Meg Whitman, helluva boss

|
(3)

Meg is proud of her success at EBay. I wonder if she's proud of shoving one of her employees. I know, I know -- Meg was a tough-love employer who demanded the best and would tolerate nothing less. She relishes the reputation that, as the NY Times says, she

was known as a demanding leader who did not hesitate to express displeasure with employees who failed to live up to her standards.

Guess that's what we want up in Sacramento, right? Someone tough enough to take on the special interests.

Except that in this case, she was tough enough, if the Times account is accurate, to bat around someone who worked for her. As some other tough folks have learned in the past, physical abuse of subordinates doesn't tend to help your reputation.

Calitics asks:

Will she shove the Speaker of the Assembly when she doesn't get her way? Verbally abuse her Director of Finance when it becomes clear her "fire everybody" strategy only worsens the budget deficit? It certainly does not speak well to Whitman's judgement or her personality, which appears to be that of a pampered CEO who cannot deal with the rest of society as equals, but instead treats them like indentured servants.

So now we've got a GOP senate candidate who makes fun of her opponent's hair and a GOP guv candidate who knocks around the help. Hell of a ticket.

Comments

Is thia any different than CAROL MIGDEN did, and the BG endorsed her, talk about a double standard!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

Migden was routinely named "worse member to work for" by Senate employees, who called working under her "a combat tour." She's been reprimanded so many times for her abusive treatment of staff that it's hard to cite one single instance.

So why is Meg's behavior so reprehensible while Carol's earned her the endorsement of The Guardian in her recent DCCC race?

Again Tim - it's this kind of blatant hypocrisy which makes people so bitter about politics.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jun. 14, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

This is tabloid gutter reporting at its worst.

There are almost no facts out there on this "incident". and none in your "report". Presumably the settlement required silence for all parties.

But the NYT described it as simply that Meg "shoved" someone to help them leave the room. No pain, no injury, no harm. But of course this is America and you collect 200 grand for agreeing to shut up.

Frankly you are far worse for reporting this than she was for expressing frustration with a failing employee.

Posted by TomFoolery on Jun. 15, 2010 @ 12:30 am