Monthly Archives: November 2011

When Companies are Forced to Deal with Toxic Employees

Posted on by
Reply

Toxic employees, especially those with strategic skills, are very difficult to dislodge.  They accumulate informal power; discredit those who speak up; favor those they can manipulate; and generally distract employees with intimidation and abuse. Supervisors are often as intimidated as rank and file. There are, however, three scenarios which usually force the company to do something about these purveyors of incivility.  I have outlined them below:

Employee collective revolt

I’ve worked with two groups where coworkers eventually had their fill of the abusive tactics and came to realize they could stop the misery by working together.  In these two cases  employees met secretly and made their plan.  A group letter was delivered–in one case to a nonprofit board and the other, a partnership–and management decided to take action.  This is a risky plan.  If it succeeds, great.  If not, everyone will be in trouble either with management or the toxic employee.  If the group takes too long to get their “case” together workers may have second thoughts.  If the plot is discovered during the planning process, a messy derailment can result.  The characteristic that generally leads to management action is when company leaders were not aware of the negativity and abuse and learn about it for the first time from coworkers.  If they are aware and have chosen not to do something, the letter may be ignored.  Current economic challenges make the whole idea of employees forming some kind of unified group revolt fairly unlikely.  Workers are not willing to risk losing their jobs.

New leader comes in

The second scenario involves a change in supervisor.  Toxic employees develop their power using subtle manipulation over time. Eventually everyone learns who has the real power.  Employees who question or disagree are punished with marginalization and silent treatment–bystanders take notice.  When a brand new supervisor comes into this environment, particularly from a more healthy work environment the contrast can be startling.  The new supervisor sees and understands toxicity and has the energy to cultivate support for positive change. Ideal interventions start with developing a code of ethics/professionalism and building the performance intervention around abuse of others.  Toxic employees interfere with co-worker performance in a demonstrable way. The last stage is when the toxic employee inevitably retaliates against those co-workers he/she thinks may have spoken up. In reality however, this approach can only work when other factors are aligned: employees generally are in favor of a change, other supervisors support dealing with the toxic person, AND, the new supervisor stays one step ahead of the toxic employee.

Targeting the wrong person

The last scenario in which toxic employees is more likely to be counseled out or terminated is when he or she targets a member of a statutory protected class (i.e., older worker or member of a racial minority). Toxicity generally comes from a fairly self-centered approach to others.  Since toxic employees are not guided by professionalism or an internal code of ethics, their blunt pursuit of power while victimizing an otherwise vulnerable person is hard to defend.  This puts the company in a risky position if the abuse is allowed to continue once the targeted worker speaks up.  Generally there is a warning to stop the abusive behavior, the offending employee can’t stick with the professional approach and termination results.  A situation came up recently in which a middle-aged male toxic employee was giving his supervisor (new boss) a hard time when two young women came forward and alleged sexual harassment.  Problem solved.

I have helped many companies deal effectively with toxic employees. Sadly, many more negative workplaces go on for years, creating misery and stress for everyone. If you are in a leadership position dealing with a disruptive, toxic employee and would like a complimentary initial consultation: Contact Me.

Nonprofit Foundation– victimized by charismatic criminal

Posted on by
Reply

Mouli Cohen – Convicted of 31 Counts – The Vanguard Foundation

You may find it surprising how vulnerable nonprofit boards are to charismatic promises and how often banks fail to approach boards with concerns. When petty financial impropriety takes place the board is under pressure to simply terminate the employee.

  • It may not have involved enough money to try to retrieve the funds
  • The employee may no longer have the funds;
  • Considerations of negation public perception leads many boards to write off the sum and move toward better financial procedures.

However, in cases where the amounts are large enough, when federal charges apply or when the issue is widespread and involves members of the public, the organization will have no choice but to disclose the issue. When the issue is significant enough to force an organization out of business, criminal charges are likely.

A spectacular example where financial clues could have prompted board and donor notice took place on the West Coast with the Vanguard Public Foundation (not the Vanguard Charitable Fund) incorporated in 1972. According to Blue Avocado, the Vanguard operated in a manner consistent with its mission of social justice and equality until its 2002 connection with now-disgraced entrepreneur, Samuel “Mouli” Cohen (1).

Cohen’s tenure continued despite the presence of obvious red flags:

  • Promises for returns that were too good to be true;
  • Horrendous operating losses;
  • 2007 financial statements showing assets were a fraction of its liabilities;
  • Loans to the organization by officers and directors (1,2) a major red flag.

In retrospect, we know that these activities continued apparently unchecked by Vanguard’s board, and apparently unnoticed by donors or their auditors.

On August 10th, 2010, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Mr. Cohen was indicted for defrauding the foundation of some $30 million (3).  Part II of the Blue Avocado feature story noted 19 counts of wire fraud and 13 counts of money laundering (Cohen, Sept. 2010). This is a story about financial malfeasance, the strong influences of a charismatic man making promises of great investment returns and the silence of folks who should have known better.

On November 12th, 2011 Blue Avocado reported that Mr. Cohen was convicted on 31 counts including money laundering and tax evasion (4). It is a sad post script to an organization that fell victim to a smooth talking criminal.

Here is the verdict: Mouli Cohen Jury Verdict

_________________________________________________________________

1 Cohen, Rick (August 3rd, 2010) Blue Avocado, Decline and Fall of the Vanguard Foundation, accessed February 2011 at: 
http://www.blueavocado.org/node/562

2 Newsupdates (August 10, 2010) Philanthropy Today, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Calif. Businessman Charged with Defrauding Nonprofit Fund, accessed February 2011 at: 
http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/calif-businessman-charged-with-defrauding-nonprofit-fund/26111

3 Cohen, Rick (September 27, 2010) Blue Avocado, How Did this Happen? Part II of the Vanguard Foundation Story, accessed February 2011 at: 
http://www.blueavocado.org/node/577

4  Blue Avocado Investigates (November 12, 2011) Vanguard Foundation Update, accessed November at: 
http://blueavocado.org/content/vanguard-foundation-update

When Institutions put Secular Goals Ahead of Everything Else

Posted on by
Reply

Not all institutions and corporations are evil.  Many do an excellent job of balancing ambitious secular goals with a socially responsible approach.  These examples are less likely to be sensationalized in the popular press, however.  I found some examples on the website Socialbrite.org.  They singled out Molson Coors, Tyson Foods, and Haagen-Dazs as companies that do well while balancing social goals. There are others. These companies enjoy financial success and public support while managing to treat employees, customers and the general public with respect.

When the formal structure includes a code of ethics, honesty and integrity and those in power behave consistently with this code, the achievement of business goals is more likely to be balanced with social responsibility. Social responsibility might mean respect for employees, customers and the general public; stewardship of the environment; or safety for vulnerable groups – children, elderly and disabled folks.

Instant news and the transparency of America’s legal system are airing some organizations’ dirty laundry, however.  We’ve seen recent examples of what happens when a company or public agency puts secular goals ahead of all else.  The secular goal might be winning or sustaining a winning team, protecting one person’s power, getting a gossip scoop or putting profits ahead of employee and customer health.

When a less-than-ethical workplace culture aligns with an organization’s strong push toward secular goals the result can be an atmosphere in which wrong-doing is overlooked or even rewarded.

When the formal structure does not include a code of ethics and the secular goal is compelling, leadership may support decisions and people who further the goals and ignore or silence those who challenge them.  In this dynamic, those involved most closely with the secular goal have power (perhaps the athletics staff at Penn State) and may actually become more powerful than the formal power hierarchy. Strong college athletics means recognition, endowment donations and more potential students.

Following this line of thinking, a college athletics department could use everyone’s desire for winning to create an atmosphere where folks hesitate to speak up for fear of offending those with the real power. They may also fear more overt retaliation or being discredited. This power can be so strong that it might make employees question what they saw with their own eyes.  It might also lead them to think that the right place to report it is the athletics leadership or college security instead of community law enforcement. When this kind of dynamic takes place in a public agency of college and when it involves children it is an extreme violation of the public trust.

The former Schenectady, New York’s school maintenance chief was able to commit serious crimes against fellow employees with impunity because he held great power.  Steve Raucci created an all-powerful position for himself as both management and union chief in the city’s maintenance department. This inappropriate dual power position allowed him to control a wide range of employees.  He could use his power to punish those who questioned him (punishments ranged from marginalization and public berating to vandalism and attempted bombings!), and to favor those who towed the party line.

Here’s a list of what seems to be a pattern of values miss-steps:

The Catholic Church seemed to have wanted to protect the church’s reputation and it’s financial assets more than it wanted to protect children. Molestation was covered up; victims were discredited; allegations were administratively ignored. Much of the funding for the church’s activities comes from well-meaning Catholic families.

Boston Globe Spotlight

Steve Raucci’s power apparently inoculated him from the consequences of his intimidation, abuse and crimes against Schenectady school employees. Union leadership spoke up repeatedly about the inappropriate dual role and employee “enemies” were ignored or victimized by vandalism and attempted bombings. Aside from the employee fears this dynamic caused, this corrupt campaign of power was carried out with public funds.

NPR’s Petty Tyrant

Penn State’s athletics department and college administration appears to have protected the athletics program and covered up or ignored sexual allegations against one of the coaches. Employees ignored what they saw; employees went to athletics leadership instead of the police; victim allegations were mishandled.  Other allegations of misconduct by athletes in the program went unpunished and the executive in charge of disciplining students apparently quit over it. As a public university, activities are funded with public money.

Penn State Grand Jury Report 

News of the world wanted gossip scoops so badly that crimes committed to get them were apparently worth the potential risk. Cellphones were hacked; victims were paid off; management denies it knew about any of it.

Washington Post on News of the World

Tonawanda Coke’s Buffalo, NY plant continued to pollute the soil and water in the surrounding area with benzene.  This created a blue haze that allegedly led to increased cancer rates. Victims complaints were ignored for years.

NPR on Tonawanda

How to Support Suicide Survivor Grieving

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

The loss of a loved-one or special friend to suicide is sudden and devastating. Some professionals refer to the healing journey in this situation as complicated grief. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) and other local organizations have increased public awareness of survivor suffering. The information in this article has been used to train New England clinicians and bereavement counselors.

Among other things, I am a survivor and a licensed mental health clinician. When I lost a brother in 1999  few services were available in my community. I eventually found services for my own grieving and later provided individual and group support to others as a volunteer. I offer this material as support to those who may not have services available in their community and to clinicians who wish to further their knowledge of this topic. It comes from my work with survivors and knowledge of trauma, abuse and recovery.

Contents of this article

  1. Stigma and shame
  2. Regrets
  3. Detective obsession
  4. Telling the story
  5. Regulating emotions/feelings
  6. Odd ways to sooth
  7. Filling the void
  8. Creating a grieving ritual
  9. Individualized grieving process
  10. Blaming and family conflict
  11. Parental grief
  12. Survivor grieving and the workplace

1. Stigma and shame

Though many of us understand mental illness and the dynamics of depression, suicide sigma is still very much a factor in grieving this type of loss. Social stigma comes from a variety of influences:

  • Both ancient and (some) modern religious views;
  • The concept that it is not a “natural death;”
  • The concept for that suicide is a crime and it’s location a crime scene;
  • The stigma already associated with mental illness;
  • The blame and judgment survivors perceive from others; and
  • The guilt survivors feel about what they “should” have done differently.

The stigma and shame associated with suicide can manifest in a number of painful ways. Family members, police, funeral home personnel and other community members make subtle or overt judgment of survivors that ignores the reality of depression. Some family members may deny that a suicide has taken place. Efforts to hide the fact that self-harm is involved are more common than we might think. A survivor’s religious beliefs can be comforting but can also play a negative role in the family and community response. It is common for survivors to keep the secret of a family suicide for decades. I know survivors who attend group to process a parent’s suicide 20 years before — describing various ways the family kept this information from them. Sometimes survivors find out by accident when an adult who was instrumental in keeping the secret passes away. Breaking the silence in a safe setting is a significant forward step. Whether this is in a group setting, individual therapy or with a safe friend, support can take the form of acknowledging the pressures a survivor feels to meet other’s needs for silence and providing the safe place for them to voice their feelings of anger, sorrow and shame.

2. Regrets – If only I had done this, seen this . . .

In addition to the normal emotions of grieving, survivors feel shock, guilt and responsibility. The nature of a suicide loss is that it can sometimes be prevented if only temporarily, by others. Loved-ones who die this way sometimes keep secrets about how badly they were feeling and some never fully understood the depression they suffered. Sometimes loved-ones sought and received treatment but did not get relief (treatment-resistant depression). Despite this, survivors can become obsessed with all the ways they might have prevented this act.

“What if I had taken them to the hospital? What if I had listened more carefully? What if their doctor had changed their medication? What if they had taken their meds as prescribed. I should have been a better parent, spouse or friend.”

Resolving this issue is one of the greatest challenges in the healing process. The truth many survivors eventually come to understand – is that there is generally no one key action or event that could have guaranteed a change of events. Logic and rationalization is not generally helpful here. Survivors move to this realization over time.

3. Detective obsession

Many survivors experience a transient “detective” obsession where they spend time gathering information; visiting the death scene; speaking those who had last contact with their loved-one; retracing the loved-one’s steps; and generally seeking every detail surrounding the suicide. The idea is that if they gather enough information it will all make sense. The typical scenario, however, is that there are always unanswered questions about the events of the days or weeks leading to the event. Finally, the question that can’t be answered except in a personal–spiritual way is: Why did this happen to me? Telling a survivor to stop focusing on these facts or questions is not helpful. Gaining comfort with unanswered questions is part of the gradual healing journey. As long as the obsession does not overtake obligations to family, work or self-care, it will shift over time.

4. Telling the story

A major healing component of the group process is that survivors have a chance to tell the “story” of what happened to their loved one and what they are going through. Because of their guilt and the social stigma survivors may have no other safe place to discuss this or fully debrief the event. Part of the story includes the events of the day they learned of the death but the story evolves. Survivors report that as the whole story is told over time, it becomes less about the facts and details of the death as it is about the story of their loved-one and their own healing journey. The clinical term for this process is desensitization. This “telling” can initially be gory with details that others have difficulty tolerating. It is not helpful to pry and ask a survivor to talk about this when they’re not ready or comfortable. It’s helpful to be prepared when survivors are ready with gentle/nonjudging encouragement. The first “hearing” for a group facilitator may be during a pre-screening interview before a survivor joins a support group. This provides an opportunity for the screener to hear the story and provide support and guidance about the telling the story in the group. For facilitators or therapists, listening without judgment is essential to build participant trust.

5. Regulating emotions/feelings

Because the healing process is long with significant “downs” and hopefully, an increasing number and duration of “ups,” it can be difficult to keep emotions in check as survivors go about their work or just their daily routine. Survivors describe the overwhelming feelings of deep sorrow or even anger that come upon them suddenly. It may be while watching a mother and son interacting at the store, coming across information about the marriage or other seemingly benign events. This phenomenon can be like a flash-back, a re-experiencing or it can just be a sudden experience of deep sorrow. Survivors express embarrassment when it happens long after the death perhaps in anticipation of some judgment by others that they should be finished with these tears by now. The fact is that these episodes continue for most survivors for months and years. It is important for survivors to understand that this is part of a healthy and “normal” grieving/healing process and that it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with them. Further, it is helpful for survivors to feel empowered to control some aspects of their surroundings to avoid constant reminders. This is more difficult early in the loss but gets easier over time. Friends and coworkers can provide support by listening to cues about whether the survivor “wants to talk” and when the survivor wants to “keep it together” and wait until a more private moment to let the tears flow. For survivors who don’t normally show their emotions to others, this phenomenon can be especially troubling.

6. “Odd” ways to sooth

Survivors sometimes develop means of comforting themselves that can seem odd to non-survivors. Examples: a mother whose son killed himself by firearm keeping the bullet on a chain around her neck; a brother might keep the weapon used in a suicide; or parents might keep blood-stained clothing. Sometimes families argue about whether to clean blood stains off the floor. Another question is whether to move from the house where the event occurred or to change the loved-one’s room. The idea of holding on to objects is a common general grief response but suicide is sudden and sometimes violent. Group facilitators and individual therapists must be prepared for these disclosures and to listen without judgment. Early on, survivors have difficulty separating their need to comfort themselves in these ways from how some people may react to the information. One survivor told me years later: “I can’t believe I showed that stupid bullet to everyone in the beginning. What was I thinking!” Providing affirmation of their right to choose the way to sooth themselves is helpful.

