How toxic leaders destroy people as well as organisations

Started by OldGuy, September 16, 2018, 02:09:41 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OldGuy

http://theconversation.com/how-toxic-leaders-destroy-people-as-well-as-organisations-51951

Glory Seeker: personal glory and public visibility at any cost, regardless of whether I have made any real and meaningful contribution.

Puppet Master: absolute, centralised control over everything and anyone, under all circumstances.

---------------------------------

Watching this in action, very sad.

TheSkyHornet

QuoteUnproductive and meaningless work

I think this is the most unseen elephant in the room for most people when they start assigning tasks.

There is work that can be used to train, work that can be used to accomplish (sometimes these two go hand-in-hand), and work that is used to keep someone busy...and intent is the culprit here: to look busy, or to keep them away from something else.


OldGuy

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on September 17, 2018, 02:17:39 PM
QuoteUnproductive and meaningless work

I think this is the most unseen elephant in the room for most people when they start assigning tasks.

There is work that can be used to train, work that can be used to accomplish (sometimes these two go hand-in-hand), and work that is used to keep someone busy...and intent is the culprit here: to look busy, or to keep them away from something else.
That is causing massive disruption at every level in my Wing. Plus more.

Eclipse

Without the detail you SHOULD NOT provide on an open forum, the
same could probably be said about just about every wing.

"That Others May Zoom"

OldGuy

Quote from: Eclipse on September 17, 2018, 03:09:42 PM
Without the detail you SHOULD NOT provide on an open forum, the
same could probably be said about just about every wing.
I doubt that. The number of resignations and outright abandonment of key roles is unlike anything I have ever seen. The details do not belong here but in the official record, and that is where they will go.

TheSkyHornet

It's very common.

Some people think the work has value, but that's where they need to explain what the outcome looks like. What is the end state of the task? What does it provide? But keep in mind, not every bit of 'busy work' is actually busy work. There are people who have tasks assigned that don't see their value, but the work actually has significance. That's on the leadership position to make sure that the intent of the work is communicated (and to make sure that their people feel like they do a job that has importance). --- Not a bad leader, but some learning needs to be involved. They delegate, but not well.

Then, you have other people who think the work they assign is going to keep them out of trouble, or give the appearance to outsiders that the unit looks busy. This is harmful because it builds and builds...and what happens is someone higher up goes "Okay, so what exactly does this do?" Suddenly, everyone has the 'deer in headlights' look like they're caught. There's nothing to show. It's massively unproductive. --- Your Glory Seeker or Snake

Don't forget that one guy who thinks what he tasks out is important, and really it isn't, but he can't get past it. --- Your Puppet Master. "Everything I do has value." No, it doesn't; not everything.


Sometimes, it's a perception thing. Does the work really have value? Maybe, and maybe it just wasn't communicated well. Perhaps it doesn't really have any value.

It's tough to not make assumptions when you believe work doesn't have value. It definitely puts you at odds with your superior, and you start to avoid them because you don't want to get handed yet another assignment, or answer for an assignment you had that you feel like is either a waste of your time or was something that you just couldn't accomplish.

I'm a process guy. I like to see how the flow works. Go up to a white board, and let's draw it out. Where does this task fit in on the way to our end result?

dwb

As it happens, there's been some recent toxic leader news in the nerd community. Linus Torvalds, the notoriously caustic creator and benevolent dictator of the Linux operating system kernel, is taking time away from the project to learn how to be a less toxic person.

Linus is famous for his over-the-top profanity and public smackdowns of people involved in the Linux project. He has long insisted that there's nothing wrong with that, but apparently he has come to change his mind.

I think it's a good thing. You can be demanding and have high standards without humiliating people and SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS. I imagine from his point of view, he has no patience for subpar work and probably sees the same problems over and over and over again. I get it, people are frustrating. But if you can't control your anger, maybe it's not everyone else that is the problem.

Re: CAP -- it's made up of people. You'll see all the same character flaws in CAP that you see out in the rest of the world. Some of them even sneak their way into senior leadership positions. No one is irreplaceable, and eventually all bad commanders reach the end of their tenure (occasionally one will receive an accelerated trip to the end).

etodd

It would probably help if more people actually got feedback from our actual clients.

Last week when we had completed four hours of PAR approaches for Army ATC trainees, we let them know that was our last one for the day and we were headed back to home base.  I wish I had been recording their transmitted reply, as they were over the board happy and thankful that we had been there to help them train. You could hear the happiness in their voices (more than one chimed in) and they were truly appreciative.

That meant more to me than any slap on the back from a Commander, or any award or ribbon etc. I could ever receive.  Its nice to know we made a difference that day in someones' lives.

As long as I get that occasionally, I can put up with a lot in other phases of CAP.  :)
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: OldGuy on September 17, 2018, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 17, 2018, 03:09:42 PM
Without the detail you SHOULD NOT provide on an open forum, the
same could probably be said about just about every wing.
I doubt that. The number of resignations and outright abandonment of key roles is unlike anything I have ever seen. The details do not belong here but in the official record, and that is where they will go.

If the official record is where they will go, that eliminates any need to post cryptic and spurious references to them here. Nobody here can address them. Even worse, nobody here can even discern what you are talking about, nor do they need to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

TheSkyHornet

There's nothing malicious, per se, about posting grievances on here and asking how to deal with them back at the unit. That's one of the great things about this board. Just don't do it with the intent to discredit your superiors and invoke change (i.e., "stage a coup").

If there is a legitimate concern, and you want guidance on how you can address a particular situation based on the personalities described, by all means.

I will admit that I took this topic initially as a philosophical discussion on leadership styles. So is that the intent or was this to raise the "You're wrong!" army against HHQ?

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"