I have little tolerance for "horrible" bosses. And, I am tired of the pundits' assertions that if Klobuchar were a man her actions would be seen as "strong" not "mean". I doubt it. Any man who would throw a binder at a staffer would be excoriated, especially if the staffer were a female. At this point, the comb story still turns my stomach. I would vote for anyone but Trump but I sure hope I don't have to vote for Klobuchar.
21
I believe the answer is no. I worked for a bully in DC not too long ago. She fired a few people when she came on--capable people, after saying she wasn't firing anyone--and the entire rest of the office, save 2 admins, left within her first year. I used to wake up with chest pains thinking of going to the office. I was one of the folks who walked away before having secured a new job. Best thing I ever did. That bully--female, but it doesn't matter, pretend nice, but it does--is still there, and the formerly august organization is no longer respected, with a long list of open positions she can't fill, because word gets around, and members who have withdrawn. No way would I vote for Klobuchar.
12
A horrible boss cannot be a great leader.
Next.
17
In a tight situation eating a salad with a comb isn't a problem. However, if the stories about abusive behavior towards staff is, I'm out and will not vote for her. We've had enough second class treatment of people by Trump.
Speaking of Churchill ….
"If you’re going through hell, keep going."
Only 691 more days. Only 691 more days.
13
After Trump, no one on the right should say bupkis about a potential candidate on the left being a bad boss.
7
What is even more concerning is all those on the left who defend Klobuchar's behavior, or even continue to ridicule her staffers, such as even Bill Maher. Even Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC appear clueless about this terrible behavior by Klobuchar.
12
I am sick of the politics of personal destruction. That is all this is.
61
Fair enough. Apologies are a start, self-reflection and transformation help too. And transformation of mindset isn’t just for the person identified as problematic. It’s also important for people to loosen absolutist mindsets and accept the idea that people can and do change.
3
Pretty sure that Churchill never had such a staff meeting. It would be sufficient to just act more decently now and in the future, with the standard not being perfection. And for those private meetings, should they occasionally be warranted? Churchill, too, had more pressing issues.
1
I like her and find it rather disgusting that someone eats with a most likely dirty comb but guess what, I also like a problem solver and she surely is a good one. She probably only had 5 minutes to eat and was ticked off that her staff member lost the fork that she needed to eat the salad so rather than spending one of the 5 minutes washing her comb she had that person do it for her. My career was working on large Telecom moves and installations and I found that the most important rule for success is to anticipate any problems and have solutions.
4
Right on. I'm a supporter and small contributor, and would like to see Amy "woman-up" and atone. Ability to admit a flaw early in the game, as the adult in the room, will give her needed credibility to go with her sensible approach to governance. Otherwise she'll be an also-ran.
5
One of the (few) fun things in covering Capitol Hill for local television stations across the country is following around the new members of Congress during during swearing in day or for a day or so afterward. They are full of hope and imbued with an unshakeable notion that they truly represent the interests of their home districts or states. Their excitement is contagious.
If any of them has asked for advice (they don't), I would have told them, taking off my reporter's hat: Remember this, be nice to "the little people". Time and time again, big scandals come creeping out through angry, resentful assistants and aides to presidents and members of Congress as well as from the agencies.
No one wants to be humiliated in front of the people they work with day by day. Yet, many bosses seem to think that is their role, to beat incompetence over the head until it surrenders, to punish it like a disobedient, stray dog.
The late senator from Texas, LLoyd Bentsen, rose to a vice-presidential nomination and to be treasury secretary after being one of the most harsh bosses on Capitol Hill for decades. In Bentsen's day, there was no "news hook" for reporting widely on the behind the scenes behavior of public figures. Bentsen also seemed to get a pass because he came from wealth and didn't need the job.
Amy Klobuchar should drop out of the presidential race forthwith. Go study herself and become a better, kinder human being. The day is past for that sort of behavior to rise to the top.
8
High staff turnover rates don't necessarily indicate just a problem with the boss. There could be many reasons for staff leaving regularly. Maybe her staff are being aggressively recruited by others in Congress or Washington because they are high quality people and productive. Maybe her staff are ambitious as well. They likely make many connections all over DC and would have ample opportunity to search out jobs that pay better.
4
I have followed the comments on the articles and columns about Amy Klobuchar's bad boss behavior for the past month and I am growing progressively more disgusted with people piling on, berating, whining about their own bad boss experience and the trauma that ensued. Ms. Klobuchar has had several hundred people on her staff while serving as a Senator; undoubtedly, many were young, lightly skilled and inexperienced. Life on the Hill as a staffer (or in the Hennepin County Prosecutor's office) cannot be imagined as anyone's dream job. The work is long, tiring, grinding, often boring and absent meaningful reward beyond the experience. That some staff found the work degrading or humiliating should not be surprising, let alone shocking. That Senator Klobuchar at times lacked grace, empathy or was inartful (especially the emails) in providing feedback to her staff is not surprising and not commendable. But it certainly is not grounds for indictment by the traumatized or dismissing her candidacy in light of the array of extraordinary skills and experience that she brings.
Looking for our Prince or Princess Charming to be our next president will only ensure our defeat - especially after the media and the candidates themselves tear into each other's secrets, flaws and failings employing the circular firing squad.
11
More and more studies are showing that the "tough boss" is more liability than asset to an organization; that perhaps there are short-term gains, but, in the longterm, employees lose morale, productivity declines, and the workplace culture turns radioactive.
The consensus seems to be that employees want inspiring, compassionate, and fair bosses. But, unfortunately, narcissistic people often have boatloads of confidence and charm to present to the public. Their true selves are only revealed later, usually after the damage has been done to the workplace ecosystem.
8
You may be right, Mr. Stephens.
But you, a republican, are the wrong messenger for this issue.
Clean up 1600 Pennsylvania and the repub party before you try to change us Democrats.
Good luck with that.
16
While Amy Klobuchar may have some attributes that make her a leader, it's difficult to believe that she would make a good president, never mind a great leader. Her behavior towards some of those working for her could be considered bullying.
The downsides of bullying are too great to make her a good candidate for president. To quote from Psychology Today, "studies show that bullies lack prosocial behavior, are untroubled by anxiety, and do not understand others' feelings. They misread the intentions of others, often imputing hostility in neutral situations."
Definitely not traits that we want in a president--and apologies won't change her basic personality. We have a bully in the Oval Office, and it has been a disaster.
6
A person with personal insecurity,l low self esteem, poor self image, and self doubts...and wields power over others, is a recipe for disaster.
S/he may be brilliant, educated,,knowledgable and insightful , the problem is that no one will will listen and follow through with her/his plans will be diminished.
There will be sabotage- covertly or overtly, -abandonment by the best and brightest who can afford to jump ship, and the institution will start to lose-slowly at first and then as the hemorrhage widens, there will be an erosive, corrosive environment where nom one will want to work there. They will be the least productive staff.
2
Mostly anonymous complaints from people who have received Participation Trophies most of their lives. Has no one ever taught Millennials to succeed at a job in the real world you need to show up on time, do what you are told plus a little more, keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut, and don't whine when your feelings get hurt. Learn and do better or move on.
6
Horrible bosses have horrible character. The unseen inner meanness is expressed through bully and demeaning subordinates. It is strange that so many comments excuse this behavior, when it inflicts palpable harm on the people on the receiving end. People like Kobuchar should not be elevated and gifted with even more power. They should be isolated and shunned. Being vile to underlings is NOT evidence of strength or toughness- it is an expression of weakness and a flawed character. Amy is not worth consideration in a field of real leaders.
6
Being put in the position of having a boss insult you and throw things at you is a test of your own self worth and self respect. Some people with little self worth would put up with that, but most would figure a way to leave or just outright quit. It seems that the Klobuchar record of high turnover speaks directly to that point. And definitely what we know of Trump as well (that is, who would want to work for him? Answer: Michael Cohen)
2
Amy Klobuchar appears to be a miserable boss. Knowing what I know, now, I wouldn’t work for her.
However, years ago, in the 90’s, I had a new, male boss (from a large corporation) who use to have contests that were highly sexist/misogynistic in nature. However, just fresh out of grad school, I wasn’t having any of it! Rather, I fought back, at his level, and held my own contests which were reversed, focusing on the male! I think everyone was in shock that I had the courage to do so. Surprisingly, I wasn’t fired! And, the sexist contests, stopped.
Bottom line: Fight back when your boss exhibits demeaning behavior. You may, or may not lose your job, but these days there are many ways to fight this kind of behavior!!
4
Why are these women in the White House at all costs revolutionaries willing to overlook abusive behavior of a woman candidate with the rationalization that men do it too and get away with it. The point of electing a woman is the hope and expectation that they will do a better job than the men. What's the point of having an incompetent, ill tempered woman president if she's just an imitation of an incompetent man? Of course we expect a woman to hold a higher standard, and it shouldn't be a feat of heroic strength and endurance. It should be one of accomplished grace and ease.
4
Im horrified by watching people defend her. This is ABUSE. It should not be tolerated and stop throwing sexism into this. As a woman some of the worst bosses I have had were women. Often men superiors scared to call them out on it or not know how to approach them about it. If we had a story of a male boss throwing objects we be calling for a resignation and most likely calling him an "abuser" in some ridiculous context. Amy should not be President, its ashame because I really liked her before this story broke.
5
I’ll leave the rebuttal to this Republican op-ed to King James (no, not the basketball player, though he’s frequently worth a listen): Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
3
Enjoyable piece of art, a 'harsh' reminder' that one catches more flies with honey...than with vinegar. Some of us do appreciate Amy Klobuchar's no- nonsense effectiveness, and efficiency, in getting things done, a pragmatism that, if supported by ethics and 'good behavior' (as we physicians used to call 'bedside manners'), would shame the current incompetent and highly ignorant bully in-chief, the latter that confuses cruelty 'gratis' with cool stupidity. Ms Klobuchar's talent ought not be dismissed this easy...even if it would require a lesson in humility...and another in prudence (doing what's right, however difficult).
2
A person who throws fits and abuses her/his subordinates is a weak person, insecure in their own skin. It is possible to have high standards, hold people accountable and be fair and supportive. Excellent leaders do this every day. What you as an employee put up with is your decision. No one can make you suffer abuse without your consent.
2
Maybe there is no statute of limitations for apologies. But Klobuchar's appartent short-temper, condensation, and lack-of-compunction for belittling subordinates are likely the intractable symptoms of arrogance, entitlement, and narcissism.
Sorry, we've had enough of that. Next candidate, please.
4
The best managers hire the best people. If you hire the best people, by definition, they are the best and the manager has no basis or cause for berating.
The onus is always on the manager.
3
If, inexplicably there was a shortage of electable democrats/progressives, we might be compelled to consider a low-level sociopath as among the 5 or 6 first-tier candidates. We don't have that problem. Senator Klobuchar's conspicuous problems with empathy & impulse control should be disqualifying at this early stage in the selection process. After the briefest national exposure, her personal behavior horror stories are just gaining traction. There seems to be solid evidence that the power she has accumulated to this point has worked its magic, corrupting her conduct into the range of the clearly abusive. It is impossible to conclude that her future behavior will moderate as she gains exponentially higher levels of personal & political power. I would suggest, as is the pattern with this kind of situation, the worst of her behavior has yet to be revealed. If we can't motivate psychologically healthy, skilled progressive public servants to pursue the US Presidency, our democracy is already in its terminal stages.
3
Really?
There are a long list of former and current employees who think she's just lovely. I'd love to provide the link but there is so much hysteria being reported I can't even find it.
Let's not recreate the HRC fiasco by turning a minor and perhaps not even grounded gossip campaign into a huge insurmountable issue.
Right this very second KIobachar is out best bet to win. And I don't support her. It's early. Things change, but this stuff is just absurd.
4
I give Amy Klobuchar a lot of leeway.
1. Undoubtedly she is more experienced now and less stressed out than when she was new to high office;
2. No doubt she has had a hard lesson in unacceptable beavior;
3. She has a right to demand perfection because it is demanded of her. One misstep by a lazy or inefficient aide/assistant will be reflected in her work or image.
In all, I would like to see a balanced Biden-Klobuchar ticket which would be less liable should they reach the White House to fall prey to impossible promises. I like Biden because he is the best person to right the dangerously listing ship of state, and Klobuchar would be excellent at whatever she does.
3
She can call every staffer she’s wounded and tell them she’s sorry, that it wasn’t right, that she’ll never behave that way again.
The statute of limitations on apologies never expires....
1
I won't vote for Klobuchar in the primary but would gladly support her over Trump in the general. I don't really care to much about this Republican's opinion on the matter, however, He is clearly simply doing what is best for his party, which is evil to the core and standing behind a cretinous leader.
He should look to his own house before critiquing another's. Us grownups are working on picking the best person to fight against the incredible threat to humanity that inhabits the White House and lead's the Republican party. We can do it without the threat of enablers and supporters of criminality and fascism.
2
I'd argue that being a bad leader is what makes people into horrible bosses. (Side note - in my mind the term "boss" has a negative tinge in the first place.) Outbursts like this are a symptom of frustration: If you can't influence people by inspiring or motivating them or connecting with any sort of spark in their work, you have to "boss them around" like Klobuchar does. If she (and others of her stripe) were even okay leaders, they wouldn't act like this at all because they wouldn't feel that they need to in order accomplish their work.
4
I find it fascinating that this piece starts with talking about how Churchill was a horrible boss. Jobs, Johnson, terrible bosses. And then devolves into comparing our current incompetent-charlatan-in-chief to a Presidential aspirant who happens to be a woman. Is there a point to this piece other than to butter emails? Are you seriously comparing some ill-tempered-ness to the human dumpster fire that currently occupies the White House? This one is too ill-tempered, Gillebrand is too nice, Harris is too mean, Warren is too radical. Your white male privilege is showing, Bret. Let's talk about policy. This piece is the op-ed equivalent to Rashida Tlaib being pressed to APOLOGIZE for calling out racism by her white male colleague because he has nephews that are POC. Ridiculous.
3
My mind remains open in regards to my choice for my vote for 2020. I won't write off a person because of a vote I disagree with, or for a much publicized one-liner goof.
What has earned a warning check mark in the "negatives" column for Klobuchar is this temperament issue of apparent long standing. Churchill may have been able to temper his behavior....not convinced Klobuchar can, and how are we to know?
Chaos in the White House isn't productive.
3
I was impressed with Klobuchar's behavior in the Kavanaugh hearings -- calm questioning, minus the grandstanding displayed by two members of the committee now declared presidential candidates. I have been a Warren-Klobuchar supporter for a national tickets, but the Times revelations of her abusive behavior has considerably dampened by favoring her on the ticket. Sadly, I have read some letters which minimize Klobuchar's behavior with the retort, "if she were a man." On-the -job abuse is unacceptable regardless of the source. Men are not and should not be excused from it. Neither should women. To use gender to excuse Senator Klobuchar's behavior is to engage in a practice that too many of my progressive peers perpetrate -- a morality relative to our partisanship. Trump's abuse of staff is despicable. Klobuchar's abuse of staff is no less despicable. It is not a quality we want i president of the United States. Churchill rose above it. Trump is no Churchill by one very long shot. Sadly, neither is Klobuchar.
Bret, you know we can see this, right? This question? Now? The duplicitous nature of Republicans and their apologists, like you, is stunning. The utter lack of any self awareness at all just plain bowls me over. It is as if you are a completely different species.
7
I wouldn't follow Bret Stephens advice on Democratic candidates. Stephens is a career conservative with a nuanced but particularly hawkish view. The fact that we're discussing Chamberlain and Churchill in the same breath as Klobuchar is a dead giveaway. This is not a well reasoned assessment one way or the other.
The fact is Stephens is an anti-Trump Republican who, so far at least, has all but endorsed Klobuchar. I'm not taking my cues from him and neither should you. Trump hijacked the GOP and more reasonable conservatives like Stephens are upset about it. That doesn't mean you should allow "reasonable" Republicans to hijack the only other major Party. They already did that in Bill Clinton's second term.
We're still suffering the hangover.
1
Hey, Brett: Trump, McConnell, Ryan and most other Republican politicians need to make amends for their behavior, most importantly, their damage to our nation. Instead of getting on the bandwagon and impugning smart, effective, honest Democratic women politicians (“Crooked Hillary,” “Pocahontas” Warren, “Angry Amy,” AOC and on and on), how about a column on each Republican who needs to make amends? The Times would run of newsprint.
7
Stephens wrote: "The statute of limitations on apologies never expires."
Fine. I'll wait for you to apologize for the disgusting column you wrote attacking Christine Blasey-Ford and the Democrats, and defending Kavanaugh.
Until your write us YOUR apology, we can discount any of your condescending moralizations at us.
15
Yet more casuistry from Stephens ... trying to confabulate behavioral equivalency between Trump and Ms. Klobuchar, are you? Keep huffin and puffin Bret ... cuz it ain't workin!
4
You got through this without mentioning DJT?? Something tells me you might be a Republican.
2
@Jack K. Jack. We all skim, but it is wise to read carefully when critiquing an article:
“And then there is Exhibit A in horrible boss behavior: the 45th president of the United States. The president’s usual apologists may defend his management habits as evidence of otherworldy genius, but Jim Mattis, John Kelly, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, and others who have worked closely with Donald Trump would probably tell a different story. And regardless of what you think of the administration’s policies, it’s impossible to think of any other White House in which the distempers of the man translated so directly to the incompetence of execution.”
1
Agree.
Looking back at my 50+ years in business I can say one thing with certainty: I could always tell the difference between a demanding leader and a horrible boss. The difference: a demanding leader always took care of his subordinates and he made you feel like you were part of a team. The horrible boss was only there to advance his own career, He was always sweetness and light to his superiors and never had a kind word or care about his subordinates.
I have never worked for Amy Klobuchar but I can tell you one thing: I never had a boss who was a demanding leader throw food at me. In fact I never had a horrible boss demean me by throwing food.
143
That exceptionally high staff turnover rate is damning evidence. So is the Senator's defense of "I'm demanding and have high standards." The apparent facts are not that she was unsatisfied with these staffers and fired them, but that the staffers were unsatisfied and quit. The Senator hires these people--she wants to add their talents to her team, and the staffers want to join--but in the end the staffers become dissatisfied with the experience and quit. The upshot is either that she picks the wrong kind of talent to work for her, or that she creates a work environment where that talend isn't willing to stay on, or maybe both.
1
I think Senator Klobuchar should start being nice to people. Especially people who work for her. And here my thoughts go to--
--Mr. Julius Caesar. Who else?
But here I'm not thinking of
(1) the guy that conquered Gaul (all three parts)
(2) the guy that overthrew the Roman republic
(3) the guy assassinated on the Ides of March (March 15).
No. I'm thinking of the guy that (as Roman historian, Sallust, reminds us--and he knew Caesar personally)--
--was a NICE guy.
Nice? Absolutely! There was nothing (says Sallust) he wouldn't do for his friends. Help them out with a loan--even Cicero (a political foe) borrowed money from the guy. Help them out with a lucrative political appointment--and look at Sallust again! Caesar installed him as governor of Africa.
(Which, I am afraid, was bad news for the Africans.)
And here's something. The extraordinary loyalty Caesar commanded from his own soldiers. Whom he addressed--sit up and take note--
--as commilitones. Almost untranslatable. "Buddies" or "soldier buddies" might fit the bill.
But they loved the guy. They would do anything for him. In fact--
--they did.
And he was bumped off by his enemies. People he'd spared. Ungrateful people.
Well, of course, there were the awful emperors. Mean, suspicious, tyrannical!
But they too got bumped off.
So start being nice to people, Ms. Klobuchar. Julius Caesar or no Julius Caesar--
--it couldn't hurt.
3
And the NYTimes continues their hit pieces on Amy Klobuchar. Two thoughts: let’s see similar stories about some male Senators told by disgruntled ex-staffers, let’s see where these stories are coming from.
And remember “ No man is a hero to his valet”.
6
I wish some of her bad behavior would have come out when she interviewed Justice Kavanaugh. Even when he insulted her, she was so, so nice.
She treats subordinates poorly, and treats a dirtbag like Kavanaugh with respect?
That's a piece of evidence that she may not be able to stand up to power centers that threaten the national good.
She's not one of my favorites.
2
In the last year or so, I've read about this range of similar complaints from some who work for various prominent people. And then noted that the reputations of those people have been damaged. Such complaints have become quite a weapon.
Truly abusive behavior has been tolerated for too long, but I wouldn't classify any of the behavior described in the linked article as abuse. (She didn't throw binders AT staffers, but "in their direction." Hmm, I wonder what that means, exactly.)
This erring-to-the-"victim"-sans-identity reporting may be (in my opinion, is) promoting a "Mean Girls" mentality. ("Did you hear what she said about my writing? I couldn't believe it! I'll show her!")
The more the experienced and intelligent are taken down over trivialities by those they employ (who are usually less so)--in any field--the more the incompetent and/or sloppy our culture becomes.
If the senator is so difficult to work for, her employees aren't, well, indentured servants. Surely if Klobuchar's supposedly wretched behavior is no secret on the Hill, a competent staffer would have no trouble finding another job in that milieu.
59
@cmk
Don't be so sure staffers can find another job so easily. I have a close relative who has worked in the Senate for decades and it's a tough place to find a job. Positions usually only open up at the beginning of a Senator's term. That means it can be six years before another opening comes along. Senators hold an exalted place in government, too exalted in my opinion, and many are legends in their own minds. Senator Klobuchar needs to make amends to her long-suffering staffers, and do it publicly, if she has any hope of becoming a serious Presidential candidate. By the way, "Minnesota Nice" doesn't mean nice. It means two-faced. Polite and pleasant on the surface, something entirely different underneath.
21
As far as the eating salad with a comb story, let's get real. Hasn't any one of us experienced a moment of " Hanger?" If you are working hard and were expecting the aid to pick up lunch and remember a fork, that is not an unrealistic expectation. Using your comb to eat salad is funny. Asking the aid who forgot the fork to wash the comb is certainly a way for the aid to make sure to remember a fork next time! So she got creative and used a comb to eat her salad. Big deal.
3
@jaamhaynes
It's hardly necessary to treat a grown adult like a dog learning new tricks, especially when the employee profusely apologized for losing the fork before the meal was given to the demanding boss.
@jaamhaynes, except that the humiliations that her subordinates are forced to endure, no matter how inconsequential they may seem, the insult will be magnified by the inequality in income & opportunity that constrains the lives of a majority of Americans. Very few people will forgive and forget demeaning experiences, whether their own or witnessed as others are subjected to abuse.
Mean people's moral poles are reversed. They can't be happy, so they take pleasure in causing other people pain. If Kobluchar is such a person, she won't get my vote.
3
@BarrowK
Perhaps the anonymous complainers are the vengeful ones. cf the sixty plus staffers who declare their admiration - AND sign their names!
1
Amy Klobuchar, with her reputation for niceness above all, announces a run for president and the NYT runs not one but two articles attacking her most positive quality. Now an op-ed reinforcing it. This seems like a script. Who's behind it?
6
I for one could care less about how Klobuchar treats her staff, her husband, her children or her dog. It's her centrist, corporatist politics that concern me. Let's keep our eyes of the ball folks.
1
All depends on whether you lead from the front or the back
And I thought throwing tantrums, and then weeping out of childish self-pity ensured that you get to sit for life as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court..
1
The good news is that she does not throw binders full of women.
2
Why this hit job? Given the scale of mildly-bad to really-bad people to profile, why this small-time jerk. Even thought she thinks she is running for president, I don't get why you need to attack her. Go after the big targets.
Throwing things at staff members!!!! Whoa!
Man or woman, that speaks volumes to me!!!
Nope, this person doesn’t have the temperament for the job!!
Let’s not make it two in a row!!! PLEASE!
2
Horrible bosses are terrible leaders full stop. Leader means to lead. Lets call bad bosses what they are: bullies.
No bully is ever going to win hearts and minds.
Sen. Klobuchar's rough behavior reminds me of creative people.
Creativity needs some messy behavior, according to Tim Harford.
See the book "Messy" by Tim Harford, and here' s a messy video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDxIJAyrh3s&t=68s
Sen. Klobuchar seems to me to be a highly creative thinker.
Surely, she can mend her ways and become a great leader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
I can only think that the photograph was carefully chosen .....
4
The unflattering photo of Senator Klobuchar and lack of on-the-record testimony from ANYONE with a negative opinion makes this continued “expose” look more like a hit job.
