A critical parameter is often ignored in management performance reviews – whether the manager treats others with civility and respect.
A large body of research in the past decade has shown that managers who display bias or engage in bullying and emotional harassment are a parasitic drain on the battery of an organization.
An abusive boss creates psychological stress for workers, leading to job dissatisfaction, turnover and a host of counter-productive behaviors (i.e., absenteeism, sabotage, litigation). S/he serves as a model for other employees, who also engage in bullying behaviors.
The American College of Cardiology recently issued a Health Policy Statement in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology proposing that cardiovascular organizations conduct performance reviews that include an “assessment on respect and civility.”
Culture of Respect
The recommendation is the outcome of an on-line survey conducted by the ACC in 2021 that found over one-third of resident doctors and faculty reported experiencing bias, discrimination, bullying and harassment at their main place of work.
Continue reading “Performance Reviews Should Assess Civility And Respect”
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seems to have jumped the gun on an anticipated executive order by Pres. Joe Biden when it instituted a major change in U.S. prison policy.
The BOP, a division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, issued a notice on Jan. 13 stating it will henceforth assign “transgender or intersex” inmates to women’s prisons to “ensure the inmate’s health and safety.”
That very provision was included in a draft of an executive order on police reform crafted for Pres. Joe Biden that has not yet been signed because, according to the New York Times, it has precipitated a “near breakdown” between the White House and law enforcement authorities.
The NYT reported Thursday that a copy of the proposed order was obtained on Jan. 5 by a conservative web site, The Federalist.
The NYT fails to even mention that The Federalist article decried a provision in the draft order enabling the BOP to assign male prisoners who self-identify as women to facilities in accordance with their gender identity.
Instead, the Times focuses on a provision of the draft order that allows police to use deadly force only “as a last resort when there is no reasonable alternative, in other words only when necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death.”
The draft order, dated December 2021, requires “the U.S. attorney general to ‘within 30 days of the date of this order, begin the process of identifying any necessary changes to the [Bureau of Prisons] Transgender Offender Manual … to enable BOP to designate individuals to facilities in accordance with their gender identity.’
The BOP didn’t wait for Biden to sign the executive order and on Jan. 13 issued a revised Transgender Offender Manual.
Continue reading “U.S. Bureau of Prisons Jumps The Gun On Sending Males Who ‘Identify’ as Women To Women’s Prisons”
The impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: states: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”
The Constitution expressly requires the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to preside over a presidential impeachment trial. But Chief Justice John Roberts is nowhere to be seen in the ongoing U.S. Senate “trial” of former President Donald J. Trump.
Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore John Leahy, a partisan Democrat from Vermont who already has declared his support for Trump’s impeachment, is presiding. Leahy is also a juror, which makes the situation even more absurd.
If it is Robert’s job to preside at the impeachment trial then he darn well should be doing it. But he is definitely not there. He’s not sick or otherwise incapacitated. He’s just absent.
The Supreme Court has no comment about Roberts’ absence from Trump’s second “impeachment trial.” There is speculation that Roberts refused to preside because Trump is no longer President. As previously noted, the impeachment clause specifically pertains to “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried.”
Roberts’ Absence = Not An Impeachment Trial
Continue reading “It’s Not an ‘Impeachment Trial’ So What Is It?”
Most people know the meaning of “manterruption” without even being told.
A classic example of manterruption occurred recently when Australia Prime Scott Morrison infamously interrupted Anne Ruston, the minister for families and social services, when a reporter asked her whether the climate for women in government service had improved since the “bonk ban” era of Morrison’s predecessor.
She began to answer when Morrison jumped in to criticize the term, “bonk ban,” which refers to sexual relations between staff and ministers. He called the term dismissive of a serious problem and urged the press not to use it. Then he gestured for Ruston to carry on.
Ruston said she has felt “wholly supported” by the Prime Minister.
Of course, the problem of manterruption is not unique to Australia. Republican Vice President Mike Pence allegedly manterrupted Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris during the vice presidential debate. At least that was the inference from a tweet by UN Women, the United Nations entity for gender equality.
Continue reading “‘Manterruption’ Is A Thing But Should It Be?”
Unions are a vital tool to protect worker rights but history is replete with sad examples of unions that become thuggish bullies to serve their own interests and the status quo.
A disappointing example of this occurred Sunday when The New York Times Guild, the union that represents at journalists at the NYT criticized NYT opinion columnist Bret Stephens for criticizing The 1619 Project, a deeply flawed series about slavery in America published by The New York Times Magazine last year.
(To make matters worse, the Guild’s condemnatory tweet contained embarrassing typos: “It says a lot about an organization when it breaks it’s [sic] own rules and goes after one of it’s [sic] own. The act, like the article, reeks.”)
Instead of supporting a courageous columnist who stood up to the powerful media force that signs his paycheck, the union pounced like a cat on a mouse.
Instead of defending important, long-standing journalism ethics, the Guild backed management under the guise of supporting worker solidarity.
Where’s the accountability?
Meanwhile, management at the NYT has emerged to defend the series.
On Tuesday, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet, who sits in the office where the buck supposedly stops, defended his job performance by ignoring critics and proclaiming the series to be “principled, rigorous and groundbreaking.”
NYT Publisher A.G. Sulzberger issued a fawning statement on Monday calling The 1619 Project a “journalistic triumph” and lauding its editor, Nikole Hannah Jones as a “principled journalist who has deserved every bit of praise that has come her way.”
Sulzberger and Baquet said nothing about the journalistic malpractice reflected in the editing of the series, including blatant disregard for facts.
Continue reading “Journalism Union Backs Lack of Accountability for The 1619 Project”