Supervisor and employees in a "partnership"

"Vorgesetzter und Angestellte in der «Partnerschaft»" Der Bund, Volume 102, Number 175, 17 April 1951 (Part I)

"Vorgesetzter und Angestellte in der «Partnerschaft»" Der Bund, Volume 102, Number 175, 17 April 1951 (Part II)

Google translate:

From PD Dr. Franziska Baumgartner-Tramer

There are numerous situations in life in which two people face each other in such a way that every action of one is related to the other and is, to a great extent, determined by the other. Every behavior of one individual is then directed at the other individual, who in turn reacts to it. We see this particularly clearly in situations of love and hate, benevolence, envy, revenge, and many others, where we speak of the lover and the beloved, the hater and the hated, the giver and the receiver, the envious and the envied. We call such situations a partnership situation, and the two people involved in this specific situation are called partners. The partner can be a "fellow participant" (as in love, games, or sports) or an opponent (as in hate, envy, or revenge).

In professional life, we have many partner relationships, such as doctor and patient, teacher and student, judge and defendant, seller and customer, and many others. These can involve power and subordination situations, where one partner has power over the other (supervisor – employee, teacher – student), or coordination situations, where both partners are equal in terms of power relations (seller – customer, one employee compared to another employee).

Let's stick with the power-based partnership, where the superior can at any time (while observing certain conditions) dismiss the employee, reduce or increase their salary, reward them, or humiliate them.

This position of power can be perceived differently by both the supervisor and the employee, depending on their personalities: The domineering supervisor may use it to assert himself as the "master of the house" and behave in a bossy, arrogant, presumptuous, and haughty manner, but he can also be socially minded, refrain from exercising his authority, and instead behave in a collegial or protective manner towards the employee, being helpful, supportive, and friendly.

This behavior on the part of the superior elicits a corresponding reaction from the employee, depending on their personality. Faced with an authoritarian boss, the employee may, if they wish to gain favor, become completely subservient, blindly obedient, and obsequious. However, if they want to assert themselves and maintain their emotional independence, they will resist such treatment and adopt a defensive stance. The envy that arises in the powerless individual towards the powerful, tormenting and plaguing them, and arousing feelings of injustice, leads to unpleasant thoughts about the prevailing injustice in the world and tempts them to disobedience. Both parties then find themselves in opposition to each other. Both experience feelings of discontent, which manifest as a lack of motivation at work. The employee's performance suffers considerably as a result.

The socially minded supervisor does not trigger a defensive reaction. Not being preoccupied with feelings of superiority or inferiority, a relationship of trust and mutual understanding develops between both parties. Enthusiasm for work is fostered, and the employee's performance proves to be excellent. There are even cases where the supervisor falls under the sway of a domineering employee (for such employees do exist). Even then, the performance, unhindered by defensiveness, remains impressive.

These psychological relationships, which arise from the superior's position of power, lead to the conclusion that it is not a matter of indifference to management which personalities interact. A submissive employee is a better fit for an authoritarian superior, while a socially minded superior is better suited to an employee who is not given the opportunity to assert themselves psychologically. Many superiors who handle hiring personally instinctively make the right choice of subordinates. However, it seems that in larger companies, where hiring is left to a special "personnel department," the working relationships can be extremely unpleasant.

However, the psychological relationships that arise from the power dynamic itself constitute only a part of the mutual psychological relationship between the two partners.

Human diversity is extraordinarily vast—it encompasses all the characteristics and abilities found in individuals in varying degrees, strengths, and expressions. The nuances of such variations are countless. Just as no two leaves on a tree are identical, no two people are psychologically identical (just as they are physically different). In a partnership, therefore, two people can meet who differ significantly not only in their abilities but also in temperament, will, character, intelligence, and cognitive abilities. For example, a supervisor might be lively, fiery, passionate, and hot-blooded, while an employee might be calm, composed, even insensitive, apathetic, and unmoved. They can then get along well. However, if the supervisor encounters someone of a similar disposition, they will clash, and their collaboration will be anything but productive. Constant tension and conflict will arise.

Of course, the reverse can also be true: The superior is the epitome of calm and composure—the employee fiery, quick-tempered, and impatient. The superior may then be able, by virtue of his position, to tame the employee, but the employee's restless nature can get on the superior's nerves, and he may then try to rid himself of the employee who is so unsettling him. This is a very common case of incompatible personalities.

