Why do companies get caught up in illegal behavior, harassment, and toxic leadership? Our research identifies an underlying cause: what we call a “masculinity contest culture.” This kind of culture endorses winner-take-all competition, where winners demonstrate stereotypically masculine traits such as emotional toughness, physical stamina, and ruthlessness. A New York Times investigation described Uber as a “Hobbesian environment…in which workers are pitted against one another and where a blind eye is turned to infractions from top performers.” For example, Susan Fowler’s 2017 blog about Uber detailed not only her recollections of being repeatedly harassed, but what she described as a “game-of-thrones” environment, in which managers sought to one-up and sabotage colleagues to get ahead. Leaders need to perform deeper, more committed work to examine their cultures, and take action where it’s needed.įrom Uber to Nike to CBS, recent exposés have revealed seemingly dysfunctional workplaces rife with misconduct, bullying, and sexual harassment. But these norms lead people to focus on burnishing their personal image and status at the expense of others, even their organizations. and Canada, from different organizations, revealed four masculine norms that together define masculinity contest culture are are highly correlated with organizational dysfunction: 1) show no weakness, 2) strength and stamina, 3) put work first, and 4) dog eat dog. Surveys of thousands of workers in the U.S. This kind of culture endorses winner-take-all competition, where winners demonstrate masculine traits such as emotional toughness, physical stamina, and ruthlessness. Why do companies get caught up in illegal behavior, harassment, and toxic leadership? Researchers identify an underlying cause: a Masculinity Contest Culture. We must resist the urge to respond to anti-Muslim bigotry by going along with the censorious whims of some ‘Muslim community leaders’, chilling free expression and undermining social cohesion.From Uber to Nike to CBS, recent exposés have revealed seemingly dysfunctional workplaces rife with misconduct, bullying, and sexual harassment. “We urge the Government and public bodies not to join the rush to adopt this definition. He said: “If the Government adopts this definition it will restrict important discussion and debate and, as the criticism of senior officers shows, undermine the police’s ability to keep people safe. “This shows a worrying trend of seeing British Muslims through the lens of terror and security, and the Prime Minister must distance herself from this immediately.”īut National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans called the definition “vague and unworkable”. She went on: “It has been a great struggle to get the police to record Islamophobia as a specific crime, so it is deeply worrying to see the National Police Chiefs’ Council bringing terrorism into the discussion about tackling Islamophobia. Shadow minister for women and equalities Naz Shah said if the Prime Minister rejects the definition, “the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear”. “This is a matter that will need further careful consideration.” “We are conscious that the APPG’s proposed definition has not been broadly accepted, unlike the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism before it, which was adopted by the UK Government and other international organisations and governments. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman declined to comment on the letter but said: “Any hatred directed against British Muslims and others because of their faith or heritage is completely unacceptable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |