Who Needs Help with Bullies at Work?

The issue of toxic employees and bullies in the workplace is complicated.  Successful strategies to shift anti-social behavior will require well-timed activities at three different levels.

Company leaders

First are those who truly have the power to decide the workplace will be free of abuse and intimidation. Leadership includes CEOs, boards and partners who have company-wide decision-making authority. After years of looking the other way, changing the anti-social behavior will require an overt desire to shift the negative culture to one of collaboration and personal accountability.  It’s not easy.  Bullies and toxic employees push back when their informal power is threatened.  Without a powerful champion at the top the culture shift will fall flat.  When the person at the top is a bully, the situation is much more complicated.  Company owners have the legal (if not moral) right to run their company as they see fit.  In the nonprofit world the governing board has the power to address this issue. Occasionally partners or corporate boards can address the issue.  Successful strategies are often subverted by a clever CEO who can manipulate information, keep secrets and spin complainants out as “crazy” or unreasonable.

Supervisors

The most common issue I observe with supervisors is that they are bullied or sabotaged so that fear keeps them from acting as they should to eliminate abuse and intimidation from a supervisees.  Toxic employees can cleverly sow the seeds of fear so that eventually the fear itself is enough to get a supervisor to back off.  Many a supervisor has learned a “lesson” after trying to discipline a toxic supervisee and found themselves on the receiving end of successful social tactics. However, when leadership crafts a comprehensive culture shift; vows to discipline employees who abuse and intimidate others, supervisors can reclaim their power and feel confident that leadership will stand behind disciplinary actions. When the supervisor is toxic, leadership has to act decisively to counsel and eventually terminate the offending supervisors.

Co-workers – rank and file

The toxic employees’ coworkers generally have it the worst.  They have no supervisory power and the threat of marginalization and silent treatment is a very powerful motivator.  Even the most independent workers fear social ostracism at work.  Those who speak up are silenced with social tactics such as: gossip, rumors and silent treatment. A comprehensive plan to shift the culture has to include support to the more ethical employees on how to set boundaries that coincide with the a new code of conduct. Teaching them how to resist these social tactics and to band together for support amongst employees who want to perform well goes a very long way.

Coordinated approach

When I speak to groups, they generally fall into one of the three groups outlined above.  The presentation strategy is different for each.  I have to match the discussion to the power level of the group.  Leading employees to feel that they alone can solve this problem could lead to their being targeted in new ways or worse, termination. Rarely are all three present in the room at the same time.  And even then, if the bully is in the room employees will not speak up.

Like I said, it’s complicated.

(c) BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

Why Public and Private Nonprofits Tolerate Toxic Behavior

Even though I’ve been immersed in the topic of Toxic Employees since the book came out in June, “Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too”, I was actually shocked at the serious nature of negative stories from a group of public sector employees, recently.  It has been my impression that private nonprofits struggled with toxic employee behavior more than the private sector but these stories were extreme.  In one, a bully actually laid hands on a supervisee.  This reminded me of the horrendous boss my daughter reported to for three years as a teenager.  This guy called her a “dumb ass” and shoved her once.  I so wanted to fly down the street and have a word with this fellow.  But years of Al-anon recovery helped me to stay put; give her strategies to speak up; and assure her that eventually he would be fired.  It took a lot longer than we thought (I sometimes wondered if he had something on the owners) but he was eventually terminated and things did improve as I had promised, thankfully.

How is it that employers tolerate this ridiculous and destructive behavior?

Environment in which toxic employees/bullies thrive

1.  No clear set of employee behavioral values articulated 

For-profits are more likely to know about the quantitative business case for positive work culture – how it is associated with greater business success.  If your organization hasn’t thought about what kind of workplace culture is desired, your standards are probably not high enough. Nonprofits tend to place the focus on treating clients with respect but don’t get quite as specific with employee relations. In this situation, employee personal values are not tested during the recruitment process for consistency with corporate values like honesty and ethics. The result is a group of employees with significantly different values, work styles, and not necessarily folks with any particular loyalty to their employer.  Loyalty, professionalism, respect and ethics have to be selected; cultivated; and rewarded because sometimes they go a bit against human nature. There’s a good chance that a couple of workers with bullying tendencies have gotten through the less-than-rigorous screening process.

2.  Supervisors without formal leadership training

Some of the first lessons in objective trainings for new leaders is the concept that you can’t be everyone’s friend. You are the staff’s role model for professionalism and you’re paid to evaluate supervisee performance.  It’s your job.  So when employees play the victim or push back you’re prepared to refute these arguments. For-profits encourage supervisors to have a somewhat more arm’s-length stance relative to supervisees.  Public and private nonprofit supervisors and program directors tend to come up through the ranks. As nonprofits grow, supervisory professionalism levels do rise.  But most managers have had little formal training.  In addition, they are learning by watching their boss who likely hasn’t been trained, either. Nonprofits are so stretched, especially today that there isn’t time or money for training that can’t be tied directly to service delivery.

3.  Employee population that tends toward nurturing and nonconfrontational

Schools, colleges, and private nonprofits tend (not a rule! I know it’s a bad stereotype but it is sometimes true) to employ staff that are more creative ”right-brained” and less black and white certainly than private commercial business.  I was a school social worker for three years and one of the reasons I loved that job was the wonderful way staff treated me.  Ninety percent of my co-workers were compassionate, loved children and wanted to take care of my needs – need a pillow, tissue, whatever.  Of course, their classroom management skills might have needed a little support.  When a bully realizes that those around him/her are not going to respond in kind to their aggressive style, they gain power and become more difficult to stop.  There are times when you have to put your hand up to people and say: “Stop,” or “enough.”  Compassionate people often feel this is rude or outside their comfort zone.  If you aren’t willing to be a little rude back, you may not be able to stop the behavior. When everything is going well, I want to be surrounded by lovely, nurturing co-workers.  When there’s a bully among us, I want a tough supervisor to rein him/her in, period.

4.  Less focus on the bottom line

No good company focused on financial metrics is going to put up with a worker who is not only rude and toxic but interferes with the productivity of the whole department. Tight margins, tight management and lean staffing all lead commercial companies to get onto issues when they’re small to prevent explosive employee relations problems.  In addition, for-profits manage risks.  Toxic employees bring risk of potential lawsuits by employees who are mistreated.

I know that my fellow consultants will say their very small commercial clients share some of the management short-comings I attribute to nonprofits.  Again, the point is not that nonprofits are bad, just that they tend to be more tolerant.  Bullies can thrive in that kind of setting. More nonprofits are seeing these risks and adopting comprehensive culture sustainability plans.  Excellent!