7. Filling the void

Filling the empty space, particularly for a parent survivor, can result a powerful need to remove the pain. Deep sorrow about the fact that loved-ones are gone with no more chances for amends or reconciliation is very difficult to move through. There are adaptive and maladaptive ways survivors might use: from healthy support and self-care to substance use and drugs. Encouragement for rest, taking a break from normal responsibilities and good general self-care is important. An underlying substance use issue complicates the grieving process might escalate. For a few families, trauma and increased drug or alcohol use can create a chaotic environment that makes professional support for the grieving process difficult or impossible until other issues are more resolved.

8. Creating a grieving ritual

Creating a “grieving ritual” is one way families can join together to remember the person who died. It’s helpful to show that a loved-one isn’t forgotten and provides a comforting routine. The date might be the loved-one’s birthday, the date of death or other significant date. These times can be difficult even several years after the death. Rituals range from simple to more complicated/religious. It could be spending the day with a trusted friend talking about the loved-one. It may also be a more formal religiously sanctioned celebration. Challenges for survivors arise in families with conflict where the practiced religion has difficulty with the concept of suicide or where the fact of suicide is a secret from some members. When families aren’t able to unite around one ritual celebration survivors can create something more private/personal. A sacred location such as a garden, the shore or even the place where the person died are often mentioned as places survivors feel close to their loved-one. Survivors should be supported to craft rituals that mean something to them. As time goes on, this can be a day that survivors feel comfortable letting their sad feelings flood in and then resume activities after a time.

9. Individualized grieving process

Each individual’s grieving is unique. There is no correct way or accepted timetable for the grieving process though there are some common stages survivors may move through. Close friends and relatives may wish to “move on” or find it painful to discuss the suicide. This can transmit subtle or not-so-subtle messages to the survivor that there is something wrong with them for continuing to process their feelings. Friends may suggest that the deceased’s room be changed, that the family move or that the deceased clothes be given away. Comments about dating (when a spouse has died) or having more children (when a child has died) probably reflect the speaker’s need to conceive of hope for the future. It is, however, insensitive to the long process of adjustment needed by most survivors. The fact that others are moving on or see ways that the survivor might move on can increase the survivor’s feelings of isolation. Survivor support will include much, repeated reassurance that this is not their problem nor is it their role to make those around them comfortable. Another common scenario is for some family members to seek helpful support outside the family and for others to withdraw or refuse to discuss it. The ideal is for everyone to become more comfortable with the fact that differences exist and not to hitch one’s healing to someone else’s internal process or needs.

10. Blaming and family conflict

Family conflict is common among survivors. Family members can blame spouses or significant-others when unhealthy relationships or a difficult break-up immediately precedes a partner’s suicide. I have seen overt blame for signs that “should have been seen.” I have also heard of entire towns split with police and the deceased blood relatives on one side and those related to the deceased by marriage on the other. In extreme cases, survivors actually move to get away from this dynamic. Group participants typically come to learn that blame and shame are an expression of someone else’s grief. Survivors can be supported to understand that they are not responsible for a loved-one’s death or a family member’s angry reaction. But this part of the journey is very painful. It is important for a loved-one in family conflict to have a safe place to talk about the isolation and sorrow that comes with it. Here, the loss may not be just the loved-one, but also friends, neighbors and others. Professional, individual counseling may be the only safe place a survivor can process their thoughts and feelings without judgment.

11. Parental grief

While any loss by suicide is very difficult, parents feel a special care=taking responsibility for a child who dies by suicide. The guilt and shock when a child or young adult is lost can be especially debilitating. Often survivor parents are unable to share their true feelings of shame except with other survivor parents. Particularly when a child is young, outsiders naturally wonder how parents missed the signs – parents are supposed to keep their children “safe.” In reality, no parent is with their child every minute of every day. Suicide by a child is so unimaginable. I heard Frank Campbell, PhD, Baton Rouge Crisis Intervention Center indicate that family members are exactly the wrong people to see early warning signs. According to Dr. Campbell, their love and hopes for the best for their children prevents parents from forming thoughts that their child could actually be unsafe in this manner. In addition, children like adults are not always honest about their feelings. They sometimes tell bits about how they are feeling to more than one person leaving no one individual with the whole picture. It is essential that facilitators and therapists provide a nonjudgmental atmosphere for grieving parents. Aside from participating in a group, survivor parents benefit greatly from contact with a fellow parental survivors.

12. Survivor grieving and the workplace

We spend so much time at work every day that it is important to understand how the deep grieving of a survivor affects the workplace and how the workplace affects the survivor.  First, many times coworkers are involved in the actual events of the suicide itself.  They may have provided support to the survivor if the suicide is discovered during the work day. For survivors whose close friends are in the workplace, coworkers may play a central role in survivor support outside the workplace. Second, the workplace has policies related to bereavement and then the use of sick time since bereavement days are insufficient for most survivors to return to work.  Typical bereavement provisions are less than a week. Even adding available sick time may be insufficient.  To a person, every survivor I’ve talked with either needed more than two weeks to resume work or they resumed work too soon and required more time later when their “batteries” ran dry.  Many survivors end up having to file for a short-term disability leave.  Third, the length of time needed by the survivor can exceed coworkers’ tolerance for the absence and filling-in needed to cover a survivor’s work. Coworkers will also just be ready to move on from the topic before the survivor. Finally, survivors describe a desire to change jobs so that they can have more privacy regarding their survivor status.  When everyone at work knows about the loss the survivor can begin to feel like the “suicide person” there.  When he or she changes jobs, revealing the death is more of an over choice, empowering the survivor with more control over how much of the topic is “out” in the workplace. For this and all the reasons noted above, survivors often end up making an employment change.

