01 February, 2019
“Endings have a great way of bringing up unfinished business.” – Lennox Joseph
When I moved to Washington, DC from Baltimore, MD in 2010, I started to panic about missing all the places I had to yet to visit. “I’ve never been to the Peabody Library or the American Visionary Art Museum!” Endings represent finiteness, and the dwindling window of opportunity. As we approach the end of something, or even the threat of an end, emotions like fear and worry rise to the surface.
Within the workplace, a lot of things can signal an end and an opportunity about to be lost. It is important to know that any change will signal the end of something, and as you inch closer to the finish, employees might become more uncomfortable as the inevitable sets in. Here are three ways that employees might react to an end, and ways that you can more effectively support them manage the transition:
1. Venting – this is simply the vocalization of opinions, emotions, or points of view that have been previously withheld. Think of venting in literal terms. Similar to turning a pressure valve, venting includes a sometimes forceful release, but it relieves pent up or blockaded perspectives. (Example: An employee who sat by in silence while the team decided to convert to a new software, begins to outline all the reasons why the new software is no good just days before it gets installed on each employee’s computer.)
• Encourage the release. Venting can be an important and cathartic process so it is important to make space and time for it.
• Listen. Employees who vent typically feel unheard, either because they have yet to articulate their point of view, or because they already did and believe it fell on deaf ears. Recognize that employees who are venting in the face of an ending have something important to say.
2. Pivoting – this is a sudden shift in perspective that might seem out of nowhere. Someone who begins to advocate for a new solution, even before one process has ended, is pivoting. Pivoting is sometimes an avoidance tactic. If the person is not ready to face the end of something, and that end is seemingly inevitable, pivoting might feel safer than either accepting the incoming change or trying to prevent it. (Example: A team leader who immediately withdraws training allowances and begins to recruit new talent the moment their highest performing employee expresses interest in a role on a different team.)
• Slow down. Employees who pivot move fast because it protects them from having to face the emotional pain of acknowledging the change. Slowing down brings into focus the true impact of the change, and helps employees move forward in a more reasoned and intentional way.
3. Regressing – this is clingingly fiercely to old ways and patterns, or suddenly reverting back to the prior ways of doing things. Regressing can be a sign that someone is not ready to face the end of something, but it can also be because there is a lack of a meaningful alternative to whatever currently exists.
• Celebrate what was. Find out what was working well before, and identify ways to replicate or carry over some of those strengths into whatever comes next.
• Find value in what will be. If there is nothing for someone to anchor onto, and end will simply represent a loss without anything gained. Identify and articulate the value of letting go and moving into a new way of being.
Above all, anticipate that endings will resurface anything unresolved. Anticipate these reactions and plan accordingly to better support employees to resolve issues from the past, process the loss of what was, celebrate what worked, and develop best practices for moving forward.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
28 January, 2019
Federal employees returning to work after the shutdown might be feeling less than enthusiastic about picking up where they left off. Few people anticipated that the shutdown would go on for so long, and many employees have been working without pay. To support returning employees, and to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, consider the subtler ways that federal employees have been impacted by the shutdown, and learn what you can to do to ease their transition back to work.
Loss of Pay: The loss of pay hit hard, and for many, it created a downward financial spiral. As bills go unpaid, fees accrue, and credit scores dives. Federal employees are also prohibited from receiving some benefits that could have replaced lost income.
Increased Workload: Employees will be digging themselves out of their backlog and putting out metaphorical fires for weeks to come. Stress levels will be heightened for the immediate future. Employees who worked through the shutdown may feel acutely stressed, especially if they carried the workload in the absence of their furloughed colleagues.
Loss of Routine: It was impossible to predict when the shutdown would end, which made it difficult for furloughed employees to establish new routines or make long-term plans. It is challenging enough to have your routines, but without a replacement of a meaningful routine, many employees are likely experiencing a sense of unease or restlessness.
Loss of Community: For many, the workplace is home away from home. Most furloughed employees were prohibited from communicating using government phones or email accounts, so they were suddenly cut off from their closest community.
Employees are also experiencing a range of emotions that they are carrying with them as they return to their posts. Observing these emotions will help you understand how best to intervene, and how to prevent strong emotions from becoming another disruption.
