Stop Toxic Coworkers and Other Bullies

There are toxic people in every environment – toxic family, toxic friends, toxic lovers and toxic coworkers.  If you don’t recognize and respond effectively to toxic, bullying coworkers they can make your life miserable, harass you, turn the rest of your team against you, scapegoat you and even get you fired. For example,

Jane is known to be difficult, obnoxious and an out of control retaliator.  But she’s very bright and hard working so management tends to minimize the problems she causes, overlook the tension, hostility and chaos she creates, and explain away her behavior by saying, “That’s just Jane.  She must have a good heart.”  She specializes in vendettas.  Most people are afraid of her; they usually walk on egg shells around her and try to avoid setting off one of her tirades.

The bosses make you the leader of an important project that requires tact and people skills because they don’t trust Jane.  Jane is enraged.  Sometimes she blames and threatens you – you stole her job, she’ll report everything you do wrong, she’ll ruin your reputation and she’ll get you fired.  Sometimes she acts sweet – as if she wants to be your best friend.  Sometimes she tries to make you feel guilty so you’ll refuse to lead the project she thinks should be hers – that’s the only way you can prove to her that you’re a good person and her friend.

Is Jane right?  Are you sneaky and manipulative and have you wronged her?  Or is this a misunderstanding you can overcome so she’ll still be your friend?

How can you distinguish a friendly coworker who’s justifiably upset from one of these toxic bullies?  Simple.  You look for patterns in how Jane acts and how you and others feel when you’re around her.

Typically, toxic coworkers have patterns in which they:

• Are selfish and narcissistic – it’s always about them; only their interpretations and feelings matter.  Only their interpretations are true.
• Are sneaky, manipulative, back-stabbing stealth bullies.
• Are over-reactive, control freaks – their interpretations give them permission to search and destroy, no matter how slight or unintentional the insult.  They throw fits and attack or embarrass people they’re upset at.
• Act sweet one time only pry out people’s secrets and look for the opportunity to strike back even more.  Remember, they’re acting polite doesn’t mean they’re nice.
• Will openly lie and deny it.  They’re always 100% convinced and convincing.
• Relentlessly disparage, demean, spy on and report “bad” conduct (often made up) about their targets.

Typically, teammates of these bullies should ask themselves:

• Are you afraid of what Jane might do or that Jane won’t be friends with you?
• Does she threaten you?
• Have you seen Jane attack, manipulate or lie about other targets before you?
• Does Jane apologize but not change or even strike back later?
• Does Jane tell you that you’re special and she’d never go after you?
• Does Jane make efforts to be reasonable and to overcome misunderstandings, to say that the problem is partly her fault and then does she make amends and change?

Of course, you want to be careful that you’re not overreacting.  You want to know if you’re seeing their actions clearly.  But if you answer the first five questions with “yes,” and the last one with “no,” you should beware.

When you identify Jane as someone who is relentless, implacable and has no conscience in pursuing her targets, you know what you’re dealing with.  She’s out to destroy you just like she went after other coworkers in the past.

Your first thought may be, “How can I win her friendship?” or it may be, “She’s suffered so much in her own life, how can I not forgive her?”  If you follow these thoughts with feelings of kindness, compassion and compromise, if you don’t mobilize to protect you life, limb and job you will be sacrificing yourself on an altar of silly sentimentality.

I take a strong approach: Recognize evil and recognize crazy or out of control people who won’t negotiate or compromise.  The Jane’s and John’s of this world are bullies, abusers and predators that do tremendous damage.  They’re why well-meaning people have to consult with experts.  Remember, you would have already resolved situations with coworkers who are reasonable, willing to examine their own actions honestly, and to negotiate and compromise.  You need help with the terminators that you face.

So what can you do?

Divide your response into two areas:

1. Will – determination, perseverance, resilience, endurance, grit.
2. Skill – overall strategy, tactics and the ability to maintain your poise and carry out your plan.

