The Bosshole® Chronicles
The Bosshole® Chronicles
Dr. George Reed - A Journey into Toxic Leadership
What if the most dangerous person in your company is also your top performer on paper? We bring Dean and Professor Emeritus Dr. George Reed to unpack toxic leadership with a definition that cuts through opinion, ego, and excuses: it’s a sustained pattern of behavior that damages team climate over time. Not a bad day. Not a tough conversation. A measurable, persistent drag on safety, trust, retention, and results.
- Click HERE to connect with Dr. Reed on LinkedIn
- Click HERE to order Tarnished: Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military
HERE ARE MORE RESOURCES FROM REAL GOOD VENTURES:
Never miss a good opportunity to learn from a bad boss...
Click HERE to get your very own Reference Profile. We use The Predictive Index as our analytics platform so you know it's validated and reliable. Your Reference Profile informs you of your needs, behaviors, and the nuances of what we call your Behavioral DNA. It also explains your work style, your strengths, and even the common traps in which you may find yourself. It's a great tool to share with friends, family, and co-workers.
Follow us on Instagram HERE and make sure to share with your network!
Follow us on X HERE and make sure to share with your network!
Provide your feedback HERE, please! We love to hear from our listeners and welcome your thoughts and ideas about how to improve the podcast and even suggest topics and ideas for future episodes.
Visit us at www.realgoodventures.com. We are a Talent Optimization consultancy specializing in people and business execution analytics. Real Good Ventures was founded by Sara Best and John Broer who are both Certified Talent Optimization Consultants with over 50 years of combined consulting and organizational performance experience. Sara is also certified in EQi 2.0. RGV is also a Certified Partner of Line-of-Sight, a powerful organizational health and execution platform. RGV is known for its work in leadership development, executive coaching, and what we call organizational rebuild where we bring all our tools together to diagnose an organization's present state and how to grow toward a stronger future state.
Welcome back to all of our friends out there in The Boss hole Transformation Nation. This is your host, John Broer, welcoming you to another installment of The Boss hole Chronicles. Good to have you here. So glad that you're joining us. Because today, you are going to get a chance to meet Dr. George Reed. Now, George, and he insisted that I call him George, served 27 years in the U.S. Army, and as a matter of fact, the topic of our discussion today, toxic leadership, really came from his work while in the Army as the Director of Command and Leadership Studies. That's where the whole toxic leadership research began. Just let me give you a little bit of additional background. He is currently Dean and Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. But he has held numerous roles both in academia and also within the nonprofit world. But we're really going to focus on his work around leadership studies and what really became the foundation of his book, which is entitled Tarnished: Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Army. And what we're going to be talking about today is not just what he learned there, but how it translates most definitely into the private sector. One other thing about George, he refers to himself as a leadership junkie, and I think that will become clear when you start to hear more of his insights and the work that he's done. He loves teaching and learning about leadership, organizational theory, behavior, and ethics. So I want you to just settle in and start to look at this topic of toxic leadership through the lens of Bossel prevention and the work that we do here at The Bosshole Chronicles. So excited to have Dr. George Reed joining us. Let's jump in. The Bosshole Chronicles are brought to you by Real Good Ventures, the talent optimization firm helping organizations diagnose their most critical people and execution issues with world-class analytics. Make sure to check out all the resources in the show notes and be sure to follow us and share your feedback. Enjoy today's episode. George Reed, it is so good to have you here on The Boss hole Chronicles. Welcome.
George Reed:Thank you, John. It's a great privilege. Thank you for all the good work that you do on this subject through the Boss Hole Chronicles. You're doing uh good work out there.
John Broer:Well, we appreciate that. And it's there's a lot of work to do. And you know this because you know, we're here to talk a bit more about the research and the book that you published called Tarnished Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military. You and I were actually brought together by a mutual friend, Tanya McCausland from Diamond Six. And I'm really excited for our audience to hear this because toxic leadership is it's kind of like a punchline sometimes. It's it's an overused term, and I think it can be it can be abused, and we're going to talk a little bit about that. But your research, your background, your experience with this is absolutely something essential for our audience to hear. So before we jump in, or or I think the best place to jump in would be a definition. So, George, please let our audience know what is your definition and your perspective on what toxic leadership actually is.
George Reed:Thank you for that, John. It's important that we start with the definition because some of these ideas that we're working with around here, around leadership, are emerging. And when you have emerging ideas, uh people can talk past each other very easily. So you need to say, when I say toxic leadership, I'm talking about because you may in your head be thinking about something entirely different. So that's a that's a great start for us. Uh for me, toxic leadership is uh an interpersonal style or pattern of behavior over time uh that has a negative impact on the climate of the organization. Okay. So it's a pattern of behavior over time, negative impact. Note that it's an impact-oriented definition. It's not a specific behavior that makes you toxic. It's not, as some would think, an abusive supervisor or a tyrannical supervisor. That certainly can be lead to uh that negative impact that we're looking for. But there's other ways to do it as well. Like, for example, the weak leader who doesn't get engaged, doesn't address problems when they arise, the the person in a leadership position who feels they must be loved by everyone. So they run from conflict and let things get out of hand. That can have a very negative impact on the organization and thus be toxic. So uh toxicity runs on a scale. Uh, you know, we have all leaders sit on a spectrum. Right. And I like to think of a bell curve, right? So you have most of us are in the middle of that curve, and that is we're pretty good most of the time. And on to the positive end, you know, some people are just very inspiring. Uh, they're very effective all of the time. They have all the traits, characteristics, skills, and and they're just masterful at positively influencing other people. Um, but there's not that many of them. So they're at the far positive end of that spectrum. Okay. 1% or so, let's say, that are just genius leaders. Okay. That would be great if if we could all achieve that, but most of us are working toward that. Uh, we're developing ourselves, we're listening to podcasts like this one, we're emulating what we have perceived to be successful, but you know, we're we're not there naturally. There's not enough of those genius leaders to cover what we need to have happen in our organizations. Right. But I've really been interested in the other end of that bell curve as we go to the negative. We go from pretty good most of the time to not very good to bad to really bad to having a terrible impact on people uh that you should be helping, uh, they're poisonous. They they they destroy people, they destroy careers, they destroy organizations. Right. And they're the ones at the far negative end of that, you know, 1%, 2% part of the curve, and uh they are toxic. I believe that uh toxicity and leadership positions is a universal phenomenon. It's not limited to the military at all.
John Broer:Right. Right. I think that's a really good distinction, too, because again, while your research and your work came from this extensive military background, it is universal. We see that all the time. We have five years worth of documentation and documented stories and examples of where we've had, you know, horrible, horrible managers. And it's interesting. I love the idea of the bell curve, by the way, because everything we do is based on objective data. And if you look at pretty much standard deviation from the midpoint, statistically speaking, you've got, you know, one standard deviation that's 68% of the population. So, roughly speaking, 68% of our managers are holding it together. Maybe they've got great skills, maybe there's a natural tendency to want to develop other people. Then way over on the right, you know, you get that, you know, fraction. And I love that term, the genius leaders, where there's probably an element of high emotional intelligence. They've really understood what are the tools necessary to be a great leader, great developer of people, and then off on the left. Now you're starting to stray into what we would call the bosshole zone. And I think it's interesting. You just used the word a little while ago, tyranny. I know in the description of the book, uh, there is a term petty tyranny. And I think that that's really interesting because as we like to say, nobody is born to be a bosshole. And then there are times, and I think this is where what you're talking about, where there is some intent. There is a pettiness, there is a, there is an awareness that perhaps there is a better way, but I have chosen this pathway, and it is leading them into a toxic realm. Is is that an accurate portrayal of this scale, if you will, on the far left side?