Disrespected: Federal employees might feel like pawns in a political game. The American public looks to employers to play the role of provider and caretaker. Being denied a paycheck probably feels, to many, like an insult.
Disadvantaged: No one quite saw this shutdown coming, and it’s quite likely that most employees didn’t account for such a situation in their personal or financial planning.
Disoriented: After being away for weeks, employees might have trouble readjusting or focusing on work. With a backlog of work and anxious contractors waiting, some employees might be unsure of where to start digging in, or what tasks to prioritize.
Overwhelmed: For many, the shutdown added stress to their lives. While their work piled up, so did their bills. Most employees are not returning feeling rested, but even more stressed.
Concerned for others: Federal employees might be carrying additional worry for their friends and colleagues who have been affected by the shutdown. Supervisors and managers who take on the role of caretaker as part of their formal responsibility, might especially feel loaded with concern for employees that they supervise and support.
Scared: Employees will likely be scared about the prospect of another shutdown, and some might feel shaken by the sudden instability of employment in the public sector.
Falling back into steady patterns and workplace routines that feel anything close to normal will be hard, and it will take quite some time, even longer to feel fully reengaged.
What to do Next:
Here are four steps you can take to help employees let go of negative emotions, reconnect with each other, and resume operation as a competent and capable workforce.
Direction: Given how much work might be waiting for employees when they return, they might need assistance sorting through and prioritizing what to focus on. Some initiatives might need to go on hold or fall away while attention gets devoted to the most visible or impactful projects. Jump in. Make decisions. Help employees get back to work quickly by helping narrow their focus and reducing the number of tasks they need to complete.
Community: It might be tempting for employees to stay heads-down in their work until they catch up, but it will be important for employees to restore a sense of community. Employees will need to feel a sense of “we are all in this together.” Bring employees together to help them connect as friends and colleagues, or in collaborative meetings where they can identify ways that they can support each other, in their work and personal lives.
An opportunity to vent: Employees’ emotions will be on the surface or just below it. Create an environment for employees to talk about how they have been impacted by the shutdown, and what they are concerned about as they return to work. Simply inviting employees to vent will help release some of the tension, will affirm to employees that they are in this together, and will help employees restore a sense of kinship and camaraderie with their coworkers.
An open-door policy might not suffice. Reserve time for these conversations, and don’t incorporate it into a regular meeting. Specifically, invite employees to put their work down for a set period and come together for the sole purpose of processing their experience.
Protection: The long length of the shutdown certainly raises concerns about whether another shutdown is likely in the future. To help ease the fears of returning employees, outline what your and/or the agency is doing to mitigate the impact of a future shutdown. This can also be a collaborative conversation to solicit employees’ ideas.
Being back to work does not yet mean that everything will be just as it was when you left. Take time to ease into the transition and set realistic expectations about what employees can accomplish until things fully settle back down. Provide clear guidance and direction, letting employees know what they should prioritize and how you can help them. Help reduce any impact the shutdown has had and keep all your fingers crossed that this is the last furlough for a long time.
_________________________________________
At ADR Vantage, we provide the following support services and collaborative processes to help employees address workplace tension and resolve conflict.
• Mediation
• Facilitated Small & Large-Group Dialogue
• Teambuilding
• Conflict Coaching
• Conflict Skills Training
Contact us today at info@adrvantage.com
18 January, 2019
Change is constant. By now, we all know that. Organizations today must remain flexible to adapt to global markets, respond to 24-hour news cycles, and appease an always-watching audience. Inside organizations, programs grow, workplace cultures emerge and evolve, departments get restructured, processes and policies change, leaders come and go, work flow increases and decreases, environmental circumstances create barriers, and an endless number of potential changes always lurk around the next corner. Much organizational change is unwanted, and organizations that are not prepared to adapt will remain rigid and immobile in the face of a fast world prepared to leave them behind in the dust. Developing a workplace culture of adaptability to change can be supported by an unlikely profession, improvisational comedy.
Improvisational comedians bring the absurd to life in hilarious ways, and while it might seem like they create humor out of nothing, improvisers rely on a shared vernacular to generate funny scenes in the moment. Two phrases developed by Upright Citizens Brigade and commonly used in improv are uniquely applicable to organizational adaptability: “the first unusual thing” and “if this unusual thing is true, then what else must be true?”
The first unusual thing is typically discovered after the basic elements of an improv scene (who, where, what) have been established. For example, suppose an improv skit starts with two people in a grocery store, one playing the customer, and the other the cashier. The “where” is the grocery store, the “who” is a customer and cashier, and the “what” is checking out after shopping. There is nothing particularly unusual about this scene. Now imagine that the cashier pantomimes scanning an item and says to the customer, “Sir, your total today comes to four thousand dollars for the bunch of bananas.” This is the first unusual thing.
Obviously, a bunch of bananas would never cost such a high sum, but in the world of improv, the unusual becomes the norm. If the improviser acting in the role of the customer is well-practiced, rather than rejecting the premise as unrealistic, they will instead go along with the premise as if it is true and then add to the narrative in a way that furthers the comedy. In this situation, the customer might respond in any number of ways.
a) “I think I have a coupon for $500.00 off.”
b) “It’s getting more and more expensive to eat healthy these days.”
c) “What a deal! Last week they were $5,000!”
In each of these scenarios, the improviser accepts the reality of the situation, that they are being asked to pay an extraordinary amount of money for an almost valueless item. Then, they also add detail that helps create a richer, fuller world, by asking the question, “if this unusual thing is true, then what else must be true?” Each successive scenario asserts that if a bunch of bananas does cost $4,000, then it must be true that they could be sold at a discount using coupons, that it must be true that the price of healthier foods is simply rising at an alarming yet somehow tolerable rate, and that it must be true that the price is really a bargain compared to earlier prices.
In organizational life, employees are continuously met with challenges that, for them, must seem unusual. Employees are often primed to reject or fight against the changes. Employees declare, “The new director won’t last long.” “We already have enough on our plate. There is no way we can take on more.” “The people in our field office just don’t think like we do.” Organizations can remain a lot nimbler in response to change if they can borrow from improv and adopt the strategy of “if this unusual thing is true, then what else must be true?” Take the following case study:
A team of fifteen employees was the victim of a recent restructuring when three of their highest performers were moved to another department, and another two employees were laid off. The organization was on a temporary hiring freeze, so the remaining ten employees were required to share the duties abandoned by their former team members. Immediately, employees began to individually raise complaints with the senior director about their increased workload. Each remaining team member was fearful that if they successfully performed the added duties, they would be assigned to them as permanent duties. Subsequently, team members prioritized their standard duties under strict deadlines, and the new shared duties were frequently left incomplete. Although the shared duties were critical to the team’s overall operation, and although each person had a responsibility for completing a part of them, each team member blamed others for the failure.
This team observed the unwanted change and possibly made the following assumptions:
• If we have been asked to do more work, it must be because it isn’t fair.
• If we have been asked to do more work, it must be because our director assumed we were willing to do it.
• If we have been asked to do more work, it must be because someone is trying to permanently increase my workload.
None of these assumptions embraces the new reality. They all find a way of rejecting it and fighting against it, and as a result of those assumptions, the team members are powerless to resolve the situation in a meaningful way.
Now imagine that this team adopts the strategy of, “If this thing is true, then what else must be true?” in a way that embraces the new reality. Rather than disregard their shared responsibility, ignore organizational directives, or rebel against their new reality, they will instead embrace the change and assume that a new context has also been created for them. Remember that the improvisor does not fight against the new reality, but instead seeks context to uphold it.
The remaining ten employees were required to share the duties abandoned by their former team members. Immediately, employees began to identify untapped resources to mitigate the impact of the increased workload, and they lobbied their senior director to enlist available administrative staff to support smaller tasks. The team looked for ways to streamline their work processes and they collaborated on a work schedule to organize their collective work, abandoning some of their previous tasks that were less impactful and prioritizing some of the duties they had recently taken on. They wanted to be sure that their senior director was aware of the impact the increased workload would have on them, so they developed a brief report that demonstrated 1) how they had amended their process to accommodate the increased workload, 2) what they had to deprioritize so critical duties would be completed, and 3) how much time it took to complete each task compared to how much time they had available.
Notice that this team made different assumptions, ones that embraced the new reality.
• If we have been asked to do more work, there must also be resources available to do it.
