Subscribe to our blog!

Your email:

Leverage Points Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Lessons from the Gulf Crisis: Why People Should Elect Their Bosses

 

By Chetan Dhruve

In part 1 of this post, guest blogger Chetan Dhruve introduced the idea that, intentional or not, all organizations are “dictatorships.” In part 2, he explores how this structure can lead to crises such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and presents ideas for shifting this dynamic.  

As you know, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster claimed 11 lives and resulted in one of the world’s worst-ever oil spills. What went wrong?

There were equipment failures, of course. But the truth is that subordinates who knew about the dangers were pressured into shutting up. An article in Propublica says, “[M]anagement flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed Oil on wateremployees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.” The article adds, “A 2004 inquiry [BP’s own] found a pattern of intimidating workers who raised safety or environmental concerns.”

But how do workers feel intimidated? Who, exactly, intimidates them? The answer is, of course, their bosses. Here’s an example of how these pressures are exerted and play out in real life, on the ground.

In August 2006, Stuart Sneed, a pipeline safety technician, found a crack in a transit line just five months after a 200,000-gallon oil spill in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Because of dangerous sparks from work near the cracked line, Sneed ordered the work to stop. He assumed that his employer would be happy, given that he had flagged a safety issue so soon after a major spill. But rather than being praised, here’s what happened to Sneed:

“[I]nstead of receiving compliments for his prudence, Sneed—who had also complained that week that pipeline inspectors were faking their reports—was scolded by his supervisor for stopping the work. According to a report from BP’s internal employer arbitrators, Sneed’s supervisor, who hadn’t inspected the crack himself, said he believed it was superficial.

The next day, according to multiple witness accounts and the report, that supervisor singled out Sneed and harassed him at a morning staff briefing. Within a couple of hours, the supervisor sent emails to colleagues soliciting complaints or safety concerns that would justify Sneed’s firing. Two weeks later, after a trumped up safety infraction, he was gone.”

In other words, Sneed’s boss eliminated the messenger of bad news—precisely the fate of dissenters in dictatorships. Moreover, whistleblowers are usually shunned by the job market. It’s incredible: people who should be re-hired in a jiffy have doors slammed shut in their faces. Why is this? Because every organization is a dictatorship, and dictatorships do not like dissenters.

In May of this year, Sneed wrote in the comments section of a Propubica article: “I stood up and told the truth about BP and their fraudulent careless programs at Greater Prudhoe Bay. My intentions were not to attack BP as a company, only to expose safety issues that if not corrected would surely cost them and the people working for them much harm. Their way of thanking me on two separate occasions, years apart, was only to make sure I was blacklisted and that I would never work again in the Alaskan Oilfields.”

This July, an article in The New York Times stated, “A confidential survey of workers on the Deepwater Horizon in the weeks before the oil rig exploded showed that many of them were concerned about safety practices and feared reprisals if they reported mistakes or other problems.” A worker was quoted as saying, “The company is always using fear tactics. All these games and your mind gets tired.”

The reality is that fear is present in all organizations, not just BP. But we have a mistaken notion that a culture of fear is deliberately fostered by managers, when in fact fear is an emergent property of the workplace dictatorship system. As a result, tragedies have happened time and again. Often, these disasters are blamed on the lack of a “safety culture” in organizations, most notably NASA for the Challenger and Columbia accidents.

However, when you delve deep into the investigation reports of such cases, you inevitably find that a safety culture is absolutely not lacking. Far from it. Experts lower down the organization hierarchy always know when safety is being endangered. But their expertise is disregarded and trampled upon in pursuit of “higher” organizational goals such as profit or politics.

Redesigning Our Organizations for Freedom

It’s not that we’re unaware of these issues. Hence, all kinds of efforts are made at “empowering” employees—whistleblower legislation, leadership training, assertiveness training, seemingly flat hierarchies, and anything else you might care to throw at the problem. But all these efforts have failed and will continue to fail, because the system hasn’t changed. To change the behavior of people, we need to change the system.

So how do we get subordinates to behave freely, and bosses to behave as real leaders, not dictators? The answer is quite simple: We need to redesign our organizations so that the emergent property of the system is freedom. And the way to do that is to give subordinates the right to vote for their bosses.

If you have all kinds of reservations about this apparently insane idea, let me end by asking: Would you like to have the right to vote for your boss? Would it change the way you conduct yourself in the workplace?

Chetan DhruveChetan Dhruve is the author of Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss (Marshall Cavendish, 2007). He has worked for IBM, Cisco Systems, and the Department for International Development. He is also the cofounder of several Internet start-ups. Chetan has an MBA from Cass Business School (London), an MA in international journalism from City University (London), and a BSc in Mathematics, Physics, and Electronics from St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore University.

Photo of oil on water by Creativity103

Comments

Great Article Chetan. 
 
As I was reading I was thinking about all the underhanded ways that we do have to vote. How adults are good at passive aggressive actions that subvert a managers ability to make progress; while at the same time hiding the reasons why they aren't making progress. There must be a lot of energy wasted in subversive games that are going on. 
 
It doesn't take long for employees to know who the good and bad mangers are. Who are the people the you would go the extra mile for and those that you wouldn't.  
 
