6 ms·

> abusive supervision, which is becoming increasingly common in workplaces, said Liu-Qin Yang, the study's co-author That abuse is increasing might be less obv

by Panino 8y ago

> abusive supervision, which is becoming increasingly common in workplaces, said Liu-Qin Yang, the study's co-author That abuse is increasing might be less obvious than the conclusion in the article link text. Good to have data on both of course. My wife currently works for a place with a new senior director, a malevolently toxic psychopath. Her direct supervisor's hair has gone from brown to grey in only a couple months, and from conversation it sounds like yearly employee turnover has increased from maybe 10% to around 90%. This is impacting my wife's health and happiness, so I'm encouraging her not to give customary 2 weeks notice after getting a new job. I think the circumstances warrant it. As an aside, Wim Hof Method breathing has made an incredible difference for both of us and I feel so fortunate to have come across it during this challenging time. It makes stress management so much easier, while the nice things are so much brighter and more joyful.

kokokokoko 8y ago
I'd also be curious about the criteria for "abuse" and "bullying". I imagine there are technical definitions but I did not see any in the abstract. I've found there is massive deviation between what co-workers I've worked with define those personally as. To the level where one might consider a behavior helpful and uplifting and another would consider that identical behavior abusive and emotionally crushing.
- moomin 8y ago
  Hint: if a worker perceives it as bullying, it probably is. It’s the responsibility of those in charge not to behave that way. The fact that people exhibit variance is part of the job of being a good manager. Bottom line: if you’re being described as an abusive boss, you’re bad at your job. And you don’t get to take credit for the amazing work that may be being done below you by people who are professionals despite your behaviour.
  - cma 8y ago
    > Bottom line: if you’re being described as an abusive boss, you’re bad at your job. There is such a thing as highly over-sensitive people. There are people who suffer from things like high paranoia, and their paranoia will often be directed at any authority figures in their life. I think you should have left things at "probably".
    - simple_phrases 8y ago
      And there are abusive people who skirt by in their organizations by saying that their victims are just too sensitive.
      - sverige 8y ago
        I think the word "bullying" is too amorphous to be useful. It would be more helpful to break down specific behaviors that describe the interactions between bosses and employees using those words. Accessible? Transparent? Consistent? Those a just a few that spring to mind.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        This is likely true, but it does not negate the notion that some people are very sensitive. For example, you've ever played on a competitive sports team, or were in the military, you may be desensitized to some things that some may consider aggressive. Cultural issues are important as well: some cultures argue, others do not. Some cultures vocalize objections, some do not. Some are direct, some indirect. Germans and Dutch are really direct - their candor may be perceived as harsh by some. That said, they're also very emotionally calm. I grew up 1/2 Irish/Scottish in a big family, my god man did we argue (and still do). But it's just arguing, it doesn't mean much. I'd call it 'emotive verbalization' and there's no name calling or anything. Often someone can be loud and direct, and it seems terse, but if you actually listen, they might not be condescending, name calling or anything. It just feels that way. Some people are also simply not used to actually being held accountable. A boss who suddenly draws some hard lines ... this may make some feel uncomfortable. Some people confuse negative articulation of work as an insult i.e. "this is sht" might be interpreted as "you are sht" when it's not. None of this remotely excuses actual bullying - I'm just saying there's a lot of grey and context. So if someone is constantly threatening, name calling, publicly admonishing, being unfair, demeaning, inconsistent, derogatory, digging into personal issues - this is bullying. But being demanding, loud, assertive, and sometimes being angry (so long as it's not directed at anyone) - this may or may not be bullying. More poignantly - the article does woefully lack information about specific kinds of bullying behaviour, that's in fact the very first thing on my mind as I read it. This is really subjective stuff, it needs to be spelled out.
  - avinium 8y ago
    As someone else just pointed out, this can be highly subjective. An audio clip of Stephen Wolfram was recently posted on HN, in which he was dealing with a couple of team members on their API documentation. Some described it as "toxic bullying", but even more said "That is incredibly tame and I take no issue with it". I fell into the latter. Some people are a whole lot more fragile than others.
