The Nuclear Option

[Racket_Man]

No I am not talking about bad US/Russia/N Korea/Iran relations.

This might be more appropreiate in MIM but here goes anyway

Maybe I have been reading too much CS/Not Always Right//Retail Hell Underground (where 3/4 of the stories are from the sub-reddit Tales From Retail) /several other sub-reddits/etc.

Why is it that manglement mostly goes with the nuclear option when dealing with employees? By this I mean instead of dealing with a small problem/infraction/situation by keeping it within the bounds of that small problem, they (manglement) almost immediately go for the jugular or the nuclear option ie. extreme disciplinary measures (ya know GUILTY until proven innocent and even if found innocent STILL GUILTY with the requiste red letter branded on the employee). BUT yet lets some really BIG and potentially BAD situation slide by until something BAD happens?

Can anyone explain this obsessive behavior in a context that does not sound like we have regressed back 100 - 150 years during the Gilded Age?

[gremcint]

well there probably are a lot of managers that do, we only hear about the ones that don't.

[Sliceanddice]

My guess is going hard on the small stuff is to make them seem tough and not to be messed with and the big stuff is a damage control if we do nothing maybe no one will notice thing.

[csquared]

Risk.

Who cares if an employee quits/is fired? It is just an employee.

However, $10,000 to overhaul the refrigeration system vs $500 to "patch" it and buy more time.

[EricKei]

Keep in mind that, when it comes times to spend that ten grand to repair or replace the system -- if there's no corporate-mandated vendor, they will likely look locally. Mayyyyyybe they'll "find" a contractor that upper management happens to know personally...and mayyyybe there will be a couple grand of "Misc Exp" and inflated labor dollars that just happens to ultimately end up in their pockets...

Then again, I may be jaded. Back home in NOLA, this was just business as usual.

[Ironclad Alibi]

Why is it that manglement mostly goes with the nuclear option when dealing with employees? By this I mean instead of dealing with a small problem/infraction/situation by keeping it within the bounds of that small problem, they (manglement) almost immediately go for the jugular or the nuclear option ie. extreme disciplinary measures (ya know GUILTY until proven innocent and even if found innocent STILL GUILTY with the requiste red letter branded on the employee). BUT yet lets some really BIG and potentially BAD situation slide by until something BAD happens?

Can anyone explain this obsessive behavior in a context that does not sound like we have regressed back 100 - 150 years during the Gilded Age?

Manglement goes nuclear on the small stuff because they think it makes them look like they are handling problems. They ignore the big stuff because they are afraid they will be held responsible for it if they call attention to it.

[MoonCat]

Depends on the level of management, too. Lower and middle mgrs can't always fix the big problems and might not be able to get upper mgmt to give a shit, but smaller problems can be handled at their level, so they go all out to try to look badass to upper mgmt.

[Racket_Man]

One of the reasons I posted my OP was in light of the current Wells-Fargo debacle and for some of the questions and answers DEMANDED/directed at HIGH company officers/officials I have heard Senators ask during hearings over the last 2 days or so (Yah I was bored and flipped on CSPAN). The company was fined by the US Gov. to the tune of $185 million

upper upper manglement dictates insane quotas for accounts/credit cards/etc. under threat of termination BUT the only way to even come close to those quotas is to cheat by illegally/falsely opening said accounts/credit cards/etc. company has been warned previously about this practice BUT it still chose to go back to the insane route. (see definition of insanity).

Result: 5000 frontline worker bees are terminated (yes they did something illegal and immoral and unethical BUT given the circumstances....) Upper Mangelment those responsible for dictating the insanity and those whose job it was to ENFORCE the insanity are given golden handshakes/parachutes with not even a slap on the wrist.

This was one of the definations of the nuclear option Doing something that you KNOW is wrong (both the insanity and the requirement to actually do things so that insanity is assured) and will lead to you and your company getting publically spanked especially before a Congressional Hearing. Things like "YOU as upper manglement SHOULD be the ones resigning and paying back all that money you made getting the insanity done."

