Eliminate 'rattlesnakes' from office interactions

Do you carry a “rattlesnake” in your hand?  Was it thrown at you or did you grab it willingly?  Do you typically throw them at other people? The rattlesnake represents the responsibility to make something happen or to change in order to please somebody else.

To read the rest of this article from the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Times, see: Eliminate ‘rattlesnakes’ from office interactions http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/10/03/smallb4.html

Some bosses hurl rattlesnakes downstream.  Some employees toss them upstream to make a supervisor responsible for satisfying them.

One problem is that people usually pretend there’s only one responsible party in any interaction, and they throw the rattlesnake at someone else in order to establish blame and responsibility.  On the other hand, some people gladly take all the rattlesnakes and let the other person off the hook – as if they feel guilty for any imperfection or they enjoy being martyrs.  Then they have the burden of coping with rattlesnakes forever because interactions continue escalating.

But, in most interactions, personal and business, there are usually many rattlesnakes.

For example, at a team meeting, Kathy got hurt and angry when Peter said he hadn’t gotten a necessary document from her.  She fought back tears, scowled, crossed her arms, clenched her fists and swiveled her chair so her back was to the group.  Peter said he was sorry – he hadn’t meant to imply that she was incompetent.

How many rattlesnakes were there and who had them?  See the original article for more information and assessment.

Another example: Ellen got straight to the point in her performance evaluation of Glenn – she was frustrated.  He was technically skilled but he resisted change and pushed back loudly and repeatedly in meetings about why the team couldn’t do what it needed to do.

Glenn told Ellen that he didn’t like her style of managing and evaluating.  He felt disrespected and threatened because she was brusque, and that’s why he got defensive.  Good management, he said, meant that Ellen should adjust her approach to the preferred styles of each individual in the group.

How many rattlesnakes were there and who had them?  See the original article for more information and assessment.

When it gets to the stage of anger, people focus on their emotions instead of the work that must be done.  Harassment, bullying and abuse inevitably follow.

You can start de-escalating by doing the natural things: Don’t throw rattlesnakes and if someone tries to hand you one, don’t take it.

Great leaders don’t allow rattlesnake-tossing contests; they’re just a waste of time and energy.

Often, people need coaching to help them overcome their defensiveness and passive-aggressive tendencies, and to build the strength, courage, determination and skill needed to stop angry confrontations and to emerge as the obvious candidate for promotion.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

Are you a hero or a bystander?

Sue Shellenbarger’s article in the Wall Street Journal, “Are you a hero or a bystander?” will help you analyze your potential to be a hero.  It’ll give you clues as to whether you’re likely to step up in a crisis. The article is typical of a way of thinking that’s irrelevant, misleading and destructive.

Some of the hidden assumptions behind the article are:

1. You are who you are; which is a product of the way you’ve been raised.
2. If you have certain beliefs – the reasons people gave for why they stepped up in a crisis – then that will determine how you’ll act.  If you don’t have those beliefs, you’re stuck as a bystander.
3. If we examine the factors that people give for why they act brave, then we understand heroism and we can replicate it.

That approach is a dead end and a waste of time; it’s all mental and irrelevant in human affairs.

Instead, try a much simpler approach:

1. Confront your fears.
2. Decide how you want to act in any 10 recent examples that have made the headlines – the shooting in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, witnessing a car crash, hearing someone scream for help, etc.
3. Train yourself to act the courageous way you want to without thinking in the moment.

I know that sounds too simple but give it a try.

Remember, that’s the way we train cops, firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, etc.  That’s the way we train football, basketball and soccer players.  They do the drills over and over and over until they react the way they want without thinking.

For example, only a small percent of us will go to war, but a large percent of us will witness harassment, bullying and abuse.  How do you want to respond in the moment?  Do you want to be a bystander or spectator?  Do you want to be a witness or a defender?

Train yourself – discipline and preparation.

Remember Captain Chesley Sullenberger.  He’s the pilot who put that commercial, jumbo jet full of passengers down in the Hudson River with no loss of life.  He didn’t crash into Manhattan, which would probably have killed thousands.  How did he know what to do?  He’ll tell you that he heard of something horrific when he was about 11 years old, when people simply looked away instead of being courageous.  He vowed he’d always act bravely and he trained himself to be prepared so he could act effectively.  Discipline and practice.

Never accept that you are the way you are – fixed in stone – because of the genetics, family of origin, beliefs, values and attitudes you grew up with.

History is not destiny.

Instead, determine how you want to be and then train yourself.  It’s the only way to have a chance to be the person you want to be.

It’s your life.  Be the hero of your life.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

To move up, be willing to take risks, responsibilities

If you think your company keeps you from advancing appropriately, you’re not alone.  But even if your organization’s leadership isn’t clear or doesn’t play fair, the responsibility for rising is yours. For example, at a particular company many managers often complained about the reasons their company hadn’t encouraged their promotion to leadership positions.

To read the rest of this article from the Business Journal of Jacksonville, see: To move up, be willing to take risks, responsibilities http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2005/12/26/smallb2.html

But all their explanations revolved around their fear and hesitancy.  They blamed eternal circumstances, they were waiting for someone else to make their paths simple and easy, and they took no individual responsibility.

But external conditions are not the problem.  Conditions may be difficult or easy, but the problem is always in the individual.

One of the managers, Dave, had an epiphany: He was the problem.  His boss had said the same thing during their mentoring sessions.  His boss had said that Dave had passed the first test – he was competent and the boss could trust his numbers.

Next, his boss wanted to know if Dave had enough ambition and courage to take the initiative for his next steps; to speak up professionally at meetings, to risk being corrected and to learn in public.

There was no clear and specific list of stepping-stones for promotion, like there was when Dave was learning technical skills and was told exactly what would be on each test and how the test would be given.

This was the real world.  Tests were frequent and came without warning.  People didn’t play fair and there were winners and losers.

Also, Dave would have to deal with the way things are, not how he wants them to be.  For example, if Dave had hurt feelings in a hostile interaction with his boss, Dave would have to rebuild the bridge between them.  His boss wouldn’t approach him to make Dave feel better.

His boss could help him, but the ultimate responsibility for success would lie with Dave.  Was he willing to struggle and learn to play the game?

The fact is that path to advancement is never risk-free.  You will get your wrists slapped in public.  But if you never take those risks, you won’t advance.

As Wayne Gretzky said, “You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take.”  In order to advance, Dave would have to impose his ambition and will on himself in order to overcome his fear and hesitancy.

What happened to Dave?  You may be expecting me to say that Dave’s real name is Sam Walton or Bill Gates.

No, Dave is simply Dave.  But he succeeded in his first steps.  He’s ambitious: he got help and took the responsibility and risk, and he has been promoted.

