Adam Grant’s Post

The best thing is NO boss!

As many have said - this is a nuanced issue. I wholeheartedly support flexibility and balance. What I struggle with is broad statements about bad managers. Not every manager is bad if they can’t provide flexibility all the time. Sometimes they may require their team to demonstrate flexibility for something urgent, and work may need to come first. I think broad statements that bucket leaders as ‘bad’ can send a message that it is all on the leader, the employee has no responsibility in the work relationship. Should we also have statement about “Bad Employees” who don’t respect flexibility both ways, who want time off for personal balance, but when a leader asks for some extra effort or time to meet a deadline, it is not reciprocated etc. This is something I have pondered for a while. Maybe because posts are inundated with what leaders should and should not do. I worry about the expectations we are setting that leaders have to be perfect. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone bad behaviours, I believe in flexibility, and we should have great leaders. Are we unintentionally creating unrealistic expectations for leaders to live up to? Should we have more posts on how employees can contribute to help their leaders be great?

One problem is that those "bad bosses" are the ones who are rewarded/promoted. Rare is the case where a "good boss" (by your astute definition) is promoted high enough to make a broad impact. I've worked for those good bosses, usually only for a short time as they are removed from "first-line" mgmt roles when they're passed on by higher mgmt that promotes the "bad bosses" (who deliver short-term results from their teams) into higher positions.

For the first decade and half of my career, I assumed being a workaholic was a norm, prioritizing work before family got you ahead, and wore those sacrifices as a badge of honor. The pandemic has enabled me and others to adopt a more balanced and sustainable approach. While I still spend numerous weekends and holidays traveling for work to far away places, I feel unapologetic for prioritizing and balancing my family over work, when needed. Perspective: In my old age, I won’t think back and feel awful about missing a work meeting, but I will surely remember missing important family events.

While I agree that family comes first and always encourage employees to put their families ahead of work. Saying that a good boss "forbids" missing an important family event is authoritarian and paternalistic. As a boss you can set an example, make it clear that putting loved ones ahead of work is encouraged, and demonstrate that making decisions to put family first is not going to hold them back for raises, promotions, and bonuses (this is the one most will fail to do) , but "forbidding" is an authoritarian move and there is no place for it. Employees are adults and can make decisions for themselves.

I think the statements above need to be taken with some content. Bosses/managers are people as well and some who maybe called "bad" bosses/managers bad because they don't want to do the work. It is not just "bad" bosses, people in general may label someone bad because they may ask someone to do something they don't want. We as a society need to differentiate bad managers based on various aspects of their management and not just one sided. Would it be fair if everyone leaves because they have something to do while the work still needs to get done and the manager who may also have family has to stay. Lets not generalize bad managers, bad teachers, bad coworkers without content. If work has to get done and you want to have a work life balance coordinate with your manager, coworkers as a team environment. If of course there is push back to do more, with no rewards and negative work environment that is different but we are all judging here, "bad" "good" and "great"....

Building on this, balance should not be limited to kids and family matters. They are important, of course, but we should let folks choose to prioritize what matters to them. Those who don’t have children are not going to be attending school events and similar, but that doesn’t mean there are not things they sometimes choose to prioritize more highly than work.

While promoting a culture in which employees can tend to their personal lives is important, workplaces should not take it upon themselves to manage employees outside of work—whether they have families or not. Remember,employees are adults and are 100% capable of deciding what is best for themselves and their families without fear of employer intimidation. “Forbidding” employees from missing family events is a slippery slope.

Most importantly, show loyalty to employees who have significantly contributed to the well-being and growth of the company throughout their tenure. These dedicated individuals have embodied the core values of the company culture. In times of transition, approach these valued team members with compassion and provide them with a prudent exit strategy. Do not hide behind HR and deliver the impersonal message on a Friday afternoon that their position has been eliminated. The phrase "it's not personal, it's business" is insufficient when such decisions impact families, communities, and the office culture.

And who is going to do the work that must be done while everyone is prioritizing everything else? The boss? The boss's boss? CEO? The point is to have a productive balance, and the right people. Work comes in waves. Thats how it needs to be managed. And when the success of the business is on the line, as one coach famously said (in a great movie) "the winners want the ball". Do with it what you may.