The one in charge of that area just left the company with a $125 million package.

[HotelMinion]

Managers have it tough. I'm glad I'm not one. They're under a lot pressure, to keep customers happy. Then they have to keep employees happy (some of them don't like having high turnover). Then they have to keep keep corporate happy. All these groups are constantly bashing against each other. I imagine that it's kind of like being a president of a country. Different groups, all important, always at loggerheads. Maybe it's more like being the rope in a constant tug of war. My Managers, even though they have their minds in the clouds sometimes, are the best I've had *knock on wood*. Sometimes they put the sucky customers before us employees, and I don't like it. But I understand why they do that, we're a business and without customers $$$$ we'd go out of business. If we went out of business, Everyone'll out of a job. The owners would be bankrupt. Corporate would...uhh, take a hit on sales, I guess? Yeah corporate would come out the best I think. Screw those bigwigs!! D:<

[protege]

but smaller problems can be handled at their level, so they go all out to try to look badass to upper mgmt.

That...and because they think it gains the "respect" of their employees Usually though, it has the opposite effect.

I once worked with J. J was an asshole, who thought he was more important than he really was. Keep in mind that J was NOT a manager. But, because he was a trader, he pretty much got away with it. The company tended to kiss his ass because of his sales numbers.

One week, I was an hour late twice in a row. First time was due to road construction/car accident. Second time, was due to a power outage and my alarm clock not going off. During the "meeting" he called on my second "offense," he went on about disrespect and threatened to tattle on me. My reaction? "If that's what you have to do, go right ahead."

That sentence took the wind out of his sails quite a bit, and was probably the beginning of the end. Sure, it make him look good in the short term, but it did some long-term damage to the firm. Employees who were happy to work there, soon developed the "fuck you, J" attitude, and no longer gave a crap. Productivity took a nosedive as a result.

[mjr]

Why is it that manglement mostly goes with the nuclear option when dealing with employees?

It's possible it's just easier. It's something I've seen referred to as "solving the wrong problem". A classic example is a Dilbert cartoon I saw:

http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-10-13

Some problems are easier for management to solve than others.

[Android Kaeli]

I could go on and on about my direct manager, who has turned at least one major problem into a Very Catastrophic Nightmare that we're trying to pick our jaws up off of the floor from. The general gist of the Very Catastrophic Nightmare is that we spent over a month with only one oven, lost probably a good $20,000-something in sales, pissed off our regular customers, and we had to keep telling said regular customers for two weeks that we may or may not be able to fill their bread orders.

All the while this manager kept giving us headaches because we couldn't bake up what we used to because, hey, we've got one oven and half of our product can take up to an hour to bake.

[mjr]

<snip>

You bring up valid points. It's also because, I think, sometimes managers don't understand what their subordinates actually do, and what goes into it.

And to protege's point: It's also bad for morale, and creates an environment of distrust toward management.

Management probably doesn't see that as a problem, and just fires (or replaces) the disgruntled employees, thus again "solving the wrong problem".

[CyberLurch]

Depends on the level of management, too. Lower and middle mgrs can't always fix the big problems and might not be able to get upper mgmt to give a shit, but smaller problems can be handled at their level, so they go all out to try to look badass to upper mgmt.

This, plus lately (particularly the last few years) a lot of really incompetent managers thanks to an economy circling the rim (jobs are tough to find, therefore a lot of employees simply have to put up with the abuse), combined with an upswing in blatant cronyism, in which managers are selected not because of their skills, but because they're poker buddies/best friends/world-class bootlickers of the big boss. Part of management's skill set is supposed to be knowing how to handle people without resorting to disciplinary action; that is reserved for serious problems. But many managers use their position like a blunt object, precisely because they don't know HOW to handle people any other way.

It doesn't help that middle and upper management is up their ass constantly to cut payroll, do more with less, hit unrealistic goals, and so on, and often by those who are afflicted with the same personality limitations as the 'blunt object' managers in the field.