The various traits of the superior and the employee thus have a mutually positive or negative effect. Numerous examples bear witness to this: The apathetic superior has a paralyzing effect on suggestive personalities; he tempts ambitious employees to push themselves forward and interfere everywhere without authorization.

The taciturn, reserved superior has a "neutral" effect on similarly inclined employees, but a depressing effect on employees who have feelings of inferiority and need encouragement, making them gloomy and preventing them from achieving anything worthwhile.

A very strict supervisor who distances himself from all subordinates and demands high performance can rob a shy employee of any remaining courage and hinder his achievements. He can, however, motivate a confident, self-assured employee to perform, more out of defiance than dedication to the work.

If the boss tolerates no interference in his authority, viewing it as a diminishment of his power, he extinguishes independent thinking in his employees and leads them to hypocrisy and servility, fostering a feeling of being merely tolerated.

If the boss is benevolent, grants everyone a place in the sun, is accommodating, attentive to the needs of his employees, and lenient, he creates a pleasant working atmosphere, which manifests itself in...that employees feel at home in the company. He generally motivates them to perform. However, his good nature can be exploited and abused by dishonest, egocentric employees.

Contrast alone does not determine the incompatibility of the two partners; in many cases, the "contrast" proves advantageous. A very fast-working supervisor cannot have an employee who works very slowly; it makes him quite nervous. Conversely, a quick-thinking and efficient employee is often a good match for a slow-working supervisor. A forgetful, disorganized supervisor can certainly benefit from a secretary who is tidy and has a good memory.

One could compile a long list of such influences. Within the narrow scope of this discussion, we only wish to emphasize that the contrasts become particularly stark when dealing with two main types of human temperament: the "work-oriented" and the "life-oriented" types. For the "work-oriented," their activity, creation, and output constitute the goal, the content, the essence of their lives. They invest all their efforts, all their endeavors, and all their ambition in their work. For them, a fellow human being is worth only as much as their achievements. They value others not so much according to their character traits and moral qualities as according to their economic productivity. Such superiors demand a great deal, are strict judges regarding output, and lenient towards other transgressions. If a work-oriented superior encounters a work-oriented employee for whom creation also plays the most important role in life, their collaboration flourishes. If, on the other hand, the supervisor is the "life-bound" type, for whom work is merely a more or less unpleasant means of subsistence—that is, something necessary but bothersome—then he will value the employee's character more than their performance. The work-oriented type of employee is out of place in his environment, whereas he can get along very well with a "life-bound" type.

Only if the supervisor (which also happens) is very averse to work, prefers to be represented, and delegates responsibilities, will a work-oriented employee be a suitable match—one who is ambitious and efficient, takes on all duties, and performs them well.

The result of such differently structured partners can manifest itself in a general feeling of sympathy or antipathy, that is, in the social tendencies of "towards" and "against." From what has been explained, we can see how certain personality types are compatible or incompatible, and what is beneficial or detrimental to one's mental well-being. Harmful feelings create psychological tensions that burden the psyche, throw a person off balance, and shake them. From the standpoint of mental hygiene, that is, the protection of mental health, they are therefore detrimental to one's well-being and should be avoided whenever possible.

This leads to a problem in professional life that can be summarized in the generally understandable formula: "Who is a good fit for whom?" or, expressed scientifically: the adaptation of one psychological structure to another, i.e., the adaptation of one person to another.

Psychotechnics as a science has thus far had two main tasks: How should one assign a suitable profession to a job applicant?And how should one select the most suitable candidate from a very large number of applicants (—competitive selection)? These two tasks urgently require a third: How should the adaptation of people to one another be implemented in the workplace? This task is more difficult to solve than the first two, but it is the most important. Experience has shown that even the most capable apprentice makes no progress under a master whose character is not a good match, that the most qualified employee will achieve nothing under a superior who is not a good psychological match, just as the most capable superior will not achieve much when faced with a group of employees who become agitated and behave defiantly. Just as in marriage or between siblings, two inherently valuable individuals who prove to be unsuitable partners can suffer psychological harm in the workplace. Partnership theory proves very fruitful, allowing us to gain insights into and shape these professional relationships. All rules of human interaction have only relative value, in that each type of superior applies (and can apply) only those rules that suit their own personality. The rules of conduct to be issued must therefore also be "tailor-made," that is, correspond to the individuality of the person acting.

The "matching" of partners becomes a task that can and should best be solved through the joint efforts of theory and practice.

* For more details, see F.Baumgarten, Psychology of Human Treatment in the Workplace, 2nd edition, pages 265–271.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse