Don't let employee with bad attitude prevail

Attitude is critical.  If your attitude is good, then misunderstandings, disappointments and adversity can be handled professionally and kept from escalating in serious problems. But a poor attitude can turn even minor issues into a job-threatening mess.

To read the rest of this article from the Denver Business Journal, see: Don’t let employee with bad attitude prevail http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2005/03/14/smallb2.html

For example: Opal was a young employee, new to a well-functioning team.  Her supervisor had already acknowledged that Opal was bright, competent, personable and likely to be a star.  Unfortunately, in Opal’s mind, she already was a star and entitled to celebrity treatment.

Like other team members, Opal was allowed to work four ten-hour days as long as she adjusted her schedule with the rest of the team to ensure coverage at all times.  But Opal rapidly began taking advantage, setting her own schedule without consulting anyone and taking time off at the beginning and end of the day.

These seemed like minor incidents to her supervisor, who reminded Opal of the team agreement about coordinating schedules and pointed out that she was alienating some people.  Opal became visibly upset and argued vehemently that she deserved special treatment.

Opal took a minor, easily fixed issue and escalated it into a big problem.  Opal’s supervisor told her that the agreement to coordinate flextime was the way it was.  Opal retorted that she didn’t like it and her supervisor could expect her to be displeased and show it.

Opal dimmed her own rising star with her bad attitude, made worse because she was so blatantly self-centered and oblivious to team processes.

Opal then reported her displeasure to her boss’s boss.  Later, when Opal’s supervisor took her for coffee, Opal was smug.  She was sure her supervisor had been reprimanded for not handling her the way she wanted.

But Opal’s supervisor hadn’t been reprimanded.  She had a well-deserved reputation for being a considerate, calm person who built highly productive, caring teams - and her boss assumed Opal was the problem.

Opal’s supervisor told her she expected Opal to “display a wonderful attitude toward me and the rest of the team members, whatever your feelings.”

Opal’s supervisor gave her a great gift by having private conversations, being clear about what it took to rise in that company and offering specific advice to help Opal get back on track.

This was a crucial time for Opal.  She hadn’t gotten what she wanted and had thrown a fit.  She’d acted like she did when she was a child facing her mother – using emotional intimidation and bullying to get her way.  If she didn’t change her attitudes, she’d lose her job.

A major test for us is, what do we do when we’ve made mistakes, been reprimanded or been defeated.  Look at the 100 richest people in the world, the 100 greatest people in all of history, the 100 greatest athletes.  They’ve all made mistakes, been dressed down and defeated … and their setbacks have usually been in public.

If you were Opal’s supervisor, what would you do to try to save a potential star?  Some suggestions are: See whole article for details.

• Meet away from the office for only one heart-to-heart talk about attitudes required for success.
• Set clear boundaries – “show this behavior or else” - and stick to them.
• Review the plan with your manager, including a plan if Opal continues going over your head.
• Hire a coach, for two sessions maximum, so Opal hears what she needs from an outside expert.
• Don’t give more chances; don’t reward Opal in hopes she’ll like you and act better.
• Don’t wallow in self-doubt - you wouldn’t get better results if you were sweeter, kinder and gentler. Opal’s mother never did.

Often, individuals need coaching and organizations need consulting to help them design and implement a plan that fits the situation.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

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.

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.

When should you keep a curmudgeon?

The worst part of having a curmudgeon on your staff is that you may have to put up with him, at least temporarily, if he’s valuable to your organization.  But he has to be very valuable.  And “temporarily” is the key word. Imagine, for example, a senior manager who criticizes every idea and decision openly at meetings and also behind his boss’ back.  Sometimes, he simply rolls his eyes, snorts, drums his fingers or overtly uses his smart phone.  The major expression of his negativity is “harrumph.”

To read the rest of this article from the Memphis Business Journal, see: When should you keep a curmudgeon? http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2007/02/05/smallb3.html

He’s worse than impersonal.  He’s an active curmudgeon.  He makes clear he won’t go to birthday parties and other celebrations because they’re a waste of time and he’s too busy.  Or he goes and grumbles audibly the whole time.  You can almost hear him saying, “Bah. Humbug.”

He always knows the “right” answer and thinks “discussions” are him expressing his opinion, followed by everyone else acting instantly on his plan.  He’s an expert at harassment, bullying and abuse of power.  If he’s entrenched in the organization, he’ll even criticize his boss publicly.

This curmudgeon’s actually pleased he has a reputation as a no-nonsense guy.  When employees leave his department, he’s sure they couldn’t stand his high standards, weren’t willing to work hard enough or didn’t have the brains to keep up with him.

The most devastating effect of allowing such bullies to stay is that your actual culture – not the politically correct statements you’ve posted on wall plaques – is exposed.  Around these cranky, negative, toxic people, performance decreases and behavior sinks to the lowest level tolerated.  Also, creativity is destroyed, morale plummets and turnover increases around him.  That may convince you to make a thoughtful decision about removing him.

Many experts tell you to get rid of the curmudgeon right away; it’s the people-oriented, moral thing to do.

Dealing with “special cases” I have a somewhat different view.  In some fields and with some tasks, you may decide to accept the behavior because he’s unique and successful.  Typically, those are the fields in which genius counts.  Some examples are: the arts and theatre, surgeons, researchers, inventors, programmers, architects and athletes.  Or a special case may be the owner’s mother or children.

If you want to retain other valuable managers and maintain a respectful culture for the rest of the organization, make clear to everyone, including the curmudgeon, your reasons for keeping him, the behavioral lines he can’t cross and your plans to minimize brain damage to the rest of the staff.  Otherwise you’ll simply allow him to victimize everyone.

As his boss, you’ll have to micromanage him.  The words “communicate better” don’t have any meaning to him.  He thinks he’s communicating just fine and doesn’t know or value any other way.  Use behaviorally specific cue cards, “Say this. Do that.”

Peers will often put up with a curmudgeon because they can minimize contact and laugh behind his back.

But if he’s your boss, decide whether to put up with his behavior cheerfully, try to get upper management to change the behavior, transfer or retire.  Don’t endure behavior you can’t live with cheerfully.  Life is too short.

High standards protect everyone from unprofessional behavior.  You can learn to eliminate the high cost of low attitudes, behavior and performance.

All tactics are situational.  Expert coaching and consulting can help you create and implement a plan that fits you and your organization.

Should You Stop Bullies if You Feel Vindictive, Resentful?

Amy was raised to be a nice girl.  She had learned not to act if she felt angry or if she sensed any resentful or vindictive feelings within her.  When she held back because her motives weren’t pure enough, she became easy prey for her bullying brother. When they were middle-aged, her brother moved back to their small town after having been gone for 20 years.  He began spreading vicious lies and rumors about Amy.  He blackened her reputation around town and even manipulated their mother into believing that Amy had always been jealous of him and that’s why she would claim he was nasty to her.

It was all lies.  Actually, Amy had done a lot to help him and had ignored his attacks; she’d never been nasty.  He was a sneaky, narcissistic, abusive, covert bully.

But the more his poisonous words went unchallenged, the more people believed them.

Amy obsessed on what he was saying and what was happening.  She couldn’t sleep, she wallowed in negative self-talk, shame and guilt, and became grumpy and angry at her family and at work.  She got anxious and depressed.  She even contemplated suicide as a solution to her dilemma.

Amy had helped her brother so much and she couldn’t understand why he’d do these things.  She tried reasoning with him and in return he attacked her verbally, venting a lifetime’s hatred and jealousy on her.  He blamed her for all the problems in his life; all his troubles had been her fault.  He told her that she had only succeeded and had a wonderful family because she’d fooled them all and he was going to bring her down.  He wouldn’t listen to reason or any compromise she offered.

He accused her of being evil.  Her anger and desire to retaliate proved how bad she was.  Since she did feel angry, resentful and vindictive, maybe he was right and she was deluding herself by thinking she was a good person.

Finally, Amy was forced to reevaluate some beliefs she’d accepted when she was a child:

• Truth will out; good people will be justified.
• Turn the other cheek; follow the Golden Rule.
• Never act if your motives are impure; if you feel the slightest amount of anger, resentment or vindictiveness.

When she could see that the wonderful life she’d created and her teenage children’s happiness were threatened, she broke free from her old rules and roles.  She evaluated those old rules-roles as an adult with much more experience than she had when she was a child.

She could see where and when the old rules might apply, and where and when she needed new rules because she was now a responsible adult.  She realized that her most important jobs were to protect her children, her marriage and her reputation.  She felt like her old skin had been ripped open and a new sense of clarity, urgency and power filled her new skin.

She told her teenage children what she’d realized.  She’d told them secrets about her brother that she’d hidden because she didn’t want them to know how rotten he’d always been.  But she had to protect her family from someone who’d destroy it, even though he was her brother.

She told their mother the truth, even though that hurt mom.  Her mother had always tried to ignore how bad her son had been.  Now she had a choice, face the truth and side with her daughter, who’d always been good to her, or continue siding with a son who was weak and manipulative.

Amy told the truth to her friends and many of the important people in town. The hardest part for her was to overcome her reluctance and produce evidence for many of the rotten things her brother had done while he’d been gone.  There were newspaper clippings to back up what she said.

Also, she reminded people to judge by character and history.  How had she behaved to them over the years: had she lied, deceived or harmed them?  Or had she always been kindly, considerate and truthful?

Her brother had to leave town.  Amy felt sorry for him, but she knew that her responsibilities were more important that her sympathy for her brother, who was now reaping the painful harvest of the seeds he’d sown.

Most important, she had a much better sense of what she had to do to fulfill her responsibilities and that she wouldn’t allow her feelings to put her in harm’s way.  Also, she saw that she had not let herself be overwhelmed by anger or resentment.  She hadn’t blown up and lost her character or the respect of the people in town.  Instead, she had stayed calm and thoughtful, and developed a plan that succeeded.

Now, she’s much stronger, courageous and determined.

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.

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.

Sexting, Harassment, Bullying and Suicide: Is the Solution More Laws?

When the parents of teenage suicide Jessica Logan called for new laws to stop “sexting,” and said that the school was responsible for stopping their daughter and her ex-boy friend and the other bullies who continued harassing her, the focus of discussion shifted from sadness about her suicide to the question of what to regulate and how to regulate it. Should we have new laws to prevent people from texting nude pictures of themselves?  Should schools be the forced to stop the practice?

As much as I feel for Jessica and her parents, they’re calling for the wrong methods to try to stop sexting.  We shouldn’t have laws to stop self-sexting and schools should not be held responsible for stopping it.  Either of those paths are over-reactions to the emotions in one situation.  They’ll lead to morasses and a huge waste of time and money.

The first problem was with what Jessica did.  The solutions to that problem don’t begin with laws.  The solutions begin at home.  Whatever the family dynamic was, Jessica sent the pornographic pictures of herself to her boy friend.  She didn’t have the sense to look ahead.  She’s not the first, nor will she be the last teenager to do something foolish with a boyfriend.  And he’s not the first, nor will he be the last ex-boyfriend who strikes back by talking or texting about his ex-girlfriend.  Of course, ex-girlfriends also have a long history of doing rotten things to their ex-boyfriends.

That problem is between Jessica and her parents.  Do you really think that any seventeen year-old girl hasn’t heard that she should be careful about what she sends in digital form, especially to boys?  Except for the ease and speed of transmission, that’s no different from someone, a hundred years ago, giving a hard copy of nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriend.  If someone wants to be that dumb, we can’t stop them, anymore than societies have ever been able to stop sex before marriage.

Teenagers have free will.  Could any of us stop our teenagers from doing all the things we thought were dangerous?  Our six teenagers taught us the futility of that attempt.  Could our parents have stopped us completely?

Beyond a short talk about the dangers of exposing yourself in public, schools shouldn’t get more involved.  We don’t need extensive and expensive educational programs.

A second issue is the ex-boyfriend’s sending pornographic pictures of someone else, and the subsequent harassment by cyber bullies, especially mean girls.  His actions and those of all the other nasty, cyber bullying girls and boys who passed around Jessica’s nude pictures, trashed her on Facebook, IM’d her and ruined her reputation can be made illegal.  This situation also illustrates the truism that means girls can be much more vicious than boys.

That’s different from the previous generation’s passing around published “Playboy” centerfolds, where the women had given permission to be seen by everyone.

This is a personal tragedy for the Logan family, but ruined reputations are an age old phenomenon and this problem was started by the person in the middle, Jessica, not by the paparazzi.  Our popular culture is no worse than most popular cultures have been, especially during times of opulence, extravagance and excess.  You can’t legislate morals successfully in such a time.

Our task as individual parents is still the same; to try to talk some sense and caution into our children and teenagers’ heads.  And many of them won’t listen and will learn their lessons the hard way.

I’m sorry Jessica didn’t have the inner strength and resilience to resist the bullying and harassment, and to move on beyond the loss of her reputation.  I hope the ex-boyfriend and all the other people involved in harassing her also learned some useful lessons that will change their future behavior.

Facing a two-faced coworker

My advice was asked on this situation on condition that the author remains anonymous.  What would you do if you faced a two-faced coworker or teammate who treated you civilly in public but attacked you when you were alone?  And no one else in the office knew or would believe you. In public, Bart (fictitious name) smiled and seemed helpful to Fran (fictitious name).  Even though he didn’t know her specialty, he started offering polite, detailed suggestions in an authoritative and convincing way about how she could improve her performance.  Fran felt like she was being micro-managed in a way she couldn’t resist or argue back.  It would take too long to show why his suggestions wouldn’t work and she didn’t think everyone else was really interested.  Other members of the team started to think she was pretty incompetent since Bart knew so much more.

In private, Fran asked Bart to stop being so controlling and making her look bad.  He agreed to, but then he continued to subtly demean her in public.  In addition, he started ignoring her, leaving her out of the information loop, and putting her down subtly in front of others.  Fran again asked him to stop.  Bart said he wanted them to have a good working relationship and suggested a meeting to clear the air.  Fran was initially wary, but he persisted and she agreed.

At the private meeting, Bart told Fran she was the worst person he'd ever worked with.  She wasn’t completely bad professionally, but she had the worst personality he’d ever seen.  He wanted her to treat him with as much friendliness as she treated other people in public.  Fran was mystified because he didn't say who these other people were and she thought she already treated everyone politely and professionally.

He said Fran was bullying him, he couldn't sleep at night because of her, she was just as hostile and nasty as another girl he used to work with and his girlfriend agreed that Fran was bullying him, even though Fran had never met her.  He said he’d been verbally cruel to people in the past, but he didn't want to be with her.  He said Fran was the worst person he'd ever worked with and the worst thing about his otherwise perfect job.

Fran felt scared because nothing like this had ever happened to her before and because Bart said everything very quietly and calmly with a twisted look of pure hate on his face.  He seemed to be enjoying it.  Fran had never seen him look or act this particular way before, so she thought others wouldn't believe her.

He carried on this way for an hour and Fran felt like she was in the presence of a psycho.  She apologized profusely.  He kept twisting the knife.  She said she was sorry for “bullying” him.  He kept twisting the knife.  She asked how she could make things better between them.  He kept twisting the knife.

Since she had to work with him closely, Fran pretended to be his friend from that day on.  She followed up two weeks later to see if he was happier.  He said he no longer thought of her at night, but added that he hated her because of the way she treated him.  He didn’t stop correcting her in public and he continued to sabotage her work.

Don’t waste time psychoanalyzing Bart and Fran or thinking that some trust building exercises, communication techniques or skillful conflict resolution will bring them together.  Fran should realize that she and Bart live on different planets.  She thinks she’s okay and he’s a scary psycho.  He hates her guts, thinks she bullies him and that professional behavior allows him to vent his feelings and hatred.

In her world, she’s faced with a relentless, crazy person who blames everything on her and is out to get her.  In that office, she’ll always feel his hatred shooting into her back.  She’s also afraid he might blow and physically harm her.  She must be willing to skillfully fight a work war against a fanatic or have her credibility and reputation destroyed.  Or leave.  For example; see my article in the Denver Business Journal on winning a work-war.

Notice that every time she tried to please him by taking the blame or being nice, he only twisted the knife more.  Fran’s comment that she never met his girlfriend probably shows that she thinks she can prove her case with reasoning, logic and good will because everyone will listen and be objective.

There are many other variants of the two-faced, bullying colleague.  Some stealth bullies spread rumors and lies behind your back.  Some cut you down behind your back.  Some drive a wedge between you and other people by telling them that you said bad things about them.  These back-stabbers always work in the dark and can’t be pinned down

My books, CDs and coaching can help.

What did Fran do?  Fran secretly hated Bart for what he had put her through.  She didn’t want to become buddies with him.  Also, she didn’t want to waste her time proving to everyone how mean and crazy he was.  Three month's later, she secured another job and left.  Since then, she’s been happy at the new job.

That’s one effective solution to deal with people like Bart, but what will Fran do if she encounters another one.  For example, if she’s highly skilled and competent, she’ll make someone else jealous, scared and angry.  If she’s beautiful, she’ll arouse these same feelings in some other women.

What would you do if you were Fran?

What can you do if the new bosses want to fire you?

I received a number of confidential responses to my blog post on “Top ten ways to create a hostile workplace.”  One theme in many responses was about the question: “What should I do if leadership has changed and the new bosses want me gone so they can bring in their own people?” That’s a situation I’ve also seen many times in my consulting.

What would you do?

Consider Jake.  The new bosses want him gone so they can bring in people they know or people who will be beholden to them.  Jake tries to prove to them that he’s a great manager, but they systematically undercut his authority.  He used to get good evaluations, but his new bosses are very critical.  They blame him for everything that goes wrong with his team.  He’s the scapegoat.

Jake is furious.  It’s unfair; they’re bullies and he’s being abused.  He’s a good worker and he’s trying hard.  He wants to meet them half way, but they don’t want to.  Nothing he does convinces them he’s a good performer.  He’s hurt, frustrated and angry.  Jake wants to fight back, but when he acts on his anger, they write him up.  It’s a hostile workplace.

I think Jake is beginning at the wrong place – how can I fight back and show them I’m good?  How can I preserve my reputation with them?  Jake can’t fight back by showing them that he’s a good manager, team leader and individual performer.  He can’t preserve his reputation with them.  They don’t care.  He’s not an individual to them.

Of course it’s hard to be treated that way.  One of the hardest things for us as Americans in our little slice of time is not to be treated as individuals.  Jake is being treated as a class of people: He’s in the class of people called, “Hired by the old bosses and not one of our new people.”  When you're treated that way, there's little you, as an individual, can do to change their minds.  Unless you can get them to see you as an individual.

The new bosses criticize him as if he’s a problem employee.  Jake takes their hostility personally.  He returns their hostility and wants to prove himself.  But he’s not a poor employee and it’s not personal, even though it has personal consequences for him.

When he takes it personally, he can’t think tactically and he makes it worse for himself.  When he gets frustrated, hurt and angry, he acts out and gives them excuses they can document for getting rid of him rapidly.  He gets poor evaluations and terminated before he finds another job.

This situation is similar to that of Charles, case study #10 in my book, “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks.”

I think that the place Jake has to begin is, “Who should I be/how should I look at it?”  Here’s what I mean.

Amy is in the same position as Jake: the new bosses want to get rid of her and many other leaders in the company.  Unlike Jake, she accepts that it’s not about her as an individual, even though it has individual consequences for her.  With coaching, she doesn’t take it personally.  She doesn’t like it any more than Jake does, but she can step back and plan her tactics thoughtfully.  How can she defend herself?

First she asks if there’s anything she can do to become one of the new team.  The answer is, “No.”  She doesn’t like what’s happening, so she finds out if they’re violating any protected categories.  Are they going after people on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, disabilities, etc?  No, it’s the new broom sweeping clean.

She doesn’t want bad evaluations on her record, so she makes them an offer: “If you give me good evaluations, recommendations and severance while I look for another job, I’ll go quietly and gracefully in a shorter time than it will take you to force me out.”  They agree.  They just want her gone as soon as they can and with as little fuss as they can.  With a good recommendation, Amy rapidly gets a better job as part of someone’s new team.  The severance enables her to get double pay for a few months.

Notice Amy’s sequence:

1. Don’t take it personally and defend yourself by thinking tactically.
2. See if you have a legal grievance.
3. If the deck is stacked against you, plan to leave with good recommendations.
4. Bargain for time to get a better job with people who appreciate you.

Jake needs to change how he looks at it so that he can change his impossible goals - getting the bosses to see him as a worthy individual they should keep or leaving with them thinking he’s as good an employee as he really is.  They don’t care about his feelings or the truth about how he’s performed.  But they’d rather keep things civil and pleasant enough for them, and maybe squeeze a little work out of him or just squeeze him because they don't like the old team.

Amy is glad to be gone and happy at her new job.  Jake is still bitter.  That shows up when he interviews for new jobs.

I know it sounds unfair, but there it is.

What’s been your experience?

"Mr. Negativity" proudly destroys teamwork

Carl loved the title of “Mr. Negative.”  He was proud of being smarter than anyone else and thought his put-downs were funny.  No matter what you said, he would disagree, counter it or top it.  His personal attacks, sarcasm and cutting remarks could bring most people to tears.  He could create a tense, hostile workplace in minutes. He could bring a brainstorming or planning meeting to a halt by finding fault with every suggestion or plan, and proving that nothing would work.  He was convinced that his predictions were accurate and more valuable to the team than the frustration and anger he created.  On his team, sick-leave and turnover were high, while morale, camaraderie and teamwork were low.  Productivity was also low because most people wasted a huge percent of their time talking about Carl’s latest exploits.

What can you do?

In this case, his manager had heard me present “How to Eliminate the High Cost of Low Attitudes” at a conference, and had brought me in as a consultant.  She wanted me to help her create a culture that would be professional, retain high quality staff and be much more productive.

Why did his manager, Jane, bring me in, instead of simply evaluating Carl honestly and having consequences leading to demotion and eventual termination if he didn’t change?  Jane thought that:

• Carl was bright and expert enough in his specialty that she was afraid of losing him.
• If she was a good enough manager and learned to say the magic words, Carl would straighten out.
• Her hands were tied because Carl was a long-term employee in a government organization.

Coaching helped Jane see that she was victimizing the rest of the team by giving in to her fears and helplessness.  Carl was verbally abusive and emotionally intimidating.  And he was subtly manipulative because he had a soft voice and a smile on his face while he sarcastically cut his co-workers to ribbons.  She saw that if she continued to give in to her fear of losing Carl, she’d lose her reputation and position because her team would mutiny or quit.

Despite these insights, Jane remained a conflict-avoidant manager.  She would allow the team to act, but she wouldn’t lead the way.  Therefore we worked around her.

I helped the team create a set of behavioral expectations for individual professional interactions and for team meetings.  It was no surprise that the list did not included any of Carl’s behaviors, that his behaviors were specifically prohibited and that the list of appropriate behaviors contained the opposite ones Carl had been bullying coworkers with.

The rest of the team voted to accept the code of professional behavior.  Carl said he’d sign but he wouldn’t change his behavior.  He’d been Mr. Negativity as long as he could remember and didn’t think he could change.

That seemed like an impasse.  No one wanted to waste a lifetime waiting for Carl to go through therapy, especially since he didn’t want to change anyway.  I helped the team realize that Carl had no reason to change.  There were no adverse consequences to him if he kept doing what he was doing.  The team needed some leverage.

Since the manager wouldn’t act on her own, the rest of the team took a bold step.  They told Carl that they wouldn’t tolerate his hostility and the tension it caused.  They said that they’d remove him immediately from any meeting in which he started his negative putdowns.  He laughed nervously, thinking they’d never really do that.  He still wouldn’t accept that his behavior was so hurtful and despised.

At the next meeting, of course, Carl was negative as usual.  He was shocked when the rest of the team immediately stood up and told him to leave.  He sheepishly did, with a parting shot that they’d never come up with a good plan without him.

He was wrong.  They did develop a good plan to deal with the problem they’d been working on. They also gave him his assignment within it.  They told him that people who weren’t at meetings must be happy with the tasks assigned to them.  Carl was outraged and protested.  He looked for support from anyone on the team, but everyone was against him.  That also stunned him.  They told him that they were following the team’s behavior code.  He could play according to the rules and take what he got or leave.  They also told him that he could be very likeable when he wanted to and they’d be glad to be on a team with the “likeable Carl.”

It took two more meetings at which Carl was asked to leave, before he began to change.  It was amazing to all of them, including Carl, that what he thought was a life-long pattern, changed when enough leverage was applied.  He really did like what he did and he also had wanted to be liked.

This example is over the top in many ways.  But I have a question for you: Did the rest of the team bully Carl or were they right in voting him off their island when he was an abusive bully?

One general lesson here is: “When the legitimate authority won’t act and, therefore, leaves a power vacuum, the most hostile and power-hungry people usually fill it.  Your task is to fill it with the best behavior instead.”

There are many other ways to solve the problems that the Carl’s of the world cause at work and at home.  A stronger manager would have done it by herself.  Jane obviously had problems as a manager and wouldn't step outside her comfort zone to solve them.  Her boss soon took appropriate action.

It’s also a different matter if the negative person is the manager or boss.  There are many other problem behaviors that can be resolved with the Behavioral Code approach.  In other blog posts I’ll cover those bullying situations at work.

Please tell me your story so I can be sure to respond to it.