• If we have been asked to do more work, it must be because we have not clearly articulated how much we are already doing.
• If we have been asked to do more work, it must be because we have the capacity to better streamline our work processes.
Each of these assumptions upholds the new reality and empowers the team members to act in a way that either mitigates the impact of the new unusual thing, adapts to it, or prevents future unusual things from occurring.
The next time your organization faces an unwanted challenge work through the following to more quickly embrace the new reality and more effectively adapt to the change.
1. Rather than framing the change as a problem, reframe it as an unusual thing.
a. What is the unusual thing?
b. What is the impact of the unusual thing?
2. Embrace the new reality by upholding it.
a. If this unusual thing is true, what else must be true?
b. How are we upholding the new reality?
c. What do we need to stop doing so we are no longer rejecting or fighting against the change?
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
05 December, 2018
It was surprising when I first caught myself removing my glasses to read an email on my phone. At 38, I feel too young to need bifocal lenses, but with increasing frequency, I find my glasses perched atop my head as I strain to read. The lenses in my glasses, the ones that have done their job effectively for so long, simply do not allow me to see everything accurately anymore. Objects at mid-range are perfectly clear, but objects far away or up-close look hazy, muddled, and undefined. My lenses affect how I see the world, and it’s time for a change.
Lenses are deceiving. Although, they let you see some things better, they make other things harder to see. Any physical lens that you look through brings certain information into focus while making other information obscure. So too do the metaphorical lenses that you look through daily. If you change your lens, you change what you see. To demonstrate this simple and yet powerful concept, perform this brief exercise. Write down all the ways that you are like a goat. Yes, the animal. Do this for two minutes. Once you feel stuck, or believe that you have exhausted all possible comparisons, push yourself to identify at least two more ways that you are like a goat.
It’s quite likely that initially you thought, “I’m not like a goat,” especially if your first impression of a goat is that it is stinky or stubborn. Perhaps you conjured in your mind a handful of other animals you more closely resemble or that offer a more favorable comparison. However, if you pushed yourself to complete the exercise, you possibly concluded that you attack problems head on, or that you easily climb over obstacles. Comparing yourself to a goat reveals some part of you that you probably don’t consider often, but it doesn’t tell your entire story or necessarily explain the most important parts of who you are. The goat comparison is a lens. The characteristics you share with a goat are brought into sharp focus, while other aspects of your personality, however dominant, are ignored.
When you look through a lens, it’s important to know first what it is bringing into focus, and second what it is ignoring or distorting. For example, imagine that you applied the lens of gender to a team meeting consisting of five men and five women. You might observe differences in how men and women behave in the meeting, taking note of where men and women sit at the conference table, who speaks the most, who asks the most questions, or who gets interrupted and who doesn’t. The lens of gender will give you new information about the team that you didn’t have before, and that information will raise new considerations for how the team works together. However, the lens of gender will reveal nothing about the formal roles of each person on the team. Perhaps there are practical reasons why some people speak more than others. Similarly, observing the same meeting through the lens of roles will reveal nothing about how the team is influenced by gender dynamics.
We see the world around us through countless lenses that are superimposed on top of each other. Our history and past experiences create some of our lenses, while our beliefs and assumptions create others. The work of understanding even just a few of your own personal lenses can take a lifetime, but every effort to understand your lenses will give you deep insight into how you interpret the world and will enable you to make informed decisions about which lenses you apply to any given situation. To start, ask yourself, then answer, the following questions:
• What lens(es) most determines how I see the world around me?
• When did I first learn to look through that lens?
• What does that lens reveal?
• What does that lens ignore?
• What does that lens distort?
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
05 November, 2018
When federal employees file formal complaints and grievances, it is imperative that they have access to a fair and just process that will help them address and resolve the underlying issues. Mediation is a touchstone of such processes. It is a process designed to enable collaborative conversations, and it provides a safe space for employees and agency representatives to come together, explore the factors that contribute to conflict or undesirable work environments, and to address them in some meaningful way. Recent changes in federal policies have removed mediation as a required step in some resolution processes. This comes with a cost, but also presents opportunities to expand the use of mediation. The disadvantage of removing mediation is that it eliminates an opportunity to reach a resolution, and often means that complaints get addressed through even more formal and often adversarial processes, like litigation. Some federal agencies, rather than lamenting the loss of a useful process, are instead seizing the opportunity to encourage earlier use of mediation, before complaints are ever formalized.