Often, people need coaching to help them overcome their hesitancy and self-bullying, and to build the strength, courage, determination and skill needed to take the right risks in a way that increases their chances of success.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

Forgive Your Toxic Parents and Move On

Suppose your toxic parents want you to forgive them for the way they treated you years ago.  They sound sincere and they say that they need you to nurse them now that their health is failing.  They don’t have enough money to live well so you should support them like they once supported you.  Also, they need your help to deal with a health-care bureaucracy they don’t understand. Can you forgive them and do what they want?

Forgiveness is a loaded word. To most people, especially toxic ones, forgiveness means not only you opening your heart to them, but also you giving them what they want.  At the very least it means increased relationship and, usually, endless arguing and debating, endless servitude.

But, suppose also that, trying to help them, you’ve bounced between anger and feeling guilty.  Suppose that the last ten times you’ve forgiven them and tried to be a dutiful child, you’ve gotten entangled in painful interactions.  Every time you get close, they try to control you and you feel angry again.  They don’t listen to your needs; they think their need to have you help them is more important than your values of independence and freedom.

Forgive them and move far away – physically, mentally and emotionally. What I mean by that is:

1. Forgive them, have compassion for their struggles, and also stop thinking about them – about 2 minutes a week might be okay.  Forgiveness means that you don’t replay all the old incidents; you don’t get angry; you don’t try to justify yourself in your eyes or theirs; they occupy very little of your mental and emotional space.
2. Get far away physically so there are no more incidents that will trigger you again.  End contact by telephone, email, social networks.
3. Test the relatives and acquaintances.  Who begs you to relieve them of the burden of taking care of your needy parents?  Who tries to twist your arm so that you take care of those toxic parents?  Who tries to convince you that you still owe those toxic bullies loyalty and duty?
4. You don’t have to confront your toxic parents.  You can simply tell them the way it is for you – calmly, firmly; no debates, no arguments, no justifications, no asking for their approval or permission.  Don’t waste your time in further confrontations.
5. When they pursue you, keep your distance.  Don’t engage.  Of course they won’t respect your desires and boundaries.  They’ve always known what’s right.  Disappear again.

Think of your personal space as a target with a bull’s eye and many concentric circles going out from the center.  The more toxic people are, the further away from the center of your life you move them.  Every time someone pollutes your environment, for whatever reason, move them at least one circle further away from you; or more if they did something you particularly don’t like.

If someone apologizes, do not move them closer.  Watch their behavior.  How long before they revert to the old harassment, bullying or abuse?  Keep moving them further away.

What if they don’t want you to forgive them?  They just want you to forget what happened and do what they want and need now.

What if they’re angry at you for what they claim you did?  What if they want you to apologize to them before they’ll forgive you?

In what circle do you want to put your toxic parents? You’re in charge of your personal space.  “Because I want to” is more than sufficient reason for placing them in any particular circle and moving them closer or further away.  At what circle do you drop them off your map?

I’d also take the same approach with toxic friends, extended family and adult children.

It’s your life; take charge of it.  Be the hero of your life.

Many situations are examined in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

Managers must be proactive to effectively handle smear campaigns

Suppose you’ve bitten the bullet and fired an employee for cause such as fraud, harassment or behavior inconsistent with your organization’s values.  And now your reputation is being tarnished because the employee and his friends are bad mouthing you.  They want to generate fear of and antagonism toward management. To read the rest of this article from Business First of Louisville, see: Managers must be proactive to effectively handle smear campaigns http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2006/11/06/editorial4.html

Your overall goals are to resist the insidious smear campaign, maintain your reputation and establish the company’s support of its values and integrity, especially when dealing with sensitive personal information.  But, even though you have good evidence to justify firing the employee in question, you can’t reveal confidential, personal information in your defense and you want to minimize the risk of a defamation claim.

How can you get your side of the story across?

Here are some suggestions – see the complete article:

A great cue card for a conversation is: “We don’t discuss our employees’ personal issues with their co-workers because those issues are confidential.  I’m sure you wouldn’t want your personal issues discussed with others.”

“Unfortunately, sometimes, employees who have left the company or their supporters provide incorrect or incomplete information about their separations.  This starts rumors in the workplace and is very disruptive.  I’m glad that you came to me with your concerns.  I hope you understand that we need to take the ‘high road’ and continue to maintain these matters in confidence.”

Of course, some people will enjoy thinking the worst of you but most people will give you the benefit of the doubt if they’ve come to trust your integrity and judgment.  They’ll base their judgments on what you say and do day-to-day, before there’s a situation like an employee’s sudden dismissal to deal with.

If have a reputation for being open, honest and trustworthy, your employees will be more likely to accept that you acted with cause even if you can’t outline the specifics.

But if you’ve earned a reputation for being arbitrary and autocratic, employees will believe the worst – no matter what really happened.

Ultimately, you expect good employees to understand the need for confidentiality.

In addition to value statements containing general words such as trust, integrity, honesty and respect, specifically state company values as situational expectations of behavior. For example:

• We aren’t negative, don’t grumble, don’t feed the rumor mill, and don’t leave anonymous hate mail.  If we have an issue with someone or some decision that affects performance – not just a matter of personal taste or style – we go directly to the source and talk appropriately and professionally.
• If we don’t get what we want, then continued participation in negativity, the rumor mill and smear campaigns is participation in a one-sided attack on management, and will be evaluated as behavior below standards of team performance.

Sometimes, the smear campaigners, like terrorists, will attack you for stifling free speech.  Stand your ground.  We always put limits on what we say in public.  For example, free speech does not include shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, slander or promoting treason.

Legitimate leaders must take a strong stand to resist smear campaigns or they’ll create a power vacuum that will attract the most hostile and ruthless seekers of power.

How can we stop bullies if we're compassionate?

Carl loved his 45 year-old son, Brian, and was overwhelmed with feelings of compassion for his son’s plight.  Brian could never hold a job.  Also, any time Carl or his wife, Vickie, didn’t do exactly what Brian wanted or didn’t give him what he wanted, Brian would throw a fit – he’d yell and scream and curse them, even in front of his own wife and children, or in public.  Many times, Brian would suddenly turn on his own long-suffering wife and children in the same way. How could Carl love his son and have compassion for him, and still protect himself and his wife from Brian’s harassment and bullying?

Everything I say about this family situation is the same I’d say to people trying to have both compassion and protection when dealing with abusive and suffering:

• Parents.
• Friends.
• Extended family.
• Co-workers.
• Drunk drivers.
• Strangers in public places.

The tactics we choose would depend on the specifics of the situation, but our attitude and general direction would be the same.

For decades, Carl had bit his tongue as best he could and had asked Vickie to do the same.  His heart went out to Brian because of his suffering.  Brian’s mother had died when he was 9 years old and two years later Carl had married again.  His new wife, Vickie, had done her best to take care of Brian and she did love the boy.  But no matter how she tried, Brian hated her and made her pay.

Out of compassion for Brian’s struggles, Carl had given Brian hundreds of thousands of dollars and also had bought many things for Brian’s children.  But it never seemed to be enough for Brian.

