Periodic reminder: Hobbies are good for us

The other day, a dear friend told me in a matter-of-fact way that I’m a workaholic. She’s right, I know, which may render me the wrong writer to extol the virtues of having an engaging hobby. Nevertheless, I’ve been doing so for many years on this blog (e.g., here, here, and here) and elsewhere.

Now comes a thought-provoking New York Times piece by Jaya Saxena, “The Case for Having a Hobby,” which explores our relationship with hobbies in a world where so many people feel pressured to be continually productive, and where so many others don’t have the luxury of time or resources to easily allow for a hobby. The article examines the impact of an achievement-oriented culture that undermines the pursuit of hobbies for pleasure. Ultimately, Saxena suggests doing “something you’re genuinely interested in and want to do just for the sake of doing it.”

Despite said workaholic tendencies, I’ve made conscious efforts to carve out time for hobbies. I thought I’d use this end-of-school-year juncture to once again share a few of my pastimes over the years:

A voice made for photographs?

For many years I’ve been taking a weekly voice class at the Boston Center for Adult Education. Here’s what I wrote about the experience a couple of years ago:

Every Tuesday, our class meets for a 90-minute session, led by Jane (a Juilliard-trained vocalist and instructor) and Maria (a classically trained piano accompanist). The format is simple. After group warm-ups, each student performs a song of their choosing and is coached before the group. Yup, each of us does a solo number every week!

…I select mostly numbers from the Great American Songbook — the stuff of the Gershwins, Cole Porter, Sinatra, etc. — but others perform contemporary pop, classic rock, folk, country, religious…you name it.

…On occasion we take our voices outside of the class to perform. Our group has gone to several local open mic cabaret nights, and we’ve done karaoke a few times as well.

…I often remark that the class and the people in it have saved me thousands of dollars in therapy costs. For me singing class is a form of mindfulness, an opportunity to be in the moment with music I enjoy, buoyed by terrific people who make it a supportive and fun experience. I count many of these folks as good friends.

Yeah, that’s a tornado dropping behind me

Since my boyhood days of growing up in northwest Indiana, I’ve been deeply fascinated by tornadoes. Ten years ago, I signed up for a storm chase tour hosted by Tempest Tours, a Texas-based company that takes its guests into bad weather throughout America’s heartland, led by expert storm chasers. In a remarkable stroke of lucky timing, within a few hours of leaving our base hotel in Oklahoma, we intercepted a single supercell that spawned multiple tornadoes throughout the day. It was an awe-inspiring experience, and I’ve gone on four more tours since then.

I’ve collected just about everything except heads

As a kid I was drawn to collecting. Stamps, coins, baseball cards, and more. Limited funds prevented me from accumulating too much stuff — a blessing for a pack rat like me, believe me — but I’ve still managed to hang on to some of my favorite collectibles. And although I don’t have time to collect stamps actively, I’m still drawn to their beauty and the historical stories they often tell. On occasion I’ll pick up an interesting stamp set or illustrated cover.

Replaying sports history with the APBA baseball simulation game

I’ve been a sports fan since boyhood days as well, and one manifestation of that fandom is playing and collecting tabletop sports simulation games that use statistics-based game models to recreate actual or imagined pro and college sports teams and play games with them. These are the analog precursors to popular sports video games like John Madden Football. Pictured above are player performance cards from one of the legendary tabletop baseball games, APBA Baseball. If you roll a 66 (6 on both 6-sided die), you’re almost guaranteed that the player hits a home run!

Heaven is time to read books

Of course, there are books. In my case, lots of them. Hundreds and hundreds. This, too, goes back to childhood, when books were both a joy and a refuge. I think the same could be said of them today.

***

Looking back at what I just wrote, I wonder how much our penchant for hobbies has roots in our younger days. In my case, every one of these hobbies can be traced to my childhood. Perhaps some enterprising graduate student has already written a thesis on the linkages between childhood fascinations and adult hobbies, but for now I’ll simply acknowledge the connection for me. In addition, I hope that readers will pursue or discover hobbies that give them an enjoyable respite from life’s immediate challenges.

Are some companies starting to understand the costs of bullying bosses?

In a piece for Bloomberg, Matthew Townsend and Esme E. Deprez dig beneath media reports of sexual harassment and sex discrimination at Nike to find the presence of bullying behaviors:

After Nike Inc. ousted a handful of male executives for behavior issues over the past few months, some media reports tied the departures to the #MeToo movement and its revelations of sexual harassment and assault. Interviews with more than a dozen former Nike employees, including senior executives, however, paint a picture of a workplace contaminated by a different behavior: corporate bullying. The workers say the sneaker giant could be a bruising place for both men and women, and that females did bullying, too.

I was interviewed for the piece and suggested that maybe some companies are starting to get it:

“Some companies are realizing that a bullying boss isn’t the best way to manage a company,” says David Yamada, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston who’s authored antibullying legislation. “Maybe we’re starting to see a tipping point.”

Gary Namie of the Workplace Bullying Institute “says one reason some companies have long tolerated or even encouraged such behavior is that many American managers believe the workplace is by nature rough around the edges.” This assumption pits worker against worker in a “‘zero-sum, competitive work environment where people feel they need to obliterate their competitors.'”

Workplace bullying and sexual harassment

The emergence of the #MeToo movement has drawn long overdue attention to sexual harassment and assault. I pointed out the ongoing links between sexual harassment and workplace bullying:

When executives feel entitled or untouchable, that often leads to bullying and then to other inappropriate behavior, Yamada says. In many of the workplace environments that resulted in some of the high-profile #MeToo moments, such as that at Weinstein Co., an “undercurrent” of bullying created a belief that mistreatment would go unpunished, he says. “It’s that bullying atmosphere that helps to enable and empower sexual harassment.”

These connections have been made repeatedly during the nascent history of the #MeToo movement. In an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, media professor David Lieberman stated that if we want to end sexual harassment, then we need to end workplace bullying:

But legislators can do more to address the problem. They can make workplace bullying illegal. Too many corporate leaders find it expedient to look the other way when bosses — especially ones they deem indispensable — systematically intimidate and humiliate underlings. Bullies who believe that their whims matter more than other people’s dignity often don’t see why their sexual impulses shouldn’t be just as indulged.

Here in Boston, noted public radio personality Tom Ashbrook was terminated from his job after initial complaints about sexual harassment led to a deeper inquiry about bullying behaviors. In a February post, I wrote:

Workplace bullying, not sexual harassment, prompted this week’s termination of popular Boston public radio program host Tom Ashbrook by his employer, Boston University, which owns the WBUR-FM radio station.

. . . In December, sexual harassment allegations against Ashbrook surfaced publicly, and soon it became evident that bullying-type behaviors were also part of the alleged misconduct.

Absence of legal protections

The Bloomberg article devotes considerable attention to the absence of legal protections for bullied workers, and, correspondingly, the lack of legal incentives for employers to address these behaviors:

One reason few companies have specific antibullying policies is that there aren’t federal or state laws in the U.S. outlawing the behavior, which makes America a laggard when compared with Western Europe, Canada, and Australia.

A lack of legal protections greatly reduces the possibility of liability for employers. It’s difficult to bring a lawsuit based on bullying, and businesses have worked to keep it that way. . . . If there were antibullying laws, companies would be liable and do more to deter the practice, according to Namie. “It’s the only form of abuse that hasn’t been addressed by law,” he says.

Nevertheless, as Townsend and Deprez point out, Nike is among the companies that have an anti-harassment policy covering bullying behaviors. It’s a stark reminder that policies alone are not enough. Without legal protections and organizational commitments to workplaces that embrace worker dignity as a core value and practice, bullying, mobbing, and abuse at work will continue to flourish.

When it comes to sexual misconduct allegations in politics and government, party affiliations mean very little

Multiple sexual misconduct allegations against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have shocked a lot of people, including me. After all, Schneiderman had honed a public image as a supporter of the MeToo movement. Nevertheless, his fall has been brutally sudden and fast. An investigative piece by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow appeared in the New Yorker late yesterday. By early evening, Schneiderman had announced his resignation.

The New Yorker piece details allegations of physical abuse associated with sex and threats of retaliation experienced by four women who were either in relationships with Schneiderman or his potential romantic interests. The accounts sound very credible to me. They suggest the behavioral patterns of a serial abuser. (In fairness, I should note that Schneiderman has denied the allegations and stated that he has never committed sexual assault.)

The shock has been at two levels. First, as noted above, Schneiderman has built a reputation as a crusader against the very types of interpersonal abuse that he is now accused of committing. For many people, especially women who saw Schneiderman as being one of the “good guys” against sexual harassment and assault, this has been profoundly unsettling and destabilizing. As so many of have said in online comments and social media posts, if you can’t trust him, then who can you trust?

I’m afraid that I don’t have a response to that question. In terms of categorizing the good guys and the bad guys, I considered Schneiderman to be among the former. I can only imagine what a victim of sexual harassment or assault who believed in him must be feeling right now.

Secondly, Schneiderman is considered a liberal Democrat, and for those of us who generally identify with that label, this also shakes our foundation.

On that point, however, I want to say, get a clue. As I see it, when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations made against public officials, party affiliation means nothing. I’ve kept no running tally of allegations against Democrats versus Republicans, or liberals versus conservatives, but suffice it to say that these revelations seem to apply to both sides of the aisle. (Indeed, while Schneiderman has seized the headlines for today, in Missouri, Republican governor Eric Greitens faces a pending criminal trial and possible impeachment proceedings arising out of sexual misconduct charges.) 

I believe that a lot of these behaviors stem from the corrupting and intersecting influences of power and misogyny. Those on the left, center, and right may claim to be on the better side of arguments on policy issues, and we can debate those points endlessly. But when it comes to how we treat one another as human beings, well, I submit that this quality transcends political labels.

Roundup on creativity, innovation, and making a difference

(image courtesy of clipartpanda.com)

Happy Monday, dear readers. Perhaps it’s procrastination directed at the pile of term papers sitting in front of me, but I thought I’d take a few minutes to gather ten past articles on creativity, innovation, and making a difference. 

Even Shakespeare had a writing circle (2017) — “Nevertheless, it sure helps to have friends and buddies who help to prod us along in that oft-lonesome task of putting pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. Furthermore, if that process includes a mix of mutual encouragement, feedback, and suggestions, then the written products may be all the better for it. While the Shakespeares of the world may come around only once every thousand years or so, a supportive cohort can help to unearth the brilliance we do possess.”

What does it mean to be “onto something?” (2016) — “What does it mean to be ‘onto something’? Well, if you search ‘onto something meaning,’ you’ll get several similar explanations of the term. I like this one from Oxford Living DictionariesHave an idea or information that is likely to lead to an important discovery. . . . As I further acknowledged, it took me until my fifties to find that place. So if you want to be a difference maker, but you haven’t found your niche yet, try to be patient and remain open to messages and opportunities. Sooner or later, you’ll be onto something.”

Three great authors on writing to make a difference (2015) — “For fresh, inspiring outlooks on the uses of writing and scholarship to make a difference, I often listen to voices outside of mainstream academe. Here I happily gather together three individuals, Ronald Gross, Mary Pipher, and John Ohliger, whose names I have invoked previously on this blog.”

Work and solitude (2015) — “If some of the trendy gurus in work and office design are to be believed, teams and open spaces are the keys to spurring creativity and innovation. But hold on a minute, maybe this is going too far. While complete isolation and always closed doors are not advisable, the other end of the spectrum may not be such a great idea, either.”

