All About Toxic Employees in the Workplace

Posted on January 24, 2013 by Suzi

What motivates Toxic employees? How do Toxic employees control other employees?

Introduction

If you run a business, you’ve likely encountered a “toxic employee.” You hear complaints about or you experience a worker who is mean or abusive. But you hesitate to deal with the employee because he/she might be technically gifted/hard to replace. This article discusses the complicated social dynamics that arise when one or two employees engage in abusive and intimidating behavior. Also covered here is how toxic employees and their tactics harm the business and coworkers. Toxic employee tactics consolidate and maintain informal power in the workplace and control coworkers for personal gain. This behavior goes against healthy workplace values and conflicts with company goals. Unproductive drama distracts surrounding work units, victimizes workers and prevents the achievement of company goals.

This material addresses a workplace where well-meaning leadership is disengaged or fearful. It does not address a workplace where the prime abuser is the chief executive. When the chief executive is abusive and fails to respond appropriately to employee feedback, employee behavior will become understandably negative in response. In this situation employee acting-out is a natural consequence of poor leadership and requires a special, tailored intervention not precisely covered by this material.

Who are toxic employees?

I have defined “toxic employees” by observing the techniques they use. Looking at what sets them apart from typical employees, toxic employees are motivated by getting and protecting personal gain (power, money, or special status) NOT by achieving company goals. What the company wants of his/her individual performance is of less interest to a toxic employee. He/she typically does not recognize a duty to an overriding principle of ethics or respectful treatment of others. Finally, relationships with coworkers are not defined by the formal organization structure but are defined by the toxic employee’s own power; coworkers they favor in the moment and coworkers they do not trust.

Toxic employees are not just difficult coworkers. They plan ahead and use strategies to neutralize supervisors and detractors. Sometimes they are just protecting their personal power. Sometimes they are protecting secret misdeeds or malfeasance. Finally, they may be inoculating themselves from performance feedback.

In addition, toxic employees are not just bullies. A bully punishes, teases and abuses others at work. This alone is grounds for performance counseling. Venting emotions inappropriately, yelling and other forms of abuse should not be tolerated in the workplace. When bullies repeatedly target a particular employee, the effects can be devastating. This can and should be stopped by a carefully crafted performance intervention. I have covered this topic in several other blogs.

Toxic employees use bullying tactics but there’s more. A toxic employee is more deliberate and strategic and more difficult to stop than a straight forward bully. This is because of their clever means of discrediting those who speak up AND dis-empowering supervisors and others who possess the power on paper, to make changes in the workplace.

The problem

I am often engaged to address one employee’s negative workplace performance. Once on site I find the situation is more complex than simply establishing a performance improvement plan for the offending employee. The greater the informal power residing with this one individual, the more likely the employee group around him/her has chosen up sides. Because negative social dynamics become well entrenched, any real solution requires an intervention addressing both the main offender and the surrounding social system.

How this dynamic harms employees

Victimized employees can and do suffer emotional and physical harm such as stress-related illnesses. Employee victims of ongoing workplace abuse and intimidation (bullying) will eventually require support to re-establish healthy boundaries with others even after the offender’s termination. Employees with a good perspective and a desire to support business goals often draw fire from powerful negative employees. Employees who express disapproval of the negative dynamics or who try to resist those dynamics have likely learned who has the power in both subtle and in more overt, public ways. Negative messages from toxic employees to NOT speak up can be so powerful as to render even strong, competent peers unwilling to alert leadership. It is very much worth the effort to retain those who disagree with negative approaches by re-establishing positive supports and rewarding their instincts to speak up. Intervention timing is key.

How this dynamic harms your business

Toxic employees who operate from a negative, abusive perspective and who mistreat fellow workers rarely treat customers with respect. Employees distracted by a work atmosphere of squabbles, choosing up sides and consolidating informal power structures do not perform at their best. This atmosphere serves to preserve the negative dynamics and consistently drains productivity. In addition over time, highly motivated and positive employees who have tried and failed to improve things will move on to other companies and those more comfortable in a negative environment will stay. The longer these dynamics continue the worse the environment generally becomes. All of this combines to distract even high-performing staff from promoting business goals and quality client service delivery. The failure to exercise supervisory power creates a vacuum through which ill-motivated staff can emerge and divert attention from the organization’s goals. It can take years to reverse the behaviors and the effect of the abuse on others.

