h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the last few days, it has struck me that our society seems to have a very odd attitude to bullies and bullying.

First of all, I saw this "Hells Kitchen" programme on TV, featuring Gordon Ramsey. Ramsey's trademark is a furious display of naked aggression and sarcasm towards others in order to get his own way. A classic textbook bully. And yet, the prevailing attitude is "well, this is the only way to get people to excel, or change their ways". Ramsey's point is well made - others less so, and we are left with the distinct impression that this type of behaviour is completely acceptable and tolerable. "Its not personal" says Ramsey. Yeah, right.

Next, I read an article about the CEO of Ryanair, Michael O'Leary. This is a man whose modis operandi is a barrage of verbal abuse and public humiliation when confronted with problems. A reference was made to his "hate beam" that was directed at poor unfortunates that crossed his path. And yet he is feted in the media as the man who single-handedly changed the airlines of Europe from bankruptcy.

Other world-class bullies with classic temper tantrums are also feted in the media (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison etc), and I'm sure we all know people in power around us who love throwing their weight and behaving in the most appaling manner towards others. Ah, sure, isn't it the effect that counts?

So, should we drop this pretence of supposedly abhorring bullying, and actively encourage it in our schools and home-life? Should we ensure that our kids' instincts for aggression are well-honed and used as often as possible? Should we congratulate our kids when they come home with tales of having reduced some kid to tears? Should we start the work as parents, using sarcasm and verbal abuse to harden up our kids at home?

Or, maybe we need to start recognising bullying for what it is - completely unacceptable.

Your thoughts?

Woodpigeon

My first thought is that I'm not sure whether you're looking for an analytic discussion or for someone to argue against. (The first paragraph of the Forum page suggests that either is possible here.) The ending of your post was rather rhetorical; which isn't to say that I don't agree with the sentiments expressed. I'd just like to know from the outset what sort of response you're hoping for.

I was bullied a lot at school, the effects stay with you. One of the things which has made my life better is to learn a little self-defence. It makes you feel stronger. I can't help but think my parents must have brought me up to be a wuss, even the teachers bullied me, but then my parents did too, never got a break. It would have been great to have been brought up stronger, but maybe thats what my parents thought they were doing, when they bullied me as well.

Its a serious subject, I don't do friends anymore, I can't get it right, its easier to be left alone. Some friends here but none in RL.

Bloody tragic really, yes bullying should be unacceptable.

Thanks RFJS. I should clarify it somewhat.

Its a pretty open question really. I guess what I am asking is, is this really the way to be successful in life? And, does society take bullying seriously? What should be done, or *could* anything be done, to address the issue of bullying in the workplace or political life or whatever?

What are people's experiences with this issue?

Woodpigeon

There are other ways of making people exel than bully them - I don't think fear is a good motivator in the long run. Instead, it might prevent people from daring to make their own decisions, to act independently or take the initiative.

Think of charismatic leaders, or people who are naturally good leaders, with the ability to inspire enthusiasm - or people who might have inspired you - no bullies there.

I think bullying is unacceptable because not everyone is able to tackle it without taking personal offence, and some might even end up with mental scars that will affect them for the rest of their life.

Hmm, interesting that you chose Gordon Ramsey as an example... He recently did another TV series which showed more of his character, and while the media do tend to make the most of some of his less than savoury man-management tactics, the other series showed him heaping praise on certain sous-chefs etc..., when he finds someone capable of doing their job the attitude certainly isn't the same.

The guy doesn't suffer fools lightly, but there again, he's extremely good at what he does, he's extremely competent and if you go to work for someone like that, you're either good enough, or you shouldn't be there in the first place! And believe me, there's a hell of a lot of people in the catering industry who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a kitchen...
And as for the celebraties involved in Hells Kitchen - well, they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into - they're getting paid for it and the makers of the programme picked GR for the job for a reason, they could have gone for Ainsley Harriot after all.

The way you've worded the subject of this thread begs the obvious question - Why on earth would anyone *teach* their kids to be bullies?!

They way you've worded your post, and the points you brought out in it make one wonder if perhaps there might be something of value to this bullying thing...


Until you think about bullies of the past who eventually received their come-uppance, even if not for bullying as such.

Those of you in the UK may not be familiar with the name Leona Helmsley (turnabout's fair play - I'm not familiar with a lot of the names you put out there), but she was known as "The Queen of Mean", an heiress and saavy businesswoman ruthlessly cruel to those around her. Eventually the woman was convicted of income tax evasion ("Taxes are for the little people. We don't pay taxes.", sayeth she.), and served time for her crimes.


Even if bullies are never caught up in some kind of legal problems, death itself finally squashes their visions of self-grandeur. They will eventually die just like everyone else, and they certainly can't take the fortunes they amassed by biting and clawing their way to the top with them when they die.

I'm with Titania on this - there are ways to get excellent work out of the people in your charge other than bullying. Leaders who have the most loyal followings usually command respect and obedience rather than demanding it. The difference is that commanding respect merely requires a firm request, backed up with the knowlege that your leader is not asking you to do anything that they themselves are above doing, they are merely delegating resonsibility. The leader who demands respect pitches a fit if it's not done to their exacting specifications, but won't lift a finger to try it themselves.

I can see Woodpigeon's point - the key to success in modern-day life is often to feel no empathy, and are willing to walk all over other people in order to get what you want.

But isn't that largely how capitalism works?

I'm not sure how acceptable political arguments/discussions are on here, so I won't say too much on this subject, but often people are bullies and callous towards others, and our society often rewards them with money and power.

Of course, this answers Lady Scott's question as well.

Not *all* capitalists are ruthless opportunists.

I'm fortunate enough to live in an area of Pennsylvania where there are numerous small family owned businesses, many of them Amish or Mennonite owned. The owners are obviously making plenty of money to supply all their needs and more, but they usually are very generous and unassuming, definitely not in the same category with the stereotypical capitalist.

Does this mean that their businesses do not grow? On the contrary, their businesses often grow faster than they can keep up with them.

I have noticed though that once the founders of the business have passed on, the business often takes on an entirely different feel (and sometimes fail), unless those who continue the business make a genuine effort to continue in the same sort of humble business practices.

It would seem that a lot of the success of the power hungry corporate magnates can really be chalked up to being in just the right place at just the right time with just the right business.

Sorry if I sounded like I was generaising there. I'm just saying that bullying and taking advantage of other people CAN be rewarded by the system we live in, and hence it would be extremely difficult to eradicat it completely.

In my very first job after I left school I was lucky enough to work under a foreman who was the exact opposite of a bullying boss. I don't mean that he was all touchy-feely, pat-you-on-the-back, encourage-you-with-overly-sweet-praise. He was simply a nice bloke who knew his job inside out, and he had the respect of everyone who worked under him. We wanted to do a good job because we knew it was what he wanted, and we knew that if we ed up he would get it in the neck from the factory manager who was a complete sh*t. We didn't want that to happen because it made us feel bad that we'd let him down.

I worked for someone else like that 25 years later. Whilst a bullying boss might get the same results as a boss you do well for because you respect them, the atmosphere in the two workplaces is like chalk and cheese, and I know where I'd rather work.

As for the Gordon Ramsey programme, well, like someone already pointed out - they knew what they were getting into didn't they? I read that a couple of them walked out in the first day or two, including Tommy Vance. Now, celebrities being celebrities and having an over-inflated ego and idea of their own importance and self-worth, you'd have thought that one or two of them would stand up to Ramsay and either tell him where to get off or sock him on the nose... I'm sure that's *exactly* what the programme's producers were hoping for because confrontation is what makes ratings

Hmm, interesting points of view here... can I ask anyone here a secondary question...

Who would you rather work for...

An extremely competent boss who knows your job better than you do and can do his own in his sleep. Who is quite likely to crucify you for making a mistake when you should have known better but rewards competence and skills...

or

An easy going yet completely incompetent boss?

I know, the ideal person is a competent, easy going boss... However, let's face it, they're few and far between.

I've worked for all three types, and whilst I now appreciate the boss I've got now (third type) in the past I've quit several jobs because my boss was incompetent - I've never quit a single job because my boss screamed at me for making a mistake... (Shouldn't have made the mistake in the first place and certainly wouldn't a second time!)