Brian denied that he needed any help.  He thought he was fine the way he was and he had good reasons every time he exploded.  It was everyone else’s fault that he lost his temper, and they deserved what he said or did to them.

He told Carl clearly that if Carl didn’t do what he wanted and didn’t endure the attacks, Brian wouldn’t allow Carl to see his grandchildren.  There it was; not only attacks but also blackmail.

Carl was stuck.  His compassion didn’t allow him to set any limits.  All he’d allow himself to do was to beg Brian to change.

Separate from the blackmail, Carl suffered from a common misunderstanding about compassion.  He thought compassion meant that he had to give Brian what he wanted and to keep giving and to take the abuse in hope that, someday, his love and forbearance would cause Brian to have an awakening and become a grateful, appreciative, civil and polite person.

Carl also thought that if he acknowledged his anger and dislike of Brian, or really did anything serious, that would mean that he’d given up on his son.  Also, it would be wrong to try to force Brian to do anything against his will.

After coaching, Carl decided that there were two distinct and separate scales he had to operate on in order to protect himself and his wife from Brian, and to preserve their retirement funds that Brian wanted to get his hands on.

On one scale, he could love Brian and have infinite compassion for his suffering, even though it was self induced.  And Tom could always pray for Brian’s spirit to take charge of his life.

On the other scale Carl could see that he had to deal, not with Brian’s spirit, but with Brian’s personality – his weakness, selfishness, arrogance, need, sense of entitlement, anger and narcissism.  Against Brian’s personality, Carl had to protect himself.  Out of compassion, he’d do that calmly, lovingly and clearly.

So what did Carl do?

• He and Vickie decided to tell Brian that they wouldn’t take the abuse any more.  They were going to create an Isle of Song for the rest of their lives.  Good behavior was required from anyone to get on that Isle; blood wouldn’t count.
• They knew they’d said that before, but they’d always given in and had pretended that the bullying had never happened.  They knew also that Brian counted on that.
• The next time Brian exploded at them in front of his 11 and 13 year-old children, Carl said publically that they weren’t going to put up with that behavior any more.  They weren’t going to see Brian.  They’d love to see the kids but Brian probably wouldn’t allow that.  They wanted the kids to know who was responsible for the breach.
• Carl told Brian they were taking a break from involvement with him for at least six months.  He’d have to make it on is own.  After then, if he wanted to resume contact he’d have to call and apologize and promise never to act that way again.  He’d especially have to apologize to Vickie.  Carl was going to protect his wife against all comers, even his son.
• Even after that time, they were going to continue to withhold money because they wanted interactions to be based on fun, not need or greed.

This time Carl and Vickie kept to their bargain with each other.  They said they were able to stay on track because they still allowed themselves to feel compassion toward Brian, and especially his wife and kids, but they weren’t going to rescue Brian from the effects of his behavior.  Also, they saw that the most compassionate thing they could do for Brian was to demand good behavior and maintain their boundaries.  Their new vision would determine what they did, not some old, out-of-date feelings and assumptions.

My experience has been that the Brian’s of the world never learn by being coddled.  The only chance they have to learn is by being kicked out of the nest and letting the world, not their parents, teach them the natural consequences of their obnoxious behavior.  That doesn’t always work, but it’s the only chance.

Some other situations are examined in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”

How to deal with persistently negative employees

Dealing with employees who miss deadlines or whose work is below standard is relatively easy and straightforward.  Dealing with persistently negative employees who don’t make big mistakes or openly violate organizational policy is tougher for many supervisors. But it’s important that you deal swiftly and firmly because negative employees create suspicion, tension, cliques and hostility, and undermine leadership.

To read the rest of this article from the Dallas Business Journal, see: How to deal with persistently negative employees http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/01/30/smallb3.html

Most insidious are negative employees who come to work on time each day and are good workers technically, so traditional performance evaluations will grade them adequate or even better. They use negativity for bullying to get control.

Sally’s behavior is typical – see article:

Sweet and placating supervisors excuse Sally’s behavior because each incident is too minor to make a big deal about, because “that’s just way she is,” or because they hope that if they give Sally what she wants, she’ll repay their kindness with a positive attitude and support.  But Sally is never satisfied.  She’s just a bully.

Inexperienced supervisors don’t know how to intervene effectively or are afraid that Sally will accuse them of harassment.  They feel isolated and helpless even though they’re supervisors.

But if you aren’t willing to face the difficulties and learn to act skillfully, Sally will take control of your team.  You don’t deserve to be a supervisor.

Some suggestions for dealing with a “Sally” in your organization – see article:

If Sally leaves but later wants to return, don’t allow that possibility.  If you waffle, you’ll be perceived as weak and no one will believe you in the future.

If you manage negative supervisors, you must act more swiftly because each person on your supervisory team affects more people than a frontline employee does.

Why are American Kids So Spoiled?

We seem to focus on the wrong questions; the “why” questions.  And even worse, the questions that analyze generalized, abstract reasons for why mostpeople or why our society does something. One of the latest in the long list of articles about how to be better parents – by being a Tiger Mom or a French Mom – is by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker, “Why are American Kids So Spoiled?”

Of course Kolbert gives examples of permissive American parents that raise nasty, narcissistic, self-indulgent, entitled, spoiled brats who harass, abuse and bully their parents.  And then we can analyze why we parents raise them that way, and the plusses and minuses of raising kids permissively; or not expecting anything until they’ve understood the advantages of the behavior we want and they’re willing to put forth the effort to give it.  And then we wring our hands at adults we see who are aging but still spoiled brats.  And then we feel overwhelmed and helpless because we think our society is going downhill.

Ah, the false assumption that if we can figure out, objectively and dispassionately, what’s wrong, we can reason our way to the correct plan that will work for all reasonable people.

I think that the question of “Why are American kids so spoiled?” is the wrong question and that pseudo-scientific analysis is the wrong approach to this area of what we ask or demand of our children.  In addition, the analytical approach is endless and hasn’t produced answers in more than 60 years.

A better question is about what behavior each of us wants to demand from our kids and grandkids in a real, specific moment. Every moment, we’re training our kids about what behavior is acceptable and what the consequences will be for falling below our standards of behavior – whether that’s disapproval, removal, or something else.

Training is more important than explaining.

Notice:

1. My question is about specific individuals, situations and moments in time – what do we want to say and do with our kids at that moment?  It’s not a “why” question.  It’s a "what" question focused on the present and future, not on the past.
2. What reasons do we want to give to our kids for our standards and demands, when don’t we want give reasons in the moment, and when is their compliance expected whether or not they understand or agree with our reasons?
3. What immediate rewards and consequences do we want to have for their behavior?

As opposed to the misbehaving kids, who we’ve all seen, in Kolbert’s examples, I’ve seen many young kids behaving wonderfully in public – toward their parents as well as toward non-family members.  Their parents have trained these kids and demanded good behavior from them, and the kids have accepted the standards.

We can usually get civil, polite, helpful behavior from our children and grandchildren if we’re willing to do the training.

