To: pinkyandthebrain.acmelabs@gmail.com
Subject: Yahoo! News Story - Bad bosses get promoted, not punished? - Yahoo! News
LANL Employee On Edge (YougottobekiddingmeRight@lanl.gov) has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal message:
This explains it all.
Bad bosses get promoted, not punished? - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070803/od_nm/work_bosses_dc
============================================================
Bad bosses get promoted, not punished?
By Rachel Breitman Fri Aug 3, 10:57 AM ETNEW YORK (Reuters) - How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released Friday.
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.
"The fact that 64.2 percent 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.
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.
The authors advocated immediate intervention by industry chiefs to stop fledgling office authoritarians from rising up the ranks.
"As with any sort of cancer, the best alternative to prevention is early detection," they wrote.
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."
The study will be presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, a research and teaching organization with nearly 17,000 members, from Sunday to Wednesday in Philadelphia.
27 comments:
Sure sounds like LANL. e.g., Seestrom, Gibbs, etc.
Would someone please tell me what Scott Gibbs did wrong? My entire experience with him has shown him to have a sincere desire to understand and assist with the real problems that real employees face. Obviously one of us is missing something big.
3:02 pm:
I second your comments. I've worked for Scott, and he has shown himself to be engaged, knowledgeable (and willing to listen when he isn't), and fair. Plus, he even has a sense of humor. I know for a fact that Scott has the best interests of the institution at heart. I suspect someone carries a grudge from some past perceived slight. Almost anything a manager does will tick off somebody.
Peter Principle in action at LANL.
LANL has at least one undeniable example of this 64.2% demographic: Nanos. Fucked up, big time; got promoted to DARPA program manager.
Sure fits Anthony Stanford and MarTEEN Aguilera to a T. Those in the food chain above these two...make note!
How is DARPA program manager a promotion from director of a national laboratory? Sounds more like a demotion to me.
Don't forget Nye, Seestrom, Wallace, and Bishop! All four are classic examples of LANL terds who floated to the top ...
What is your beef with Neu?
Other than that she is more attractive and a better scientist than you?
The business world is full of bullies who take short cuts and step on others to make it to the top. This shouldn't be news to anyone. It is because of this that I really admire "nice guys" who press on, do the right things, and still make it to the top. Now, that is something very special. It's called leadership.
Remember that some of the "turds" who floated to the top helped themselves by spending weeks at taxpayers' expense in CA helping LANS draft its response to the RFP. Certainly Bishop was there; don't know about the others. But Bishop was paid to be T Division leadear, not a LANS cheerleader. He sure did get a good payoff.
As you'd expect, the Yahoo report is superficial -- it would be interesting to hear the details of the paper it's based on. For example, I wonder if/how the authors dealt with the issue of time scales.
I, for example, have had three really lousy bosses (meaning immediate supervisors) at high levels, including one at LANL. Two (including the LANL one) eventually got their comeuppance, either by demotion or career stagnation, and the third is in the process of it.
The key word here is "eventually." In all cases it took far longer than we peons thought it should.
This time-scale issue arises, I think, because these sorts are quite good at keeping their superiors happy at the expense of their employees. And because higher-level bosses tend to have more autonomy, it takes longer for those superiors to figure out what's really going on.
But eventually they do find out, and then it's bye-bye to the bad boss, one way or another.
Most of Neu's scientific achievements have come through use of threats and intimidation of her current and former employees. She's kept her nose clean through many safety and security violations by blaming other people. Her antics as an AD have been no less charming.
She does have legs up to here, though. Props for that and for her posh AD wardrobe.
What has Seestrom and Neu done wrong except being women? Just curious because I think they are both doing a fine job. Neither ADEPS or ADCLES have cratered, both their capability reviews went fine, they've got good funding, and from what I can see people are fairly happy in their orgs, so what gives?
Care to give an example of Neu's threats and intimidation?
What gives? You're new here, aren't you?
When provided a forum that is anonymous, it seems our colleagues (and probably a few non-LANL troublemakers sprinked in for good measure) show their true colors of rampant sexism (see thread above), racism (any thread containing a reference to the valley), religious intolerance (see threads containing the word "mormon"), paranoia (see most of the blog), and a tendency to make arbitrary attacks against people because anonymity shields from any sort of retribution. Oh yeah - and that Eric guy? A few people here don't like him very much.
Please give some examples of the threats and intimidation you attribute to Neu.
Don't know Seestrom, Wallace, or Bishop, never heard of Neu, Stanford, or Aguilera, but
3:02 and 3:43's (those must be you, Scott) version of Gibbs is diametrically opposed to my own experience. He has a well honed talent for ignoring issues and avoiding leadership, hoping that someone smarter than him would deal with it. While he may have concern for the institution (and his fat salary), he has demonstrated zero compassion for his employees - at least at one one period in time. In my mind his alleged "management" is the epitome of why LANL has been going down the drain and what continues to be wrong with LANL today. I could continue with great detail but fear another round of retaliation. LANL has an increasingly serious problem with bad leadership over the last 15 or so years which peaked with Nanos and continues today with their liability-avoidance based culture.
8/5 4:50 pm:
I am 8/4 3:43 pm. Judging by your "never heard of" and "don't know" comments, you are not a LANL employee, or at least not a particularly knowledgeable one. Maybe if you worked for Scott when he was in charge of non-science programs you just age ignorant about what LANL actually does. If you have specific allegations against Scott Gibbs that are more than just hard feelings for a perceived (or even actual) slight, please raise them in the appropriate venue. Otherwise, please stop trying to slam the reputation of one of the most fair and knowledgeable managers I have ever worked for. I am no longer in a position to be affected by anything Scott does or doesn't do, but I will defend his reputation as I will my own. Be specific or shut up.
As for your comment about LANL's "liability-avoidance based culture" isn't that exactly what you are advocating? (Or perhaps you just need to pay more attention to your wording when you post).
8/5/07 2:23 PM
Is that you fishing, Mary?
2:23 here. Not Mary, but I know her pretty well. She can be a hard-ass, but she is a top-notch scientist and a reasonably skilled manager. Someone on this blog has a serious grudge against her. I would like to know what they allege she has done.
I have heard the crap answers, like she favored one PD over another. Get over it. That is well within normal behavior. What has she done that is really worthy of notice?
7:49 PM: You seem to expect a coherent arguement. Wrong! All you are going to get is cowardly attacks, with no substance whatsoever. So she keeps her research group going? Good for her! So she favors some PDs over others? Truth is, some PDs suck and some are good-- why shouldn't she favor the good ones? I strongly disagree with some of the decisions she has made since becoming AD, but who among us hasn't made shitty decisions?
And does anyone really care about her new clothes? Other than some anonymous blog coward, that is.
I care about her new clothes. She's hot!
(For a 40-something)
(Does this make me a coward? Or just a horn-dog? Or both)
Monet.
Looks good from a distance, but kind of a mess when you get up close.
8/7/07 10:42 PM the horn-dog said "I care about her new clothes. She's hot! (For a 40-something)"
Kinda like a Mone painting, right? Looks good from a distance but when you get up close, it's a mess.
9:27 and 9:30--
OK, I'm totally in favor of heavy drinking, but it might be time to lay off (at least for tonight)...
The whole concept of people thinking ADCLES is hot is well ... euuwwwww. ADEPS is much hotter and she is soooo much older! Bhhwwwaaahhaaaaa!
Post a Comment