Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Oh, Those Bad Bosses

By Barbara Ehrenreich, The Progressive. Posted August 5, 2006.


Giving one person power over others is like a giving a 3-year-old a hose: not everyone will get soaked, but the chances of coming out dry are slender.
cubicle

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Barbara Ehrenreich

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

The AFL-CIO's Working America project has launched a "bad boss" contest. Unfortunately, the prize is only a free vacation, rather than the opportunity to see your nominee drawn and quartered after a lengthy and humiliating public trial.

I've heard so many bad boss stories that I'd hate to be one of the judges. The boss who makes you work overtime without pay (which would include Wal-Mart, unless it has cleaned up this practice)

...the boss who expects little personal services, like back rubs or picking up his or her dry-cleaning ... the boss who regards you as sexual chattel .... the boss who likes to keep you in a state of constant anxiety about your employment status ... the boss who throws tantrums, along with various heavy objects.

Much as I'd like to see all these miscreants brought to justice, I tend to think the emphasis on bad bosses is a little misguided. The problem isn't particular bosses, but what I call Bossism -- the hierarchical system that governs all known bureaucracies, both public and private. Giving one person huge power over others is like a giving a three-year-old a hose: not everyone will get soaked, but the chances of coming out dry are slender.

But, you may be wondering, how would anything get done without bosses and Bossism? Well, a surprising amount gets done that way all the time, as I saw in my Nickel and Dimed jobs. If the restaurant gets swamped or the nursing home residents start tossing their food around, don't count on a manager to tell you what to do -- if, indeed, there is a manager within hailing distance. In crisis situations, I again and again saw low-paid workers organize themselves, more or less spontaneously, everyone pitching in and helping each other, with no one playing the role of "boss." As for any real boss on the scene, the best he or she could do in a crisis was to pitch in -- or get out of the way.

What I was witnessing was workplace democracy in action, or, more fancily put, what French sociologists call autogestion or workers' self-determination. It may sound exotic, but it's not just an attribute of the rare anarchist collective. In fact, it's a notion revered in contemporary corporate culture as the team.

The rhetoric of teams, implying some sort of equality among the players, is everywhere today. You're not an employee of Whole Foods; you're a "team member." You don't work for Wal-Mart; you're an "associate," theoretically as capable of making a creative contribution as the regional manager. According to Wal-Mart folklore, for example, it was a lowly associate who came up with the brilliant idea of "people greeters." (But whenever I, in my brief stint as a Wal-Mart associate, made a useful suggestion -- like why stack so many of the women's plus-size clothes at floor-level, where they were accessible only to the young and agile? -- I was always told that such decisions were made by the big bosses in Bentonville.) When corporations uphold the idea of "teams," they're grasping for the kind of ingenuity and creativity people naturally bring to a challenging situation -- if they're allowed to, i.e., if they're treated like participants instead of like servants or subordinates.

So, yes, line the bad bosses up against the wall, but let's not forget that the real problem is Bossism, with all its nasty effects. It's Bossism that generates arrogance among the bosses and learned passivity among the bossed, along with fatalism or corrosive resentment. Everyone knows there's an alternative embodied in the idea of the team. When are we going to start taking it seriously?

Digg!

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, most recently "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Could not agree more!
Posted by: billb on Aug 5, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is not bad bosses, it is bosses. After thirty years of working for a variety of bosses, good and bad, I have learned the following:

1. Bosses think they know more. If you were boss you would think that too.

2. Bosses protect their bureaucracy rather than take risks.

3. Bosses thin their needs are more important than yours. Again, if you were boss,... Aw hell, if I were boss....

I have a practical solution. Elected bosses with term limits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear shareholder advocate, Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Dear shareholder advocate, Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
I have heard this one for decades
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 5, 2006 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Complaining about the bad behaviour of bosses is as predictable as the rain. I have heard it so many times and it is tiresome.

First it was the union guys, who then strangled American enterprise and brought us drug-addled Auto workers and crappy cars. Then it was the feminists, who wrapped all workplaces in a labyrinth of legislation over personal behaviour so that nobody can trust anyone. Then it was the techno-idealists, who pushed the internet as liberation, and instead augered in the age of techno-terrorists, online paedophiles, and causing such chaos in all industries and workplaces, it opened up a pandoras box of asshole bosses like never before.

Be clear about this: we are now in a golden age of bad bosses who are able to use the chaos in the workplace to reign over others. Being the 21st century, many of these people are women and even in some places, women of colour.

People use legislation to bypass taking personal responsibility. They use it to avoid having integrity and being honest with people. The classic example is accountants. Never in human history have accountants been so regulated and prescripted about the various ISOs they must meet. BUt never have accountants been so mendacious and grasping for wealth. We saw this with Enron and a million other cases. Don't for a second think that a well educated woman with a lot of blah blah about ISO 9001 etc. is really acting in your best interests. Be very suspicious. Because anybody who can put a piece of paper ahead of people, is a person who can happily stamp all over others and fire your ass in a flash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have heard this one for decades Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» POSEUR! IMPOSTEUR! Posted by: LMNOP
» YES, BUT... Posted by: LMNOP
biggest boss
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 5, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest boss is the CEO who can accomplish great things or greedily destroy a large corporation or, in the case of the USA, set it on the path of ignorant perpetual warfare. We definitely need a gentler, kinder corporate structure and a gentler, kinder presidency. Maybe we need some real research in this area to build a foundation for a decent life for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: biggest boss Posted by: Gregor
» RE: biggest boss Posted by: yesman
tell me why
Posted by: Urstrly on Aug 5, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something I've never understood is why when a private company goes public, the people at the top walk away with truckloads of cash. I mean, isn't the point of going public to finance the company's business? (I would have to guess not.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GOOD QUESTION Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: tell me why Posted by: brunowe
» Here's Why Posted by: coldeye
» RE: tell me why Posted by: mimosa1036
» What was the real deal? Posted by: coldeye
» RE: What was the real deal? Posted by: ethanay
» RE: tell me why Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: tell me why Posted by: Leman
» to add to leman Posted by: Jesse
Self-organizing systems
Posted by: profmarcus on Aug 5, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
interestingly, there's an entire field of study on what's called "self-organizing systems" pioneered by the santa fe institute... they have determined that the tendency to self-organize is an inherent element of complex, living systems... i have used this principle extensively in my organization design work and have found it to be every bit as fundamental to human behavior as the research says it is... in one of my earlier lives as a "boss," i trained the 32 employees in my charge to perform in a "manager-less" environment in which they took care of literally all aspects of the unit's operation while i stood aside and concentrated on running interference or, as i used to say, holding an umbrella over their heads to keep out the rain of shit...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Self-organizing systems Posted by: NikeBlack
» RE: Self-organizing systems Posted by: Steve_in_NH
Down with Expertism too
Posted by: graylegend on Aug 5, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like, when I need surgery, why should I go to some arrogant person with a medical degree and experience and a huge chip on his shoulder? The guy mopping the floor outside the OR has a lot of pent-up creativity that can really help my situation.

Furthermore, why rely on people with actual knowledge of basic economics to tell us how to structure an economy? People who can’t decide whether they are totalitarian socialists or bloodthirsty anarchists would I’m sure bring a welcome elan to the job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RED HERRING Posted by: LMNOP
» RED HERRING Posted by: graylegend
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Aug 5, 2006 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One approach to the boss problem would be for performance evaluations to work both ways: You evaluate your boss's performance as well, and it's confidential, just for your boss's boss. Then watch what happens. It's a well-known statistic that bosses live longer than employees, and those with the greatest longevity have traditionally been orchestra conductors. Tells you something about the "virtues" of hierarchy, but then, men (males) have always gravitated toward hierarchy, and if it's missing, will create it. So we can expect things to stay the same, short of a social and economic revolution of some sort. And media-pacified Americans no longer think in terms of actual action. In fact, not much thinking seems to be going on at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mick3 Posted by: coldeye
» hierarchy and gender Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: hierarchy and gender Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: hierarchy and gender Posted by: drmeow
Huh?
Posted by: rbohan on Aug 5, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has got to be the dumbest response of the bunch. Let me see....I wouldn't have the hospital janitor do the work of the surgeon so I shouldn't expect the cook to know as much as the manager about how to provide better food and service to the customer? Do I have that right.

