And the Boring Manager of the Year Is…

Let’s delve into our biases about “funny” and “beautiful” co-workers while unpacking our fears of boredom and the stigma surrounding so-called “boring” colleagues and of course managers...

Jan 27, 2025

The recipe for a fabulous Sunday brunch (FSB) includes four simple ingredients:

1. A friend who has the patience of Gandhi and the admin skills of Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada to coordinate professional Londoners’ agendas. In that case, it was me. Tick ☑️

2. A friend who knows the best brunch places in town with delicious food and incredible decor - because, in London, you can have it all, all the time. If you stick to the end of the article, I’ll share some of these great places. Tick ☑️

3. Another flamboyant friend who can make any celebrity jealous with their endless trips worldwide and their gorgeous Instagram pictures that follow. Tick ☑️

4. The fourth, often unexpected ingredient, is the plus one that sometimes accompanies one of the guests…

Whether my flamboyant friend wanted it or not, we had to be sure that her new partner could be the one for her - and, of course, more importantly - could they become one of us?

In this kind of social adaptation phase, codes, values, and expectations are subtly tested, while FSB club members (old and new) navigate their new roles within the group – all while drinking their first glass of Champagne.

Welcoming someone new in personal or professional groups impacts the dynamic and can potentially challenge or reinforce existing affinities.

And, for me as “the organiser”, my main concern was ensuring the group dynamic was coherent and fluid. After all, if there are too many of the same ingredients in the same dish, the taste is bland. Yes, I am referring to personalities.

But if everyone is competing for a unique role, could we be at risk of endorsing a caricatural personality with a laugh track on top, in order to have a fabulous time? Sounds more like a cliche of a nightmare to me.

Maybe it was stress or lack of preparation, but my friend's partner was undeniably struggling to gel with us. Well, interrupting the flow of the conversations with cringing jokes and details of your CV, does not help.

Two glasses of bubbly later, he felt more relaxed. His “I need to impress them” mask came down and we finally started to see what our friend saw in him. By the time food was served they couldn’t stop finishing each other sentences and interrupting us all the time.

But that was cute, and we raised our glasses to that.

It is often said that opposites attract, and I was watching the materialisation of this adage right in front of my eyes. But when it comes to professional relationships, can we say the same thing too? Are we more likely to recruit someone based on qualities we have and value, or based on what we lack, despite the requirements of the job description?

In other words, how biased can we be when jumping into a professional relationship that will bind us for eight hours a day, five days a week?

Based on my research on this topic, and unfortunate experience, here are the main biases we are the most likely to come across when recruiting someone for your company: -

Confirmation Bias: This occurs when you primarily focus on information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs or assumptions about a candidate, ignoring evidence that might contradict those beliefs. For example, if you have a positive initial impression of a candidate, you might overlook weaknesses or flaws that you shouldn’t have during the interview.

My pro tip: Challenge your line of questions to allow candidates to show more than what you intended to know.

Affinity Bias: It is human nature to build stronger affinities with people who share similar characteristics or interests as us, such as background, education, or hobbies. However, this bias will lead to a lack of diversity and potentially exclude talented candidates who might not have the same traits but could be highly qualified.

My pro tip: Be ready to embrace the unknown. Only great leaders take risks.

Halo Effect: This one is pretty similar to confirmation bias, but instead it happens when you let one specific positive trait or achievement overshadow a candidate's overall qualifications and sometimes causes you to miss those big red flags.

My pro tip: Take some time after the interview to match up what was said by the candidate with what you have understood and look for any gaps in between.

Horns Effect: The opposite of the Halo Effect, this bias occurs when you focus on a negative trait or flaw of a candidate and allow it to influence your overall assessment. A small mistake or weakness can unfairly overshadow the candidate’s qualifications and capabilities.

My pro tip: Remember it is not about you. See what is objectively needed for the role first and check that you are not projecting your needs or judging the candidates based on how amazing you are.

Age Bias: Age bias involves favouring candidates of a particular age group, most of the time younger (and cheaper), which I found is the worst thing you can do when recruiting for white-collar jobs. However, we can see this bias has negatively evolved towards GenZ who are sometimes perceived as being hard to work with, and with poor professional etiquette.

