Bad bosses get promoted, not punished

Parent Cafe
1

<p>NEW YORK: How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released on Friday.</p>

<p>In the study to be presented at a conference on management this weekend, almost two-thirds of the 240 participants in an online survey said the local workplace tyrant was either never censured or was promoted for domineering ways.</p>

<p>“The fact that 64.2 per cent of the respondents indicated that either nothing at all or something positive happened to the bad leader is rather remarkable - remarkably disturbing,” wrote the study’s authors, Anthony Don Erickson, Ben Shaw and Zha Agabe of Bond University in Australia.</p>

<p>Despite their success in the office, spiteful supervisors can cause serious malaise for their subordinates, the study suggested, citing nightmares, insomnia, depression and exhaustion as symptoms of serving a brutal boss.</p>

<p>The authors advocated immediate intervention by industry chiefs to stop fledgling office authoritarians from rising up the ranks.</p>

<p>“As with any sort of cancer, the best alternative to prevention is early detection,” they wrote.</p>

<p>They faulted senior managers for not recognizing the signs of workplace strife wrought by bad bosses. “The leaders above them who did nothing, who rewarded and promoted bad leaders … represent an additional problem.”</p>

<p>The study will be presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, a research and teaching organisation with nearly 17,000 members, from Sunday to Wednesday in Philadelphia.</p>

<p><a href=“http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bad_bosses_get_promoted_not_punished/articleshow/2252942.cms[/url]”>http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bad_bosses_get_promoted_not_punished/articleshow/2252942.cms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>What I see are do-nothing “self promoters” getting promoted.</p>

3

<p>After working many years for various government, private, or non-profit organizations, I can only conclude that we truly live in the world of Dilbert. Some of my conclusions:</p>

<p>Promotions are rarely due to individual accomplishments and abilities, but most often due to politics and appearances.</p>

<p>Everyone has their own issues and worrying about the happiness of some lower level employees does not rank very high.</p>

<p>Employees are expendable and are only worth what they contribute - today.</p>

<p>Appearances are more important than reality.</p>

<p>Good salesmen and good bosses truly believe their own lies and they constantly work on telling lies and stories. It is a major part of their jobs.</p>

<p>The larger the organization, the worse the communication and management.</p>

4

<p>The most disaffected people in the world are those who have not learned this, or do not want to believe it.</p>

<p>You think you have escaped the popularity contests when you graduate high school, but they are alive and well in the real world, just on a higher plane. There is that little window of time called <em>college</em> when, more or less, for a while you are valued by your knowledge and dedication. But after that the fun begins again.</p>

<p>I know that sounds really cynical- but I like to think of myself more as a realist. I’ve tried to teach my kids that it is, whether we believe it’s right or not, important to try to fit in. Not by backbiting and backstabbing, but a little personality goes a long way. It is not usual that smartness alone wins the race. Putting on a good front, being a good conversationist, friendly, attractive (doesn’t mean beautiful, but do your best- don’t make yourself repulsive)- those things will make up for at least some of the IQ points the next guy has on you. And yes, I’m not forgetting being good at what you do. People who are good at what they do are very valued employees- just not necessarily the ones who get the promotions.</p>

5

<p>WashMom just finished reading a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare. It’s mostly a discussion of the role of narcissism in organizational success. She loved it.</p>

6

<p>WashDad, what a great title!!!</p>

7

<p>I alway knew nice guys finish last, but it took the following story from a Canadian newspaper to make me see how harsh reality really is. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/09/05/1450461.php[/url]”>http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/09/05/1450461.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here are some excerpts:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have looked at people in authority in an entirely different light ever since. Thank you, Dr. Hare.</p>

8

<p>There are many more problems than just egotistical psychopathic managers. In the organization I work for we have found a very destructive way to hire and promote. The CEO has stated that managers should be selected based on attitude and their ability to fit with the corporate culture. Skills and knowledge are discounted. I am sure this was not the intention, but throughout the company decisions greatly favor the “yes” men and many of these are just plain incompetent. HR does its part by promoting “behavioral” interviewing. Over the years we have all been exposed to numerous interview techniques. None seem to work well. We hire and promote based on interview and verbal skills and often find that individuals who talk a great story often cannot perform. Based on the two policies, we end up with managers who are agreeable, fit in, talk a good story, but very often just don’t know what they are doing. Then again their bosses were hired based on the same policies. So the management team gets along well, but makes really dumb mistakes. A lack of knowledge has allowed them to look at the big picture without worrying about the ugly details. Lately, things are not going very well so upper management is using some other tried and true techniques. They are all up to date on the latest management jargon and trends. We also employ plenty of consultants to try to implement the new trends. Some of those implementations have gone really wrong, but no one is concerned because we are succeeding in establishing a corporate culture which is focused on “change.” Somehow no matter how many changes are made, the management team seems to be the same.</p>

9

<p>

[quote]
We also employ plenty of consultants to try to implement the new trends. [\quote]
That reminds me of the consultant who came into one of my old firms (Wall St. rating agency) and decided that analysts were “distracted” from doing their jobs by talking to investors, so they severely limited analyst contact with the outside world. The result was the rating agencies became even more out of touch with the market and operated in a highly criticized ivory tower atmosphere. Got to love the consultants and their unintended consequences.</p>

<p>As for office politics, we have advised our kids that skill is worth 10% and ability to get along 90%. This is largely due to the fact that most jobs I have been in (finance) don’t take that much skill–or at least 99% of those hired seem to be able to handle the technical aspects just fine. In fact, the only skill an investor banker needs is the ability to bring in business, which is pretty much a social skill. Those poor recent grads do all the actual “work” and that rarely requires more than basic math and computer skills.</p>