Sheesh...what a maroon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huh? Posted by: NikeBlack
» RE: Huh? Posted by: rbohan
» RE: Huh? Posted by: MEL810
» RE: Huh? Posted by: rbohan
» RE: Huh? Posted by: plarue
The problem isn't "Bossism", it's bad bosses
Posted by: rbohan on Aug 5, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't really anything called "bossism" and organizational hierarchies don't, in and of themselves, always result in bad bosses. Bad hiring, bad training and development, bad evaluation and assessment, bad promotion policies result in bad bosses. Organizations can have bosses that are team-oriented and treat workers with dignity and respect..or they can have lazy, no account, deceitful bosses. Saying that bad bosses are the inevitable result of organization hierarchy is like saying that Stalin and Mao are the inevitable result of liberalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those who can, do; those who cannot – manage.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 5, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on. . .

Actually, some bosses I've had WERE three-year-olds.

Years ago when I worked in the theme-park division of a very large entertainment company, my department's manager was "kicked upstairs." The executive "leadership" either forgot to replace him or couldn't find a candidate (i.e., sucker), and we operated for nearly two years without a boss.

No one could tell the difference. The department ran as efficiently and the work got done. There was one very important difference, though: everyone was more relaxed. Need I say more?

Years later the same company had become more bureaucratic, to the point of sclerosis, and people were being reprimanded and fired for insignificant reasons just so managers could look tough, feed their egos, or kiss the right asses. Creativity was lost, the product went down the toilet, and the company's stock to this day languishes at less than 50% of its high point.

Need I say more?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pitch in Bosses
Posted by: bookie on Aug 5, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bosses I always hated the most were the ones who would try to help out when the shit hit the fan. You'd spend more time fixing up the messes they'd make than solving the original problem. But there is an easy solution to fixing a really bad boss problem. LEAVE. Your not a slave, find a better job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not that easy Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Pitch in Bosses Posted by: DanielT28
I believe the word is oligarchy
Posted by: Joanne Hedou on Aug 5, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I learned this term from Derek Jensen in one of his books. The workplace seems to invite a heirarchical structure in our society. It's hard to change but individuals can always try.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

finding more work
Posted by: Gregor on Aug 5, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best quote I have ever heard is "I cannot ask you to do one more thing without taking one thing off of you." I too have had great bosses, bad bosses, been a boss, and woe to anyone who lets their ego run their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

worker self-determination
Posted by: avitzur on Aug 5, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is an old story of worker self-determination in Silicon Valley.

I view the events as an experiment in subverting power structures. I had none of the traditional power over others that is inherent to the structure of corporations and bureaucracies. I had neither budget nor headcount. I answered to no one, and no one had to do anything I asked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: worker self-determination Posted by: SMcTigue
Are there any good bosses?
Posted by: NikeBlack on Aug 5, 2006 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am SO tired of hearing about how aweful I am, what a boor, nasty, know-it-all, etc.

Yes, I am a boss simply because I am a supervisor for a staff. I resent being categorized, especially by people like Ehrenriech, as most likely "bad" simply because I wear the label Manager. I think there are lots of other managers who don't fit the bill either.

So, change the tune. Please. Stop labeling all managers/bosses as bad simply because that's the label we wear.

And, are there people who should not be in management positions? Of course. Just as there are people who should not be doctors who are, or truck drivers who are, or journalists who are...

Grumpy in PA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The "Peter Principle" lives! Posted by: Sojourner
» Labeling All Bosses? Posted by: DanielT28
Oh, those bad bosses
Posted by: sidewinder on Aug 5, 2006 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the purpose of this post?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, those bad bosses
Posted by: sidewinder on Aug 5, 2006 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the purpose of this post?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socialism or Barbarism!
Posted by: jcrw on Aug 5, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most interesting discussion and practice of worker ownership, control and management is taking place in Argentina. Follow the link below to read the article at:
ZNet | Vision & Strategy

Worker Self-Management in Argentina
by Marie Trigona; May 25, 2006
https://www.zmag.org/junemtg.html

Capitalism basically collapsed in Argentina 10 years ago and thousands of businesses closed. So in over a hundred small companies the workers took over production and management and are stuggling to acquire ownership as the owners abandoned the companies and the workers.

I would humbly suggest that all of Barbara Erinreich's writings are ultimately trivial. There is no "reform" possible to create a more humane, more generous, more democratic capitalism. U.S. and global capitalism intrinsically seek to minimize the cost of "Human Resources" (i.e. human beings) to maximize profit.

