mean that only successful people can apply – loyalty tends to develop and consolidate even more in the difficult times -but it means that overall long-lasting performance is essential to define a candidate. In the long run, no one wants to be associated with failure as it cannot help one’s career nor excitement. And loyalty to a complete loser should be questioned as its motivations can be suspicious… ?

·??????? In my experience, all the bosses I have admired have shown a common quality: Intensity! In my former very global organisation, each one of them would follow-up immediately on any meeting anywhere in the world with a set of actions/ recommendations to make sure that the dynamic triggered by their visit would last. Just controlling is not enough but trying to add value (and sometimes opinions), to challenge and make suggestions, to participate and support is a permanent feature of a “good boss” -and it’s exhausting!

·??????? One is naturally tempted to try to develop a friendly relationship with her/ his boss over time, even personal. It is not wrong but mostly off subject: the likelihood for a recognised leader of developing a personal relationship with a new set of collaborators is low – they find it difficult enough to maintain the original ones. But the respect comes from the ability to provide a real connection and useful feedback and show a real interest in one’s career and development. The most representative episode was for me the” Winterfold” dialogues one former boss organized at his home every year with his direct collaborators: the most extensive and useful feedback sessions I ever received – 2 hours each - and a sign of that commitment of a leader towards his team members! Helps one strive, i.e., helps one identify its own strengths – as one only strives on strengths. So, connection and feedback over friendliness!

·??????? One could start discussing the type of qualities of the Leader, is he more of a visionary or an execution profile: these are not valid criteria in my view to differentiate a “good boss”. One can prefer the strategy vs. the execution, put Guardiola ahead of Ferguson or Mourinho, but they were/ are all excellent, respected leaders and consistently over time. What is possibly relevant in a training/ succession perspective is the debate between identification and complementarity. A leader is tempted to project herself/ himself in a brilliant collaborator, while the complementarity of talents might be better (for the organisation) in the long term. Even though Georges Pompidou[1] was making fun of Jacques Chirac’s temper, he had identified him as a promising politician. Vision vs. Execution: each leadership profile is different, possibly complementarity can help even though copycat tends to dominate.

·??????? There is a vivid research debate on the topic of predictability. Research shows that what collaborators find the most difficult to cope with is the unpredictability of someone’s behaviour: a person behaving badly in a consistent way is to some extent preferable to one behaving erratically. Many leaders though would say that being unpredictable is a way for them to keep their troops on their toes. I personally would vote for predictability as it creates a healthy routine in all aspects of the management, good and bad, and a form of reassurance. Predictability (or not)?

·??????? Last, but not least: exemplarity! In many ways the most important quality, it covers multiple aspects of the role: leading by example i.e., always staying relevant, participating to the hard tasks, facing challenging circumstances, remaining a practitioner … But of course, also being exemplar in the attitude towards people – living the company values and making them real for all!

·??????? The former CEO Of Accenture, Pierre Nanterme, who was indeed a “good boss” would have added charisma as a required quality: the icing on the cake as he had plenty of it, but there are strong leaders who can lead well without it.

?

Testing if one fits the criteria, is a real challenge. First one must be a boss or on a clear track record to become one ??! Also, one needs to ask oneself who around them could provide an objective set of facts and responses on those topics. If you are unable to, you probably don’t fit one of these criteria I’m afraid! ?

?

?

[1] ??Si je lui demande de creuser dans la nuit un tunnel de l’Etoile à la Concorde, il le fera. Ensuite il demandera pourquoi???: if I ask him to funnel a tunnel from Etoile to Concorde, he will do it. Only then will he ask why?