The Dutch business anthropologist, Geert Hofstede defined the Power Distance Index or PDI. The PDI measures the extent to which power differs within society, organisation and institutions. In other words, it measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. The PDI in India is at 77, which is very high. In contrast, the UK is at 35 and the US is at 40.
Power-distances in some businesses in India are similarly high. There are two key unwritten rules for employees in organisations with a high-power distance. One – ‘Give your views only when you are asked to’ and Two – ‘The Boss is always right’.
Power distances within family business have tended to be even higher. Yet, power distances have reduced significantly from what they were a generation ago. In some cases, there has been a drastic change. Some next-gen leaders have taken it from one extreme to the other. They believe that you need to be buddies with your employees for them to reach their full potential. That being back-slapping buddies with your employees, is the only way to maximise performance. That they need to be involved in all the twists and turns in the personal life of an employee.
So, what’s the correct way? As with anything, extremes are never great. Extremes here are ‘autocracy’- management with a stick and ‘buddy-cracy’- management through being buddies. This article examines the middle path and tries to define the fine line between being an ‘autocratic boss’ and being a ‘buddy boss’.
Which gets your work done on time?
A key advantage of an autocracy is that employees start ascribing significant value to anything the leader says. Since it isn’t common, the value when they are spoken to is significant. So, if given clear directions to do something by a deadline, chances are they’ll get it done. Timelines for output are predictable. Timelines for output in a buddy-cracy are a bit more variable. And if a deadline is missed; the expectation is that you ‘forgive-and-forget’ your buddies tardiness in adhering to timelines.
And which gives better quality?
In a perfect world, there’s no gap between what one person says and another person understands. You say something, it’s perfectly understood and you get output exactly in line with what you asked for. In the real world, there can be an abyss between the two. Employees sometimes need several interactions with their boss to understand exactly what they need to do. The quality of those interactions is often the difference between mediocre and great output. Employees hesitate to ask questions in organisations with high power-distance. Or to point out issues which prevent them from producing great output. In an autocracy, the limited interactions can reduce output quality over time. That often means having to send work back to be redone to meet your quality expectations.
A ‘buddy-cracy’ doesn’t perform much better on quality. The kinder governance is great, but it can also set up the organisation for mediocrity. Average work can get justified and overlooked. This can be terrible for you and your clients. Put yourself in a client’s shoes and imagine receiving output that is not of the highest quality. You will feel short-changed. After all you’ve paid good money for a good product. Even within the organisation everyone gets promoted equally, regardless of performance. The much-required push for excellence is lacking. How would an employee who puts in extra effort to deliver better output feel in this case? It’s a sure-fire way of driving down morale. You might end up losing your high performing employees and being left with the mediocre ones. At an organisational level that means a continuing drop in quality.
And the middle path is?
We’ve seen that either extreme doesn’t produce great results on either quality or timeliness of work. So, what’s to be done?
It pays to remember that evolution has made Homo Sapiens (that’s us!) a social animal. The reason our species has multiplied and prospered is our ability to share information with each other and cooperate effectively. People are built to be a part of a group. Various studies show that feeling comfortable or having a psychological safety net is a key to workplace satisfaction and success. Psychological safety is the ability to share thoughts and opinions or ask questions without the fear of repercussions.
All that said, friendships (most of them!) are built on the basis of equal authority. It’s great for a work culture to encourage leaders to know more about their employees. Yet, that doesn’t mean getting entangled in their personal lives. It means that a boss understands just enough to appreciate any external influences which may impact performance. After all, every employee may go through a rough patch in their personal life. The boss needs to be aware of the issue, so that the employee can be accommodated in that phase. S/he, however, doesn’t need to know about the nitty-gritty of the issue.
We have a natural tendency to be friendly with a certain type of personality. Buddy-cracy creates (or creates the perception of) favourites based on employee’s personalities. Not on their performance. Maintaining some distance mitigates this risk. It’s difficult to take decisions in a buddy-cracy as well. A friend might get hurt. Employees should recognise that while ideas can be shared democratically, the leader has the right to call the shots. And most importantly, its difficult confronting a buddy about poor performance. And you really can’t discipline a friend. You’ll likely lose a friendship as well as have an awkward situation at work.
So, be casual but not friends. Encourage opinions but reserve the right to make solo decisions. Know their hobbies, but not their vices. Trust but have robust checks and balances. Aristotle said – ‘A friend to all is a friend to none’. While he said that in a different context, it’s a great guiding principle. If you are equally friendly with every employee, you don’t need to worry about becoming buddies with any one employee.
Closing thoughts
Employees should feel good around you and know you value them. They should be comfortable making their opinions known. And know that you will support them in their personal issues to the extent it impacts their professional life. But be sure to draw boundaries. For eg tell an employee if you feel conversations are becoming too personal.
It’s lonely at the top. But don’t make an employee a best buddy. There are other ways of dealing with loneliness. Like finding a group of 3-5 like-minded leaders or getting a coach or advisor. At the other extreme, don’t be an autocrat. Neither extreme is good for you, nor your business. So, learn to tread the fine line between being a friend and a boss. For your sake and the sake of your business.