To really understand what is happening in the world to working people please read the World Socialist Web Site, http://www.wsws.org a daily news service from a global socialist perspective. Free daily email signup on home page.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Socialism or Barbarism! Posted by: meadowlake59
Fire the Big Boss
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 5, 2006 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the moment, our country is suffering under the ultimate in bad bosses – a Chief Executive and Commander in Cheat who is a "perfect storm" of arrogance, stupidity and unlimited power. Unlike bosses in the business world, however, this one is responsible for people dying, and his idiotic decisions may destroy an entire nation. In the working world, one can get away from a bad boss by a job change – but what is a whole nation to do? According to our rules of practice, the Constitution, WE are supposed to be HIS boss, but we don't believe it, making us hardly better than slaves. Until we embrace that belief, and act on it, things will only get worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fire the Big Boss Posted by: macdon1
» RE: Fire the Big Boss Posted by: yesman
PaleoLeftism, wherefore art thou? Why only 1 of 100 alternet articles deal with this subject?
Posted by: rebel_pig on Aug 5, 2006 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ah, but paleoLeftism has been superceded by overclass-friendly Leftism. No room at the Inn for ideas friendly to the working class in and of itself. Now, Identity Politics is used to diffuse and distract from paleoleftism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So glad to see this on alternet
Posted by: autonomie on Aug 5, 2006 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article a few days ago in the print edition of The Progressive, and it's awesome to see more people getting a chance to read it.

This is a great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about voting for your boss?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 5, 2006 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a corporate structure in which each tier voted for their immediate boss - I must admit the idea is in "The Business" by Iain Banks - but it seems like a good idea - and also, make it a rule that the majority shareholders have to be the corporate employees. Shareholder's rights? Turn all shareholders into silent partners with no say over company practices - that's how to reform the whole rotten system from the head down. If bosses had to answer first to their employees, you'd see some well-run businesses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO Posted by: coldeye
» Dear shareholder representative, Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: NO Posted by: mozillafs
I've heard this one for decades
Posted by: dkm on Aug 5, 2006 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A personal trait that characterizes most people but has strong negative impact when present in bosses is the propensity to blame others for our own flaws and failures. This is illustrated by attempts to blame workers for poor planning by managers such as bobsays' blame of unions for Ford's and GM's poor management decisions that have allowed the Japanese to achieve over 40% US marketshare. Then he blames feminists for the type of behavior that made O'Reilly famous for telling his personal assistant he wanted to smear bean paste on her. And most incredible of all, he blames the people who have built the internet for its use by antisocial individuals.

All of this shows that as with horses and water, you can present ideas and concepts for consideration but you can't make people think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about the IWW
Posted by: slava222 on Aug 5, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hey, has anyone at this website ever considered writing an article on the IWW? the union is actually experiencing a resurgance, with campaigns at starbucks (although a few people just got fired for union activity recently) and landmark cinemas (where workers across the board just got a raise because of the union).

anyway, a slogan of the IWW is "fire the boss". We actually have a plan to get rid of all those bad bosses. Doesn't it seem like it is about time to write an article about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teams
Posted by: yesman on Aug 5, 2006 9:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, calling you a member of a "team" is (in most cases) merely a rhetorical exercise to try to get you not to notice that in reality you're an underpaid and (so the bosses think) disposable wage slave. You don't want to let your "team" down; whereas, if you look at the situation realistically, who cares about letting down their corporate slavemaster?

But who is REALLY disposable here? The corporate boss whose job is to complain constantly about how the workers aren't working hard enough or fast enough or cheaply enough, or the workers who actually produce the wealth that everyone else in the company divides up and calls their own? As Ms. Eherenreich attests, frequently workplaces run just as well or better when there's no "boss" on the scene. The only real function of a boss/manager in the workplace is to be the court of final appeal when a decision has to be made. That function could be performed by a designated (or elected) worker just as well as by someone who collects more money just for being called "boss."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've heard "TEAM" before... Posted by: DanielT28
Good boss
Posted by: AndreaN on Aug 5, 2006 9:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then you have the good bosses who leave you like mine did. The good ones don't stay with you - they just get promoted. I'm so bummed. He's going to France and I'm stuck in the USA. Frick. Wish I'd learned French. Frick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USPS
Posted by: dadanbetty on Aug 6, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You should see the United States Postal Service. Their middle managers are called 204Bs. Inefficiency and incompetence at it best!!! Seriously though, it does not get better then this....really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bloodthirsty refers to Ehrenreich, not anarchists in general
Posted by: graylegend on Aug 6, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster), bloodthirsty means "eager for or marked by the shedding of blood, violence, or killing." Ehrenreich's piece contains bloodthirsty rhetoric. She laments that the entrants in a bad boss contest aren't "drawn and quartered after a lengthy and humiliating public trial." She suggests that we "line the bad bosses up against the wall." I didn’t mean to tar all anarchists with this brush (though Merriam-Webster does; check out their definition of anarchism), merely to make a point about Ms. Ehrenreich’s mindset.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oops Posted by: graylegend
Bossism .... maybe so
Posted by: medbear on Aug 6, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There truly are a number of bad bosses around. I've had a few, to be sure. Not necessarily bad people, but failed with insecurity, power-driven arrogance, faulty logic to their own infalliability, mistaken priorities, and more often than not private agendas that knowingly or unknowingly are nurtured at the expense of others. Responsibility should, as it was originally intended, be the main reason for better pay. Sadly, it seems like many bosses has forgotten this, shooting downwards and kissing upwards when things go awry. And very comfortable with their salaries.