Will

1. Convert doubt and hesitation into permission to act and then into an inner command to act effectively.  Until you have the will, no tactics will help – you’ll give in, back off, bounce from one strategy to another and you'll fail, even with the best plan.
2. Don’t let your good heart blind you to the damage she’ll do to you.  You’ve already given her second and third chances.  That’s enough.  She’s not merely misunderstanding you in any way you can clear up; logic, reason and common sense aren’t effective with the Jane’s of this world.
3. See Jane as a terminator – she’s relentless, implacable and has no conscience.  Under her human-looking skin she’s out to destroy you.  Your good heart and attempts to reason politely won’t stop her.
4. Assume that you can’t rehabilitate or convert Jane in your life time.  That’s not what they pay you for at work anyway.  You’re merely Jane’s coworker with an important personal life, a personal island that needs protecting.  Let Jane’s therapist change her in professional space and on professional time that she pays for.
5. You don’t owe her anything because she got you the job or rescued you from drowning.  She’s out to get you and you must protect yourself.  Let Jane struggle to change on someone else’s professional time.  Don’t put your reputation, your job or your family’s livelihood in harm’s way.  Don’t minimize or excuse.  Deal only with Jane’s behavior.

Skill

1. All plans must be adjusted to your specific situation – you, Jane, the company, your personal life.  Added complications would be if Jane is your boss or the manager of your team likes her or is afraid of her and will collude with her against you.
2. Don’t believe Jane’s promises; don’t be fooled if she acts nice and sweet one time.  Pay attention to the pattern of actions.  If she’s sweet, she’s probably seeking to get information that she can use against you.
3. Don’t expect her to tell the truth.  She’ll say one thing to you and report exactly the opposite to everyone else.  She’ll lie when she reports bad things you have supposedly done.  She knows that repetition is convincing; eventually some of her dirt might stick to you.  Have witnesses who’ll stand up for you in public.
4. Don’t argue the details of an interaction to try to convince her of your side.  State your side in a way that will convince bystanders.  Always remind bystanders of your honesty, integrity and good character, which they should know.
5. Document everything; use a small digital recorder.  Find allies as high up in the company as you can.  When you report Jane, be professional; concentrate on her behavior, not your hurt feelings.  Make a business case to encourage company leaders to act.  It’s about the money, coworkers and clients that the company will save when they terminate Jane.
6. When you listen to voice mails from Jane or talk with her in person, tighten the muscles of your stomach just below your belly button, while you keep breathing.  That’ll remind you to prepare for a verbal gut-punch.
7. Get your own employment lawyer and a good coach to strengthen your will, develop your courage and plan effective tactics.

Each situation is different – you, the toxic coworker and the rest of the company.  The need to protect yourself and your career remains the same, while the tactics vary with the situation.  All tactics are situational tactics.

End frustration: Stop shouting, spanking and bullying your kids

An article by Hillary Stout in the New York Times, “For Some Parents, Shouting is the New Spanking,” focuses on the damage to children done by parents’ shouting and, therefore, the need for parents to control their tempers. Although I agree that a steady diet of shouting and bullying isn’t a good way for well-meaning, devoted parents to act, the experts in the article miss the real source of the problem and, therefore, the real solution.

Those experts point out that the proper way to be a good parent is “never spank their children,” “friend our teenagers,” “spend hours teaching our elementary-school offspring how to understand their feelings,” “reminding, nagging, timeout, counting 1-2-3” and “have a good interaction based on reason.”

I disagree with their basic assumptions about good parenting and their solution that parents should control their tempers.

Of course, repeated sarcasm, criticism, beatings and abuse are bad parenting.  I’m talking here to frustrated, well-meaning, devoted parents; not abusive bullies.

Good parenting sometimes involves spanking, has nothing to do with “friending,” is not focused on teaching children to merely understand their feelings and is not usually about good interactions based on reason.  Reason is only a small part of being an effective parent, especially when the children are young.

