From Faceless Executor to 'Big Manager': Are We to Blame for Bad Bosses?

I hadn't planned to write on this topic. It's been bothering me for a long time, but I thought I wasn't ready for this text yet. And this topic would probably have stayed in a draft folder if I hadn't seen a piece of news that seriously annoyed me on a human and professional level. Two former colleagues, average at their jobs, received a regional leadership position in a multinational company and a board seat, also in a multinational company. And let's be clear, it's not envy—I am very happy with what I do today—this was astonishment. Because everyone who has worked with them knows their skillset: being around the right people, knowing who to smile at, and making pretty PowerPoint presentations. And that brought me to the topic – who is to blame when we choose bad bosses, results start to fall, and employees leave?

The Culture of Obedience: A Silent Threat to Development

I've been working in the HR world long enough to see a repeating pattern: companies want proactive, responsible, critically-minded employees. It's written in job ads, it's said in onboarding training, it's on the values hung on office walls and on the intranet. But in reality, the moment an employee actually asks a question, expresses doubt, or requests additional information before implementing a new strategy, they often encounter silent resistance. Does that sound familiar? Or have you already experienced it?

It's clear that leaders are not born in such an environment. Soldiers are. And do our companies need obedient soldiers or leaders who will drive change and fight in an increasingly challenging market?

The problem is that we, as leaders, often don't even recognize that we ourselves are choosing obedience over thinking. Not because we don't know we should do otherwise, but because it's easier to have a team that doesn't ask for many explanations. We choose a team that will execute our ideas and won't have clear authority, so we often weigh who is to blame when things don't go as we imagined.

Likewise, when we promote the obedient ones, our best people leave. The true successors for the positions we filled with the obedient. They don't want to work for bad bosses, they won't work for a tarnished company brand, and they won't nod their heads and watch the results get worse every quarter. Fortunately, there are other companies with a clear advancement plan that choose people who are ready to lead change, propose ideas, but also know how to accept defeat, admit mistakes, and turn a mistake into something good.

Multinationals vs. Civil Service - Is There a Difference?

The thought immediately crossed my mind – is there a difference between multinationals and the civil service? For decades, we've been hearing that if you want to achieve something through hard work, you have to go into the private sector, preferably a multinational company, because there's no room for favoritism there. Partially true - procedures are clearer, organizational structures usually work, HR has a bigger role... but fundamentally, in some companies, things often remain the same. In the civil service, promotions are slow; among experts, seniority is often valued more than contribution because everyone knows who belongs to whom. However, what we see is that the corporate world isn't much different - it just uses a different vocabulary.

Even in some multinational systems, they often choose the obedient, those who don't ask questions, who don't challenge too much, who execute everything you say quickly and without hesitation. And then, when it's time to choose future managers, we make leaders out of them – because it's easier with them. Not because they are better.

What is True Leadership Style?

Leadership is not "holding a meeting" or "presenting KPIs." Leadership is the ability to build people who will know how to make decisions even without you. To take responsibility. To lead a team.

To do that, you have to listen to them. You have to develop them. You have to entrust them with projects, give them feedback that isn't just "well done" or "not enough." You have to challenge them and encourage them to challenge you. Because a leader who doesn't allow criticism doesn't build a team, but a cult of personality.

So Why Do We Choose "Nodders"?

Because it's easier for us. Because it's less effort. Because managers, especially at the middle level, often lack the support to endure a constructive debate. Because they too were not developed to be leaders but to be efficient operatives. And that's why we fear those who think for themselves. And when someone appears who knows more, asks for more, doesn't settle for "copy-paste," we either reject or ignore them. Because they are "difficult." "They complicate things." "Not a team player." But in reality, they might just be the first one who is truly ready to lead.

What Does the Research Say?

In February of this year, the O.U.R. HR association conducted a survey on a sample of about 3,000 employees in Serbia from the general population, and the results were brutally honest:

Only 18% of employees feel that their effort is recognized and adequately rewarded. Only 18% of them feel that their boss truly knows what they do and respects them for it. And as many as 52% would rather leave a company due to a lack of recognition than because of their salary.

In a country where salaries are still below the European average, the fact that recognition is a bigger "trigger" for leaving than money must make us think. This isn't data about dissatisfaction—it's data about the absence of basic human respect.

What's Next?

I'm sure there is no perfect recipe. But I know there is a first step we can take, and that is to be brutally honest with ourselves as leaders.

To ask: Am I choosing the simplest candidate or the one who will challenge me?

To recognize: Am I rewarding obedience or thinking?

To learn: How to build a system that values contribution, not just attendance.

Leadership must be the result of development, not loyalty. Respect must be built, but it must also be reciprocated. Because if leaders don't know how to recognize effort and knowledge in their own team, what is their job anyway?

And finally, a rhetorical question - How many times have you witnessed the "promotion of the obedient"? And what did you do then? Or what didn't you do?