Worst Manager?


A 360-degree evaluation and Net Promoter Scores should be part of all leaders' year-end assessments. If employees felt confident that their feedback was anonymous and there would be no fear of reprisals, it would clearly illustrate which leaders are ineffective and fail to inspire—those who lead by title rather than by value. Leaders like Ryan, Paul, Deb, Bill, and even Scott would all be exposed.

In sports, turning around a franchise often requires firing the entire coaching staff and general management to achieve effective change. These poor leaders can't blame compensation anymore when their award winners leave! Given Bayer's poor retention, bonus performance and the mass exodus of top talent, isn't it clear that our leaders are failing to lead?
 






A 360-degree evaluation and Net Promoter Scores should be part of all leaders' year-end assessments. If employees felt confident that their feedback was anonymous and there would be no fear of reprisals, it would clearly illustrate which leaders are ineffective and fail to inspire—those who lead by title rather than by value. Leaders like Ryan, Paul, Deb, Bill, and even Scott would all be exposed.

In sports, turning around a franchise often requires firing the entire coaching staff and general management to achieve effective change. These poor leaders can't blame compensation anymore when their award winners leave! Given Bayer's poor retention, bonus performance and the mass exodus of top talent, isn't it clear that our leaders are failing to lead?
They do a 360 review at that level.
 




If it's good for that level, it should be done at every level.

There is a significant gap in the implementation of comprehensive 360-degree feedback mechanisms within the leadership ranks of our organization. It is a common but inaccurate belief that such evaluations are a standard practice. While employees have the opportunity to conduct self-assessments, it is exceedingly rare to see leaders engaging in 360-degree reviews. This lack of feedback among leadership creates a void, making the practice almost nonexistent within these levels.

At Bayer, the levels of employee disengagement and dissatisfaction have reached alarming proportions, surpassing any organization I have encountered in my extensive career. The frustration and discontent among coworkers from various departments are palpable, creating an environment where dissatisfaction hangs heavy in the air. During discussions, one can sense a shared sentiment: many employees feel that our leadership is stagnant, rarely adapting or evolving. This stagnation fosters a pervasive culture of complacency and inefficiency, which in turn has led to the departure of numerous talented individuals. Those who remain are increasingly disillusioned and constantly scanning the job market for better opportunities, driven away by an intolerable company culture.

The unfortunate reality is that our most skilled and high-performing employees are consistently under-compensated and undervalued. Leadership seems to operate under the false assumption that these key team members will not seek opportunities elsewhere. However, it has become starkly clear that employees are ready to leave when their contributions are not recognized or rewarded. Bayer should not be surprised if it ultimately loses its top talent; the current environment is not just unsustainable, but also damaging to overall employee morale. When mediocrity is tolerated at the leadership level, it inevitably cultivates a mediocre culture, leading to persistent underperformance and widespread dissatisfaction among employees.
 


There is a significant gap in the implementation of comprehensive 360-degree feedback mechanisms within the leadership ranks of our organization. It is a common but inaccurate belief that such evaluations are a standard practice. While employees have the opportunity to conduct self-assessments, it is exceedingly rare to see leaders engaging in 360-degree reviews. This lack of feedback among leadership creates a void, making the practice almost nonexistent within these levels.

At Bayer, the levels of employee disengagement and dissatisfaction have reached alarming proportions, surpassing any organization I have encountered in my extensive career. The frustration and discontent among coworkers from various departments are palpable, creating an environment where dissatisfaction hangs heavy in the air. During discussions, one can sense a shared sentiment: many employees feel that our leadership is stagnant, rarely adapting or evolving. This stagnation fosters a pervasive culture of complacency and inefficiency, which in turn has led to the departure of numerous talented individuals. Those who remain are increasingly disillusioned and constantly scanning the job market for better opportunities, driven away by an intolerable company culture.

The unfortunate reality is that our most skilled and high-performing employees are consistently under-compensated and undervalued. Leadership seems to operate under the false assumption that these key team members will not seek opportunities elsewhere. However, it has become starkly clear that employees are ready to leave when their contributions are not recognized or rewarded. Bayer should not be surprised if it ultimately loses its top talent; the current environment is not just unsustainable, but also damaging to overall employee morale. When mediocrity is tolerated at the leadership level, it inevitably cultivates a mediocre culture, leading to persistent underperformance and widespread dissatisfaction among employees.
The underlying premise of the 360 is a utopian belief that people will thrive in a self-evaluation evaluation environment. The reality is people want and need feedback and coachin. Like anything, there is a right balance that varies by individual. Lumping everyone into one bucket that provides little to no input is a poor way to run a railroad.
 


