Case One: Boss as "Jerk"

Management trainer and author Mary Donohue claims that tyranical, authoritarian bosses are commonplace: "This is a virus that has spread far and wide." These are managers, she says, who rule over their employees and use fear "as their primary weapon."41 Georgetown University business professor Christine Porath says that one-quarter of those she surveyed reported they were treated rudely at work at least once per week in 1998, but that portion had risen to over 50 percent by 2011.42 While Apple visionary Steve Jobs was celebrated for his remarkable accomplishments, he was often accused of harsh, dictatorial management practices. Business Insider lists 16 episodes of "Jobs Being a Huge Jerk," including allegations of lying to his partner Steve Wozniak about the money involved in a deal, firing employees without notice or severance pay, and firing a boss in front of his team.43 Reports suggest that Jobs was often a good, charming person and boss and that he mellowed somewhat in later years. Business journalist Jerry Useem recently summarized some of the scholarly evidence about tyrannical bosses in a 2015 Atlantic article, "Why It Pays to Be a Jerk."44 The data are mixed, as would be expected. Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer says that ". . . all the things we rate negatively"like immodesty"are the best predictors of higher salaries or getting chosen for a leadership position."45 And research at the University of Amsterdam finds that overconfidence and some degree of obnoxiousness can make us seem more powerful and, in fact, can make us more powerful.46 But other research by Yale professor David Rand shows that being accommodatingbeing nicepays off at least in environments where we interact with the same people on a regular basis.47 In sum, Useem concluded that being a jerk is likely to fail, at least in the long run, if others do not receive spillover benefits, if the boss is dealing with the same people repeatedly, or if the boss lacks the brilliance of someone like Steve Jobs. Wharton professor Adam Grant has received a great deal of attention recently for his research on whether being nice pays off at work. He divides people into three categories: Takers (who look out for themselves), Givers (who are generous and expect nothing in return), and Matchers (who help others but with the expectation of reciprocal favors). In his study of engineers, salespeople, and medical school students, Grant found that the Givers were overrepresented in the bottom 25 percent of their field but also in the top 25 percent. Being too nice can hurt in the short run but pay off in the long run through engendering goodwill in others and through the learning that comes with being generous.48 Broadly, however, Grant has said: "What I've become convinced of is that nice guys and gals really do finish last."49 Grant thinks the most effective people are those whom he labels "disagreeable givers." They are not necessarily the nicest people. They are demanding and direct and they push others, but they do so, Grant says, with the interests of others and the organization in mind.50 64 Unit One Business and Society So being an unkind, authoritarian boss may or may not be productive, but is it the right approach? Is being a "jerk" as a boss an ethically defensible posture? Consider the following questions.

Question:

1. Does the boss as "jerk" raise ethical issues? Explain