10

<p>canuckguy, I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about psychopaths in the business world. I’m betting that Dr. Hare has a book he’s peddling. Much of what he says in that article isn’t factual. Many corporations do, in fact, conduct psychological testing during the hiring process. They’ve been doing it for many years. This is not done in the field of education as he states it is. Teachers do not go through psychological testing before being allowed into the classroom. Making vast generalizations based on senior executives like Conrad Black, Jeffrey Skilling or Bernie Ebbers, may make for a good speech or an interesting read but it’s neither truly enlightening or responsible.</p>

11

<p>One of the <em>best</em> skills to have is the ability to debate/argue/express your opinion without putting your self esteem on the line, and to be able to facilitate others to do the same. </p>

<p>I’m becoming more and more convinced that half the people in the world lack this skill. Either they get confrontational, and stomp-the-foot-angry when people don’t “listen” to them (even if they are right!), or they get personally invested in “winning” to the point of becoming sullen and disaffected employees, or they get passive aggressive, or they just give up, keep their mouth shut because they’re tired of fighting, and become totally ineffective. Life in a group is very challenging. That’s why so many educators turn to “group work” which people HATE so much. (Although I believe there is way too much emphasis on group work in the elementary/upper school curriculum without the requisite training on how to function as a group)</p>

<p>Perhaps many of these bosses may not be the sharpest blades in the drawer, but they have shown the ability to find the required talent and bring people together toward a common goal. (Obviously I’m not talking about the psychopaths!)</p>

12

<p>“but they have shown the ability to find the required talent and bring people together toward a common goal”</p>

<p>Not necessarily…many have simply “shown the ability to find the required talent and bring people together” to promote their own selves. ;)</p>

13

<p>alwaysamom,</p>

<p>I have come to accept that psychopaths control upper management positions in almost all institutions, not just in business. (This is where I disagree with Michael Moore.) Let’s face it, folks don’t make it to the top by being nice.</p>

<p>I would disagree with you concerning Robert Dare. He is recognized as probably the world’s leading authority on psychopathy. The developer of PCL-R and the P-Scan, he has only recently developed the B-Scan-360 for the evaluation of psychopathic tendencies. (I really wonder what kinds of test businesses were using for psychopathy tendencies before the B -Scan.)</p>

<p>Here is his biography. Surely you are not suggesting that the FBI, the RCMP, Her Majesty’s Prison Service etc. got it all wrong, are you?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.hare.org/welcome/bio.html[/url]”>http://www.hare.org/welcome/bio.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

14

<p>canuckguy,</p>

<p>psychopath - A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. </p>

<p>As a psychologist and the wife of a senior executive in a large corporation, I would have to disagree with your belief that “psychopaths control upper management positions in almost all institutions”. I know and have met hundreds of senior executives through the years and your concerns are unfounded. As I said, you cannot look at individuals such as Black, Skilling, et al., and come to the conclusion that all senior managers are just like them. The common refrain that folks don’t make it to the top by being nice is, in my experience, untrue. Are there people in executive level positions who are bad individuals? Surely there are but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t thousands in similar positions who have made it ‘to the top’ by a combination of hard work, talent, integrity, excellent training and education, and intelligence, in addition to ‘working well with others’. Reaching the conclusion you have is no different, or any more accurate, than someone who says that all individuals who are in the lower levels of business are there because they’re stupid, lazy, unmotivated, untrained and uneducated.</p>

<p>Robert Dare may indeed be an expert on psychopathy but he should try to get his facts straight, or insure that articles which focus on him, do so. As I said, large corporations have used psychological testing for many, many years, but the education field has not and does not conduct such testing on future teachers.</p>

15

<p>canuckguy,
Put some rose colored glasses on if you have to, because with that kind of attitude you are setting yourself up for misery (if you intend to take on a corporate job).</p>

<p>I’ve been through, and my H has been through, numerous house cleanings. Many of the people who get cleaned have the same kind of outlook- everyone above them is out to get them, all management is corrupt/incompetent/psychotic- and they usually are not team players. </p>

<p>You may very well be correct in SOME cases (and I use that word carefully, because I think psychotic managers are the exception rather than the rule), but it doesn’t help to carry around that kind of baggage. Don’t make yourself the self-fulfilling prophecy the next time corporate layoffs come around.</p>

16

<p>Doubleplay,</p>

<p>I am sorry if I give you the impression that I am a cynical, bitter individual. I can assure you that I am nothing of that sort. Really.</p>

<p>All I am trying to do is to come up with a working theory of how the world works, that is consistent with my observations and supported by empirical evidence. If the theory is robust, it should help me anticipate future events with a certain degree of accuracy so defensive actions can be taken in the meantime. If it fails to explain what is happening around me, I would have to adjust my hypothesis accordingly. There is nothing for me to get emotional over; life simply is.</p>

<p>There are far more people wanting to be at the top than there is room. It seems to me that psychopaths have an advantage over folks with conscience in seeking the ultimate prize, everything being equal. As a result, I would expect their numbers to dominate at the very top, be it politics, business, government, sports, or the labor movement. Is this that hard to swallow?</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I agree with the article and have had so many bad managers that I’m amazed that anyone would argue the points made therein. If weeding out (or rehabbing) the destructive bosses was a management priority it would happen, but in my experience they are allowed to continue on, blinding upper levels from the nastiness below. Bullying and ignorant managers truly are counter-productive and destructive forces in the workplace.</p>

18

<p>I agree with doubleplay’s posts. I think everyone should also remember for evey person who thinks a boss is a bum there are usually as many fans of that same boss. Both above and below the boss.
I also have seen instances where a subordinate was correct in their assessment of a problem supervisor but ruined their career with how they went about dealing with the problem.</p>

19

<p><em>sigh</em> where is this world heading?</p>