The example of the Wright Brothers (2015) — “Their accomplishments were especially remarkable given that, as [historian David] McCullough writes, they had ‘no college education, no formal technical training, no experience working with anyone other than themselves, no friends in high places, no financial backers, no government subsidies, and little money of their own.'”

The daily routines of creative minds (2014) — “How do creative geniuses and brilliant intellectuals spend their typical workday? If you’ve ever wondered how great writers, artists, philosophers, scientists and other creators of art and knowledge greet their mornings and beyond, Mason Currey’s Daily Rituals: How Artists Work (2013) is a pleasing, easy way to find out.”

Messiness and creativity (2013) — “As the photo above suggests, this may be among the most self-justifying of blog posts: A short write-up of a recent study indicating that messiness may nurture creativity.”

10 ways to make a difference: Advice for change agents (2013) — “Let’s say you’ve got a cause you care deeply about, and you want to move it forward. It may be an initiative at work, a political issue, a community concern, or something else that matters. You may be at the beginning, in the middle, or tantalizingly close to success. . . . What follows are hardly the first or last words about making a difference, but perhaps you’ll find them useful. In no particular order . . . .”

Do credibility and innovation mix? (2011) — “Is it possible to have both credibility with the Establishment and freedom to innovate? . . . [Seth Godin] summarizes the ‘paradox of success’: People with no credibility or resources rarely get the leverage they need to bring their ideas to the world. People with credibility and resources are so busy trying to hold onto them that they fail to bring their provocative ideas to the world.

Advice to Young and Not-So-Young Folks Who Want to Make a Difference (2009) — “Several years ago I was asked to present an award to a pioneering labor leader at the annual banquet of Americans for Democratic Action, on whose board I sit. I don’t know why I thought this, but as I started to research his background, I half expected to see a long list of jobs in different labor and political organizations. Instead, I learned that he had served in his current position for well over a decade. . . . Look around you: Most of the difference makers have staying power. They are driven by heartfelt commitment and a desire to do something meaningful.”

Bullying behaviors undermined nominee for head of U.S. Veterans Affairs

From the Washington Post

This week White House physician Ronny L. Jackson removed his name from consideration to be the next Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, following allegations of excessive issuing of prescriptions, drunkenness on the job, and creation of abusive work environments. While the former two factors likely played the larger role in undermining the candidacy of President Trump’s nominee to head the veterans affairs department, the vetting of Dr.Jackson’s candidacy revealed an apparent pattern of bullying behaviors directed mainly at subordinates.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is a presidential cabinet position and requires Senate approval. Pursuant to that process, staffers for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee investigated Jackson’s background and record. This two-page summary of concerns prepared by committee staffers (screenshot above) included the following allegations, based on interviews of 23 current and former colleagues of Dr. Jackson:

Individuals noted a constant fear of reprisal. Specific examples that would identify the individuals concerned have been provided to Committee staff but are not provided here to protect their identities.

***

Jackson was described as “the most unethical person I have ever worked with”, “flat-out unethical”, “explosive”, “100 percent bad temper”, “toxic”, “abusive”, “volatile”, “incapable of not losing his temper”, “the worst officer I have ever served with”, “despicable”, “dishonest”, as having “screaming tantrums” and “screaming fits”, as someone who would “lose his mind over small things”, “vindictive”, “belittling”, “the worse leader I’ve ever worked for.” Day-to-day environment was like “walking on eggshells.” As Jackson gained power he became “intolerable.” One physician said, “I have no faith in government that someone like Jackson could be end up at VA.” A nurse stated, “this [working at the White House Medical Unit] should have been the highlight of my military career but it was my worst assignment.” Another stated that working at WHMU was the “worst experience of my life.”

***

Jackson was viewed as someone who “would roll over anyone”, “worked his way up on the backs of others”, “was a suck up to those above him and abusive to those below him”, a “kiss up, kick down boss”, “put his needs above everyone else’s.”