    - askafriend 8y ago
      I'm curious - mind linking to the audio clip? I'd like to see what argument I gravitate towards.
      - Krabbyos 8y ago
        link to the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221549 the clip of Steven Wolfram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be&list=PLxn-kpJHbPx14mHrB5BlhImVOWo5Geg6f&t=271 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be...
        tempguy9999 8y ago
        Here are my scribbled notes while listening to this just now * wolfram sounds reasonable - a bit of a disconnect (lack of structure/procedure) between boss & employees. * Lack of high-level process. (for documenting) * Employees should have done the docs as part of the deliverable - and may have needed more support/training/guidance, and not have realised the extent this was required - maybe a managerial failure? * Docs were a mess - should ... lack of workflow to produce the docs - managerial failure? * Employees seem a bit clueless. * doing docs at all - fucking genius idea! and they have a docs team. By 'managerial failure' I mean wolfram's. So, assuming this review was typical, not a carefully chosen one designed to give a good impression, then given the bosses I've had to work for I'd say anyone who thinks that was 'bullying' needs some serious fucking life experience. I would be really grateful to have someone who didn't explode into anger, patronise, shout, ask for far too much (mucho free overtime Edit: entirely unpaid), disregard advice based on my 20 years experience in DBs because boss read a book and misunderstood it, expected (gasp!) actual documentation to be part of the deliverable... Fuck, I'm seriously angry that anyone could consider this unreasonable. He was anything but. How could anyone think that? disclaimer, I've no link to wolfram or any of his products or companies or affiliates. I'd be extremely happy to work for him after this. (further disclaimer, I'm not the easiest/brightest person to work with so I don't mind getting yelled at when I deserve it, but very often I don't)
  - everdev 8y ago
    > if a worker perceives it as bullying, it probably is I think it's actually dangerous to automatically judge yourself based on how individual people perceive you without further discussion or investigation. If your peer group or your friends or people you respect enough that they can tell you the truth are fairly consistent in their analysis of the situation, then yes, listen. If an individual thinks you're bullying them, it's certainly appropriate to inquire and empathize and agree with them if you choose. But to default to the assumption that someone else's judgement of you is correct is a quick way to lose touch with your own beliefs.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 8y ago
    If you are being literal when you say "a worker" then that is an outrageous claim. Workers aren't magically better than managers at managing relationships, they misread situations as well. If you mean "[the workforce as a whole] perceives bullying" then yeah, probably. If two+ people quit citing "bullying" then there is possibly a problem. Three+ and it is likely.
ams6110 8y ago
Assuming you're in the US, and not under a contract that says otherwise, a two-week (or any) notice is entirely a courtesy. And if you're not being treated courteously at work, I don't see a good reason to be one-way about it.
- pm90 8y ago
  I do see a reason: even if the boss may be abusive, not giving sufficient notice would flag you down with HR so they may not ever hire you again. Maybe not so important for smaller firms, but if this is a place she would like to work again, might make things a little more hairy.
  - lovich 8y ago
    If you're quitting over bullying, _and_ you are concerned that HR would flag you as unhireable for pointing that out to them, why would you care to work there again? You may be burning bridges but those bridges didn't take you anywhere you wanted to go anyway.
    - z3t4 8y ago
      If one exec makes 90% of the people quit it will not take long until that exec is fired or they have to close down.
drugme 8y ago
I think the circumstances warrant it. Absolutely, from what you've said. Supervisors "rage-fire" people on the spot all the time, often with little or no direct justification -- other than the manager having a momentary break, essentially. I've seen this happen many, many times. So really, don't even think about the necessity of extending the courtesy, in this case.
- pxeboot 8y ago
  Really? At every mid-sized to large company I have worked at, supervisors couldn't fire anybody, only HR could.
  - drugme 8y ago
    It's definitely more a thing for smaller companies.
  - MockObject 8y ago
    Counterexample. AOL. https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a-patch-employee-snapping-a-photo-2013-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-c...

by Panino 8y ago

kokokokoko 8y ago

I'd also be curious about the criteria for "abuse" and "bullying". I imagine there are technical definitions but I did not see any in the abstract. I've found there is massive deviation between what co-workers I've worked with define those personally as. To the level where one might consider a behavior helpful and uplifting and another would consider that identical behavior abusive and emotionally crushing.

moomin 8y ago
Hint: if a worker perceives it as bullying, it probably is. It’s the responsibility of those in charge not to behave that way. The fact that people exhibit variance is part of the job of being a good manager. Bottom line: if you’re being described as an abusive boss, you’re bad at your job. And you don’t get to take credit for the amazing work that may be being done below you by people who are professionals despite your behaviour.
- cma 8y ago
  > Bottom line: if you’re being described as an abusive boss, you’re bad at your job. There is such a thing as highly over-sensitive people. There are people who suffer from things like high paranoia, and their paranoia will often be directed at any authority figures in their life. I think you should have left things at "probably".
  - simple_phrases 8y ago
    And there are abusive people who skirt by in their organizations by saying that their victims are just too sensitive.
    - sverige 8y ago
      I think the word "bullying" is too amorphous to be useful. It would be more helpful to break down specific behaviors that describe the interactions between bosses and employees using those words. Accessible? Transparent? Consistent? Those a just a few that spring to mind.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      This is likely true, but it does not negate the notion that some people are very sensitive. For example, you've ever played on a competitive sports team, or were in the military, you may be desensitized to some things that some may consider aggressive. Cultural issues are important as well: some cultures argue, others do not. Some cultures vocalize objections, some do not. Some are direct, some indirect. Germans and Dutch are really direct - their candor may be perceived as harsh by some. That said, they're also very emotionally calm. I grew up 1/2 Irish/Scottish in a big family, my god man did we argue (and still do). But it's just arguing, it doesn't mean much. I'd call it 'emotive verbalization' and there's no name calling or anything. Often someone can be loud and direct, and it seems terse, but if you actually listen, they might not be condescending, name calling or anything. It just feels that way. Some people are also simply not used to actually being held accountable. A boss who suddenly draws some hard lines ... this may make some feel uncomfortable. Some people confuse negative articulation of work as an insult i.e. "this is sht" might be interpreted as "you are sht" when it's not. None of this remotely excuses actual bullying - I'm just saying there's a lot of grey and context. So if someone is constantly threatening, name calling, publicly admonishing, being unfair, demeaning, inconsistent, derogatory, digging into personal issues - this is bullying. But being demanding, loud, assertive, and sometimes being angry (so long as it's not directed at anyone) - this may or may not be bullying. More poignantly - the article does woefully lack information about specific kinds of bullying behaviour, that's in fact the very first thing on my mind as I read it. This is really subjective stuff, it needs to be spelled out.
- avinium 8y ago
  As someone else just pointed out, this can be highly subjective. An audio clip of Stephen Wolfram was recently posted on HN, in which he was dealing with a couple of team members on their API documentation. Some described it as "toxic bullying", but even more said "That is incredibly tame and I take no issue with it". I fell into the latter. Some people are a whole lot more fragile than others.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    I'm curious - mind linking to the audio clip? I'd like to see what argument I gravitate towards.
    - Krabbyos 8y ago
      link to the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19221549 the clip of Steven Wolfram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be&list=PLxn-kpJHbPx14mHrB5BlhImVOWo5Geg6f&t=271 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be...
      - tempguy9999 8y ago
        Here are my scribbled notes while listening to this just now * wolfram sounds reasonable - a bit of a disconnect (lack of structure/procedure) between boss & employees. * Lack of high-level process. (for documenting) * Employees should have done the docs as part of the deliverable - and may have needed more support/training/guidance, and not have realised the extent this was required - maybe a managerial failure? * Docs were a mess - should ... lack of workflow to produce the docs - managerial failure? * Employees seem a bit clueless. * doing docs at all - fucking genius idea! and they have a docs team. By 'managerial failure' I mean wolfram's. So, assuming this review was typical, not a carefully chosen one designed to give a good impression, then given the bosses I've had to work for I'd say anyone who thinks that was 'bullying' needs some serious fucking life experience. I would be really grateful to have someone who didn't explode into anger, patronise, shout, ask for far too much (mucho free overtime Edit: entirely unpaid), disregard advice based on my 20 years experience in DBs because boss read a book and misunderstood it, expected (gasp!) actual documentation to be part of the deliverable... Fuck, I'm seriously angry that anyone could consider this unreasonable. He was anything but. How could anyone think that? disclaimer, I've no link to wolfram or any of his products or companies or affiliates. I'd be extremely happy to work for him after this. (further disclaimer, I'm not the easiest/brightest person to work with so I don't mind getting yelled at when I deserve it, but very often I don't)
- everdev 8y ago
  > if a worker perceives it as bullying, it probably is I think it's actually dangerous to automatically judge yourself based on how individual people perceive you without further discussion or investigation. If your peer group or your friends or people you respect enough that they can tell you the truth are fairly consistent in their analysis of the situation, then yes, listen. If an individual thinks you're bullying them, it's certainly appropriate to inquire and empathize and agree with them if you choose. But to default to the assumption that someone else's judgement of you is correct is a quick way to lose touch with your own beliefs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 8y ago
  If you are being literal when you say "a worker" then that is an outrageous claim. Workers aren't magically better than managers at managing relationships, they misread situations as well. If you mean "[the workforce as a whole] perceives bullying" then yeah, probably. If two+ people quit citing "bullying" then there is possibly a problem. Three+ and it is likely.

ams6110 8y ago

Assuming you're in the US, and not under a contract that says otherwise, a two-week (or any) notice is entirely a courtesy. And if you're not being treated courteously at work, I don't see a good reason to be one-way about it.

pm90 8y ago
I do see a reason: even if the boss may be abusive, not giving sufficient notice would flag you down with HR so they may not ever hire you again. Maybe not so important for smaller firms, but if this is a place she would like to work again, might make things a little more hairy.
- lovich 8y ago
  If you're quitting over bullying, _and_ you are concerned that HR would flag you as unhireable for pointing that out to them, why would you care to work there again? You may be burning bridges but those bridges didn't take you anywhere you wanted to go anyway.
  - z3t4 8y ago
    If one exec makes 90% of the people quit it will not take long until that exec is fired or they have to close down.

drugme 8y ago

I think the circumstances warrant it. Absolutely, from what you've said. Supervisors "rage-fire" people on the spot all the time, often with little or no direct justification -- other than the manager having a momentary break, essentially. I've seen this happen many, many times. So really, don't even think about the necessity of extending the courtesy, in this case.

pxeboot 8y ago
Really? At every mid-sized to large company I have worked at, supervisors couldn't fire anybody, only HR could.
- drugme 8y ago
  It's definitely more a thing for smaller companies.
- MockObject 8y ago
  Counterexample. AOL. https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a-patch-employee-snapping-a-photo-2013-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-c...