Performative Cruelty

The new mantra of the macho CEOs?

Mirror Man

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, don’t they?

Well, I often pick up on something that an organisation has put out or some CEO has said and, you know, take the piss in the form of an incredulous rant. Ones that spring to mind are the video scold of the Chinese HR Director and the recent brainless ‘Values statement’ of a would-be employer.

Now someone else is doing it. Only they’re pretending it’s different because they are doing it as little videos (you know, all TokTik friendly, Reals ready or whatever. So ‘on trend’.) Gah! Is nothing sacred!!

Step forward John Amaichi (for it is he). I’ve half a mind to go around and give him a piece of my mind!! Except I’d probably only come up to his navel. And he might hit me with his OBE.

So since he’s obviously stealing from me, I’m going to ‘borrow’ back from him. He recently commented on a person on stage saying “My entire company, my entire team, if you don’t have a six-pack, you don’t work for us”.

I really don’t see what John’s getting upset about. It sounds like a great place to work to me.

It would be even better if it was a Party Seven.*

*If you are under 60, ask your Dad.

You’re No Good

God, this bloody stuff is everywhere, isn’t it? Alpha male hustle culture bollocks.

Remember when Elon challenged Zuck to a cage fight? It’s so pathetic, it makes my eyebrows hurt.

The joke was that Zuck had actually muscled up and trained in martial arts and might well have spanked Elon’s arse, so Elon went full macho and pretended he’d never said anything about a cage fight and anyway, when he said ‘challenge’, it was just bants.

The muscling up wasn’t really about preparing to turn Musk into a husk. It was all part of Zuck’s makeover from arch geek to proto-Augustan world emperor-in-waiting, along with the roman haircut, the chain and the super-expensive clothing that stylishly says “I’m so rich I don’t really care how I dress”. Nothing says you don’t really care better than a $400+ sweatshirt.

Anyway, underneath the new image, the real Zuck still lurks. The passive-aggressive, weasily untermensch with a special line in sociopathic cruelty.

This was evidenced by Meta’s latest round of punishments beatings, er, I mean rightsizing. Zuckerberg announced that this was an ‘intense’ year for the company and he was focusing on operational efficiency. This meant there would be a 5% reduction in the workforce, around the world.

At this point, one could question the ‘operational efficiency’ of one M. Zuckerberg, who has directed millions of dollars into such loss-making activities as ‘the metaverse’ and virtual reality headsets and hasn’t come up with a novel product idea since, er, Facebook. But we’ll leave that for others to comment.

A programme of layoffs of this size and scope is, of course, very unsettling for employees (although after two years of layoffs, they are possible getting a bit desensitised). There are way to handle this that minimise the impact and treat those being fired with some respect and dignity.

Mark went, “No, I’m not bothering with that”.

So the emails started going out at 5am one Monday morning.

But that wasn’t enough for Mark. He said that Meta were getting rid of their ‘low performers’, and they would move them out faster than they have previously.

So, not satisfied with pulling the rug out from under his employees, he now wanted to paint a red cross on their cv to show they are ‘low performers’ and so make it harder for them to get a job elsewhere.

Only they’re not sacking people in Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands because they don’t have any low performers there.

No, only kidding! It’s because they have sensible employment laws that don’t allow this sort of shitty behaviour.

Back to Zuck, who said, “We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”

Only it seems that, in their haste to cut numbers and boost profits, they are introducing some perverse effects. It’s probably just a co-incidence but it seems that a number of previously acceptable performers who had returned from a leave of absence (e.g. for pregnancy or ill-health) found they were suddenly evaluated as a ‘low performer’. Others found that a sudden decline in their performance evaluation happened following a disagreement with bosses. Yet others were simply mystified and felt the pressure to hit numbers was a factor.

I mean, who’d have anticipated this sort of thing going on?

This performative cruelty is of a piece with Zuckerberg’s claim that workplaces had become ‘too feminine’ and that he wanted to introduce more ‘masculine energy’. Well, behaving like a thoughtless dick ought to do it, Mark. Well done, you smashed it!

This new low in corporate behaviour has made my eyes roll so hard my sockets ache. Still, at least they didn’t make them wear a bell around their neck and go around shouting “Unclean, unclean”.

That’s in next year’s restructuring plan, no doubt.

Don’t Be Cruel

I’ve long been amazed at quite how cruel the workplace is in the US and what employers are allowed to get away with.

