A long line of research showing that leaders who pay attention to their people, treat them with dignity and base decisions on accurate information are among the most effective--at least at mid-manager levels. Their people celebrate their fairness as a leader. They love working for managers like that.
But an absolutely intriguing piece of research by Wiesenfeld, Rothman and Galinsky finds that these leaders typically fall behind in their own careers. The research report in the July-August HBR included lab studies as well as responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees began with the old question, "Should leaders be loved or feared?" But it went on asking, "Can you have both respect and power?"
The studies showed that when it comes time for promotion, the candidates who get the job typically demonstrate a "toughness" about them. And the research found that to be the case in a wide variety of industries. That set of behaviors did not benefit managers who are especially fair with their employees. The obvious conclusion is that you can't have both respect and power, so choose your poison. (Actually, you've probably long-since chosen your poison. It was shaped over time by your life experiences.)
The researchers did find in follow-up studies that those beloved managers can gain power, although that may be a difficult path upward. Of course, promoting the tough guy may not necessarily be the right move for the organization. So organizations need to look closely at the issue of whom they're promoting.
This is the kind of research you may not like to see or admit. Still, reflecting on their conclusion and my own consulting experiences, I was drawn to the findings of David McClelland and his learned needs theory, emphasizing achievement, affiliation or power. McClelland's research supports the study of fair bosses falling behind.
My experience reveals that the really fair guys, whom people love to work for, tend to be highly affiliative in their orientation. That is, they need harmonious relationships with other people and need to be accepted by others. They also tend to conform to the norms of their work group. As I thought through nearly 500 executive clients that I've worked with over the years on a long-term basis, few of them are especially affiliative. Indeed, I can point to only eight or ten that achieved at senior-vice president and the C-Office. Clearly this is anecdotal evidence and should be treated as such, but it supports the findings of the studies on fair bosses.
In contrast, by far the bulk of the senior execs tend to be oriented to power, not affiliation or achievement. Following McClelland's theory, the power may be personal, oriented to directing others. The kind that can be quite undesirable and manifest itself in the manager you don't want to work for. But the bulk of execs at senior levels in the better companies demonstrate a high need for institutional power. They want to organizative the efforts of their people to enhance the goals of the organization.
One client, newly promoted to VP in a major consumer products company, left me with a fascinating comment. The CEO, she said, was "utterly ruthless." But, she went on, "that gives me a lot of comfort because I know our company will always do well in competition with other organizations." I knew the CEO personally. A nice guy with a velvet covered fist. I had a lot of respect for him and agreed with her assessment. I had watched him fire a couple of his close friends who weren't delivering up-to-snuff. It was a wise move for the company.
You can only conclude that if you're a fair manager or boss, you're probably shooting yourself in the foot. There's a ceiling over you that's liable to be pretty impenetrable. Respect and liking can get you a long way, but probably not into the C-Office suites.
The study, however, did give hope to those "fair bosses" who want to learn the intricacies of power management. Power, like negotiation, leadership, and communication is a learnable skill. It takes time, but it's doable. However, it'll inevitably result in a different balance of relationships with your subordinates.