The Know It All

The “Know It All” supervisor routinely challenges and overturns subordinate’s decisions. This approach to management will de-motivate others in the group, making them not want to make decisions or to make them behind the supervisor’s back. Supervisors that work this way will willingly take over decision making and, as a result, sub-optimize the work group.
I have had a supervisor that would always decide opposite my own decisions. It got so ridiculous that I began to present my own opinions opposite of what I really wanted in order to get him to decide the way I wanted him to. This creates a toxic work environment.

The Critic

This supervisor does not know what they want, but are quick criticize other people’s work. The work place culture, in this case, takes on an unsafe feel. Employees are not willing to act on their own initiative, thereby avoiding criticism. In the end the subordinates begin to avoid work that can wind up in the supervisor’s hands or go behind the supervisor’s back. Communication is compromised and the work group is sub-optimized.
A good example is when a supervisor asks a subordinate to write a memo and then precedes to wordsmith it. The memo, which should only take a few minutes to write, winds up taking hours. The memo gets bounced between the supervisor and the subordinate multiple times and becomes something written by committee. I once experienced a situation where, after I incorporated my supervisor’s comments, he began to edit and criticize his own work. When I pointed this out, he denied asking for the edits. After a few of these experiences, I made him give me bullet points or write the first draft himself. This worked pretty well.

Introduction of Politics or Religion

In our current political environment there are many employees voicing their political and religious opinions. As long as this is kept “off line” and separate from the work effort there are few problems. When a supervisor introduces these opinions in an “on line” fashion, the work place is made to feel unsafe or maybe even hostile to persons who disagree. The result is employee withdraw from interaction, resentment or arguments.
Managers cannot allow the mass distribution of political or religious email, signage, or dialog in forced attendance venues. The work place will become politically or religiously charged and use up emotional and intellectual bandwidth that is better used in completing work.
When explaining this to my staff I simply tell them that this type of communication is based upon two or more idiots talking about other idiots they know nothing about. A total waste of time when on the job.

Manipulation

Quid pro quo, lying, withholding information (also lying) are forms of manipulation. Supervisors who manage this way have moved the focus of the work effort away from the customer. The work group begins to work to support these side agreements or misinformation instead of producing a quality product or service.
An example would be using quotas to pay bonuses. I consulted with a steel mill that had a product quality issue. What I found was that the production, inspection, and shipping work groups all had the same quota based bonus system. Everything was tied to volume. In order to get a bonus, the production group would tell the inspection group what product to not inspect. The inspection group complied because their bonus was tied with the same criteria (volume) that rewarded the production group. The shipping group would see bad product and ship it anyway for the same reason. This is a great example of teamwork gone bad.

Serial Entrepreneur

This supervisor has a new idea every five minutes and is trying to implement them just as fast. This creates a reactive work space where the focus is on implementing change without analysis. This usually happens when the line between a business’s owners (or senior management) and its operations management become blurred.
The result is operational processes that are not in control. No one knows what change created what result or what impact. Changes or experiments get piggy backed upon each other creating a confusion.
The fix is to document the ideas and plan experiments to test their usefulness. This way, everyone knows what is going on, and the baseline process flow is predictable and the customer is protected.