And there are a lot of good people around, that lead in a good manner. Don't call them bosses, call them leaders. People that make you feel as part of a team, that takes criticism with thought, that knows where the organisation is to go, and should go, that respects people and - maybe most importantly - takes up on the responsibility being a leader includes. The ones that credits the workers sincerely when things goes good, and takes the heat when things don't.

These are not necessarily the most popular "leaders" (quote marks intended). There are those that manage to be popular by - what in my country is called - turning the cape to the wind. Not having any serious meanings, but chatting up the last speaker. Seemingly doing good with acts of symbols to create a "we-ness" though on false premises. If things go along nicely, they can prevail. But bevare, when the s**t hits the fan, they're outta there like the ones Barbara writes about.

A good leader would encourage workplace democracy as Barbara describes. It is not at end with formal organisation. It is quite possible to combine formal leadership, in prioritizing, guiding, deciding, planning and forming productivity (nasty word, couldn't come up with a better one) and at the same time let the employees do what they do best individually, especially in out-of-the ordinary situations. A good formal leader would even respect an informal leader if the situation calls for it through level of insight or competence. That is playing by team; the team combined representing more competence and ability to act than the mere sum of the individuals.

The human leader might even be wrong on issues and still not be bad. Accepting humanity is part and parcel with true leadership.

Remember; being a leader is not synonymous with being boss. Management is not synonymous with leadership. Leadership is interacting with people to reach a common end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sociopaths, multiple-personalities, and titanic egos - OH MY!
Posted by: greentime on Aug 6, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are out there and I have worked for some of them!

Here's the rub - they get promoted by insecure top bosses who would rather have someone else do misdeeds to employees than take responsibility for their successes OR their failures!

Once people get to top levels of pay, they nest in together to preserve THEIR status quo.

They give each other promotions and put layers of mid-level managers under them that insulate them. They do incredibly greedy things and vilify innocent people. They unleaash ruthless "sub-bosses" on otherwise willingly productive, self-motivated workers. They only reward those workers that do not threaten THEIR status quo. The status quo they have in mind for the workers is to get your labor for as little as possible. You can count on it everytime.

These top and mid-level mangers do not create healthy work environments, rather they preserve their little fifdoms by letting all hell break loose several layers below them. They reward bullying supervisors who keep workers "in line" and punish anyone who even gives the appearance of a challenge to thier sense of superiority.

On what model do we base our heirarchical disaster of a system? Why, the military of course!

How bad an idea is this? The military system works when you DON'T want people to think or contribute and you want them to do some thoughtless, unquestioned activity without any care for the consequences to the workers or the planet. Sadly for most workFORCE members (see? It's in the language), this is primaily how they are "led".

This is why mediocrity rules, and the really great ideas most frontline workers have, never make it into actuality. When the workforce is treated like a bunch of know-nothings by a handful of fear-ridden know-it-alls, you get the destruction of a planet and a corporate leadership that has NO accountability.

