Study Says 2 In 5 Bosses Lie

Freshly Exhumed writes to tell us about a Florida State University study of 700 employees indicating that nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word. The study will be published later this year. From the article: "The abusive boss has been well documented in movies ('Nine to Five'), television (Fox's 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss') and even the Internet. 'They say that employees don't leave their job or company, they leave their boss. We wanted to see if this is, in fact, true,' said Wayne Hochwarter, an associate professor of management in FSU's College of Business."

Comments

grievance committees

[udderly]

FTA: Finally, he said, "No abuse should be taken lightly, especially in situations where it becomes a criminal act (for example, physical violence, harassment or discrimination). The employee needs to know where help can be found, whether it is internal (i.e., the company's grievance committee) or external (i.e., formal representation or emergency services)."

In most of the companies that I've worked for, the "grievance committee" is merely a shill for management interests.

Re:grievance committees

[tompaulco]

I had a boss that was verbally abusive. Sometimes he would yell, but mostly he would just quietly berate you. After a couple of years of working for him he had convinced me that I was of no worth to any other company and that I was lucky to have the job.
I liken it to Saruman's hold on King Theoden. I was lucky to see my way through what almost seemed like a spell he had cast on me and my coworkers. I was the third to leave, and in the end 2/3 of the company quit within a space of about 3 months.

Re:grievance committees

[smilindog2000]

Yeah, I think they're focusing on the wrong kind of lying...

In my experience, physical abuse is rare, and emotional abuse is typically somewhat self-inflicted (if your boss doesn't like your work, don't make yourself crazy... just get a new boss).

However, I find lying to some degree is far higher than 2/5. Stock options are the typical one. When you ask "How many shares are outstanding?", the typical response is "Try to imagine that each share is $10." They'll say that even when the current selling price is $0.10. Some bosses also distort information badly, if not down-right lying, to benefit themselves. If you bust your buns making the whole project succeed, it's quite likely your boss will get a bonus or stock options, and you'll get nothing.

In the end, you've got to fend for yourself, while forming a positive relationship with your boss, even though he doesn't always tell you the whole story.

Re:grievance committees

[Lord_Dweomer]

What can be a bigger problem is what I see happening to a lot of people who just graduated and are entering the professional world for the first time. You come out of school cocky, but still aware that you don't know a lot at all, but then they have a boss who basically makes them feel like they don't know anything about their chosen profession and kills their confidence, which in turn leads to more mistakes etc.

The reason this is such a problem is while a seasoned professional who runs into a bad boss can still walk out of there knowing deep down "its a bad boss, I know my shit, I'm good at what I do even if he doesn't think so" whereas a recent graduate might think "wow, maybe I chose the wrong career path, spent all that money for nothing..." and end up working at Starbucks because they no longer have confidence in their abilities.

Re:grievance committees

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked somewhere where the managment took advantage of the REALLY terrible job market to basically say "this will be done ON our unrealistic schedule, without listening to your suggestions, or you can all find jobs elsewhere" (which they knew didn't exist). "If it takes weekends, evenings, it will get done, or you can find another job."

And even after cases like that become prevalent in the US, the whole union idea is some kind of pathetic idea that can only come from no-good, pinko, un-american communists. Yeah, unions are evil but the idea of getting constantly bum-fucked by the bosses, without any rights or any say so... Well, that is pretty much acceptable and very peachy indeed.

Re:grievance committees

[BewireNomali]

Re: fending for yourself. You're exactly right.

I consult with small and mid-cap investment firms in the NYC area - evaluating media opportunities. In my capacity as a consultant I see how many bosses deal with employees and I am grateful and humbled that I have the opportunity to build a business the way I do, where I mostly report to myself.

One of my clients - head of a small sized hedge fund has two analysts that report directly to him. Both are Ivy educated, under 30, and scared out of their mind at this man.

Because I spend a significant amount of time with him out of the office - I have a true gauge for the kind of man that he is. This is what he told me: His hires are based on psychological profiles. He hires overachieving young men with father issues (this guy strikes kind of a very photogenic prototype father figure - I've heard many an employee comment on how great a father he'd make). He uses this ammunition to twist these guys into knots - competing with one another, betraying one another for "fatherly" favor... working ungodly hours to one-up one's "sibling" - setting the two in diametric opposition. I asked him why he did it - he said that fear lasts longer than love. He also said, in the NY finance market, there are plenty of opportunities for well educated finance guys - in order to retain talent (other than with significant financial compensation) one has to get the employee so emotionally invested in the task at hand, to the struggle the firm is trying to overcome, make it so the firm's fight becomes personal. These guys hate each other and do everything they can to outwit one another, and to this boss, it's a big joke. It's what he does.

