How We Did the Research for Bad Boss
Grounded Theory
The research project at the core of Bad Boss used a grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that focuses on discovery and theory development more than theory testing. It is particularly effective when dealing with complex interconnected situations that are difficult to quantify. It provides much richer information and better nuanced understanding than is possible with questionnaires and large sample studies. Large quantitative studies are generally more appropriate for testing the veracity of a theory, but comes up short when it comes to creating and refining understanding, which is what we were after.
We also find a grounded theory approach more fun and insightful than sending out questionnaires and crunching numbers. We actually got to talk with people, lots of them. You learn unexpected things in conversations. Things that would be totally missed in a questionnaire because you didn’t know to ask the question.
We began with interviewing survivors of bad bosses and listening to their stories. We used early interviews to pull together some initial propositions about bad bosses - their types, different behaviors, causes, and countermeasures. With each interview we reflected on what we learned and challenged previous assumptions. Did what we learned challenge preconceived notions? What surprised us or was new? What previously unexplored avenues should we be sensitive to?
This process was continued with each interview until the answers we were receiving and the patterns we saw stabilized. Then interviews became confirmatory, providing validity to propositions and survival strategies. In this stage of the study we captured over four dozen stories.
Research Sample
The bad boss brain trust story database is approaching one hundred examples.
Given the proclivity of bad bosses and the interest in the issue, we had no trouble attracting the broad sample of participants we were seeking. We set up a rudimentary website that people could visit to learn more about our study and sign up to participate.
We then broadcasted invitations to visit the website through our personal and professional social media accounts - e.g. LinkedIn and Facebook – and personal websites. Visitors interested in sharing their bad boss stories were asked to fill out a short form which included a 50-word summary of their bad boss situation or experience. Their story summary, sometimes with follow up clarification emails, were used to screen potential participants.
Participant interviews were recorded using zoom. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, depending upon the story. The interviews were semi-structured, with interviewees asked a handful of standard questions, but were encouraged to tell their stories as they saw them. The interviewer would interject guiding or probing questions as appropriate. For a number of the stories that were used in Bad Boss, short follow up interviews were conducted to clarify issues and expand details.
This process resulted in a diverse group of stories. Participants ranged from CEOs in their 50s to entry-level fast-food workers just out of their teens. They worked in commercial sectors ranging from heavy industry and high tech to retail and food service. They also included not-for-profit organizations and government agencies. Geographically the sample was spread across the United States and including international interviewees from Canada, England, Germany, Poland, China, Singapore, and Africa.
The number of stories continues to grow.
Data Analysis
Each of the Zoom interviews was transcribed using Zoom’s transcription feature. (The only possible use of AI in creating Bad Boss.) Qualitative coding was used to identify the bad boss types, their behaviors, and effective countervailing strategies in the stories.
Our ever expanding list of bad boss behaviors and strategies was subjected to thematic analysis in the form of a giant spreadsheet listing bad boss cases down the left side and the various behavioral characteristics across the top. The initial results appeared scattershot. As we continued interviewing more survivors and expanded the spreadsheet, we also started combining related behaviors and refining others. This iterative process continued until a clear pattern of core elements emerged. This is how our three-element model of Misalignment, Incompetence, and Malevolence was developed. Ongoing interviews were used to test, validate, and refine our framework.
A simpler form of thematic analysis was used to break out the different strategy types into survive, change, and escape.
The Bad Boss Brainstrust is committed to ongoing learning. The interviews and analysis is ongoing.