Maybe it's partially because I spent several years in the Armed Forces and you tend to get used to learning rather rapidly when you've cocked something up that you were expected to know.

Hell's Kitchen is probably a bad example because there are celebrities involved and we perpetually expect them to know better , but in the programme before that he is often seen reducing grown men and women to blubbering idiots, so its not all lavish praise. Just because he can praise people doesn't take away from the fact that he is a bully, and that people might be lead to think that the *only* way to improve a situation is to follow his tactics.

Until we stop admiring the use of bullying in people management situations, can we really hope to make progress on the issue in general?

Woodpigeon

'there are celebrities involved and we perpetually expect them to know better'

We do?

Dang, you beat me to it RFJS. Celebrities are often the most badly behaved people out there

Just to get back to your comment about being in the forces Woodpigeon. The military is a very different set of circumstances to a job. It depends on a chain of command and utter obedience to that chain. You're completely immersed in it, not just from nine to five, you're expecting to be told what to do in no uncertain terms, rather than being asked to do something. The level of... what's the word I'm looking for... submission or deference to your superiors goes far beyond what's expected in civilian life. If a senior officer tells you to crawl under the barbed wire through that muddy water, you'd better do it. If your boss tells you do something equally as nasty, you don't have to, and if he insists, you may have a union or an industrial tribunal to fall back on.

Because such obedience is demanded, the rules are very different because it could be so easy to completely break a person. Of course, abuses do happen, but the whole point of treating people the way that the military does is to instill discipine (and turn out good soldiers), and from all the people I've met who have joined the forces, either voluntarily or because of national service, I have to say that it works.

"Until we stop admiring the use of bullying in people management situations, can we really hope to make progress on the issue in general"


Actually, I'd say you can't hope to make progress on the issue in general until managers are actually trained in how to deal with people... A lot of managers are in their position because of 'The Peter Principle' (Simply put - you get promoted due to your competence in a job and eventually arrive at a point of incompetence - therefore stop getting promoted - therefore, in theory, every manager is incompetent unless they're still on their way up the ladder.) Very few people in management positions actually have man-management training... I'd say that was virtually the only way to improve that particular circumstance.

However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually admires Gordon Ramsey or anyone else of that ilk for their man-management ability... I personally admire the man because he's a great chef... I'd put up with working for him because of that. (That and the fact that I wouldn't work in a job I wasn't competent at, therefore I shouldn't be on the receiving end of _too_ many tirades).

And to get back to Gordon Ramsey, I've seen a documentary in the past about how he treats his staff. His kitchen was secretly filmed and he was shown reducing a junior to tears - the bloke was only washing dishes fer cryin' out loud. Getting mad at someone and chewing them out because they got it wrong is one thing, but the kind of personal attack on this poor kid's character was inexcusable.

In the same show... man, I can't remember his name. French bloke, runs a restaurant somewhere outside London, not one of the Roux brothers, sometime TV chef, very soft spoken. He said that that kind of thing is unneccesary and counterproductive in a kitchen. And he's one of the top chefs in the country.

So, what about Jamie Oliver's approach as seen in Jamie's Kitchen? Just a watered down version of Gordon, or a different approach?

Gosho, - it was me that mentioned the military, not Woodpigeon

One point about 'military-style discipline' though...

(And this might not be valid for the US military or the UK Army - my experience was with the UK Royal Navy)

Yes, there is an extremely strict chain of command, but it works both ways! As an employee in civilian life you may or may not have a union to back you up and you may or may not have a manager with training in personnel management... In the forces you certainly do have a system rigidly put in place to deal with erroneous orders or maltreatment of juniors - and whilst I'll happily admit not every officer in the armed forces is perfect, they've all had some kind of man-management training, and are all bound by the same strict rules that bind their 'employees'... The lowest of the low in the armed forces (certainly in the RN) has the ability to have a complaint heard, even if he's complaining about the Admiral of the Fleet) - as long as he's got a justifiable complaint in accordance with a set of written rules - how many civilian jobs give you that right?

Sorry Whisky

You're right about that - it's kind of what I was trying to get across

Gosho: Raymond Blanc?

*returns to lurking*