George Reed:Yes, I think when we talk about, I like the term toxic leadership, obviously, because uh because I I you know to quote Gene Litton and Bloom, and you know, it's they're they're poisonous. Is it is it's by poison, right? Right, right. So sort of destroying organizations and they're destroying people. But you know, that's the far extreme end. There's a lot of other terms that can be used to describe this type of behavior. And if we're doing research, you know, we have to include them all in our in our search terms, you know, like uh ineffective leadership, destructive leadership, bad leadership, uh, you know, petty tyranny, abusive supermusion. These are all legitimate terms. Sure, sure. And as a Venn diagram, they they overlap a lot. So the distinctions between them may not be as important as the general idea, which is leadership is not always a positive construct, right? Yeah, right. Yeah, sometimes we want it to be. You know, if if it's uh nurturing and developmental and it's accomplishing organizational goals, then it's leadership. But if it's destroying people and careers and having a bad impact, that's not leadership, it's something else. Well, leadership fundamentally is about influence, and influence can be used for good or for bad.
John Broer:Sure. No doubt. No doubt about that. And I want to make a distinction here because toxic leadership is we we have to be careful not to incorrectly assign toxic leadership to somebody that may just be having a bad day. Something may not be going well, they may not be reacting or responding to their direct reports in a in a you know, in really a positive or favorable way. And that isn't necessarily that isn't toxic leadership. We have to give there has to be a bit of grace extended when, because they're human too. Our managers, our supervisors, our leaders are still human, and so they are subject to those, those crappy days. So I I really like that you, before we hit record, you made that distinction. It is not just about having a bad day.
George Reed:Right. It's a a pattern of behavior over time, and it typically is a numbers game. I I've had people say to me, George, how do I know if I'm a toxic leadership? How do I know if I'm a toxic leader? And I said, Well, you know, uh, let's talk to your people. If 51% of them believe you are, you win or you lose. Right. You know, it it is not the person who has a grudge against you and wants to weaponize the term to bring you down or or to foment discontent with their peers. These words can be thrown around recklessly, right? Yeah. Uh but if you look at the definition uh that we're we're not talking about a specific behavior, we're not talking about one person's opinion, we're talking about impact on organization over time. That that is uh that can be empirically determined. Uh it is outside of a person's intent, both leader or follower. So, you know, I think that most organizations and most people in organizations are fairly sophisticated. They know the difference between, you know, the leader who has a bad day and the one who is malevolent, uh who is who is uh belittling, degrading, and humiliating people uh over time.
John Broer:Right. Right. Something you said a little while ago, and it is something I have used for years when it comes to leadership development or when we're doing leadership coaching. And I always emphasize that the term leadership gets bandied about pretty easily. I mean, it's uh it's very easy to talk about, well, we want our people to be great leaders, but you just made a really key point is leadership is about influence. And one thing that I always tell maybe emerging leaders is that leadership, if you're getting into management and supervisory role or a role that constitutes leadership or influence, just remember management leadership is not a popularity contest. Because if you go in this hoping to be loved, you are going into it for the wrong reason. You are, if you are being put in a leadership role, it's probably because you are perceived as having a degree of competence, capability, the ability to literally shepherd and guide and develop other people. But if you're doing it hoping to win friends and be popular, um, that's politics. That's not leadership. Sorry, I not I mean, I mean, it it leadership is something entirely different. And it is, it can be, we talk about the heavy weight of leadership or the mantle of leadership, and it can be uh a real struggle for people that aren't prepared for it.
George Reed:You know, there's been a huge debate in the leadership studies realm for many, many years. What is this thing that we're really studying? You know, is it is it being in charge? Is it a role that is played? Is it is it management? Is leadership equal management? And um, you know, I think most of us that have uh spent any time digging around and the works that came before us, uh, we we eventually come to the notion that leadership really is an influence process. Right. And and it is different from management. Uh, you know, when I was teaching at the Army War College, I was in the department of command, leadership, and management. Okay. That was viewed as as distinctly different activities, yet frequently wrapped up under the same mantle, but but very much different. And uh different enough that we ought to give some dedicated study to it. And what we've come to understand today is that context, that is to say, the situation that we're enmeshed in, the organizational reality, the particular purpose of the organization is also very important uh to consider as well. So we have leaders that we have to think about, we have followers that we have to think about, and then we have contextualized situations that we have to think about as well. And they all interact together around this notion of influence.
