From a reader a while back who took the time to send me a nice note waxing poetic regarding why we don't see the equivalent of Tiger Moms in the workplace:
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/tigermothersdaughteracceptedintoharvard). I’m constantly telling my sister she’s not strict enough (and her kids will end up in a community college somewhere), because of course, I don’t have kids and it’s easy to be an armchair quarterback.
When I coach managers, most of the time I notice that they are more Panda Dad than Tiger Mom. In other words, they are way too soft in their 360s, in their expectations, and in their accountability. Maybe that’s because I work in Government, but that’s what I’m seeing. On the other hand, there are lots of managers that try to be a Tiger Boss and use Shame as a Stimulus, Isolation as Focus, and Public Insult as Feedback. So, while I think that kids need boundaries, and employees need tough goals, does anyone need abuse? That’s where the Tiger Mom thing goes awry, in my book. On the other hand, the Tiger Mom is nothing if not engaged, and I don’t see a lot of involved or engaged managers in my neck of the woods. How does that work? Does engagement = abuse and Panda Boss = softie? I agree – it’s tough to get your arms around."