Does anybody get to the top of government WITHOUT being a bully?

[Nimbostratus100]

So many of our top politicians are so aggressive, manipulative, deceitful, selfish and basically thuggish, all be it often in a refined and upper class way.

I cant really see how a normal, decent human being would ever hold their own with people like this, or get into positions over them

I am not surprised by the allegations of bullying in recent years. I have just assumes these people are all likely to be bullies. I am glad its being called out now, and maybe times are changing. But as things stand, AIBU to think if you are at the top of government, it almost goes without saying that you are likely to be a bully?

If you want to get to the top. The bible of Machivelli helps

I’m sure some people go into politics with the best of intentions, then end up being forced into u-turns and compromises just to stay in power and perhaps achieve one or two of their key objectives.

Banging tables, hands up to people, calling their work "woeful" are all unacceptable professional behaviours.

He would have been better apologising like a grown up

His behaviour sounds a lot like what passed for management at City law firms a quarter of a century ago (last time he worked outside Westminster). Thankfully firms have moved on but Raab hasn’t.

I think it's possible, although they have to be very single minded. Obviously in Raab's case, he was aggressive , and even MPs called him inquisitorial, direct, impatient and fastidious”

Typically, he is now trying to smear his accusers, whilst decrying the skills of the senior employment lawyer who wrote the report.

The problem is what someone perceives to be bullying here, some people struggle with directness. I have a family member in a senior position who is ND, she’s extremely direct, I can imagine some people find it very uncomfortable but that is genuinely not her intention. It’s important to actually be able to define what bullying is. It’s all rather vague. If he was found to have bullied individuals I would absolutely think he should be exposed for it.

Not liking him is not the same as him being guilty of this particular thing.

I don't think everyone at the top of government are bullies although it certainly seems to attract a particular type of person.

It's definitely not true that all leaders are bullies; I've worked with some amazing CEO and Board colleagues who have cultivated solid teams, and personally I have been a Director for years, and never bullied anyone.

But the report did define what bullying was using definitions from a court judgement and a previous bullying investigation.
And then found that he was persistently and unreasonably aggressive and abused or misused power in a way that undermined or humiliated.

Of course he’s going to frame it like he was just trying to get the best out of them, or being over unionised or the bar for bullying being set too low. He doesn’t have the self awareness to admit his own faults. And that resignation letter was filled with vitriol.

I read the report today and didn’t see much different from some of the managers I’ve worked with, certainly nothing they would have resigned for. I’d almost prefer the direct style described in the report over the kind of unpredictable passive aggressive mode that some operate in.

Very true and they are often brilliant manipulators and delegators

Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy.

Hunt.

One of the good ones you say?

Definitely! If you’re idea of good is an absolutely awful human being.

Gordon Brown was a tremendous bully.

Noicant
The problem is what someone perceives to be bullying here, some people struggle with directness.

Across 3 separate government departments? I don't think so.

slamfightbrightlight

Constant interruptions, hands up to peoples face to stop them taking, jabbing his finger, calling work woeful, interrogating questions, one after another, including if it isn't presented in his particular style?

That's unacceptable in anyone's language. I read the report myself, and the senior employment lawyer bent over backwards to be even handed, as I'm sure you noticed.

It is possible to have high expectations without treating people like shit.

I haven’t said his behaviour was okay. I’ve said it’s no different to many senior managers I have worked with/for. Very particular about how they want things done, what they want to be sighted on, cutting you off mid-sentence if they deem it not interesting enough, quick to criticise. But in some ways easier to deal with that those who were unpredictable in their responses, muddled in direction then critical when they don’t get what they think they asked for, playing staff off against each other, creating a climate of fear but throwing the occasional bone of praise, playing favourites. With the first group you roll your eyes and mutter under your breath what a dick they are, then go away and do what they’ve asked whether or not it’s how you’d want it done. With the second group you end up agonising over every email or interaction, second guessing yourself, not being able to get anything done because there’s no clarity about what they want.

I’ve worked for some great managers but there’s definitely been a fair share of both of the above and neither type would contemplate resigning, i’m pretty sure of that!

I've just read the report, and came in here specifically to see what MN was saying about it, and him.

By the way, to the poster who said he had been described as "direct, fastidious, impatient, et cetera" The report actually stated that those were his own words.

My observations are that he is an unpleasant, self-important, arsehole. He was a nightmare to work with, but has escaped from having all the bullying allegations upheld because he was so dismissive of his staff as individuals that his conduct lacked the individual targeting element necessary to constitute bullying. At least they got him on two of them though

It's chilling that he point blank denied that he had been spoken to by senior civil servants about his conduct yet the investigating KC found as matter of fact that these conversations did take place. He cared so little that he literally erased them from his own memory.

He has clearly been bleating that he cared SOOO MUCH about his policies and helping people that he lost sight of the potential for individual human beings to be affected by his conduct. Bullshit. This is not a man who is in politics because he cares about his cause, this is a man who is in politics because it gives him power and status and feeds his ego.

The "I'm only mean because I care so much" argument isn't as easy to use in the private sector, which tends to be more open about its only purpose being to increase wealth and power.

It was very telling that the report said his conduct had improved after the investigation was launched. In other words, he was very able to moderate his behaviour when he wanted to. Too little too late, you twat.

Exactly. She epitomized these behaviours. And fakery was very obvious too.

Yes, and he's arrogant, and through that arrogance shot him self in the foot. Lord MacDonald said on the BBC this morning that he was alerted and refused to listen, and says that Raabs methods actually stopped him achieving his own aims. This is common in an atmosphere of poor values and culture from the top

Dominic Raab dismissed my behaviour warnings - Lord McDonald www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65358258

John Major was an incredibly nasty piece of work.

This.

But sadly I think it takes a much bigger emotional toll on the nice ones. Because they actually care about the tough calls they have to make.

Simple answer: from my direct experience, no.

Politics is a career, people who tend towards it are not generally altruistic, quite the opposite in fact. I've never worked with a more self centred, morally bankrupt bunch than high level politicians. And that includes all parties.

People think labour or another party will be any different - no, they're the same sorts of people just with different policies.

Honestly, since I entered the working world at 19, I've realised the only way to do really well is to 1) cope fine with being bullied 2) become a bully after your initiation.

I'm sorry but this is complete bollocks!!

Someone we know was at Uni with Raab. From what they say, Raab was known then as not especially bright. In politics he got promoted far above his competence level which is why he ended up being so arrogant and dismissive.

It's telling that some ex/senior politicians are still on friendly / friend terms with their ex civil servants. I am struggling to see that Blair, Sunak, T.May, Sunak or Javid or even Johnson were bullies.

I think there have been some who have not been bullies. Nasty, rude yes, which is not necessarily the same.

I think that Boris Johnson's refusal to accept the allegations against Priti Patel and the targeting of the civil service by Dominic Cummings (terming them the 'blob') has perhaps meant a lower tolerance or silence than would have been the case. Perhaps also there are a few who sought to undermine Dominic Raab as well, which whilst unprofessional, is understandable.