This time, it appears on a back-water page of this past Sunday's New York Times, as a bit of business-page content filler.
Get a load of the ish he's shovelling now, folks:
. . . .If I go into a change situation as C.E.O., there are the boosters who are with you, and there are the naysayers who you have to either convince or move out. But then you’ve got these passive-aggressives who are very difficult to deal with, and you’ve got the fence-sitters who mean well but are not totally convinced about the new program.
The passive-aggressives are the ones who on the surface appear to be nodding their heads, but they’re actually not with you, and they undermine culture change in a big way. They make it so much harder. You’ve got to get these passive-aggressives out of the system as early as possible. They hold you back. . . .
I think what he means is that real professionals -- ones who insist (for example) that the company not cut corners on drug trial study designs, and prompt reporting of outcomes, for safety and efficacy -- only get in the way of his. . . about $235 million golden parachute deployment. Yes -- about that much he is telling the truth. It is -- and always has been -- only about him. Note the use of "I" to lead the pull-quote above.
Actually, Fred (I might reply) -- "We can't spell FAILURE without the U, Fred" -- and that's. . . U, Fred!
3 comments:
You may not know but many of the clinical folks in the US and ROW-ex EU were laid off and immediately brought back as RPS employees. Balance globally are covance but US is heavy RPS. Now a year later or so, RPS and PRA are merging - unlikely to effect the original escapees but perhaps some medicine for the management leeches. Karma baby.
Interesting. Isn't a passive-aggressive person an individual that says one thing and does another?
Didn't Freddie say he was a builder and not a seller during his days at S/P?
Sounds like a bit of 'projection' on his end of the voice mail.
Fred stinks. Just look at what he did to baush and Lomb.
Post a Comment