Too often, federal agencies wait until after multiple formal complaints have been filed. They often don’t offer a collaborative solution until both sides have already secured lawyers, but when organizational conflict emerges, interventions are more likely to be successful if they occur as early as possible. Some agencies are bringing in mediators and facilitators as soon as it becomes known that conflict exists. This helps to restore dialogue earlier, align employees and agency leadership, and shape action plans with immediate and lasting results. In some cases, they are using conflict resolution, de-escalation, and communication skills training to prevent conflict even before it begins.
While mediation might not be right, or available for every situation, it definitely should not be reserved to resolve the most contentious and escalated situations. Consider using mediation as your earliest intervention to improve relationships, save time and money, and to encourage collaboration.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
07 September, 2018
A colleague recently asked me to recommend my favorite books on the subject of leadership. I’ve ready quite a few, and there are many that offer generic lessons and stories, leaving the reader with little more than a loose definition of leadership. There are two leadership books I strongly recommend. Both present rigorous exercises and practical tools for helping leaders do the hard work of developing their self-awareness and their commitment to personal accountability for managing their own behavior and inspiring the desired behavior of others.
The first book is Language and the Pursuit of Leadership Excellence by Chalmers Brothers and Vinay Kumar. This book builds on its predecessor, Language and the Pursuit of Happiness (a must-read) by exploring the elements and influences of language in the context of leading others. It helps leaders understand how they view the world, and then how to develop the language they use to create the context for organizational success.
The second book is Clear Leadership: Sustaining Real Collaboration and Partnership at Work by Gervase R. Bushe. This book encourages the reader to do deep self-reflection, covering topics rarely seen in other leadership books, like emotional fusion and self-differentiation, which are necessary but often taboo subjects in organization life. Both Clear Leadership and Language and the Pursuit of Leadership Excellence communicate a foundational philosophy that leaders are human beings first, imperfect works in progress who must focus on self-development while simultaneously supporting and inspiring entire organizations.
Both books offer practical tools to help leaders transform entrenched personal and organizational patterns and stimulate effective and productive communication. One final distinction between these two books and other leadership books is that most leadership books attempt to teach the reader how to do leadership, while Clear Leadership and Language and the Pursuit of Leadership invite the reader to be a leader.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
05 July, 2018
Words are powerful, and in organizational life, everything is shaped by words. Buzzwords, jargon, and slogans all have specific meanings and histories that they convey. Mission statements, marketing materials, and position descriptions are meticulously crafted with the perfect words that communicate the organization’s values. Yet, one word, “toxic,” has found a place in modern organization life and its use is a form of labeling someone, or reducing that person to a stereotype that does nothing to help solve the problem of bad interpersonal behaviors.
The primary flaw of labeling someone as toxic is that it conflates the person and the problem. The problem is the person’s behavior and the organizational influences that encourage the behavior, not the person. Perhaps the “toxic” person yells, or disparages other people, but if they didn’t do these things, they would not be perceived as toxic. Yet, the label of “toxic” creates a combination of factors that encourage bad behaviors and impede positive change.
FACTOR 1: The weight of the “toxic” label is heavy. Toxicity suggests poison or venom, something extremely dangerous that spreads like an infection. A person who carries that label will be viewed as causing harm and contaminating the workplace. This generalization ensures that every comment or behavior will be viewed through the lens of toxicity. A curt “hey” might be judged to be delivered in the wrong tone and seen as an act of aggression, instead of as a polite yet informal greeting.
Each interaction then confirms and encourages the continued interpretation of toxicity, whether deserved or not. This makes it challenging for the person to shed the label, even if they adopt more supportive behaviors, and for the team or unit to move as a whole to more productive relationships. Focusing on their behavior and not their persona, allows them to amend their behaviors and build relationships needed reputation simply by changing their behavior the first time.
FACTOR 2: The “toxic” label affects the culture and effectiveness of the workplace. It can lead to patterns of interaction that, once established, seep into the workplace experience. Employees may subconsciously erect protective barriers that shift the nature and quality of their interactions For example, they might limit the duration of the interaction and subsequently fail to exchange useful organizational information. Or, employees who are fearful of being targeted by a verbally abusive co-worker might refrain from speaking up, even when they have information critical to the success of their shared work.
