I honestly struggled with this question for years. Your former boss seems to be missing some perspective, without a doubt, but isn't it possible to take likability too far? Isn't it the case that getting things done inevitably means stepping on some toes?
With some experience and hindsight, it seems to me now that some kind of balance is what's required. What I strive for today as a manager is fairness and consistency during those tough moments when a team just isn't getting it done. And without a doubt, inspiration gets you much further than admonition. But when real money--and people's jobs--are at stake, sometimes it seems like the right thing is to disregard bruised egos.
Is there a right answer? I don't think so. Isn't what matters whether or not what you're doing works for you? If being an asshole is what worked for your ex-boss, do you think he would have been successful any other way?
> isn't it possible to take likability too far? Isn't it the case that getting things done inevitably means stepping on some toes?
The key is in why you're liked. If you're liked because you're tough but fair, that's a good reason to be liked. (Open to debate, but it's an example.) If you're liked because you're constantly bribing your way into everyone's good graces, that's not.
Really, the trick is to not care about whether or not you're liked, as that boss thought. Where he got it wrong is what you do instead. Competence involves people management, and people management involves both massaging and bruising egos. You need to be competent, to "get results", and if you do that by breaking as few eggs as possible to get there, people will back your play, will recognize the inevitable necessity of those eggs and not make a huge deal out of it. Competence can't come at the cost of competence: that's literally self-defeating.
Or, I just thought of a simpler, and better known aphorism:
Make them look good.
As a boss, you make your team look good. As a business, you make your customer look good. As a team member, you make your leader look good. And so on. Accept credit when it's offered, precisely because giving that credit makes them look good, and share that credit because public praise is good.
the sad thing is, it didn't work for him. he alienated everyone in the company, so many of whom ultimately decided they'd had enough and left that an entire office was closed down and the one or two remaining people transferred elsewhere.
as for taking likability too far, being liked doesn't involve being a pushover, or not making hard calls. your subordinates aren't idiots; they know that sometimes being the boss involves requiring people to do things they are disinclined to, and letting people who aren't performing or making too many mistakes know in no uncertain terms that there is a problem that needs addressing. but the manner in which you do it makes a world of difference. getting in people's faces and yelling at the top of your voice, or harping on for ages about every minor screwup, isn't "getting things done", even if it may provide the immediate illusion of having taken care of the problem.
With some experience and hindsight, it seems to me now that some kind of balance is what's required. What I strive for today as a manager is fairness and consistency during those tough moments when a team just isn't getting it done. And without a doubt, inspiration gets you much further than admonition. But when real money--and people's jobs--are at stake, sometimes it seems like the right thing is to disregard bruised egos.
Is there a right answer? I don't think so. Isn't what matters whether or not what you're doing works for you? If being an asshole is what worked for your ex-boss, do you think he would have been successful any other way?