Why we prefer nasty bosses to be horrible all the time（555 words）

By Lucy Kellaway

By far the most difficult boss I've ever had was an inspiring, morally upstanding man. I respected him and learnt a lot from him. The problem was that I could never predict how he would respond to anything.

Sometimes he would sidle past and say something sarcastic about a piece I'd written. At other times he would bound up, full of praise. Occasionally he would perch on the edge of my desk and talk as if he valued my opinion. The following day he would revert to glowering and ignore me entirely.

The very sight of him advancing down the corridor was enough to make me feel anxious. When he was being nice, his face looked the same as when he was horrid and so I started to wonder if his praise was ironic. It was most disconcerting.

I thought of him the other day when I read a piece of research from the University of Michigan suggesting we would far rather have a manager who was horrible all of the time, than one who was horrible only some of it. When it comes to our bosses, it seems we can cope with more or less anything — save unpredictability.

The researchers conducted a series of experiments in which they divided students into three groups and gave them all a job to do. The first group was subjected to constant compliments; the second to constant abuse and the third to a mix of the two. The first group wasn't stressed at all; the second was mildly so, while the third — the group that didn't know if they were going to get sticks or carrots — was by far the most stressed and least happy.

This experiment, written up in the American Academy of Management, reminds me of an earlier study in which rats were given electric shocks. One group heard a bell ring to herald each shock; a second group had shocks with no warning. The first group of rats fared more or less fine. The second group, who could not predict the timing of the shocks, developed stomach ulcers. Workers and rats have a lot in common.

Yet this idea that consistency is important is nowhere in the leadership literature. Predictability is considered boring and unglamorous, in a world that reveres creativity and disruption.

A couple of weeks ago the Harvard Business Review published a blog about the most important traits of leaders, as reported by 195 global leaders themselves. These turned out to be a more or less soppy list of “competencies” including “strong ethics”, “nurtures growth”, “has the flexibility to change opinions” and “is committed to ongoing training”. And so on. Predictability was nowhere on the list.

The only company I can find that explicitly values this is Google. Because it delights in collecting data and measures all leaders constantly, it has found that consistency is one of the most important qualities there is. When the boss isn't consistent, people can't do their best.

Predictability matters at work not just in relation to your boss — but to almost everything. People claim they love jobs in which every day is different, but there is little evidence to back this up. Instead, studies in the US have shown that workers with unpredictable hours are more stressed and less happy than those who keep a regular timetable.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1．Which one is wrong to describe author's boss as mentioned?

A．rational

B．inspiring

C．upstanding

D．inconstant

答案

2．How many groups is there of research from the University of Michigan?

A．2

B．3

C．4

D．5

答案

3．Which trait of the following is not on the list about leadership from Harvard Business Review?

A．strong ethics

B．nurtures growth

C．predictability

D．is committed to ongoing training

答案

4．Which company values predictability explicitly?

A．Baidu

B．Harvard Business Review

C．all above

D．Google

答案