Bunnatine Greenhouse, a US Army contracting official, had stellar performance reviews until she questioned the propriety of sole-sourcing some $10 billion in contracts to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc.
Ms. Greenhouse has now been demoted for allegedly poor performance, and she’s hired an attorney, who has publicly categorized her demotion as a “reprisal” for “her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army’s preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs”, according to The New York Times.
Heaven knows, we’ve seen plenty of whistle-blowers get canned from the Federal Government in the last four and a half years, so Ms. Greenhouse’s story, while newsworthy, is almost of the norm.
What struck me about her experience, though, is that it was reported, sympathetically, by the NYT in the same weekend that the Boston Globe, which is owned by the NYT, quoted a bunch of sychophantic HR consultant who condoned, what? The firing of “difficult” employees.
What is a difficult employee? You might well ask. Here is the Boston Globe’s definition. Items #1, 3 and 5 make sense, and we don’t know if Ms. Greenhouse was guilty of any of these. #6 is a joke. But note items #2 and #4, which rationalize imposing economic capital punishment on anyone who isn’t a yes-man (or woman):
– Temper tantrums aimed at co-workers.
– Bad-mouthing the company.
– Putting off assignments indefinitely.
– Failing to communicate effectively with superiors and colleagues.
– Being late to important meetings or skipping them altogether.
– Not maintaining a good appearance.