We do know what we want and we don’t need the latest research studies to justify it.  Also, we don’t need to spend our children’s whole childhood analyzing what’s right or begging them to act decently.

Of course, I coach parents to prepare their kids to be wonderful in the real-world.

How to deal with antagonistic 'rule people' in the workplace

Company rules and employees who follow them are essential for the success of your business.  But antagonistic “rule-people” can reduce team effort and sabotage your operations. To read the rest of this article from the Denver Business Journal, see: How to deal with antagonistic ‘rule people’ in the workplace http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/02/13/smallb6.html

Rule people aren’t necessarily malicious.  But their rigid inflexibility can cause as many problems as any troublemaker.  Rule-people:

1. See everything in black and white, need all procedures and boundaries clearly defined and labeled, with rewards and consequences spelled out exactly – no gray areas and no choices.  They need uniformity and repeatability, can’t handle ambiguity, uncertainty and what they perceive as mixed messages.
2. Insist on clear titles and privileges.  They want to know everyone’s exact job description, authority, responsibility and accountability.  They can’t handle matrix management – multiple reporting and task relationships.
3. Use authority and experts to back up their opinions.
4. Don’t like change unless they can see immediate and obvious advantages.
5. Need closure, want decisions made and set in stone, even if nothing has to be begun for years.
6. Compare themselves with everybody on every criterion.
7. Relate only through power dynamics – command, control and obeying orders. They’re bullies.  They don’t get things done through relationships or by simply pitching in.  They need to know where everyone stands.  They’re more comfortable knowing they’re on the bottom, than wondering where they are.

We all follow the rules sometimes, but “Edna” is a good example of an antagonistic rule-person. She uses the rules to intimidate people and advance herself at the expense of your supervisory authority and departmental productivity.  For example:

Other typical examples of rule-people in crucial roles are human resource and financial managers, and administrative assistants.

To work with an antagonistic, rule-person, you’ll have to:

• Be exacting and clear about rules, and demand what you need specifically in writing.
• Be prepared to be challenged if you treat the rule-person differently from anyone else.
• Include “professional, team behavior” rules – specific, detailed behaviors, not abstractions or attitudes – as important components in performance evaluations.
• Clearly label your actions; indirect cues, kindly suggestions, informal messages or casual conversations will not be counted as important.  You must say, “This is a verbal warning” or “This is a disciplinary action.”  Antagonistic, rule-people take any softening to mean that your feedback doesn’t have to be acted on.
• When they excuse their bad behavior with innocuous labels like, “It was a misunderstanding,” or “I’m just an honest person,” you must re-label it clearly as unprofessional.  For example: “Yelling or name calling is not a misunderstanding or honesty.  Neither is acceptable behavior at this organization, no matter how you feel.”
• Document everything.

Overly rigid rule-people who use the rules to serve their own selfish interests are problem employees.  They need to be dealt with promptly and decisively – or they will create big problems for you and your organization.

Generally, rule-people who want to help can become good managers and administrators, but they won’t be outstanding leaders.  They can oversee repeatable operations, but they won’t be able to act creatively and appropriately in the face of uncertainty, novel problems and risk.

10 ways to create a culture of entitlement at work

If you’re not already doing all the work or aren’t stressed out to the max, here are 10 tips to increase your load by creating a culture of entitlement among your employees. I didn’t make them up.  I’ve seen organizations using these strategies to keep employees happy.

To read the rest of this article from the Business First of Louisville, see: 10 ways to create a culture of entitlement at work http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/07/21/editorial2.html

As a leader or manager, 10 ways to create a culture of entitlement at work are:

1. Take responsibility and blame for everything.
2. Let staff publicly review every decision you make.
3. Satisfy every employee desire.
4. Revise your policies and procedures to accommodate every employee’s needs.
5. Don’t have deadlines; don’t pressure staff.
6. Accept all employee behaviors including harassment, bullying and abuse.
7. Don’t ever require change; keep rehabilitating poor employees forever.
8. Undercut supervisors.
9. Require positive and supportive evaluations.
10. Treat stars the same as poor employees.

Bonus tip: Offer guaranteed employment for life as if it’s employees’ right.

Some companies attempt to provide a better work environment by being sensitive to the needs and feelings of their employees.  Of course, you pay attention to what your employees want and need.  But don’t overdo it.

Great leaders create work environments that meet the needs of their businesses and enable their employees to be productive and effective.  They set expectations and hold staff accountable for what is and isn’t acceptable performance and behavior.  Productivity takes precedence over pleasure.

It’s not always easy.  Some people won’t like your rules.  But bending or abandoning reasonable rules and expectations in an effort to satisfy the malcontents and whiners doesn’t work.  They’ll never be happy or productive. And trying to satisfy them will drive your good performers away.

In our culture, many people think companies should be designed to make them happy and fulfilled.  Effective leaders make clear that anyone who isn’t willing to follow the rules is welcome to leave.  Encourage entitled employees to work for your

Of course, slight modifications of these tips can be used to create cultures of entitled managers.

Will Stop-Bullying Programs Lead to Over-Reactions?

You’ll be seeing more and more articles by hand-wringers and worriers who claim that stop-bullying programs might become too hyper-vigilant, that “normal” behaviors will now be labeled bullying and that kids will be encouraged to rat each other out. Of course, such over-reactions might be possible, but these anxiety-ridden defenders of the way things are, look only at one side of the equation.

The worriers usually give three types of arguments:

1. As detailed in his article in the Wall Street Journal, “Stop Panicking About Bullies,” Nick Gillespie’s kid is okay so he thinks the rest of you wimpy parents with wimpy kids are the problem.  Get strong and your kids will stop bullies.
2. Our country was made strong by individualists, not by big government so let’s not create a bureaucratic monster to solve a kid problem. Statistics show that childhood is safer than ever but today’s worrying parents need something to worry about and want big government to protect their interests.
3. We’ll go too far and create a Nazi-style socialistic state in which normal kids are labeled bullies and punished too harshly, while all kids are encouraged to become the thought-police; just like in communist or military dictatorships.

These same objections were made to programs designed to protect women from being battered by spouses or raped by dates.  They’re also the same arguments made to justify not having programs to stop bullying at work.

These objections to laws and programs that stop bullies, and requirements that principals, district administrators, teachers and staff stop bullying are based on viewing a tiny possibility as if it’s the whole situation and all that matters.

Yes, these fears might be realized in a very few situations.  Some normal dislikes or arguments between kids might get blown up hysterically into cases of bullying.  Power hungry kids might use accusations of bullying to further their own ends.

But that’s going to be a very small percent of the daily experience of kids at school.  And the responsible adults are supposed to have the intelligence and determination to minimize these injustices.

In the minds of nit-picking perfectionists, laws have to be perfect.  To them, one bad possibility far outweighs the benefits from a thousand situations in which bullying might be stopped.  I think that’s a ridiculous way of thinking.

So let’s expand the picture more and look at daily school life now, without stop bullying programs or principals willing to be strong and courageous.