John Broer:I don't think there is any question about the impact of toxic leadership or bosshole behavior on in the workplace, whatever that workplace may be. Uh, we look at it through the lens of engagement, retention, and performance. You want to you want to know, like you said, you want to know if a manager is doing a good job or a leader is doing a good job. Statistically, look at the engagement levels, the retention levels, and also the performance levels. But when we think about the book itself, and I and I'd like to jump in a little bit to the details of the book, um, one of the things that I, you know, in looking at the content of the book, you talk about the role of narcissism in toxic leadership. I found that fascinating. Uh, can you just there's so many good parts of the book, but can you uh dig into that a little bit more for us?
George Reed:Yeah, I'm frequently asked, uh, you know, people come to me with their ex their story, their their experience with a toxic leader, and they're um they're they're frequently surprised that they found themselves in that situation. They don't understand it, they're trying to make sense out of it, and they'll say, Why did he or she act that way?
John Broer:Okay.
George Reed:And I and I always kind of caveat uh uh beginning by saying, I'm not a psychiatrist, and this is the realm of psychiatry. But having waded in these waters a bit, I've come to believe that there's a combination of traits and characteristics that can come together to maybe predispose someone to treating others in these malevolent ways. Okay. Uh and one of the factors at the very top of the list is narcissism. Narcissists, you know, see themselves as the center of the universe. It's it's all about me and my goals. And and their their ethical framework is that which is good for me is good. And that's it, right? That's pretty much it. It's and and so others are only means to an end. They're not uh individuals of worth to be cared for uh beyond how they serve themselves. So narcissism is is a biggie, and uh a lot of work has been done around narcissism. We know what narcissists look like, we know how they how they think, but you want to combine that also with uh some Machiavellianism. And and Machiavellianism is the individual who knows how things work in organizations, they understand power and systems of power, and they know how to how to wield that to what benefit, not the organization's benefit, right? Not their subordinate's benefit, but their benefit because they're narcissists. So you get those two things sort of moving around each other, and then throwing a little bit of maybe uh uh psychopathy or you know, this lack of emotional connection to others, inability to feel remorse. Doesn't matter what happens to others. Um, you you put you put those things together, and we have a real witch's brew there. Sure. Oh, yeah. Can be very charming, they can uh harness charisma, they can manage their perceptions uh to others, especially their superiors. Right. So they do this kiss up and kick down activity, and which is one of the reasons I like 360-degree feedback, because when you see these massive gulfs between how superiors see the individual and then how subordinates see the individual, you know, it's a little bit of a red flag there.
John Broer:Oh my gosh, yes. I uh you are making me think of so many stories, actually thinking of individuals too, uh, that I've experienced over my career, but we have had so many stories on the Balsall Chronicles where somebody says, I had the most amazing manager, and they poured themselves into the team and our development, and they moved on. And then it was this person was replaced by I would say, George, by your definition, a truly toxic leader, and everything blew up. And I mean, and again, and it wasn't like, wow, performance was down and I didn't like going into work. I mean, lives were impacted and not in a good way. So I think that description, I think that definition is so helpful because we I believe it's incumbent upon organizations to really vet the people we are moving into management and supervisory roles, dare I say leadership roles, and be exceedingly um raise the bar. I mean, be exceedingly uh picky about that because the impact is devastating if you make the wrong choice. And and I want to get to, I want to get to, we talked about it. I I think we've we set the stage perfectly, but I'd love to hear from you. What do we do to mitigate toxic leadership? What do we do to help people survive? And these are elements within the book. We know what it looks like, but I believe it's incumbent upon our company leaders, organizational leaders, to make sure that this isn't happening and their assessment or vetting has to be much better. And the other thing that we like to say is again, nobody is born to be a bosshole. We may have somebody way down on the left side of that bell curve that doesn't know any better. So let's let's help move them out of there. And then there's the poisonous ones. They're the ones that are truly dangerous to an organization. So I'm sorry, that's a huge ask for you, but help us understand how do we survive, how do we mitigate toxic leadership moving forward?
