It was Boss' Day on Monday. You might have missed it. It's the day on which employees are supposed to be providers of recognition rather than recipients of it. And before you question the existence of Boss' Day, which has been around for decades, here's the ultimate evidence of its legitimacy: Hallmark even has an ever-expanding collection of greeting cards just for the occasion.
It's an occasion designed to strengthen relationships between managers and employees by acknowledging, just once a year, that most bosses do invest a lot of themselves into their work. There are the long hours, the difficult employees, the never-ending pressure, the demanding executives, the stress and the self-doubt that one might not actually be cut out for the gig.
![First lady Michelle Obama is perceived as a succesful leader.](/web/20161024070837im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/5/n/g/f/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gs6nym.png/1476931114991.jpg)
So, at the start of this week, were you celebrated? Were you taken out for lunch? Were you given a card with a nice note of thanks? No? (Neither was I. I'm going to assume, self-deceivingly, that it was because no one in my team was aware such a day existed.)
There is, of course, another reason why our employees would rather pretend Boss' Day wasn't a thing or, if indeed a thing, at least one transformed into a solemn acknowledgment of all the pain they've endured as a result of their boss; a declaration of workplace survival against the odds. The reason for that non-celebration is obvious: some of us just really suck at leadership.
The bigger question is why. In researching that question over the past couple of days, I stumbled across a fascinating study published in the hugely revered Academy of Management Journal earlier this year. What made it fascinating was that the researchers, on surveying 229 leaders and their employees, identified one potent factor – a factor way out of our control – that can determine whether or not we excel at leadership.
That factor is our upbringing. More specifically, if you were raised in a wealthy environment, there's a greater chance you'll grow up to be a leader who's perceived as ineffective. Conversely, if your childhood was characterised by poverty, there's a greater chance you'll emerge in adulthood as a respected leader who inspires stronger performance from your team.
The explanation for that finding comes down to narcissism. When people are brought up in an affluent household, they're more likely to become narcissistic later in life. The scholars summarise it by asserting that narcissism culminates in "grandiose self views, impulsiveness, reduced empathy, beliefs that one deserves special treatment, strong feelings of uniqueness, and a dominant orientation toward others".
Which obviously doesn't make for good leadership. The connection between childhood wealth and adult narcissism is justified even when looking at other non-work-related studies. The researchers rattle off a few, such as research showing that people on high incomes have less compassion, are more likely to be unethical and less inclined to be helpful.
It's referred to as "psychological residue". How we're brought up leaves a trail that's difficult for us to shake off. As a contrasting example, those raised in poorer households often "have smaller houses in more dangerous neighbourhoods and rely more on time-consuming and unreliable public transportation". That constant struggle and scarcity makes them more humble and compassionate as adults and leaders, which employees usually admire and reciprocate with better performance.
But here's the ultimate question. If a life of affluence can lead to narcissism and eventually ineffective leadership, what does that say about Australia's future where an entire generation has experienced more than two decades of unprecedented economic growth? Is leadership here doomed?
James Adonis is the author of How To Be Great.
0 comments
New User? Sign up