I can’t tell you why…

Posted by Terry Nelson on Jul 14th, 2007

 

I can’t tell you why… 

A woman I know, who lost her faith in God, left the Church and returned to neo-paganism, explained to me one of the reasons she left was because she could no longer accept a God who permitted suffering.  (Actually, she said, ‘demanded suffering’.)  The woman, now in her 30’s was raised by an alcoholic, drug addicted mother.  She and her sister were often left alone and had to forage for food in dumpsters.  My friend was also sexually abused by her mother’s friends.  (The traumatic effects of her childhood ordeal remain with her as an adult.)

Why would God do this to a child - or at least permit this to happen?  Fellow Catholics more or less told her to suck it up - get over it, offer it up.  Some even told her it was a punishment for sins, to which she cried, “What the hell did I do?  I was a little kid?”

Job’s friends.

These are nearly impossible questions to answer, aren’t they?  Sanctimonious explanations just don’t cut it sometimes.  Try to explain to someone in the midst of their suffering Paul’s words, “God makes all things work together for the good of those who have been called according to his decree”. - Romans 8.  Usually, if you try to tell someone these things, especially when they are in the throes of moral crises, it can be like throwing holy water on a possessed person - it just increases the anguish, pain and rage.  Pious platitudes just don’t work - especially the dismissive, ’offer it up’.

Joseph.

The first reading of today’s Mass deals with Joseph’s brothers, fearing Joseph would punish them after the death of Jacob, because they had abused Joseph and sold him into slavery.   Joseph responded in tears, declaring, “Have no fear.  Can I take the place of God?  Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve his present end, the survival of many people…” - Genesis 49.  Joseph, a wise man, was able to discern the purpose of God, who permitted him to go through such abuse and hardship.  Often, God’s purpose isn’t always so clear to ourselves. 

God’s ways are inscrutable aren’t they.

(Art: Joseph sold into slavery.) 

Why are Catholics so obsessed with nudity?

Posted by Terry Nelson on Jun 27th, 2007

If you have ever been to Rome, you will know what I mean.  Tell me the Sistine Chapel isn’t soft porn!  What is next, an illustrated “Theology of the Body” series, or “The Joys of Theology of the Body”?

(Just trying to get my stats up here!  I only get an average of 255 hits a day, and very few comments.)

[Watch for my upcoming expose on Roman priests.] 

Blogger apostasy

Posted by Terry Nelson on Jun 22nd, 2007

 

Loss of faith 

Sadly, it’s a new syndrome developing, which affects some bloggers, but more so Internet/blog surfers.  It can happen to traditionalists, progressives, liberals, whatever type of Catholic you want to call yourself.  Loss of faith is just a finger away.  (That would be the middle finger.)

My opinion is that it takes hold of people who become too cerebral about the faith, or focus entirely upon the dogmatic, doctrinal aspects of the faith.  It affects those who are especially focused upon liturgical rubrics, legalities, decorum, or theologies, etc.  It is difficult to delineate or to generalize about who may be affected however.  Conservatives or liberals could capitulate through intellectual pride - who knows?  (The really evil apostates stay “catholic” and present their views as Catholic, twisting truth to suit their philosophies.) 

Nevertheless, it really happens to people.  I worked with a woman who was a radical traditionalist, quoting Popes from Pius X to Pius V, along with Conciliar decisions of the Council of Trent, verbatim.  In her eyes, very few people today, including the Pope, were even Catholic.  After a couple months of blogging (she discovered it from me!) and exposure to the Internet, she returned to her former religion, Wicca.  What the hell happened?  I saw it coming though, Internet or not, because her faith had been placed in externals, along with the celebrity and acceptance she initially found in being a convert from paganism - which wore off of course.  (Well, there is more to the story than that, suffice it to say, she had a superficial faith.)

When the medium is the message.

I really believe people get in over their heads when it comes to liturgy and dogma, spirituality and religious life, not to mention all the “issues” bloggers get themselves embroiled in.  Blogging exacerbates the situation sometimes.  (Think about it, how many bloggers are “new” Catholics, or so-called “reverts” - I hate that term - without a great deal of experience in the faith, the Church, despite the fact they may have some education on the subject, or maybe even a ‘mystical’ experience of sorts under their belts.)  I call it getting “over-Churched”, or “over-theologized”, over “spiritualized”, which contrasts fairly well in a culture that is “over-psychologized”, “intellectualized” and “liberalized”.  It happens to people who know too much about a little sometimes - while having little or no experience in being “little”.  (In a post on Abbey1, I call these Pusey blogs.)

You can take the devotion out of religion, which is what many people end up doing, but then religion becomes just another ideology that can be refuted along with all the other “isms” that float around out there.  Especially when “religious” people betray their lack of devotion, which is essentially, a lack of charity - that really drives aspirants away!  (I’m referring to the invective and argumentation that occurs in the comment section of many blogs.  Bitches sometimes kill their own puppies.)

Verbosity.

You see, anyone may pontificate upon the truths of the faith and morals, or condemn those who don’t measure up to their standards - liberal or conservative - but without charity, everyone is just a sounding cymbal, a noisy gong, a Snoopy cartoon dialog no one can understand - or even cares to understand.

A noted priest  (veddy conservative mind you - you would be shocked!) from St. Paul, once told me that some of the writings of John Paul II were a bunch of hot air - don’t be scandalized - he was referring to their verbosity, not the essential content.  (He especially felt some of the documents from the USCCB were even more so.)  If one can say that about Church documents, my Lord, how much more apt is it to describe our blogging?

We must begin to realize that our words, written in a weblog, or in the comment section of another, can drive a person to apostasy, or cause an innocent person seeking the truth to dismiss and turn away from the Catholic Church all together.  Sticks and stones hurt, words can kill the spirit.

Scandalizing the little ones - it is so not a good thing.  Mea culpa!

Obsequious Behavior

Posted by Terry Nelson on Jun 7th, 2007

 

Sycophants 

The word sycophant stuck in my mind after a recent comment on the blog, regarding other people who commented on a certain post.  Which is why I’m thinking of “obsequious behavior”.  I’m fairly confident I could never be accused of this.  No one could ever accuse me of being a people pleaser.  Like the dishonest judge in the Gospel, I have little respect for anyone.  Well, that isn’t exactly true, I do respect people, I’ve never been very good at pleasing people however.  The vulgar term for obsequious is “suck up” - a term I detest, a behavior I despise.

Priests and religious often encounter this behavior in people.  Truth be told, anyone of influence or status is the recipient of obsequious behavior; a professor, a teacher, a manager, etc.  One usually recognizes this - even amongst gangsters.  Oftentimes, it is relatively innocent, the obsequious person is genuinely impressed with the authority figure they fawn over, and want to please them without a great deal of self-interest.  Although, the ambitious and/or the disingenuous are often motivated from the desire of gaining favor, or special treatment.

What motivates 

Sometimes the obsequious person seeks to improve their personal status through the familiarity, and the greater recognition they enjoy with the esteemed person.  (Take my picture with the Archbishop!)  They imagine it elevates their status.  Hence, their exaggerated attention upon the person who will do this for them.

“Church ladies” frequently do this.  Take Hyacinth Bucket for instance, the status climbing heroine of the British comedy, “Keeping Up Appearances”.  Of course she is greatly exaggerated, although I have met her type.  More frequently one is able to see this with younger people, who seem to enjoy having a list of priests they are “friends” with, although I shouldn’t neglect to mention the parish volunteers.  It turns out there is a sort of “celebrity quotient” some Catholics like to assign to priests.  I have met many who enjoy nothing better than to name drop their priest and academic acquaintances.

It isn’t a bad thing, to be sure; many, outside of the respective fields, enjoy the friendship of priests and academics.  In such friendships there is an intellectual, even spiritual component upon which the friendship is based.  Such friendships are not at all obsequious, and these are quite normal.

Pride of place. 

I’m referring to the situation wherein a person seeks to elevate their status through association.  As well as those who want Father to recognize “I’m a good boy.”  Or the authority figure to recognize  the person’s talents, charm, intelligence or accomplishments.  It is not to suggest an employee or parish worker should not try to impress his boss with the talents he has, nor imply the student who produces good research and papers is being obsequious, not at all.

The obsequious person has a deeper need, a need for recognition and acceptance, as well as a desire for affirmation, which can lead to vain glory and pride.  There is a dark side to obsequious behavior, completely disassociated with legitimate commerce, mutual friendship or social cordiality’s.

Tanguerey has this to say about vanity - or vainglory:

“Vanity is an inordinate love for the esteem of others.  It differs from pride, which is pleasure taken in one’s own excellence; although it generally springs from pride.  When one has conceived too high an esteem for oneself one naturally desires the approbation of others.” - The Spiritual Life

Normally, one is not conscious of the behavior.

If you have ever seen the movie, “All About Eve” you will know what I am getting at.  Eve Harrington was the epitome of the obsequious ingenue, although she was aware of her connivance to attain fame, she demonstrates the underlying motives of the obsequious person.  It is always about their self aggrandizement.  Of course, not as sinister as Eve Harrington, nevertheless, the self-seeking can be an obstacle to personal growth, assuming the person is concerned with that.  For the “other directed” that is, the person who experiences their self-worth and self-esteem from the attention or praise of others, this can be a great obstacle to one’s spiritual growth.  Though it must be acknowledged that the desire to please others is not a fault in itself.  Quite to the contrary, especially when practiced out of charity, showing respect to others, while striving to avoid giving offense - that is virtue. 

Spiritual directors must always be on guard for this fault in their clients, especially when they may esteem a gift or virtue, or more basely, the charm  or beauty, a client may posess.  Many penitents/directees will sometimes only present their best side; excusing, even hiding faults in order to appear balanced and in control of their spiritual, as well as moral life.  I think most priests are pretty good at recognizing this.  It is usually only the obsequious person who is oblivious to their own personality trait. 

They innocently may have lived their childhood and adolescence seeking to please a parent, or to measure up to a sibling, or to appear “normal” or even “superior” to their peers, because their home life may have been disordered, even chaotic.  There are many reason why a person develops this trait.  As they mature, most people tend to assimilate the trait into acceptable social behavior, wherein it is less obvious and obnoxious.  Some never achieve such integration however, like poor Hyacinth Bucket.

Sometimes such faults can only be purified through many humiliations, while in extreme cases, only in the dark night - or purgatory if these don’t work.

(Editors note: Unfortunately, I write from experience.) 

    

An astonishing post…

Posted by Terry Nelson on Apr 11th, 2007

 

Sketch of Caryll Houselander.

An astonishing post…

For me at least…from a wonderful webblog post on the life and person of Caryll Houselander… 

“To accept oneself as one is; to accept life as it is:these are the two basic elements of childhood’s simplicity and humility. But it is one thing to say this and another to do it. What is involved? First of all, it involves the abandoning of all unreality in ourselves. But even granted that we have the courage to face ourselves and to root out every trace of pretense, how shall we then tolerate the emptiness, the insignificance, that we built up our elaborate pretense to cover?

The answer is simple. If we are afraid to know ourselves for what we are, it is because we have not the least idea of what trial is. It is because we have not the least idea of the miracle of life-giving love that we are. There is no pretense that can approach the wonder of the truth about us, no unreality that comes anywhere near the reality.” - Caryll Houselander quoted from a post about her at ”Tea at Trianon 

Everyone is making such a fuss…

Posted by Terry Nelson on Mar 29th, 2007

So here is what I really look like - I didn’t want people to know I wear glasses…I know - I’m vain!  (I’ve even thought of that Lasik eye surgery thing.)

(Cathy and Ray - I have blocked you from comments!  I just posted this for Don Marco and Mr. Smith, they seemed to be curious as to my true identity, as was Rhapsody and Lee.)

My sister found my blog!

Posted by Terry Nelson on Mar 24th, 2007

So I’m minding my own business, blogging as usual, and suddenly I get a comment from my sister Beth.  (We are estranged only because I’m an old recluse.  She has gone through a sort of “purgation of the memory” as far as our childhood reminiscences go, while I have retreated from the family in an effort to “forget” these things.  Although I think about them, continually trying to make sense of it all.)

Beth has about 50 kids - not really - she only has 7; Benj, Chris, Dina, Mark, Rob, Kelly, and Todd (Todd looks like Kevin Costner).  Four of the kids are married with children, while three of the boys remain bachelors - without children - see, they are all good kids.  The entire family is a very good family.  The kids are each other’s best friends.  Though they get angry with me, they like me, “they really, really like me”. 

Beth can’t remember…

Beth wrote a comment, “I never thought of Nana as a classy lady, just a grandma.”  Oh! My! Gosh! Beth!  Nana used to dress like the picture up above - certainly she wasn’t Grace Kelly - her shape was a bit more voluptuous, more like Doris Upson in “Auntie Mame” - she would hit you with her handbag if she heard this coming from her favorite grand-daughter.

