Why having a massive public row with your boss rarely ends well
Analysis: The spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is a vivid example of how a massive blowup with your boss can be destructive and dangerous
The increasingly bitter spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has dominated the news cycle of late. Until a few days ago, they presented the appearance of being best buddies, but Musk's criticism of the "Big Beautiful Bill" that Trump is trying to get through Congress (which would enact tax cuts, cuts social funding, increase defense spending and lead to a substantial increase in America's already massive deficit) led to a serious breach between these two self-styled titans.
Trump and Musk are now trading insults on their respective social media platforms (X and Truth Social), with Musk claiming that Trump would not have won the election without his help and Trump musing that it might be time to cancel Musk's many contracts with the US government. This has quickly degenerated into the type of brawl usually seen in the schoolyard, and pundits are having a field day.
From RTE Radio 1's Brendan O'Connor Show, former journalist Mark Little on why he's backing Elon Musk in his schoolyard brawl with Donald Trump
Beneath the childishness of their feud, there are serious issues. It is certainly an expensive fight for Trump and Musk, with Tesla stock losing over $150 billion and the Trump crypto coin $Trump losing over $100 million in value over the last few days. It is also a vivid example of one of the most destructive and dangerous events that can happen in an organisation: a massive blowup at your boss. These rarely turn out well.
There are usually two scenarios that lead to this blowup with your boss. First is the case where you are completely in the wrong and probably in very hot water. For example, you make a mistake, your boss appropriately calls you out and you tell your boss to go soak his or her head (or something considerably more colorful). There is little to do here but hope that your boss is generous and forgiving.
From RTÉ Brainstorm, my boss is a psychopath: why bad people get good jobs
The second, and much more difficult situation, is where a blowup with your boss is the result of his or her unreasonable behavior. In a paper in Harvard Business Review, Annie McKee notes that many bosses lack the emotional stability to monitor and control their behavior.
These bosses can be abusive, and they can make their subordinates' lives miserable by yelling, displaying hostility toward their subordinates, insulting and denigrating them or simply sabotaging their work by withholding information resources needed to perform their jobs. These are the bosses who are most likely to provoke a blowup - and also the bosses least likely to forgive and forget.
Blowing up at an abusive boss can be dangerous in many ways. McKee suggests that the most important thing to do in this case is to protect yourself. If your boss is so abusive that you often feel on the verge or blowing up at him or her, it is a good bet that the culture of the business tolerates abuse, in part because the organisation is strictly hierarchical. This means that the presumption will often be that the boss is always right, and that no matter what the boss does, subordinates have no right to challenge it.
From RTE Radio 1's Brendan O'Connor Show, how to deal with a toxic boss
In this case, protecting yourself might start with developing a strategy for dealing with the fallout of a blowup. Do you have powerful allies? Do you have a realistic exit strategy? If the answer to both these questions is no, you must do whatever you can to avoid a blowup.
A strategy for dealing with the physical and emotional toll of an abusive boss is every bit as important as developing an exit strategy. The targets of abusive supervision experience a range of negative effects, including elevated blood pressure, depressed immune systems, anxiety and depression.
Unfortunately, many employees respond to abusive supervision by suffering in silence or by retaliation, and neither of these is a very effective response. Suffer in silence and it is likely that the physical and psychological effects of stress will accumulate. Retaliate by blowing up at your boss and you will probably be out on the street in short order.
From RTÉ Radio 1's The Business, is being bold a good thing for the workplace?
There are productive ways of dealing with an absuive boss than hitting them over the head with something heavy. You should document the situation and events, manage the way you perform your job to minimise contact with and conflicts with the abusive supervisor and diagnose the likely causes of abusive supervision.
McKee suggests that you start with self-awareness and situational awareness. Are there things that you do or situations in the organization that contribute to your boss's behavior? Even if you cannot make large changes in the organization, having a better understanding of why your boss acts the way he or she does can help in managing the stress of dealing with an abusive boss.
Reacting to a bad boss is always difficult (even if it is sometimes hard to tell who is the bad boss as in the Trump-Musk feud), but there is one thing we know with confidence from the research on abusive supervision. The thing that might be most satisfying at the moment – blowing up at your boss – is a very bad idea.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
World Bank sharply downgrades forecast for global economic growth to 2.3%
US President Donald Trump's trade wars are expected to slash economic growth this year in America and around the world, the World Bank forecast. Citing 'a substantial rise in trade barriers' but without mentioning Mr Trump by name, the 189-country lender predicted that the US economy – the world's largest – would grow half as fast (1.4%) this year as it did in 2024 (2.8%). That marks a downgrade from the 2.3% US growth it had forecast back for 2025 back in January. The bank also lopped 0.4 percentage points off its forecast for global growth this year. It now expects the world economy to expand just 2.3% in 2025, down from 2.8% in 2024. In a forward to the latest version of the twice-yearly Global Economic Prospects report, World Bank chief economist Indermit Gill wrote that the global economy has missed its chance for the 'soft landing' – slowing enough to tame inflation without generating serious pain – it appeared headed for just six months ago. 'The world economy today is once more running into turbulence,' Mr Gill wrote. 'Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep.'