I've seen other bosses develop a method of manipulating underlings that utilizes a code. They run it in meetings - wide open. One manager might make a reference to having a headache - and the other manager replies that they are out of brand X of medicine for headaches, but brand Y seems that it would be most effective in this situation (the situation being a particular impasse with the team). They gauge situations and resolve them by manipulating workers in real time using pre-established "plays" or social strategies - I've watched employees react like puppets, on cue.

Women in the workplace are controlled in a similar way - but using aesthetics and attractiveness as the meter. Even women who profess to not be affected by it become embittered when the boss champions the hot chick, so the other women work doubly hard to prove their worth on different merits. Checkmate, boss wins. I've seen the hot chick go from belle of the ball to also ran when a new round of hiring brings in younger, hotter eye candy.

The best thing an employee can do in my experience is NOT INTERNALIZE the firm's business, and be aware that almost EVERY ACTION by a boss is done to manipulate you to HIS ENDS. Objectivity goes a great way. FEND FOR YOURSELF and realize that your skills and experience determine your market value - and realize that a bosses' power relies totally on the self-sacrifice of those under him.

Re:grievance committees

[SpecTheIntro]

I think the reason that there is so much anti-depressant use these days is because, as our economy slowly swirls the drain

Our economy isn't swirling down the drain. It's growing very healthily. In fact, our economy has continued to grow throughout the Bush administration, despite his completely asinine way of running things. On top of that, unemployment is hitting all-time lows. (Richmond, VA, where I live, is so low that we are on the cusp of entering a labor shortage.) And for those skeptics, it's not just "low-end" jobs that don't pay well--this is across the board, from corporations to gas stations.

I realize a lot of slashdotters are well-educated and many of them have decent jobs. It seems to me that this is a child-like view of "Things are going well for me; if anyone else is having a problem, they are just not working hard enough."

I agree with you in that the viewpoint you mentioned is childish, but things *really* aren't that bad over here. We're still growing, every year. Sometimes we grow less, but we always grow. Since 1970, the U.S. has created 57 million new jobs. In that same time period, Europe has only created 4 million. (See here for details.) And judging from my time abroad in Japan and Iran, I'm convinced that the issues with management are universal: very few people know how to successfully manage others. Just look in the job market: you will be shocked at how well a company with decidedly average management can compete. The guys that are actually good at management? They make millions, every time. It's a bona-fide skill, one that takes plenty of experience and a generous helping of talent, too.

The best advice here has already been given, I think: work hard and have confidence in your own abilities. I worked for the state right out of college and after 9 months I'd had it. I worked my ass off, scored excellent evals across the board, worked overtime and hauled ass to get deadlines met and respond to technical emergencies, and come my review, I got a whopping 3% raise. I told my boss on numerous occasions that I loved my job (and I did) but that the money was absolutely not enough for what they were asking me to do. She sympathized for me but was unwilling, ultimately, to go to bat for me and get me more money. So I started putting my resume out there, and within a few months I had an offer for--literally--double the salary. I took it. The most important thing any worker can understand about him/herself is that you constantly have to stick up for yourself. Make yourself difficult or impossible to replace, and demand the proper compensation for the work you do. If you don't get it, move on. Too many people stick around in shit jobs because they think their chance will come. Poor managers rely on that type of thinking. A good manager will see talent and will reward it, because talented people make money for everyone. If you're consistently exceeding goals and not getting some of it pushed back your way, get into your manager's office and demand compensation! And if you don't get it in a timely manner, get out, get out, get out. You are worth more than that.

Re:grievance committees

[Intron]

Unions seem to work pretty well for doctors and lawyers. They prevent untrained people from practicing, require exams, and prevent abuses. They just don't call them unions.

OTOH anyone can use the title Software Engineer, no training level is required, no exams, and no method of removing incompetents (other than promotion to management, of course).

Re:grievance committees

[lawpoop]

I totally agree with you about what you said about job skills, valuing yourself, and putting your own interests first.

However, while the economy as a whole is improving, only a small percentage are seeing a benefit. The middle class is shrinking and the jobs that are being created are low-paying jobs without benefits, and they are replacing high-paying union jobs with benefits. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high. It's not just people buying flat-screen TVs and 16" rims, but families paying for cars to get to work, housing, and their children's school.