FACTOR 3: Labeling an employee may be the easy way out for co-workers. as Identifying one person as “toxic” shifts blame solely onto that person, and exempts others from taking any responsibility for initiating change. The rationale is that if that person is the problem, then it must be impossible to engage with him or her in a constructive manner. It also ostracizes that person, creating breakdowns in communication, and disempowers other people in the organization from altering their own behavior in a way that might reshape the patterns of communication. Everyone in an organization shares some responsibility for influencing the organizational dynamics, but the toxic label hoists a one-sided obligation to change onto the labeled person.
FACTOR 4: Labeling an employee is also the easy way out for the organizational leadership. The leadership team can use it as an excuse that relieves them from fulfilling their responsibility to cultivate a positive work environment for everyone. “Toxic” employees often possess valuable subject matter expertise, skills, and organization history that can be costly if lost. As a result, organizations fall into the trap of relocating or insulating that person instead of addressing the behavioral concerns. This might create temporary relief but does little to address the lasting impact of bad behavior. Also, if “toxic” people are eventually pushed out of an organization, they will have left behind an unaddressed legacy of dysfunctional communication patterns that will persist in the organization.
Organizations that effectively manage unwanted behavior promote and reward desired behaviors and use behavioral change in performance plans to build accountability and commitment to modeling the desired behaviors. Eliminating the label of a “toxic person” helps the leadership come to terms with the behaviors, helps co-workers to engage beyond their default responses, and will help create a more open and inclusive environment that improves communication patterns and supports a more accepting and supportive workplace culture.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
13 June, 2018
Workplace bullying causes real and sometimes permanent harm yet management’s champions in HR are often powerless to help. Bullying managers and employees create a toxic environment that results in lowered productivity, lowered team performance, and dysfunction among employees. When bullied employees turn to HR, they may not find much help because the organization’s leadership has not embraced the problem or given HR their support to create and enforce anti-bullying policies.
In part because HR often has few tools for dealing with bullying, 65% of bullying only stops when the targeted person loses their job. According to a 2017 National Survey conducted for Workplace Bullying Institute, about 20% of workplace bullies lost their jobs, 11% were terminated and 8% quit; remarkable loss for an organization to absorb. Even more remarkable is that 44% of targeted employees leave their employer either quitting to escape, being forced to quit when conditions worsen or being terminated because their employer doesn’t know what else to do.
There are many missing links in efforts to address bullying behavior in the workplace. While, conflict coaching, life coaching and counseling can help a bullied employee to cope, addressing this systemic and pervasive problem must start at the top. It can only be addressed by:
• Commitment at the highest levels to address bullying behaviors,
• Engaging in a process to create and communicate anti-bullying policies,
• Creating easy access and empowering targeted employees and bystanders to report incidents safely, and
• Setting and following through on expectations that managers and HR will hold employees accountable for bullying behavior and toxic environments.
23 May, 2018
One of the most wrenching problems I encounter is working with people or teams who are demoralized because of the behaviors of the person they work for. It’s even worse when those behaviors are a reflection of their organization’s leadership and culture. So why are bosses toxic? Why are they allowed to be abusive to people who work for them? And what needs to be done?
Why are bosses toxic? Let’s start by rejecting the idea of a “toxic” boss (or coworker for that matter). The effect that that person may have on others may be toxic but what we really see are behaviors that, for various reasons, are paying off for them in some way and are being allowed or even encouraged by their own bosses. Many of those behaviors come from a variety of managerial weaknesses, such as:
• Lack of discipline, decorum and self-control that can lead to disrespectful behaviors, especially when under stressful conditions or a perceived threat;
• Lack of confidence in their own work strengths and contributions that results in behaviors such as taking credit for others’ work and blaming others for their failures;
• Lack of self-awareness or recognition of the impact of their behaviors on others;
• Unhealthy need to be the center of attention and/or for maintaining power, which often leads to favoritism, staff division, and encouraging gossip and rumors;
• Lack of basic consideration for other people and respect for how they feel; (i)
• Being a practiced bully. Some of the bullying behaviors we’ve observed include sarcasm, ridicule and public put-downs, shunning, withholding information, discounting contributions, and withholding opportunities, among others. Many bosses who exhibit aggressive (and passive aggressive) behaviors have developed and reinforced them over a long period of time.
