Tangling with Tyrants

I've posted reading notes on Tony Deblauwe's book, Tangling with Tyrants. The book is intended to serve as a guidebook for employees who are dealing with difficult bosses, but it's interesting in the context of any relationship in which there is an imbalance of power, and the individual in the advantaged position acts in a way that serves their short-term interest but damages the greater long-term value they (and their organization) might derive from a less parasitic relationship with the disadvantaged party.

The employee of a "tyrant" boss can be likened to the company that serves a petulant customer - though the nature of the relationship often seems inverted, there is a balance of power that should be considered: while companies will bend over backward to serve their customers because they provide the company with its income (just as an employee will suffer an abusive boss for the sake of a paycheck), there comes a point at which a customer demands more value from the vendor than the vendor is willing to give, in light of other customers who will pay a fair price and be less demanding. It's this notion that leads a firm to refuse to give any further service a customer who costs more to placate than the company derives in profit from serving them.

Aside of that, I was stricken by the notion that many employees who protest at the treatment they receive from their superiors often become bosses who inflict the same treatment upon their own subordinates when they rise to a given level of power and authority. That is, when the roles are reversed, there is a complete change of perspective.

This can be witnessed in instances in which a company stops serving its customers and begins attempting to control them. A retail store may cater to a customer up until the moment of sale, but the quality of the customer experience completely reverses itself when the customer seeks a refund for a product already purchased. Or a company whose product involves a term commitment, such as a health club or cell phone provider, has the customer "locked" into an agreement that compels him to pay regardless of whether he is satisfied with the service he receives. Or a company who is in a position of power due to the lack of options available to a customer, such as a utility company or a hospital emergency room.

The problem is similar in that the company who treats a customer poorly doesn't consider the benefit it derives from a more long-term relationship with a customer - it seeks to get all it can in the near term, maximizing profit or minimizing loss from immediate activities, rather than considering the potential lifetime value of the customer from being more service-oriented and attentive to the needs of the customer. As soon as other options are available - the term contract has ended or another provider enters a market - the customer leaves.

Ultimately, the answer isn't to perpetuate the power struggle between parties, but to seek a mutually beneficial relationship, with each party being reasonable about its demands of the other in light of the value it obtains in exchange. To do otherwise is to achieve a short-term gain at the sacrifice of a greater long-term one.