• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Leaders, Stop Rewarding Toxic Rock Stars

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,277
Points
1,160
Some good advice here, for any organization, which seems to be widely ignored with the usual results :)

Summary:
Research has shown that toxic cultures are extremely costly for companies, and toxic culture was the single biggest predictor of attrition during the first six months of the Great Resignation. “Toxic rock stars,” or bullies who evade consequences because they deliver results, can ruin the workplace experience for most employees, but they’re particularly harmful to women of color. In the midst of the fight for talent, at a time when the link between diversity and better business outcomes is finally being understood and when external stakeholders are demanding accountability on diversity metrics, company leaders must look carefully at the wide-ranging impacts of tolerating and rewarding high-performing bullies at the expense of culture, particularly as they impact women of color.

 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,335
Points
1,190
Some good advice here, for any organization, which seems to be widely ignored with the usual results :)

Summary:
Research has shown that toxic cultures are extremely costly for companies, and toxic culture was the single biggest predictor of attrition during the first six months of the Great Resignation. “Toxic rock stars,” or bullies who evade consequences because they deliver results, can ruin the workplace experience for most employees, but they’re particularly harmful to women of color. In the midst of the fight for talent, at a time when the link between diversity and better business outcomes is finally being understood and when external stakeholders are demanding accountability on diversity metrics, company leaders must look carefully at the wide-ranging impacts of tolerating and rewarding high-performing bullies at the expense of culture, particularly as they impact women of color.
Looks like our SCRIT method of meriting is becoming less and less relevant by the hour.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,774
Points
1,010
the link between diversity and better business outcomes

I continue to wonder whether the effect of "diversity" is properly understood. "Diversity" increases the size of the potential talent/customer pool; the actual "diversity" is beside the point.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,335
Points
1,190
I continue to wonder whether the effect of "diversity" is properly understood. "Diversity" increases the size of the potential talent/customer pool; the actual "diversity" is beside the point.
I would counter that diversity helps bring perspectives that would otherwise not be seen or investigated otherwise. You get the inside scoop from someone affected by the decision at hand. Otherwise you get Sally Ride getting sent into space for 10 days with enough feminine hygiene products to kit out a middle school for 6 months.

It is also a force multiplier in the sense that you have a reference to a certain culture or demographic you otherwise would not be exposed to. Our Polish-Canadian C9 gunner did more to affect change at the TF level than any preparation or TMST training provided. Even though we were working with a NATO partner, by understanding that more business is handled over coffee and vodka than an email, we were able to get what we needed in short order and with a smiling face from our Polish Armed Forces friends. When the next Roto came and scoffed at the idea of doing business this way, they felt the full affect of burning that cultural bridge.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,883
Points
1,260
I would counter that diversity helps bring perspectives that would otherwise not be seen or investigated otherwise. You get the inside scoop from someone affected by the decision at hand. Otherwise you get Sally Ride getting sent into space for 10 days with enough feminine hygiene products to kit out a middle school for 6 months.

It is also a force multiplier in the sense that you have a reference to a certain culture or demographic you otherwise would not be exposed to. Our Polish-Canadian C9 gunner did more to affect change at the TF level than any preparation or TMST training provided. Even though we were working with a NATO partner, by understanding that more business is handled over coffee and vodka than an email, we were able to get what we needed in short order and with a smiling face from our Polish Armed Forces friends. When the next Roto came and scoffed at the idea of doing business this way, they felt the full affect of burning that cultural bridge.
Bingo.

As an aside, I'm surprised that there is no big formal language survey for CAF members (Res and Reg) to see their levels in other languages. Something like the French/English testing but without currency training.

There are lots of folks who speak other languages (I'm one of them) and I don't ever recall being asked what language I spoke/read/write, or have it listed in an MPRR. That would sure be nice rather than having the desperate message for 10x people who can speak [insert language here] for quick deployment to [insert place where language is used].
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,774
Points
1,010
I would counter that diversity helps bring perspectives that would otherwise not be seen or investigated otherwise.

I hear/read that a lot, without quantification. Qualitatively it's true. But I suppose that increasing the recruiting pool from, say, the one-quarter of half-a-million recent high school graduates who are white men to the entire half-a-million is orders of magnitude more important by changing the bar at which entry examination can be set.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
292
Points
730
But unless you've passed the CAF language course you can not possibly use that language . Because simply out you are qualified to speak it. ....
If hasn't already I can honestly see this popping up in a memo or.email.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,335
Points
1,190
Bingo.