The photo above is Dior’s New Look, which inaugurated in the late 1940’s but was most popular in the States in the mid 1950’s.  The dress we see above would probably have a low cut back - which Mom said showed how fat Nana was.  (Now you know Mom could be bitchy…)  Nana wore a silver dress much like this one shown, with black gloves, when she got off the plane on a trip from San Francisco.  I thought she was like a movie star.  (Gosh!  I sound like “Ugly Betty’s” nephew - although I’m sure you don’t watch that.)

Okay my dear sister, one Nana memory for you on this post.

It was a stormy summer night in St. Paul, Nana was visiting with her new husband and we were all at Mom and Dad’s house.  Tornado warnings had been issued when Dad said, “Honey, we are out of ice, Nana needs more ice for her drink.”  Skip and Judy and Linda and I got in the car to go get ice.  On the radio we heard of a possible tornado touchdown near Lake Phalen, not all that far from us.  The rain was horizontal, lightning continually flashing - it was like a hurricane.  We pulled into a service station asking for ice.

The attendant was so frightened and screamed above the thunder, “Whata ya nuts?  We’re in a tornado here!  Take what ya want!”  We picked up the ice - for free - and returned home to the party, and Nana greeted us as we walked in, soaking wet from the storm, “Just in time kids!” -  shaking her empty glass.  Not one of them realized we had risked death to get her ice. 

Nana had to leave shortly after that so she could get up and go to Mass with uncle Art and aunt Mary Jane the next morning.  (They worried about the ‘open bar’ at the Nelson’s and picked her up after the tornado.)

What causes a negative work environment?

Posted by Terry Nelson on Mar 23rd, 2007

Especially in a Catholic business which promotes itself as an apostolate?

A business is a business.  

Simply because a business represents itself as a Catholic business does not necessarily make it so.  Disparity between a company’s mission statement and business practice can erode as the business expands and management is handed on to others. 

It happens with religious institutions, evidenced by the decline of religious vocations in some cases. I know of one instance involving the actual suppression of an institution, as was the case of an order of religious women associated with the World Apostolate of Fatima in New Jersey a few years ago.  Of course a religious community is not a business, yet I cite the example as evidence that even the most well intentioned organization can derail from its original purpose.

Avoid greed in all of it’s forms.  (I think that’s in the Gospel.)

If the mission statement, written or unwritten, involves the idea that the business is an apostolate by nature, one assumes business practices would be ethical as well as equitable in the treatment of employees, not to mention customers.  In such a case employees would naturally be considered as assets, even partners in the company’s mission.  

However, when an employer views their employees as an expense rather than an asset, while considering the employee to be inferior to themselves as regards such things as social status, education and other class distinctions, the employee intuits these attitudes.  In religious based business, differences of religious opinion or expression may also be a contributing factor of contempt by an employer. 

Examples of an employer viewing an employee as an expense.

I know of a retired gentleman who worked for a Catholic company for many years.  He developed cancer and successfully completed chemo therapy, rarely missing aa day of work.  Shortly after his treatment and beating the cancer, he injured his back at work.  Because of this he incurred a workman’s compensation claim.  Within a short time he was terminated as an insurance risk.  He was later employed by another company.  The man is in his 70’s.

In another instance, a woman with functional mental disabilities was terminated after filing a workman’s compensation claim due to a minor back injury while at work.  The company refused to pay her medical bill because she delayed making the claim.  The woman went to the Doctor and the Doctor ruled it a workman’s comp issue since the injury happened on the job.   The company had no policy in place for making workplace injury claims.  Which begs the question, is that in itself a violation, or is the employer covering up unsafe work conditions?

In this company, there are cases of other employees who have been terminated for whatever cause and who sought unemployment compensation yet were fought against as well.  Once again, one or two of these were people with dissabilities.

When an employer fails to give fair and equitable compensation and benefits, it is pretty evident that the employee represents an expense rather than an asset.  The delay or elimination of periodic reviews and raises, which is a direct infraction against their own policy, is another huge indicator of viewing the employee as an expense.  (Discrimination issues and non-compliance with company policy are lawsuits just waiting to happen.)

Toxic effects: gossip, mockery, bullying, malicious rumours, disrespectful behaviour.

In the company I am referring to, this behavior is clear evidence of management’s view of employees as  inferior to themselves, not only when they participate in this nefarious conduct, but encourage the climate and either tolerate it or condone it in other employees. 

