House of Paine

bully bull pit

  is 

a  fucking  intimidator

the right  el duce for the job ???? 

depends  a hell of a lot
  on the type and condition 
of  the outfit

===============================================




 from todays boston globule...


"Need to shake things up? 
A bullying boss may be best
By Robert Weisman  |  March 26, 2006

Nobody likes a bully in the corner office.
 But to rouse a sleepy organization,
 spur employee performance,
 and drive internal change 
in response to changing business conditions
 -- simply put, to run a company successfully today -- 
pats on the back from empathetic leaders
 might not suffice.

Such is the view
 from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, 
where Roderick M. Kramer,
 professor of organizational behavior,
 has lobbed a rhetorical grenade
 into the ranks of academic theorists 
who lionize emotionally intelligent managers.

 Kramer's recent article in Harvard Business Review,
 titled ''The Great Intimidators,"
 advances the heretical notion that 
fear and coercion, 
when applied strategically,
 can be better motivators than
 positive reinforcement.

''In all our recent enchantment 
with social intelligence and soft power
, we've overlooked the kinds of skills
 leaders need 
to bring about transformation 
in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia,"
 Kramer writes.

 ''It's precisely in such situations,
 I'd like to propose,
 that the political intelligence 
of the intimidating leader 
is called for."

Kramer offers several examples 
of effective intimidators:

 
Motorola Inc. chief executive Ed Zander,
 a Data General alumnus,
 pulled his company
 out of a steep decline
 by firing dozens of vice presidents
 and espousing the philosophy 
''whack yourself before somebody whacks you." 

Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein
 used high-pressure tactics 
-- jabbing a finger in the face of associates --
 en route to establishing Miramax
 as a recognized brand name. 


Martha Stewart, demanding, impatient, and brusque 
with subordinates, 
prodded them to keep up with her
 and build a homemaking empire.

Intimidators can be found 
in any field but gravitate to 
government, technology, and entertainment,
 Kramer suggested in an interview,
 citing such leaders as
 Lyndon Johnson,
 Margaret Thatcher,
 Bill Gates,
 Steve Jobs, 
Carly Fiorina,
 and Rupert Murdoch. 

''Those worlds have a winner-take-all structure,
 and the jockeying for spots at the top is intense," 

 ''Leaders willing to engage
 in intimidating behavior
 often have advantages over those that don't."

Kramer, a social psychologist
 who has taught courses at Harvard's
 Kennedy School of Government,
 said he began his research
 by seeking to document negative experiences 
with abusive leaders.

But as he interviewed seasoned executives,
 he found that many reported
 having had positive relationships
 -- educational and sometimes transformational -- 
with combative bosses.

 At that point, he re-examined his assumptions 
about the virtues of humble leaders 
with good bedside manners
 and started exploring 
the ''neglected upside" 
of leaders with rough edges.

''The more people I interviewed,
 the more I heard that these people did some good,"

''They got rid of dead wood, 
they refocused companies,
 they made things happen."

Kramer runs through
 intimidators' toolbox of tactics,

 from getting angry,
 up close and personal,

 to keeping others guessing, 

to mastering facts and wielding them as weapons
 to cow opponents into silence or submission.


 But he cautions that intimidators 
can overplay their hand,
thwarting their efforts to shake up organizations. 

Exhibit A: 

Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers,
 who recently said he'll step down 
on June 30 because of clashes with the faculty.

Summers ran into trouble
 partly because he couldn't run Harvard
 in the command-and-control fashion 
tough-guy CEOs such as Jack Welch
 at General Electric used 
when pushing managers to continually boost profits. 


In the business world,
 ''there's a high tolerance 
for such behavior" 
because of the premium 
put on financial results, 


the intimidators' playbook
 can be effective,
 especially with organizations
 that have become lazy and complacent,

 the gains achieved 
often have a short shelf life.

''These intimidating CEOs
 get quicker short-term results," 


"But if you use coercive power
 in getting your results,
 that has a high cost.
 Word gets around, 
and then you can't recruit good talent, 
you can't retain good talent,
 you get low productivity,
 and you get an apathetic workforce
 that's not engaged. 

There's also a cost to the intimidators themselves. 
They're not happy people."

But the managers reporting to them 
might be even less happy 
unless they learn how to manage 
the intimidators, 


. Those who survive and even thrive
 under intimidators 
learn to do their homework,
 keep their perspective,
 laugh at their bosses' antics,
 and occasionally call their bluff.
 using such techniques, 
and sticking around long enough 
to earn their respect,
 can yield benefits.

For many executives,
 the benefits include 
a crash course 
on toughness and forcefulness,
 qualities they often feel they lack.

''People like to work for great intimidators 
because of what can be learned from them 
and because they inspire great performance,"

''Many of the people
 I spoke with said 
they did their best work
 ever when working for a great intimidator.
 But the appeal goes beyond that.
 A lot of the people are fascinated 
by difficult leaders 
because they want to possess 
a little 'inner intimidator'
 of their own."


--------------

never fails to amuse me

these  morphicating

( from either or into both and )

muddle -up -a-gus 
              articles 

my rule on intimidation

whats it based on

 uncovered  sordid desserts 

a spot lite full of 
                fear  and shame


 uncertainty alone 

    arbitrariness vs deep seeing

come on i won't bore you


a rack of  intimidation 

gets u to no where specific 

its at best the old pain vs pleasure as optimal motivator

that both are  still used everywhere
 in building   
 organisms and their  behaviours 
   after  millions of years of "natural"selection 

wellsuch exstended 
trial and error shows

they both ...  make for survival,....
    under certain conditions
 
pain and suffering
show pareto prefered outcomes
are not always domminating 

global better of states 

may require local nut crunching 

boo hoo boys not withstanding