Whether it is a corporatocracy, bureaucracy, or petty bull leadership, any human being who acts within a system without accountability is a danger to us all and to our planet home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe no one pointed this out....
Posted by: RJMills on Aug 6, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A business *has* been constructed that runs on a non-heirarchical structure and it works really, really well:

Wiki entry

So all you visionaries, you're right. Non-believers, you're wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alternet bosses too
Posted by: DRosen on Aug 6, 2006 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, bossism is one of the problems, perhaps the root problem. But my experience has been that people are not necessarily open to ideas that address the problem. For example, I have been trying to publicize and stimulate discussion about new technology that I call the “Decision Management System.” I regard the DMS as the missing link on the Internet. Basically, the DMS organizes large numbers of people for discussion and debate on specific questions of action, providing for electronic voting in virtual space and time so that an actual decision emerges – a decision to which all are committed by virtue of agreeing to participate in the system. Consider how the DMS might alter the structure of power in civic and environmental organizations, labor unions, political parties, etc.

I have provided a concrete example of how such a system works through my campaign for congress this year. At NevadaVoteDirect.org , I've created a DMS that will allow citizens in my congressional district to CONTROL my votes in Congress. A congressional representative is the worst kind of boss, being so thoroughly corrupted by the money that is funneled by corporations and wealthy power-brokers through the two major political parties and their political action committees. Thus, I've pledged, in my campaign, to vote in Congress exactly as directed by the majority of voters in my district through their participation at Nevada Vote Direct – no ifs, ands, or buts.

But just try to get this idea into the public arena. Even the leaders of our progressive organizations are allergic to the idea – because, after all, they are bosses too, and they also have some power to protect. Consider that I am the first congressional candidate to apply technology to politics in this precedent-setting way. Yet, even here at Alternet, the bosses apparently don't want it to be noticed and discussed. Josh Holland wouldn't even answer my email requests to report on this historic campaign. Like it or not, he is the boss of what you are allowed to discuss at Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It all Alternet's fault, huh? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: alternet bosses too Posted by: bornxeyed
Bad bosses are intentional
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 6, 2006 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worked for a company where almost every manager was a male, over 6' tall, some with military experience, who carried themselves in a manner that suggested they were always on the verge of exploding into violence. Verbal abuse was constant. Managers actually used workers computers to corrupt work and send false e-mail messages as excuses to get people fired. Most of them were incompetent at the jobs they were supposed to be managing. This was not a post office or a warehouse - this was a high tech company! In the course of events I'd rather not recollect, it became clear to me that these defective individuals were deliberately chosen to intimidate the workers and keep them in a state of constant fear.

Bad bosses aren't just a by-product of hierarchial organization - they're deliberate policy of organizations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bossism is Rankism
Posted by: breakingranks on Aug 6, 2006 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might be interested in the work of Robert Fuller. He's been writing about rankism for over a decade. He has two books on the topic: Somebodies and Nobodies, and the recently published All Rise. You can find out more about his ideas on rankism and the dignity movement at http://www.breakingranks.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

prosecute Bosses under RICO
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Aug 6, 2006 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All workplaces are my definition an ongoing criminal enterprise. They should prosecute the boss-man using the RICO statues (much like they take down the Mafia Dons using this law.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A recommendation
Posted by: medbear on Aug 7, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though probably already known to a lot of you, I'd like to recommend "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams. Not great litterature, but through his own experiences (and some tall stories, I guess) and those of others, he brings up examples of corporations, management, leadership, fad-language and a lot of other stuff when gone awry.

And what the Dilbert principle is? As opposed to the good ole "advancing until you reach your level of incompetence", the Dilbert principle states "If you're incompetent, you go straight into management" (pardon any faulty word-by-word citing).

Just remember that there are good leaders, using good leadership out there too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bosses? No, managers.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Aug 7, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this premise of "bossism" nothing but an academic arguement with no grounding in, well, ground level. Reality.

Today, we live in a corporate culture, there are no bosses. There are only managers, and then the wage slaves below them. Period. That's the world we live in. This is the "service" economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't cloud the issue
Posted by: Boomerang on Aug 7, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is bringing up two very different points:

1. Bosses sometimes are poor leaders
2. Workers don't need management

The first claim is definitely true. Anyone who has worked a job knows that bosses can be intractable morons.

The second claim, however, is total nonsense. Just because workers can manage themselves for short periods doesn't mean they should be in charge of the company. Just because workers could handle emergency situations doesn't mean that they no longer need management to take care of more than day-to-day issues. Managers are a a necessary part of business, and this article totally ignores that by asserting that its bosses in general who are the bad guys who confound creative workers.

A good boss encourages creativity while keeping things running smoothly. Don't confuse bad bosses with management in general.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 -