The NYT’s Continued reliance on anonymous sources in its reporting really minimizes its credibility- as well as the credibility of said sources.
4
To answer Bret's title question...
In a word? No.
Oh, really? Hey Bret, what does Donald Trump need to apologize for? When you answer that, when you expect the same of Republicans and this utterly corrupt administration THEN, and only then will I expect Amy Klobuchar to answer for any transgressions as a boss. My God, do you and your ilk have any shame? Between the stench from the Presidents endless lies, the corruption exposed more and more--especially today through the hearing with Michael Cohen, the obscenity of the Access Hollywood tape, the 30 people attached to Trump who have been indicted of crimes...and Bret is worried about Klobuchar raising her voice, getting angry with her staff? Really? Really? Bret--get a grip! Look at your party and how it is sinking with the Titanic sized wreck that is Trump before you point fingers at Democrats. Your hypocrisy is rich, and you ought to be ashamed!
3
Roll her over into the ash-pit of the forgotten.
What have we got, some twenty others to chose from?
Apologies come too late.
Brett thanks for continuing to demonize Amy Klobuchar. Evidently the Times original piece worthy of the National Enquirer not the venerable grey lady was not enough of a hit job.
Klobuchar’s expectations from her staff and her demands for them to perform their duties at the highest possible level should be commended. Her popularity in a red state and her accomplishments in the Senate are what should be written about not the whining of her staff.
Would you prefer four more years of an ignorant, mentally unstable Trump or a progressive socialist Democrat with unrealistic pie-in-the-sky programs? I think not.
2
It’s too late for Trump.
And here I thought this column was going to be about Trump.
What is it with us humans?
◇ The Cohen thing and nasty repubs questioning.
◇ The Derelict in Chief with Rocket man failure but "amazing" talks.
◇ The India/Pakistan nuclear decimation closing in
◇ The Climate Change looming extinction
◇ The stupidizing Smart Phone addiction
So much for the most inteligent species!
We deserve what's coming to us.
As the Churchill anecdote demonstrates, people can and do change. The willingness to admit error and learn from mistakes defines the superior person, not their previous errors.
Ms Kobuchar has the opportunity now to show her Churchillian side - if she has one.
CEOs define the character of the entire hierarchy reporting to them. Monkey see, monkey do.
1
If those stories are true she’ll have very little chance of making it through the primaries. Before you waste your money on her campaign I would suggest you do your due diligence. Your money might be better placed with other candidates
I do not think what got a pass in the past can do so today, where anyone can surveil everyone. A horrible boss can no longer lead.
A bad boss cannot be a good leader.
Although Trump is a criminal, let's not replace him with someone with questionable integrity.
If you can't be a friend to your employees, you really can't be a friend to anyone.
And if Klobuchar had a rod and two royal orbs, no one would bat an eye. You don't really think this is about a terrible boss, do you? Huh.
Arturo Toscanini was a horrible boss. Sometimes (albeit rarely) results from organization matter more than personal feelings.
Comparing Trump to Klobuchar is a non sequitur because Trump is a malignant narcissist an in a different category altogether.
I guess the destruction of Amy Klobuchar has been successful, so it's useless to defend her from the lies, distortions, and misinterpretations thrown at her and accepted by gullible fools like Mr. Stephens. But I would like to float one question: how did the story accusing her of bad temper come about? And who checked its sourcing? I am not a cynic, but with all the stories about Republican dirty tricks from the time of George HW Bush until Trump, I definitely smell something foul. And it's not in Denmark.
3
@Keithofrpi Should have said "something rotten."
Still trying to wrap my head around the salad eating comb.
What kind of comb is fork-like? And who doesn’t wash their comb before eating?
2
Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for public figures (or wannabes) to be Janus-faced, presenting almost sanctimoniously to the outside world, but being quite cruel to those who work for them. In my experience, women are more guilty of this than men...in a Devil/Prada way. Beware the noble feminist, the compassionate crusader oozing empathy. She may be making the people close to her cry. In fact, sometimes the apparent "passion" of the public stance is in direct proportion to secret brutality. Read it and rage. Rather weep.
If it ended up being Klobuchar vs. Trump, would you vote for Trump?
Next 3000 Trump cult rallies over the next 2 years we will hear chanting about what a meanie Senator Klobuchar is; I'm sure Dear Leader will invent some catchy hashtag his simple-minded base will adopt obediently.
Meanwhile back at the ranch.....we have a President - a PRESIDENT - who is seriously & credibly implicated in a long running series of crimes & who intentionally sows rancor & enmity at every opportunity. Our environment is being recklessly degraded at an accelerated pace, nothing useful or consequential is being done by Congress re affordable health care, improving our education system, income inequality, gun violence, climate change, yada yada yada.
But I'm supposed to be concerned because allegedly
Senator Klobuchar hurt somebody's feelings in the past. Oh the horror!
1
I suggest judging Klobuchar’s candidacy by a simple test: can she learn, and change?
If not, probably shouldn’t be Prez, as the current disaster demonstrates.
Klobuchar's conduct is one of character flaws, not "mistakes."; all the apologies in the world won't erase them.
It's high time to drop Klobuchar as a candidte and move on.
1
As we are able to discern with the current occupant of the White House, good people will not work for bad bosses.
1
As many readers already figured out and more are commenting on the dross being pushed as journalism by this man Bret Stephens as just that, dross; perhaps it is time to reconsider his employment as an OpEd writer.
There isn’t one bit of intelligence in this article. Not a bit of intuition. Not one single piece of logical argument.
I won’t believe that the WSJ will take him back.
1
"Anyone who’s had a horrible boss knows the difference between tough and horrible" - Yup.
This is a fascinating column. Bret, on occasion teams with Gail Collins for a humorous back and forth on current events. It goes to prove that even serious writers can also have a sense of humor which may in the end enhance their writings when they want to be taken seriously, as Bret does today about Amy Klobuchar. If Amy's present staff does not insure that their boss reads this they will be doing a disservice to their boss. Great managers are not born, they are evolving constantly and even if they are tough and obsesses with :
"perfection" they will ultimately flame out and miss the brass ring.. Those managers who retain a sense of humor while asking their employees to do great things and spend their time "developing" the fullness of their staff's capabilities and qualities will achieve the greatest results. Our president for all his "ego paralysis" has yet to figure that out. He may be a great liar, but he is one lousy manager.
As to Amy Klobuchar, she is not too old that she cannot change. Plus her challenge to change is not nearly as difficult as the president's or even the Republican congress.
Most Republicans are "all in" for the current president. The country means very little to them now. It is all about holding onto power.......they do not understand the quality of "humility."
So Amy if you are listening or reading Bret's column, lighten up, you're only campaigning to be president, which is not worth very much these days.
I know people who with their spouse they are meek and passive but when at work act like Attila The Hun. Men who abuse women rarely are abusive to someone of equal or more powerful. Klobuchar has no problem punching people who can't punch back. When confronted by The Bully Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearing Bully Klobuchar demurred.The Senator is coming across more as a bully than a tough woman. I think she forgot the saying be careful of who you step on while your going up because these are same people you meet on your way down.
1
A handful of anonymous complainers vs 61 former staffers publicly signed on a declaration of respect and support for a smart, accomplished, and abrasive, leader. 61. 61. If you are a leader of a large anything, you know that if you have a quick 61 people who’d stand up for you, you’re doing great. Comparing her abrasiveness with Trump’s sociopathic narcissism is as ridiculous as it is uninformed. The obsession with this red herring of a non-story falls under dog-whistle tactics. Who is exacting their revenge? I noticed Al Franken’s name in an early article. He did not receive her support about his #metoo experience. If this so-called story is going to repeat ad nauseum, how about some real journalism?
2
There is a huge difference between being a leader who expects and pushes their staff to excellence at all costs and being an abusive tyrant who demeans and belittles their workers.
I thought the idea of using a comb from your purse to eat a salad was absolutely disgusting from a squick perspective but that's on her. I think I would have gagged watching that. Telling her assistant to "Clean it," bothered me more. Barking such orders at people and treating them like they are your servants is foolish as every single employee reading this knows that there are many passive aggressive ways to repay a boss who decides that you are beneath them and there to be treated like a second class citizen.
There are no amends to be made here. This is her personality and style and that won't change. If her staff does not like her management style and nastiness, then they need to find other employment. It really is that simple. Someone who remains in the employ of someone for years and complains about how nasty they are is odd to me as they can always leave if displeased.
1
No. Next question?
1
"Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." ................ Theodore Roosevelt
2
This is nonsense. How long did it take to edit that photo?
Klobuchar has been a good senator. She has been incredibly productive. The examples given are ridiculous.
Churchill l was always a bear.
1
The statute of limitations on apologies never expires . .
Thank you Bret . . so true.
S/F,
Bill
Get over it, Bret. We all know who need to make amends for reprehensible behavior, and who won't under any circumstances. In fact, we'll be lucky if the guy leaves office without triggering some kind of civil unrest.
It's so easy to scrutinize a woman's leadership these days, simply let her try and gain a foothold in the former "Good ol' boys club," and watch the opinionated Monday morning quarterbacking. Pathetic.
Unless there is a new angle, multiple story lines or some imperative to get the story out as quickly as possible to the broadest possible audience, every editorial writer, op-ed script, pundit, muckraker, talking head and self-described “journalist” need not regurgitate the same information (I won’t abuse the word facts) ad nauseam. That this is all founded on anonymous, poorly verified sexist trash compounds the obscenity.
1
There is a difference between demanding, overbearing and abusive. Ms. Klobuchar's behavior is is clearly abusive. Abusive implies an insecure but narcissistic personality. I think we have had quite enough of that in the White House.
Nasty Amy attacked Kavanaugh in part because of his temperament. I guess it is OK for her to be temperamental and difficult, but, for Kavanaugh, it is a big no no.
Wow, as I said when this story first ran, what a waste of NYT reporter resources and yours too.
I think the media has slipped into this minutia syndrome as the current occupant of the WH has no policy or character substance.
We're looking at an election ahead that can save the soul of America. I want to read substantive analysis of policy positions and past accomplishments. Truthfully, I don't care if they are a "nice" boss or not but find it so interesting that this has become print and center now that there are many women in the mix.
2
Well stated.
This is a character flaw. Apologies are deserved, but don't change the underlying flaw. She is much too old to expect maturation---that's her.
Klobuchar and Trump demean their staffers.
The staffers become sycophants who compete to curry favor. That does not bring out the best - it brings out the worst. The staffers will do anything for a pat on the head, they will cheat and break laws as with Trump. They become damaged, like kicked dogs.
And as we see, both Klobuchar and Trump have abysmal turnover. A great leader has no turnover.
Mugatu in Zoolander was a horrible boss but then he came up with the Derelict line. So it worked out.
If it were a man, she would be described as a results-driven, tough boss. The worst bosses are those you can't trust, who don't care about their jobs and are incompetent.
I read the recent NYT piece and it’s a study in what the military calls “toxic leadership.” It is one thing to manage your boss’ expectations...that is as it should be. But it’s quite another to manage your boss’ insecurities. In the former it’s all about you and your job performance. In the latter it’s all about him/her, and no matter how well you do your job you’ll never satisfy their insecurities. At that point it’s time to leave.
More than sixty Klobuchar present and past staffers have come forward to the NYTimes to defend and warmly praise her as “mentor” and “friend”. The paper’ persistent smear campaign against the only moderate candidate is based only on a few “anonymous “ complainers and highlights an incident from 2008. It seems faking Native American heritage to get into law school would be more objectionable than eating salad with a comb. None of the reparations-friendly candidates has a chance of winning against Trump. Klobuchar could.
3
@Moderate
No one faked NA heritage to get into law school. If you’re referring to Warren, Harvard would not have hired her if she was not intelligent enough to be accepted to law schools based on her merits. Think about that a bit more.
1
We have a horrible boss in the White House already. No reason to settle for another one with so many qualified Dems in the running. Not that Amy Klobuchar is Trump, but bad behavior is bad behavior. And how you treat employees and staff says a lot about your character. Sorry Amy, amends or no amends, time to step aside.
Give her a break.
She’s one of the few sane Democrats left.
And this nation needs more sanity.
2
Remarkably good column !
So, I want to know: What is the timeline? Did she throw three things (apparently) a decade ago, or does she throw three things every week?
I also want to know, to whom should she apologize? Since everyone is conveniently anonymous, how can she even know (with the exception of the salad on the plane) who is complaining? Or, even if she knows, do they really want her to release a statement: "Suzy Q, who recently graduated cum laude from Penn, needed to prepare a document which we had to present to a senatorial committee within an hour. Her spelling skills were minimal, as were her punctuation skills. We had to re-write the entire document, and barely made our deadline. I lost my temper with her and, now, 10 years later, I apologize. I'm also happy she's gone. "
Is that the kind of thing that should happen?
1
I never worked under a horrible boss, but, did work alongside a horrible boss...and witnessed first hand the human carnage this person left behind him each day. In fact, I spent at least one-third of my day trying to clean up the emotional damage he left behind. The irony of course, was having him often say to me about my division's productivity, "sure wish I had the team you have." He never got it...Should add...the Senator should make amends..but, unfortunately, the traits of a horrible Boss are baked into their DNA...
...it's okay, the oddsmakers have her at 25:1 - her chances of winning are slightly better than my grandmother's.........she can throw all the binders she wants.
Oh for heavens sakes, just stop. Klobuchar seems to be no better and no worse than other bosses. Some horribleness with some pleasantness. Bosses are bosses, they are not friends, mothers, aunts, uncles and anyone in your personal orbit. Give me names, dates and maybe I'll entertain the allegations. Washing her comb? Jeeze....at least she used a comb in the absence of a fork and not her fingers!
“The statute of limitations on apologies never expires.” Great line, Bret. But, somehow, I don’t think Amy will cozy up to your message. I’m sure President Obama had his moments, but his biggest offense seems to remain that he was born in Kenya.
Strange. Sixty-one staffers do a public letter supporting the senator, anonymous staffers say she was mean and she has high staff turnover " and the 'essential truth" of the NYT bad boss story remains intact. Any investigation in the reason staffers left, no. Talk then turns to "horrible bosses". Is this news that is fit to print? I don't think so.
3
Klobuchar appears to be an insecure narcissist.
1
I agree we all should apologize where we have given offense, and it almost seems your tone is one of an olive branch held out to the Senator, albeit with your other hand pinching your nose shut. But your premise, that horrible bosses make ineffective leaders, is undercut by Senator Klobuchar's extremely accomplished legislative record - a record of reaching across the aisle to get things done, just the sort of skills LBJ used as President to get landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act through a Congress where key committees were controlled by Southern Democrats not exactly friendly to civil rights. Just maybe there is a direct line from rough and tough to accomplished. And as for 'Minnesota nice' any Minnesotan will tell you that Minnesotans are nice, but first and foremost, passive-aggressive. Res ipsa loquitur.
She sounds like a boor, a jerk, and a lousy boss which creates genuine hurdles because if your staff loathes you, they will find ways to make sure you fail without it being directly tied back to them. What she isn't going to do and never should is go on some kind of absurd apology tour. Maybe you should abandon any fantasies you have about being a management consultant. And does every situation have to revolve around Churchill? Can't we just agree he was a saint and can't be used as an example of anything ever again?
We have a hardened criminal, a corrupt con man, and a pathological liar as President. And here we are debating whether her potential competition was a tough boss. Puhlease....
If this is how she treats her subordinates, I wouldn't expect her to treat Americans as a whole any better. She's demeaning and nasty. She doesn't like people. She shouldn't be president.
To me, some of her defenders seem to be saying this: "Yes, she's a bully and all-around rotten person, but we should let it slide because she's a woman." It's an odd way to start an effort to unseat the incumbent, whose incompetence and unsuitability for office are firmly rooted in being a bully and all-around rotten person.
Whenever I read anything, and particularly a hit piece, I check out the author's background and look for reasons the author might be against the subject. A big reason stands out for this one...
Amy might be all of these things, but just admit it, Bret... you don't like her because of her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
1
Amy Klobuchar's father was an alcoholic and, from the sounds of it, a pretty bad one. I just wonder if these character defects aren't associated with being a child of an alcoholic and the resulting unmanageability.
Amends are a fine thing, but sustainable change is hard. I think the best thing Amy could do is join Al-Anon and work on her emotional sobriety.
A mean boss is a mean boss. No one cares if it's a man or a woman. And anyone with a brain can tell the difference between a "demanding" boss and a mean, "demeaning" boss. If only those mean bosses were not given any oxygen and people refused to work with them, the world would be a better place.
79
OK Brett - now you need to go through all of the present and future Presidential candidates, male as well as female, interrogate their staffs, and decided if each one is or is not a "Horrible Boss". Then we all would have some basis on which to base our voting, if we think this information is indeed pertinent.
Personally I think there are far more important critria, so how about investigating their financial behavior, their tax records, who donates to their campaigns, what favors they've done for the rich and powerful, are they racist, if they are or are not climate change deniers, their position on excellent public schools, affordable higher education and medical care for everyone - etc. etc. and so forth. These are issues that are far more important to the country.
And finally, I am just disgusted by Conservative columnists, any columnists, any media, jumping with both feet on women candidates, for any office, far harder than on men. Yes, Bernie Sanders is an open book, thanks to the last election cycle, but how about the rest of them? Corey Booker voted against allowing people fill prescriptions in Canada. Considering the astronomical drug costs inflicted on the US, that is unconscionable. What about it Bret? Who are you going to investigate next?
1
One thing is for sure, if Ms. Kobuchar does not to a better job of explaining or making amends for her part in these accusations, it is going to be a heavy weight on her campaign. As Mr. Stephens says we've all had tough bosses and nasty bosses. We know the difference. And we know a great deal about nasty in the age of cut throats capitalism (swimming with sharks on the advice of Atilla the Hun) and "employment at will" to know we do not like it. Amy needs to fix this, because it will not go away by itself.
2
Mr. Stephens needs to read more carefully the biographies of Churchill as this is not the first time he has mined them for anecdotes he uses to make points that are fundamentally at odds with larger Churchill stories. The truth is, as Gilbert and other biographers of Churchill make clear, that he briefly, very briefly, heeded Clementine’s warning but within weeks was back to his old habits as to how he treated staff. As Stephens correctly points out, how Churchill treated his staff did not prevent Britain from winning the war, but if you are going to lead with a story about Churchill, shouldn’t it be one that supports the theme of the article?
“She can call every staffer she’s wounded and tell them she’s sorry, that it wasn’t right, that she’ll never behave that way again.”
I’m sure Sen. Klobuchar, who strikes me as a basically decent person, has tried to make amends this way more than once. But this kind of contrition is what an abusive parent or partner typically offers after the fact; whereupon the abuse begins anew. The senator often mentions having grown up with an alcoholic father. Of all the current Democratic contenders, I find Sen. Klobuchar the most plausible and would love to give her my wholehearted support. At the same time, I am skeptical of her ability to change her self-defeating behavior.
When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was the most admired woman in America. Once she decided to run for the presidency, everything from White Water to emails turned her into a villain. Amy Klobuchar in her interviews and other televised presentations show her to be highly intelligent, a worker and funny. She has the ability to laugh at herself, rare among the candidates I have followed so far. She does not shy away from controversial opinion and she also has a good chance to win in the mid-western states. She must be a threat, so the latest coverage of her is all about how mean she really is. The photograph chosen to run with this piece says volumes.
1
@patricia endresss
Hillary was only the most admired by those who worship her expertly crafted public image. Her emails and improper, if not illegal, email server in her home exposed the dangerous arrogance not previously seen by her followers. Here's some homework for you. Look up, and read, Executive order 13526, signed by Obama in 2009.
Hillary violated that order with her email server, her sloppy security practices and failure to set up and supervise an information security program in the State Department. She also, at her own admission, failed to take the required security training stipulated in the executive order. She should have been disciplined for that failure after the first year as secretary of State. Read it and see for yourself.
2
@patricia endresss
When Hillary Clinton was SoS, she was busy selling her office just like the Clintons have done with every office they ever held.
Check out the tens of millions the Clinton Slush Fund... I mean... er... Charity received from Russian interests not normally known for their charity work.
Right. Sure. Those temper tantrums are an indication of a personality and an attitude that will continue to surface into the future, no matter how much she apologizes to past victims. Those apologies are a ritual of polite society but they won't transform her brain and way of thinking. The solution to her tantrum dilemma is that she reverse her decision to run for president. It was her flawed personality and entitled attitude that inspired her to try for the office in the first place. One could say that her announcement to run for president was just a different manifestation of a personality that is prone to temper tantrums and humiliating treatment of her employees.
2
As we age, we tend only to become even more of what we have always been.
1
I call that bold talk from a Trumpist.
1
@Steve Bolger
Portly and kindly?
At 58, Amy Klobuchar's core personality is pretty much the way it will be until she dies. After all, she does claim to be an adult, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Sure, she can pretend to turn over a new leaf, perhaps through intense therapy, a personal epiphany, or a religious conversion, but I seriously doubt it will be more than for show. Ms. Klobuchar is apparently doing just good enough of a job as U.S. Senator for the overly nice people of Minnesota that she was re-elected twice, but the country doesn't need another narcissist as the next Democratic presidential nominee (been there, done that, got the "I'm with Her" t-shirt).
2
The comments defending Klobuchar's words and actions as simply being "tough" or as undue criticism because of her gender make me sad. It illustrates that many people are so used to abusive parents, bosses, co-workers, significant others, friends, etc. that they can't tell a superior demanding high standards from one who humiliates and insults their subordinates.
If you can't see if for yourself, consider what you would tell your child, grandchild, spouse, or friend if they worked for such a person. Would you tell them to suck it up?
4
No
2
I don’t know if it’s already been covered but the Senator’s behavior seems like a good candidate for inclusion should there ever be an update to Stanford professor Bob Sutton’s book “The No Asshole Rule.”
1
@EAS
I love that book. I recently had a horrible, controlling, demeaning boss. After leaving that company I sent that book to her. My hope is that a small tid bit of it will get through . . . but far too often people who exhibit these behaviors rarely if ever have personal insight. No matter, it felt good to push back in some small way.
I had bosses like the way she's been described. One or two were immediate bosses, others higher up the chain. They pretty much all crashed and burned. They did produce some good or even great work, but generally demoralized people, and many talented people went packing, and the group or organization foundered. I also worked for and witnessed bosses who were calmer and more supportive, who produced more by encouraging staff to take more responsibility, and making outcasts into productive team members. Personally I found that an abusive boss turns the relationship into something like an abusive parent-child relationship. He/she's going to hate what I give them, I'll just do a half-assed job and take my licks. Who knows if that's why
Klobuchar's aide dropped or forgot the plasticware for her salad, but it wouldn't surprise me.
3
Petty tyranny is a scale-independent attitude. There is no such thing as a dream job working for such people, even at the highest levels.
2
I initially went all in for Amy Klobuchar. I like her politics. Frankly, I am not convinced by the exposes of her hidden “Bossy Dearest”. But I think this opinion piece is very good and clear-eyed advice. Amy has a lot to offer this country. If there really is baggage, she ought to confront it. There is no doubt that the botverse will still taunt her regardless (her instagram account is rife already with nasty comments) but it is far easier to confront one’s difficulties from the higher ground.
2
Whether or not a horrible person can be a great boss depends upon the nature of the horribleness and the boss. Amy Klobuchar's reported behavior depicts her as a monstrous mean inhumane ignorant immature immoral intemperate and insecure.
The way you treat your underlings and the little people tells you all you need to know. Amy Klobuchar needs to be gone very quickly.
5
[She suspects office moles. She attempts to sabotage the job prospects of those who want to resign. She reproaches her staff with her own self-pity.
On a trip to South Carolina, forkless, she makes an aide wash her comb after she’s used it to eat a salad — but apparently not before.]
What is the need to consider her at all? She's a monster besides being a little strange.
Democrats have more than enough decent human beings available as competent alternatives. Again, why the need to consider the likes of her?
As to the column, the part about Clementine's letter to her husband telling him to show more civility towards his subordinates showed how the role of the wife/husband-confidant can be crucial in the course of history.
Not only was Churchill favored by such a relationship but also Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister May, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Obama to name a few.
Unfortunately, Melania does not appear to have such a relationship. Pity.
1
This editorial appears in the same issue as an article about the ineffectiveness of abusive bosses. The difference is that the article cites research and interviews business professors. Abusive bosses are not only sadistic, they are also ineffective. Please stick to the facts when you draw conclusions.
In today's Republicon world of petty sabotage of others and unthinking loyalty to their own, it's difficult to take any critical comments they may make about others seriously. There may in fact be a grain of truth in this article, but to consider it able to accurately make the distinction between tough and demanding leadership, and horribleness is simply not a possibility. Frankly, Republicon's penchant for projection of their own faults onto others has taken it's toll....on them!
This is how the destruction of a woman candidate begins....are we talking about her policies? No. The focus is on her personality. I'm so sick of our falling into this trap.
5
On Klobuchar, just say no. We can do better than this mediocrity from Minnesota. And at this point no sensible person would trust any apology campaign from her.
1
“She can call every staffer she’s wounded and tell them she’s sorry, that it wasn’t right, that she’ll never behave that way again.”
Yeah, right, whatever.
Can a horrible boss be a great leader? No and no and no. Powerful, yes. Great, no.
Many talented, narcissistic, abusive people are particularly skilled at manipulating their environment to achieve and maintain power. Their employees or staff members toe the line because they have to, not because they want to.
That is different than being a great leader who is demanding and respectful and inspiring to those who work for him/her. Great leaders are transformative.
You want to talk great leaders? How about Gandhi?
Sorry, Brett. A great leader and a horrible boss are not even in the same ballpark.
1
Really, Mr. Stephens. In a week when there is a presidential summit between world leaders, when Michael Cohen is giving testimony to Congress regarding the crimes and misdemeanors of Donald Trump, when there is an historic vote on gun control, as well as numerous other national and local issues you could have addressed, what made you choose to write about Amy Klobuchar supposedly being a 'bad boss'? It is especially puzzling as one of your colleagues had written a remarkably similar column only about a week ago.
If indeed all the allegations made anonymously are true, it is disturbing, but can you be sure these stories are not vastly exaggerated? You admit that 61 former staffers signed a public letter supporting her.
And finally, would this even be a story if it was about a male candidate? What is it with the New York Times? It is still only February 2019 and this is the second article on Ms. Klobuchar being a 'bad boss'. We have already been subjected to a couple of stories on how Elizabeth Warren may not be 'likable' enough, not to mention the numerous articles written, harping on about her heritage. The New York Times seems relentless in its criticism of female candidates, as it was of Hilary Clinton and her emails, only to deliver us Trump, the worst president in history.
3
To paraphrase from the often-hokey but mostly-wise novel Dune, "A leader maintains the level of individuals; if individuals degrade all you have is a mob."
Hurling abuse at your underlings over petty issues certainly does not maintain the level of the individual.
2
Being a terrible boss stems from deep insecurity and lack of confidence in both oneself and others. And how is that helpful when one has the presidency, that most stressful of jobs?!
1
No. Churchill was not only a national leader, but a leader of his subordinates - where he was failing. Klobuchar is in a leadership role as a senator, but clearly failing as a leader in her role as the boss. Horrible bosses lack self awareness. Horrible bosses have large, uncontrolled egos. Horrible bosses manage up. Horrible bosses damage the people they lead.
All of us have egos. Most of us are aware of our egos and struggle to manage them. Some - the 1% as I see it - appear to have no egos and are among the best leaders (think Lincoln). The remainder live their lives completely unaware that their egos dominate their every decision. These are the horrible bosses.
Horrible bosses who succeed do so on the backs of their abused staffs. In a way, Trump has succeeded in that manner (think Cohen).
Ms. Klobuchar, if the NYT story is accurate, will not apologize to the subordinates she has abused. She likely - as horrible bosses do - feels that she is the one who has been wronged, disappointed and let down by incompetent staffers. Horrible bosses, in my experience are generally to obtuse for redemption.
Great leaders recognize that subordinates' is critical to their own genuine and enduring success. That their mood contagious. That their people deserve the credit when things are going well and that they, themselves, take the hit when things are going poorly.
Did you really have to pick that photo? I've seen many photos of Klobuchar, and she doesn't usually look angry and mean. While this may seem like a trivial thing, I've noticed how the media selects photos to influence how we feel about public figures. You seem to have a cache of unflattering photos of female candidates.
4
Democrats will fail to defeat the catastrophe that is tRump if we are going to focus on personal faults and likability of candidates, particularly the women. We saw the never ending questioning of Hillary about e-mail and critical analysis of her personality or lack of personality. Meantime a con man, liar and grabber of women dominated the media and marched to victory. Surely the media will not repeat that error?
Bullies are not leaders. End of discussion.
2
First, using a comb to eat when necessary is clever. Asking an assistant to wash it afterward is no big deal.
Second, it’s not ok to be a bully whether you are a man or a woman. I’m sad that it’s taking what I suspect is our higher expectations of women to readjust our previously lower expectations of men (with Trump a prime example). At least, that’s what I hope will eventually be the end product of this calling out.
1
From the headline, I assumed that you were talking about Trump.
The answer is "no".
I disagree on one point.
You say “The statute of limitations on apologies never expires.”
With Trump, it expired ages ago.
Sounds like an effective manager but not a great leader of people. Sorry Amy, not this time.
Guilty until proven innocent?
1
Bernie Sanders 30+ years in Congress, 7 bills, all co-sponsored. Amy Klobuchar 23 years in Congress, 33 bills, some co-sponsored, some she went solo. This is the white male smear campaign. If you are going to criticize management behavior, then do it across gender, race, ethnicity. Has any journalist now wringing their hands about Klobuchar, done any investigation of the behavior of those anonymous men for whom we, the tax payers, have paid to silence their assault victims? How about that for being a bad boss? This is so transparently white male fear of women.
2
@candaceb108
So what were the results of legislation she sponsored? Did it substantially help many people? Senators like Warren and Sanders have much larger goals. It’s very easy to pass legislation when you don’t get pushback from many in Congress and it does little to change the status quo.
1
Remind me of what St. Bernie actually got done.
1
Bret Stephens definition of "horrible boss" does not ever include a boss who directs his employees to lie and cheat small subcontractors and use a charitable foundation's money to buy a hugely overpriced portrait of himself so he can hang it on his wall and admire it. After all if such a corrupt "boss" is a Republican, then Stephens is so proud of the Republican congressmen who adore and enable him.
Bret Stephens has lost his way and it is truly abhorrent to read Stephens' petty attacks on a woman while he defends the most corrupt boss who - aside from selling out our country - has directed his employees to use a charity's money for his own benefit. Stephens is good with all that! Stephens says the Republicans who enable this corrupt boss are so admirable to him.
What a shameful display of hypocrisy by a NY Times columnist who has absolutely no shame when it comes to defending the Republican "bosses" who enable corruption.
Who cares what the question is, the answer is we need someone like Amy K to beat DJT in 2020. Let him try his dirty trick to intimidate a woman during the debates and he will see what some women are capable of. The era of if they go low, you go high is gone with Obama in the fall of 2016. Today if they go low, you go lower.
1
What calvary man said you always water your horses first?
A good boss is hard to find. The big problem for me with Ms. Klobuchar is the self pity; "how could God do this to me?", other wise I am impressed with her career and politics.
1
Ok here goes:
I was a young sailor back in the early 1990's. We had a new officer report aboard. Things were going well until he had had enough. Uh oh! From that day, he would rip our chief and then work his way down. I mean demeaning words, swearing (sailors c'mon it's what we do) and everything else to publicly humiliate us.
Turns out he was the best boss I ever had. Why? He saw what we were capable of but weren't displaying it. He got us to work at a high level.
He knew his stuff too, and that made ALL the difference. So to answer the question can a horrible boss be a great leader? If they know their stuff? Yes.
Who is leaking this stuff? Are these leftover Clinton operatives, masters of what-about-ism deflection. Don't forget that both Birtherism and the Steele Dossier came from the Clinton campaign.
1
This is the advice Steve Jobs gave new Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi:
“He said, if you really feel strongly about something — if you don’t like something people are doing — throw a temper tantrum,” Nooyi said. “Throw things around, because people have got to know that you feel strongly about it.”
If I’d tried such a skilled tactic of anger at my government job, I’d have been hauled into the rubber room for ram-work counseling and likely accused of creating a hostile work environment.
1
We're going to see flaws in all the candidates who jockey to be the anointed one. Warren's ridiculous Native American heritage and her inept attempt to prove the untrue. Booker's obvious Edward Heath like appetites. Harris's prosecutorial hard line on criminality. Sander's shortcomings with his female staff. And of course Biden's age and long vulnerable legislative record. We must not get lost with all these transgressions. Trump will pick them apart one by one.....Let's just find the best person for the job. Klobuchar doesn't rise to the task even without her nasty countenance.
1
When I read the title of this article, I thought it would be about Trump. Nope. It's about a woman. Surprise, surprise! Many of the bosses in DC are bad bosses, and most are men. Kindly refer me to the last 3 columns you wrote about how they cannot lead. Can't find any? Gee, I'm so shocked! (NOT!).
1
Oh stop it! I am so tired of the likeability argument being applied to presidential candidates. And it may take someone really horrible to out-horrible the most horrible president we've ever had.
1
Effective, yes. Great? A resounding no.
For all we know, Churchill was not the nicest person, but a leader he was ...
Maybe Stephens should take a close look at Steve Jobs, or LBJ, or Larry Ellison, or Jack Welch.... the list of successful and admired men who were/ are utter jerks to employees is endless. I guess Stephens can't handle the idea of a woman who leads effectively but treats employees poorly.
1
The Klobuchar staff stories reek of a dark, back-stabbing attack by one of the other senators running for president. Reporters do not find this kind of story, it is handed to them.
No, for sure these are planted stories, planted by one of her opponents and almost certainly by one of the other senators running for president.
Two sides to every story is a fundamental rule in journalism as in life so the other side of this story is not whether some staff past and present defend Klobuchar.
No, the real other side of the story is which other candidate leaked it to reporters? Which other candidate perceives him or herself most threatened by Klobuchar's candidacy and is such a low-life as to have done this?
Here's a challenge to other reporters, find the source of the stories; a challenge even to other reporters at The Times not in on the identify of the source. Find him or her and report it. That's as reporters are want to say, also "a good yarn".
At least three news organizations have now run original Klobuchar staff stories. My certain bet is that there is a single source for all of them and if that -- if so-- that person is the one not fit to be president.
1
Why did Bret pen this gem? A major issue that needs public comment? Or, is Bret just concerned about a woman having a hissy fit? Conservatives, you can lead them to water, but you can't make them drink.
1
Okay, snowflakes, let's get over ourselves. We're not electing a PTA chair here, we're electing a president.
She had better be tough... and demanding... and have high expectations... and hold people to task.
She'll be running the most powerful, most wealthy nation on the planet.
If she wants to eat her salad with a comb, I really don't care. Do YOU?
86
@E
Yes, I do care. After Trump we must have a president of honest character and an appropriate demeanor. He or she does not have to be Lincoln, but the closer one can get to Lincoln's honesty, humility, understanding and sense of humor, the better. And how about someone with a professional attitude to the job? Who actually rewards competence and expertise in others. Who treats subordinates with consideration while setting an example of professional behavior. Who reads the briefing materials and asks questions. Someone who does not rely on his/her "gut" to make decisions. Character & fitness to serve are essential qualities in all presidents, but especially in our next president.
46
Actually, I do care whether or not she eats with a comb. Imo, this is not just a matter of temperament, it’s a sign of dysfunctionality, and a clear one. I would not want a Commander In Chief who so clearly thinks with her emotions from such an immature place.
28
@E Tough and demanding is Muelle
Dictatorial and unpredictable is Klobuchar.
One creates respect; the other distrust.
Those of us who have had both types of bosses know the difference.
PS: That's United States Veteran "snowflake" to you.
35
You can tell a good leader because people want to follow her or him.
Isn't that what 'leading' means? Not threatening people to follow but inspiring them to follow through your actions?
Obama was a leader. JFK and FDR (and even Reagan) were great leaders. People looked up to them and followed them because they thought well of them, admired them, were always treated with respect, trusted them, believed in their judgement and direction, and were never physically, verbally or emotionally belittled.
And that's what leadership is all about.
2
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the choice of Boss in Chief is between Amy Klobuchar and Donald Trump, Senator Klobuchar still wins as she values competence more than Trump does.
2
I once worked for a large law firm that had a horrible boss in one of its partners. This man went through paralegals and secretaries in record numbers. He screamed. He threw heavy law books at people, that could really do damage if they hit you. He demeaned people for the smallest infractions. He created havoc. What stopped him were all the complaints coming to the other partners and the treat of lawsuits from ex-employees. Since he was a partner, it was difficult to get rid of him, but his office was moved from a choice corner location to a smaller room on a lower floor. He was isolated and there were no other offices around him, not even for his secretary, who stayed on the floor above. He was shunned by the other partners and pressured to leave, which he eventually did. The whole firm breathed a sigh of relief that day. Even though he brought clients to the firm, his terrorizing staff wasn't compensation enough. Sometimes putting up with a horrible boss just isn't worth it.
1
Based on some of the comments I’ve seen to these stories about Klobuchar during the past couple weeks, the media is creating, probably inadvertently, another Hillary Clinton. You can see people rallying to her defense, insisting that this criticism is entirely sexist, and seeing her as a victim now. A majority, not all, who are defending Klobuchar are in her demographic, similar to Clinton’s strongest defenders- white women, some who also identify as lawyers. This perception created by Clinton’s supporters hurt her in 2016. You don’t see Warren or Harris relying on this perception that they’re victims, and this will ultimately hurt Klobuchar’s campaign, in addition to the reported criticism.
2
The last line is priceless.
1
Most of Bret's columns are insighful - this one especially. Am hoping Klobuchar can change her ways: we've had more than enough highly flawed presidents; we need somebody who can A) beat Trump and B) merit respect once in office.
1
I had a horrible boss. She was (and is) brilliant, but she destroyed the gifts of those around her. She belittled people, she threw things at them, she sought to punish those she thought (wholly without reason) had betrayed her. She might have been great, but she was not because of the way she abused people.
Maybe Amy Klobuchar can redeem herself. But if so, she needs to immediately seek some help, and to admit that the way she has been acting towards her subordinates is not just a matter of being tough, it is a matter of being abusive. I am a democratic voter and in the primaries I cannot support an abuser. The time for her to change is now!
To summarize: What goes around, comes around. Klobuchar should not be looking at her staff. She needs to look over her shoulder. For, unless she has an epiphany, the coming around is right around the corner. And once it arrives she will look at those around her to find a scapegoat. Instead of looking in the right place. The mirror. I am very disappointed to see the luster is off the apple. And we didn't even get a chance to take our first bite of it. The silver lining here is better now than a year from now.
1
I've worked for a truly awful boss, the kind of boss where at least once a month you find yourself telling her "I can't sign that." And along with Amy Klobuchar, their behavior mimics that of a typical domestic violence perpatrator. If we learned anything from the current President, surely it's that character matters. Integrity is what you have when no one is looking. I had felt pretty good about Ms. Klobuchar, until we found out what she's like when no one's looking.
1
I will make a prediction: Amy Klobuchar will never be president!
1
A negative assessment always feels horrible. The question is whether it is rooted in fact and whether the lack of performance matches the delivery of the negative assessment.
Achieving maximal performance without the occasional negative sanctions that result from lack of performance (i.e. being a slacker) is difficult to achieve.
However, a leader who wields power disproportionately will lose respect. Finding the right balance is what determines success.
As for Churchill and Jobs: They turned the corner from struggling leaders to greatness.
Even great leaders are not born. They have to learn to become great.
As I understand it, Steve Jobs was an incredibly difficult man under which to work. His insults were personal and he publicly berated his employees; and look what he accomplished. In his biography of Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson interviewed numerous Apple employees who said that while it was difficult working under Jobs, he helped them see what they were truly capable of. Jobs is often described as a visionary. And no one ever asked him to make amends. Mr. Stephens why is that Amy Klobuchar needs to make amends for being someone that is demanding that gets the job done when we don't ask the same of men?
68
@Duane
Did he throw objects at his staff and prevent them from gaining employment elsewhere? That’s beyond “demanding.”
6
I would ask the same if men& I do.
1
@Duane
His vision was to use chinese sweat shops to make highly stylized and overpriced phones, and prior to that, overpriced home PC's. If that is visionary to you... Sigh.
13
A horrible boss is a horrible boss, woman or man alike. Men get away with it more easily, of course, but that doesn’t mean that we should accept that type of behavior from a woman. We have plenty of qualified democratic candidates. This type of behavior is disqualifying in my mind.
2
Yes, the devil wears Prada. So do I, when I can get it on deep clearance at a well known, fabulous, Seattle based Department Store. Sunglasses and Shoes, as they don’t dress larger Gals.
No, I probably wouldn’t like working for the Senator, If these reports are true. But, she DOES get things done, and those things are undoubtedly legal. She works for her constituents, to inprove their lives. Maybe she WILL check herself.
Trump: I wouldn’t work for him, in any capacity, for all the looted cash stashed in various Trump Properties worldwide. He’s not the Devil, but he’s Devil adjacent. A den of thieves, liars and unrepentant frauds. Period.
1
Column links Kobuchar's temper to Trump's, gets in digs at democrat LBJ and liberal Steve Jobs and even manages to toss Neville Chamberlain into the mix. Altogether now -- nobody pay attention to that man in the oval office involved in actual criminal behavior. Winston Churchill didn't apologize for his rough speech and neither should Klobuchar. What Churchill did was alter his behavior, Klobuchar can do the same. No fanfare necessary.
In fact, Churchill's beliefs and behaviors were Aryan-centric and he expressed quite some delight in go about in "jolly little wars" and killing people he termed "savages." There's really no comparison between Klobuchar, an Churchill, who got his start as a warrior of empire.
1
I'll say it again:
If your response to Klobuchar's behavior is to say, "but men," or "but Republicans," then I have good news for you.
Your guy is already in office.
2
This article should have focused more upon Trump.
As an incrementalist, Klobuchar doesn’t stand for anything. No inspiring ideas. That makes her a manager rather than a leader.
Now it turns out, she’s a horrible manager.
Why are we even discussing her candidacy?
3
leopards don't change their spots
1
If you are not a people person, no, you cannot be a great leader.
1
No a horrible boss cannot be a great leader. Bullying and demeaning people is sign of great fear and weakness. I don't want a scared and weak leader who has to shove people around to feel less afraid or more important. That is dictator stuff, thank you very much.
2
Mr. Stephens,
Would you name that editor from your youth whom you disparage?
If not, why not?
If his behavior was so abysmal, he deserves to be called out by name, right? Or doesn’t he?
If he doesn’t, then is it fair to use him as an example? Can he respond? Is he still alive? Would he or his family appreciate your characterization?
2
This is the third hit piece in the Times on Sen. Klobuchar, in the short time since she announced her candidacy. Is it going to be Hillary all over again?
2
Hopefully so and well deserved in both instances!
Bret, if only you were as critical of any republican, whether it be Donald Trump or Brett Kavanaugh, as you are of any democrat and especially female democrats. There seems to be an underlying misogyny in your writing. You can try to make it about manners or behavior but until you hold Trump to the same standard, your criticisms don’t hold water.
4
There is that film, "Whiplash"....
My personal opinion is that the difference lies in the extent to which a leader is tough for the sake of others--whether it be the company, the art or science to be created, the customers to be served--rather than for his/her own personal sake (career, success, baser instincts).
This difference is just felt, and permeates relationships on the job.
I defy you to find one — just one — man about whom this would ever be a topic of conversation, let alone a defining one.
For shame, Brett Stephens.
3
The problem isn't that Klobuchar is hard on her staff. The problem is that she presents one persona to the public while her private persona is 180 degrees opposite. In short, she's a fraud.
1
Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned it IS too late
1
I wonder if she’s been going crazy on her staff every day as a result of all these unfavorable articles about her. I hope they’re not suffering any more than they have been.
1
People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses.
1
Klobuchar is no Winston Churchill, but this is Bret Stephens.
1
Klobuchar does not have the good sense to come inside out of the snow.
Next.
2
Google, "The Fable of the Bees." Sixty years before, "The Wealth of Nations."
This candidacy has begun to wither on the vine. Negative press out the gate and a lack of remorse spells an immature demise.
So long Amy, we hardly knew yah.
1
When you are a boss or a coach or anyone who is in charge or a large group of people, you are never going to please everyone. Accentuating the negative is what the news media thrives on. Being demanding is not bullying, and it makes people uncomfortable but if you are demanding good it is worth the price of scorn.
1
I had one or two horrible bosses over the years. Colleagues who had been in the forces described one of them as the kind his own men shot, given the opportunity. Some were just nit pickers with no particular talent in detecting nits to pick.
The best had the Bell Labs policy: my door is always open to anybody- once. If you have something of interest, it will stay open. If you waste my time- it won't.
My problem with this issue is that no context has ever been provided. Were those who were accused of sloppiness repeat offenders? One can tolerate sloppiness for only so long before tolerance turns to anger. How many prior chances had the offenders been given?
What is the relevance of eating a salad with a comb? If I were famished and that was the only "utensil" I had, I'd make the most of it. Stephens makes no reference to the fact that Klobuchar has one of the highest rates of success in getting laws passed on a bipartisan basis. This country is screaming for that quality. If that record propels her into the White House, I don't care if she eats ice cream with chop sticks.
2
Having worked for an endless string of horrible bosses, male and female, I felt that familiar shudder of dread when I read of Senator Klobuchar's behavior toward her staff. In this case, statistics don't lie: her staff turnover is evidence enough of why she shouldn't be president, no matter how admirable her positions on the issues are.
We’ve had enough of Trump. We don’t need anyone like him and his bad behavior. So that counts her out. We’ve had enough. They should pick up their toys and go home. Neither of them will find support here. It matters only moderately that she is a woman,
What has her meanness accomplished? Is it the only thing that sets her apart from other senators?
The most important feature of this column is Stephens' suggesting "a path back", i.e., reconciliation. In Senator Klobuchar it is as simple as an apology and a commitment to correct some disagreeable and inappropriate behavior.
In the case of men who have sexually harassed work colleagues a more extensive regimen--an acknowledgment, an apology and volunteering in a women's shelter for 3, 6 or 12 months and actually spending time with the victims of abuse would be a path forward.
Everyone in life has things to regret. We all need to make amends to others. Let's stop treating the admission of this truism as disqualifying and acknowledge it as a strength of character. I too hope the Senator has a Clementine whispering in her ear.
no way she'll get my vote.
2
When a Republican pundit like Stephens warns us about a Democratic Presidential candidate it means that the candidate constitutes a genuine threat to the Republican agenda. Klobuchar’s intolerance of incompetence has not resulted in a mass exodus. How widespread does Klobuchar’s temper extend? Her entire staff? Or is it confined to specific incidents or a person?
If Republicans don’t like a Democratic Candidate, everyone must consider the likelihood that the Candidate is the Republicans worst fear.
1
I hope you thought to cc this to Senator Klobacher.
She appears to be someone with the appropriate mix of attributes we will need in 2020. It would be unfortunate if this personal behavior towards those working for her cannot be recognized by her and amended.
The only boss I had who was a bully was a woman. She failed to make partner but was never told that bullying was unacceptable. I blame her bosses for allowing her conduct to continue. I asked her boss why she did not make partner and he answered we don’t promote “ child abusers.” That was not enough. In the case of Klobuchar, the electorate are her bosses. She needs to go. If women are to achieve the highest levels of leadership we cannot allow cruel and demeaning behavior from them. The same applies to men, Donald Trump.
1
I always learned the most from my worst bosses; i.e., how not to treat people.
She is the child of an alcoholic father who probably grew up experiencing a lot of out of control behavior. Unfortunately a lot of people don't realize that even if you don't drink yourself you can mimic the behaviors witnessed in childhood. I assume that she has never been in therapy or addressed what she went through as a child. Too bad, because I think that she would have made a great President .
3
I know Mr. Stephens is looking for an alternative to Trump, but there's a tone of desperation in this essay that is truly dismaying. Comparing the self-proclaimed "Senator Next Door" to Churchill?!? Good grief!
2
After Trump do we need to consider anyone of any race and gender who has a track record like this. Forget it. She should leave the field as it will be too crowded anyway.
I remain dismayed that people defend Klobuchar's behavior under the guise that criticism of it is sexist. No. Abuse of power is wrong, no matter the gender of the person in charge. I strongly suspect those defending Klobuchar are not defending the abusive behavior of the current occupant of the White House towards his staff, which has led to chaotic turnover in his administration. Why would we want more of the same from a President Klobuchar?
You dismiss 60 staffers out of hand, don’t mention that the staff turnover coincided with many getting jobs in Obama admin, that there are two with higher and turnover can mean a boss helps employees move up and on. That the whole story seems to hinge on s couple of anonymous aides. And that the salad story seems more a tale of her resourcefulness and the aide’s lack of attention to detail. I find the whole storyline stinks of smear campaign founded in shifting sand.
3
"The statute of limitations on apologies never expires." Indeed!
A caveat. If, and when, one chooses, and is capable, to make needed amends it is useful to distinguish between:
"I apologize for...," and
"I ask you to forgive me for..."
The former leaves the power with the "transgressor.
The latter leaves the choice, decision and power with the transgressed.
Beyond semantics.
Fostering much-needed-menschlichkeit during these daily violating times.
1
Sadly, the recent Times article and this one about Ms Klobuchar's behavior seemed long on innuendo and judgement, but short of actual fact. As I recall the first article didn't say that she threw things at staff, didn't describe context, had few direct quotes from the aggrieved. This opinion did not offer anything new except an anecdote about Churchill.
1
"Though the senator has her defenders — 61 former staffers signed a public letter supporting her — the essential truth of The Times’s story is attested by the fact that for years she has had among the highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate."
Without substantiating evidence detailing the reasons for those employees leaving their jobs or being fired, this is an obvious logical fallacy.
3
I had a very well known boss who threw staplers at staff when she got angry. Fortunately she always missed. We loved her nevertheless— but you never wanted to get her angry. Which meant we were the smartest, most hardworking people in the neighborhood.
Amy has my vote.
1
My Dear Bret,
Please never ever forget the terrible atrocities and policy failures of LBJ in Vietnam, along with medicare.
I was an HR executive for many years. One thing I learned early in my career is that there are two sides to every story. I don't think you have done enough investigation to make such sweeping allegations about Klobuchar's skills as a leader. What is the other side? Did the offended workers do terrible work? Were they frequently absent or late to work? Did they not follow instructions in doing their work? Were they disloyal? I need to know more before I write off the good senator from Minnesota. If an apology is in order, it may be one such as, "I am sorry you were offended". In terms of eating her salad with a comb, I give her credit for using the tools she had available to accomplish the job at hand. People who grow up in the Midwest learn to adapt and adjust.
2
I'm not buying the horribleness claim. I don't recall anyone putting their name to these claims. The only names were the 58 employees who wrote to support her.
She went from a bright shining light to having to make amends in a three week period....all because of anonymous claims.
Over a forty year career I experienced several competent, but uninspiring bosses, one excellent, inspiring boss, and one very accomplished boss, with a penchant for losing his temper every 2-3 months. The worst boss was incompetent, petty, and impulsive.
I'm taking an open view to Amy Klobuchar. She is anything but incompetent.
93
Doesn’t having the highest turnover of staff in the Senate say something? Doesn’t the prospect of retaliation say something?
6
@RJG
It would mean more if they weren't faceless claims and if the highest staff turnover statistics were reliable. The statistics quoted used higher values for departing senior officials than lower level staff. It worries me that the "facts"used to paint a damaging portrait of a candidate have not been verified.
4
@RJG How do you count the 22 employees who took jobs with Obama? Should these former employees be subtracted from the list? An interesting question: How many of the negative comments are from supporters of other candidates. Finally, it appears that the NYT went through their photo file to find Klobuchar looking mean and grumpy. A coincidence?
8
This is so true. I'm a staunch feminist but I think that feminists who are apologists for Ms Klobuchar because men get away with bad behavior and women don't, are just wrong. I don't want to lower the bar for these creeps, male or female, I want to raise it.
I worked for a bully and a sadist (a man), His boss was a woman who refused to do anything about his behavior because he worked all the time -16 hour days were routine for him. He tried to poke my eye out with a pencil, slammed his fist into the wall of my cubby. You get it. We all worked in constant fear of his volcanic anger and vicious verbal abuse. The long term damage this man did is incalculable - symptoms of PTSD. I want leaders in charge, not bosses. Isn't the ultimate test of one's humanity a capacity for empathy - not just in attitude but in behavior? We don't need charging bulls hopped up on their own egos, we need decency. I will never vote for Amy Klobuchar.
1
Wow, your experience was terrible. But you should know that the off-the-record whispers of reported former staffers of Sen. Klobuchar do not approach your experience. Holding Klobuchar accountable for your old boss’ bad behavior seems unreasonable.
2
I would never trust a mean boss to be a good boss or a good leader. It is the boss's job to make things go right. If a boss is yelling at, threatening, or throwing food at subordinates, it is a clear indication that the boss doesn't understand where the responsibility for failure lies. Maybe there is one day that a boss can't avoid making a subordinate feel miserable--the day she fires that subordinate. But a good boss should understand that even that failure (of hiring or training) is ultimately her responsibility. Unless I find out that reports of Amy Klobuchar's mean-spirited managerial "style" are exaggerated, I won't be voting for her. A horrible boss is bad boss, and a failure as a leader.
So in the age of Trump and of powerful personality cults, we're simply supposed to take this politically convenient opposition research at face value.
I can not but feel in today’s environment that if Klobuchar were a man a lot of this behavior would be considered par for the course, nothing to write home about or even admirable, When men stoop to criticize women they should be automatically suspect and worse yet Mr.Stephens does not work for this woman! Hearsay and rumor about behavior aren’t great analysis for policy or leadership. Stick to the high end criticism.
2
This column assumes the Times story is an accurate description of Senator Klobuchar's relationship with her staff. Until former staffers are willing to go on record with their stories, their allegations have zero credibility. Certainly the long list of staffers who have gone on the record in favor of Senator K's leadership skills must be valued more than the off-the-record whispers. Bret's citation of "turnover math" as evidence of bad behavior is flawed -- the rate of turnover on the Hill has dramatically increased across all offices as the Millennial tendency for changing jobs has taken hold. Without real evidence, the original NYT story simply is the result of consultants for other campaigns looking to define Klobuchar in a negative way early and hard. The NYT and Bret should be more careful before parroting a competitive campaign's talking points and strategy. Do the work please.
3
Perhaps up to a point. One cannot be a leader if no one will follow.
1
Great piece. I’m not sure exactly where I stand at the moment regarding Ms Klobuchar’s fitness for office but I will say this...America truly lost a great potential president when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. The guy truly gained wisdom and was deeply focused on a transformation of his world view in the last 2-4 years of his life, but he too could be an awful, demanding, mercurial and at times an unpredictably humiliating boss. He also had so much baggage in his background...from Joe McCarthy supporter, Kennedy fixer, colluding with Soviet spy Georgi Bolshskov, freelancing on covert action in Cuba...you name it. He was also a man with tremendous energy, drive, compassion, empathy and yes...the pugnacious “attitude” of a street fighter...and above all an unwavering commitment to the primacy of public service.
Put it out there...let Klobuchar address it and let the voters decide.
I’ve worked for 3 bad bosses. The one thing I learned is not to act like them.
1
Klobuchar obviously has issues as a boss. Though 61 former staffers signing a letter of support also needs to be weighed in the mix.
But where are the stories and columns about Bernie looking the other way on sexual harassment in 2016? Can we have a piece or two on how Gillibrand was a hotshot tobacco lawyer before running for office?
Warren lied for decades about her heritage for personal advancement. Harris appeared to date men who could further her career.
Yet all we hear is about how Klobuchar was a lousy boss. She is also clearly the most electable democrat. Curious!
I thought her eating with a comb was inventive. She could go farther even with some bad boss baggage. Anyway, Pete Buttigieg is the one I like.
1
Why on earth is everyone so ready to believe some anonymous ex staffers, half of whom stories seem to me to speak far more of their own unfitness, dismissing many ready to go on record to counter, ignoring the long tenured of her top people, and assuming things about turnover that simply cannot be assumed? I do think you’ve all been played and coopted by a smear campaign.
3
No, a horrible boss cannot be a great leader. If she shows true remorse and changes her ways it might help her career. Her presidential ambitions are probably done, though. Only Republicans survive this type of criticism. Dem voters require more of their party leaders.
It's an old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, as well, that you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy. I think Amy fits both of these and needs to look carefully in the mirror, seek public redemption and hope for the best. I probably wouldn't vote for her.
There is a difference between a "tough" boss and a "toxic" boss. If what I've read about Klobuchar is true, she is a "toxic" boss, and I will not vote for her. I'm a Liberal Democrat and I agree with Bret Stephens.
1
@DAN0804
Well bully for you, you’re easy to sway with a little op-ed. So what about Bernie and his horde of toxic people?
There will be examples of cruel bosses who achieved great things. Maybe they had other skills so great, so unique, that they earned enough respect of their subordinates to lead effectively. We see this in performing arts - usually a mean musical director is also a brilliant musician. But most bad bosses aren’t so awesome. In fact, in my experience, they are painfully aware of their own mediocrity, and so they believe that they need to be “tough” (cruel for everyone else) to earn the respect they demand. Funny thing is, before they are promoted, these people are easy to spot. In an office, they should never, ever be promoted to manage people. But they are, by lazy senior managers who should’ve known better. It’s different with elected officials because voters won’t know about the candidate’s cruelty. But in this instance, we do now.
5
In my opinion, humans need to work on the reality that they need great leaders in the first place.
Just why do we need great leaders?
Are we individually that weak?
A little national soul searching on that question just might make it easier for truly honest, good, thoughtful, fair, balanced, and consistent citizens to step forward and serve the nation.
We, the citizens, need to get beyond our crutch of needing great leaders and take on the responsibility for maintaining and bettering our nation, our democracy, and our failing national morality ourselves. Then we might just actually get great leaders, regularly.
Currently our collective mental laziness, susceptibility for the huckster, and lack of thoughtfulness only perpetuates the ancient Ship of State conundrum.
MB
2
We need great leaders because people don’t want to think. They want to be told what to do. This is why Trump (although a lousy awful rotten to the core leader) is so popular. He tells people what to do.
1
Throwing a substantial object and striking any co-worker; subordinate, peer or superior; constitutes felony assault in many jurisdictions. Anyone engaging in such conduct should be terminated from their position & prosecuted aggressively for the assault. An executive that fails to act immediately on this level of obvious criminal conduct is an immediate danger to the entire staff and the enterprise in general. To me, it is inconceivable that anyone, evidently enjoying the advantages of a college education, would see any ambiguity in such a situation. Unless of course, they attended a Catholic institution, in which case; physical assaults are just part of the training.
2
I am pushing 70 and I have been a leader, a supervisor , a Director of a Division of 100 people and a lowly disrespected worker. It is ALWAYS about respect and Bret Stephen has it exactly right.
6
What I find amazing about Mr. Stephens' commentary, the comments here and the Times' and BuzzFeed's stories about Senator Klobuchar's alleged "bad behavior," is that there has been little to no real corroboration of almost all of the allegations. Unnamed sources, anonymous gripes. And why give more credence to those than the
61 (!) former staffers who signed a letter indicating that they had been contacted by the Times, but their apparently positive accounts of Senator Klobuchar were not considered newsworthy or included in the Times' article. Once again, it seems that the woman candidate is supposed to abase herself, "apologize," make amends etc. Mr. Stephens gives Lyndon Johnson, Steve Jobs & Anna Winotur a pass because of their accomplishments. So why not Senator Klobuchar, who is highly rated for passing legislation? This focus on Senator Klobuchar's alleged "boss behavior," is just a variation of Hillary Clinton not being "likeable." Maybe the best response this time to Mr. Stephens & the rest of his ilk who want women candidates to be "nicer," is the Canadian suffragist Nellie McClung's quote: "Never retract, never explain, never apologize; get things done and let them howl."
9
As a professional dancer I can say that 3 of the greatest choreographers of all time were horrible bosses: George Balanchine (who used to treat his dancers as objects), Jerome Robbins (who his dancers hated so much that they did not warn him as he spoke, stepping backwards, falling off the stage into the orchestra pit) and the fantastic Gene Kelly. All 3 were disparaging toward the dancers they oversaw. All 3 were historically brilliant creatively. Robbins' dancers may have hated him but they also said they would always dance for him because he made them move in ways no one else could.
This is not unusual in the art world. I have encountered a number of artistic directors who were tyrants but produced incredible work.
That said, the best bosses by far are the ones who treat their employees well because those people will work nonstop because they know they are appreciated. Any boss so immature that they throw things are not leadership material IMO.
3
The Times expose on her workplace abuse was so disheartening. She was, until that moment, my front-runner for so many reasons. I felt such a sense of disappointed reading how she treated her staff.
But then I step back and realize that no candidate thus far is without a tainted record. Harris' miscarriages of justice as DA, also outlined in the Times. Gillibrand railroading Franklen for political gain. Booker's chumminess with Wall Street and big pharma. Sanders' age. Warren's ancestry debacle. Beto's recent Senate loss. Etc.
And still any of these candidates would be an infinite improvement from the grossly incompetent criminal enterprise currently destroying American democracy in the White House.
I for one will not let negative pre-season coverage disqualify anyone in my book. If we do that, we'll have no one left to vote for on Election Day.
12
The "power" of sorry exists only in the mind. If she was to call each one she offended, would they all accept the apology? I doubt not, nor do I believe that this is a rational argument, in the first place. It is so naive, so condescending, so devoid of any grounding.
It would require a total change in behavior on Klobachar's part and a period in which it was demonstrated with conviction. We do not have time for it. Consider the formula, and apply it to Trump. The process would be endless and one still wouldn't vote for him, even if he completed it. How would anyone know for sure that there was a change for the better. It sounds more like manipulation than anything else
I would not vote for anyone like her, just as I would not vote for Trump. There is a lack of empathy and compassion in their behavior that bespeaks of something less than humane.
10
"Richard Nixon’s paranoia almost surely created more political enemies than it uncovered." I suspect that this observation by Stephens says more about him (Stephens) than he realises
3
People don't change at Ms. Klobuchar's age (or Trump's). With a large field of viable candidates, this flaw in her is quite certainly disqualifying. People can make amends for previous policy missteps, but they can't truly change their character. Only try to hide it better.
6
Senator Klobuchar has significant success as a Senator, and was a very successful prosecutor and lawyer before the Senate. Her smarts, calm demeanor, inquisitive mind, sense of humor, cool under pressure, and keen abilities to get to the heart of the matter while treating others with respect and fairness, is the best antidote to Trump's pugilistic, hit before thinking approach towards anything that challenges his perch at the top of the U.S. political structure.
However, Senator Klobuchar needs to comprehensively address these allegations by anonymous former staffers and address her high turnover rate.
Senator Klobuchar needs to assess whether she has regret and sorrow for her actions. If she does, she needs to own up and be honest about any abusive behavior to staff that she has conducted, apologize to any staff who she's treated harshly, and pledge to diligently try to never behave in this manner again to staffers or anyone else. She then needs to change her attitude and behavior in her work with staff, and become a better person behind closed doors.
These allegations may be the most important and most challenging issue Senator Klobuchar will ever grapple with. The allegations are a test. A serious, important test for Senator Klobuchar.
She needs to tackle this and deal with it.
Now.
13
Can a horrible boss be a great leader? I don't have to read a column with that title. The answer is 'no'.
5
i think this is one lof best articles from you. insightful, learned, and timeless piece.
5
The responses to this article are both remarkable and heartening. Apparently, there are still behaviors that trump political considerations. I guess that horrible bosses have afflicted so many voters as to make this one of the few political liabilities with real electoral consequences.
I'm no Democrat, but this reaction to Senator Klobuchar's alleged bad behavior speaks well of your party. Kudos to you all.
1
Good article Bret, but I don't think apologies at this point matter. People don't change their character at 59 years old. Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching. Let's replace Trump with someone who is decent. Policy will take care of itself.
12
Churchill was 66 in 1940. And how is “politics taking care of itself” today?
Excellent advice at the end for Klobuchar. I was all for her, she WAS at the top of my list, but the revelations about her ill-advised and adolescent behavior toward her subordinates moved her right out of that position.
A good leader, and by that I mean an effective one, knows that they can only do what the want done if those who actually do the real work are encouraged, not discouraged or worse, vilified.
Klobuchar needs to apologize, mend her way and be humble in the face of her behavior. If she doesn't understand that she humiliates herself by thinking, even for a moment, that she is somehow 'better' than anyone around her, she will certainly lose my vote.
6
I used to like her when I saw her on the talking head shows. Not saying I was sold on voting for her but I was willing to give her a few second looks. After hearing all of the animosity some of her former employees have for her I am taken aback with her lack of judgement. In what world does she reside to think these people she has treated so cavalier would sit back and be quiet? To me this puts her judgement abilities in question.
11
I'd be more impressed with this concern over bad bosses if it had been applied to GOP candidates in 2016.
But it's never too early to criticize Democrats, right?
19
Vincent T. Lombardi was both. He is remembered quite fondly.
10
Along with the highest office turnover, she’s also pushed through more legislation than any other Senator and she shows up to vote. I like her work ethic AND her politics. The only negative thing that’s come along is the personal/personnel stuff. If she’s abusive and she hurts peoples’ feelings that’s bad. If she poisons the well for departing staff that’s pretty awful. But surely her reputation precedes her so a crummy recommendation from her would not hold much weight. I hope she wins (or loses) on her voting record which shows an affinity and support for underserved people. Determination and a clear understanding of how to actually get things done; that would be “nice” now; wouldn’t it?
14
If her "buy into Medicare" proposal becomes law I am willing to forgive and forget.
7
I have had a few toxic bosses. What they lacked was empathy, an attribute that I believe is necessary to be an effective leader. With so many choices, I will look elsewhere.
25
I, too, have had toxic bosses. Because of this, though a Democrat, will not vote for Amy. It is not reverse sexism—it’s human dignity and caring. I will not vote for someone who does not get that.
2
KLOBUCHAR Seems to have far too much emotional baggage to be efficient as a president. Trump has mood swings and abuses staff. That is NOT the sort of behavior pattern we need in the next president. Perhaps Klobuchar could be in the cabinet or if she manages to be successful with anger management and develops improved interpersonal relations, she could possibly start off as a Cabinet member of Vice President.
7
The best insight in this column?
"It isn’t too late for Klobuchar..."
I've been waiting for years for a politician behaving badly to publicly apologize, explain or provide context particularly when the behavior was learned growing up, vow to be accountable, and commit to making change. A presidential candidate who admits failure will be an inspiring contrast to the current occupant.
10
Glenn Ribotsky | Queens
Many who frequent these comments boxes know that I have been pushing Klobuchar as a Presidential candidate for quite a while; her legislative ability to work with many different kinds of people has been a big plus, and being from Minnesota helps to set up an upper Midwestern Electoral College bulwark that would be very important in getting a Democrat elected.
But, admittedly, what has been coming out about her workplace environment the last several weeks has given me second, and third, thoughts. There are few who have been as ferocious about the need for bullying in the workplace to be addressed, and I've written for years about how court opinion and legal rights enforcement away from employees and unions and towards employers has contributed greatly to our political polarization and widening inequality.
There are few things I loathe as much as toxic bosses--I've had a few--except for the institutional structures that allow and abet them. Both need to have the fear of karma--and perhaps even jail time--instilled in them. We shouldn't allow in the office what isn't allowed on the street.
I had suspected there might be a sexist component to the reports, but as evidence accumulates, that seems to be less a factor--and it would be sexist to let an abusive boss off the hook on the grounds of gender, too.
What I can say is: Amy, from what I hear, you need to reform your workplace ways to get my vote back. And I suspect I'm not alone in that statement.
26
While it may be tempting to believe that a terrible boss can be an effective leader - let’s remember the best leaders rely heavily on advisors, consultants and staff. The poor behavior of a bad boss not only demoralizes the very people they depend upon - it also eventually sends many packing. A high rate of staff turnover creates instability and therefore limits effective and successful leadership. We can not afford to allow her near the nomination.
13
Thank you for this, Mr. Stephens.
I'm amazed to see the comments on here of people dismissing such shocking, awful behavior.
Perhaps those who are so quick to minimize Senator Klobuchar's behavior as little more than "demanding" have never worked for an abusive boss. I have and I can tell you that the people that have worked for Senator Klobuchar, based on the stories in the media, will carry the scars of this for life.
As Mr. Stephens points out, a person this out of control is clearly overwhelmed by the responsibility. We can fairly presume that Senator Klobuchar would be completely undone by the weight of the presidency.
This has nothing to do with gender. I am confident that Senator Harris and Senator Warren could measure up.
What I also find disturbing is that Senator Klobuchar presents herself has "Minnesota Nice." Somebody who has this sort of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde (public vs. private faces) lacks authenticity.
The fact is that we cannot afford another bad-tempered president, regardless of gender.
Hopefully we can agree as a nation that regardless of party, candidates must satisfy basic standards of human decency if they are to represent us.
While Senator Klobuchar does not remotely Donald Trump's depravity, she still does not mean minimum standards. I may be willing to vote for her in a future election but not until she has shown contrition and marked improvement in her treatment of others for a sustained period of time.
14
As a tri-stater who lived 11 long winters in Minneapolis, I have long looked upon my return east in 2004 as my biggest regret. Not because I hate Jersey but because I loved Minnesota. And Minnesota nice.
I had hopes for Amy Klobuchar when I learned she might run for president. If only because she was a Minnesotan and everyone there really is so nice. Principled and nice. And I have to confess, I do hate Donald Trump for all the painfully obvious reasons and have been working in my small way to see him gone.
But I’ve also worked for absolutely horrid bosses who turned my life upside down over trivial matters. I was severely disappointed to discover Klobuchar might be one, too. There is no excuse for a horrid boss. I really didn’t want to have to hold my nose again, as I did with Hillary in 2016, should Klobuchar be the Democratic nominee next year. Hillary lost because just too many Democrats couldn’t agree to hold their nose, too, and vote for her.
Thankfully, the Democratic field for next year is filled, even overflowing, with rich candidates. So I’m left with hoping someone other than an abusive person takes the Democratic field so I, and countless others, can embrace her, or him, on Election Day next year and make America great again, but not in a vapid slogan-fest sort of way.
9
Having read many excellent comments concerning
Senator AMY Klobuchar, and also finishing several articles about her so called temper tantrums, I am left feeling highly conflicted.
Senator, K., impressed me by her calmness and excellent questioning at the recent judicial hearings. Even when attacked by the Supreme Court nominee, she refrained from answering in kind.
The number of bills she has passed in the Senate, in fact, I think the most of anyone, is more than impressive.
I agree with Mrs. Churchill, competence, calmness and civility go hand in hand when leadership is needed. Our country is crying out for this more now than at anytime in my lifetime which has covered many decades.
Yes, let’s hope that this often lovely Senator from the heartland will heed the warnings that rudeness of any kind does not build loyalty, does not dignify her but quite the opposite. I want very much for her to be my candidate, but she must make changes for this to happen.
10
I’ll grant you that most male politicians probably haven’t eaten salad with a comb, which might be why this seems like such an important detail on Klobuchar’s resume to so many columnists.
What kind of comb was it: like a rat tail comb, or more of a pick, or the standard wide tooth/narrow tooth type? Did it have hairs in it? Was it made of plastic or stainless, or even cow horn? Did the salad have avocado or just mixed greens? Was the aide who washed it able to get that ranch dressing smell out?
Personally, I dislike it when my elected officials smell of ranch dressing, no matter their politics.
When you consider how important the comb, and blow dryer, and hair spray, and hair dye, and spray orange makeup are to our current President, clearly this comb issue needs further exploration. It’s obviously pivotal. I’ll bet WikiLeaks has some answers.
12
Ok, you want to use Churchill's example?
Seems Churchill had plenty of compensating qualities, to understate it, to set against his sometimes irascibility. These qualities don't apply to certain of our politicians today, for sure.
I just happen to be reading "Churchill, Walking With Destiny" by Andrew Roberts. He quotes Churchill's wife asking WC to be more kind, as he used to be, not so sarcastic and overbearing to associates.
Roberts quotes Colvile, his private secretary:
“Never normally considerate except to those in pain or in trouble, he was more demanding in the last months of 1940. He complained of delays when there were none, changed plans at last minute, cancelled meetings-- not caring for anyone’s inconvenience but his own.
If however he had been unjustly angry, he seldom failed to make amends, by praising the injured party generously.
Churchill’s ill--tempered phase was a passing one. What was constant was the respect, admiration and affection that almost all felt for him, despite his sometimes infuriating idiosyncrasies."
Rather a big job on his hands, affecting the safety of the whole world, when Britain stood alone, and with early opposition from certain powerful British officials who didn't see realistically.
7
"She throws binders at underlings"
It is bad enough to be VERBALLY abusive but THROWING things at employees reveals someone with an uncontrollable anger problem who should not have her hands on the nuclear button.
That Trump also has an anger problem does not mean Klobuchar's is acceptable.
Get rid of Trump and replace him with someone without an extreme anger problem.
The Democrats have an abundance of candidates [both male and female] without extreme anger problems.
21
Thank you for highlighting this issue and for your insightful article. We need to differentiate between those bosses who are hard charging, demanding and brilliant from those who have all those qualities yet are intimidating, narcissistic and insecure. Those negative qualities create an unhealthy, distrustful environment, lead to poor morale and high turnover. Klobuchar's alleged behavior is indicative of larger issues and is inexcusable. It represents a flaw in her personality that, at this juncture, may not respond to therapy. She impressed me at the Kavanaugh hearings and I considered her to be the best of the lot for those Dems announcing their candidacy so far. However, the recent reports from former staffers should not be ignored. We can't afford another autocratic micromanager, prone to tantrums, in the White House.
5
Many defenses of Klobuchar here. Shows some of the worst harm Trump does to our politics. He distorts our judgement and standards. He's so atrocious in his behavior and statements, he makes just ordinary bad candidates look great by comparison.
Then add in the justified pushback to general misogyny in traditional politics, and we get defenses of this awful character, Klobuchar. Who needs her/ No excuse for cruel abuse of staff. She has personal, and personnel problems.
Of course, she did look very benign, standing out in there in the snow storm, giving her speech to all her fans, and smiling, always smiling, even in senate hearings.
While she may be extreme in her behavior, in her policy proposals she'd be too moderate for these crucial times.
Maybe that's why Bret bothers to defend her.
3
She may be a horrible boss and that’s not ok but she’s not progressive enough and that’s really, really not ok. One of her ideas is for people to refinance student loans. That’s her big idea. No thanks. We need bold action. FDR took bold action and the New Deal was enacted. We need a second New Deal, not centrist thinking.
5
Could someone please provide data on the “high turnover rate” of Klobushar’s staff, relative to others? Are we talking ten percent higher, one hundred percent? How many people actually leave the Senator’s employ? Where do they go? It would be helpful to know...report please?
11
It was highest. Two higher than her now. Many went to jobs in Obama admin. Interestingly most of the top ten in turnover are women....but it’s a mistake to think we know why. There’s some evidence that staffers might get more help moving up etc.
Good point
I have no opinion on Senator Klobuchar. I have never worked for her. However, people with anti social personality disorder have been known to rise to the top of organizations. Maybe their lack of compassion for anyone other than themselves gives them the ability to have a laser focus on rising to the top and consequently have their organization rise to to the top to the benefit of shareholders. For society... it is just more evidence that the America of today is a very dark place.
4
Not to evoke whataboutism.
Sorry, I think her misdeeds pale in comparison to the current White House occupant.
That said, should Ms Klobuchar choose to “make amends” it would only be to her benefit.
2
You make the assumption that all the stories are true and that's she's "guilty as charged." I don't. All the candidates are likely to have dirt thrown at them. Let's see what's true and what's not before we judge. From what I know of Klobuchar - admittedly not too much - I can overlook her being an overbearing boss (if true) in light of her positives and in light of this being the age of Trump.
6
@JL Pacifica
Due process! Gotta prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court for it to be true!
1
“-- the essential truth of The Times’s story is attested by the fact that for years she has had among the highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate.”
LegiStorm started calculating Congressional staff turnover in 2018. On its site, LegiStorm states under 'important caveat' :
'The data can't tell us why turnover is so high.'
Or as stated in a 2018 Politico article on worst bosses:
“LegiStorm declines to guess whether the high turnover stems from a toxic work environment or employees simply advancing in their careers.”
Klobuchar's office responded to article with this :
"She has many staff who have been with her for years — including her Chief of Staff and her State Director, who have worked for her for 5 and 7 years respectively, as well as her political advisor Justin Buoen, who has worked for her for 14 years — and many who have gone on to do amazing things, from working in the Obama Administration (over 20 of them) to running for office to even serving as the Agriculture Commissioner for Minnesota."
Since we’re relying on anonymous sources and the turnover rate is offered up as the proof, I ask reporters analyze the data and determine if the turnover has been overwhelmingly driven by a toxic work environment or by people moving on to other positions or a combination thereof, and how that rate compares to other offices.
This will help voters weigh and determine if the alleged extreme behavior is disqualifying, which I assume, is why it is being reported on.
10
By all means, go after the women. They are too angry, too shrill or too inexperienced. Or, they they are not angry, not shrill and experienced but they use the wrong internet server.
Have the guys who see women this way ever stopped to figure out they just don’t want a woman in a position of power?
11
@Decent Human
Many of us like having Elizabeth Warren in power.
2
Two points:
Firstly, Mr. Stephens does a pretty great job of undermining his own argument by laying out historic accomplishments of people who are known to have led by being a demanding and difficult boss, yet complaining difficult bosses are inept by using our current president as an example. Is it that being hard to work for makes you a bad leader or is our current president and his noted cruelness the exception to the rule?
Secondly, and more importantly, this reads as incredibly stilted and sexist. Listed ad nauseam are examples of cantankerous old men and how they led despite their known difficulty as bosses. The Gatekeepers, the book about White House chiefs of staff is filled with examples of horrible bosses who led effectively. All men. Would Klobuchar’s actions even be recorded, or reported, or discussed and dissected with this much detail if she wasn’t a woman with power? Would her actions have been deemed noteworthy and vile if she was a man?
5
@Justin
Did abusive bosses lead effectively, or did their subordinates have no choice but to follow? Intimidation can cause submission and a lack of critical appraisal due to fear. As Larry McMurtry wrote in one of his novels, we can tell a lot about a country by the men [or women] we admire. (Or words to that effect). Having had a couple of toxic bosses in my work history, who did not bring out the best in my performance (they were interested in control, and rewarded submission, not performance), I will not be voting for Senator Klobuchar.
1
@Justin … Why not just come right out and accuse the writer of hand-picking a female target? Jesus, man... does everything have to get filtered through the political lens of 'is it?/is it not?' sexism...? I suspect I'm like most readers who forgot, by the second paragraph, that it was a woman Senator. This was a story about a terrible workplace manager, and it reads just like stories of Vince Lombardi abandoning his family for his players or George Steinbrenner firing people who refused to work on Christmas Day.
But you'll get exactly what you want if you work hard enough to turn something into the thing you desire most. Take a story, apply your political agenda, and manufacture an issue that was never there. Mission accomplished; you feel better now?
How often does someone who is already a horrible boss (unlike Churchill, who was only starting to develop bad habits) suddenly change into a good boss? Apologize all you like; it won't change your character.
4
There are horrible bosses and there are the others. The others ask the hard questions. They don't include one more word than necessary in any conversation. They don't want to hear one more word than necessary in a conversation. The boss shows up every day, ready to do his job. And, if he has to, yours. That would be a bad for you.
Once you learn how they operate, you can safely navigate a professional relationship. It helps to be a fast learner. This, in turn, will make you a better leader. This requires dedication and stamina on your part. The alternative is a daily beating, until your boss tires of beating you. Unless you decide to leave first.
Is your boss public about your short comings, as well as everyone else? Occasionally, it's a learning experience. Every time, it's abuse.
The toughest, without exception, is the boss that talks to you in private. He talks softly and slowly. You are not confused about what is being communicated. He may offer suggestions. You should consider them, especially if you have no better ideas.
A good leader is in front and leads by example. Senator Klobuchar does appear to be a good leader, based on press accounts. Chesty Puller was a good leader. Senator Klobuchar should enjoy her tenure in the Senate.
2
The key word is "abuse", missing from this article. The words "horrible" apply to many behaviors as it is a normative description, and what is horrible to one person is laughed at by another. "Abusive", on the other hand, is very specific and rarely would abusive behavior be taken differently by different people.
Horrible bosses can show respect, but abusive people never do. Horrible is too broad a description with no defining features.
This is why Mr. Stephens' conflating the behavior of Churchill, Trump and Klobuchar is inapt.
Churchill was never an abusive person. He may have been cutting, sarcastic, and overbearing, but he was also funny, clever, intelligent, a genius with words, and kind. He never abused anyone.
Trump reminds me of a former boss (I've had a few, and many clients). I understand him very well after all those years, and so I may understand Trump. A book could be written on their "style", but it's odd how much Trump appears to be similar, down to the intermediate narcissism. My boss was tough, demanding, demanding of himself, worked 24/7 even when he was in bed or watching TV ("always on"), occasionally flew off the handle, and viewed human nature with suspicion. But he was never abusive, never threw a thing at anyone. He thought employees' weekends were for the employees. He was almost always in good control of his emotions. Business demanded it, and so did his self respect.
But Ms. Klobuchar appears to be a classic abusive boss. Anathema.
5
@John Xavier III.... I was going to post this comment then I saw yours. Thank you. Why would Bret want to conflate Amy and Winston!? Absurd. What's he aiming at, trying to excuse AK?
Andrew Roberts book, Churchill, Walking With Destiny includes Churchill's wife's letter asking WC to be more kind, as he used to be, not so sarcastic and overbearing to associates.
Then quotes WC's secretary Colville:
“Never normally considerate except to those in pain or in trouble, he was more demanding in the last months of 1940. He complained of delays when there were none, changed plans at last minute, cancelled meetings-- not caring for anyone’s inconvenience but his own.
If however he had been unjustly angry, he seldom failed to make amends, by praising the injured party generously.
Churchill’s ill--tempered phase was a passing one. What was constant was the respect, admiration and affection that almost all felt for him, despite his sometimes infuriating idiosyncrasies."
Rather a big job on his hands, and with early opposition from certain powerful British officials.
1
Exhibit One in the mainstream media propaganda that is seeking to tilt the election towards Trump.
Change the name Klobuchar to Hillary and it is a MSM replay of 2016.
And let's not forget:
Kamala Harris doesn't like black people.
Elizabeth Warren is not trust worthy
Kristin Gilibrand is a flip flopper.
The comparison of Klobuchar to Trump is laughable, especially since the mainstream media is desperately trying, in the run up to 2020, to normalize Trump at all costs by picking up the White House propaganda that his is an increasingly successful "unconventional presidency."
5
Those dull thuds are the sound of Bret's opening analogy and his closing recommendation, both falling flat.
“I have noticed a deterioration in your manner, and you are not so kind as you used to be,” Clementine Churchill tells Winston in the passage he quotes. I haven't read anything about a deterioration from earlier kindness in Klobuchar's behavior toward her staff, only a recurring tendency of petulance, blame and volatility. If dysregluation is her baseline, reverting to her norm, or regression to the mean, will simply leave her... mean.
As to making amends, as Stephens advises, abusers excel at making earnest amends. It's part of the abuser's routine, as meaningless as it is predictable.
Presidential hopes? That salad-dressed comb is going to haunt her like Romney's dog on the station wagon roof.
5
@Pam....isn't the comb in the salad, then asking staff to clean it, much worse than the dog on the roof?
But what was worse than both was Romney's put down to "the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes"--who aren't worth caring about.
Columnists just quote the dog thing because it's cute, and they don't want to be controversial about economic inequality, taxes, etc.
I've had lots of horrible bosses. None of them brought out the good in me. With all of them, my policy was to get whatever I might have wanted out of the job and then find another ASAP.
4
Not in my experience.
The NYT article that excoriated Amy was a mishmash of out of context snip its. Hardly ground shaking. These are paltry compared to the talent this brilliant person has. Her biggest sin is that she is a moderate. Hallelujah! Republicans and Democrats both are afraid of her which is why they are attacking her. She stared down Brett Kavanaugh and with a prosecutor's cool composure accepted the only apology he offered in that contentious confirmation hearing. Right then and there I said "I see the gravitas of a president" I would not worry if she was across the table from any world leader.
7
@dakotagirl
What does “moderate” mean to you? That you get abortion rights while looking down on and lacking empathy for people with less economic privilege?
1
I'll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate in 2020. Could be Senator Klobuchar. Could be Bernie Sanders. Could be Michael Bloomberg. Could be a dead squirrel picked up off the side of the road.
But if the stories in the NYT are true, particularly the comb story, we should make it our concerted effort to ensure she gets nowhere near the nomination.
5
The comb story. Let me get this straight: a staffer tasked with getting the senators lunch forgot about forks. With no forks to be had Senator K got resourceful with what’s at hand then asked said staffer to wash it (as they might have done with a steel fork) while she got on with business. And you think this story is over the top abusive? I think if true this is probably the same anonymous ex staffer who was bothered by being told to hold their thoughts and listen, to not expect to be the public face of the office as that was the senator and who referred to the senator as “Amy” in comments. Yeah, I’m not buying it. It’s ridiculous how easy it was to use an anonymous smear campaign to get people lined up against her- without proof and despite a large amount of staffers defending her in public.
The potential Democratic field for 2020 is already overflowing. We don't need candidates at this (lamentably) early stage who already exhibit glaring character flaws, comb or no comb.
6
Nobody had heard anything about this before she announced she was running for president. Many hailed her as a hero during the Kavanaugh mess. Mission accomplished. Sen. Klobuchar has been smeared. If she was a man this would be a non-issue.
9
Unfortunately, people confuse shouting, demeaning and belittling behaviour with "tough" leadership. It is not. Its just bad behaviour. It rarely gets sustainable and consistently good outcomes and people leave. If anyone wants to lead, they can learn how, get some coaching, etc. Good leadership behaviours are a choice. Let's see where this goes for Senator, its not fatal unless she allp0ws it to be.
3
Can a horrible boss be a great leader? Excellent question.
Response:
"The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded you just don't care. Either case is a failure of leadership." - Gen. (and former Sec. of State) Colin Powell.
Example:
Donald J. Trump
Final answer:
No.
202
@Glen
Bret Stephens cheers on the Republicans who enable the "horrible boss" Donald Trump. Bret's concern for "horrible bosses" is limited to Democrats and especially Democrats who are women. A great man like Trump and the Republican Congressmen who will do anything to cover up for Trump are objects of Bret Stephens admiration. Stephens is a hypocrite and always will be as it is impossible to be the kind of rabid Republican cheerleader he is without being completely dishonest.
5
However terrible Senator Klobuchar is to her staff, it is less important than her email to staff whom she thought had failed her: “How can you treat me like this time and time again?”
For her, it was not about policy, analysis, or procedure, it was all about her. I was leaning strongly towards Senator Klobuchar until I read her quote. We do not want another narcissist in the White House. It is a fatal flaw in a leader.
6
Folks, a woman cannot win the presidency of this country, full stop. This article and half the comments prove my thesis. So no point in running one in an election when a dem president is a must. Behind the scenes let this adult child of an alcoholic work on herself, do a better job as a manager and promise her a cabinet job if she behaves and endorses the male candidate with enthusiasm, not in the destructive way Bernie came around to hillary. WINNING. That's the only conversation worth having.
1
This is a thoughtful, constructive assessment of a problem that should and can be addressed. To those who complain that abusive men do not have deal with a similar level of criticism, I’d ask why should that argument excuse behavior that is inexcusable? Our current president is a crude buffoon. We are on edge. Is it any wonder that Senator Klobuchar’s behavior is being called into question by those who actually admire her? If she’s as good as many of us think she is, she will, like Churchill, make the necessary adjustments.
1
Regardless of what Stephens says regarding his own motives; that he's just trying to help Klobuchar be a better boss and help the Nation heal from the horrible boss and awful leader it currently has occupying the Presidency, and offer us a few nuggets of B-School-level insight about Leadership, this is still an attempted take-down, using nothing more conclusive than office gossip.
3
There are 331,195,364 Americans.
Maybe we can find one of them who is both a pleasant and respectful boss and a good leader.
4
@Eric
Until his death in 2006, every 4 years my dad (an independent) would shake his head and and say “200 million (or 250 or 300 million) people in this country and these 2 are the best we can come up with?”
My father had a small candy store and told me a long time ago that he always did best by going home early. He was a softy with people who owed him money; but his women employees were not.
4
I once worked for a brilliant, high-achieving woman who was a bully. I stayed longer than I should have, in no small part because those of us who reported to her formed a strong bond in our shared misery. I can't say that I didn't learn things from her that ultimately made me better at my job. But I can say that what I gained from the experience was not worth the toll it took on my physical and mental health.
More than that, I noted that while she accomplished much for the company, I believe she cost it even more. In a matter of years, her entire management team (of which I was one) either left the department or the organization. We were all highly skilled and experienced and there wasn't one of us who wouldn't have preferred to remain (it's true that people leave bosses, not jobs), but we'd all reached our limits. Each of us has been very successful, so it's not like we were idiots or slackers (in fact, we're all high achievers, ourselves). But the time and investment our organizations put into us now benefits someone else, while our combined replacements have a fraction of our skillsets (and are just as stressed as we were!).
To outsiders, this person would appear to be a great leader. And no doubt, she's a high achiever. But I would argue that her "leadership" left the organization weaker than she found it. I always used to say that if she could accomplish so much as a bully, imagine how amazing the organization would've been if she'd been a humane leader.
258
@Josie This certainly has the ring of truth!
10
A great leader is one that inspires others to follow her. It sounds simple yet is worth thinking about. Inspires, not intimidates or manipulates.
3
Very perceptive Mr. Stephens. Ms. Klobuchar should take her lead from Abe Lincoln, who embraced his detractors as well as his loyalists. Many thought him unfit to be President, based upon his looks, his clothes, his demeanor, but he never insulted anyone. Rather, he was kindly and understanding. Those who held him in contempt learned to love him, respect him and regard him as the great President he was.
3
I'm not sure she can correct, it sounds like a character issue to me.
2
Stephens is a conservative, but he is more charitable to Klobuchar than this moderate Democrat. He says that she is redeemable, if only she would make amends and turn a new leaf. But I doubt it. She has had ample opportunity to reform. A tiger does not change its stripes.
2
Great leaders are those who inspire and develop excellence in others.
6
I do think we have given less focus to similar behavior by bad male bosses in power. So I think this is an unfair double standard. Having said that, it is also true that someone who treats their staff so poorly is unlikely to be a good leader. It’s a pity that we have failed to use this test for many others (Trump being the most obvious example). I would love to vote for a woman in 2020. Honestly it is sad and embarrassing to have had 45 presidents in row all drawn from the one gender. Try telling your daughter she can do anything she wants when there has never been a woman president ever. We aren’t there yet.
6
Agreed. This is not a trivial or merely personal issue.
The way a politician treats subordinates show how they think about power in general. If they feel licensed to berate, humiliate, and blame those they control, it suggests they think their power is personal––belonging to them as an individual rather than to their office or role.
And that view can produce damaging results: Nixon's belief he was above the law, Clinton's apparent sense of entitlement to sexual favors, Trump's disregard of a separation of powers.
5
As an employee, the answer is no. Character matters.
6
The short answer is no. I've worked for people that brought out the best in their subordinates through the strength of their personalities, character, and professionalism. They led by example and demanded the best that those under them were capable of, but not the impossible. I've also worked for tyrants that drove their personnel to perform using fear, intimidation, personal abuse and threats as motivation. They were drivers of people, not leaders. Ms Klobuchar is beginning to sound like the latter, but without further information, it's hard to know what to believe about her.
3
As an employer for almost 20 years, I tried to use good leadership skills that I saw in former bosses and not emulate what i thought they did wrong. Some my former employees probably think I was the devil incarnate and were relieved to be gone, long gone. Others still (it has been 40 years since I opened my first store and 20 years since retirement) still see me on a friendly social basis. i tried to be fair, but insisted on certain behaviors. Not everyone could perform to my standards. So it depends upon whom among my former employees that you talk with as to if I was a fair and reasonable boss.
Is it too much to ask the federal government to have an HR department? It’s a basic component of many American workplaces.
5
We have 19 (?) other options who are not trump. Surely we can do better.
7
I wonder when "Minnesota nice" became a positive thing to say about someone. It depends on where you're coming from I suppose. When I was growing up the term (midwest nice, to be accurate) was shorthand for being both hypocritical and unforgivingly judgemental. Someone who would smile and shake your hand, while holding it against you that your grandfather died with unpaid library fines.
I don't know if Klobuchar's behavior contains any of these elements, but even if it has been exaggerated, it seems that she's more concerned with her image that with the solidity of her positions.
And I think that if the current brouhaha in Virginia (for one instance) is any example, I think that contrary to the closing sentence, there seems to be no statute of limitations on lack of forgiveness these days.
3
@michaeltide Agree. That was the definition given to me by a friend who was born and raised in Minnesota. It was not a complimentary feature.
1
It boggles the imagination that no one thinks Klobuchar has learned anything from this or could change. At the least she might learn that people are watching and she needs to fix the way she treats people. I doubt that her sins against humanity are greater than the sins of the man she will run against. Democrats have this great inclination to destroy their own as if someone perfect is going to come along and deliver them the utopia they long for. As long as Trump is in office and I think that Klobuchar has the best chance to win I will not abandon her candidacy. To all those Hillary haters: look what you've done. I
7
@Marty One of the few silver linings to the dark gray cloud of Trump being president is that Hillary Clinton isn't. It is a damning indictment of the corruption of our political system that the final menu was Trump vs. Clinton.
To use the demeanor of presidents or potential presidents does a
disservice to the point Mr Stephens is trying to make.There are bosses in all channels of endeavor and their personality traits are
important in their ability to execute their responsibilities.
The presidency however, is unique. I don't remember Lyndon
Johnson for his political pursuasivesness in getting the Civil
Rights Act passed. I remember him for his dogmatic personal incompetence and demeanor that killed 50,000 Americans, God knows how many Vietnamese and changed the social landscape of the country to this day. Bosses are bosses, presidents as leaders are
in a category of their own and should be assessed as such.
2
She needs to write good recommendations for the staffers she badmouthed by telephone, explicitly. There are other reparations she must make to abused staff. She can perform an amendment of life by reducing staff turnover to ZERO, as well as reforming punitive office policy such as the family leave one. She needs to go away and come back in four years, with far sharper political acumen. After 16 years running with the highest staff turnover in the Senate, 36%, how did she think no one would speak out against her, or that any professional would be happy to lead a presidential campaign?
There is some wiring missing here.
5
@purejuice Agree completely! I'd be happier with her taking an eight year break though.
I've worked for ill-behaved bosses both male and female and I would never ever vote for one.
2
This was a very good elucidation of the issue, and wonderful recitation of historical comparison and a nice literary reference. Kudos. I disagree with the conclusion, and it bears directly on my change in preference for Democratic nominee.
Amy Klobuchar may be able to make some personal "amends," but that is not enough to salvage her qualification to be President. The pattern of disturbed and disturbing behavior is deeply ingrained and I don't think the populace can trust that the tiger can change her stripes. I don't.
We need mental stability in the Oval Office above all, and one of Klobuchar's primary attractions was her seeming stability and sober-mindedness. Those have been dashed and the reality behind her fluffy PR image exposed.
She had been my favorite up until these disclosures (and there are too many of too much substance from too many sources for the general accusation to be debunked as fake news or isolated disgruntlement). Now I don't know where to turn to find someone who is sober-minded, respectful of people from all walks of life, reasonably of the RATIONALLY progressive mindset that is critically necessary to right this country and its place in the world, ELECTABLE, and ABLE TO HEAL THE NATION from its destructive (and manipulated) strifes. Who is that person now, Sherrod Brown? (John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock seem to have the necessary character, but neither has a whit of foreign policy experience.)
5
"Calming the country requires calm at the top." I still remember the financial crash of fall 2008. "Lehman Bros. Collapse Sends Shockwaves Around the World" read the headlines. "Cancel the debates," yelled John McCain. Against this backdrop a man named Barack Obama said we are perfectly capable of holding debates and governing at the same time, called for calm, won the presidency and, well, eight years later as he left office employment was at 5 percent and the DOW had nearly tripled. What's more, he needed no admonition from his wife to be urbane and kind. That's just how he was and remains. The standard has been set. Let's aim to meet it again.
15
My concern - stepping back and looking at the big picture - is the attacks underway against the more centrist Democrats (Sanders gadfly Sirota's hate tweets against Kamala Harris are unconscionable). Would Klobuchar be a better president than the despot-in-training who's hugging Kim Jong-un right now while his crimes are exposed in Congress by his "fixer"? Based on her legislative prowess and home state popularity - absolutely.
But my thinking for the top pair to oust Trump from office is now Brown, Biden or Hickenlooper with Abrams as VP.
2
@common sense advocate Way too soon for Abrams. Way too old and compromised for Biden.
There are tough bosses and then there are abusive bosses. I once had a boss, a lawyer, whose wife used to call the office manager ahead of her husband's arrival for the workday and let the office manager know her husband's "mood." More often than not, she ended the message with "I'm glad he's out of the door." The manager would let everyone know the gist of the message: good mood, OK mood, or look out! Over the years, I realized that our office was similar to an Emergency Room. When clients showed up in our office, they were in extreme legal jeopardy. Hence, they were on edge and in many cases convinced they were being singled out without cause. People in that situation are desperate and ready to lash out; attorneys that represent them must not only represent the client but also make sure that their work is error free. While the attorney I worked for was always a tough boss and occasionally crossed the line into an abusive boss, I learned the necessity of paying attention to the smallest of details in all aspects of life as well as the necessity of calling out improper behavior. Had I called him on his episodes of abusive behavior, I think he would have apologized, but I was young and afraid. So to Senator Klobuchar's accusers, I would say, "Speak up!" If your boss is a person of integrity, she will apologize. If she isn't, she won't. And if she won't, then begin a new job search.
3
It's clear that conservatives are threatened by this popular, effective senator. If they weren't, I'd see a lot more columns by those same writers talking about the sexual harassment, verbal abuse and other transgressions by elected men in the GOP. Is the strategy that Democrats will be so people-pleasing that they'll drop a good candidate when they hear they're not "Minnesota Nice?" Turnover may be higher, but so are the demands.
Talk about her policies and qualifications as she deserves.
7
@Rockit88
Her turnover is THE HIGHEST, not among the highest, THE HIGHEST. Having worked for several bosses like this, both male and female, there is not a single way I would ever vote for her knowing this.
Abusive and ill-behaved bosses rarely take responsibility for their behavior or mistakes. Instead, they find others to blame. I see her as a female Trump in training. If she's this badly behaved at this level, I cannot imagine how much worse she'll be when she has more power.
By the way, I am not a conservative.
1
No actually it’s not. It was but there are two higher now. And the people measuring the data caution there could be many reasons for turnover- often good as in staff moving on to great jobs as hers did in Obama admin which doesn’t jive with the claim she badmouthed and tried to keep.
1
@Rockit88 She's a Democrat and she's a she, so unassailable? Nonsense. And character is a principal qualification. The critical one, in my mind.
Quick question:
- you absolutely buy into the Times article alleging the misdeeds of Klobuchar
- but you pay no heed to claims against Kavanaugh...
Of course, the bad behaviour of the Senator is more recent, and likely easier to investigate, but citing her ‘high staff turnover’ as convincing is not unlike viewing the belligerence and hostility that Kavanaugh displayed during his testimony as revealing.
I do agree with your comments regarding leadership and behaviour, but I think the juxtaposition of the allegations against the two to be interesting.
6
We need a detailed discussion of, what a candidate plans to do, how they plan to accomplish what they want, and their abilities to do so. We have no evidence presented on any of the three in any detail in an electoral season. Given the public rarely has enough information to make a rational choice is there any wonder our Presidents are as bad as are. The corollary is notwithstanding all the other adumbrated faults of the U.S. elections are not informed consent. This is therefore this is not a democracy despite conventional wisdom.
1
But the horrible boss syndrome belies the demeanor that attracted me to her in the first place. Saw it in a recent interview with Rachel Maddow. Rachel was adoring. Amy was taking it as her due. Okay. I listened to the interview because I thought Amy could be a winner. Rachel noted Amy had been a frequent guest from the beginning. “When no one else would come on” says Amy. Rachel deflated and yes hurt it seemed to me went on with the show. Sorry Amy if you are the candidate I will vote for you but will definitely hold my nose.
2
A masterpiece containing considerable wisdom. Not the least is the cautionary to voters near the end. We really need to make our votes carefully, with as much knowledge of candidates as we can get, both in elections and primaries (and, of course, need to actually vote).
4
Spot on.
As one who has been rooting for Klobuchar since the Kavanaugh hearings and am similarly disenchanted now that I’ve heard about her “management style”, I have been saying that she needs to get ahead of this problem if she hopes to survive. So far it’s been crickets, but thank you for making the case that she take Clementine Churchill’s advice. It needs to happen now.
10
I am about the same age as Senator Klobuchar and my first thought here is what a millennial considers felony level bad behavior would be considered mild rebuke by a Gen X'er, an off day by a Boomer, and nothing at all by the Greatest Generation.
43
@Bill Bloggins
I am three years older than Sen. Kobuchar and I find her reprehensible. We do not need another bully in the White House.
4
@Bill Bloggins Agreed--perfectly stated and all too true (as generalizations go).
I hope she redeems herself; she is capable, measured, and untainted, except for her "expectations" of staff. Level headed and practical. We desperately need someone qualified, not a rock star, to lead us back to some form of sanity.
6
@Anne Marie I disagree. I had been attracted by her seeming level-headedness, but that image of level-headedness has been dashed and is irretrievable, imo.
2
One delights in reading how Clementine was so very incite-full and so willing and able to stand up to what was a very powerful man and a likely believer in male-superiority (I’m making an assumption here based on his times).
I see nothing that disqualifies Ms Klobuchar from being a great leader and a President but do agree she could work on some skills as all of us could.
4
In the trump era we yearn for civility. Ms. K’s staff turnover numbers suggest that behind closed doors she will belittle any staff that are viewed weak and dispensable. Why not - she has the power. I was a fan but the stakes are too high to allow another bully access to the White House.
14
I remember a superb boss who would lose it from time to time, often but not always with reason. His saving graces: A) Never got angry because he thought your mistake made him look bad and B) after the eruption subsided he would apologize face to face. Happened to me and I saw it happen to others..
Senator Klobuchar, however, seems to belong to the school of "never say you're sorry." TIf she doesn't fall into that unfortunate category, best to make her apologies now.
Those who don't think this matters are out to lunch. You csn get elected but you can't govern well, as Trump has proven time and again. One reason but not the only one: people who mistreat subordinates will prompt them to tell you only what they think you want to hear.
9
Klobuchar has good reason to be demanding. She has a lot of things to do in the service of her constituents and the country. Staffers who can't take the heat should find a 9 to 5 senator who never gets anything done.
9
For everybody saying that Mr. Stephen's and the NYT team are being unfair and even sexist by calling attention to this issue, consider:
Yes, politics is a contact sport, and it is to Senator Klobuchars credit that she's willing to work hard, set high standards, and hold her staff to them.
But politics is also a team sport, and a politician's success in office (and even getting into office at all) depends in no small part on their ability to recruit and retain a talented staff.
In this area, Senator Klobuchar seems to have a problem. Her abnormal turnover rate should not be discounted (few commenters here seem even to try), in no small part because it could keep her from getting elected in the first place. The Democratic primary field is crowded, skilled political operatives have an abundance of options to choose from, and a bad work environment could drive many of them away (as the Times article pointed out).
Mr. Stephen's and the Times have a valid point, and to suggest they're simply being unfair or even sexist is itself incredibly unfair.
18
@harry armstrong Excellent comment right to the heart of the matter.
1
Turnover reflects upon the quiter, not the employer. It has become epidemic in our snowflake society.
Great column. A personal anecdote: the best boss I ever had in a 35-year career happened to be a woman. She was brilliant, demanding, relentless, and tough. She once called my while I was in the dentist’s chair and asked come back to work that night. I told her I had to pick up my daughter and she said, “just bring her with you to the office.” She demanded and got the best out of everyone. And yet, I have never met a more humane and unsentimentally kind person. She always treated everyone with respect. If you screwed up, she told you but never demeaned you. . She was generous with praise and with compensation. She was an inspiration to work for. She was that rare combination: Someone with superb technical gifts and a great, intuitive feel for people. Working with her was the highlight of my career.
313
@Mark Siegel
I had a similar demanding boss but I credit her for my professional success. You can be very demanding but kind.
16
@Mark Siegel: With all due respect, if she indeed had a "great, intuitive feel for people," then I trust she would have known much better than to dare calling me in the dentist's chair asking me to come back to work that night with my daughter in tow...
But then it's quite likely she wouldn't have hired me in the first place. Glad it was a good fit for you.
15
How fair was she to your daughter? What gave her the right to demand that your daughter show up to your work?
Great bosses understand the concept of boundaries.
14
In the thousands of hours of a pressure-filled two term Senate career there are, what, half a dozen? a dozen? anonymous complaints about nasty behavior. And a letter from 61 satisfied staffers is dismissed? Get me something to give a rat's butt about. She's still in the race as far as I am concerned.
7
A huge list of former employees have come forward to dispute the claim that this candidate for president is a modern day Lucretia Borgia. And yet, the Times continues to peddle the story "Amy is B-Word." Yet another Big Lie, in the tradition of "Gore is a Liar" and "Jerry is a Waffler." Has the mainstream media learned nothing? No wonder Russia had such an easy time selling Donald Trump. The press is like a ADD child, easily distracted by any bright, shiny, easy to understand story.
9
The first practice of a Servant Leader is to treat all people with respect and dignity. If you are unable to do that you shouldn’t be leading people. Amy needs to own her behavior and stop making excuses. We don’t need more jerks in leadership positions. Unless of course you want t raise a generation of jerks.
7
This is SURREAL. How can the Times continue to give Mr Stephens a platform when he chooses to write this type of dross? Of course bad bosses struggle as leaders. Duh. And that is not up for debate so spare me indignant replies to reiterate that point. But where was Mr Stephens and the Times when the bad bosses have been men and elected to positions of important leadership? Throwing a token paragraph that Trump is a bad boss/bad leader is wholly insufficient. We are talking about centuries of bad bosses and the vast majority are men....but the Times decides to print an article when a woman is tarred by that brush? As I said, SURREAL. And, have we not learned how powerful misogyny is in America? This entire story/topic only exists because women are subject to different standards than men (largely why we have a Trump presidency at all). Yet in 2019 here is the Times lending Mr Stephens a platform to assist in the demonization of a candidate on terms that are almost exclusively applied to a woman, and are much more powerful when applied to a woman (rhymes with “pitch”) than a man (tough guy who gets it done). SURREAL.
5
Once again, a "journalist" takes a twitter story and runs off like Usain Bolt with no credible evidence and convicts a person's character and reputation. Pathetic on Stephens part.
5
Be like Barack. President Obama was magnificent.
16
@FilmMD Obama was a very mixed bag. Outwardly genial and civil, and an excellent charismatic rhetorician, but it must be admitted that in substance "hope and change" were mostly dashed, much of it dashed directly on his shoulders. Very disappointing and even failed leadership in some major respects. I think the hagiography - driven by simplistic comparison, it seems - needs to be reined in. It's absolutely mindless and unwarranted Oscars-level adulation of little substance.
5
@FilmMD
Yes, he got mad (like with the bungled healthcare rollout) when he should've gotten mad. And got over it fast.
That's what normal looks like.
The film or the person?
Can the NYT focus on real content rather than these stories to simply undermine a candidate’s capabilities.
2
MeToo is similarly about letting power go to your head.
4
@Watercannon Spot on.
From about 2007 to 2012, I worked for a woman who could only have been either:
a) severely mentally ill, or
b) the incarnation of Satan.
She was a terrible boss and a terrible leader, and she caused great, measurable and documentable harm to our institution.
A foreign-born married woman, I did a survey among my colleagues and discovered that she treated everyone under her,
1) foreign-born and native-born,
2) men and women,
3) older and younger,
3) gay and straight,
4) more educated or less educated there her,
like crap.
I had to start taking blood pressure medicine. The day she retired, I stopped...and my bp has been good ever since.
A leader doesn't have to be likable. But a crappy human being will be not a successful leader in a democracy. I voted for Bill Clinton twice because he was the better choice. But I always thought he and Hillary were pretty crappy human beings...and I still think this. Both were relatively unsuccessful as president and presidential candidate, respectively.
Of course in the age of Trump, this may no longer be true. Orange is the new black, and crappy is the new gold standard, it seems
4
Jay, the problem with your boss was obviously because she was a woman.
Amy Klobuchar is being singled out because she's a woman. I've had bosses equally and MORE horrible than she who were men. I had a boss (I worked at White and Case) who demanded tea at 4:00 p.m., punct, with the teaspoon precisely at a certain angle on the saucer … I can recite chapter and verse the idiots I worked for in my profession (25 years as an analyst on Wall St) who had some insane demands; who yelled, were demeaning, rude, and horrible. No one ever apologized.
Enough microscopic analysis of these women. Get the job done, and a message to all bosses -- your staff is there at will -- they too, can quit if you're too obnoxious. You're not G-d's gift to whatever your profession is.
7
We are better than saying they get away with it. So we can act the same stupid abusive ways. If they can’t or won’t treat you with respect then look elsewhere. I have let 2 different bosses know what atmosphere I won’t work in. I have also advised them I will be diligent and treat them with utmost respect. Both women. Worked for a number of years at both jobs.
Trump should call her Nasty Amy.
Not only is eating food with a comb you used to brush your hair physically nasty.
But asking your staff to clean up after is also nasty in the mentally abusive sense.
6
I see these complaints about Se. Klobuchar's office behavior as a hit job to get her out of the race early. There seems little substance to any of the narrative I have read or heard. I did not hear anything about tantrums. I did hear that Sen. Klobuchar demands the same work ethic that she holds for herself. It was said she threw a telephone at someone for something; a vague charge from unidentified persons. If it were an old fashion table top desk phone, that would be really bad; if just a small cell phone and pushed back at some underling...so what? As I said, I see much ado about nothing so far. No abuse of power. No insane acting out. Perhaps she is more abrasive than some of her staff ight like. So what? I believe this is a play to try to get Sen. Klobuchar out of the race. She is just the candidate who could take Trump down. Honest, forth right, strong, well spoken and intelligent. All qualities the current president lacks. He should fear her candidacy.
8
I'm shocked that the NYT would run yet another negative piece about a rival of Kristen Gillebrand. Shocked I say!
Better a Klobuchar binder in the face than a Gillebrand knife in the back.
19
@Patrick That's a pretty low threshold of acceptability.
1
how about neither one.
1
Has the NYT descended to publishing hit jobs on presidential candidates, especially those whom the writer has been paid to consign to the nether regions?
It is clear by now that Stephens is a "journalist" in the tradition of Fox News and the Daily Mail. Maybe he would like to evaluate other "horrible bosses" like Netanyahu.
At least the print version of The Times is useful to wrap fish.
2
Comparing Senator Klobuchar to Jamie Diamond and stating that he is the 'most talented CEO of our Day?' So if your company has paid out more than $13 billion in fines in the past 12 months for a series of damning financial scandals, just be sure you are a white male. You might also interview Ina Drew about Jamie Diamond's good management.
4
New York Times, I expect more from you.
4
Talk to me when you write a piece like this about a man.
10
Why is this still news? Coverage and continued commentary of this sort is more of the thinly veiled (sexist) water cooler gossip we really don't need. In perpetuating this conversation, the Times brings itself closer and close to the mud that we are all sick of wallowing in. Please stop.
4
If she is a horrible boss, quit. These people who hate her did not have a right to a job with her. She won an election to represent the people of Minnesota - they didn't. It is a hit job and it is not worthy of the time the press is giving it. And, it is because she is a woman. Have we ever heard of a horrible man, and there are plenty of them, being held to such a standard?
11
She's clearly a terrible person
Case closed
4
Amy K. is not ‘tough’ or ‘demanding’. She is a time bomb and an accident waiting to happen. She doesn’t belong in the Senate, much less the White House. She needs help, preferably in a secure facility.
5
@Richard Senate is okay, if okay with Minnesotans. She can't do executive-level damage there. The Oval Office is a very different question.
Stop. How about the articles that Mr. Trump was a terrible boss? Yeah right. None. Stop with the right/left, red/blue, liberal/conservative labels. What are Senator Klobuchar’s opinions on the environment, affirmative action, reproductive rights, income inequality, international trade? All the boring stuff. Was she a reality TV game show host who pit “Rowdy” Roddy Piper against “Ravishing" Rick Rude?
Utter nonsense. STOP!!
3
I wants had a boss who only slept four hours a day. The rest the time he was keeping his seven full-time assistants operating at an almost frantic pace. I watched him slap an assistant, stab one with an umbrella, throw food at them, a TV set, pens, pencils all manner of stuff. Screaming, yelling, tearing apart cell phones — all of it.
And yet he was the most brilliant person I’ve ever been around. What he accomplished was astonishing. And to this day the things I learned, the access he provided, and his example of what to and what NOT to do have allowed me to have a rich, rewarding career.
Am I a monster to my colleagues? Of course not. But I would never have accomplished what I have had I not put myself in the position to be pushed beyond what I thought I was capable of, to have expectations set so high I thought they were not achievable, and to then deliver beyond what I thought possible. All these people who are whining about it being hard... and Klobuchar being mean... need to suck it up. Maybe they’re the problem.
49
@Wretched Dance
"But I would never have accomplished what I have...."
That is speculation. It's impossible to know what you might have accomplished with an equally brilliant boss who would guide, challenge, and nurture, rather than demand, terrorize and humiliate.
And it's impossible to know how your former boss's life, career, community and legacy might have benefited, had he been fortunate enough to find himself overseeing an equally gifted and dedicated team, supported by senior management and institutional governance, who refused to put up with his physical and emotional violence.
67
@Pam He should have been prosecuted for assault and battery.
There is no excuse for physical violence.
59
@Wretched Dance
I’m challenging the brilliance of your boss. Hiring people that require occasional abuse in order to perform well is not brilliant. A brilliant boss would hire talented people with their own well developed sense of self esteem.
33
I worked at the U.S. Capitol for 20 years, the first 15 of them filled with joy and devotion to mission. Most of it was because of my boss, who was exacting but kind and funny. When he was promoted up and replaced by a succession of the kind of dreadful bosses Mr. Stephens describes in his piece, I began counting the days until retirement. I still, without reservation, curse their names and memory—they ruined 5 years of my life. The worst thing about these hideous people is that they do not understand the destruction they wreak. The doctor who told me I had cancer and asked if my job had been stressful, did.
7
“The memory of his crestfallen expression when he realized he would not be inflicting the clearly intended excoriation remains indelible.”
And in one pivotal moment, Bret Stephens found self-actualization in schadenfreude. Must have been like watching a puzzle assemble itself.
Amy Klobuchar’s behavior has been written about by enough people who aren’t openly committed to casting a ballot for Donald Trump, explicitly or otherwise.
“The statute of limitations on apologies never expires.”
And when you professionally advocate for war on a regular basis, do you apologize to the dead?
5
No. Same job.
I hope Klobacher withdraws from the race now so that she doesn’t become a distraction. She is not the type of leader this country needs.
10
Reading the comments today and previously, it almost sounds as though Klobuchar is being cut from the running because of past bosses and not standing up for themselves or going to HR.
The letter from the 60+ is being promptly dismissed because they might want their jobs. If she's so awful, why do they want their jobs? At least they put their names to the letter.
As of now, she still has my vote if she's on the ballot.
5
I was very interested in Amy Klobuchar as a candidate until I read about her bullying and vindictive behavior. That's it - end of story. If it's the pressure she's under as a senator that causes this behavior, I don't want to imagine her as a president with the weight of the world on her shoulders. I've moved on.
10
I would not know Amy Klobuchar if I walked into her. She could be bad to her staff, she could be good, she could be both. I know next to nothing about her. But are two or three articles all it takes for Mr. Stephens to claim that she 'make amends'? He should witness her acting this way before he pontificates. Let he and us watch her in action first before we throw rocks at her house. This is close to character assassination with no visual proof. Relax, Bret.
9
A bad can't be a good leader. And for anyone who want to argue that she can be... not of my country.
2
Make amends for behavior?
We'll accept Republican columnists' comments on Democratic candidates when Republican congressmen have addressed the behavior of the Horrible Boss in Chief.
Until then, they have a White House to clean.
5
I have mixed feelings about Amy Klobuchar.
First, I have that hard to erase desire to see if she is worse than others, or just worse than others want women to be. I spent a lot of years in the corporate world being called things like a witch, with no admiration at all, when men who were less compromising and a lot less nice were praised for playing hardball. What was admirable in male colleagues was deadly for females.
But on the other hand, frankly, I just don't want another narcissist package of ego and gall in the White House.
So, Amy Klobuchar needs to do some 'splainin. I can handle perfectly well someone who plays hardball, but is fair; I don't really want to see tantrums. Trumper-tantrums have worn me down.
7
Winston Churchill was involved in a war that would soon be WWII. He had an excuse. His wife asked him to change back to an earlier version of himself, which he apparently did. Klobuchar doesn't have a world wide conflict bearing down on here. If Klobuchar is so self-unaware, or intentionally mean, that she mistreats people she employs, I wouldn't expect much in the way of change. Lip-service? Probably. Actual change? Doubtful. Self-unaware people don't change so easily and mean people don't either.
11
I am so sad to see so many of us cheering on the women who are joining the race to the bottom, in the name of gender equality. I have two narcissistic, passive aggressive, sadistic, critical, snarky bosses; one is a man, the other is a woman. They both suck. I feel absolutely no loyalty to either one. I used to take great pride in my work ethic. Now I just try to do my work and stay out of their way. Loyalty is too complex for them, and it runs both ways. They are content to just have fear. Sad.
14
Having lower status and less power, whether in an office or in society as a whole, does not make a person any less worthy of respect and dignity.
I want an unabashedly pro-worker president this time around. Finally. If Klobuchar cannot treat her own staff with fundamental decency, why should we trust her to govern on behalf of the country's working classes?
14
@Ann
Because it's easy to love humanity and hate people.
She intentionally and needlessly publicly humiliates subordinates. That's all I needed to hear. She isn't and can't be a great leader. As a government lawyer for 25+ years, I am quite certain that humiliated subordinates will spend the rest of the lives getting even, to the degree that they can. She will never change. After Trump, I desperately want to see this country return to a significant degree of civil discourse, where good and decent behavior is the norm. What's happening now with the GOP is madness, and extremely destructive to our country.
12
The answer to the question is very simple, that the terms leader and boss are two seperate things, but the characteristics of one can influence the other. A miserable boss who is miserable because he/she expects a lot out of their subordinates but doesn't do it themselves is a terrible leader;a boss who expects their subordinates to comport themselves as professional while acting like a tyrant will fail miserably. More importantly, a boss who acts out, yells at subordinates, treats them like a servant, berates them, demeans them but refuses to acknowledge they acted badly cannot be a leader, and so far Klobuchar seems to be like this. Want to know why Churchill and Johnson were considered good leaders? Among other things, while they could treat people working for them badly, both of them would also acknowledge they behaved badly and apologize, both of them were able to instill loyalty, neither one of them had the kind of turnover, especially at crucial times, that Klobuchar has had with day to day stuff. Sorry, the last thing the US needs right now, that is so torn, is someone who is such an arrogant, self centered jerk, likely someone who sees themselves as the smartest kid in the room, that isn't tough, any more than Trump is tough, that is someone with emotional immaturity issues they won't/can't address. I have managed and led teams of people for a lot of years, as well as had bad bosses, and the description of her raises major red flags.
5
The majority of bosses are horrible, at least a part of the time...that's why they are bosses. Let's not get too excited and try to whine about every little thing that went wrong during an employer/employee relationship. 61 of her former staffers signed a letter of support so she can't be all that bad. Think about that. She is a good person who will make a great leader.
4
If someone who is running for president throws things at people, is she more qualified to be president if she hits them or if she misses them?
5
Meanwhile, we wait for some flick of contrition from President Trump, whose well-documented horrible behavior remains wholly unchecked.
8
Given who got elected in 2016, wouldn't it be ironic if this type of behavior is disqualifying for a Democrat candidate?
9
The simple answer to this question is "NO"!!
Why? You can tell the character of a person on how they treat people who have a lower status...
Her behavior is indicative of:
Huge EGO (me, me, me personality) and narcissism
Lack of empathy
Lack of listening skills
Huge need for superiority and the need to feel right and special at all times
Also perfectionism is NEVER an excuse for bad behavior. Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos also suffered under the perfectionism "illness" and we all know what the outcome of this "perfectionism illness" was....
9
Guess neo-conservatives have identified the front-runner.
7
Re: Can a Horrible Boss Be a Great Leader?
1. In the military not. Admiral Nelson knew the name of
every of his sailors, and they were ready to die for him
Moral counts. Nelson saved Britain at Gibraltar
2. In industry yes. A horrible boss that makes money is
still better than a nice one who loses money. Cause
your job will disappear, when the company runs out of
credit
3. In politics it varies. Churchill was horrible to the
labour class, but was needed as a leader in WW II
He saved Britain, but was disposed thereafter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_riots
2
Horrible Boss Syndrome isn't exclusively a male or female issue, but public outcry against it is. Belittling, abusive behavior should not be tolerated in anyone, regardless of their accomplishments. But society expects women to be helpful, understanding, and kind, and so they are disproportionately criticized for incivility; further, they are subsequently expected to show remorse and to apologize in order to regain credibility. How often does society hold horrible male bosses to the same standard?
238
@Liz There is some truth to there being a double standard in our culture - that is changing, slowly - but the existence of a double standard is no logical, rational or reasonable excuse for not applying a requirement of civility, decency and respect for human beings in a boss, leader and president, a requirement of restraint from abuse.
And it must be stated that the double standard is complicated and cuts both ways in these days of exalting female leadership simply because it is female and relatively novel in the culture. No special allowances for gender or novelty should be expected or given, not one bit. Seems to me that "leaning in" is just another form of divahood. And we currently have a diva in the Oval Office. We don't need another in his successor.
12
@Liz
I agree with you, but perhaps the answer is to require men to up their game - hold them to the same standard women are held to - not tolerate or even congratulate women for being just as awful as men can be.
12
@Liz
It isn't just that society expects women to be helpful, understanding and kind, their feminist supporters who rue the patriarchy ceaselessly tell us that women make better leaders and co-workers than men.
Needless to say, I don't think u should ask to have it both ways. Don't ask us all to believe that women are better bosses and co-workers than men, yet complain that women are held to a higher standard too. It just ain't right and it can't be true.
8
We have a crowded enough Democratic presidential field to winnow down without needing to give second chances to candidates with serious character flaws like rage issues and lack of empathy. In the words of Ariana Grande, "Thank u, next."
13
Among the highest, not the highest as has been reported elsewhere.
She is the highest woman in every survey I saw.
So it's okay for men?
2
@Kate
The article gives several examples of men in whom this behavior is asserted to be not OK.
5
@Laura
Were they asked to make amends?
Just look at Amy Klobuchar's voting record. Her record speaks for itself. She is not the most progressive or liberal of the candidates who are currently running for the presidency. She is a centrist. All of this aside, what kind of human being is she and how does she treat her fellow human beings? That's what really matters. Look at her record and look at what kind of person she is and then decide.
7
Oh good grief. Senator Klobuchar's internal office dynamics are just that--internal--unless there are legal transgressions.
Yeah, we've all had horrendous bosses and if powerless to affect their behavior, we've all had to weigh whether to stay or leave and how to respond. In Klobuchar's case, staff who have worked for her for an extended time are totally capable tackling any problem in-house.
If Klobuchar's to be publicly excoriated for bad personnel practices, then in fairness, let's examine the errors of each and every candidate. Let's further shoot our national political ethos in the foot through granular probing of missteps and mistakes, judging otherwise capable politicians ineligible for office for character flaws by far more minute than their achievements.
And, of course, let's go after the women first. Then, maybe, if there's time, we can take a little look at men--although given the amorality and immorality, the crass, tyrannical , behavior of the current president, apparently that won't really matter anyway.
And, by the way let's not revise the history of the Battle of Britain to entertain the possibility that if Churchill hadn't played nice, he might not have been around.
Have we learned nothing? Klobuchar may or may not be a viable nominee. Let's hear more about her stand on policy.
This next election is too important to waste time on less-than-relevant issues. Again.
9
But a candidate's "internal" temperament is very important. Read any one of the exposés on the Trump administration, and the common thread that runs through them is executive failure on large part due to how he runs the show within. This 2020 election is far too important, I agree. And so we should not make the same mistake voting in someone with a horrible temperament. My vote goes to whoever can be the antidote to the polarized craziness in this country, and Klobuchar has failed that most basic criteria.
6
Yet another East coast hit on "Evil Amy" from Minnesota. Why is that voters across Minnesota have elected and re-elected her again and again by huge margins? Because she helps her constituents and gets things done for them. And why might that be? Because she has "high expectations" for the people who work for her--demands that they work as hard and efficiently and as long hours as she does. That she should apologize is laughable.
16
@Will, does she throw binders at them?
1
Can a Horrible Boss Be a Great Leader?
No.
Great leadership is a package deal. Horrible bosses might make good money, or prove competent and effective in other ways, but someone who abuses their staff or anyone else as a means to an end will never be a leader, much less a great one.
13
Can the NYT stop printing gossip about Amy Klobuchar? You published a significant hatchet job last week and you’re still at it? Doesn’t Bret Stephen have anything more pressing to write about? The only thing new here is the public letter of support signed by 61 of the senator’s former staffers, which receives only a passing reference. NYT, stop the misogyny. Apply one standard to all presidential candidates. Find your journalistic integrity. You’re quickly losing my respect. Keep it up and you’ll lose my subscription.
37
@Elaine henry Agreed. I hope they haven't already chosen a candidate, but it's noticeable that Harris has had at least two front-page, cheerleading articles.
1
The allegations of mistreatment in the Times article were all anonymous. They may be true, false, exaggerated or the result of faulty memory. By contrast, 60+ Klobuchar staff members have signed a letter of support, and asserting that their positive views of her management were not given equal play. Several of these former staffers were contacted by the Times, but their thoughts were not included.
But another fact needs explaining. Klobuchar is the most effective member of the Senate, with some 28 bills signed into law, and with bipartisan support. Such success seems unlikely coming from an office in which staffers were mistreated, brutalized, as alleged.
In light of these points I think it is grossly unfair for Stephens or other columnists to be attacking Klobuchar or, worse, patronizing her to be more like Churchill.
One thing Klobuchar and Churchill have in common is a wry sense of humor. She’s going to need it to survive this unfair character assassination.
25
@PaulB67
Klobuchar has not denied any of the allegations in the Times article.
9
@Rahul: she conceded being tough on staff, tough and demanding. She has also pointed out — something the media has not — that she has and had many enthusiastic, hardworking and dedicated staffers during her Senate term. Her Chief of Staff has been with Klobuchar for six years. She is an accomplished, effective advocate for Minnesota, for women, for rural renaissance. She’s been elected to the Senate by overwhelming margins.
I don’t see that as a record compiled by the horrible taskmaster she is portrayed as being. It just doesn’t add up unless you believe, as I do, that the negative articles are the product of political oppo.
5
@PaulB67.....I don't know how you can say Klobuchar and Churchill have in common a wry sense of humor. Churchill is one of the most famous wits in history, as a politician and writer.
What humor has AK shown? She smiles a lot, in fact too much. This columns comparison in any way of WC and AK is absurd.
With plenty of great women candidates out there, we have to wonder why people are going out of their way to defend AK's hostile, arrogant behavior.
Please fade away AK. How much of this nastiness can we stand in our politicians, at this point? Are we so desperate?
2
When will Donald Trump make amends for his behavior of grabbing women by the crotch and kissing them. When will Republicans in Congress make amends for their childish behavior daily and their support of a dictator? When will Republicans start caring about Americans and our national security?
When will the NY Times opinion writers stop writing dribble about emails, behavior etc and concentrate on the serious problems this country faces?
22
@Jacquie....What is the worst harm Trump does to our politics? He distorts our judgement and standards. He is so atrocious in his behavior and statements, that he makes just ordinary bad candidates look great by comparison.
Add in the pushback to misogyny in politics, and we get defenses of this awful character, Klobuchar. No excuse for cruel abuse of staff.
She did look very benign, standing out in there in the snow storm, giving her speech to all her fans, and smiling, always smiling.
No
4
The electorate thought it was ok to elect an absolute moron for the leader of the free world. So what’s your point, aren’t women allowed to be jerks?
10
A President faces many times the pressure that a Senator faces. A Senator has no executive responsibility, no responsibility for foreign policy, no responsibility for the economy, no cabinet, no government employees, no judicial appointments and the list goes on. If she cannot face the pressures of her own small office with equanimity, she will crumble long before she makes it to the White House.
10
Why does the NYT insist on character assassination of Klobuchar? This is the second hit in one week.
28
@Mary Highland
The first hit was fatal. She is a sinking ship. The Times article is going to turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg.
5
Considering the consummate jerk she's replacing, she's way too qualified.
Tough boss? Suck it up, cupcakes.
Dishonest boss? Hay, we've got that now!
11
Thank you for this. I am so disappointed in a professional whose “Minnesota nice” face appears to be a mask. My trust in her has been destroyed, and I really don’t think I could ever trust her. Really disappointed.
7
I still feel like many people, including Mr. Stephens, are still missing the real reason why we should be alarmed by the recent allegations against Sen. Klobuchar.
Her being a "bad boss" or not being "nice" enough to her staff may not be the best quality in a presidential candidate, but is not by itself a deal breaker. What I found particularly problematic were - if you read carefully - the actual reasons why the Senator appears to be prone to lashing out at her aides. Most of the episodes described - aside from the one with the comb - make it sound like Ms. Klobuchar lives in constant fear of being "embarrassed" - and, as a result, is constantly blaming her staff for "making her look bad". Come on people, this should actually be a deal breaker. We've already got an insecure, thin-skinned man-child in the white house. You don't want the nuclear codes to be passed to a Democrat with the same attitude problems.
21
It has been said that how a candidate runs a campaign (and by extension works with campaign staff) gives good insight into how they would run things if elected. True for Obama, true for Trump.
Let's let Amy prove she can do better by running a campaign team with high standards, respect, and humility.
1
So, Bret Kavanaugh throws a fit during his confirmation hearing, yet is deemed fit for the Supreme Court. But NOW, Republicans are concerned about temperament when it comes to a female candidate (who, full disclosure, is not my first choice for the Democratic primary anyway). Never mind that Hillary’s ability to maintain her composure during 10 hours of pointless grilling didn’t matter to those who still support a “president” that throws a Twitter tantrum on a daily basis. Not buying the sexist double standards.
53
And what about our Dear Leader and his behaviour, Mr Stephens?
8
One can learn about the nature of a person’s leadership abilities by examining the followship. If a leader recruits and hires people willing to tolerate demeaning behavior or the leader believes demeaning behavior is required to keep the people in the organization in line...well that tells me all I need to know.
4
As far as i’am Concerned, it's time to say no to nastiness and make the world a kinder gentler place.
11
When I read the initial NYT article about Senator Klobuchar's treatment of her staff, I was incensed. I've been on the receiving end of similarly aggressive, and unjustifiable, behavior - from a male manager. You could work yourself to death, or into the psychiatric ward, trying to please someone who treats you like a serf and believes his/her position in the hierarchy justifies his/her actions. That said - how about an opinion piece on the expectation of respectful behavior from everyone - at every level - and in every sphere of social interaction. Let's not limit it to women in politics - or men in politics, for that matter. The workplace alone is rife with managers - and colleagues - who cover their incompetence, errors and basic personal dislikes - with what is simply abusive and socially unacceptable behavior (and yes, you folks in human resource offices everywhere do a big cover up such behavior that - in a domestic relationship - would be illegal). It may be trite but how about a little of that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Respectful and collegial behavior would probably lead to greater progress on many fronts.
12
You got some real weighty stuff here, Bret, with about as much gravity as election day in Jr. High.
9
61 former staffers come to her defense, we're told in the 8th paragraph. That's a lot of staffers. Find me real news.
10
Disgusting. Has Stephens written critically about a male leader who behaves badly to his staff? I'm thinking not. Many of us are done with this, and I can guarantee an even larger portion of the young will be intolerant of this misogyny. Get with it. You've hurt your credibility, so stop before we stop - reading you, that is
14
Good column. But apologies will not change who she is. We do not need another president who scares people into agreeing with bad ideas. A good leader welcomes input from those who see holes in his ideas. History might have been different if top people around LBJ were not afraid to tell him that his presidency would be destroyed in Vietnam or had told George W. Bush that invading Iraq was a terrible idea. The presidency itself intimidates dissenters; add to it a personally nasty president and disasters will follow.
11
Even if she apologizes, she has shown herself to be a lesser human being. She lacks the self-control to behave toward her staff as she would want others to behave toward her. She has used appalling judgment.
There is grace under pressure, an overwhelmingly admirable trait, that endears. Then there is bullying and stupidly bad behavior toward vulnerable subordinates which is repulsive.
Klobuchar is a bully, without, apparently the empathy that would have contained her bad behavior toward her own staff. We have a bully, among many other terrible things he is, in the white house. We don't need another, male or female.
It's a shame but her candidacy is probably ruined. She can apologize all she wants, but her behavior is unforgivable.
Despite Trump's lowering the bar and his attempted destruction of all things subtle, restrained, civil, delicate and kind, still we long for those things in a leader.
7
If Klobuchar were a man, her toughness with her staff wouldn't even be an issue. Do you realize how sexist your column is, Bret?
21
@DB
I’m sure it would be just as much an issue if she were a man. Cruel is cruel.
7
I keep reading these stories and I keep thinking about whether a man would be sujected to such nonsense.
Does anyone remember "Chainsaw" Jack Welch? Also known as "Neutron Jack.
When Welch took over GE it was worth about $12 Billion. When he left it was worth about $150 Billion. During his reign, at least 100,000 working people lost their jobs. And Welch was prasied to the Heavens.
I don't doubt for a moment that Ms Amy Klobuchar is a tough nut. Get over it! Politics is a contact sport.
By the way, could the NYT have chosed a more unflattering photo of Sen. Kloobuchar? Your bieases are showing.
9
@Fred Poor example using former GE CEO Jack Welch. Jack Welch was a tough bully who actually raised the market cap to $400 billion from $12 Billion. He also turned GE into an over leveraged bank that had to be bailed out by Warren Buffett and the US Gov't in 2008. Today many still wonder if GE can survive. Jack Welch was a tough boss, a bully and incompetent as a CEO if you look at what GE became after his 20 year tenure.
Klobuchar is an angry person who will attract the angry people who voted for Trump to vote for her. Trump is an angry person, and it was like catnip. She is uniquely qualified to take him on.
3
This is nothing new, and no one should be surprised. It's exactly what we can expect from an entitled, elitist Liberal who believes she has the talent, and the right to get involved in all aspects of our lives. Ask the Secret Service agents how Hillary treated them. These folks are America's newly appointed royalty.
How ironic though--the behavior of female Liberals during the State of the Union. They want to be perceived as strong, intelligent individuals who can think for themselves--except when being told to show up in sheep-like fashion--wearing matching garb, and acting in unison at all times. The only time they stopped scowling was when Trump recognized them. They were only approving--when it was all about THEM.
3
No, a horrible boss cannot be a great leader, period.
7
Either the media is out to get Senator Klobuchar or she really is as awful as they betray her to be. I think she is done based on the story in the NY Times.
6
Stephens would find fault with Amy Klobuchar if she had already been made a Saint by Pope Francis.
How many men have been scrutinized for how they treated staff? Bill Clinton was an angry boss by reports .... but who runs around talking about mean boy bosses.
Unless someone finds a headless corpse in Amy Klobuchar's Senate office, giving us pause to wonder if she bit someone's head off ....
.... the neighborhood scolds in the media ought give the "mean gurrl" theme they're hammering about Senator Klobuchar a rest.
Amy has unimpeachable integrity. I'd take her "mean boss" ways over Trump's serial lying bigotry, bragging and boorish social comments in a hummingbird heartbeat. We won't worry about treason by a sitting president with Amy Klobuchar residing in the White House.
9
Throwing things and insulting people isn't being a bad boss.
It's being a bad person
This woman shouldn't be anywhere near the Oval Office
11
Mr. Stephens writes that leaders who are bad bosses often fail and gives examples. What he doesn't point out is why they fail. The reason they fail is that they don't get the best work possible out of the people around them.
(Like Mr. Stephens, I too had a bad editor a while ago but, like Churchill, he often got very good work out of his staff. His management style didn't work with me and I ended up quitting.)
So many think they're getting great and speedy service in restaurants. Maybe they are, but they're also the ones getting spit with their entrées. Bon appétit!
Bret, this is your first column that I agree with 100% since you joined the Times' editorial staff.
I only hope that your humanity and compassion that reveals itself so clearly in your words today will seep into some of your future columns when your gaze falls upon the bottomless chasm of venality, ignorance, corruption and self-dealing that characterizes today's GOP - not to mention the mean-spirited smugness, frightful xenophobia and banal selfishness rampant in what passes these days for American "conservatism".
In short, I think you may truly have the makings of a "Mensch". Now please demonstrate week-by-week that you are taking strides to live up to this accolade.
No, this doesn't mean that you must become a doctrinaire liberal. But it does mean that you need to realize that the GOP is dead - replaced by the "TOP" (Trump's Own Party).
Exhibit A: One Mitch McConnell - a profile in cowardice, dereliction of duty and slavish obeisance.
We know you don't like Trump. That's not enough. Start showing us that you're truly repulsed by the ENTIRE GOP - none of whom have the spine to call out Trump for his blatant bullying, bigotry, ignorance, narcissism, megalomania, misogyny, boorishness and utter incompetence.
C'mon, Bret - we know there's a Mensch inside you, struggling to get out. Please unlock his cage and let him take wing. You'll feel a whole lot better - and so will the vast majority of your readers.
Amy is the best candidate running for President. She needs to relentguish control of the day to day management of her staff to someone that is a liaison between her staff and herself.
It is not realistic for her to expect she can fulfill her duties as a Senator, campaign for the Democratic nomination for President and work directly with her staff to optimize her productivity.
Looking at the work history of her current Chief of Staff (COS) I wonder if she has the right experience to do the job.
Amy needs to work closely with the COS in order for the COS understands what Amy.wants her staff to accomplish. The COS than must ascertain whether they are at the right staffing level and whether they have the right personnel in place to accomplish the objectives.
If they are staffed correctly great. if not make the necessary changes. Once the right staffing is in place it is up to the COS to lead and coordinate the staff to get the job done. If the COS can't do this replace the COS.
The Senator's job is to communicate primarily with the COS and on occassion offer coodoos and praise to the staff.
It is the job of the COS to discipline the staff when necessary and give constant recognition for jobs well done. Amy and the COS must be in regular contact in order to assure the staff is properly focused. It would also be good if Amy showed her face and charm occassionally to the staff.
She must have a happy and motivated staff if her objective is to end up in the Whitehouse.
@sbanicki...and the COS has to be good at ducking airborne binders.
3
Throwing things at people is assault.
It doesn’t matter that you are the boss.
It doesn’t matter that you are a woman.
It doesn’t matter that you think you are a perfectionist with high standards.
It’s abusive. Self-control is a key part of adulting, especially when you are in charge.
If Trump threw things at staff, what would we say?
500
@Objectively Subjective It's not only bad behavior, it's assault as you say. Someone can be prosecuted/ sued for that behavior. That is partly what stopped hospitals from shielding/ hiring talented surgeons who threw scalpels and other items at staff during operations. (Ask any older doctor: it happens.) There was also the risk of injuring the unconscious patient. Not because they prized people who could work on a team but high malpractice and other costs.
Do we really want a Presidential candidate who is already a liability risk for assault of all things?
36
@Objectively Subjective
I would say, " Did he also say, 'I’m a very stable genius' while he was doing it ?"
9
@Objectively Subjective
Totally agree. Someone once said, “There is nothing weaker than a strong man (woman) who can’t control him or herself.
10
Oh, give it a rest, Bret. I mean really, with the state of affairs as they are today in the United States you're going to crow "Oooh, the nasty woman is a meany." Let's draw the comparison that Klobuchar is JUST LIKE Trump!
C'mon, man, stop it.
6
Yes.
Is this going to be the new But Hillary's emails?
12
It depends on whether such a boss is capable of retaining talent - talent which in turn can interact with the rest of the staff and smooth the rough edges.
I work in an organization with a chief whose temperament is forbidding at the very least; I don’t know whether he has ever personally thanked anyone for a job well done, while he has certainly unjustly berated them, often for no-win situations he created.
The resilience of his top aides, with whom the rest of us actually interact, has provided a much-needed buffer most of the time; that all of us staff share a belief in our collective goal, and like each other if not the boss also helps keep us focused on the work.
But should he ever personally mistreat me the way Ms Klobuchar does, I would quit the next day.
3
It’s interesting how temperamental outbursts are excuses to dismiss women leaders, but never seem to be mentioned when considering men for leadership positions. Typical Republican sexist double standards at work.
23
@Amy Raffensperger I agree with this, but her behavior, if the reporting is true, is not to be tolerated regardless of her gender.
10
I had a summer job during college at a small company. The owner called all the lower-level employees “dummy.” As in: “Hey dummy, take this over there.” Like a senator’s organization, his business was a fiefdom where he ruled unchallenged. And like Senator Klobuchar, he too was “tough” and had “high expectations.” But any boss who belittles and humiliates employees isn’t tough, he or she is a sadist and there’s no excusing it. Tellingly, I can’t remember that boss’s name, only his behavior toward the little folk lasts on.
And the letter from 61 former staffers means nothing. How do we know they aren’t just trying to improve their chances of a job in a Klobuchar administration?
314
@Johnny Stark
Wait a minute, Johnny. You are a man criticizing a male boss. Don't you know that men never criticize male bosses, but instead only admire them? Yes, that claim is nonsense, but it has become part of the stock analysis of these matters. Every time I hear it, I laugh. Men never criticize male bosses? Yeah, right.
16
@Johnny Stark
So 61 former staffers signed their names to a letter of support - and a number of ANONYMOUS former employees complained about Sen. Klobbuchar. Exactly who should we listen to?
A few too many of the complaints were kind of silly. (Washing a comb? Washing a dish or two? Asking a young assistant to do this - once? - is a disqualification for the Presidency? Really?)
Has Sen. Klobuchar criticized any of her employees in public? Apparently not.
Ms. Klobuchar addressed these issues on the Rachel Maddow show, and commented that many of her employees went on to better, higher prestige jobs (in the White House, etc.). She was impressive. Seems to me that she might in fact be a good boss...
I consider this issue to be another knee-capping of a female candidate, after the Times did such an effective hit job on Hilary Clinton. (Who cares what email server she used? She shared her husband's server! HER emails were never hacked!)
Ms. Klobuchar has an extensive history of working well with others, and accomplishing important goals. That's what I will focus on when it comes time to vote for President.
22
Working for a member of Congress is like working for a small business but without legal protections.
Sen. K. needs to clean up her act. How one treats employees matters and character counts, be it as a parent, a politician or an aspiring presidential candidate.
7
I very much enjoyed the quotes from Mrs. Churchill. Great advice for all of us.
1
Some of Klobuchar's behavior was disturbingly bad.. but why do people cite her eating with a comb (perfectly ok under the circumstances) and asking aides to wash her dishes, as if they were big no-no's?
70
@Amanda
It's a disturbing story because it suggests meanness - a desire to humiliate. It's not the resourcefulness in finding an implement to use to eat with - it's the evident desire to rub the staffer's nose in his mistake (forgetting the silverware).
It would be different if she laughingly pulled out her comb to eat with, then later (politely) asked someone to wash up. But it was obvious it was a punishment, and given the intimateness of the item (the comb) being used as a prop in someone's public reprimand, it's a disturbing image. A person ought to wash their own comb, particularly if they've eaten off it! That's a bit gross, and too personal. (Abusive, basically.)
Ask yourself if you can imagine your boss doing that. Hopefully the answer is no, or else you work for someone nasty.
27
@Amanda. The point is I would never ask anyone to clean my comb after I had used it to eat. I guess some people have no issue with this. To each their own.
15
@Amanda
The comb thing is just grotesque. If you can’t find utensils, use your just washed fingers, the original utensils.
10
Sorry, but angrily throwing things at subordinates disqualifies one for serving in public office, and should be a fireable offense in any workplace. You can't say that using one's authority to sexually abuse employees is unacceptable and then excuse violent outbursts and assaults in the office.
15
Amy Klobucher is no Winston Churchill. In fact, she is not "Minnesota Nice" either. She is very dispensable unlike Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, a real World Leader without whom World War II would have not ended. She is just a bad, bad-tempered boss who throws her weight and dishes around because she can. Period. She is an aspiring Presidential candidate. If she is smart as they say she is, she will quietly withdraw. She can smash all the plates in her Senate office to vent.
6
I have to believe out of the 435 members of the US House and 100 members of the US Senate there have to be others whose behavior is bad as or worse than Klobuchar’s. So why Bret haven’t you or the main stream media reported on their bad behavior? I suspect Klobuchar’s gender has something to do with it. Just like it was fine for John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and even Bret Kavanaugh to cry (easy to find footage of this on YouTube) under the guise that is shows them as real human beings. But if a woman in Congress, the Senate, on the court, or in the workplace cries, “Oh she’s so emotional. That must be a character flaw. She’s not worthly.”
What bunk!
This country is upside down, inside out and utterly messed. This ludicrous column exemplifies that.
9
61 former staffers signed a public letter of support for Senator Klobuchar, but that fact does not encourage holier than thou Stephens to climb down from his moral high horse: She is horrible!
6
There is a dark line between being a good leader and being a demanding abusive tyrant.
A good leader inspires - his or her staff willingly tote the rope because they have been given the vision.
Klob, Trump, et al have none of that - they demand fealty - that is not the way to success.
Hmm, are there any politicians who should be ashamed of themselves? A few come to mind. Politicians who mock the disabled, mock POWs, degrade women, separate families at the border, and ignore allegations of sexual assault in considering supreme court nominees come to mind.
6
For any leader, one's tone, style, ethics, and approach all matter. But, the parsing and public questioning of her style seem disproportionate to the severity of her conduct. (BTW that photo was a cheap shot.) She's a tough boss --get over it.
The presidency is position of POWER. FDR wasn't particularly kind when he cheated on his wife. He wasn't honest when he violated congressional neutrality laws to prepare the US for war with the Nazis. But, he used his power in both ethical and unethical ways to promote an agenda to protect and save America from the Great Depression and tyranny. In other words, he had a clearly stated public platform and he used power in varying ways to achieve those goals.
Our next president will need to be tough. She or he will have to stand up to Putin, China, take on entrenched corporate interests, and an emerging sense of entitlement and naiveté by a large segment of young people that don't seem to understand how the world works. That is going to require a certain amount of toughness and ambition and ruthlessness.
If her treatment of staff was more closely connected to her public failings, we might have cause to be concerned. Our most recent disastrous presidents lacked a sense of how they would use their power in office. They were not driven by personal goals or beliefs, but merely ambition. Nixon, Trump, and Bill Clinton simply didn't believe in anything but gaining power.
Let's vet her and others on how they want to use their power.
1
Amy is toast. All of us had terrible bosses. We all saw their bright sides. But we hated them.
The primary field is crowded. Each candidate needs to distinguish him or herself.
Amy already has.
If she comes out with some apology campaign, I will throw up.
10
Sorry, but based on her past conduct with staff, she is unfit to be President. The trappings and perks of the Presidency would only enhance her reprehensible behavior. We don’t need another egomaniac in the White House.
5
But what about her emails?!
4
@John Yes, First Ms. Dowd and now Stephens harping on everything but what is important in the 2020 election.
4
Our last president was, by all accounts, a great boss, and famous for keeping his cool. Yet he was, sadly, despised by half the country and they then picked a narcissist with a nasty streak.
11
The articles that I have read regarding Senator Klobuchar have me rethinking which of the major newspapers I want to read. If you are going to accuse someone of something write a better article. Bullying and mean, isn't that what the NYT is doing? There are so many more things to say about Amy Klobuchar that would add perspective but you have her framed as the mean boss end of story. It wasn't that long ago that she was the fun and funny Senator from Minnesota. Why don't you just tell us who you want to run for President?
17
"Needs to make amends for her behavior" - let's put the POTUS at the top of that list.
4
You can’t really compare Amy Klobuchar to Winston Churchill. Enough said.
4
Oh, great! Another republican style hit job by the Times, which has of late become the National Enquirer of haut journalism (note the expression in the photo). Thank you, Bret Stephens. This is just what we need. An apology that republicans can use to dog, and smear, and tar, and ultimately eliminate another bona fide democratic candidate. Standard republican strategy. Maybe you've forgotten what they've done to Elizabeth Warren. Meanwhile, the Times continues to push candidates with little experience and fewer accomplishments, and perhaps even less of a following outside of their bi-coastal constituencies and is content to play into the hands of that other party. You know, the one without an ounce of scruples.
Considering that the president of the United States very publicly insults, denigrates, and rails against his own hires as well as federal workers, and has a long history of not paying workers, stiffing contractors, making labor deals with the mob, hiring illegal aliens and extorting them into working for peanuts, rumors about AK being hard to work for are small potatoes.
15
@SC
So because the current president behaves terribly it is okay to accept terrible behavior from the next president?
5
There are so many awful bosses out there. Maybe they could be the key Klobuchar voting bloc.
2
I'm a Democrat. I'm also a PhD scientist/academic who has seen a lot of both national laboratory and academia.
I sure would not work with or for Ms. Kobuchar, and she won't get my vote in any primary ... the reason is simple: people like this cannot attract or keep capable people -- they won't take the abuse and the cray-cray.
Smart & capable people don't need it, and won't take it.
Perhaps the most important skill of a President is recruiting and keeping great people ... compare Lincoln in "Team of Rivals" with Trump ... or Klobuchar.
Neither Democrats or our nation need this. She's no Churchill either.
3
I have no intention of ever voting Republican as I believe in democracy however, Klobuchar is the absolute wrong person for the job. We do not need another petty, immature tyrant in the White House. She has a weak ego and shows absolutely no leadership ability. Yuck, there are way better candidates in the Democratic field.
3
I would think that a horrible boss could not be a good leader, that would be a contradiction in terms. A good leader should be a good boss. How can it be otherwise. If you are one person behind the closed doors of employment that has a horrible disposition, then appear to be a good person to the public, I would submit that you are basically a horrible person without concern for anybody. What is being described is a sociopath.
Can a sociopath define good programs? Only if they are faking it. Faking it sociopaths we have now! We have it in Donald Trump. So far he is isn't producing anything worthwhile.
1
“Minnesota Nice”, in fact, “Midwestern Nice” is often a perjorative. Few may recall Herb Brooks, a Minnesotan through and through, who was the tyrannical coach of the 1980 US Olympic hockey team. Or how about former Wisconsin governor Scot Walker? Would any one describe him as a nice man?
3
ummm, it doesn't take very much intelligence, if any, to know the answer to the headline question. and if you're not really sure what that answer is, well guess you know where you fall out on the intelligence side of the question.
1
The comb thing caused me to withdraw my support for her. Crazy.
2
Here we go. Arch conservative Stephens begins his anti-woman, anti-democrat contender campaign by offering meek criticism of Klobuchar’s rumored behavior. And how about those emails?
131
@Sam Song
The first articles I read about these characteristics of Klobuchar's management style were from obvious supporters of more left of center candidates...obvious oppo research and meant to damage Klobuchar's standing in the race for the Dem candidacy.
Now, the choir boy formerly from the WSJ chimes in on her weakness as a manager.
She's obviously been doing something right and both sides of the political continuum are harping about her "style".
The most brilliant person I ever worked for was far,far worse than the worst situations cited by the hit jobs in these articles but the lesson I learned was to always work hard and learn from my mistakes.
2
@Sam Song. Agree that many on the left are throwing stones because they know she is far more electable than their candidate. Not sure what Stephens angle is. He's not honestly hoping to re-elect the Orange Authoritarian, is he?
@Sam Song. Yes! by all means...Lock her up!
2
"She can take Clementine Churchill’s wisdom to heart. She can call every staffer she’s wounded and tell them she’s sorry, that it wasn’t right, that she’ll never behave that way again."
Ah, but will she have the foresight - or at least the wisdom to read this column - to heed the advice? She has time, yes, indeed. The statute of limitations on apolgies never runs out, but the longer she waits, the more public her "management style" becomes, the less effective or beneficial those apologies will be.
2
Again, we deal with anonymous sources who fear reprisal from the senator. Yet, I can't help but feel things would be described differently if Amy Klobuchar were a man. Should she really be expected to call each and every one of the people she "wronged?" Would a male senator be expected to do the same thing? I'd be more interested in how she is going to appeal to voters of color than her perceived attempts of humiliating employees.
10
All these articles about her being a "bad and demanding boss" brings to mind the phrase
"the lady doth protest too much."
I don't think her behavior should be in no way excusable if there is truth to the stories, but it just seems like a pile on with the amount of attention given to this alleged flaw.
Please concentrate on policies she's putting forth. Voters will collectively decide
8
So it is ok for a woman to destroy an underling's career, but it is NOT OK for a man to make sexual advances on an underling? Either we fight against abuse of power or we don't!
3
@C Lee, it seems like there is a media "pile on" with Amy Klobuchar? Do tell? Imagine what Trump must feel like---with a dozen anti-Trump stories in this publication ever single day--and not just that he is a bad boss. The criticism surrounds every single thing the man does.
2
I am less optimistic than the columnist that Klobuchar can change. I think those traits, if true and they appear to be, are pretty ingrained. Someone can claim that have seen the light and will do better in the future, but the next time a high pressure situation arises they revert to form. Like a drunk who claims he will stop drinking or a wife beater who says he will never do it again, an employee abuser is unlikely to act differently in the future.
5
I run a nonprofit and believe I foster a very good work environment. I once resigned from a job because my boss was unethical. I get it.
Be careful about drawing conclusions based on specific examples.
I guess Bret Stephens can claim this is an "opinion piece" as an excuse for bad writing, and the obvious effort to use a photograph where is Ms. Klobucher has an expression that is intended to generate conflict. You wonder why The Press has earned public consternation?
13
@David She blocked employees from seeking outside employment because she didn't want to lose them. Would you do that?
2
It’s possible for a tyrannical boss to be a great leader.
But more often than not, this type of behavior is used to cover for broader incompetence.
7
First you have to admit your a bad boss. If Ms. Klobuchar cannot do that, her failure as a leader will continue. If an op-ed showed up in one of the leading newspapers, a mea-culpa of sorts, that's a beginning. Otherwise she is likely wasting her time.
I thought, before the article about her behavior toward her employees, that she would be an excellent candidate, Now though, I just don't know.
6
Leaders like Klobuchar will never get the best effort from their staff. Tough is acceptable, disrespectful is disqualifying. She will spend the rest of her career looking back over her shoulders for someone seeking revenge. I mean, “clean my comb”, is never forgotten. She clearly lacks common sense. Plus, I never find that people with such a major character flaw have only a single major character flaw. More will likely come out as the scrutiny intensifies. As an independent, I will never support Klobuchar. I don’t care how much she apologizes. Too late. Remember, the real measure of a person is what they do when nobody, or not many, are looking. She fails this test. It is time for us all to hit the mute button when she speaks, a total waste of time.
4
Tough bosses don't demean people and attack them personally. They are not rough and sarcastic. Tough bosses don't have serfs, punishment,and emotional outbursts. Horrible ones do.
We need a leader who exemplifies the behavior they expect in the American people. They are a model to be followed and emulated. We need an honest and moral person who will do the right thing for the American people.
In addition, we need a leader who can attract and retain the most competent and best people and build a world class team.
Our current leader is a "horrible" boss, a leader we do not want the country to emulate, and who has poor team.
The Democratic candidate has to be the anti-Trump and it is no time to put forth someone with any negative characteristics.
And no, a Horrible Boss can't be a Great Leader, but a tough one can.
So, sorry Amy, it is not your time.
6
The presidential race goes on for way too long. The only good thing about that is over the long hall, if there are candidates w/ character flaws they will be exposed. Anyone paying attention during 2016 certainly knew what "agent orange" was all about by election day. The fact that he won anyway, is certainly a sad comentary on our times.
As for Senator Klobuchar, she's been called out, lets see how she handles it. Hopefully for her sake, better than Gary Hart did.
3
Who would want to work for her? It would be (except for sexual harassment) worse than working for Trump.
Only careerists with no sense of personal dignity. There are plenty of such people in Washington, but they aren't competent professionals with the necessary expertise.
1
Whether man or woman, being elected to high office results in many of them thinking that they are special, they have the mandate of the people, that others are there to serve them. When you combine that mental high from being elected with the innate character flaws of some of them, you get someone like an Amy Klobuchar.
1
Amy Klobuchar is a great example of how context drives perception. She's a nitpicking careerist who has to look better than her colleagues. This makes her good at her public job but bad at treating others behind the scenes. Technically, it should be neither here nor there to the constituents, except that at some point how you treat those you work with catches up to how you treat those you work for.
Klobuchar is also a reminder of what holds women back -- the unending quest for perfection that prevents them from seeing the forest for the trees.
These though are moot points. She's never going to be president, lacking as she does any charisma. -- thegamesmenplay.com
Senators are treated as little gods by staff and most of the people they encounter on a given work day.
This deference is attributable, in part, to the Senate's Advice and Consent power. Anybody that doesn't treat a particular Senator with the respect and deference he or she thinks they are entitled to runs the risk of "payback" if and when that person may be under consideration for a position requiring Senate Confirmation.
The power of an individual Senator to scuttle or delay a nomination is almost limitless.
Put that kind of life or death power over someone's career in the wrong hands and you have a recipe for creating a jerk. Generally
speaking, jerks don't make good presidents.
I like Senator Klobuchar and I'm hoping she isn't who some of the rumors say she is. Berating underlings is a red flag. Attracting motivating and retaining good people is one of the Presidential job requirements. Reagan, Obama and some others did it well.
Somebody said..."a presidential campaign is an MRI for the soul."
Senator Klobuchar is on notice. She has the burden of proof. She has to show us she's OK in the soul department.
I hope she succeeds.
6
Oh, for heaven's sake. If Sen. Klobuchar was a man, this wouldn't even be a story. There are plenty of lousy bosses among elected officials. There are plenty of reasons why: many of them have no training in or role models for good personnel management; they are often under enormous pressure, which never improves anyone's personality; they are often narcissistic, which is why they are politicians to begin with; and their power, and the prestige of the jobs they have to offer, mean there is very little downside for bad behavior. Everybody on Capitol Hill knew what a vicious martinet Lyndon Johnson could be, but no one ever suggested it disqualified him from being president. Again, when I see this charge brought against more men, I might take it seriously.
36
@Mark Really? Give the tired "if this were a man" cry a rest. Men get retribution for this bad manners too.
9
@Mark
No one would care or mention it if a man threw binders at members of his staff?
8
I completely agree. Some else getting away with worse behavior (e.g. male bosses) does not make you 'good.' It just means they're awful, toxic, vituperative troglodytes too, and they deserve their comeuppance just as much as you do. It's our job to be sure they get it.
Whenever someone treats the waiter like dirt, even if they're taking you out to dinner, just remember: there's more where that came from, and that endless aquifer of contempt will seek more vessels to fill.
9
Focusing on an INDIVIDUAL personalities at this point in time is political folly and to me, totally uninteresting.
Focus on POLICIES, LEGISLATION, & IDEAS ! ! !
10
I'm from Minnesota. Klobuchar is an excellent legislator with a very good voting record. The NYTimes shows a bias against women or women who have political power. Recently, several people interviewed by your journalist about their work for Amy Klobuchar have reported inaccuracy and distortion in the article. You ought to make a correction. She apparently is not a horrible boss.
Furthermore. This headline is click-bait. I have to question your assertion in your headline. Who is a horrible boss? Who needs to make amends? I think that would be Donald Trump. I think that would be Jeff Sessions. I think that would be the GOP who want to take away affordable health care, cut funds for public education, imprison and deport immigrants, restrict access to voting, and cut funds for scientific research.
50
@Sheila Packa agree 100% . Next topic they will move on to will be criticizing Sen Klobuchar’s hair , makeup and clothes.
Does my senator not see the irony in complaining about the incompetence of her staff in light of it having the highest turnover in the senate?
3
A day or two after the first Times article on Sen. Klobuchar's fraught HR skills, I got the most recent issue of "Thunder Run" in the mail. "Thunder Run" is the name of the quarterly newsletter/periodical published by men who served in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam and Cambodia. Below the quarterly letter from the current commander of the the 11th Cav were a few nuggets of wisdom from several military leaders over the centuries. This one stood out:
"The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded you just don't care. Either case is a failure of leadership." - Gen. (and former Sec. of State) Colin Powell.
If there is a grain of truth in the description of Sen. Klobuchar's treatment of her staff, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between her and our current President's true leadership skills.
4
I don't know why Gary Cohn is allowed to keep company with men like Mattis and McMaster when it comes to people who had to endure Trump. As a fellow New Yorker, Cohn knew Trump and knew perfectly well what he was getting into, but he was on a mission from Goldman Sachs to lower taxes for the plutocrats. He waded around quite comfortably in the swamp until he got his legislation and then he jumped ship, emerging several hundred million dollars richer. Not bad for a few months work. His reputation was not sullied, because he had none to begin with.
1
After trump, why should we put up with a horrible boss. We had an intelligent, competent president who treated people well and was well liked except by Mitch McConnell, his name was Barrack Obama. There are a number of well qualified well intended candidates out there so why settle for Klobucher. We can do much better. Let her go take anger management courses.
5
Can a "horrible boss" be a great leader? The simple, obvious answer is NO! Can an unskilled, toxic manager or CEO be successful despite her or himself? Yes, sometimes the business or political environment provides an opportunity that makes success all but inevitable. The business world has an ample supply of self-motivated, talented teams & individuals that can make incompetent leadership largely irrelevant. The number of inept 2nd generation business owners that can mimick success, especially over a limited timeframe, speaks for itself.
3
If a little power for her manifested as a little hubris, why should we think that a lot more power, should she gain it, will somehow manifest as a lot less hubris than before?
2
Tom Izzo is the head basketball coach at Michigan State University. You can watch him scream at has players on national television, shaking his fist, getting red in the face. They look away, they take the abuse, they rarely talk back. What they also do is go back on the court and play better basketball.
These often humiliated players all eventually leave. They're often interviewed about Izzo. They profess to love the guy. They come back year after year to encourage current players. They sometimes donate millions to MSU's athletic fund.
Izzo is a terrible boss, and many of his players thank him.
Is Klobuchar Izzo? Is she the wrong gender for being an Izzo, a boss who demands perfection?
4
It's one thing to expect the best from employees, but when that intersects with mean spirited demeaning obnoxious behavior from the boss, it won't promote success from employees. I have been the victim of that kind of behavior from a female boss. She threw phones and other objects at people when annoyed, which was frequent. She would spew hatred at anyone she felt was not up to her standard, including her own 85 yr old father who worked for her. It was the worst work experience I've ever had. I've really liked Amy, but with the new revelations about her behavior I cannot support anyone, male or female who treats people like that. I've had enough of that with Trump and his sick sidekicks.
7
The question asked has been answered it’s as they say In court asked and answered. Really it’s staring us all in the face. Trump , Trump, Trump. And as a woman thinking she had to show her aggressive, pitiful characteristics to make it in this world, if she, we haven’t noticed lately the men she is following are not thought of highly. Bullies are bullies. The world does not benefit from their actions. Don’t we teach our children that? I say no thanks they have done enough damage.
2
I don’t recall seeing any similar stories about all the male presidential candidates or presidents who were, what we in DC casually called, “screamers.” I worked around male screamers in DC for more than a decade. When one of them ran for president, no one talked about his fits.
6
She does not need to make ammends.
She needs to sit down and let some one else be president.
1
If a man behaves the way Amy behaves, would it be an issue?
10
My word. Let's listen to another man criticize a woman running for office because of her style and aggressiveness. Whoever runs in this election will face a flood of filthy lies from the GOP - top to bottom. The candidates are going to have to be extremely aggressive and mount a serious offense against the filth currently running this country. Grow up.
11
When you start writing think pieces about how all the men in leadership positions need to adjust how nice they are to people, I will be more inclined to take this seriously. Until then, this is more misogyny, plain and simple, not journalism
9
What makes it even worse is that the public image she cultivates and sells is "Minnesota Nice"
What a total phoney
4
@Luciano Unfortunately, that is the very definition of Minnesota Nice! Often, mean and petty with a phony, polite public image.
1
Along Elizabeth Bruenig in her very good opinion piece in the Washington Post, Mr. Stephens delivers a thoughtful and positive response to this disappointing news about Amy Klobuchar's behavior with staff. To those whose instinct is to indulge in a feminist defense of the Senator's behavior, please instead appreciate Bret's comparisons with mostly male leaders throughout history. Ms. Breunig put it well:
"Arguments that we ought to discount coverage of Klobuchar’s maltreatment of her staffers on gender-egalitarian grounds . . . really hold that because we wrongly accept male abuse of workers, we also ought to accept female abuse of workers. But the reality is actually the reverse: We rightly don’t accept female abuse of workers, and we shouldn’t accept male abuse of workers, either."
Bulls-eye. I cringed when Serena Williams went on her recent court rant every bit as much as I did when Agassi or McEnroe did it. I would rather she were better than them.
Our country will be better off with more women in power, running our government at all levels, in large part because they are (mostly) better than this. And I agree it's not to late for Sen. Klobuchar to redeem herself, and possibly even prevail in 2020.
4
She doesn't need to make any change whatsoever. She is the perfect leader of what has become the 'Angry Female Party'.
1
Many people know the first two lines of Lord Acton's comment about power, but few know or remember the third:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men..."
I'm highly ambivalent about Klobuchar's greatness but she seems bad.
Just stop. A man is a horrible boss and he's honored. A woman is accused of the same thing and you demand she "make amends". I choose to listen to the group of other staffers who signed off on a letter saying what a great boss Klobuchar is. It's time to stop attacking female candidates for petty things. Stick to the issues and how a candidate will pay for and accomplish their ideas. The media refused to vet Trump and Sanders in 2016 and it looks like instead of digging up dirt in Sanders past, you're going after female candidates. We will not tolerate this any longer.
350
@Lynn Bullying is not a gender issue. Period. I refuse to support any candidate - male or female - who verbally abuses staff, or anyone else.
85
@Lynn Google Gerry Sikorski former Congressman from Minnesota and see that women are not the only politicians who have been criticized for this type of behavior.
23
@Lynn
No. I worked for a boss who was horrible, a man - volatile, quick to anger, unreasonable and rude on a good day, screaming and threatening on a bad day. We did not honor him. We worked to remove him, and his career never recovered.
55
I have an easier time accepting a horrible boss as POTUS than someone beholden to Wall Street or with a long documented history of lying and placing expediency over doing what's right. Klobuchar is no Hillary.
2
I'd been watching Amy Klobuchar for several years, hoping one day she might run for president. I'm probably a bit to her left politically, but she has a strong voting record and has introduced legislation on several "kitchen table" issues. I especially liked her for 2020 because I think a midwesterner has the best chance to flip Trump voters who previously supported Obama back to the Democrats.
But if the accusations about her are true, without embellishment, then she's compromised. And at this early stage of the race, we should be looking for candidates without such baggage. I'm certainly willing to listen if more staffers speak up in her defense, or dispute the incidents described to date, but absent mitigating evidence, I'm waiting for Sherrod Brown, another midwesterner with many laudable qualities of his own, to announce his run.
13
I'm not sure "making amends" will work to expiate Klobuchar's behavior. Having high expectations and not having them met is one reason for being difficult- however in that case the person should personally set a standard of behavior and commitment and make clear from the start that is what is expected of subordinates. When they do meet the standard they should be praised. Only when they come up short due to avoidable error should they be criticized, and then constructively.
In Klobuchar's case what has been described is something else- a fear that she won't be respected, will be laughed at, won't "rise up" in the esteem of her colleagues -suggesting an anxiety on her part that maybe she isn't really up to it. That leads to a form of paranoia- believing everyone is against her when things go wrong because to think otherwise means she has to confront the possibility that the blame is hers and in truth she isn't up to it. It's always someone else's fault-never hers. Not a good personality profile for a leader.
8
I walked out of a job when the owner decided to throw a temper tantrum and embarrass me in front of a room full of people. She called later to apologize. I went into the business the next day. I explained there would never be a job where I would take being treated with anything less than the same respect I gave her. We never needed to talk of it again. How do you lead people who can’t respect you?
3