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
World Bank slashes global growth forecast as trade tensions bite
The World Bank has slashed its global growth forecast for 2025 by 0.4 percentage point to 2.3%, saying that higher tariffs and heightened uncertainty posed a "significant headwind" for nearly all economies. In its twice-yearly Global Economic Prospects report, the bank lowered its forecasts for nearly 70% of all economies -including the United States, China and Europe, as well as six emerging market regions - from the levels it projected just six months ago before US President Donald Trump took office. PresidentTrump has upended global trade with a series of on-again, off-again tariff hikes that have increased the effective US tariff rate from below 3% to the mid-teens - its highest level in almost a century - and triggered retaliation by China and other countries. The World Bank is the latest body to cut its growth forecast as a result of President Trump's erratic trade policies, although US officials insist the negative consequences will be offset by a surge in investment and still-to-be approved tax cuts. The bank stopped short of forecasting a recession, but said global economic growth this year would be its weakest outside of a recession since 2008. By 2027, global gross domestic product growth was expected to average just 2.5%, the slowest pace of any decade since the 1960s. The report forecast that global trade would grow by 1.8% in 2025, down from 3.4% in 2024 and roughly a third of its 5.9% level in the 2000s. The forecast is based on tariffs in effect as of late May, including a 10% US tariff on imports from most countries. It excludes increases announced by PresidentTrump in April and then postponed until July 9 to allow for negotiations. The bank said global inflation was expected to reach 2.9% in 2025, remaining above pre-COVID levels, given tariff increases and tight labor markets. "Risks to the global outlook remain tilted decidedly to the downside," the bank wrote. It said its models showed that afurther 10-percentage point increase in average US tariffs, on top of the 10% rate already implemented, and proportional retaliation by other countries, could shave another 0.5 percentage point off the outlook for 2025. Such an escalation in trade barriers would result "in globa ltrade seizing up in the second half of this year ... accompanied by a widespread collapse in confidence, surging uncertainty andturmoil in financial markets," the report said. Nonetheless, it said the risk of a global recession was less than 10%. 'FOG ON A RUNWAY' Top officials from the United States and China are meeting in London this week to try to defuse a trade dispute that has widened from tariffs to restrictions over rare earth minerals, threatening a global supply chain shock and slower growth. "Uncertainty remains a powerful drag, like fog on a runway. It slows investment and clouds the outlook," World Bank Deputy Chief Economist Ayhan Kose told Reuters in an interview. But he said there were signs of increased dialogue on trade that could help dispel uncertainty, and supply chains were adapting to a new global trade map, not collapsing. Global trade growth could see a modest rebound in 2026 to 2.4%, and developments in artificial intelligence could also boost growth, he said. "We think that eventually the uncertainty will decline," he said. "Once the type of fog we have lifts, the trade engine may start running again, but at a slower pace." Kose said while things could get worse, trade was continuing and China, India and others were still delivering robust growth. Many countries were also discussing new trade partnerships that could pay dividends later, he said. US GROWTH FORECAST CUT SHARPLY The World Bank said the global outlook had "deteriorated substantially" since January, mainly due to advanced economies, now seen growing by just 1.2%, down half a point, after expanding 1.7% in 2024. The US forecast was slashed by 0.9 percentage point from its January forecast to 1.4%, and the 2026 outlook was lowered by 0.4 percentage point to 1.6%. Rising trade barriers,"record-high uncertainty" and a spike in financial market volatility were expected to weigh on private consumption, trade and investment, it said. Growth estimates in the euro area were cut by 0.3 percentagepoint to 0.7% and in Japan by 0.5 percentage point to 0.7%. It said emerging markets and developing economies were expected to grow by 3.8% in 2025 versus 4.1% in January's forecast. Poor countries would suffer the most, the report said. By 2027 developing economies' per capita GDP would be 6% belowpre-pandemic levels, and it could take these countries - minus China - two decades to recoup the economic losses of the 2020s. Mexico, heavily dependent on trade with the U.S., saw its growth forecast cut by 1.3 percentage points to 0.2% in 2025. The World Bank left its forecast for China unchanged at 4.5% from January, saying Beijing still had monetary and fiscal space to support its economy and stimulate growth.