My pro tip: As a manager your job is to get the best out of your team, transforming your team members' weaknesses into strengths so that they can give their best. I believe inter-generational management will become more important in the years to come.

Stereotyping: Are you quick to assume that a candidate from a specific ethnicity, religion, or socio-economic background with a specific accent is more likely to be more - or less - qualified based on these stereotypes?

My pro tip: Bear in mind that recruiting is not just a skill; it is a job in itself! You will make mistakes, and there is no need to feel unnecessary guilt. Nevertheless, one of the most damaging mistakes is to not ignore these socially constructed biases, which are still impacting some groups of people.

Beauty: This one is less known, whilst being so obvious. Recently, I looked at the members of my team and realised they could ALL be on the cover of Vogue. Yes, beauty can be a bias, but don’t worry - the members of my team are also extremely talented.

In his book Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful, Daniel S. Hamermesh explores the economic advantages of physical attractiveness. The book reveals that attractive employees earn, on average, 3-4% more than their less attractive peers. Similarly, individuals rated as attractive are 25% more likely to get a job offer. His research also shows the disparity between men and women from different ethnicities, which is stunning.

My pro tip: Don’t judge a book by its cover.

And while personal development Gurus and improvised ‘Career Coaches’ post on LinkedIn that the relationship with our managers is the main pillar for well-being at work, one can ask if there is an “ideal” manager personality type. Can only certain types of people be managers?

In a previous article “You Do Not Wear Yellow in The Office, Exclamation Mark”, I described different types of managers, ranging from the “Micromanager type (generally the most hated) to the “Master of Delegation” while investigating what I referred to “The Borderless” type who tend to trespass formal boundaries by blowing hot and cold constantly.

But as I was sipping another glass of Champagne, I wondered - how do we choose our managers and, to be more precise, what do we expect from them once our contract is signed?

A 2023 research conducted by Ciphr, an HR software provider, surveyed a thousand British employees to determine the most valued managerial qualities, and here are their answers:-

Trustworthiness (69%)
Respectfulness (66%)
Honesty and authenticity (62%).
Positive attitude (61%)
Reliability and consistency (60%)

Obviously, it does not sound like brand-new information, but yes, most employees prefer managers with whom they can build authentic rapport and feel comfortable.

But, looking back on my improvised “interview” with my friend’s new partner who, let’s be honest didn’t score high at first on the qualities I deemed to be important, I couldn’t help but wonder if I was a victim of another bias. Looking back at how I reacted to the first few jokes that fell flat, I realised - have I been discriminating for a large part of my life against people who I considered to be B-O-R-I-N-G?

Suddenly I couldn't help but wonder…

Share The Verdickt Therapy

Laughing is without any doubt one of the few things we cannot get enough of, especially at work when deadlines are unrealistic, and pressure is at its max.

As the requirement for employees to come in five days a week persists (for the time being), moments spent with colleagues become more precious and meaningful, and having a ‘good time’ will involve a lot of ‘banter’.

Now, as pleasurable as it is to have a good laugh, this part of our human experience is deeply and utterly subjective. I would describe it as a subtle, double-edged sword that needs to be used with extra care; timing, cultural references, the tone of voice, facial expression, and the blend of unexpected and cliches can all, when synchronised spark a shard laugh that can break a rib.

Interestingly some companies in their absurd quest to be ahead of the curve when it comes to their employee well-being are introducing a “Chief LOL Officer”.

Now, I can hear you behind your screens saying, “What is a “Chief LOL Officer”? Responsible for measuring the level of laughter in your office, it detects when employees are not laughing enough, and administers jokes as a remedy.

Ok, to be honest, I don’t know whether to cry or get worried…

But this rather odd HR initiative reveals something intriguing I have always been curious about; is there a recipe to crack jokes?

In Richard Wiseman's book Quirkology, which explores the weirdest and surprising aspects of human behaviour by using scientific experiments to reveal the psychology behind everyday life phenomena, the author managed to find “the funniest joke in the world".

According to his research, one element that makes a joke funny is the concept of "punching up" or "punching down", with humour often arising from laughing at people in positions of superior or inferior status.

In other words, we are more likely to laugh at those with a higher status as it provides a sense of social equalisation and relief, while jokes about those with lower status can evoke humour through absurdity or exaggeration, though they can also risk being perceived as mean-spirited.

