Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because the staff thinks the manager sucks, doesn't mean upper management agrees. We have a manager here who really is not doing her job well because she lacked an overall/general understanding of what this particular division does (she was hired from another division).
Nothing will happen to her because (as noted above) upper management would have to admit they made a mistake. Something they will NEVER do. And because the new manager runs (literally) with her boss and another manager. They're friends. AND because (and this is just my guess) they think of her as an up and coming management prospect, so they want to give her all the chances in the world to get the gist of the job. She will. But that still won't make her a good manager. Finally, her boss is a bit of a jerk too, so it's quite possible that some of the things she's requiring now are really coming from higher up.
Who is easier to replace? a manager or an associate?
Once you have the answer to this, you will have the answer to your question.
How about several associates and the rest have poor morale and are disengaged because of it. Keeping the manager becomes more and more ridiculously expensive.
1. If manager has the knowledge, the skill sets, work ethics and the experience with bad bedside manners, you keep and sadly you promote. Those talents are not easy to come by and at the end of the day, upper management is not required to be your best friend. Many people I have come across in upper management are not very personable... and frankly some are them are just plain d*cks but one thing I have to admit is that they know their beeswax and very well.
2. If the manager lacks the above and has bad bedside manners, then its time to re-evaluate.
EDIT: One more thing... you should be surprise how many people play Jekyll and Hyde when dealing with different titles in the company.
Just because he/she may be treating you a certain way, does not mean that is how they deal with everyone.
How about several associates and the rest have poor morale and are disengaged because of it. Keeping the manager becomes more and more ridiculously expensive.
If the manager is meeting expectations for his department(including not going over on budget), then there's no problem.
Let's say your boss is a slave driver and makes salaried employees work 50 hour weeks. That manager is essentially getting the same work done with 16 people that would have taken other managers 20 people to do. If each employee is paid $40k, that means the manager is saving $160k/year by overworking employees. If the employee retraining costs stay under $160k and the manager is still able to get the same output, then the manager is "good" in the eyes of upper management because he's saving the company money.
Also, while I said above all employees were paid $40k, the reality is that the ones who were there longer probably make more. At the same time, the ones more likely to quit are the ones who have "put up" with the 50 hour weeks longer. So if the average salary is $40k, but the ones quitting make $45k, replacing them with new people can reduce the average salary cost.
Now, if productivity drops off, retraining costs exceed the $160k/year, or they can't fill positions and the work is no longer getting done on time, then upper management would likely get involved. But until then, while the manager is "Bad" to you, he's "Good" to upper management.
That's why they don't get rid of "Bad" managers. Because many times the "Bad" ones are efficient in the eyes of upper management..
One thing that constantly puzzles me is I read storied about antisocial, even borderline psychotic managers all the time. It often turns up as one of the top reasons workers quit. So once it becomes clear that the manager is a problem, why do companies not do something about it by either demoting/firing the individual or at the very least send them for retraining?
Turnover is a very expensive issue for companies and large turnover even more so. Poor morale which leads to worker disengagement is also a very expensive problem for employers. So again why don't companies do something?
I think a lot of it depends on the size and scale of the business. Bad managers can hide more easily in larger-scaled companies, for one thing. Another factor is the type of employee that is typically being run off. If it's in retail or fast food, for instance, it can take a long time before companies see the impact of turnover. Typically the less specialized the product or service, the more tolerant they can be of turnover. Turnover almost always hurts the company, but that damage is cumulative and insidious. A lot of the middle managers and their superiors aren't actually investors in the company so it's not like it's their money getting pissed away. Nobody calls them on it unless turnover is so bad that you have ghost departments or ghost stores.
When one specific manager has a higher than normal turnover it is not at all subjective to say he/she is bad if that person is driving people to quit.
There has to be a consequence beyond just high turnover before anyone's going to take action to remove a manager. If some new hotheaded manager comes up and forces good people with a proven track record to quit, that might get the attention of upper management, but not until key initiatives get delayed or sales plummet as a direct result will there be any itch to get rid of Manager Hothead.
If the manager is meeting expectations for his department(including not going over on budget), then there's no problem.
That's why they don't get rid of "Bad" managers. Because many times the "Bad" ones are efficient in the eyes of upper management..
Exactly. The company won't get rid of them because they're doing what the company wants. It may seem ridiculous to the underlings, but the bosses are getting what they want, so the manager stays.
One thing that constantly puzzles me is I read storied about antisocial, even borderline psychotic managers all the time. It often turns up as one of the top reasons workers quit. So once it becomes clear that the manager is a problem, why do companies not do something about it by either demoting/firing the individual or at the very least send them for retraining?
Turnover is a very expensive issue for companies and large turnover even more so. Poor morale which leads to worker disengagement is also a very expensive problem for employers. So again why don't companies do something?
I know I've read this in most of your posts, but please link to articles about these managers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
