Have you ever worked for someone who just did not get it? They didn’t understand what your job entailed, they expected you to meet insane deadlines, they had absolutely no sense of the reality of the work they were demanding, and worse they were probably punishing or penalizing you for not meeting those ridiculous expectations too.

Alongside a boss who doesn’t know what they’re doing, a boss who doesn’t understand the importance of emotional investment in what an employee is doing is incredibly demoralizing. We’re not saying that every boss needs to have studied some 100% online post-master’s PMHNP program, but research has shown that being a leader is better than being a boss; and that the key difference between the two is empathy and understanding.

The Basis of Bossing

For decades the world has elevated and praised the position of the “boss.” Until recently, the term described the person in charge, the one who steered the ship. The boss was the one with their neck on the chopping block if a business failed, and the boss got the praise if it succeeded. 

Toxic bossing seems to have started around the 1900s when mechanical engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor published his work The Principles of Scientific Management. The book promotes several seemingly harmless, even reasonable ideas. Increased efficiency, little managerial interference, giving workers specific jobs, and “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.” Sounds great, right?

Except, these principles were exactly what started a trend of toxic bossing that is still plaguing the world today. You see Tyalor’s system was built on the process that one might expect a mechanical engineer to prioritise – efficiency. Efficiency was the name of the game as far as Taylor was concerned, and although his concepts seem beneficial, it doesn’t take long to see how they only benefit the employers.

Taylor invented a shovel design that would allow workers to shover for several hours on end. He used the scientific method to render the human-based workforce into a machine-like state, with every worker essentially becoming a cog in a grand machine. He engineered the “perfect” workplace by using people as parts. His belief that there was one “right” (efficient) way to do things also stunted improvement and allowed no room for changing objectives or restructuring workflows. 

Leaning Towards Leadership

The first hint of employees striking back comes from the 1920s, a time when societal shifts were rife and people started questioning the status quo. Psychologist Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne Experiment, where he measured employees’ productivity in relation to recognition for their work as opposed to the constant emphasis on critique and optimization put forward by Taylor 20 years prior. 

The result of the Hawthorne Experiment was the “Hawthorne Effect” where it was found that employees work better when they are recognized and celebrated for their efforts. However, the study was criticized for its lack of scientific rigour. Coupled with the fact that the seniority of the time was unwilling to shift perspective, the Hawthorne experiments saw little use in the workplace.

This was exacerbated after WWII, when the efficiency of the military split into the workplace, with discipline and obedience becoming the order of the day. During the 1960s, when professor Douglas M. McGregor put forward Theory X and Theory Y, with the former defining the perception that all employees are lazy and unmotivated, while the latter assumes they are proactive and self-motivated. Unfortunately, societal norms steered towards Theory X, and bosses continued to crack down on their employees.

After this period during the 80s and 90s, there was an extended period of management fads, but these were low impact and caused no real change for the better. The modern age continues to struggle, as despite post-COVID life showing us that remote and hybrid work is effective and doable, many people choose to force their employees into the office, perpetuating ableist stereotypes and creating difficult conditions for many employees.

Reading the Research

The history of bosses is fraught with toxic methodologies, placing the acquisition of money so high above employee well-being and effective management that the concept is still extremely foreign to many people. It is somewhat shocking that despite the number of formal studies that prove the benefits of empathetic leadership, the almost universal nature of the results of this research goes unheeded.

Ever since the COVID pandemic, people have been begging to have their bosses be leaders. To understand that work/life balance isn’t a choice, it’s a fact of life. To be a leader demands the presence of empathy and understanding. The ability to understand where your employees are means that not only will you make the work environment a richer, more rewarding place to be, but your employees will work harder, be more dedicated, more engaged in their work, and be less likely to leave.

It seems throughout humanity’s capitalist history we’ve traded the ability to empathize for the priority of making money. As long as cash and output are the name of the game, employees will suffer and businesses will never develop the proliferation they desire. However empathetic leaders will always command respect and admiration, therefore more capably leading their team (and therefore their company) to the elevated echelons they so desire.

In the end, excellence only comes when qualified people are allowed to work to their fullest capabilities, under the guidance of a capable, knowledgable, and empathetic leader; free of insecurity, threat, distrust, micromanagement, and elitism. Only when every company CEO realizes this will there ever truly be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.