______________________

 Sources

1. Created by the Baton Rouge Crisis Intervention Center, The History of Suicide, accessed June 2010 on the website of the Jacob Crouch Foundation

2. Sudak, Howard, MD, Maxim, Karen, MS, RN, and Carpenter, Maryellen, Suicide and Stigma: A Review of the Literature and Personal Reflections, Journal of Academic Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.: February 16, 2007

3. Office of the Surgeon General, Mental Health, a Report of the Surgeon General, Chapter One: Introduction and Themes

Employees’ Toxic, Disgruntled and Criminal Behavior at Work

Posted on by
2

Introduction

I am often engaged to help companies resolve the conduct of one employee who’s wreaking havoc in the workplace. After my book came out: Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too!” I was increasingly asked to define the term:Toxic Employee. I hear folks use the term as though toxic employees are just poor performers or as if all toxic employees were criminals. Though employee criminal behavior can be covered up using toxic tactics, the proportion of overt criminal conduct in the workplace is very small relative to straight-forward toxic behavior.

On a scale from very damaging to less damaging employee behavior I would rank criminal conduct in the workplace as the worse. By criminal, I mean embezzlement, overt discrimination of a protected class or intentional violation of a state or federal statute. This behavior carries intent to do wrong and potentially direct financial loss to the company. At the other end of the continuum, I would place general poor employee performance where the employee is trying to do well but just doesn’t have the skills.

What’s the difference?

In my opinion, ranked from least harmful for the workplace and coworkers to the most harmful, these are the subtle differences I see:

Poor performer: as the term implies, these are individuals who don’t measure up in carrying out their duties. These employees mean to do well they just don’t have the skills. Over time and with interventions, these workers can either improve their performance or transition into disgruntled employees. This depends on the supervisor’s skill and handling of performance interventions and the employee’s ability to accept the reality of their own performance short-comings.

Disgruntled employee: these employees are unhappy about something done or said by the “company,” “management” or a supervisor. They could be a poor technical performer but they may also be performing well but in disagreement with the company. Perhaps they don’t like the way they are supervised or they might not like the company’s interpretation of a particular policy. These employees generally see those in management as bad, paternalistic or authoritarian. Often disgruntled employees are someone with whom the company has expressed dissatisfaction. When a company attempts to correct or improve the performance of an individual who does disagrees with the assessment troubles can begin. Supervisors do not always pay close attention to the statements, questions or misunderstandings from the employee in question. If the supervisor slows down and responds to the content of the employee questions or observations some issues might be resolved amicably.  Unfortunately, some inexperienced or insecure supervisors hear questions as insubordination and continue with increasingly harsh evaluations over time. This process will lead to employee disgruntlement.

Human resource professionals and consultants specializing in employee relations have an alert antenna for disgruntled employees because they are several times more likely to sue the company over a dispute. Monetary settlements with former employees is often the painful fallout of failure to deal quickly and professionally with a disgruntled employee situation. Having said that, even poor performers can remain friendly with the company while acknowledging a poor performance fit. This outcome requires deft response by supervisors and human resource professionals. Prevention is so much easier than having to respond to an employee’s attorney!

Toxic employee: this is an employee with a particular approach to the workplace defined by personal motives and not the company’s goals or best interest. Toxic employees may be good performers in a technical sense but their manipulative tactics result in harm to coworkers and the company’s workplace atmosphere over time. These employees do not necessarily see their manipulation and abuse of fellow workers as such and generally resent or reject supervisory feedback that attempts to improve their “people skills.”  In fact they are very skilled at reading people and appealing to their desire to be liked at work in a way that increases their informal power in the workplace.

Toxic employees do not generally improve as a result of performance interventions and will ratchet up their negative conduct when under threat. Strategic, toxic employees sometimes mount a retaliatory campaign to diminish the credibility of the evaluating supervisor individually, or perhaps company leadership generally.  Supervisors I coach name this dynamic as their number one source of stress and unhappiness at work. There are some patterns of how companies are forced into dealing with toxic employees.

  • A new leader comes into the workplace with little tolerance for this work style and leads the organization in an overhaul of workplace culture
  • The toxic employee targets a protected class employee with vitriol
  • Coworkers unite and approach management to deal with the toxic behavior

Unresolved toxic employee behavior can be extreme co-worker stress and physical ailments.  A failure to meet company goals continues because employees are so distracted by chosing up sides and protecting informal power. The longer this goes on, the more damaging to coworkers and the company. For a fuller explanation of the phenomenon of the toxic employee, see “Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too!” available at benoitconsulting.com.

Criminal employee: these employees ignore company policies, violate federal or state statutes, engage in financial malfeasance or other forms of theft. In companies with proper financial process checks and balances, embezzlement may be the result of a complex and intricate scheme.  In companies without the proper procedures and oversight, malfeasance my be less subtle (favors for friends, free tickets, etc.) with little effort to cover it up. Sometimes criminals resort to toxic tactics: verbal abuse, threats and manipulation of others to prevent discovery of wrong-doing but this is only a means to achieve the end.  The toxic atmosphere created to prevent discovery of wrong-doing can go on for generations and can be much worse for the organization that the original illegal acts. Here’s a modern day example: This American Life: Steve Raucci

Another type of criminal behavior in the workplace involves assaults or threats of violence toward supervisors or fellow employees. Of all negative employees, embezzlers and/or assaultive employees appear to have overt intent to take something or harm someone. This conduct harms the company in a number of ways.  First, embezzlement means immediate financial loss which is rarely recovered.  Second, embarrassment and loss of community reputation may take years to overcome particularly when inadequate company procedures contributed to the crime.  Finally, and most importantly they are a threat to coworker safety through physical assault and emotional distress. Severe assaults or workplace homicides traumatize employees with long-lasting effect.  Negligent retention claims are likely if the proclivity for violence was discoverable in advance through proper reference and background verification.

Sound leadership training programs must address the issue of negative employees as the best means to prevent the more serious behaviors described here.  Inexperienced supervisors who don’t receive proper mentoring and backing by company leadership will end up being victimized by certain types of supervisees.

Special Interest Group or Maine “Voters”

Posted on by
Reply

Same Day Voter Registration in Maine

Maine voters overwhelmingly (60%) repealed a conservative-backed Initiative that would have prevented same-day voter registration, state law for 38 years.  Maine Republican Chairman, Charlie Webster has championed the move to discard same-day registration. The discard was rushed through the Maine Legislature earlier this year. Mobilized by irritation over the measure, 71,000 signatures were collected and a repeal of the hastily enacted initiative was included yesterday’s statewide ballot. Groups leading the restoration of same-day-voter registration were Maine Democrats, the Maine People’s Alliance and the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

In a local news interview broadcast on public radio November 9th, Mr. Webster shared some thoughts about how the repeal effort was funded.  Mr. Webster was a bit scratchy about one particular donor to the repeal campaign who he mentioned by name.  Then he said that the repeal efforts extravagant spending (“out-spending” the losing side) was to blame for the repeal’s success.  Questions have also been raised about how Webster’s referendum campaign was funded, however.

Finally, Mr. Webster referred to this one large donor as pushing his weight around to support special interest groups.  In fact, Maine voters were offended by the original measure’s assertion that preventing same-day voter registration was needed to prevent voter fraud.  Supporters of the original discard presented no legitimate data that voter fraud has taken place at Maine polls. In an off-year election, 60% of the vote is kind of difficult to explain away as a “special interest” group.  Mathematically, it seems clear that the successful repeal was supported by a coalition of voters from more than one political party.

I’m just saying that when a combination of voters from both parties unite to do sensible things, it seems wrong to continue to promote it as an unfair partisan conflict.

Surviving a Toxic Workplace Without Losing Your Mind

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s workplace culture

Modern American employees are under extreme stress today due to a combination of several related factors:

  • Cost cutting measures;
  • Operating for months or years with over-lean staff;
  • Lack of supervisory training/poor quality supervision
  • Overall pressure to maintain production and quality with fewer and sometimes less-qualified staff

These factors combine to increase pressure and stress in the workplace.  Owners and partners are under their own stress trying to secure financing and to retain profit margins despite increases in the cost of materials and operating expenses. These accumulated pressures will eventually affect relationships among employees and between employees and management.

The workplace includes toxic employees and bullies

One of the most successful articles I’ve written discussed toxic employees and the complicated issues associated with terminating them and shifting workplace dynamics. This online article was viewed roughly 3 times more often than any other article I’ve posted.  Articles on toxic employees, toxic bosses and workplace bullies are increasingly popular today as business owners understand the connection between positive work culture and company success.  Toxic employees control others through bullying.  In a 2010 Strategic, Toxic Employees and Negative Social Dynamics I listed tactics used by toxic employees and how companies need a planned approach to neutralize this behavior. I got to thinking about the employee victims of this kind of manipulation and abuse. I have also been approached by colleagues about how to keep their job when the atmosphere is quite negative.  Today I am writing to these employees who, because of health insurance, financial commitments and job market challenges, cannot easily leave such a workplace.

A 1999 study on workplace stress, Stress at Work reported that 40% of workers surveyed felt their job was “very or extremely stressful” (DHHS, 1999). Though I could not find a more recent survey of employee reports it’s likely that things have become even more stressful for today’s employee.   With high stress and a poor job market more employees must learn to work around these challenges and maintain acceptable job performance.   Avoiding the social and informal power minefields is a skill you can learn.  Those who have the strength and natural instinct for it can be successful without support.  But even with skills if the workplace bully makes you the target, you can find yourself overwhelmed and powerless.

Just use the grievance policy to register your complaint?

Many workplaces are decent and healthy; and some have grievance policies or other dispute resolution strategies that can get workplace disagreements back on track. When this is possible, use these processes. The following material addresses the less healthy and often abusive workplace.  Formal grievance procedures may or may not work.  It might not be safe to speak up in some workplaces due to potential retaliation by a toxic employee or manager. When coaching clients in this situations I urge caution because of the potential backlash.  Please consider any such action very carefully and seek advice from experts before taking steps that might draw negative attention at your office. HR staff can often be trusted to provide support. Trust your instincts as you are the best judge of what course will get the best result. Finally, you are free to consult a legal representative in confidence, when needed.

Abuse is sometimes in the eye of the beholder

A final word of caution on your interpretation of this material.  I’ve worked with employees who felt these behaviors were happening to them when in fact they were treated professionally. Some employees have a keen sensitivity to issues that don’t go their way. Sometimes, employee mental illness can interfere with the ability to interpret reality around them.

Employer responsibilities

A company owner’s first priority is to make the business successful.  From this evolves the need for additional staff—which benefits employees, economic stimulation—which benefits the community and personal success—which benefits the owner’s family/dependents.  Some drastic differences between companies derive from how the owners define “success.” If you define success in only monetary terms, one kind of workplace atmosphere results.  If you define success as a balance of monetary measures, client satisfaction and an employee-friendly, professional work environment, a different kind of workplace atmosphere is created.

Regardless of the owner’s philosophical viewpoint, as long as he/she does not break the law, they are within their rights to run the business as they see fit.  Employees are sometimes of the mind that employers have to be nice, have to take care of them, have to give them time off, etc.  But owners can place as much focus on the bottom line as they wish. That is our free-market economic system.  If this means they are difficult and unfriendly and experience employee turnover as a result, that’s the consequence. Sometimes the nature of the workplace is a result of active philosophical choices and sometimes owners are ignorant of the connection between the way they treat employees and level of turnover or social suffering that results. The amount of discord and employee bickering an employer tolerates through ignorance or neglect is related employee turnover. Those employees complain to everyone about what takes place at work. These matters are somewhat different in union environments.  The article applies primarily to the non-union workplace but the dynamics described here affect union employees and their supervisors.  I know because I have presented to both union employees and their supervisors.

Too bad to stay—Too hard to leave

All of the above combines to set the stage for workplace atmospheres which fall within wide extremes on a continuum. I imagine folks generally know when they are in a very bad or very good job.  The problem is more difficult when the negative parts come on gradually, over time.  These things are hard to see coming and most people wake up at some point to realize that things are not as they wish them to be.  It can also be difficult when you know you have to leave and are looking but the job search is going poorly.  Finally when some things are positive and some are not, what is the right decision?

  • You like the boss but the co-workers are gossipy
  • You like the co-workers but the boss is abusive
  • The money is great but the atmosphere is troubling
  • You like the workers but clients are abusive

Individuals have to decide what will work for them.  Much will depend upon the nature of the employee’s temperament, the specific negative aspects, external employment environment and the marketability of the employee’s skill.

Skills and perspectives needed to navigate today’s workplace

When faced with a negative workplace we have to ask: Do you want to be true to yourself, tell the truth and damn the consequences? Or, do you want to preserve your sanity, fly beneath the radar and leave with some degree of professionalism?  Some employees do fight back; some sue successfully for various negative affects of abuse in the workplace.  The vast majority, however, lose their job and the possibility of any reference for future job seeking.  What’s worse is that some may develop a reputation in the community as a trouble maker.  This doesn’t make him or her a trouble maker but the perceptions are powerful particularly in a small community.

I generally advise two potential courses

You’ll need to figure out how to navigate the least stressful for you while still allowing yourself some performance success, or, find a position elsewhere.  Not on my menu is: stay and complain.  The complaining strategy rarely works out for you, your co-workers or your boss. The way to remain sane in a crazy or chaotic atmosphere is to maintain a clear perspective; remain observant; and use skilled boundary setting to prevent being drawn into battles that you cannot win or situations that will make you a social target.  “flying beneath the radar” is a good way to picture it.

If you can, focus on this approach

In my coaching practice, the following strategies are possible when working with a private, competent support person who can reinforce this kind of detachment:

  • Set realistic expectations of others – supervisors and coworkers
  • Accurately read the landscape
  • Focus on what you can control (what you do and think and say)
  • Perform your job duties to the best of your ability within what you can control
  • Do the best you can within the parameters you are given
  • Avoid whining, complaining or gossip
  • Don’t tell others what they should do (supervisory responsibilities not-withstanding)
  • Mind disclosures to employees who are not trustworthy
  • Get objective, confidential emotional support outside the organization

When should you look for another position?

Workplace dynamics can run from mildly unhealthy to intolerable.  Every individual has his/her personal tolerance level.  Sensitive employees often see the issues coming early and may need to exit sooner than others who are more oblivious to the negative dynamics around them.  In addition, employees who are targeted by negative employees specifically, may have to exit earlier. It is really an individual decision. I find that when I’m having stress symptoms (tight chest or stomach aches) and have tried to resolve issues without success I generally begin searching for another assignment.

Given the above, there are a few things that no employee should have to endure:

  1. When your supervisor or coworker yells, throw things and verbally abuses staff;
  2. When your supervisor gets visibly angry if you talk about things that need to improve;
  3. If a supervisor uses confidential information against you or discloses this information to others who do not have a need-to-know;
  4. If supervisors or coworkers gossip and criticize staff in any public manner or to clients;
  5. Companies in which laws are being broken;
  6. When employees are singled out and punished after privately or professionally disclosing the behaviors described in 1-5.

Looking for another position

Finding a job while working full-time is a considerable challenge.  Employees are cautioned not to do this on company time nor with company computers, email or Internet connections.  Working on resumes, checking advertisements and other job pursuit activities should be done on home computers.  Begin contacting trusted friends in the community and network in a low-key manner.

Giving notice

I’ve heard from many victimized employees who are dying to give the employer a piece of their mind.  Perhaps the company has an exit interview process for terminating employees. Most of the time, exit interviews are conducted in a professional and good-faith manner.  However, in companies compromised by fear and intimidation this may not be an effective strategy.  I can feel my HR colleague’s irritation when I say because terminating employees are a potential source of valuable candid information.  You are not obligated to provide your observations. It’s your choice.  In addition, burning any bridge can come back on you at employment reference time.. If you feel you must give some feedback, do it in a non-personal and professional way.

Exaggerated feedback examples to make the point

  1. Personal: “My supervisor is a jerk.  I have never seen a more abusive, horrible person!”
  2. Non-personal: “I am surprised at the manner in which my supervisor conveys his dissatisfaction with our performance.  I don’t think yelling and intimidation are effective tactics and I should think this method won’t help the company meet its operational goals in the long run.”

Good luck.  Email me with your own survival stories- sbenoit at benoitconsulting dot com

_________________________

Sources

1. Benoit, Suzanne V. (2010) Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem; you can too! to see an excerpt or to purchase go to: purchase book

2. DHHS and NIOSH Publication 99-101 (1999) Stress at Work, accessed March 2011 at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/

How Workplace Culture Effects Business Success

Posted on by
Reply

How workplace culture affects business success

Companies succeed in the short run just by having good products, even with unethical practices and abusive employee behavior.  The problem is, things change. A competitor comes into the market offering your products but has better workplace conditions.  Now your employees want to work there. Or, one of your employees becomes disgruntled over how they are treated by an abusive employee or supervisor and decides to hire an attorney.  You settle with them to avoid having your poor management practices publicized $10,000 to 50,000 from the bottom line. Another change scenario is that you begin to hire generation X and Y employees.  They will quickly tire of your poor practices. When word gets around that you pay little attention to this Gen X and Gen Y will not apply.  Finally, if you operate without a code of ethics or values your workplace is driven by supervisor and employee personal values.  Add aggressive goals and tactics and you have News of the World and ENRON.

Best workplace culture example

Well known examples where a sustained company culture has clearly served financial success are Google, Zappos and Netflix. Zappos CEO, Tony Hsieh tells of both the company hiring practices aimed at finding candidates who fit with the company values and a new employee orientation process that quickly identifies workers who are a poor fit. In a key-note at this year’s SHRM annual conference that Company culture is the “number one priority.” His most recent blog post says it all Your Culture Is Your Brand.

Zappos has cultivated standards for workplace atmosphere that support staff efforts towards company goals, encouraged the atmosphere with company mechanisms (meetings, communication, compensation and performance evaluation), controlled that new employees coming in fit well with the desired culture and then, when employees demonstrate that they don’t fit well, they are moved out of the organization. The theory is that employees working there thrive in the culture.  They are happy, satisfied and fulfilled. As HR folks say, less bad turnover, only good turnover.

It’s in the literature

There are a number of excellent books on the subject of Culture – discussing what it is; how to get it; and why it supports success.  Here’s just what I have on my own bookshelf:

1964 (Blake & Mouton) The Managerial Grid that urged managers to focus on both people and results – used to acculturate me at UNUM in the mid 70s;

1982 (Peters & Waterman) In Search of Excellence in which the principles of “Back to the Basics” reinforces the simultaneous priorities that must be balanced;

2001 (Collins) Good to Great describing the “culture of discipline” in order to avoid creativity-killing bureaucracy;

2001 (Ashby & Pell) Embracing Excellence chapter two: The “qualities and characteristics of a great corporate culture;”

2002 Hesselbein & Johnston) On High Performance Organizations in which the authors discuss the power of mindfulness, a passion for the business and strategic generosity;

2011 (Rhoades) Built on Values: success stories of three companies who had purposeful workplace culture and values;

It’s what employees want and need to be healthy and productive at work

Happy, satisfied employees are less distracted and more focused on company goals.  It happens that the characteristics employees find supportive, collectively represent the kind of environment in which company financial goals are more likely to be met.  This would be where employees are treated with respect; given clear direction about  their work; compensated fairly, etc.  Finally, why in the world would anyone choose to create or work in a company where everyone is burned out, unhappy and disrespectful to each other? It stands to reason that employees who feel a passion for their work; who are rewarded for both results and demonstrating company values; and treated respectfully by supervisors and co-workers would reach a higher level of functioning.

Good employees want goals to meet and welcome being held accountable. Further, they want others to be held to an equitable standard.  Nothing irritates employees more than watching poor performers hanging around, making mistakes, failing to plan and generally making more work for others with no apparent consequences.  Thoughtful, respectful feedback to employees by capable supervisors greatly increase the chances that most employees are performing at their highest functioning level.

Unrealized, disorganized or person-centered culture

When the company’s culture is not unified/strong or it’s tied too closely to one leader’s own style the workplace can be buffeted by CEO or COO turnover.  Companies who don’t pay attention to defining a desired culture end up depending too much upon the personal style and philosophy of a particular person.  When this leader leaves and a new leader comes on board, the values and philosophies of the new leader challenges long-standing company assumptions. A period of confusion commences. Employees are distracted trying to understand the new landscape.  And again, employees are not necessarily focused on the bottom line. A strong, positive and institutionalized workplace culture can help an organization weather many storms, including the loss of a beloved leader or changes in the external environment because strong positive culture takes on a power and force of its own.

One of today’s growing employee relations issues is stress.  Workplace characteristics of lean staffing, financial pressure and high demands result in employee fatigue and stress. These in turn cause absenteeism (missing work) and presenteeism (workers present but not mentally at work).  Rates of depression (or rates of its diagnosis) among employees are on the rise.  Interestingly, employees report inattentive and poor quality management at work as a key reason for both stress and eventually leaving their position.  These problems develop over time and the only way to reverse this is to assess your culture and decide to do things differently – culture improvement project.

Honesty, Ethics and Integrity

A discussion of ethics and integrity is important enough to mention it more than once. Most superb, financially successful companies who are well-respected in their community, the U.S. or the world promote honesty, integrity or lawfulness as one of their core values.  Without a stated value which is reinforced by company structures, it is difficult to get large numbers of employees to approach their work consistently with these values. Most experts feel that it was the absence of this particular set of values that sunk ENRON and pulled its accounting firm, employees and the local economy down with it. It also sent a few folks to jail.

Next steps

After realizing that you have no stated culture or workplace brand attention turns to articulating a desired brand.  This starts with understanding what your good performers want and need. Recruitment, Workplace Branding and Employee Satisfaction