Aligned with this activity is the complete lack of confidentiality regarding employee’s performance, personal faults, health issues, or employment status, past and present.  Implementing excessive surveilance tactics, without notification, as well as the use of informers in the workplace all combine to create an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility.

The disconnect between the charity of the Gospel and the evangelical mission, not to mention just plain ethical business practice is astonishing.

In just about every case of involuntary termination of an employee, the nature of the termination, and any suspicion regarding the employee’s conduct are publicly discussed in this company.  For instance, one woman was accused of theft after her termination, yet had never been approached about it while employed, instead she was fired for an argument with a co-worker.

In the same company, another employee was terminated after having been excused to go home because of illness, and instead went to a bar.  (He is an alcoholic, hence the bar may have been his home.)  The terms and reasons for his termination were widely discussed and joked about amongst management and employees alike.  It is not only unethical conduct, it is illegal.

So how does a workplace become toxic?

A number of factors contribute in creating a poisonous environment:

  • increased economic stress  (or greed)
  • consistent and unresolved conflict in the workplace
  • high number of people with personal agendas (especially in upper management) 
  • poor management practices
  • failure to have a set emloyee policy, or to abide by it 

While money is at the core of this issue, people are the ones who perpetuate this poisonous cycle. Remember that a toxic organization cannot function without a toxic leader.

The Toxic leader(s)

A toxic leader fuels poisonous environments. Typically, he/she has most of the following characteristics:

  • unreasonable/unrealistic productivity targets and unattainable goals
  • doesn’t listen
  • expects employees to work when ill
  • talks to employees only when he/she needs something
  • aggressive/pushy
  • narrowminded
  • poor communicator
  • cold, distant or overly reactive and emotional 
  • inconsistent, unpredictable – mixed messages
  • usually avoids emotionally charged situations (conflict, discipline) - Toxic Workplaces

“Whata ya gonna do today Napoleon?”

Posted by Terry Nelson on Mar 21st, 2007

 

“Whatever I feel like!  Gosh!”

From what I understand my resignation was announced today at my former workplace.  Not a few are waiting to hear the why and wherefore from me, but I’ve not answered the phone nor responded to emails.  As far as a job it was only a blip on the radar screen of my life.  It was fun in the beginning, yet being the company I worked for was a family business, I sort of got sucked into their dysfunction.  I’ve blogged about it before, numerous times, and pretty much got myself in trouble for it - only insofar as some people were not pleased by my candor - I never was reprimanded.

So what went wrong?

On some level, troubles began with my blogging, both for the company and on my personal blog.  I had a voice suddenly.  Although a couple of people did not like what I had to say.

I wrote about the negative culture in the workplace, inconsistencies of management regarding employees; benefits, hiring practices, as well as termination issues.  I for one was more or less obliged to terminate people with disabilities who, although they met my standards, they were not considered productive enough by management, or were disliked, either by management or some other employee who had their ear.

Recently, an employee had become a victim of discrimination, having been arbitrarily refused full benefits, mainly because he is disliked.  He was hired without my consultation, and I was expected to document his shortcomings for an eventual termination, if that came to pass.  He has been consistently mistreated by management, not always overtly, rather more through subterfuge.  He would be ignored, and in every situation when he approached the HR representative, he was treated with hostility.  Of course, that is just her personality.

Negative culture.

Sadly, management and HR, that is the family, have an attitude of total mistrust towards their employees, they look down on them, considering most of the employees to be losers or misfits.  The reference has been made innumerable times in my tenure there. Hence, the negative, or toxic culture I grew to recognize in the workplace, I came to realize was undoubtedly generated from the top.

For instance, in the six years I worked there I have never once had a conversation with the original owner of the company.  Since he does the banking, when I would have a calculation error on a deposit, rather than approaching me about it, he went to a co-worker to have her bring it to my attention.  It would be no big deal to have approached me, yet it illustrates the passive aggressive behavior in the family’s management style.

I cannot say they are dishonest per se, yet they are decidedly passive aggressive in their interpersonal relationships, with one another and their employees.  Rather than managing a couple of employees internet abuse for instance, they chose to remove one employee’s PC and replace it with an ordinary data entry terminal, without saying a word to the employee, yet exposing her to humiliation in view of all the other employees who knew the story behind the move.