Zuckerberg’s layoffs supposedly on performance grounds enables Meta to circumvent the minimal level of legislation designed to protect workers, such as providing 60 days notice of mass layoffs and paying severance. This reflects a trend across tech, started by Musk at Twitter and copied by Microsoft.

And if you’re in any doubt about how harsh employers are, even though the playing field is tipped so far in their favour, just have a scroll through the Antiwork Reddit.

This trend is now accelerating under Trump, with the standard being set by Musk at DOGE, randomly firing people and slashing away at bits of government without any thought for the consequences. Regulators are being fired (especially if they are investigating Musk’s businesses) and whole areas of oversight being trashed. We’re seeing much less regulation, more small dick energy.

This has an impact on rest of world, of course (and no, I’m not getting to the whole tariff omnishambles). US-owned companies reach around the world and influence business environments in many countries (especially in the UK where an astonishing amount of UK business goes through US-owned companies). We also see right wing populist parties aping Trump and his policies, dragging the Overton Window ever rightwards.

Are we going to see the workplace in other parts of the world degrade to the level of the USA? Will other countries hold fast, or even pushback. Could there be a backlash?

In the UK, the Labour government is strengthening employee rights and looking to increase real wage levels. The EU is committed to strong labour protections (which we’ve already seen limit Meta’s actions). Peter Duton, the Australian Liberal party leader, has seen his poll lead for the forthcoming election crash following his policy to ban working from home. People care about these issues, let’s hope that starts to count at the ballot box.

But USA is just a lost cause, I think.

I’m Gonna Tear Your Playhouse Down

I wonder if, as a consequence of all that is going on, the USA is also relinquishing its role as a leader of business thought. For decades, US corporations have been the proving ground for new ideas on how to run businesses and provided the templates that others have followed.

There is a long and storied (which is important) history of US business innovation, from Henry Ford’s production lines, through the introduction of marketing by Proctor and Gamble and others, to the innovation from Silicon Valley. Much management theory has similarly come from the US, from leading thinkers such as Stanley Winslow Taylor (I didn’t say it was all good!), Mary Follet-Parker, W. Edwards Deming, Tom Peters and more (lots more, I’ve missed out loads of them!).

All of this has been spread around the world through the academia-publishing complex based around the Harvard Business Review and the speaker circuit in the US (and subsequently the new media platforms based in the US). They’ve also been productised and marketed by BigCon, whose tentacles have reached into every part of business and government.

That doesn’t mean great thinkers and excellent ideas haven’t originated in other parts of the world but they have struggled for attention and traction and often only get break through by plugging into the US. The USA has been the centre of gravity to which everyone has been drawn.

But what now? Already, we have seen some academics move away because they fear their work will be curtailed by the Trump administration. Other countries are running programmes to attract the best minds, offering freedom from political interference and secure funding. A brain drain is in progress.

The administration’s immigration policies are undermining the status even of legal immigrants and making many fearful that they may be denied re-entry or even deported because of their views or because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, Trump is attacking the universities by accusing them of left-wing bias and withdrawing federal funding. At the same time, the science infrastructure is being seriously weakened by DOGE’s axe, wielded indiscriminately by Musk.

If the USA has been a magnet for business talent and academics, Trump is in the process of reversing its polarity. People are already scaling back their visits to the US, reducing their interactions with colleagues their and seeking alternatives.

It could be the beginning of the end of US hegemony over management science and business practices.

The irony is that this should be happening because the business methodologies, the corporate systems, the economic philosophy are being found to be deficient and no longer fit for purpose. It should be happening because the teachings around leadership and culture are patently ineffective. It should be happening because much of if it is based on morally repugnant views that lead to exploitation and abuse of human beings.

Instead it’s happening because of incompetence, overreach and spite by those who have championed free market ideology, shareholder primacy, the power of capital and who have profited handsomely from the existing system that they are now pulling down around their ears.

Still, they’ll really own the libs now, won’t they?

When I think of pioneers of progressive, humanistic working practices, I think of Riccardo Semler from Brazil, of Jos De Blok from Holland, of Ren Zhengfei from China. US dominance has not always brought forth the best ideas or allowed them to be widely seen. A more even playing field should spur innovation and allow more diverse perspectives to heard, and that has to be a good thing.

Every cloud does have a silver lining, after all.