4 ms·

It doesn't seem stupid at all. It seems brave and like it has a lot of business value. Why not expose the poor performing managers who are structurally protecte

by bbqfog 2y ago

It doesn't seem stupid at all. It seems brave and like it has a lot of business value. Why not expose the poor performing managers who are structurally protected by bureaucratic rot. Being a good person is good for business.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
santoshalper 2y ago
The phenomenon you're observing is broken-down drones who are bitter that other workers are refusing to tolerate the abuse that they accepted.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  Yeah, the "I had to suffer pointlessly, so you do too" effect and the accompanying post hoc rationalization for why the suffering was actually good are a depressingly powerful force to maintain the status quo, and are already all over this post.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ethbr1 2y ago
The delineating line here is: - Is the employee including enough information and examples, and are those specific and strong enough, to communicate the toxic behavior? - Does the employee strip out emotion from their post? If yes, it tends to be well received. I.e. "Yes, that is shitty behavior that shouldn't happen in a workplace" That's the difference between spotlighting and venting. The former highlights something that objectively exists; the latter is more about you.
jjmarr 2y ago
For a lot of toxic people, the business views them as "high performers" and their harassment of others as a personal flaw. "Separate the art from the artist". Sometimes, being a good person is seen as bad for business, since there's a meme that business is about being ruthless in success. I blame it on movies and TV.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Ruthless toxic business culture predates movies and tv. Look at Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, railroad conglomerates, the existence of legal slavery etc. It is a flaw in the system, given the prevalence unchecked.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    Ruthlessness is for your competitors, not your employees. Locking people into low-wage jobs doesn't benefit the company, because as soon as you get a competitor, you're screwed! If we're using legal slavery as an example, countries that abolished slavery early ended up being more productive because employees actually want to work/innovate/create quality goods. By hiring slaves or treating your employees like crap, you're voluntarily specializing in the low-end of whatever market you're in, because your employees don't care about the product. That's rarely the most profitable move unless you have a monopoly or a commodity good, like the examples you've provided. We're doing this experiment right now in Canada by importing millions of temporary foreign workers/international students to work in slave-like conditions. If ruthless toxic slavery worked, we should be making more money. In reality, our GDP/capita has dropped continuously since 2019 indicating we're actually less profitable per person.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      To be clear, I’m not equating these things to success in any forms, only that there has been a prevalence of negative patterns stemming from business culture for a long time
bruce511 2y ago
Feedback is good for business. If your company wants to hear your feedback then communicate that information on those (private) channels. "Going public" is counter-productive if you are in a good faith organization that values feedback. If you are in an organization that doesn't value your feedback then your feedback is irrelevant. Going public just makes it harder for you to get a job elsewhere. Look, we've all had bad bosses and crappy managers. This isn't some surprising revelation. When you bad-mouth an ex employer in an interview, or in public, the next employer is wondering "what will you say about me to the next guy?" Past behavior is an excellent predictor of future behavior. And when an employee shows you their approach to solving interpersonal issues, believe them.

by bbqfog 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

santoshalper 2y ago

The phenomenon you're observing is broken-down drones who are bitter that other workers are refusing to tolerate the abuse that they accepted.

Analemma_ 2y ago
Yeah, the "I had to suffer pointlessly, so you do too" effect and the accompanying post hoc rationalization for why the suffering was actually good are a depressingly powerful force to maintain the status quo, and are already all over this post.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ethbr1 2y ago

The delineating line here is: - Is the employee including enough information and examples, and are those specific and strong enough, to communicate the toxic behavior? - Does the employee strip out emotion from their post? If yes, it tends to be well received. I.e. "Yes, that is shitty behavior that shouldn't happen in a workplace" That's the difference between spotlighting and venting. The former highlights something that objectively exists; the latter is more about you.

jjmarr 2y ago

For a lot of toxic people, the business views them as "high performers" and their harassment of others as a personal flaw. "Separate the art from the artist". Sometimes, being a good person is seen as bad for business, since there's a meme that business is about being ruthless in success. I blame it on movies and TV.

no_wizard 2y ago
Ruthless toxic business culture predates movies and tv. Look at Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, railroad conglomerates, the existence of legal slavery etc. It is a flaw in the system, given the prevalence unchecked.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  Ruthlessness is for your competitors, not your employees. Locking people into low-wage jobs doesn't benefit the company, because as soon as you get a competitor, you're screwed! If we're using legal slavery as an example, countries that abolished slavery early ended up being more productive because employees actually want to work/innovate/create quality goods. By hiring slaves or treating your employees like crap, you're voluntarily specializing in the low-end of whatever market you're in, because your employees don't care about the product. That's rarely the most profitable move unless you have a monopoly or a commodity good, like the examples you've provided. We're doing this experiment right now in Canada by importing millions of temporary foreign workers/international students to work in slave-like conditions. If ruthless toxic slavery worked, we should be making more money. In reality, our GDP/capita has dropped continuously since 2019 indicating we're actually less profitable per person.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    To be clear, I’m not equating these things to success in any forms, only that there has been a prevalence of negative patterns stemming from business culture for a long time

bruce511 2y ago

Feedback is good for business. If your company wants to hear your feedback then communicate that information on those (private) channels. "Going public" is counter-productive if you are in a good faith organization that values feedback. If you are in an organization that doesn't value your feedback then your feedback is irrelevant. Going public just makes it harder for you to get a job elsewhere. Look, we've all had bad bosses and crappy managers. This isn't some surprising revelation. When you bad-mouth an ex employer in an interview, or in public, the next employer is wondering "what will you say about me to the next guy?" Past behavior is an excellent predictor of future behavior. And when an employee shows you their approach to solving interpersonal issues, believe them.