Because the report was publicly released by Democratic staff members of the Committee, there’s no doubt that partisan politics are at play here. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reported that it “has independently been told stories of misconduct by Jackson” similar to those in the report, including allegations of on-the-job drunkenness.

Another kiss up, kick down bully

“Kiss up, kick down” types are among the most common of workplace bullies. Another example is John Bolton, President Trump’s recent appointee for National Security Advisor, who is well-known for his volcanic temper and lack of personal restraint. Here’s a snippet from what I wrote about Bolton back in 2005, pursuant to his (successful) nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations:

In recent months, many . . . [bullying] behaviors have been attributed to Bolton by current and former State Department co-workers and contractors. Ex-State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford, a Republican appointee, called Bolton a “serial abuser” of subordinates, adding that he showed a talent for stroking superiors while kicking down underlings.

marginThe most publicized allegations came from Melody Townsel, a woman who worked with Bolton in Moscow under a government contract in 1994. Townsel told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton chased her down the halls of a Moscow hotel, threw a tape dispenser at her, made disparaging remarks about her appearance, left threatening letters under her hotel door, and pounded on her door and yelled at her.

marginBolton is said to have pursued the removal of two intelligence analysts simply for disagreeing with him. He sought to have them fired, claiming that their work had deteriorated. Internal agency reviews of the analysts’ work found no merit to the claims. Other reports indicate that Bolton has a talent for shouting down diplomats from other nations and throwing last-minute monkey wrenches into delicate treaty negotiations.

While I happen to believe that President Trump is happy to surround himself with men who conduct themselves similarly, the appointment of workplace bullies to high positions is not limited by political affiliation. For example, several years ago I shared the story of one of President Obama’s ambassadorial selections, Cynthia Stroum:

Businesswoman Cynthia Stroum was appointed U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg after being a key fundraiser for President Obama in 2008. On its own, the Luxembourg gig must be fairly peaceful, but Ambassador Stroum has been stirring up things within the embassy. As reported by Brian Montopoli of CBS News (link here):

It appears that her fundraising abilities did not translate to diplomatic success, however: According to a scathing State Department probe out Thursday (PDF), Stroum was seen by most employees as “aggressive, bullying, hostile and intimidating.”

. . . Things got so bad, the report says, that staffers asked for transfers to Afghanistan and Iraq due in part to “a climate of acute stress” at the embassy.

One doesn’t have to search hard for the irony that Bolton and Stroum were appointed to diplomatic positions.

In any event, the story of Ronny Jackson suggests that, at the very least, allegations of severe bullying behaviors played a role in the withdrawal of his nomination. From the standpoint of public awareness of workplace bullying and the fact that such behaviors can have negative consequences, I’ll take that incremental progress.

The Holocaust is a key to understanding interpersonal abuse and systems that enable it

Watch this.

If the results of a recent public awareness survey are any indication, then we appear to be losing our collective knowledge of the Holocaust. Julie Zauzmer reports for the Washington Post:

Two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.

Twenty-two percent of millennials in the poll said they haven’t heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they’ve heard of it — twice the percentage of U.S. adults as a whole who said the same.

. . . Asked to identify what Auschwitz is, 41 percent of respondents and 66 percent of millennials could not come up with a correct response identifying it as a concentration camp or extermination camp.

The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany conducted the study, which interviewed 1,350 American adults.

Granted, it’s only one poll. But if the results are even close to representative of the overall population, then we should be filled with alarm and despair. As I wrote in 2014:

Over the weekend I read Elie Wiesel’s Night (1958; new translation 2006), a defining personal account of life and death in Nazi concentration camps. . . . As an amateur student of history, I’ve read a lot of books and watched many films and documentaries about the World War II era, including the Holocaust. However, what should’ve been so self-evident to me beforehand finally sank in as I read Night: We need to understand the Holocaust because there is no more documented, memorialized, and analyzed chapter of widespread, deliberate, orchestrated human atrocity in our history. If we want to grasp how human beings in a “modern” era can inflict horrific cruelties on others  — systematically and interpersonally — then the Holocaust is at the core of our understanding.

