Home >

Is "Leadership Tough" Biased?

2011/7/18 13:55:00 27

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Managers who respect respect for their employees and respect for fairness are finally able to get the power.

The road to their promotion may be difficult, but it is worthwhile for the company and for the individual.

Fairness is a virtue in management.

Many studies show that the most effective leaders usually let employees have the right to speak and respect employees, and make decisions based on accurate and complete information.

But this behavior has a hidden cost.

We find that although equitable managers can earn respect, employees will think that such managers are not strong enough in terms of resource control or reward and punishment of employees compared with other managers, which may not be conducive to their access to certain key leadership roles.

Our research includes laboratory research and responses from hundreds of business decision-makers and employees.

First of all, let's ask an old question: "should leaders be loved or frightened?" then we will ask, "can you be respected and show a strong style?" we find it hard to have both.

Look at the examples of Hank Mcginnil and Karen Catton.

They were the two rising stars of Pfizer in the 90s of last century.

McKinney M served as chief financial officer and took charge of the company.

Overseas business

It is famous for its confident negotiation style, realistic and sometimes rude style.

Catton, with good performance, promoted the main operation Department of Pfizer.

She respects subordinates and colleagues, and also receives their respect.

In 2001, Pfizer needed to appoint a new CEO, the two best candidates.

After McKinney M was selected, an analyst told Bloomberg: "(Hank) is the best candidate for this position.

He is very tough. "

We will hear this in a series of industries.

The decision to promote high-level people is most often focused on the power of insight rather than equity.

The students in the laboratory also showed the same bias.

Every student who participated in the experiment witnessed a manager telling an employee about the scene of compensation. "Manager" A delivered the resolution in a rude way. "Manager" B conveyed it in a pleasant way.

The students were then assigned to join the group work led by the "manager", which was observed by each of them, and to assess the power of the leadership.

As a result, the rude "manager" A score is always higher than the "manager" B, which respects others. Although they are not different in the way they treat the participants, students have only witnessed two different ways of behavior, which is enough to cause prejudice.

For a long time, we always wanted to know.

manager

Why are they not always fair?

You know, fairness is obviously beneficial to their groups.

Research shows that the success of change is mainly based on fair implementation.

Our research gives an answer: managers regard respectability and power as the two mutually exclusive ways of influencing others, and many people often choose the latter.

Although this appears to be a more rational choice, it is not always correct and poses great risks to the group.

At Pfizer,

Machineer

After CEO, a number of promising executives joined in the resignation of the company.

In 2006, Mckinney's performance was disappointing. He was asked to retire by the board of directors, and shareholders were furious at the huge pension he could receive later.

Companies can benefit from equity by giving value to equity when evaluating management performance.

Our early tracking study shows that managers who respect respect for their employees and respect for fairness are finally able to get the power.

The road to their promotion may be difficult, but it is worthwhile for the company and for the individual.