Approximately 50% of kids admit to having been bullied at school and to not being protected by supposedly responsible adults.  Many more report that they’ve witnessed bullying and when they’ve reported it, they got in trouble.  Are we going to continue tolerating a huge amount of relentless bullying because we’re worried that we might go too far in protecting kids?

How many suicides will it take before we think the risks of not having programs that protect kids far outweigh the risks of over-reacting with programs that are too strong or too misguided?

Let’s expand our vision to similar situations of abuse and brutality to children.  How many Jerry Sandusky’s or child-molesting priests does it take before we demand laws to protect kids, and courageous, right action from respectable adults?

I’d rather swing the pendulum far to the side of protecting the targets and victims of bullying, and live with the very minor consequences of the potential for some misuse of the programs.

Of course, I also coach parents to prepare and protect their kids against real-world bullies.

Build a winning workplace, not just a happy one

How do you build a happy workplace?  Typical team-building activities, flex-time, event tickets, free pizza on Fridays, a wilderness-survival course? I suggest a different goal: Create a “winning” workplace instead of a “happy” one.  If you build a winning workplace – including shared sacrifice, accomplishment and reward – you’ll also have a happy one.  You’ll retain only those people, at all levels, who are happy when they’re being very productive, winning and being rewarded.

If you focus on “happy,” you’ll only create an unproductive organization based on begging and bribery.

To read the rest of this article from the Business Journal of Jacksonville, see: Build a winning workplace, not just a happy one http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2006/11/06/smallb4.html

Most of us think of “happiness” in terms of “what will they give me?”  But getting paid all that you want and having a good time working only when it’s convenient aren’t the reasons your customers are paying you.  They want results and service.

Outstanding performance will become a test of whether specific team-building activities and rewards are paying off.

You’re not looking for people who are happy only when they can hang out with friends or when they’re doing only what they prefer.  You want people who celebrate when there’s an accomplishment, not just because it’s Friday.

You’re also looking for people who develop camaraderie by feeding off accomplishment; who become more productive working with other good people.

Don’t bother with academic questions like whether it’s better to be an approachable, exuberant leader or a distant one.  Debates stimulated by sociology research or individual preferences won’t help you.  There is no one-style or ideal model of a successful leader. Become the best one of your type of leader.

You don’t need to be a party animal to create a winning team, but you do need to be successful, to foster success for others and to appreciate and reward them – no matter what your style is.  Do that and the best people will be eager to stay.

Nitpicking, control-freak bosses always lose their best employees

Are you a nitpicking perfectionist?  You might not think so, but what does your staff think?  If so, it’s time for change.  Because for all their good intentions, control freaks generally do more harm than good. To read the rest of this article from the Business Journal of Portland, see: Nitpicking control-freak bosses always lose their best employees http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2006/07/31/focus7.html

Of course you want to make sure things are just right, especially on documents that might have legal consequences or if they’ll be seen by big customers or big bosses.  But what are the consequences of going too far?

For control freaks, there is no “too far.” They nitpick every document and e-mail.  They red-pencil every word and choice of layout, font style and size.  They’ll even correct their own changes if you feed them back a second time.  They think no one is quite as good at anything as they are.

You know the type: The boss who plans the details of every small event, spends an afternoon directing exactly where to place balloons or strings of lights, designs the organization’s web site, takes a day to oversee re-painting stripes in the parking lot or argues directly with vendors about minor details.

They used to be called “seagull bosses” because they flew in sporadically, squawked a lot, left a mess and flew off to squawk about something else.

A steady diet of bullying and correcting staff – especially in minor details or matters of taste and style – means that control freak bosses don’t have time to do their real jobs.

Inevitably, staff motivation, morale and productivity suffer.  Nitpicking perfectionists gloat while using sarcasm, put-downs, negativity and yelling.  Even staff not directly involved are affected by the waves of discontent and ridicule that spread to every part of the organization.

The most creative and responsible staff will leave.  Those who stay are willing to endure more micromanagement because they think it ensures they won’t get blamed for mistakes.

How do you recognize if you’re a control freak?

Most nitpickers get the wake up call the hard way: Someone tells them the harsh truth.  It could be a big boss, letting you know that you’re wasting your time nitpicking and you’d better deliver on your real tasks.  It could be a colleague or supervisee telling you why you’re overworked, why people laugh behind your back or why your best people are leaving.

The key to stopping compulsive nitpicking is hiring and training people who are at least as good as you are and then giving them their appropriate turf.  But of course, controlling bullies usually lack the guts to have good people around them.

How can you deal with a control freak boss?  Don’t take the attacks personally.  It’s not about you; it’s simply how they operate. Some choices are:

Three Cheers for "That Girl in Pink""

When Benni Cinkle was 13, she appeared in a YouTube music video that went viral, receiving over 200 million views.  At first, Benni was ridiculed by millions around the world for her awkward dancing, often referred to as “That girl in pink that can’t dance.”  They called her names and told her she should kill herself. A few of the printable names she was called were “lame, terrible, awkward, horrible, stupid, freak, loser, awful, worthless, annoying, fat and ugly, dumb.”  Other comments included, “She should probably look into suicide,” “Please just die” and “I’ll bet she wants to kill herself now.”

Did she let the jerks drag her down?   Did she lose her self-esteem and get depressed?  Did she commit suicide?

No.  Benni was a target, but she was not a victim!

Instead of reacting defensively, Benni didn’t take it personally.  She kept her spirits up.  She met their criticism with humor, honesty and understanding.  She was open and didn’t hide.  Soon, anonymous cyber bullies became fans and Benni's online reputation as an approachable, down-to-earth teen began to grow.  In the months following her unexpected popularity, Benni received tens of thousands of requests for advice from teens around the world.

Realizing she had been gifted with a platform that offered international reach, Benni decided to use her 15 minutes of fame for something positive. So she:

• Started “That Girl in Pink Foundation” as a non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of teen suicide.  TGIP focuses on any issue that may directly or indirectly lead to teen suicide, including: Teen Depression, Bullying, Cyber-Bullying, Teen Self-Mutilation, Teen Gay/Lesbian Support, Child Violence, Sexual Abuse, Teen Dating Violence, Eating Disorders and Teen Pregnancy.
• Authored “That Girl in Pink’s Internet Survival Guide,” offering teens strategies for handling life online.
• Organized a flashmob dance to raise donations for American Red Cross Japan Earthquake Relief.
• Organized a walk for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation that included hundreds of kids from 14 countries walking with her, virtually.
• Recorded her single, “Can You See Me Now,” and donated profits to TWLOHA and GLSEN.
• Visited schools across the U.S. delivering her “Don’t Just Stand There” anti-bullying presentation.

Let’s hear three cheers for Benni!

Find her at www.thatgirlinpink.org.  Invite her to speak at your school.  She’ll help you stand up to cyber bullies and stop bullying in its many forms.  She’ll inspire students to become defenders instead of remaining merely bystanders.