As an aside, I'm surprised that there is no big formal language survey for CAF members (Res and Reg) to see their levels in other languages. Something like the French/English testing but without currency training.

There are lots of folks who speak other languages (I'm one of them) and I don't ever recall being asked what language I spoke/read/write, or have it listed in an MPRR. That would sure be nice rather than having the desperate message for 10x people who can speak [insert language here] for quick deployment to [insert place where language is used].
There was a CANFORGEN released not long ago stating that members that spoke a Foreign language were able to self identify to their local Language training centre. They will add it to Guardian, and if there is a need for assessment (i.e. CFTPO for Language speaker to XYZ), they will look at those self identified personnel first.
I have a Bulgarian speaker and a Portuguese speaker in shop that have recently gone through the process and they said if I hadn't pushed them to self identify, they never would have known how the process works.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,883
Points
1,260
I hear/read that a lot, without quantification. Qualitatively it's true
I'm not even sure how one could quantify that.

Take that example of the Polish-Canadian soldier. How does one quantify "goodwill"? "Networking"? It's not really something repeatable - although I'm now chuckling to myself thinking of the CAF trying to get widgets every day, but sending a different person and tabulating the results ;)
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,785
Points
1,110
Bingo.

As an aside, I'm surprised that there is no big formal language survey for CAF members (Res and Reg) to see their levels in other languages. Something like the French/English testing but without currency training.

There are lots of folks who speak other languages (I'm one of them) and I don't ever recall being asked what language I spoke/read/write, or have it listed in an MPRR. That would sure be nice rather than having the desperate message for 10x people who can speak [insert language here] for quick deployment to [insert place where language is used].
You would think that a forward thinking organization.....never mind.

The CAF - although I loved almost every minute I served in it - was never very forward thinking and many members had difficulty thinking outside the box. And that included language training.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,335
Points
1,190
I hear/read that a lot, without quantification. Qualitatively it's true. But I suppose that increasing the recruiting pool from, say, the one-quarter of half-a-million recent high school graduates who are white men to the entire half-a-million is orders of magnitude more important by changing the bar at which entry examination can be set.
I will agree with you that limiting the pool overall to increase a smaller pool is folly. Do I feel that candidates should be wholly assessed based on the same criteria, not just on their "token" appeal? 100 percent. Do I believe we need to celebrate and encourage diversity in our attempts to build a CAF that reflects Canadian Society 2022? Hell yes.

The quantitative result is a chicken or egg scenario: will increasing efforts in diversity make it more desirable for these groups to want to join, or are we only head-hunting to fill a quota?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,883
Points
1,260
There was a CANFORGEN released not long ago stating that members that spoke a Foreign language were able to self identify to their local Language training centre. They will add it to Guardian, and if there is a need for assessment (i.e. CFTPO for Language speaker to XYZ), they will look at those self identified personnel first.
Would you happen to know what number that CANFORGEN was?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,774
Points
1,010
I don't see chicken-or-egg. Removing the impediments (things which negatively influence perceptions of the service as a career) comes first.

The underlying point is the same general idea as with any other attempt to measure success: measure it, measure it correctly, and understand which causes are more important in cause/effect. "Which 20% is giving you 80%?" Don't assume it's working because of the way some people would like to imagine it works. The important "link" is most likely the same one that economists use to argue against exclusionary behaviours: you eliminate part of your potential work force/customer base.

If we think something is working but misunderstand the reasons why, eventually we're going to make a policy blunder based on misunderstandings.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,277
Points
1,160
Because those who did where often beaten back into the box...

Some of us went underground ;)

door hello GIF by Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
650
Points
940
Some good advice here, for any organization, which seems to be widely ignored with the usual results :)

Summary:
Research has shown that toxic cultures are extremely costly for companies, and toxic culture was the single biggest predictor of attrition during the first six months of the Great Resignation. “Toxic rock stars,” or bullies who evade consequences because they deliver results, can ruin the workplace experience for most employees, but they’re particularly harmful to women of color. In the midst of the fight for talent, at a time when the link between diversity and better business outcomes is finally being understood and when external stakeholders are demanding accountability on diversity metrics, company leaders must look carefully at the wide-ranging impacts of tolerating and rewarding high-performing bullies at the expense of culture, particularly as they impact women of color.

So harmful it was mentioned twice in that paragraph.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,277
Points
1,160
So harmful it was mentioned twice in that paragraph.

Yes, scary.

I assume that the context is US based big businesses, and that the authors are 'women of color', but toxicity of this nature splashes around of course.
 
Top