What’s at Stake? Research shows that if “left unchecked, bullies typically don’t stop on their own – They may move from target to target, but the bullying tends to continue,” (ii) and toxic behaviors spread among the ranks, damaging a company’s entire culture. The human toll can be enormous, including loss of confidence, loss of self-respect, depression and anxiety.
Beyond the impact of bad behaviors on individual employees, multiple academic and private sources document the actual costs as measured in increased time off, distractedness following incidents, reduced commitment to the work, increased likelihood of frustrations spilling over onto co-workers and customers, and much more. “Disrespectful behavior isn’t just bad for morale—it also hurts a company’s bottom line. It’s estimated that workplace incivility costs companies $14,000 per employee due to lost productivity.” (iii)
Why are toxic behaviors allowed? These behaviors can be hard to extinguish, in part because they have served the boss well over a long period of time. Except for rare instances of pathology, e.g. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, all these behaviors can be addressed with training, coaching and accountability; yet they are often allowed to persist. Here some of reasons that show up in the research.
• An institutional power structure that facilitates toxic behaviors. Many times, the issues are ignored because of the implications. Addressing bad behavior might slow
projects or product delivery. It could reflect poorly on organizational leadership or subject the organization to litigation. (iv)
• The boss’s boss doesn’t want to admit a hiring mistake, may be conflict averse, or may not want to risk disruptions in work productivity;
• A boss’s boss is allied with and/or is a personal friend;
• The boss’s boss may be concerned about possibly career-ending implications for both for the offender and the organization when there are many years of service and depth of expertise.
A lack of institutional systems also contributes to a culture in which bad behaviors are tolerated: Employees have few options for safely reporting bad behavior; the organization has few clear policies for addressing complaints; and expectations of civility and consequences of bad behavior do not exist or have not been clearly and consistently communicated.
Keys to effectively addressing toxic behaviors. It’s possible to address bad behavior on an individual level through a combination of progressive discipline to hold him or her accountable and coaching to support positive change. Systemic issues of bad behavior or a culture that allows it is much more difficult and complex. Processes, protocols and culture and attitudes are often entrenched and the solutions impact everyone.
Addressing toxic behaviors requires forceful leadership, commitment, cultivation of support at all levels and time. The following are some of the characteristics of a successful approach.
• Clear and consistent commitment, at the highest levels, to civility in the workplace
• Adoption and communication of policies regarding civility and antibullying, reporting, and protections from retaliation, and bystander reporting expectations
• Multiple entry points for employees who feel they are targets or have witnessed toxic behaviors
• Protocols for handling complaints or reports of toxic behaviors and environments
• Consequences for accountability, consistently applied
• Supports and remedies for changing behaviors
• Organization-wide initiatives to communicate and build buy-in on all levels, provide training and town-halls to support them
How employees can help themselves and their workplaces. Employee reporting is a key contribution to ensuring issues of incivility, bad behavior, and bullying are known to the leadership and addressed. It’s part of the solution but it’s also scary and can have consequences. There are many online articles and blogs that offer perspective on unbearable bosses and environments and provide concrete ideas to encourage self-care and maintain health and well-being while working to get out of that bad situation. Here are a few tips from a 2012 blog post for Psychology Today:
• Document everything. Keep a diary of every mistake, blunder, bad decision, and instance of bad behavior (bullying, unprofessional conduct, abuse) your boss commits. Go to superiors and to human resources with the evidence and make formal complaints. However, beware of and prepared for possible backlash!
• Get the support of others. It is all too easy for superiors or HR to see the person lodging the complaint as “the problem.” But, as we’ve learned from the #METOO movement, there is safety in numbers. It becomes more difficult to do this if a number of employees are also complaining.
• Be direct and be persistent. Respectfully, but clearly, call out the boss’s bad behavior or incompetence, and don’t relent. All too often, people get discouraged when they complain but immediate action doesn’t follow. Realize that this is potentially a long, drawn out, process. (v)
Dianne C. Lipsey
President
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(i) “10 Signs of a Toxic Boss.” ProOpinion, www.proopinion.com/en/blog/10-signs-of-a-toxic-boss. Accessed 22 May 2018.