Children are exquisitely adept at knowing your true limitations and which buttons to push.  It’s a survival skill for them.  They know exactly how many times you’ll yell before you act.  They distinguish between yelling and threatening that won’t be followed up, and the “Mom” or “Dad” look and voice that means you will act.  And they perform a precise calculus based on how much they’ll get the next time versus a punishment and your guilt this time.  They know when they can get unreasonable and stubborn, and win.  They also know that if you blow up and yell now, they’ll win later.

Winning those battles won’t increase their self-esteem.  Pushing their parents around will make them insecure.

What leads to repeated shouting is frustration.  Those parents have so limited their allowed responses that they’re no longer effective – the kids know that they don’t have to do what the parents want and nothing serious will happen.  Those parents have taught their children to be stubborn and unreasonable in order to win.  See the case study of Paula as she stops being bullied by her daughter Stacy in "How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks."

Those parents’ lack of creativity and effectiveness increases their frustration until they blow up and shout.  Then those parents feel guilty, apologize, give the kids more power and set in motion the next cycle of not getting listened to leading to more frustration and further shouting.

The solution is for parents to take charge and be parents – speak and act straight.  Decide – as age, stage and specific kid appropriate – what decisions you make and when the child simply must obey, and what decisions the kid gets to make and within what limits.  In your areas, it’s nice if the child understands your needs and reasons, but you’ll never convince a two or sixteen year-old by reasoning that your way is best and they should be happy not getting what they want.

Sometimes you must be firm about your sense of urgency, which is not matched by theirs.  Sometimes, your needs and wishes must be taken into account.  You’re not their slave or servant all the time.  They don’t get what they want every time.  More important than helping them understand their feelings is teaching them how to deal effectively when they’re feeling demanding or angry or frustrated or needy.

And some kids seem to want to be punished sometimes.  Really, they do.  And they feel much better afterward.  When you’ve gone through the sequence of reminding and timeout without effect, a spank is sometimes the best thing to do.

Your frustration and shouting is a message to you that you’re not being effective.  You need to do more than merely learn the latest technique; you need to change the limits you place on yourself.  That will open up other ways to making them do what you need when you’re under pressure.

Good parenting means that you can say, “Here’s the way it is.  I need to move fast and I insist that you do the same.”  Or “You don’t vote on this decision and we’ll talk about it later.”  Of course, you will talk about it later.  Or “I’m not taking you there today.  I need to unwind right now over a latte.  I love you.  Now go read and leave me alone for a while.”  Of course, most of the time we devoted parents will take them to places they want to go.

Don’t reason more than once with a five year-old who doesn’t want to brush her teeth, “You’re making a bad decision,” as those experts suggest.  Simply say, “In our family, we brush our teeth, so you will.”

It’s not, as those experts say, that “Yelling parents reflect a complete inability to express themselves in any meaningful, thoughtful, useful or constructive way.”  It’s that yelling parents aren’t allowing themselves to express the right thought, which is that “I, the parent, am drawing the line here and you will do what I want.  I have good reasons.  I hope you understand now and I know you’ll understand later.  But even if you don’t understand, you will do what I want now.”

In addition to what I learned professionally, we have six, now-grown children who taught me that well-meaning parents yell when they’re irritable, anxious, pressured, overwhelmed and frustrated because they don’t know how else to make things work for them

Stop Cyber Bullies: Vague Cyber bullying Laws Aren’t Effective

According to an editorial in the New York Times, “Vague Cyberbullying Law,” “Lori Drew acted grotesquely if, as prosecutors charged, she went online and bullied her daughter’s classmate, a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide.  A federal court was right, however, to throw out her misdemeanor convictions recently.  The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules, are too vague to be constitutional.” Whether or not we’d agree with the constitutional interpretation of the US District Court judge, I think the ruling illustrates clearly why we need clear, specific laws to stop cyber bullies.

Freedom of speech is not the issue.  We abridge freedom of speech in many ways because, in some situations, there are values more important than freedom of speech.  That’s why we prohibit yelling “fire” in crowded public places and why we have laws against libel and slander.  Difficulties in enforcing some laws like libel and slander are no reason not to have such laws.  We recognize that such difficulties mean that there are a lot of gray areas in human behavior in these areas.  Therefore, we expect human judgment to be required in these difficult areas.  But if we didn’t have laws, we’d never be able to respond to cases that are clear.

Angry, vindictive and relentless bullies will continue to abuse their targets by whatever means they can.  If we avoid the difficulties in trying to stop cyber bullying, if we say that we can’t distinguish between lying about our age, weight or physical appearance online, and plotting to cause emotional distress or persecuting someone or spreading malicious, false gossip and rumors online, we only encourage cyber bullying – especially if it can be done anonymously.

Therefore, we need laws that are as specific and clear as we can write them, as well as human judgment in enforcing them.  I’d rather have the option to effectively prosecute people like Lori Drew than to be unable to because there are no clear and specific laws.

Because internet use is nationwide, we need the laws to be Federal laws.

On the other side of the equation, we hope we’ll be able to raise our children to be more sturdy than Megan Meier was.  We hope we’ll recognize the signs that our children are targets of cyber bullies.  But we’ll never succeed in raising all our children to be mentally and emotionally strong enough to resist all pressures and stress.  Not all children will develop the self-esteem and self-confidence to thrive in the real world.  Negative input and negative self-talk will always be a problem.  But in many cases, strong Federal laws will help protect people, especially teenagers.  Cyber safety for as many people as possible takes precedence over freedom of speech.

Lori Drew Acquitted by Judge in Cyber Bullying Suicide Case

On July 2, a federal judge overturned guilty verdicts rendered by the jury against Lori Drew, 50, who was accused of participating in a cyber bullying scheme against 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide. This case demonstrates why we need federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The facts in the case were agreed upon even by Drew.  She set-up a MySpace account under an assumed name, “Josh Evans,” that was used by her daughter and an employee to harass, bully and abuse 13-year-old Megan Meier.  It is not clear what other actions Drew took to use or promote the use of the site.  After many attacks on Megan, the fake identity eventually encouraged her to commit suicide.  The three perpetrators would not admit who sent that message.

While that sounds straightforward and obviously wrong, and most people react with outrage, there are no Federal laws to prevent such attacks.  Since there are no laws making the cyber bullying, harassment and abusive actions of Lori Drew, her daughter and her employee a felony, prosecutors had to bring weak charges based on unauthorized computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Despite difficulties in stretching the application of these laws to cover the cyber bullying, a jury found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts in the case.  However, the judge overturned the jury and acquitted Drew of the charges.  Some of the arguments for the defense were: * The three bullies didn’t know the terms of agreement for setting up their MySpace account because they hadn’t read the MySpace contract they agreed to. * Stretching the laws to cover their actions could set dangerous legal precedents.

Even though we can follow the legal arguments, the sense of outrage still remains.

This situation makes an obvious case for the need for strong Federal anti-cyber bullying laws. If there were clear laws and stiff penalties against, for example, using sites to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties the case against the three people would have been different.  In addition, we must not offer people anonymity or secret identities to attack other people online.

Of course these laws would infringe on free speech and some people’s desires to create secret identities online.  Which is more important, protecting adults and children against anonymous attacks or free speech?

In the case of the suicide of Megan Meier, had Lori Drew’s daughter accosted Megan in person, laying forth whatever complaints she had, saying whatever vindictive and nasty things she wanted to say, the situation would have been very different.  Megan would have been able to face her accuser.  She would have known her accuser’s personal agenda.  She could have argued or ignored the attacks.  But online attacks through a false identity are a very different matter.

Of course lawyers debate legal precedents.  But we all know the protection we’d want against anonymous people who put signs or graffiti on our homes or burn crosses on our lawns.  We clearly see the need to regulate these actions, even if they aren’t direct attacks with a deadly weapon.  Cyber bullying, harassment and abuse require the same regulation.

Lori Drew and her attorney are trying to drum up sympathy for her.  They say that she’s had to pay legal fees and move from Missouri due to the publicity and anger her family has faced.  They may not have envisioned the final consequences of their hoax, but once we go down the pathway of harassment, bullying and abuse, we can’t control the results.

As parents, this case also should make us question our children’s use of social networking sites like MySpace.  I always recommend drawing firm lines that encourage face-to-face friends and prohibit virtual friends, who, by definition, aren’t real friends.

Facebook Cyber Bullying Lawsuit Versus New York Teenager

As reported by Reid Epstein in Newsday, New York teenager, Denise Finkel has sued Facebook for $3 million because, she claims, it carried a fictitious Facebook chat group to bully, ostracize, ridicule, abuse and disgrace her.  The lawsuit states that former high school classmates, Michael Dauber, Jeffrey Schwartz, Leah Herz, and Melinda Danowitz created the chat room in which they falsely claimed that she had “inappropriate conduct with animals,” and had AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. I want to focus on two related areas that I think are more important in the long run.

Of course there will be a lot of furor over whether any or all of the accused four did it and whether Facebook is liable for content that’s not obviously pornographic.  Did Finkel complain to Facebook and did Facebook turn a deaf ear to Finkel’s complaints?  And are the four people guilty as accused?

The first area that I think is more important in the long run is the ongoing effort to make new laws in response to new crimes, especially using new technology.  The natural way that we make new laws begins when some people commit acts not specifically covered under the old laws that have terrible consequences.  We respond by specifically labeling those new actions as crimes, and attach what we feel are appropriate criminal penalties.  Then we see, by trial-and-error, where to draw better lines.  The legal system is inevitably slow, inefficient and never perfect.

Given the increasing number of lives ruined by cyber bullying, emotional harassment and abuse, especially in schools, and the number of suicides stimulated by cyber bullying, I think that our society will make laws specifically stating that false and malicious statements and postings, in addition to pornography, are illegal.  I don’t think we’ll hold carriers like Facebook, MySpace, etc. liable for their postings.  But I think we’ll hold them liable for ignoring complaints about specific chat groups and postings that they continue to carry.

Many states and school districts, including Kansas, Oregon and California are considering such laws to protect children and teenagers from cyber bullying.

One stumbling block in making such laws is where to draw the lines and the hidden assumption that cyberbullying laws can and should be made “just right” for all situations – never too lax, never too harsh.  But the letter of the laws can never cover all situations with “just right” justice.  We always depend on human wisdom in the law’s application to specific situations.  That’s just the way it is – for better or for worse.

And I think that in this area, safety should triumph over cyber freedom.

The second area that I think is more important in the long run is parenting for the specific situations involving our kids and teenagers.  Our job is to monitor our children:

1. Do they look like they’re having a hard time (maybe being attacked by cyberbullies)?  How can we help them stop bullying on their own or do we need to intervene?
2. Are they witnessing cyber bullying and are they struggling to know whether or how to intervene?
3. Are they cyber bullies?  How do we stop them and help them develop the character to make amends and do better next time?
4. Should they even be on MySpace or Facebook or any social networking sites?  What else would be a better use of their time and energy?

And of course there are no easy answers.  No one is really dumb enough to think there are easy solutions.

There are no safe environments.  Schools and the real world have never been safe.  Schools and social networks are testing grounds for the real world.  And the real world is not and should not be safe.  Facing risks and danger helps us develop good sense, good character and the qualities necessary to survive.  Imagine growing up on a farm, in a wilderness village or in the middle ages.  Not safe.  I grew up in New York City.  Not safe.  Millennia ago we had to learn what a saber-toothed tiger’s foot prints looked like and how long ago they were left.  The world still requires survival skills, even if different ones.

Our job as parents is to teach our children the skills and grit to survive in whichever jungle or battleground they live, and to protect them when they’re over-matched.

For practical, real-world tactics designed to stop school bullies and bullying, please see “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks,” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”  Individualized coaching can design action plans to fit your specific situation.  Also, the strong and clear voice of an outside speaker can empower principals, teachers and other students to stop bullying and abuse.

Stop bullying by your boyfriend’s daughter

Sherry has noticed a pattern between her boyfriend, Robert, and his teen aged daughter.  Whenever Sherry and Robert have special plans, his daughter insists that she needs Robert to take care of her.  If he won’t change the plans, the girl throws a fit, gets hysterical and says that Robert doesn’t love her anymore. Robert immediately changes the plans and does what his daughter wants.  He says that she’s his first responsibility.  He’d feel guilty if he disappointed his daughter; he’s hurt her enough by getting divorced and if he doesn’t take care of her needs now, she’ll never be a better student or happier person.  She’ll feel rejected all her life.

There are also many other kinds of incidents in which Robert shows that his primary emotional attachment is to his daughter.

What would you do?

Robert’s daughter seems to have a sixth sense.  She calls Robert with her problems whenever Robert and Sherry are having a romantic date.  She needs Robert to listen endlessly to her emotional turmoil with her mother (his ex) and other kids at school.

Whenever Robert catches his daughter in a lie, she yells and screams.  By the time Robert calms her down, he’s too afraid to bring up the lie he’s caught her in.

Sherry and Robert both agree; Robert is catering to his daughter.  His daughter is needy, manipulative and conniving.  She uses emotional blackmail, withdrawal of love and hysterics to coerce him.  She’s actually bright and strong; there’s nothing really wrong with her.

Robert accepts his daughter’s view that he has to choose who’s more important; her or Sherry.  Robert gives in almost every time.  He feels guilty and he’s afraid that if he doesn’t do what his daughter wants, she’ll be a failure.  His heart breaks when he thinks of making her unhappy.  Robert is encouraging his daughter to be a selfish, spoiled, nasty brat.

Sherry wonders if Robert’s attachment to his daughter is normal and if she’s being too selfish when she wants more from him.  How can she ask him to choose her instead of his daughter?

Sherry is asking the wrong questions.  She really wants to know, “Will Robert stop bullying by his manipulative daughter?”  Also, “Will he stop bullying himself with his guilt over his divorce?”

The real question for Sherry is: “Do I want to be with someone who puts a manipulative person’s wishes and demands ahead of his own happiness?”  Her guts already tell her, “No!”

She should give him one more chance to recognize the dysfunctional pattern between himself and his daughter and get the help he needs to stop bullying in his life.  His daughter is old enough to understand that while Robert does love her, he isn’t going to take care of her as if she was a fragile, little infant.  He can say “No” without destroying this teenager’s life.  He simply needs the better parenting skills he can learn from “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”

My experience is that the Robert’s of the world who don’t change rapidly won’t change in Sherry’s life time.  He won’t end his submission and stop the bullying.

Sherry should not get into debates about what’s normal; not let her false hopes convince her that he’ll change after his daughter has grown up.  Sherry should focus on behavior she wants or doesn’t want in her environment; not on philosophical arguments.  She shouldn’t try to stick it out.  She should get out and find love somewhere else.

Sherry is afraid that if she loses Robert, she won’t find anyone else.  Sherry needs coaching to decrease self-doubt and self-bullying (Case Studies # 8 and 9 in “How to Stop Bullies in their Tracks”).

She needs to start living the life she wants to lead.  Just like Lucy in case study # 14 in my book, if she doesn’t trust her own guts, she’ll get sucked in.  The longer she goes on Robert’s roller coaster ride, the harder it will be to get off.  Does she want to settle for Robert and his daughter as the best she’ll ever get?  Does she want the pain?