When the middle class shrinks, most people go into poverty, while a few become wealthy. I fear the US might look like most South American countries in 50 years, with a dozen or so families owning most of the country while most everyone else lives in near poverty.

I know there are problems with unions, and as a young person, a lot of my friends who have had union jobs have complained that it allows slackers to slack. But, I view them as a necessary evil, like government, as a check and balance against corporate power. Business people had slaves and serfs 150 years ago; there's nothing special about today that would stop them from instituting slavery again if it were possible. Perhaps one solution to have competition between unions in a workplace.

Re:grievance committees

[kcarlin]

If a bully is that easily "threatened," then he needs to reconsider his future as a bully.

In the range of hominid threat/response vectors, this is phenomenally mild, indirect response with a reasonable chance of resolving the threat without further escalation. In fact, the response is only discernible as such in the context of the bullying. No bullying, no implicit threat in the response. If the bullying persists, the bully can be fired or otherwise neutralized.

Attempts at a "therapeutic" approach can be much more problematic, interpreted as weakness or provocation, unnecessarily neutralize the bullying behavior, wasteful of company resources, and can extend the conflict and destroy team morale. Escalated territorialism and intimidation is a common result. The approach taken in the case should be determined by a serious assessment of all reasonable options, the individual in question, and the team dynamic.

The hard part for a manager comes when someone from a very aggressive environment (say, professional football) tries to transition to an office existence. The guy had a heart the size of Texas, knew his stuff technically, did good work and had leadership skills, but that aggressive personality just didn't play the same in an office context. I've worked on teams where he would click right in and I've worked on teams that would come apart very quickly with him in the mix.

Re:grievance committees

[BewireNomali]

I think that's the point. The notion that it'd shock you that they'd go to those depths to manipulate you is EXACTLY why it makes sense to them to do so.

Re:grievance committees

[lawpoop]

I'm not convinced that people alive today are especially spendthrifty. To say that people today are broke and going into debt because they are buying large screen TVs is too convenient an excuse for corporations who have been busting unions and outsourcing jobs for the past 25 years. The number one employer in the US used to be GM, which provided high wages, health care, and retirement. Now, it's Walmart, which pays at or near minimum wage, and provides no benefits. All of the statistics I have heard show that the average worker in the US is getting a smaller share of the pie than they were 25 years ago.

I'm in my late 20s. Both of my parents are health care workers and they have a decent retirement. However, a lot of my friend's parents lost most, if not all, of their money in the tech crash of the late 90s. Now, those friends of mine are paying student loans, making entry-level wages, with no health insurance or retirement benefits, and now they are worried about having to support their parents also.

The only way are grandparents were able to make it out of the Depression were because of social programs like social security, the WPA, medicare, and medicaid. 50 years before the Depression we had slavery. After that, we had sharecroppers and mine workers who went in to debt working for their employers. We had child laborers working 80 hour weeks. People formed unions and were beaten up and killed. My grandpa tells me stories of the Ohio National Guard firing on striking workers camped outside the factories in Toledo, Ohio. School kids had fired slingshots at the factory buildings on their way home from school, breaking windows, and the Guard thought that the strikers were firing. So they returned fire and killed some of the strikers.

My grandpa is one of the most bigoted, conservative people you will ever meet. But he is strongly pro-union - Hh practically spits when he says the word 'scab' when telling a story - because he is well aware that companies are out to F* us in the A*. They would have slaves and serfs if they were able.

Re:grievance committees

[ahuard]

Holy cow indeed! I like to think that most employers are good people who value those who work under them, but if this is the norm an employee would get better use from a hole in the head.

First off, using intimidating tactics such as snickering over someone's shoulder at their sloppy code seems degrading to me. I had a boss who would stomp his foot in back of me while I'm coding, and when I would turn around to see what he wanted he might rudely say, "get back to work!" IMHO employers should ALWAYS be upfront with employees within a structured, emotionally neutral environment. For an employer to manipulate emotion in the workplace to me seems like total malicious bullshit. Why not just have a code review within a structured environment - having the employee explain why he did things the way he did? Is there really any reason to use intimidating tactics at all? How do you think large corporations do things?