Yes, to know about the Holocaust is to look into the darkest side of humanity. And if we don’t understand that side, then we cannot build a world that knowingly resists and opposes those instincts and behaviors and opts for something much better.

Relevance to the workplace

In previous articles I have made my case for why an understanding of the Holocaust can help us to comprehend the worst instances of bullying, mobbing, and abuse in the workplace. I have stitched together pieces of two past blog posts (here and here) to reiterate that position:

***

Do the individual and collective behaviors of the Holocaust help us to understand severe, targeted, personally destructive workplace bullying? . . . I am well aware of the casual overuse of references to Hitler and the Nazis in our popular culture, especially in today’s overheated political discourse. . . . Nevertheless, I have steeped myself in the experiences and literature of workplace bullying, and I have read many works about the Holocaust. Although the two forms of mistreatment are hardly equivalent — even the worst forms of workplace bullying are a world away from genocide — there are real connections between them.

***

Barbara Coloroso is an internationally recognized authority on school bullying whose work also has extended into the general realm of human rights. She recounts in her 2007 book Extraordinary Evil: A Short Walk to Genocide how she used a talk at the University of Rwanda to explain “how it was a short walk from schoolyard bullying to criminal bullying (hate crime) to genocide,” invoking the roles of aggressor, bullying target, and bystander.

***

Kenneth Westhues, the University of Waterloo sociologist whose case studies of mobbing in academe are worth the concentrated study of any serious student of workplace abuse, uses the term “elimination” to describe the process of removing targeted professors from their jobs. Ken also draws comparisons between severe mobbing behaviors at work and perpetrators of larger-scale eliminations and genocides, including the Nazis.

***

I subscribe to the theory that most cases of severe, repeated, targeted workplace bullying originate with a nasty individual. Whether that person can be clinically classified as a psychopath, sociopath, or narcissist matters less than whether he possesses the simple capacities to treat someone abusively and to enlist others to be of assistance. More often than not, the abuser needs others to help with the dirty work. For example, if the intended coup de grâce is to eliminate the target from the workplace and perhaps to destroy her livelihood and career, the bully typically requires assistance to manipulate the employment record of a competent, even outstanding worker to make her look like a miscreant.

***

Philosopher Hannah Arendt invoked the phrase “banality of evil” to describe how Adolf Eichmann served as one of Hitler’s architects of the Holocaust. Since then, the phrase has come to represent — in more generic terms — how ordinary people become easily invested in the values of a morally bankrupt status quo and participate in terrible behaviors that seemingly are unthinkable in civilized society. These insights teach us a lot about how bureaucratic enablers of abusive bosses can help to facilitate the destruction of a bullying target.

***

When, say, human resources officers and employment lawyers knowingly — or perhaps with a sort of deliberate ignorance — side with the abusers to facilitate the destruction of a bullying target, they play institutional roles very similar to the bureaucrats of the Nazi regime. These professional handmaidens are more than simple bystanders looking the other way. They are complicit in the abuse; often they are among the key enablers leading to the final elimination of the target.

It’s about people and systems

In other words, we’re talking about a blend of individual actors and systems that enable them. The Holocaust may have been driven by Hitler and the smaller circle around him, but they needed the active cooperation of thousands of others to create a systematized killing machine, not to mention millions of others willing to look the other way.

The same applies to toxic workplaces. Here’s what I wrote last year:

***

. . . (W)orkplace bullying and mobbing “usually cannot flourish without organizational sponsorship, enabling, or, at the very least, indifference.” Indeed, if we take this a step further, we see that workplace abuse is enabled by formal and informal systems of people and networks.

