Managers Part IV - Reward & Coercion Based Management

At some point the rookie manager will realize that the title and the name tag that goes along with it is pretty ineffective at influencing people. A few managers skip these next two methods, but most do not and employ the carrot and stick method of management: Rewards and Coercion. Some amateurs combine both methods, but most enjoy the coercive source of power do to the many opportunities for yelling.

There are many types of punishment that can be meted out to create the atmosphere of fear that some managers believe is necessary to compel obedience. The "write up" and it's good buddy the suspension, assigning "crap jobs" to trouble-makers, and the ever popular yelling. Rewards are listed as a separate source of power, but the withholding of rewards goes hand-in-hand with coercion. Managers who lead from Source #3 and the withholding portion of Source #2 are universally rated by employees as "bad" bosses, but for all the raised voices and threats, these managers have little more success than Source #1 managers at getting people to do what they want, in addition to the normal slacking off, you now have added employees who will actively undermine and sabotage the boss's efforts.

Bosses who lead from the giving side of Source #2 (we'll refer to it as #2a) are often thought of as "good" bosses by many employees. They are free with praise, give them whatever schedule that they want, don't assign them any tasks that they might find unpleasant and generally give employees free reign to do whatever they want. The problem with this kind of manager is that not only is he allowing the employees to manage him but this kind of leadership inevitably generates employees who will take advantage of the #2a manager's "good nature". This engenders feelings that some employees are "teacher's pets" and "get away with murder". Many years ago I worked for one of these managers. I was a subordinate manager and he was the head manager at our place of business. One of the more frustrating aspects of working for him was that he would lay down rules, schedules, expectations, but would not follow up to make sure that his directives were being followed. When I attempted to enforce some of his rules, the employees, used to being coddled, would react poorly and he would overrule me. To this day he is loved by most of his employees and would be rated a "good" manager by many...but not by all.

The problem with depending on either #2 a or b, or #3, as a source of authority is that it's essentially either bribery or blackmail. These managers are not teaching their subordinates to do their jobs well because it's their job, but because they are either getting something (a bribe) or are being threatened with punishment (blackmail).