Parenting: Prepare the road or the child?

Nobody wants their children to be bullied.  We all want responsible school officials to stop bullying at their schools.  We all want other parents to teach their children not to be bullies.  We all want other kids to be witnesses and defenders when necessary. We all want the road smoothed for our children.

Of course we must do what we can to prepare the road with good enough laws and with clear requirements to hold school principals and district administrators accountable.

But since no amount of effort or number of laws against bullying in any of its forms – verbal, mental, emotional, physical, cyberbullying – will ever stop mean kids or their protective parents from bullying their targets, what can we do for our children?

Good parenting also requires us to prepare our children for the roads they’ll encounter.

Report to school officials but that’s only the second task. For example, Tom came home complaining that some other kids called him names, mocked his clothes, belittled his taste in music and even put down the way his parents looked and dressed.  His parents blew up and went to school the next day to have it out with the principal.  Since they ranted and raved and wanted the kids beaten in public or at least thrown out of school, they got no where.

Then they focused all their energy on the road – they wrote angry letters to the media, organized other parents and tried to get the principal fired.

Focus first on preparing the child. Tom asked, “Why do my friends call me retarded, gay, stupid, ugly?  Why don’t they like me?  What am I doing wrong?”  He was taking it personally; as if the other kids had the correct taste or accurate perceptions, and he was somehow being tested and failing. He thought there must be something wrong with him.  He was getting negative, uncertain and angry.  He was losing his confidence and self-esteem.

We rapidly found out however, that his friends at school weren’t saying these things.  The bullies were kids who really didn’t know Tom.

So we prepared Tom with his lessons for the real world.

• There will be jerks who target you, but that doesn’t make you a victim.  Victims give in and give up.  Victims feel isolated and helpless.  Victims get depressed and commit suicide.
• You’re okay; don’t take it personally.  There’s nothing wrong with you.  They don’t know you.  Test them – are they nice or are they jerks?  If they’re jerks, their opinion doesn’t tell you about you; it tells you about them.  Don’t ever let jerks control your feelings or emotions.
• Choose to be upbeat – courageous, strong, determined.  Be happy while you learn how to stop them.  Keep a fire burning in your heart.
• Stand up; speak up.  Use your talent and learn new skills.  Come back at them verbally.  Use humor; especially sarcastic humor.  Speak your piece.  Fight back if necessary.
• Get your allies to act.  Tell your parents; tell your favorite, trustworthy teachers.  Get help.  Test your friends.  Are they real friends or are they just acquaintances or “friendlies” who hang out?  If they don’t care enough to get involved, they’re not friends.

Parents, be smart in how you prepare and fix the road. I’m all for fixing the road.  Just be smart about it.  The summer is the best time to prepare the road.  Work with principals, teachers and parents to develop clear and strong policies and programs.  Hit the ground running when school stats in fall.  Get the kids involved so they become witnesses and defenders.  Make it a whole community effort.

Prepare yourself so that when there’s an incident, like happened with Tom, you know what to do and can do it without being overwhelmed by your emotions.  Have a checklist.  Is it a one-time argument or on-going harassment, bullying and abuse?  What are the power dynamics?  What evidence can you get?  Does it happen to other kids?  Can you get witnesses?

Prepare the friends and their families. None of Tom’s friends defended him.  They wouldn’t even be witnesses until we talked with them and their parents.  Then they saw the power of choice and of standing together.

Parenting: Prepare the road or the child? Don’t make it an either-or choice.  Prepare both.  Prepare your children to teach your grandchildren.  Do you doubt they’ll also have to learn to stop bullies?

Cultivating tomorrow's leaders should be a priority for execs

The key to cultivating the next leaders of your organization is to work every day to help the candidates get what they need in order to make their next steps.  By “cultivation,” I mean gardening – not training, grooming or developing.  Cultivation takes time, sunshine, water and manure. You should require candidates to make the same investment of themselves.  Any potential leader who isn’t willing to do that should be removed from your list.

To read the rest of this article from Austin Business Journal, see: Cultivating tomorrow’s leaders should be a priority for execs http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2006/08/07/smallb4.html

Sometimes the next steps are easy – mastering and demonstrating specific skills.  The methods for learning may also be easy – training and practice.

More often, though, it’s not that easy.  The biggest challenge is mastering more difficult people skills – for example, making necessary adjustments of personal attitudes, learning how to lead different types of individuals.  You will have to weed out individuals who have poor attitudes – negative, defensive, arrogant, righteous, narcissistic, abusive bullies.

Many small business leaders concentrate on what they’ve been told they need to do in the workplace: develop vision and goals, bring in new clients, oversee daily details and monitor monthly earnings. Their meetings focus on tasks and tactics, on the urgent and daily business.

Since they don’t take time to cultivate their leadership team, they end up complaining that their candidates aren’t stepping up.  But cultivating the personal capabilities and people skills of the individuals they depend on is their most important task.

Managers of leadership candidates can play crucial roles without overburdening their schedules.

The key is offering yourself and your time – continuously, honestly and frankly.  Give up your excuses for not doing this personal, on-going mentoring, such as “too busy, don’t like emotion and personal interactions, I’m a big picture person, the worthy people will learn by themselves.”

If you keep putting off cultivating, you’ll continue being overwhelmed.  And you’ll wonder why your best people don’t develop – or why they quit.

Are you responsible for your ex's happiness?

O, the basic trap of enmeshment and co-dependency; when we think we’re responsible for someone’s happiness, for doing what they want.  Both men and women willingly give up their lives to serve others. Of course, overt and covert (sneaky, manipulative, narcissistic, critical, controlling) bullies try any way they can to get us to shoulder that burden.  Sometimes they just want to be catered to but often they actually believe that they’re entitled to our serving them.  Both men and women can be demanding.

Tom’s ex had jerked him around for years before Tom finally couldn’t take any more and divorced her.  Even though he got custody of their son, his ex continued to try to make Tom do what she wanted.  She called him when she needed home chores and repairs, car repairs and computer fixes.  She wanted him to change the visitation times to suit her whims or convenience.  She wanted him not to find anyone else to be interested in.  Of course, she wanted money from him.

Why do we take on the responsibility to serve others? Tom had all the usual reasons:

• He had made marriage vows. It was important to honor his pledges, to never go back on his word.
• He was raised to adjust and accommodate to what other people wanted.  Some of his old rules, values and beliefs were that he shouldn’t push what he wanted, that nice people tried to make others happy before they made themselves happy and that he shouldn’t be selfish.
• One way she’d previously controlled him was by vindictive retaliation; she’d harass and abuse them relentlessly.  He was afraid that if he disagreed or upset her, she’d blow up like she’d always done and attack him and his son verbally, physically or legally.  He didn’t want to make it harder on his son, even though he was now 16.
• The other way she controlled him was through blame, shame and guilt.  If he didn’t do what she wanted, her feelings would be hurt and it’d be his fault.  He couldn’t stand to make her cry by asserting himself over matters he thought “trivial”.  He convinced himself that it was easier to give in; then he’d waste less time defending himself from her emotional outbursts.
• He didn’t think he should ever say anything bad about her to his son.  He thought that boys need to love their mothers.  Even though his son was a teenager and didn’t want to see his mother, Tom felt he should force them together.
• He looked for the path of least resistance.  He still hoped that if he was nice and forgave her, if he appeased or gave in to her, she’d reciprocate and give in to him graciously next time.  Why fight when he could simply do what she wanted?  He’d learned that she’d never give up, never forgive or forget.

