Top Management Story

Writen by Tim Connor

Force can be defined as – coercion, pressure, to compel, to restrain, compulsory, obligatory, etc., etc. There are many managers, as well as organizations, who still rely on this unproductive approach to motivation and productivity. Management by coercion (force or fear) contributes to:

· poor morale
· high turnover
· low productivity
· poorly motivated employees
· dissatisfied customers
· vulnerability to competitors
· poor organization communication
· uncertain organizational environment (culture)

On the other hand, positive power can be defined as – vigor, strength, significance, influence, clout, potency, greatness etc., etc. Management by positive power contributes to:

· empowered employees
· creative solutions to problems
· an atmosphere of mutual respect
· employees' positive self-esteem
· long term loyal employees
· validated individuals
· effective communication
· peak performance behavior
· customer loyalty

When you review the two lists above, why would any manager, executive, business owner or organization want to maintain a management style that contributes to the first set of results? I have been asking myself that same question for over 25 years. I don't know. It defies logic and common sense. I can only guess that earlier in this century this approach to dealing with people was – more than less – common. As a result, there were massive strikes, poor working conditions, a progressive labor movement and an entire litany of other employee issues and problems.

Times have changed, thankfully. But for some managers, the inheritance of the past is hard to release. Some still practice some degree of negative force to get employee performance. There are some very subtle ways this is accomplished in today's work environment. Here are just three examples:

1. Outdated quota systems and approaches to compensation.

2. Heavy top-down and no bottom-up employee communication.

3. Top-down decision making without bottom-up participation or contribution.