(ii) Degges-White, Suzanne, Ph.D. “7 Types of Toxic Bosses: Tips for understanding and dealing with a boss who keeps you down.” Psychology Today, 6 Apr 2015, Accessed 22 May 2018. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/201504/7-types-toxic-bosses
(iii) Morin, Amy. “Study Reveals How Damaging A Toxic Boss Really Can Be.” Forbes, 15 Jan 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/amymorin/2017/01/15/study-reveals-how-damaging-a-toxic-boss-really-can-be/#1d85116e6249. Accessed 22 May 2018.
(iv) Riggio, Ronald E, Ph.D. “Why Can’t We Get Rid of Our Boss From Hell?” Psychology Today, 10 Feb 2012, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201202/why-can-t-we-get-rid-our-boss-hell. Accessed 22 May 2018.
(v) Riggio, Ronald E, Ph.D. “Why Can’t We Get Rid of Our Boss From Hell?”
Other sources for this article include:
Porath, Christine and Christine Pearson. “The Price of Incivility.” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb. 2013, www.hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivilitywww.hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility.
Porath, Christine. “The Hidden Toll of Workplace Incivility.” McKinsey Quarterly, December 2016, www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-hidden-toll-of-workplace-incivility
09 April, 2018
An expression I detest is “I can speak for everyone when I say…”
Why is it assumed that you can speak for everyone in a group, or that everyone shares your preferences and opinions?
This is an example of self-appointed decision making. A self-appointed decision maker, be it an individual or group, gives themselves the authority to make decisions on behalf of someone else. A simple example is when someone adjusts the thermostat in a shared space without determining whether other people want the temperature changed. Self-appointed decisions occur when someone either 1) prioritizes their own interests without caring about or considering the interest of others, 2) assumes that others share their own preferences, or 3) assumes that they have already understood and considered the interests of others.
Organizations that tolerate self-appointed decision making tend to breed a culture of mistrust and unspoken narratives. When employees continually see leaders make even the tiniest of decisions without consulting others, it sends the message that their voices and perspectives don’t matter.
Here are some tips to create more open and inclusive decision-making processes, and to keep self-appointed decision makers in check:
1. Question the assumption of consensus – One of the reasons self-appointed decision making is tolerated is because the decision is presented as incontrovertible. Imagine that during a heated discussion, one person declares, “Let’s agree to disagree and, for the sake of time, move on to the next item on the agenda.” The speaker provided no alternative, and instead asserted only one way forward. When this happens, rather than acquiescing to the decision, offer alternative perspectives that question the legitimacy of the decision.
• “I’m not sure that everyone is ready to move on.”
• “I actually think there are some things that we do agree on.”
• “Although we might not agree, I feel like this is unresolved. Before we move on maybe we can agree on a better time to explore this.”
2. Call it out – Many people simply are not aware that they are making unilateral decisions. Bring attention to the fact that they are deciding alone without considering others.
• “What other stakeholders have been considered in this decision?”
• “Have other people signed off on the decision?”
• “You are the only person who has expressed an opinion, so it might not make sense to act yet.”
3. Invite others to share their perspectives – Sometimes, everyone is on the same page, but a self-appointed decision maker assumes this without testing it first. A good way to counter a self-appointed decision, and to either test or confirm consensus is to invite others into the conversation.
• “Who wants to move on, and who has more to say on this?”
• “There are several people we haven’t heard from yet and I’d like to hear what everyone has to say about this.”
• “Can we check to see whether we all agree with that before we do it?”
4. Speak up – Inviting others can be a great way to bring alternative perspectives into the conversation, but if you are the one who has the alternative perspective, don’t rely on others to be your voice. Develop the courage to directly challenge decisions that you don’t consent to.
• “Before you act, I have more to say.”
• “As someone who will be impacted by that decision, I don’t think my perspective has been explored.”
• “I might be the only one in the room, but I don’t support this decision.”
If you want to improve the effectiveness of your team’s decisions and foster a culture of trust, practice these alternatives to self-appointed decision making.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