Second, you promise training in the interview to justify a lower than average wage, but then you say that you don't want to directly teach them how to do code to your specifications in the first place. If you are hiring at a less than average wage, it seems to me you're probably hiring those fresh out of college who would appreciate the promise of extra training you give in the interview. Is this not the same group of people who could benefit the most from direct input and guidance from someone more experienced?

One of my first tech jobs was for a web design firm who hired me on at minimum wage (I was 17), which I accepted because of the hands on training in graphics and PHP I was promised. I stayed with that job for two years and worked tirelessly because I was thankful not only for the training, but also the professional friendships that come about from being a respected member of a team. However, there were times my boss made me feel less than respected, which hampered things more than they helped. Our team leader was much more supportive and never rude in any way. I enjoyed working because I believed in the team.

My view is that employers should treat their employees as they want their employees to treat them. Mutual respect (which does not include standing over someone's shoulder - jeez) can be conducive to the "team atmosphere" and may even make you a part of the team (the guy who gets us work) as opposed to just being "the boss". I would gladly work 110% for a team leader who I know has my interests at heart than for some slave driving boss who only knows me as just another expendable employee.

Re:grievance committees

[smilindog2000]

I fully agree with you. I may have sounded a bit harsh with the "sneering" comment. Frankly, I do it with a smile in a joking rather than mean way, and early on I do it in code reviews rather than at their desk. I try to give them a chance to make a few files ready for a first review, and politely explain any deviations from our coding practice early on. Later, I get more picky as the coder learns the ropes.

I've tried teaching more up-front, rather than waiting for them to make mistakes and then pointing them out, but it simply doesn't work. It's not my choice, just human nature. For whatever reason, I see super-bright guys often make the same mistakes early on, and if I try to steer them around the obstacles, I'm simply ignored. I find that super-bright guys have to learn by doing.

For example, writing comments while coding just makes sense. Every programmer I've work closely with eventually adopts this practice, as do most experienced coders. However, it often takes a year or two, since early on they're in too much of a hurry. I also try to get them to write the interfaces and data structures first, before starting in on the algorithm. It just doesn't happen with guys right out of school. So, the lessons are learned better when I look over their shoulder and point out that they've just written 1000 lines of crud because they fubared the data-structures. It sounds mean, but I so far as I can tell, it's just the way people are, and their's not much I can do about it. I've tried rules like not letting programmers write code until their interfaces and data structures pass review, but they hate it. However, one good "I told you so" incident is all it takes to reform a guy forever.

It's true that I care more about the company and the product than the employee, and that comes across. One of my recent programmers noticed that it took me about a year to learn his name, and I don't think he liked that (he has a difficult name, I'm not good with names, and frankly don't care). That's one reason I'm a better tech-lead than boss (I try to stay out of direct management). However, I can honestly say that the career tracks I try to build offer both the employee and the company maximum benefits. I get plenty of satisfaction believing I'm creating good jobs, good products, and helping our customers, employees, and even the investors.

The typical career of a coder I work closely with goes something like this. I hire them out of school because I feel they have plenty of algorithms potential, and lots of drive. Someone else has to make sure they have good team-working skills and a compatible personality, because for some reason, I can never tell.

They initially write some crummy code, not like anything an experienced programmer would be proud of. I try not to pick on their early work, but I make sure they work on code that's well isolated from the core. Within probably six months, though, a really bright programmer can get comfortable with how to write solid code, and focus on algorithms, data structures, and interfaces, rather than how best to write an iterator. By then, I start seeing productivity on par with most highly experienced programmers. That's when I let them write core algorithms and new tools critical to the company. Productivity ramps up continuously for probably about their first three years, at which point, I'm getting far more out of them than if I hired a programmer with 20 years experience. I let them take over responsibility for virtually the entire code base (600K lines at this point).

At some point, they've not only learned what they can from us, they have also impressed some other software managers, and gained skills and confidence that will last the rest of their career. Even though we offer solid raises to programmers who progress rapidly, eventually someone offers them a 50% pay hike. In the end, I know I'll lose them, but I do try to keep them an extra year or two, and I argue with management to get star programmers a significant chunk of sto

correction

[Bastard of Subhumani]

More like 2 in 5 knowingly lie.

Re:correction

[19thNervousBreakdown]

OK, do you see how you're taking some random twit's generalization as a personal attack on you?

Classic "boss" behavior, and when you boil it down you'll find that you, and for some reason I have yet to understand, almost anyone with even a scrap of real or imagined power, is nothing more than a spoiled child more concerned with where to place blame than actual results.