George Reed:Oh, that's a great question. And ethnically, we can't just describe a problem. We have to, we have to wrestle with it and come up and give people some good ideas. So let's say we're in an organization and the in the and I've worked with any number of companies and organizations who have found themselves in this position. They say, Oh, that's right. We we have seen the impact of toxic leaders. We don't like it, we don't want it here. What do we do about it? You know, how do how do we address this? How do we inoculate ourselves? Well, I I would say that this is one of those organizational phenomena that you don't eradicate completely. That's almost an unrealistic expectation. Okay. Because we're not that good at screening. It's going to happen to some degree, more or less. The larger and more complex the organization, the more it's likely to happen.
John Broer:Oh, for sure. Yeah.
George Reed:But we can do things to identify it, uh, react to it with intention and purpose and minimize its impact. Right. And uh so, you know, what are some of those things? Well, part of it is having this discussion that we're having right now. And that is once you recognize a phenomenon that it could happen, you look for it and then act when you see it. So how sensitive are your organizational detectors to identify toxic leaders and then uh get rid of them essentially? Now we talk about the spectrum. So as you move to the left, you know, you maybe you're not so good most of the time, or or you know, you there's this gradiation that takes you to toxic. And there's a lot of things that you can intervene with before you hit toxic. Sure. Um, you know, leader development, counseling, engaging, uh, directing, doing 360-degree feedback, those types of things. I didn't but we have to agree that leadership isn't this universally positive thing. Right. You know, leaders are good, leaders are good. Leadership will fix it. You know, the military has been accused of that, you know, having this romance around leadership. If if the organization does well, it's because it's good leadership. If the organization does poorly, it's because it's bad leadership. If we replace the leaders, all will be well. Both of those things are incorrect because it's a whole lot more complex and and practice. You can take really good people and put them in a terrible situation and they will fail. Right. No matter how good the leadership is. Leadership will make it better, but it won't avoid the eventual outcome when the die is cast in that direction. So we have to come at this thing with a more sophisticated viewpoint than just you know, leadership is good. I think that we have to move at some point beyond supervisor-centric evaluation. Now, you know, the military is a very hierarchical organization. We put a lot of faith and responsibility in our commanders. We expect commanders to command, we expect them to lead, we expect them to manage. Right. And how do we evaluate and promote people and put them in key positions of responsibility? Well, we look at their performance evaluations. Who writes the performance evaluations? Supervisor. Right. Right. Where do we look at the impact on their subordinates? What is the mechanism? There needs to be mechanisms for that. Maybe it's three, six-degree feedback, maybe it's climate assessments, but but some way to move beyond supervisor-centric only evaluation. Because supervisors will be the last person to see that. Right. Right. I mean, I can't tell you that, you know, almost every story where I'll talk to an organization that had toxics that they didn't deal with and when they should have, they will say, Well, you know, uh, George didn't look so bad. Yeah. You know, George, George got things done. George accomplished all of his performance metrics, these key performance metrics. George was he was killing it, you know. His people were very responsive. And it's only later, too late, do they, you know, discover that they have to put bars on the windows to keep George's people from jumping off the roof. So I'm sorry, that's not, yeah, I know that's true.
John Broer:That is true.
George Reed:Yeah, and one of my observations in the military context, and I don't think it's it's significantly different in other organizational types, is you know, we have these we have these leaders who engage in some form of misconduct. Yes. And then when they're caught in the misconduct, as they investigate that, they discover that they have all these culture problems, these uh this terrible climate, these people who are truly suffering underneath that person's um you know, influence. And that's a secondary finding, you know, and and how do we know when we're doing good at this? I think that becomes the primary finding before misconduct, right? That's how you know when you're when you're getting it right, when you're when your detectors are picking it up. Yes, and give you an opportunity to intervene. And one other thing, sorry, go ahead. You mentioned it, so it gives me an opportunity to to address it. How should they be dealt with? You discover someone who is toxic, how do you deal with them? And if they're truly toxic, that 1% way over there on the end where they're truly malevolent and they're really having a negative impact on people in your organization, you you move fast. Yes. Get rid of them. That's your answer. It does you you don't have to uh walk on eggshells around that. If they're if they're having a negative impact on your organization, they have to go. But not everybody is that far, and not everybody is that far gone. Everybody deserves some development, everybody deserves some intervention. So, and and because these people are notoriously lack uh insight as to the impact of their behavior, you they need to be informed of that. They need they need to be taught and told. And and that's that very uncomfortable conversation that takes place from a superior who is dealing with a high performer, you know, the organizational rock star is going about it the wrong way and not treating people well. That person may be smart enough to be saved, and you're not going to change their personality type, but you can surely change their behavior if you're specific about it.