Intellectually, Tom realized that none of his approaches had ever worked with her.  She’d never relent or reciprocate in return for his appeasement, begging, bribery or reasonableness.  He knew she was a negative, critical, controlling boundary pusher who kept trying for more once she got something she wanted.

But emotionally, he still looked for the easy way.  It was as if the fight over the divorce had used all his strength, courage and determination.

Underneath all the psychoanalysis, he still felt responsible for making her happy.  She’d once been his wife.  She was the mother of his son.  He was an enmeshed, co-dependent caretaker.

Children are often the reason people finally act. Eventually, Tom realized that if he gave in to her desires he and his son would never be able to live lives of their own.  Also, he’d be giving into his cowardice and a false sense of responsibility.  If he gave in to her narcissism and self-indulgence, he’d be exposing is son to a lousy mom.  He’d be setting a terrible example for his son.  His son came first.

Finally, he realized that she was not the center of his world or his son’s.  We’re all responsible for anything a court requires, like alimony, child support and insurance.  But she was responsible for her own happiness.  He and his son were responsible for theirs.

People divorce to go their separate ways as much or as little as they want, but they are no longer responsible for and intimate with each other.  Tom can wish her well but it has to be from a distance and he has to be not responsible for her.  He has to protect himself and his son from her clutches.

He realized that he’d trained her to think that she would eventually get her way if she forced him angrily or manipulated him through blame, shame and guilt.  Now he’d have to train her differently – and legally.

Some common variants of this care-taking pattern are:

1. Elderly parents – even though they were bullying, abusive, demanding, harassing and crazy; even though they brutalized you sexually, verbally and physically all your life, now they say you owe them or they plead poverty or helplessness.
2. Adult children – they may be incompetent or crazy; they may be lazy, greedy or narcissistic, but now they want to be dependent and they want you to support and cater to them in any way they want.
3. Extended family – they know better than you do about what’s right and they’re totally demanding and/or totally needy.  They say, “You wouldn’t want to disrupt family unity and cohesion by being difficult and uncaring, would you?”
4. Toxic friends and co-workers – they need you to help or rescue them, to make their lives work for them.
5. Clients – many mental health professionals, body workers and healers feel responsible for curing their clients.

Nora Ephron (“Silkwood,” “Sleepless in Seattle,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “You’ve Got Mail”) said that as she got older she decided she needed a list of people and things she simply was not going to think about any more.  In many ways it’s the opposite of a bucket list and just as important.  She started by putting a lot of celebrities in her “Ignore Bucket.”

In order to have the physical, mental and emotional space we need to make the life we want, in order to stop bullies and our self-bullying, we also need an “I’m not responsible for” list.  As a start, Tom put his wife on his list.

Who and what are on your list?

Leaders who overreact can poison workplace, infect staff

Leaders set the tone for the whole workplace.  Like a deadly infection, your emotions and reactions are catching.  Generals who panic will create panicky troops.  It’s the same at work. No, you can’t be yourself if you overreact to sudden changes, crises, bad news or big mistakes.  Your team will also overreact and blow it if you act:

• Agitated, panicky.
• Discouraged, negative, hopeless, helpless.
• Stubborn, stuck.
• Defensive, harassed, victimized, paranoid, abused, explosive, bullying.
• Thrilled by a desperate adrenaline rush.

To read the rest of this article from Business First of Columbus, see: Leaders who overreact can poison workplace, infect staff http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/10/16/smallb5.html

Over reactors always have excuses for why they must react the way they do.  But remember the fire drill that every public figure, including athletes and celebrities, must learn in order to be followed – keep your head, have fortitude, persevere.

Don’t get sucked into any situation as if it’s life-or-death, no matter how important you’re afraid it is.  Step back, put it in a long-term context that restores your spirit, and start thinking and strategizing.

Sometimes a walk around the block is enough; sometimes you have to talk it out in order to see the big picture; sometimes you simply have to give up fear and control, and just go for it.

The ultimate goal of all the methods is that you rally yourself so you can rally the troops, no matter how bad the situation appears.

An effective attitude begins with, “We can handle this. Here’s my plan.”  Or you first go to the appropriate leaders, develop the best plan you can and then spread it to the troops.

You need a plan, but you don’t need a perfect, 10-year plan.  Don’t become immobilized by over planning.

By the way, “all-staff” meetings carry an underlying message of overreaction – unless there’s been a public disaster and everyone needs to see the leader calmly, energetically and resolutely explaining the plan for dealing with the situation.

Otherwise, have the manager of each team champion the plan with determination.

Practice courage and strength by taking on challenges and risks.  Be capable of rallying yourself from setbacks and handling seemingly overwhelming crises, or let someone else lead in the face of adversity.

There is an upside; leaders can also set the tone for the good.  Like inherited immunity, calm, vigor and stamina are also catching.  When you’re spirited and resolute, you’re testing everyone else.  People who continue overreacting have to be weeded out before they infect your workplace.

Different Principles and Tactics Needed in Different Situations

Clara had finally created a family life with her husband and three children in which they could open up their feelings, fears, hopes and dreams and know they’d be listened to with understanding, caring and tenderness.  They wouldn’t stab each other in the back, throw up old mistakes and fears, put each other down or try to control the turf.  Instead, they’d be polite and civil in sorting through disagreements and in trying to find solutions they could all live with.  Acts of charity and compromise would be reciprocated. But with some of her extended family and some of her co-workers those tactics and her principles of openness, honesty, kindliness, consideration, compromise and tenderness got her routinely bullied, putdown and taken advantage of.

She didn’t want to violate her most cherished beliefs.  She didn’t want to treat people as if they were evil; she wanted to see the good in them.  She didn’t want to turn into a self-centered, narcissistic, uncaring, vicious, manipulative control-freak in order to protect herself.

So what could she do?

Let go of prejudices and abstract principles. Clara saw that as much as she wanted to see the best in every member of her extended family, she often was treated by their worst.  Their spirits might be pure but their personalities ruled their behavior.  After decades of contact, the alcoholics and rage-aholics still lashed out at her if she was in their line of sight, the jealous, manipulative, negative relatives still whacked her with their poisoned tongues; the weak and insecure relatives still put her down in order to puff themselves up.

No amount of sweetness, no amount of holding back and biting her tongue, no amount of defending herself and her family, no amount of asking politely, no amount of offering to compromise had changed their behavior.