RTÉ News
6 hours ago
- RTÉ News
How Trump's actions against LA protesters defy all precedents
Analysis: Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California Violence has erupted on the streets of cities across southern California over the weekend, as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detaining people they suspected to be illegal immigrants. The US president, Donald Trump, took the unusual decision on Saturday to deploy 2,000 troops from California's National Guard, despite not being requested to by the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom has threatened to sue Trump over what he has called "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act". Other California officials have also denounced the move, with Senator Adam Schiff calling it a "dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the guard across the country". Raids by ICE agents have increased significantly since mid-May when the Trump administration threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they did not deliver on higher arrest quotas. Several high-profile wrongful arrests of US citizens have further inflamed tensions. Protests have escalated in California, a Democratic stronghold and a "sanctuary state" where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE to detain illegal immigrants. At around 24,000 troops, California's National Guard is the largest in the United States. Each state has its own National Guard unit, a reserve force under the control of the governor which can be called upon in times of crisis – often to help out during natural disasters or other emergencies. For example, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to aid relief work during the devastating fires that threatened Los Angeles. In 1992, the then president, George H.W. Bush, backed the call of the then governor of California, Pete Wilson, call to deploy National Guard members to quell the South Central LA riots. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Los Angeles-based reporter Sean Mandell reports on the ongoing LA protests Now troops are back on the streets of LA. But this time not at the behest of the governor. Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California – and importantly, against a state that has constantly resisted his anti-immigrant agenda. Newsom is seen by many as a possible contender for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2028 presidential election. Historical precedents Is there a precedent for this? Yes and no. The Insurrection Act (passed in 1807, but revised several times) authorises the president to call on the National Guard in times of crisis or war to supplement state and local forces. This has been codified in title 10 of the US Code, which details the laws of the land. In 1871, the law was revised to specifically allow for the National Guard to be used in the protection of civil rights for black Americans. Legal experts have long called for reform of the Insurrection Act, arguing that the language is too vague and open to misuse. From RTÉ News, Trump calls deployment of troops in Los Angeles a 'great decision' In the past, former US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked different sections of the Act to protect civil rights, particularly against segregationist states. While the act implies consent between governor and president, it does not require it. Two examples stand out. On June 11 1963, Kennedy issued executive order 11111 mobilising the National Guard to protect desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Alabama governor George Wallace. Wallace's determination to block the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, produced a produced a sensational media moment when Wallace physically blocked the entrance of the university. Local law enforcement stood by the governor. With the state of Alabama in defiance of federal law, Kennedy saw no alternative but to deploy the guard. Less than two years later, in March 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson again deployed the guard in Alabama, bypassing Governor Wallace. In February, a state trooper in the town of Marion killed a young voters-rights activist, Jimmie Lee Jackson. This shooting, along with several violent attacks by the local police on voter registration activists in Selma, inspired a series of marches in support of the 1965 voting rights bill. On the eve of the march from Selma to Montgomery, tensions between local police and civil rights protesters were at a high. In response, Johnson bypassed Wallace and called in the National Guard to ensure, as he put it, the rights of Americans "to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery". Before last Saturday, this was the last time a president circumvented the authority of the state governor in deploying the guard. But even in this instance, there was an implied request from Wallace, who explicitly requested federal aid in the absence of state resources. The subtext here is that Wallace did not want to be seen to call up the National Guard himself, so he forced Johnson to make that decision, allowing him to claim that the president was trampling on state sovereignty. Insurrection Act But this is not the current situation in California. The LAPD is the third largest police force in the US, with over just under 9,000 sworn officers. While its ranks have shrunk in recent years, it has been responding to the recent protests and unrest. There is no reason to think that Newsom would hesitate to call in the National Guard if warranted. In reality, Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act to protect ICE agents. Indeed, the National Guard has a complicated history of responding to civil unrest. The current situation is in stark contrast with the past, and faces serious questions of legitimacy. It is difficult not to see this as the latest move by the Trump administration to subjugate California. In early January Trump threatened to withhold federal aid to rebuild after the wildfires. In past months he threatened to withdraw all of the state's federal funding to punish it for its stance on campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has not mobilised the National Guard to protect civil rights against a hostile police force. Instead, he appears to be using this as leverage to undermine a political opponent he views as blocking his agenda. Circumventing gubernatorial powers over the National Guard in this way has no precedent and heralds the next stage in an extended conflict between the president and the state of California.
