Still, without knowing for sure, I've always assumed that the outbursts are staged, if not rehearsed. I can't deny that it's entertaining, like reality cop shows. A lot of drama is about worlds that I wouldn't choose to live in.
I am so very sick of this false rationalization.
There is nothing about having high standards that requires abusive behavior to enforce them. That is straight up bullshit.
Ramsey is indeed playing up the abuse for the sake of attracting viewers, however it's not purely an act. He was trained under Marco Pierre White, arguably the first modern celebrity chef, who was infamous for straight up violence in his kitchens. Kitchens are dangerous enough. There is zero excuse for throwing pots at peoples heads or starting straight up fist fights.
Listen to people who've worked in Ramsey's restaurants and it's clear the example he sets results in abusive behavior top to bottom.
By way of contrast, there's a Canadian chef named Laura Caulder that was traditionally trained by someone very high up in the French culinary world. She had a show for a number of years on Canadian tv, including a special episode where she went back to her alma mater to help out with a very high profile dinner (think ambassadors and royals sort of thing). Her mentor was fascinating to watch, because she was completely unyielding on holding the very highest standards, but without a shred of abusive behavior. She simply stated things as they were, demanded better, and that was that.
There's nothing about Ramsey's antics that are necessary for achieving greatness, and it's depressing that people find abusive behavior satisfying to watch.
Another thing based on UK Kitchen Nightmares is you really only see the hostile side come out when he's put into a situation where the other person is hostile. If the person genuinely wants to learn and try to save their business, he's nothing but helpful. There are episodes of the UK show where they're basically just wholesome all around.
I just did a quick search and found this [1] It's the exact same 1 minute scene from UK and US. The UK is constructive criticism and wholesome banter. The US version cuts the playful banter as if he's just being mean, adds music and a narrator of doom, cuts his concern about her going home to her daughter, and her "very good day" quote is way out of context.
From Gordon Ramsey to Steve Jobs to the film whiplash. People who are very vocal about wanting the best can get it.
And don’t forget. Literally anyone who decides to work with Gordon Ramsey or Steve Jobs knows what they are like. They did it willingly. They aren’t abusing random innocent souls. They are expecting the best from people who decided to work with them.
Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. People choose to work for Gordon Ramsey. He’s not abusing random people in the street.
Would you therefore claim that people should intentionally be subjected to these conditions? I think one can acknowledge that great creativity comes from dark places without celebrating, welcoming, or, worst, inflicting those dark places.
But that was the context in which we were having the discussion: not about Elliott Smith and the like, but about Gordon Ramsay, who creates such dark places (although of a very different sort from the dark places inhabited by someone with depression), and whether the cost that imposes on the participants is acceptable.
Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique.
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it.
Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK.
Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean...
> Also my point about voluntary participation still stands.
For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?
My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
Do you really want to articulate the position "I'm sorry you were abused, but I believe that it's OK because of the end product that I got to enjoy"?
Once you start working in an environment with a Steve Jobs type, things become complex and conflicted. You feel that you are doing great work, and sometimes you are. A Steve Jobs type will figure out how to motivate you with some percentage of shame, praise, monetary rewards or whatever combination allows them to drive you to generate the results they want.
Saying people want to be abused in pursuit of creating greatness is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics that occur in these types of relationships. It is an interesting dynamic that develops over time and is in general quite unhealthy. I still have Steve trauma to this day! I don't want to equate it with more damaging forms of physical and emotional abuse, but there was damage done.
Is this really the only way to get great things done? Or is it just that these individuals get talked about a lot, and meanwhile the well balanced emotionally intelligent leaders are quietly working away, respecting their team and also doing groundbreaking stuff...
Anyway, never seen anyone talk about working for Steve here, so thanks for sharing your insights!
The Steve Jobs way of doing things worked in that he was able to motivate small teams of people to generate results quickly to solve problems that were quite difficult. The market both rewarded and punished him for this.
It would be nice to get away from personality cult product development. If there is a process to do this, I am all for it!
I struggle with this moral dilemma constantly. Say if we look at SpaceX/Tesla and their respective impact on space transportation and EVs - does the outcome justify the means if Musk treats his employees badly? (I'm not saying he does - I don't know that - just hypothetically).
Same for Jobs...
Is it morally acceptable to have this kind of personality type in charge if the output of the organisation pushes things forward for a large number of people? I don't mean to debate really whether we consider SpaceX or Apple to have pushed things forward for humanity - but for the sake of this discussion...
I've worked with a lot of business leaders myself who show quite similar traits. From my perspective there is a personality type here that seems to be suited to high risk, leading edge organisations that move fast, cut through the crap, disrupt, and get things done. (But, can treat those around them quite badly).
As a technologist I love the progress created by some of these companies, as a moral human being, I sometimes struggle a bit with the "means".
We have trauma about all sorts of things. The ultimate question in your story is - Would you do it again or not if you had a choice?
I suspect the majority of people who work with these crazy geniuses would want to do it gain despite everything. So there is something of value there above the abuse.
What definition of abusiveness _doesn't_ include targeting only "those who deserve it", as defined by the abuser?
That being said, the glorification of such personas is troubling and a problem for the restaurant industry.