A reader writes:
I used to be a part of a mass exodus from my former employer, and most of us left as a result of we didn’t wish to proceed working with our director, “Ken.” I can spare you the small print, however Ken is totally terrible. I noticed fantastic coworkers who had been in any other case utterly nice {and professional} be diminished to crying, swearing at Ken, elevating their voices to him, and rage-quitting conferences with him. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that working with Ken was severely traumatic, as many former staff, together with me, have had nightmares about him since leaving. I gave direct suggestions to Ken, in addition to Ken’s boss and HR (and I do know different folks did as properly), however we by no means noticed any vital modifications in his habits. There have been a slew of Glassdoor opinions from each present and former staff referencing Ken being terrible to work for/with.
Lots of us are questioning why Ken hasn’t been terminated. So a lot good expertise has left or is leaving due to him, and it’s baffling why the company continues to let this occur. I’ve heard all the potential causes being speculated:
1. The higher-ups one way or the other, regardless of the direct suggestions and it being throughout Glassdoor, don’t understand how terrible he’s.
2. Ken has grime on his boss and has blackmailed them into preserving him on.
3. Ken’s a part of a protected class and the company is afraid to fire him as a result of they suppose it might be a legal responsibility (I hate to deliver this one up, however that is how a lot persons are greedy at straws).
4. The higher-ups suppose that you need to do the terrible issues Ken is doing to get outcomes out of individuals.
5. The higher-ups are utilizing Ken to get folks to stop to allow them to keep away from laying folks off.
Of all of those, I feel 4 and 5 are the most certainly. However, I don’t suppose the information would assist 4. Ken was on parental depart final 12 months, and I’m fairly positive the numbers would present that folks had been extra productive when he wasn’t there (I’m kicking myself for not doing the mathematics after I had the possibility). They had been actually happiest when he was gone. That leaves 5 because the most certainly candidate in my opinion, though it sounds far-fetched. On the opposite hand, our trade has been suffering from layoffs just lately and the company’s enterprise outlook isn’t nice, so a Ken-induced mass exodus may very well be a solution to get a lot of individuals to resign whereas not doing an official layoff. Almost not one of the positions left empty by of us resigned have been backfilled as a result of finances constraints, which is partly why I feel it’s 5.
I’m curious to your ideas about this case, and normally why terrible folks aren’t fired.
In the overwhelming majority of conditions like this that I’ve seen, it’s none of these explanations! It’s way more frequent for it to be causes #6 or #7:
6. Wimpy administration above the terrible worker — administration that’s too weak and/or conflict-averse to take the kind of motion that ends in actual change (whether or not that’s getting the terrible worker to behave in a different way or firing them). This is so, so frequent.
or
7. Management above the unhealthy supervisor values his non-management contributions greater than anything. If Ken is incredible at one thing they actually prioritize — particularly one thing that brings in a ton of cash — some corporations will care about that greater than the truth that’s he’s a unhealthy supervisor who’s driving folks away. This is often short-sighted as a result of there’s a level the place the price of fixed churn is larger than no matter advantages the issue particular person brings … and along with that, there are alternative prices to having somebody like this in your workers: who’s to say what artistic and revenue-generating initiatives folks would possibly give you in the event that they weren’t dwelling in worry of Ken and making an attempt to work round him, or what robust hires they’re lacking out on as a result of Ken has a popularity and other people don’t wish to work for him, or what number of junior folks may have blossomed into excessive contributors however aren’t as a result of Ken stifles them or drives them out of the sphere totally? But it’s very, very, quite common for folks to get away with unhealthy administration as a result of they’re actually good at one thing else.
Now, in your scenario, it’s potential that it’s truly your clarification #5 (wanting folks to stop so the company can keep away from layoffs) however I’m skeptical … as a result of typically when it’s essential shrink your workers, you wish to choose the individuals who depart and the roles you’re slicing, and never simply reduce positions indiscriminately. When folks flee a Ken, you’re most certainly to lose your finest folks first — those you least wish to wish to lose — as a result of they’ve probably the most choices. If reaching decrease workers numbers is their purpose, this could be an extremely messy and ineffective solution to get there.
Also, a authorized observe: everybody is a part of a protected class, as a result of protected courses are issues like race (not simply race X), gender (not simply gender X), and so forth. So it takes greater than membership in a protected class for a discrimination swimsuit, though some teams usually tend to want the safety of anti-discrimination legal guidelines than others.