Those who study social work or organizational behavior learn about systems theory, which is basically a fancy way of saying that human roles and interactions are complex, interrelated, and intertwined, culminating in systems that produce certain results. With workplace bullying and mobbing, dysfunctional or hostile systems inflict injuries on targets and protect their abusers. Thus, a typical campaign of severe bullying or mobbing at work involves multiple players, including but hardly limited to:

  • The main aggressor(s);
  • The supervisor or boss of the main aggressor(s), in order to ratify and sometimes further the abuse;
  • On frequent occasion, peers recruited/pressured/incentivized to join in on the abuse;
  • Human resources personnel to bureaucratically process the abuse through review and discipline of the target;
  • Legal counsel to provide cover for the organization and sometimes direct additional intimidation toward the target.

These players join to create systems of abuse, sometimes tightly coordinated, other times acting in a sort of auto-pilot mode. Not infrequently, players outside of the workplace are enlisted to help out as well, thereby extending the system beyond the office or plant.

***

Let’s educate ourselves

The possibilities are many, but let me offer a few recommendations for those who wish to learn more about the Holocaust.

I just finished watching the 2005 BBC mini-series, “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’,” a six-episode mix of dramatizations, historical footage, and interviews. It masterfully pulls together the broader historical contexts and the often shocking, heartbreaking narrative details. It requires less than five hours of your time, and right now you can stream it on Netflix.

In terms of short memoirs, Wiesel’s Night comes out to less than 150 pages and can be finished during an evening or two. Viktor Frankl’s classic Man’s Search for Meaning also recounts his experiences in Nazi concentration camps and examines how they fueled his pioneering work as a psychiatrist.

Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, both the epic novels and the lengthy mini-series adaptations, are compelling fictional portrayals of the WWII era, with a heavy emphasis on the Nazis and the Holocaust.

I confess that I’ve read only parts of these books, but for those who want to go deep into the details, William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Martin Gilbert’s The Holocaust are among the many favorably reviewed historical treatments of the era.

There are plenty of other good sources, but regardless of how we learn about this signature event in human history, the important thing is to comprehend and remember.

Coping with an abusive boss: That voodoo that you do

If you’re angry about being treated like dirt by a terrible boss, then you may want to take it out on a voodoo doll. At least that’s what a study published earlier this year in The Leadership Quarterly suggests might be helpful.

In “Righting a wrong: Retaliation on a voodoo doll symbolizing an abusive supervisor restores justice” (abstract here), a team of researchers led by Dr. Lindie Liang (Wilfrid Laurier U, Canada) sought to measure whether “symbolic retaliation” might help to reduce feelings of being unjustly mistreated by an abusive supervisor.

They started with the common sense understanding that directly retaliating against a boss for perceived injustices at work might not be the best idea for many reasons. Next, they hypothesized that engaging in “symbolic retaliation,” such as taking out frustrations on a voodoo doll representing an abusive boss, might nevertheless help to reduce those feelings of injustice.

It turns out they were correct in their hypothesis. In a study involving 229 subjects, taking out one’s anger on a voodoo doll reduced feelings of workplace injustice by one third.

The research article itself is not available without subscription or library access, but reporter Sarah Knapton provides a nice summary in The Telegraph newspaper:

For the study, the participants were asked to recall and visualise a workplace interaction which had involved abuse from a supervisor. Some were then asked to retaliate using a voodoo doll . . . . Those who had been allowed to stick pins in their virtual boss were far less likely to still feel bitter . . . .

The article quotes Prof. Liang:

“We found a simple and harmless symbolic act of retaliation can make people feel like they’re getting even and restoring their sense of fairness. . . . Symbolically retaliating against an abusive boss can benefit employees psychologically by allowing them to restore their sense of justice in the workplace.”

And in related news, retailers report that sales of voodoo dolls have jumped 1,000 percent…just kidding, I think.

%d bloggers like this: