Being appointed as a leader generally means that you should be doing at least a little bit of leading: sitting on your cell phone while your teenaged workers suffer the onslaught of a rush is not that.
It's a sure sign that someone shouldn't have been appointed to the leadership position they are in and is instead a living, breathing example of the "Peter principle." Other times the issue is worse still, and the person's appointment to their leadership role isn't due to any previous performance but rather due to the organization selecting its leaders based on untraditional leadership qualities: obedience, bootlicking, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope — and nice red uniforms. (I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!)
Yes, it's unfortunate but true; often, those who shouldn't be leaders curry favor from those who are leaders but shouldn't have been. The ensuing ouroboros of fatuous leadership is enough to consume many an organization.
It probably goes without saying that these restaurant managers fall somewhere in the two discussed categories, and their behavior, unfortunately, isn't all that uncommon in some industries, as demonstrated by the number of people in the comments who shared their relatable experiences. Luckily, an ill-given directive set up the chance for some expert malicious compliance, which resulted in some tangible customer complaints about the manager's behavior.
Keep reading for screenshots of this story, as it was originally posted on Reddit's r/maliciouscompliance subreddit. For more, check out this worker who expertly exploited a stupid belt loop hole loophole.
No comments:
Post a Comment