Bullying is a subject very much in the news at the moment, with mounting allegations directed at Priti Patel that her behaviour is arrogant and domineering; members of her staff have reportedly been signed off with stress, and Sir Philip Rutnam, has resigned with the stated intention to pursue the matter in the courts.

Not being a particular friend to the Conservative Party, I would admit to some schadenfreude as I witness these tribulations, and yet one does not wish to trivialise the matter; to be bullied may be devastating, but equally to be unjustly accused of bullying is quite likely to have life changing consequences.

At the summing up of their achievements, those who have risen to positions of leadership, in business, in education, in politics, are often, and with obvious admiration, spoken of as “not having suffered fools gladly.” This accolade rings with the suggestion of high intelligence, a determination to get the job done, and perhaps just a hint of impatience, but always in the face of trivial, unreasonable or stupid behaviour.

I recall a story of Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of the 1945–51 Labour Government, who when asked on one occasion why he had sacked a member of his cabinet, responded with just two words: “No good“. Perhaps the sacking itself was carried out with greater delicacy, but the underlying suggestion is clear; leadership at times requires a certain ruthlessness, even brutality.

The savage satirical ITV series Spitting Image, depicted Margaret Thatcher, in one memorable sketch, referring to her Cabinet as “the vegetables”. There was indeed evidence to suggest that many of her Ministers were in awe of her, and Geoffrey Howe in particular came in for some rough treatment: “Her displays of contempt for him in cabinet became so naked that they had other ministers wincing.” Howe got his revenge with a resignation speech which was to be the trigger for her downfall.

Mrs Thatcher’s personal assistant, Cynthia Crawford, gives a very contrasting picture. “I don’t think it ever came across during her premiership that she had this soft, sympathetic side. It was always that she was the Iron Lady.“

Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister came in for some hostile attention with regard to his treatment of staff and Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer reported “allegations about Brown mistreating staff, including assertions that he swore at staff, grabbed them by lapels and shouted at them.” These were “hotly disputed“; nevertheless, this was a perplexing picture, that this sober and serious son of the manse might behave in such a manner.

And then of course came his nemesis, Mrs Duffy, of whom he spoke so indiscreetly, his mic still running for all to hear. “She was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour.” Perhaps though, the most damning element of this story was not his assessment of Mrs Duffy, but his obvious displeasure with the staff who had delivered her to him. “that was a disaster – they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? Ridiculous!” And yet at the conclusion of all this, I find myself with a lingering respect for Gordon Brown, a person of high intelligence, and, I am somehow persuaded, of significant integrity, and good intention.

Boris Johnson does not show any obvious appetite for bullying, but his Chief of Staff and just possibly, Dominic Cummings, has acquired a fearsome reputation, for example calling David Davis “Thick as mince and lazy as a toad.” It is not clear whether this was said within Davis’s hearing, but Davis seems unperturbed and smiles affably when it is mentioned.

Cummings has spoken warmly of the Mark Zuckerberg maxim, “move fast and break things” as a means of pushing forward a radical project of reform; I seem to recall Mao Tse Tung initiating the Cultural Revolution in China on the basis of somewhat similar thinking.

According to  i News however, though “Mr Johnson’s new right-hand man is prone to swearing  … ‘no more than the next man’ —  he is ‘not a shouter’ and is not the ‘psychopath’ he is being depicted as.” Earlier in the same piece I find a further defence of Cummings’ character, offered by a colleague, who says it is a myth that he works through instilling fear in his staff.

“… [He] will always listen to your argument and he will change his view if he hears a good argument.” Sound reasonable, yes, but this particular quote is introduced with that aforementioned tribute: “It’s true, he doesn’t suffer fools gladly.” Hmm … I am not entirely reassured.

Admiration for strong leadership gives cover for the abuse of power, such that even those who are not bullies by nature, when frustrated in their ambition may slide into expressions of anger, intimidation and ridicule. Of one thing we can be sure: it is not they who “suffer” the malignant consequences of such outbursts.

Sources