John Broer:Well, and or even change their circumstances, because weeks ago when we talked originally about, you know, get you know, having you on the program, uh, we have all of these different examples. Um, we take a great individual contributor, we put them into a management role, and they just they're just not equipped. Maybe they really weren't built to do it, they don't desire to do it, they struggle, they become, they we kind of shove them into the boss hole zone. Maybe they demonstrate some toxic behavior, but um, that's on us. You know, have have we taken somebody who should have been left in an individual contributor role and given an opportunity to do bigger and better individual contributor things? I mean, think you had an example of a chemist where they they did that. And uh I I that is such an untapped opportunity for most organizations, a broad and robust individual contributor pathway. And then the pathway to management in supervisory roles or leadership roles. Well, you can still be an individual contributor and be a leader. You can have influence as an individual contributor. But if we're gonna have a very narrow pathway for managers and supervisors, we just got to raise the bar. Our expectations and our requirements of them, and even the type of person that we decide to move in that direction is probably gonna look a lot different than it has traditionally. So I think there's a lot to be a lot to be said for the organization's inadvertent contribution to either bosshole behavior or toxic leadership because we don't have the right systems in place. So I think that's a I think that is a huge one. And one other thing, George, really quick. In our world, and you know this, that at Real Good Ventures, everything we do with our clients is based on objective data. And one of the one of the things that we will do is go. Go in, and we will say, okay, we're going to do our, we call it our employee experience survey. It's a full-blown assessment, but it creates a heat map based on departments and managers, as long as there are five or more responses just to, you know, protect anonymity. And right there, right there you see the problem areas. And this isn't a gotcha moment. It's an opportunity for us to go in and work specifically with a manager or supervisor and say, look, let's give you the tools and the perspective of how to avoid bosshole behavior or toxicity. And there are some that gravitate to it and receive that and say, man, these numbers are hard to read, but I I'm on board. I want to get better at this. And there are others that will dismiss it. I think this is now where you're getting into the narcissism. If they will dismiss it, they will excuse it and they will push it away. And those, I think, are the people that you're saying they shouldn't be in this role. We need to, we need to move them on quickly.
George Reed:Yeah, I mean, I think it's fair to say that everybody, well, certainly in the United States military, everybody gets an opportunity to lead. Yes because it's an up or out system. Yes. You're promoted or you're in another line of work. Uh if you don't meet your promotion uh gateways, your time in this organization is over. You know, they just move you, move you out. So you can't stay a super technician. You know, you're going to be in charge of other technicians in the army. Right, right. So what that sets up is a situation where everybody has an opportunity to lead, but not everyone is cut out for it. Right. Not everyone can can do it. Yep. A lot of us can learn to do it better uh and work very hard at that. So that's that's an organizational dynamic that a lot of places find they're in where in order to be promoted, you must supervise. Well, you're your your super technician over there may not be a good good leader, may not be a good influencer of groups. So is there a pathway for them? That's a legit legitimate question.
John Broer:Yep. And that's that's a big distinction between the military and getting out in the private sector, if you will.
George Reed:Right. But even in the private sector, a lot of private sector systems in terms of paying allowances is set up so that you know you hit you hit a threshold beyond which if you're not in charge of a group of people, you know, you can't make the next level of of uh pay scale. Yeah. And and you're you're setting up the same situation the military finds it in. Absolutely. Uh everybody leads, but not everybody is cut out for it.
John Broer:That's true. That is so true. I would love to say, George, that uh, well, first of all, thank you for this insight. And I want to make, I want to remind everybody go to the show notes and find the book, uh, George's book. Uh I will also include George's information, contact information, LinkedIn, um, LinkedIn profile. Uh what would you say if if if somebody came to you, somebody emailed you and said, George, I heard you on the the Ball Soil Chronicles, what's one thing I really need to focus on right now? If there was the lowest hanging fruit you could think of based on what you're seeing in the marketplace today, what would that be?
