This story would make a great case study: Genoways was often out of the office but yielded a lot of power - this was one of Mintzberg's "simple structures." Interestingly, the trouble began when Genoways hired a young master's program grad to help raise money for the magazine (who also happened to be a wealthy heiress whose father Genoways was cultivating to raise money for the magazine). Staff resented the power this young hotshot had, and tensions escalated. Soon, Morrissey was dead.
This is some very fascinating reading. Slate has an overview of the story here and the Chronicle of Higher Education has the story that started it all. I also recommend this local publication's story.
Slate points out some questions that may be relevant to class:
What does it mean to be a workplace bully? For kids, bullying is defined as repeated acts of verbal or physical abuse in a situation where there's a power imbalance between the bully and the bullied. But in the workplace, there is almost always a hierarchy; power imbalances are necessarily part of the equation. That doesn't mean bad behavior can't be policed. Sexual harassment suits do just that. But bosses and employees aren't peers the way school kids are. The leaders of companies and departments have to dictate rules and give orders and occasionally reprimand employees who are falling short on the job—they have to be bossy. It's possible to imagine a scenario in which a boss (or a group of co-workers) deliberately persecutes an employee—sabotaging his work, playing nasty pranks. But is every demanding, gruff boss a bully? Where is the line between mismanagement and harassment? And can a boss ever be held responsible for an employee's decision to kill himself?I also wonder: how can this staff pick of the pieces after this tragedy? Maybe this is a problem we can discuss when we get to the human resources frame.
-Sean
Reading the Slate article makes me wonder what exactly constitutes as office bullying and what is reasonable for a boss to do. Often, bosses will be bossy or difficult and may choose to use intimidation or embarassment as tools. I guess there is a line that must be drawn between the two, but I am not quite sure where it is.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of this particular case, it doesn't seem that Ted did anything vindictive or with intentional and mean-spirited bullying. It seems more like he was a nervous editor that's publication was undergoing transitions and he was trying to manage it as he thought best.
What seems like the bigger deal is that Kevin suffered from lifelong depression. Therefore, he was more sensitive to stressful situations such as what he experienced in the workplace, which was likely a contributer to his suicide. Yet, it is unfair to blame it on Ted for his actions. It was more that Kevin was't sure how to deal with this stressful and difficult situation. I would think that many people have equally challenging and stressful workplaces (for a number of reasons), and the key is to knowing how to manage it. It seems like people are looking to place blame here and Ted is a sort of scapegoat.
This reminds me a bit of the facebook movie,"The Social Network," which I saw this weekend. According to the movie, Mark Zuckerberg (facebook founder and ceo), alienated his business partner, took on new influences (sean Parker of Napster(similar to Levinson-LaBrosse), and eventually sneakily cut out his friend and original partner from owning a piece of facebook. The friend later sued and received an unknown settlement. Shows that business can be dirty and its every man for himself, can't let emotions get too high or you won't survive.
Just FYI, I fixed the "local publication" link to be the story I meant to link to, by "The Hook." The Chronicle piece, which is also great, remains.
ReplyDelete-Sean