Well… humour is definitely subjective.

But it is also interesting to know how those who have a “pay-per-laugh” mindset when interacting with their colleagues navigate through their careers emotionally. For those employees, humour can sometimes be used as a form of protection to avoid closeness; making someone laugh precludes conversations from going deeper, and as long as the person laughs, the “joke” does not have to share much about them.

Paradoxically, funny people use humour as a way to communicate their frustration or resentment they have accumulated, with the unfortunate risk of not being taken seriously. Unfortunately, a few of us can read between the lines and differentiate their funny words from a deep confession.

On the other hand, managers who also have the natural skills suited for the stage of a comedy club can be tricky, especially if they have bad intentions and a grudge against you. If you become their scapegoat, then the jokes will be on you.

And at that point, I don’t know what is worse - flat jokes or mean jokes!

So maybe a boring manager wouldn’t be so bad after all?

Leave a comment

With the recent craving for more autonomy, it has become more complicated for rigid and play-by-the-rules managers to build trust and empower their teams.

But don’t be fooled - a boring manager is not necessarily a rigid manager. Let’s clarify, shall we?

A rigid manager would have had a heart attack the day it was announced globally that working from home was mandatory, simply because the situation had never been considered as a potential eventuality in their HR 101 manual.

For them, the ‘best practice’ means what is being agreed by the company, and the ‘best practice’ must be what is best for you. These managers are undoubtedly overlooking both the biases of their own knowledge and, most importantly their own ignorance! This topic could keep me talking for another entire article, so for a change, I will not digress. Nevertheless, I will just mention this incredible book “Agnotology”, the creation of Ignorance, for further reading on the subject.

But a boring manager, on the other hand, would be an individual who you see as ‘not interesting’. I’m not implying that good managers should have some kind of social influencer swag going on to keep you “inspired” or motivated. No, what I mean is being labelled boring has more to do with the fact that you have not much in common; conversations run dry as soon as your to-do list is checked and their attempt to be funny forces you to employ a forced smirk on your face that shouts “can I go back to work?”.

With employees looking for deeper connections with their managers to improve their chances of getting promoted as quickly as possible, how do you recognise the value a ‘boring manager’ brings to the table?

Well, let’s be frank the relationship you have with your managers is business! Therefore, looking for the best return on investment is normal, but nevertheless, no one can deny the human aspect of this professional bond.

So…what if we’re once again biased by a short-term interaction mindset, creating elitist social filters that prevent us from seeing the personal side of this relationship – and, most importantly, dismiss our chances to get deeper learning?

Let me digress a little here.

In a society that pressures us to be busy all the time - using calendars, reminders, app alerts, sticky notes, browser extensions, etc., we have somehow become conditioned to treat any human relationship as the next scrolled social posts, where the goal should not be to create real connections but rather to quench an insatiable escape from boredom!

OK, it’s getting deep now. Could the boring manager be more frightening than the scary clown that used to sleep under our beds?

Research indicates that boredom can enhance creativity and performance in the workplace. A study published in the Creativity Research Journal found that participants who engaged in a 15-minute boring task generated more creative solutions afterwards. Such findings suggest that boredom serves as a motivational state, prompting individuals to seek new and rewarding activities, thereby fostering creativity and productivity in professional settings.

But what research does not tell us is that the journey to creativity and self-knowledge can only happen when we truly pay attention to the ticking of a wall clock – a constant reminder of how much time we waste building a persona that is not as funny, as busy, and as interesting than we imagine it to be.

And time wasted never comes back, my dear readers.

By the time I finished writing this article, I realised that knowledge, biases, recipes, guest lists, and self-perceptions are meant to evolve, and that is a good thing.

But I know one thing will probably never change, and that is my taste for champagne which I love - sparkly and fabulous.

Cheers.

The funniest joke in the world is…

"Two hunters are in the woods when one collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing, and his eyes are glazed.

The other guy pulls out his phone and calls emergency services. He gasps, 'My friend is dead!

What can I do?'

The operator says, 'Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead.'

There's a silence, then a gunshot.

Back on the phone, the guy says, 'Okay, now what?'”

My top 5 for a fabulous brunch in London

Sources