George Reed:I would say that in terms of this issue, supervisors think we're much better at knowing what's going on in the organization than we are. Okay. We only see things from our perch, from our level. Reality for you, if you're in one of these uh higher level positions, is different from the reality of the person on the lowest rung of the organizational ladder.
John Broer:Yeah.
George Reed:And finding ways to break through, to move beyond your direct reports and find out what's going on in the organization, whether it's walking and talking or or or having conversations with trusted advisors. But um, we can wrap ourselves in our own perception of reality so hard that we will not find out when there is something going wrong. I mean, very wrong in our organization until too much harm has passed. How do we do that? Right. That's that's an imperative. That would be something I would leave people with. Never confuse what's happening in the organization with what you think is happening in the organization. You may be the last to know.
John Broer:Yeah, that is so true. And and you're making me laugh. This is not funny. Uh, you're making me laugh because I am thinking specifically of a CEO that I wish was on this call right now, or in this interview and listening to this, because he hired this is not a huge organization. I mean, I think they employ four or five hundred people, but I mean, that's a sizable organization. And he hired a new senior leader that first off, to a degree, misrepresented themselves. Oh, yeah. I'm gonna try to their credentials, their background, sold him on what this on what they could do. And I'm gonna just, of course, no names or anything else like that. I'm gonna keep this purely generic, but it's true. Came in, took over this team, and I would say demonstrated right off the bat some real bosshole behavior. Dare I see, even some toxic characteristics. And there was the team tried to work with this new leader. They were trying to be very transparent. Now, this is an example where this person replaced somebody else who was a very effective leader. It got so bad that members of the team bypassed and went to the CEO and said, I have to tell you, this, these circumstances that we're experiencing are horrible and we really need to get this fixed. He totally ignored them. And he said, I hired this person, I know what they're capable of doing. I think you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what's going on. Every single one of those people are gone now. This this started this started a little over a year ago. That whole team is gone. They went somewhere else. And I when I you talk about reality, I think there is such a disconnect. And especially when we go in and we show them the data, you know, engagement data, psychological safety data. And it does not, it does, it's inconsistent with how they're seeing the organization. I think that's a huge problem. And and again, you made me think of that circumstance. And I agree with you. I think that is the one of the biggest things organizations face today.
George Reed:Well, I don't be me. I've done that. I've been that guy. I was, you know, sure. We all have. So lead with confidence because I've got you. And you want them to succeed and you invest in them. And then you start getting information that they're they may not be leading in a way that's consistent with your or your organization's values. Right. Um, that that's dissonance. And and you know, is it a sink is it just a single incident? Is it a is it a malcontent? Is it, you know, or is this an organizational problem that needs to be dealt with? That's diagnosis. And what I'm uh advising people is don't trust your own opinion. Go out. There's other people out there that you can get information from that can help you go to work on this when it needs to be worked on.
John Broer:Right. And it's not conjecture, it's not speculation or hearsay. Like you said, it's not just somebody having a empirical question. It's not somebody having a bad day. This is something that that needs addressing. Well, George, this has been absolutely great. I've been so excited about getting you on the program. And again, I want to remind and encourage our folks, go to the show notes, learn more about George's work, get the book, and understand that this is, again, is a is an issue that if not addressed, we will continue to see levels of disengagement in the workplace that are, again, at an 11-year high, according to Gallup. But this has been um quite a pleasure, and I I appreciate all the work that you're doing.
George Reed:Thank you, John. It's been a great pleasure to chat with you today, and I not only wish you the best, but all who have the temerity to talk about the Boss Hole Chronicles and get involved, they're probably our kind of people in the first place because the toxics aren't interested in doing that.
John Broer:So uh my hat's off to you and your audience. Well, we appreciate that, George. And we will see you next time on the Bosshole Chronicles. Thanks very much for checking out this episode of the Bosshole Chronicles. It was so good to have you here. And if you have your own Boss Hole story that you want to share with the Bosshole Transformation Nation, just reach out. You can email us at mystory at the bossholechronicles.com. Again, my story at the bossholechronicles.com. We'll see you next time.