The underlying premise of the 360 is a utopian belief that people will thrive in a self-evaluation evaluation environment. The reality is people want and need feedback and coachin. Like anything, there is a right balance that varies by individual. Lumping everyone into one bucket that provides little to no input is a poor way to run a railroad.
When leadership is delusional and effective in their own perception, yet no one challenges them, the only sign of their ineffectiveness may be the constant exodus of top, award-winning talent. One would hope that their superiors or Sebastian would realize that these leaders do not truly lead or inspire. This, combined with underperformance and a lack of clear goals, perpetuates mediocrity throughout the organization. I mean how many good people have to leave before you realize you have a serious problem.
 


I left not that long ago and can promise all those looking to exit, the grass can be greener, not every time but often. The culture alone made it worth it. Smaller company with modern leaders who are not legacy lifers that know nothing but the toxic norms. You earn your way here with ideas and execution. Its refreshing. You have to be a pet at Bayer and that way of thinking has wasted so much talent. Very sad and demotivating!
 






I left not that long ago and can promise all those looking to exit, the grass can be greener, not every time but often. The culture alone made it worth it. Smaller company with modern leaders who are not legacy lifers that know nothing but the toxic norms. You earn your way here with ideas and execution. Its refreshing. You have to be a pet at Bayer and that way of thinking has wasted so much talent. Very sad and demotivating!
Paul B is undoubtedly the worst leader at Bayer and deserves to be held accountable for the deteriorating company culture. His implementation of DSO and the movement of Regional Sales Managers (RSMs) into broader roles without any training in how to be General Managers is just one of the many failures of his leadership. It seems his ulterior motive is to keep control over decision-making by promoting inexperienced individuals who lack the necessary skills.

Every brand he has been involved with has underperformed during his tenure; yet, he consistently ends up with more responsibility. This raises the question of whether he knows how to ingratiate himself with higher-ups, or if those who promote him believe his excuses that the failures are due to others and not a consequence of his poor vision or ineffective leadership. It’s astonishing how he maintains such a smug demeanor despite the numerous failures linked to his passive-aggressive and ineffective approach. One has to wonder how he continues to hold onto his position.
 


Paul B is undoubtedly the worst leader at Bayer and deserves to be held accountable for the deteriorating company culture. His implementation of DSO and the movement of Regional Sales Managers (RSMs) into broader roles without any training in how to be General Managers is just one of the many failures of his leadership. It seems his ulterior motive is to keep control over decision-making by promoting inexperienced individuals who lack the necessary skills.

Every brand he has been involved with has underperformed during his tenure; yet, he consistently ends up with more responsibility. This raises the question of whether he knows how to ingratiate himself with higher-ups, or if those who promote him believe his excuses that the failures are due to others and not a consequence of his poor vision or ineffective leadership. It’s astonishing how he maintains such a smug demeanor despite the numerous failures linked to his passive-aggressive and ineffective approach. One has to wonder how he continues to hold onto his position.
I know a lot of good people who’ve left because of PB
 




I know a lot of good people who’ve left because of PB
Paul couldn’t care less about anything or anyone around him! As long as he continues to be the Big Cheese! To him, every individual in the organization is merely a cog in the machine, easily replaced. It’s ironic, though, as he should be the one facing scrutiny for his lack of leadership and his ineffective, uninspiring vice presidents. Their excuses for failing to support the team are just as lacking as his own commitment to fostering a cohesive and motivated workforce.
 


Paul couldn’t care less about anything or anyone around him! As long as he continues to be the Big Cheese! To him, every individual in the organization is merely a cog in the machine, easily replaced. It’s ironic, though, as he should be the one facing scrutiny for his lack of leadership and his ineffective, uninspiring vice presidents. Their excuses for failing to support the team are just as lacking as his own commitment to fostering a cohesive and motivated workforce.
Very true he is stale and ineffective. But like Bayer they will keep these jsckasses in their roles
 





Write your reply...