Are there examples of companies that do vote in their management? Are there downsides to this? 
 
Thanks for the article and for stimulating my thinking. 
 
Chris Abbey 
Seattle Washington
Posted @ Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:22 PM by Chris Abbey
Chetan,  
I guess 360 degree reviews come closest to what you propose. Why is it difficult to imagine employees chosing their bosses? Members choose a board to govern them? I think organizations have need to control and create performance and organizations have discovered that the simplest way to do this is to tap into one of the oldest paradigms of command system. When we have systems that can match the performance of this system and when new criterion matter more, the system can change...I am looking into information markets for performance review, maybe bosses can also be rated by employees. But it is true that it is hard to be a boss and a manager and we should also think how to give them new tools and mental models to not have to resort to command systems...
Posted @ Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:23 PM by Kutlu Kazanci
Like corporate ethics, those in high corporate and goverment places are the most egregious violators of what is right and good. It takes more then elections to get good people in positions of leadership.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:23 PM by Ron Shenberger
Chris, many thanks.  
 
Often passive-aggressive types of behavior against (perceived) bad bosses happens because these behaviors are the only weapons available to subordinates defending themselves. When it comes to fighting in the trenches against your own boss, you use what you have.  
 
There are companies that have tried to mitigate the worst effects of boss behavior. One often-quoted example is Semco, a Brazilian company. You could read Ricardo Semler’s books (Maverick being a prominent one) about his experiments at Semco.  
 
Re the downsides of voting for your boss, I am sure there will be some downsides. That said, Systems Thinking says there are no perfect solutions – only ones that work well, compared to other solutions that don’t work as well. Things only get better, or worse, but they’re never perfect.  
 
Our organizations are founded on fear, and there are downsides to dictatorship systems too (fear, bad boss behavior etc). Organizations are trying to solve these problems, eg by whistleblower legislation and ‘leadership’ training. What I’m saying is that instead of solving the problems of fear, we would be better off building our organizations on the foundation of freedom, and solve the problems that arise because of freedom.  
 
To give you an analogy, just because our (free) countries are not perfect, we don’t drop the idea of voting altogether and allow a dictator to take over. We continually work on improving our (free) country-systems. I’m advocating that we use the same approach at the workplace too.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:12 AM by Chetan Dhruve
Hi Chetan, 
 
Very thought provoking article. What are your thoughts on the many excellent organisations and bosses that create positive, productive work environments that actually value their greatest asset - their people - without the staff voting for the bosses. How do they exist? Can we learn from them? 
 
Cheers, 
 
Alison
Posted @ Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:24 AM by Alison Dalziel
Ron, I agree that it takes more than elections to get good people into positions of leadership. That said, the critical point to understand is that leadership is a system – and hence, instead of worrying about, “How good is our leader”, the most important question to ask is, “What’s the emergent property of this system?”  
 
When a leader is elected, the emergent property is freedom. So, regardless of the quality of leader, freedom emerges. The thing to concern ourselves with is not whether the leader is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – instead, we should constantly strive to improve the system, so we get the leadership behavior that we want (ethical etc).  
 
Further, a free system is our best hope for unmasking corrupt leaders. Indeed, we know our leaders are corrupt only because we are able to expose them (eg through the media). Further, we can, having exposed them, throw them out.  
 
Moreover, we have been able to expose corporate scandals only because we live in a super-set of free systems (nation-states). I would argue that in fact, the free system has worked – violators have been caught and brought to justice (eg Enron). 
 
In contrast, in a dictatorship system – however ‘good’ the dictator – the emergent property is fear. In fact, the dictator is always portrayed as good, if not God (which is pretty much whom some dictators consider themselves to be). There is little or no chance of corruption being exposed. The dictator stays on for decades even, with terrible consequnces for that system. Take dictators of countries for example – they are in power for long periods, and pretty much control all business. There are no corporate scandals because if there’s any dissent (ie whistleblowing), they simply kill the dissenters.  
 
Fundamentally, what I’m saying is that if our organizations are free systems, there are far higher chances of violators being caught early in the process within the organization itself, rather than in the harsh glare of the public eye – as BP unfortunately found out.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:27 AM by Chetan Dhruve
I liked your idea of Re-designing our organizations for freedom !  
 
That makes complete sense
Posted @ Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:49 AM by Hari
Hi Alison, 
 
 
 
Thanks.  
 
 
 
You're right of course, in that there are many organizations with excellent bosses who create 
 
positive and productive work environments. I would say that it's a rather a game of chance, despite an organization's best intentions to produce good bosses.  
 
 
 
Also, there is no denying that there are organizations with terrible bosses.  
 
 
 
So the question is, how do we get rid of the bad bosses while keeping the good ones? The 
 
answer is to have a vote. The good bosses won't have a problem with their subordinates 
 
having voting rights, because they'd be confident of being voted in. It's only the bad bosses who'd have a problem. 
 
 
 
Regards, 
 
 
 
Chetan
Posted @ Wednesday, September 08, 2010 5:58 AM by Chetan Dhruve
People always select a right boss.But when the boss has the position...They lost there equality..and abuse there position. 
Ed Butowsky 
Posted @ Friday, February 25, 2011 4:47 AM by James
Comments have been closed for this article.