After you're done freaking out, try to remember this the next time you want something NOW. Stamp your foot for full effect, and try to convince everyone who witnesses your tantrum that it's anger, not embarrassment that's staining your cheeks red.

Boss == work??

[denebian devil]

"They say that employees don't leave their job or company, they leave their boss."

I think that's true to a point. In many cases, the environment at a company is colored by the behavior and the policies of the boss (or bosses). So it may be too simplistic to say that the boss is entirely to blame, but they can be responsible for things about a company that don't at first glance appear to be directly their fault.

Re:Boss == work??

[lazlo]

The flip side of this study is also true. In the last 15 years, I've worked for 9 different companies. I've had 2 bosses. I've had many of the same co-workers.

Loyalty is to people, not organizations.

Re:Boss == work??

[HappySqurriel]

From what I have found, the best bosses are usually those which act as advocates for the employees benieth them. This means that your boss will act in your best interests at all times; there are lots of benefits to the company from this in that Employees are usually happier, more productive, take less sick days and stay around longer. Someone who is deceptive is usually attempting to protect themselves and is typically not acting in the best interests of anyone else; whether they lie to others (taking credit for your work) or lie to you (about upcomming work) they are not looking out for you.

As an example of how a boss can act as an avocate for you, I have worked in a company where we ended up doing (paid) overtime through November and into mid December in order to complete a project on time. My boss at the time worked it out with HR for everyone to recieve extra vacation time in order for everyone to have the week off between Christmas and New Years; it was a small gesture, but the additional 2 (or 3, I can't remember) days off made everyone happier and more refreshed when we came back and most people felt far better towards the company for giving them the time off. I'm not positive, but I suspect the extra days off probably prevented sick days from being taken in January through March because most people didn't become over tired.

Control subjects?

[PurifyYourMind]

How often do non-bosses lie?

In other news *people* lie.

[nick_davison]

• Thirty-one percent of respondents reported that their employee gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
• Thirty-seven percent reported that their employee failed to give credit when due.
• Thirty-nine percent noted that their employee failed to keep promises.
• Twenty-seven percent noted that their employee made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
• Twenty-four percent reported that their employee invaded their privacy.
• Twenty-three percent indicated that their employee blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

The truth is, we're all like that.

I'm pretty certain everyone has experienced a boss not give them credit where it's due - and I'm pertty certain, whether we want to admit it or even recognize it ourselves, others have complained about us doing exactly the same.

Bosses fail to keep promises? And no employee has ever failed to deliver a project they swore they'd deliver? They've never cut corners on something they promised would be thorough?

Bosses make negative comments to other colleagues? How dare they? Don't they realize that no employee has ever bitched about the boss?

The sad truth is: we all do things that people consider negative. It's not a boss quirk, it's not an employee quirk, it's a human quirk.

Then again, it's always easier to judge others than look at ourselves.

Re:In other news *people* lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's part of a manager's job to not act in the petty, divisive, close-minded ways that is part of everybody's human nature. In fact that's pretty much their entire job, as 99% of all work actually gets done at the lowest levels of any organization.

I get paid to produce something. Managers get paid to make this process run smoothly. If they are lying, cheating, and generally making people not want to work then they are not doing their job.

Re:Perhaps a more universal truth ...

[0racle]

Where do people think that boss's come from?

They used to be normal people, just these people lied to get ahead.

Where is the Dilbert love?

[mhokie]

"'The abusive boss has been well documented in movies ('Nine to Five'), television (Fox's 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss') and even the Internet.'"

What.... no mention of Dilbert?

Re:Decontructing the Headline

[melonman]

40% of bosses always lie about everything and 60% of bosses never lie about anything? This seems to indicate a market for a third type of boss.

Re:Not very scientific

[fm6]

Given the bosses are just employees (duh, I hope), the rate of bad employees ought the be the same as the rate of bad bosses.

Huh? You think managers are representative of the people that work for them? If promotions were decided by cutting a deck of cards, that would be true. But they're not. Managers are chosen, and by criteria that are very different from those used to hire the people under them.

Two groups that have similar labels don't automatically have similar statistical features.

And there's a body of thought that says that the average manager is less competent than the general work force. It's called The Peter Principle.

I Believe This

[broward]

The 40% figure is close to my own experience since the Dotcom Crash. I don't classify it as "lying", though, but as "deceit". And I've learned to be far more critical in evaluating new job positions. My latest experiences in December -

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry =dicey_projects

Re:Not very scientific

[HappySqurriel]

Given the bosses are just employees (duh, I hope), the rate of bad employees ought the be the same as the rate of bad bosses.

Well, if promotions were given simply by seniority this would be true. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that companies are likely to give promotions based on merit ; it is largely dependant on what a company determines to be merit that is worth rewarding with a promotion.

Companies which reward high performance as a way of promoting people will (often) find that they're promoting sociopaths because they are better at gaining success at all costs. Companies which reward education (either level or institution) or seniority usually find that they're promoting a lot of people who are not capable of performing the job.

Personally, I believe if a company rewards people who have strong social skills, a decent moral backing, and adequate technical skills they're probably going to have the best chance at having good management.

Re:Not very scientific

[asuffield]

Personally, I believe if a company rewards people who have strong social skills, a decent moral backing, and adequate technical skills they're probably going to have the best chance at having good management.

I would say that a company which thinks "management" is a promotion from "non-management" has no chance at having good management *or* good workers. Selecting your management via some kind of reward process is a fundamentally flawed concept - the skills required are entirely different. You should select your management as part of the hiring process. While people can conceivably change into or out of the management roles, this should be seen as a "sideways" move in the organisation, like any other change of deparments - neither promotion nor demotion.

Sadly, very few companies work this way. One notable company that does is IBM - and their management staff is appreciably better than average, as most workers there will attest. That's not to say that getting this right solves all problems, but it almost certainly does help significantly.

Griefers in the workplace

[PopeRatzo]

Interesting that this "2 in 5" figure nearly perfectly matches my own experience in the workplace.

I've noticed that noticed that managers who are shitty people are usually shitty managers, too. The best approach I've found to dealing with them is to try to maintain as high a level of personal ethics and professionalism as possible, and let them simmer in their own acid. And by all means, if it's so bad that you find yourself grinding your teeth in your sleep or chomping antacids throughout the day, leave the job. Today if you can, and get that resume out immediately if you cannot. Life is too short to live in pain.

After all, you became a techie so you wouldn't have to deal with such assholes. In most organizations, you can find other decent humans who actually care about what's best for the enterprise and their co-workers and probably also hate your boss. Find them, befriend them, but don't get into the "bitch about your boss" sessions. Positivity will bring about change, and get you noticed by the higher management, faster than complaining.

Years ago, before I had enough personal juice to be able to actively avoid assholes, I was having trouble sleeping and actually ground my teeth in my sleep (according to my girlfriend, now my wife). I couldn't do much at the time, but I started working out every day with a heavy bag and 8-oz gloves, then swim laps for 20 minutes. The exercise helped me sleep and getting into shape made it easier to be calm and take a longer, more positive approach to my work hours. Bosses who are bullies don't enjoy picking emotionally healthy people as targets, and mine made the mistake of turning his negative attention onto a newer employee, a quiet young woman who happened to also be very talented. She also happened to be dating a lawyer who encouraged her to file a formal complaint with the company. The bad boss was transferred out of the division and within 6 months I got his job.

By the way the same positivity and ethical behavior that was so helpful to an employee working for a very bad boss turned out to also serve me very very well as a first-time manager.

It's corny as hell, but "Don't Be Evil" works just fine as a guiding principle in the workplace, no matter what your rank.

Re:Griefers in the workplace

[Darth_brooks]

It's corny as hell, but "Don't Be Evil" works just fine as a guiding principle in the workplace, no matter what your rank.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with pulling aside an employee that is as useless as tits on a snake and and directly dealing with the fact that they are a problem. My biggest gripe with the various managers I've had at different jobs has been this; No one wants to confront an employee directly for fear of looking like a loud mouth jerk of a boss.

The best manager I've ever had was the guy that ran the warehouse where I had my first job. The place was populated with slackers, so it was ideal for a 16 year old. The work was just hard enough that they couldn't train monkeys to do it, so they used high schoolers instead. I worked hard, kept my mouth shut, and didn't have a problem. But some of the other guys did, and complained that the boss was always riding their ass about something. It didn't take much effort to put 2 and 2 together. Show up late and leave early all the time? Boss chews you out. Sit on your ass all night and not finish what you're supposed to? Meeting with the boss. Get caught stealing? You're fired. Amazing concepts, I know.

Since then it's an entirely different attitude everywhere else. Everyplace I've worked that's been supposedly more "professional" has had bosses who avoid confrontation like the plauge. A couple specific employees have problems showing up on time? The "department" has an "attendance issue." Someone doesn't know how to answer a phone like an intellegent adult? "Customer service training" for everyone. The useless bits of societal cholesteral get the security blanket of thinking that "well, obviously I'm not the only one who's screwing up!", while the decent employees get a healthy dose of "Awww geez, not this shit again. Can't we just get to the point and fire Bob?"

Sadly, there are useless people in the world. Useless, useless people. We all work with them and know who they are. And they survive because someone doesn't let them get culled from the pack.

There's no excuse for wandering around your department wanting to think people live in fear of you and your pompus jackassery. But there needs to be a bit more accountability in the world. (so says the guy posting on slashdot...) Trust me, I'd love it if the boss pulled me aside and said "hey, dumbass, quit slacking." But instead, it'll come out as "Subject: Dept. Meeting, all staff are required to attend....." just like everything else.

Re:Griefers in the workplace

[Maxo-Texas]

If they discipline anyone except a white male directly, it is very likely they will be sued.

It's an aftereffect of earlier racism. At some point, it will fade and the people will be punished or rewarded without regard to race or sex.

Re:Griefers in the workplace

[ciggieposeur]

If they discipline anyone except a white male directly, it is very likely they will be sued.

Care to back that up?

Re:Culture of abuse = $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when Microsoft started hiring more women and minorities did things change to a large degree. Of course, Microsoft's productivity also took a hit right around that time too. So, what am I saying? Decide that for yourself.

Microsoft employees were more productive before they discovered women?

Re:Culture of abuse = $$$

[version5]

If you had worked 20 days straight and needed a day off to see a doctor about feeling dizzy, you were branded a slacker or a pussy... Only when Microsoft started hiring more women and minorities did things change to a large degree. Of course, Microsoft's productivity also took a hit right around that time too. So, what am I saying?

You are saying that its awesome to be so weak-minded that you can be bullied into risking damage to your health so you can ship some bullshit product that will be obsolete in a year and a half. Also, you are saying that its a wondrously manly virtue to treat yourself and others as if they are empty shells with no intrinsic value outside of their ability to perform a function. In our society, men are trained to believe in the virtue of "taking one for the team." In practice, this means:

• pretend to be invulnerable, ignore your basic physical and emotional needs and desensitize yourself to pain
• take extremely dangerous jobs where you could be hurt or killed and don't complain about it
• join the military and risk violent and bloody death for "patriotism" and "loyalty" -- which are code words that really mean "you have the obligation to die" -- even though war mainly benefits a handful of rich people
• men are taught to believe that they are worthless if they don't have a job. This is why the suicide rate rises with the unemployment rate.
• men are 5 times more likely to kill themselves than women, partly because men are not permitted to express emotional pain
• men are 4 times more likely to be murdered
• male life expectancy is 5-10 years less than women, partly because male virtues include recklessness, aggression, competition and emotional repression leading to suicide

From an early age, men are suckered into the macho cult of invulnerability, aggression and competition, and taught that it makes us powerful. But it doesn't, it kills us off in large numbers. But it sure works out well for the wealthy. Are you having a hard time finding workers willing to be shot at, burned or buried alive, have their limbs torn off by machinery and their bodies subjected to toxic chemicals? Just tell them they are a bunch of pussies, and not only will they be begging you for the chance to prove their manhood, they'll also do free recruiting. Men are taunted, bullied and humiliated to the point that even their basic humanity is taken -- something that no-one has the right to take -- and then taught they can earn it back by suffering and dying for some rich person on a literal or metaphorical battle field. Those that survive turn around and hand their sons the same raw deal.

Re:Culture of abuse = $$$

[version5]

Did you read what I said? My post had nothing to do with being sensitive to people's feelings, and everything to do with the fact that society's unrealistic demands on men are killing them. In what universe is it PC to say that men are unfairly oppressed and discriminated against by the powerful? But while we are on the topic, you suggested that Microsoft became less productive because of women and minorities, and that means you are a jackass, but you decided you were going to get all evasive and clever, so you say "What am I really saying? Who knows? You figure it out!" Then someone calls you out for being the jackass that you are, and you get to put on another dramatic, yet predictable production of The Poor Innocent Victim Of Oversensitive PC Idiots. I hear its a real tear-jerker. Why don't you just stand by your opinions?