The aim of speculation is to gain the maximum profit in the shortest time with minimal cost, so speculative bosses focus solely on profit, sometimes lacking necessary moral constraints. From their perspective, anything not illegal is reasonable. However, morality is a recognized standard of behavior, yet its boundaries are not clearly defined, varying from person to person. Therefore, speculation isn’t necessarily a mistake that should be harshly punished, nor should speculative bosses be sanctioned outright. Speculative-type bosses are accustomed to looking for loopholes in rules and laws or taking advantage of favorable business opportunities during certain periods, with a mindset of chance-taking. Speculation often exploits temporary opportunities or areas where rules are not yet well-established. Once many start to speculate, corresponding rules or measures are introduced to close these loopholes. Therefore, speculative bosses must continuously adapt, either by transitioning to legitimate business operations after short-term profiteering or by continuing to seek out other loopholes or opportunities in different fields. Overall, speculative bosses do not plan for long-term commitment and exist in an unstable state.
Employees encountering a speculative boss need to adapt to their methods of operation, whether the boss is in a speculative phase with potential for change or considers speculation as a business strategy and keeps searching for speculative opportunities. These situations are highly unstable, necessitating immediate adjustments and strategies in response to changes in rules, market conditions, and unexpected events. Thus, employees must be ready for significant shifts.
Section 4
Machiavellian bosses judge matters according to their own sense of right and wrong, using various forms of power, strategies, tactics, means, and relationships to influence others, thereby steering events towards their will. When applied on a small scale, this is called scheming; on a larger scale, it’s known as Machiavellianism. However, due to differences in position, experience, and ability, the extent and scope of influence vary. Many rulers have used unjust methods like coercion, violence, deception, and trickery to impose their will, eliminating opposition and achieving their goals, thus giving the term “Machiavellianism” a negative connotation.
As a boss, one must deal externally with suppliers, clients, and government agencies, and internally with subordinates, sometimes even with higher corporate governance bodies. Whether willingly or not, one must navigate various interpersonal relationships, and Machiavellian bosses excel in this area.
Machiavellian bosses might not be adept at production or business management, nor do they necessarily tailor their approach to individuals or focus on business development. However, they excel in understanding and exploiting interpersonal relationships. In handling affairs and solving problems, they habitually think of using personal connections and interpersonal conflicts as solutions. These bosses have strong desires for power and control, willing to turn enemies into friends or cooperate with those they disdain to achieve their ends, often using any means necessary. The reason is that people are merely tools for their use and self-realization; in their view, people are either useful or useless, hence they do not constrain their behavior by moral standards. Thus, they often make promises, paint rosy futures, and are good at motivating employees but rarely follow through.
Machiavellian bosses navigate through various interpersonal relationships and different personalities, always trying to understand others’ mindsets to leverage them while preventing being used themselves, which makes them quite suspicious. Not all suspicious bosses are Machiavellian, but all Machiavellian bosses are suspicious. They hire capable individuals to assist but remain skeptical. Lacking the ability or charisma to provide significant growth opportunities for key subordinates, Machiavellian bosses often foster internal conflicts to keep different factions in check. Due to their suspicion, they tend to concentrate power in their own hands and closely monitor company affairs, often intervening even after delegating tasks, which makes them appear very busy, working tirelessly, often at the cost of their health. However, this is largely due to the concentration of power and lack of clear responsibility delegation.
Of course, Machiavellian bosses are not solely reliant on Machiavellianism; they possess abilities in other areas, just that they are habitually and adeptly use these tactics to solve problems. Employees working under a Machiavellian boss will find it hard to gain their trust, and showing off one’s capabilities is not a wise choice. The less capable should work diligently, while the capable should work within their limits. Despite not making significant achievements, Machiavellian bosses can ensure smooth operations, making it a decent job. Moreover, they have a deep understanding of human nature, offering profound and enriching lessons not found in textbooks.
Strict-type bosses are strict with their subordinates, believing in managing through law. They establish complex systems, rules to ensure these systems are enforced, and set up institutions and departments to oversee compliance. While a certain level of regulation is necessary for any business, strict-type bosses overly emphasize the constraints of laws and company policies on employees, believing that strict adherence to these rules guarantees smooth production and normal operation of the company.
Strict-type bosses win through good discipline and stringent management. Many of them think management is about controlling people, fearing that loopholes in the system could lead to laxity and difficulty in management. Lacking the energy or wisdom to resolve potential conflicts, they rely heavily on numerous regulations. Sometimes, they can appear rigid, sticking to the rules. However, these bosses are usually very strict with themselves as well, ensuring they can do what they demand of others, and they act based on regulations, not swayed by personal feelings or biases. As an employee, if you encounter a strict boss, you need to be diligent and work hard, which can help you improve your organizational skills and efficiency. However, you shouldn’t be bound by dogmatism and should retain some of your own initiative.
A strict but fair boss sets strict standards and focuses on systems and efficiency. Their rules aim at overall constraint and fairness, with the goal of running the business well and ensuring no mistakes in daily operations. They usually don’t target individuals and lead by example. On the other hand, a harsh boss is more critical and sets overly strict and cumbersome rules specifically targeting employee behavior, which often focuses heavily on penalties.
The regulations set by a harsh boss often seem ridiculous and unreasonable, sometimes even infringing on legal rights, like setting limits on bathroom breaks. It’s not uncommon for them to find excuses to withhold or delay wages, to make employees work overtime without compensation during regular workdays or holidays. Moreover, these bosses often do not set an example themselves; their rules only bind the employees, while they act freely. They treat employees differently based on personal preferences, using different standards. Some harsh bosses might not even establish formal rules but punish employees based on their whims, showing inconsistency and capriciousness. Their aim is merely to flaunt their power.
