# Why managing by fear backfires, and what works instead [Home](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en) › [Study](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/study) › [Articles](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/study/articles) author: [Axel Jedlitschka](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/about) published: 2026-10-08 updated: 2026-10-08 language: en reading time: 5 min topic: Personal source booklet: [Your Code](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/shop/introduction/your-code) A threat works once. After that you stop knowing what happens in your own business, because everyone has learned what's safe to tell you. Managing by threat works exactly once. After that it builds a business where people tell you whatever is comfortable for you to hear, and you stop knowing what's going on. According to the source, a manager leads with small steps that show where things are headed, and gives everyone responsible for something both the knowledge and the right to decide it. ## What the source forbids a manager The source contains a code for managers, a list of clauses a manager takes on himself. One of them is the sentence the whole booklet exists for, and it has two halves. Both are needed. The first half says what to do: lead by always showing creative and constructive **subgoals**. Subgoals are small steps people can actually reach, which show them where the road is going. The second half says what not to do: “He must not drive by threat and fear.” ## Why a threat hurts you in particular The sharp point is that the second half isn't a moral suggestion. It describes what actually happens. A threat works once. After that it produces a business where people report to you whatever is comfortable for you to hear. And after six months of that, the owner no longer knows what's really happening in his own business. Nobody is deceiving him on purpose. He has simply taught his team which answer costs them the least. So the price of a threat doesn't stop with the team. It lands on you, in the form of a false picture of your own business. Suppose an owner tells his team: whoever misses the target this month, we'll talk. The target gets hit on paper. The following month, customer complaints start coming in. Now the opposite. The same owner breaks the annual target into three monthly subgoals. Same target, same team, and this time it's reached. ## Everyone on the team manages something The last clause of the manager's code widens the picture. According to the source, every person in a group is, to some degree, managing something: other people, or some part of life. That's why each of them should be given **liberty of management**, within the bounds of the code. The code for a group member says the same from the other side: a member of the group has to recognize that he, too, manages some part of the group or its tasks. Liberty of management doesn't mean everyone does as they please. There are bounds, and they're stated explicitly. But inside them, the decision belongs to whoever is responsible for it. A separate volume of the source explains why this is practical and not merely generous. Detailed orders on how to do every last bit of a job aren't only impossible. According to the source they “defeat the purposes of posts.” A **post** here means a role in the business. A role where every step is dictated isn't a role, and whoever fills it isn't responsible for anything. The same source also defines **self-determinism**: being willing to make the call and act on it yourself, instead of waiting for someone to tell you. Suppose an owner who personally approves every equipment order, even small ones. Three hours of her week go into other people's decisions. Once she sets a ceiling for whoever runs the stockroom, the orders stay the same, and the three hours come back to her. Or a manager who hands a new employee the whole shift schedule, with the right to get it wrong included. Two months later the employee's schedule is better than his own ever was. ## Knowledge and right, in the same place The condition that closes the picture comes from the code for a group member: whoever is responsible for an area needs both the knowledge and the right to manage it. You need the two together. **Knowledge without right** means an employee who knows what should be done and isn't permitted to do it. That breeds frustration, and later indifference. Suppose a veteran technician who knows exactly how to price a job and is forbidden to quote one. He simply stops offering. **Right without knowledge** means an employee given the authority to decide, with nobody having taught him. That breeds mistakes, and then a reprimand that isn't fair. Suppose a new employee allowed to give discounts, and nobody ever showed her the profit margin. Three sales went through at a loss. The opposite is that same employee, after someone sat with her for an hour and showed her the numbers. The authority stayed exactly as it was, and not one sale went through at a loss. In a small business both of these failures show up often, and from the outside they look like a problem with a person. According to the source, they're a pairing problem: a question of who was given what. ## What the booklet has on this The chapter this article draws on includes two exercises: the report, and the pairing. It also has a self-check, and it's part of a full booklet about a personal code written before the problem. Next time you're about to threaten, or to dictate every step, it's worth asking one question: what will I know about my business after this? - [Your Code](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/shop/introduction/your-code): Five lines, a clear separation between what applies to you and what applies to the business, and one test that checks whether they hold. --- [עברית](https://theonlyaxelj.com/he/study/articles/why-managing-by-fear-backfires) · [Español](https://theonlyaxelj.com/es/study/articles/why-managing-by-fear-backfires)