This week I talk about the importance of recognizing an employee in a state of hurt or depression and about the making of a new verb, BOSS. I had been working on a blog post and decided to include it in the podcast this week. Below is the post, as is. Have a great week…
To be a good leader, you need to boss people around and make them do their work. That’s what a lot of people think of when you put someone in charge. What’s wrong with this idea?
I was listening to another podcast a few weeks ago, and a group of guys were talking about “bossing” people around and that was being the boss and I realized quickly they didn’t know what a boss should be or they were just kidding around. I’m not sure which.
The problem is that we have made the word “boss” a verb rather than a noun. We “boss people around” and “that guy in charge sure is bossy.” In fact, the Oxford Concise Dictionary defines the verb usage of the word boss with: one who give orders in a domineering manner.
Boss has become the new four letter word in our language and I, for one, don’t this is either good or accurate. At one time the term boss was used as an affectionate term for someone you worked for that you liked, but that has changed.
Where and when did it all change? I think it started changing when the business market started changing. As cultures progress, and companies are formed and operate, a change starts to take place. A change we are seeing in our own generation. Companies are being asked to do more than ever, with fewer resources. “Bosses” are expected to get the same production from 20% less people and a lower budget and to get this done, they become domineering toward their employees. Now we have a “bossy” situation and the word takes on a life of its own and this meaning is propagated.
I think the battle for the word boss is probably lost, but now we have to come up with another term of affection for some one we like to work for. Any suggestions?
[tags] leader, boss, culture, progress, motivation, podcast[/tags]
.gif)
4 responses so far ↓
1 Dave J. (64 comments.) // Jan 18, 2006 at 8:11 am
Is it possible that in our cross-functional, matix, flat organizations that are more common today, people get bossy because there is not direct or heiracial (sp?) authority to control others?
2 Larry Hendrick // Jan 18, 2006 at 9:37 am
In my experience that type organization isn’t common at all. Everyone I know answers to someone and most managers have even more people to manage because of a reduction in management forces, just like the reduction in worker bee forces. I would think that type of flat organization could be interesting. I’m posting a link this evening to another Fast Company article from last year that even documents some of the differences that come into play with a flat organizations. Most people are lost to begin with because of no hierarchy but eventually find it liberating.
3 Dave J. (64 comments.) // Jan 19, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Yes, we have bosses, but they don’t necessarily control all the tasks we need to do. My boss is the sales manager, but I need to work with engineers and their manager to get my job done. And because what I am doing isn’t part of any of their projects, its only thru their own motivation or my bossiness/leadership that things get done sometimes.
I loved that Change or Die article at FC. I might have even blogged it. They had an article on WL Gore and their flat, title-less organization too.
4 Larry Hendrick // Jan 20, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I think I see what you are saying, in that it seems you are equating bossiness with leadership. Is that correct? The point I am proposing is leadership by different ways than bossing people around. Not saying it is easy, but I think it is possible. And, of course, the boss has to stay in charge.
Leave a Comment