Warren Buffett: Why Did He Enable a Bullying Exec?
While I will not admit to enjoying the downfall of others, it is refreshing to see an executive who treats others poorly fall from power.
Such is the case with David Sokol, once believed to be the heir apparent to Warren Buffett as the next CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. That plan evaporated when Sokol resigned in March after it was revealed that he had bought shares in Lubrizol, a company that Berkshire Hathaway since bought.
Now, according to reporting by Peter Latman and Geraldine Fabrikant in the New York Times, Sokol had an unsavory reputation within Berkshire Hathaway. He could be gruff and abusive and worse his track record as a "Mr. Fix It" was unwarranted. Insiders wonder why Buffett valued Sokol so highly. [Berkshire Hathaway has since announced that Sokol, in violation of corporate ethics policies, gave "misleadingly incomplete disclosures" about his stock purchases.]
Far be it from me to speculate on what Buffett saw in Sokol, but it seems that Buffett, who prides himself on hands-off management, is one more in long line of top executives who willfully or woefully are blind to the negative behaviors of underlings, even when those behaviors rise to the level of bullying.
Bullying Bosses: A Scourge in Corporate America
Bullying is not what Sokol is accused of, but as the Times reported, Sokol suggested getting rid of employees because they were in poor health or going through a divorce, which is bully-like behavior.
Bully bosses are the scourge of many organizations. According to a 2010 survey released by the National Workplace Bullying Institute, bullies are commonplace. One in three workers report being bullied by a boss. Six in ten bullies are men and 58% of their targets are women. Cases of bullying are four times greater than illegal harassment.
Bullies wreck a terrible toll within an organization. Their behavior leads to increased levels of stress among employees, higher rates of absenteeism, and higher than normal attrition. But here is the irony. Bullies do get results, typically because they push people to the wall forcing them to put in longer than necessary hours. Senior managers see only the results and look no further.
If you look at management as an exercise in employee engagement, bullies fall short. Bullies get employees to comply, but not to commit. Compliance is okay for day-to-day operations but when an organization is faced with a challenge or even a crisis, you need employees who are willing to go the extra mile. People who work for a bully are biding their time looking for a way out, or a time when the bully will be replaced.
Bullies also sully the reputation of their department. Talented employees will avoid working there. Couple that with the talented people in the department who have left or are seeking to leave, pretty soon the bully is left with employees whose only option is to endure.
Avoidance of the bullying issue by senior management is a contributing factor to why bully bosses remain in their positions. Until senior management looks more closely at the "numbers behind the numbers" â€" absenteeism, lower engagement scores, and turnover â€" bullies will remain with us.
Have you seen CEOs blind to bullies, and what impact has that had on the company?
Related:
John Baldoni is an internationally recognized leadership development consultant, executive coach, author, and speaker. In 2011 Leadership Gurus International ranked John no. 11 on its list of the world's top leadership experts. John is the author of nine books on leadership including his Lead By Example: 50 Ways Great Leaders Inspire Results and Lead Your Boss: The Subtle Art of Managing Up. Follow him on Twitter
