Very Odd

I have, over the years, worked with dozens of major companies and additional dozens of mid-size firms. I've gotten an inside look at major strategic initiatives, project level team activities, and the individual efforts of everyone from low level engineers and managers to senior executives. Whenever I encountered a chaotic and/or toxic work environment—and they do exist—a few things were almost guaranteed to happen. First, little accomplishment occurred. People pin-balled from action to action but nothing of substance got done. The organization was ineffective, it's accomplishments were minimal, it was, for all intents and purposes, a dead man walking.

During my years as a consultant, I have also encountered more than a few 'difficult' bosses—men and woman who were hyper-opinionated, who were very hard on their direct reports, who were demanding and often obstinate, who changed direction and strategy on a whim, and who were not particularly liked by their employees. Some of those bosses presided over chaotic and/or toxic work environments, but others guided effective organizations. How to tell the difference? RESULTS! If an organization achieves its stated goals and objectives and produces a product or service that benefits its customers, it's very unlikely that the work environment is chaotic or toxic. It might be frenetic, it might have a 'difficult' boss, but the end result is positive.

The current political narrative promulgated ad nauseam by the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd (e.g., Carl Bernstein in his new book or the NYT op-ed piece along with the trained hamsters in the media) is that the Trump White House is chaotic and toxic. That Trump is unstable, quixotic, and incompetent, and that his staff are in open revolt. But how can that be, given the tangible, irrefutable results (everything from a booming economy, to rising wages for the middle class, to a foreign policy turnaround) that the White House has achieved? How can a chaotic/toxic work environment achieve outstanding results when experience indicates it can't be done?

That question provides a problem for the prevailing TDS narrative. How can such a bad place (the Trump White House) accomplish such good things, particularly after the vaunted Obama White House—a place we are told that was run like a well-oiled machine, managed by a super-brilliant and likable boss, populated by dedicated, happy people who stayed on message and never disagreed with their boss—accomplished so little. It's a conundrum, isn't it?

But critical thinking isn't the strong suit of the TDS crowd, nor is it something that gets in the way of the prevailing TDS narrative. So the TDSers celebrate when an anonymous White House insider confirms their narrative, suggesting that the resistance is responsible for the Trump administrations accomplishment, not Trump himself. Maybe that's the case, but it is rather odd that every accomplishment (and there are many) seems to correspond to the goals and objectives Donald Trump outlined throughout his campaign and during his first two years as president. Very odd. It's also rather odd that the claimed chaotic and toxic work environment could accomplish anything of substance, yet it has—over and over again.

Sure, the boss is 'difficult,' but despite the attempts by the four constituencies to ram their narrative down the throats of the American people—over and over and over again, actual results seem to indicate that the difficult boss, his direct reports and their people are accomplishing things that provide direct benefit to the same American people. Very odd, indeed.

UPDATE:
----------------
CNN reports:

(CNN) Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, seizing on an explosive op-ed from an anonymous administration official, said Thursday that it's time to use constitutional powers [specifically the 25th Amendment] to remove President Donald Trump office if top officials don't think he can do the job.

Which top officials would those be? The ones who remain anonymous? Or maybe in Warren's unhinged worldview, we should allow Amarosa, or Carl Berstein, or an NYT op-ed to guide our political actions. Warren is convinced that we should negate a democratically-held election, remove a sitting president by alleging that he is mentally unfit, and throw the nation into (what's the word the the op-ed used ... oh, that would be "chaos") because ... Trump! I'm sure in her own mind and those of the TDS crowd, Warren is being brave, speaking truth to power.

Nah, she's exhibiting all the characteristics of an unstable, unthinking, and irresponsible politician who continually panders to the TDS crowd and simultaneously thinks she can lead. She's a joke.