After one particularly brutal family occasion, she saw things as they really were: she had held back because she hadn’t wanted to give up on them, she hadn’t wanted to see them as evil, she hadn’t wanted to hurt them in retaliation.  Her values and principles were leading her to put her head in the dragon’s mouth – her need to treat all people the same way no matter how they’d treated her; her hope that if she was nice enough, they’d be nice in return.

So what could she do?

Test the world – nature and people. Clara finally broke through to a new way of being in the world.  Instead of having universal principles determine how she’d act, she’d test the world and let nature and people tell her the way they were.

Of course, she’d already done that with nature.  She’d already figured out how to live in a world where things fell downward, where if she turned her steering wheel she’d go in a certain direction, where if she didn’t put gas in her car or charge her cell phone they wouldn’t work.

Now she’d test other people, not herself.  She’d assume that when people were nasty or blamed on her, that didn’t tell her anything about her.  Because they weren’t happy didn’t mean she was a failure or bad person.  She didn’t need to wallow in blame, shame or guilt.  She didn’t have to do everything to please them, it wasn’t necessarily her fault.  What they said and did told her about them – their habits, standards and ways they related to people; what they wanted and how they tried to manipulate, coerce or verbally abuse other people in order to get their way.

Create an environment that’s rich, gracious, inspiring and thrilling. Clara finally realized that her most important value or goal was to create and maintain the wonderful environment she had with her immediate family.  She’d do her best to create as much of that as she could in other areas of life – with her extended family and in the workplace.

But did she have to let everyone in or could she be judgmental?

Let people show us how they’re likely to act and what it will take to protect ourselves. Every person had shown Clara what treatment to expect from them.  They’d also shown her what to do to get them to stop hurting her.

Some people showed her they’d reciprocate kindness with kindness.  Others told her that to get them to stop hurting her, she might have to smack their noses (figuratively, verbally or literally) just like when she was training her dog.  Sometimes she might have to maintain a distance of 2,000 miles and no phone or internet contact.  She’d simply have to pay careful attention to how they acted, not what they said, and adjust her tactics accordingly.

Clara would not have to judge their identity or try to decide whether they were good or evil.  She would not get involved with their reasons, excuses or justifications.  She’d simply be discerning and accurate about their behavior.  She’d also assume that they’d continue behaving the way they had until she got long-term evidence of change.  Then she could decide whether to trust that change – tiny bit, by tiny bit.

Use different tactics to succeed in different situations. Clara had a lot of control within her extended family as long as she was willing to invite people into her environment if they behaved in a way that supported it and to exclude people who might pollute or destroy it.  Acting that decisively would probably result in huge rifts in the extended family, but Clara had to decide what was more important for her.  Then she could adjust her approach depending on the situation and people involved.

At work, Clara had less control.  But, if she had the strength, courage and determination, she still could adjust her tactics.  She could see the few people at work who had taken advantage of her and she knew, in her heart of hearts, that because she’d tolerated their hostility and attacks, they’d simply become bolder.  The more she had allowed them to push her boundaries, the more they’d push.

She knew she’d have to assert herself and learn to push back.  She needed to free herself to push back and learn to use her tongue and political savvy to get them to focus on someone else.

But did protecting herself make her a bad person? She decided that it didn’t.  Those bullies, like many pets, had showed her what it would take to get them house-trained.  And now she was willing to do the training!

When she adjusted her tactics to fit the different people, she was able to stop their bullying.

Stop Bullies Who Move Back Home

It had been a wonderful 9 months for Jane and her husband.  Their youngest child went off to college and they had the house and their lives to themselves.  No more picking up after the kids, waiting on them, cleaning up the bathrooms after them, helping them through their emergencies.  They got over the initial shock of having an empty nest.  They felt free and spontaneous again.  Their chores were light. Then their son moved back in for the summer.  And it was like having a 200-pound-baby thrashing about in their nest.  He was a good kid, had done well his freshman year and they did love him.  But it was a royal pain taking care of him again.

What could they do?

They tried the usual ways of asking, lecturing, berating and arguing, but he continued acting the way he had before he’d left.  He seemed to think he was an entitled prince.  This was his vacation and he wanted to do only what he wanted to do.  When they wanted him to do more, he tried to beat them into submission with angry temper tantrums or to manipulate them to back off by using blame and guilt.

Jane and her husband realized they were making no progress.  They had training him to expect to do nothing and get away with being surly.  Asking without consequences was just begging.  Appeasing him didn’t buy them the civil, polite behavior they wanted.

They didn’t want to throw him out; how could he support himself?  Or would he start hanging out with bad company?

They finally told him that since he was no longer a little baby and since he wanted all the rights and privileges of a responsible adult, he was now a guest in their home.

1. As a guest he had certain responsibilities, like treating their stuff the way they wanted (not the way he felt like), picking up after himself and asking permission to use their things.  They knew that he would act like a good guest if he was staying at a friend's or even an aunt or uncle’s house.  They loved him and he was doing well at school and seemed to be on his way to making an independent life for himself and they expected him to act like a good guest.
2. They said they wouldn’t accept being treated like victims, servants or slaves, cleaning up after their master.  They wanted an adult relationship with an adult they might like being with.  If he wanted something from them like room and board, loan of a car or college tuition, he had to pay for what he got by being fun, polite and civil.  He also had to get a job so he wouldn’t be hanging around all day.  That’s what adults do.
3. They said that in his absence, they had created an “Isle of Song” for themselves.  No toxic polluters allowed.  Anyone who wanted to get on that isle had to add to the music and dance.  Was he willing?  They knew he could because he acted great around everyone else.

Of course be blew up and tried anger (how could they treat him that way) and guilt (didn’t they love him any more?) to continue to get his lazy, selfish, narcissistic, self-indulgent way.

Even though they suddenly saw him as a bully, they laughed good-naturedly and applauded his efforts to get what he wanted from them.  Literally applauded.  And then they graded his tantrums: was that a 9.2 or a 6.5?

They told him that he had ‘til Friday to find a place with a friend.  They were converting his room into the exercise room they’d always wanted.  They told him they were going to buy boxes to pack up all his stuff stored in the garage.  And then they went out for coffee and left him alone.

When they returned, their son apologized.  He could see they were serious and he’d be a great guest.  They had previously agreed to act sad if he said this, and to pretend hat they’d really wanted the exercise room.

They’d also agreed with each other previously to take him back provisionally on a weekly basis.  They’d provide a list of chores and met weekly to review performance.  But cheerful, gracious and polite behavior was graded at every interaction.  Harassment, bullying or verbal abuse were not tolerated.

Summer with him became fun; except when his older sister came home for two weeks.  But that’s a different story.

Some variants:

1. A grown child who is independent but has to move back suddenly because he lost his job or just got divorced.  It’s only for a short time while he gets back on his feet and moves out again.
2. A grown child who’s life is a mess and needs to move home because she can’t make it on her own.  She hates you and blames all her problems on you.  And you’re afraid she’ll move in permanently.