Managing people is not the same as accumulating subordinates.
Managing people is not the same as having people under your command. And yet, how often have we encountered bosses who believe the number of subordinates is a measure of success? ‘I lead a team of 30 people,’ they say proudly, as if each employee were a trophy hung on the wall of their office. The irony is that if you’re not capable of effectively managing four people, you won’t succeed with 30 either. You’ll only scale the chaos—although with a larger number of people in charge, there’s also the possibility of diluting the perception of the actual harm being caused by that individual.
To scale teams, we must first be capable of managing them effectively when their size is smaller, and then understand the importance of creating a structure once the teams grow larger. Be cautious with organizations that claim, ‘We have a flat organizational chart because we don’t believe in hierarchies‘: not all are prepared for it. The ‘assembly-cooperative’ model doesn’t work for everyone and can end up causing significant damage.
The Dissonance of a Bad Boss
The problem with many bad bosses (where ‘bad’ is synonymous with ‘mediocrity’) isn’t that they don’t know management theory. Quite the opposite—they can recite it by heart. The issue is that they have no idea how to apply it. In their heads, they see themselves as great leaders. In reality, they are the weight dragging their team down.
“This is one of the major flaws in management: the immense -and sometimes insurmountable- challenge that the act of ‘modeling’ can represent for certain individuals. That is, understanding and mastering the entire theoretical-dogmatic framework, and then being able to step away from it and apply it in the real world.”
And who does this inability affect (and how)? I’ve seen it too many times. Professionals with enormous potential, right at that critical moment when they start taking on more responsibilities, left adrift by bosses who can’t even manage their own ego (which must also be managed, but should never take up more than a limited amount of time and space). Just when they need support and guidance the most, they find themselves with a leader who doesn’t listen, who imposes without reason, who is incapable of reading their team and understanding what each person needs to grow.
Three Types of Managers
Throughout my career, I’ve encountered three categories of managers: a small group of truly excellent ones, a neutral group, and a third group that was outright harmful.
The great managers came in different profiles: some were numerically strong and highly analytical, others were dynamic and commercially driven, and some had an incredible ability to navigate the often absurd corporate world to maximize results. But they all shared three fundamental traits: transparency, honesty, and the ability to identify and nurture talent.
The neutral group, on the other hand, didn’t lead in any real sense. However, they could handle the basics of resource management in a merely adequate way. They kept operations running, but there was no grand vision beyond that. We’re talking about someone who feels much more comfortable in an ecosystem of “non-brilliance” in their teams – if not outright mediocrity. Sometimes, this came with a dose of condescension toward their team—a bad cocktail, hard to stomach for anyone who didn’t belong to that mediocrity, even in small doses. These figures eventually became obsolete over time.
“Mediocrity, when it spreads and takes control of an organization, ultimately drives talent away. There’s usually no turning back.”
Luckily for me, the third group—the destructive ones—only appeared in later stages of my career, when I was already seasoned enough to be immune to their damage. But I did witness how they ruined talented professionals who had the potential to grow into middle management (and beyond). I will discuss this further below.
Fear of Their Own Shadow
And here’s where another fascinating factor comes in: fear. A bad boss recognizes talent, of course. But instead of fostering it, they see it as a threat. And they act accordingly.
- They avoid conversations where they might be exposed.
- They cut people off in meetings to prevent them from shining.
- They refuse to assign strategic responsibilities to those who might outshine them.
- And in the worst cases, they undermine their own team in front of their superiors.
Because some bosses have another characteristic: if they need to completely compromise themselves before a superior, they will do so without hesitation, even if it means undermining the morale and trust of the team. And when this happens without a clear explanation or justification to help understand the move, it’s the beginning of the end. An unreliable boss is a boss who loses authority.
How Did They Get There?
Why have certain individuals been allowed to ascend to such critical positions? It depends on many factors related to the nature of the organization: whether it is conservative or not, large in scale (or not), where certain short- or medium-term results might be prioritized without foreseeing the potential impacts outlined in this post—or worse yet, identifying them but downplaying their significance.
Someone has gotten to that position somehow. In some cases, they possess qualities highly valued by shareholders, delivering a measurable numerical/revenue return to the organization. In other instances, a compliant nature is sought, without understanding that the flip side of the coin when talking about ‘compliance‘ should never be ‘belligerence,’ but rather ‘assertiveness.’ That is, the ability to communicate clearly, directly, and respectfully, expressing ideas, needs, or instructions without imposing them aggressively or falling into passivity.
However, caution is advised: evaluating one’s boss (vertical feedback or ‘down-up’) may require a certain level of professional maturity to allow for an unbiased analysis. Excessive emotion can taint the evaluation, leading us to perceive incompetence where there may simply be a lack of tools or support. Knowing how to differentiate between the two is essential to avoid oversimplification.
The Importance of Middle Management
To reach C-Level or top management rone must have successfully completed the previous phases sequentially. There are no shortcuts, and when shortcuts are taken, they are unfortunately noticeable. First, it is essential to understand the context and impact of our decisions at a departmental level, as well as their alignment within corporate strategy. Seeing and understanding that link is the first step toward greater clarity down the line. Next comes managing the most complex resource in an organization: people, never technology. It involves understanding what is expected of each role and envisioning the subsequent impacts at the functional area level…
If this intermediate phase is disrupted, the professional impact can be devastating. If the situation is not redirected, the damage can be (while acknowledging the distance created by the following analogy) comparable to the lack of socialization in the early stages of our lives: a professional who did not have the proper space, guidance, and support will find it much more difficult to develop their potential. Because professional growth goes far beyond mere competency skills.
I have witnessed how good professionals with potential to grow into middle management (and beyond) were squandered. Interestingly, some of these professionals would approach me in informal conversations to express their concerns and dissatisfaction with the situation. I would listen to them and diagnose what was happening. From there, I would also offer them my advice, if they wanted it. There was little else I could do. But the first step for them is to understand what is happening.
The Difference a Good Boss Makes
I had a boss, many years ago, who taught me the difference between being a boss, when and how to exercise management, and what leadership is—and is not. Very different things, which I also discuss in this article. Not only did he ask for feedback, but he also listened to it. Not only did he listen to it, but he valued it. And not only did he value it, but he adjusted his way of leading to maximize not only business results but also the professional development of his team.
That is the kind of boss any professional would (or should) want to have. The one who understands that leadership is not about accumulating subordinates but about creating the conditions for their team to shine. Because, in the end, a boss’s success is not measured by the number of people under their command but by the quality of the talent they help to develop. That is what ultimately endures within an organization. Numerical results (though the true raison d’être of a corporation) inevitably fade within the natural cycle of annual goal-setting.
