A 15-year-old friend of mine has held three part-time jobs in the past eight months. A Grade 11 student, he's already looking for a new one, just two weeks after starting at a local grocery store.

Why's he leaving so soon? The manager's a jerk, he says. And besides, there are plenty of other jobs to choose from.

It's an example that helps summarize the theme of a recent speech by Linda Duxbury to a riveted group of professionals in Calgary. A professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, Duxbury is one of Canada's leading experts on work/life conflict.

The way she sees it, managers are critical in retaining and recruiting staff in a labour pool that hasn't been this tight since the 1950s.

Mike Dempster, Business Edge
Linda Duxbury says great managers are an endangered species.

Using a database of 100,000 people, Duxbury and her colleague Prof. Chris Higgins from Western University's Ivey School of Business have revealed a strong correlation between happy, productive, committed staff and supportive managers.

Unfortunately, they say, great managers are an endangered species - they're overworked, burning out and under-recognized. Conversely, too many companies reward other management types - the jerks and unstable types who cause havoc in an organization.

Research shows that a typical manager worked a 52-hour week at the start of the millennium, Duxbury says. What really hurt is that 70 per cent of them took work home to complete on evenings and weekends, with the average manager putting in 32 hours of unpaid overtime.

On average, "great" managers (they're described as supportive in the research) work 22 hours more a month on average than "jerks" (bad) or "mixed" (unstable) managers.

"They do their job, but on top of that they do the people piece, spending time listening to their people, offering them support," Duxbury said in Calgary.

"And they are by far the most stressed-out group in the workforce now, which means you are going to lose your best people-managers."

Other employees are watching, she added. Potentially good managers see what's happening and say, "No thanks, why would I ever want that job?" Duxbury and Higgins describe supportive managers as people who recognize a job well done, provide constructive feedback, listen to employee concerns, support employee decisions, share information, ask for input and provide employees with challenging opportunities.

In return, according to their database of 45,000 people who reported working for supportive managers, companies receive the following dividends:

* Ninety-one per cent of employees give upward feedback, that is, they tell the manager what's happening.

* Eighty-one per cent say they trust their manager.

* More than 80 per cent are happy with the benefits, policies and practices of the organization.

"Managers who build that kind of loyalty are worth their weight in gold," Duxbury says. "But it's not sustainable to have managers working the hours they do, year after year."

A healthy amount of work is a "hill and valley" model, she explains. Sometimes managers are busy, which is normal. But busy times should be followed by periods of relative calm, with time to critique past work, celebrate successes, make social connections in the workforce and do strategic analysis.

"Right now, and I look at a lot of organizations, they're the Mount Everest model of hills and valleys. In their periods of calm, they are already pretty high up."

But when workloads ramp up into the 55- to 65-hour range (moving toward the summit), workers metaphorically suffer from a form of altitude sickness.

"In other words, you don't have the oxygen to think correctly. And that's what we do know about the impact of heavy workloads over time."

While the supportive manager is a critical link in creating a healthy culture, the opposite is true about other categories of bosses.

Duxbury, a former chemical engineer who could have another career as a standup comic (she had her Calgary audience in stitches), describes jerks as people who shoot the messenger, take credit for others' work, put in long hours and expect staff to do the same.

Unbalanced managers, she adds, tend to start the day well, lose it by 11, melt down at 1 p.m., burn bridges and at 4 o'clock say, "Oh well, let's forget it and start anew tomorrow."

The results are damaging. According to the responses of 55,000 employees who reported having bad or mixed managers:

* Only 19 per cent gave upward feedback.

* Three per cent said they trusted their manager.

* Only 40 per cent were happy with benefits, policies and the practices of the organization.

The latter point offers insight. Employees with supportive managers were twice as likely to have a more positive perception of the organization's benefits, etc., even though Duxbury notes the policies were the same for both sets of employees.

It is important because levels of commitment and loyalty dropped to 43 per cent in 2000 from 61 per cent in 1990. (And there's no suggestion that loyalty is any better five years later.)

Typically, employees working for non-supportive managers have higher stress levels, are considering a job change and are more likely to be absent from work.

Duxbury points out that employees are also more likely to avoid bad managers. They will lie and say, "Yes, everything is under control.

"I tell employers that if you don't deal with bad managers, your employees will," she says. "They will avoid and lie, which costs you a lot of money."

Nevertheless, many employers still don't get it. Duxbury believes that market forces will eventually put many companies into a labour crisis. The leading edge of Baby Boomers can begin retiring in three years. They have pensions and options, and there aren't enough bodies to replace them.

The labour shortage is a worldwide issue, she adds, where other countries are recruiting Canadians, not just local competitors. Employers who think they can just buy replacements when needed, especially highly skilled knowledgeable workers, are in for a shock.

What can companies do? Duxbury says the load on managers must be reduced. Either cut back on some responsibilities, or hire more (good) managers. Employers must recognize that challenges are only going to increase with a workforce made up of boomers and generations X and Y, all with unique values and work attitudes.

Which brings me back to my young friend. When I asked why he thought his boss was a jerk, he had two reasons. First, he was being put into a position of responsibility and asked for 50 cents over the minimum wage. They really didn't like that, he said.

At the same time he said he needed four days off in a month's time because he would be out of town. He even gave the manager a typed note of the dates he'd be absent.

I thought that was quite professional for a 15-year-old. But his new boss didn't like that, either.

So once he gets a new gig, he's out of there. They can't pay him enough to work for a jerk.

(Mike Dempster can be reached at miked@businessedge.ca)