In another situation, an employee who was abusing the internet privilege was blocked from internet use, although nothing was said to her by way of explanation.  She was never talked to about internet usage on company time, nor was she advised the privilege was denied.  An employer can do that, yet not to manage and direct employees, or to explain policy, let alone speak to the offender about the problem, not only contributes to the negative culture, it leads to mistrust and low morale, that in the end affects productivity and employee loyalty.

So what happened?

Monday night, I discovered my access blocked to the blog I wrote for the company.  I immediately thought access had been denied me because of a more or less controversial post I created.  I was shocked that my immediate supervisor had not advised me and asked me to take the post down, which had been our understanding.  I did not sleep at all that night.  I couldn’t believe they were doing to me what they had done to other non-exempt employees.  I decided I could no longer work for a company like that.  I could no longer work in an environment of mistrust, back-biting, gossip, and just plain subterfuge.

The next day when I arrived at work, I cleaned out my office of my personal effects, and I was pretty much Peter Gibbons for the rest of the morning.  I was paged repeatedly to go and see my boss - she’s actually the president of the company.  She has recently become this hyper-active, micro-manager, constantly checking on every little detail of minutae in day to day business - not just with me, but everyone else as well.  (Business is down, so that could be part of her problem.  Plus, her brother recently sold his share of the company and left, so it’s probably more a control thing between her and the other sibling owner.) 

The straw that broke… 

Finally I went to see her - since she wouldn’t tell me what she wanted on the phone.  It turned out to be an HR thing about time cards.  What?  I don’t do payroll.  Her daughter does.  (She’s the HR person with the attitude.)  She starts to scold me for an employee’s time records via the time clock not lining up with the schedule I created - despite the fact it is the emplyee’s responsibility to write up a slip if there is any discrepency.  I then asked, “Why couldn’t your daughter ask me about this since she does payroll?”

She muttered some excuse and I interupted,  “No!  It’s because she will not talk to me!  She doesn’t like me!”  (She doesn’t like anyone save for 1 or 2 employees.)

“I don’t know about that…”  the boss began.

And I said, “Oh yes you do.  You know what?  I quit - I’m out of here.”

I realize this incident sounds rather petty, but there had been a long build up involving multiple factors; inconsistencies, dissimulation, etc.  I got to the point that I had it with the manipulation - playing people against one another - along with the passive aggressive, dysfunctional behavior.  I left, as I had been thinking of doing if things got worse, but not without a bit of drama with the little princess in HR - I so wish she was held to some performance standards - or had to work for a real company.

Speaking of performance standards, did I mention I never had an appraisal for last year?  My review was due in November - although my hire date is August 16, and when I asked about it in January, I was told, “You can wait just like everyone else.”  They have always been late with my review, and the raises were never retroactive, as they would be in most companies.  Not a lot of incentive there when you’ve worked 10 or 11 hour days when necessary, sometimes coming in on Sundays and holidays.  Health issues of the past 3 or 4 months aside, which I was harassed about, I normally work at least a 9 hour day. 

But that’s it folks - that’s the story some of you have been waiting for - maybe some all day long.  I have to take care of myself right now.

Here is an interesting tidbit on the topic of toxic culture in the workplace:

Robert Bacal, noted author and management consultant, says that a toxic organization is like a dysfunctional family. It shows two specific characteristics: first, a history of poor performance and poor decision-making; and second, very high levels of dissatisfaction and stress that go beyond normal workload issues. Additional signs of a toxic workplace include:

  • culture of fear, non-communication or miscommunication
  • atmosphere of high stress and conflict
  • inability to achieve goals
  • disparity between mission statement and how the company actually functions (Huge issue!)
  • bullying, gossip, malicious rumours, disrespectful behaviour (A daily thing.)
  • increase in health problems and accidents
  • more resignations/turnover/loss of talented employees (Another huge issue.)
  • feelings of helplessness and indifference
  • low productivity

In a toxic environment, employees are treated as expenses not assets (no matter how much rhetoric the organization puts forth). Employees are not supported, and are consistently under attack. They are burdened with unreasonable workloads and deadlines and unclear expectations.  - Toxic Workplaces

All of the above: Veritas!  (Especially the part, “In a toxic environment, employees are treated as expenses not assets” - That is certainly the case where I worked.)

« Prev - Next »

Untitled Document

Calendar

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Pages

Categories

Blogroll