Informal power structures and dynamics

Today’s workplace is full of unwritten “agreements.” Status quo power structures and informal processes are established over time and become well-entrenched. For example, those with informal power steer their peers away from employees who they see as a threat to their power and can punish those who ignore these warnings with silent treatment and rumors. Eventually, everyone “gets the message” and learns to go along. Disturbing the status quo is met with resistance and dynamics that worsen just before they begin to shift. Those who stand to lose their informal power will up the ante to preserve it. Knowing what to expect along with a well-thought out plan is essential to moving away from abuse and intimidation toward comprehensive positive change.

Ringleader motives

It’s helpful to think about what motivates abusive employees in the workplace. Mistreatment of others comes from a self-centered perspective. It is sometimes constructed to cover personal insecurities or fears. It is generally maladaptive social behavior. This behavior might be learned or may the result of formative trauma. More specific answers are beyond the scope of this material.

Acquisition of informal power and control
Advancing ones value and position in the organization
Decreasing (or neutralizing) another’s value and position in the organization, particularly those seen as a threat – supervisors and other change agents
Retaliating against perceived slights by fellow employees

Control techniques

Ringleaders as toxic employees generally collect information to either withhold or use against targets for maximum advantage. In addition, they use strategies to prevent complaints about them from getting traction and to weaken the power of others. The foundation of most toxic techniques is a near universal need humans have to be liked by others in the workplace.

Negative contracting is an agreement to keep secrets, look the other way, do something harmful, or spread a rumor about someone else. Contracts are typically a secret agreement between the toxic employee and others with a goal of avoiding consequences or reducing someone’s power.

Emotional manipulation is when a coworker is manipulated into questioning his/her judgment or instincts and controlled to believe the story spun by the toxic employee. Often the appeal is to the target’s sense of responsibility for the feelings of others. Clever manipulators can make anyone feel responsible for what’s gone wrong.

Blaming the victim is using clever manipulation to exploit victim mistakes and attack their credibility. This is done in a manner that shifts focus away from whatever the victim was trying to raise for management attention onto the victim’s “misdeeds.” In some workplaces employees give up trying to get management’s attention because the futility has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Marginalization is the process of ostracizing targets, giving them the silent treatment or withholding information as a way to demonstrate power over others or as punishment for a perceived offense. Depending upon how much the targeted employees want to be liked at work, this can be a very powerful deterrent.

Negative dynamics thrive when . . .

There are certain environments in which negative dynamics are promoted and enhanced and very difficult to shift. This would include those situations where:

Ringleaders are often technically strong . . .

Ringleaders often have access to historical information, company lore and information needed by other employees to carry out their assignments
Ringleaders are in positions of specialized skill and perceived to be difficult to replace
Organization performance evaluations are based upon technical performance results without accountability or demonstrated command of:

Negative dynamics are more difficult to maintain when . . .

Some workplaces actively promote positive values and respect for one another. In these environments positives are rewarded and negatives are addressed. Tactics that make it difficult for abusive employee strategies to take hold include those where:

The organization articulates its vision of a healthy, productive workplace through a code of ethics or set of employee relations values
The organization informs staff how it plans to shift and maintain the desired culture with examples of what is positive and what will be discouraged
Performance evaluations measure end results AND the demonstration of corporate values in the areas of teamwork, collaboration, corporate ethics and pro-social behavior
Supervisors are connected to what’s going on in their areas
Supervisors operate as a well-coordinated team with good communication and consistent management techniques
Supervisors are well-trained in identifying and responding to negative dynamics
Offending employees are cautioned and counseled with escalating consequences
Offending employees are eventually moved out of the organization

Strategic plan to shift negative workplace dynamics

Shifting the workplace toward a more healthy and productive environment requires a comprehensive plan and approach that lets employees know where you are going and why. It also requires simultaneous extinguishment of negative behaviors and encouragement/skill building for victims and others.

Establish company or departmental values and a clear code of conduct
Identify the various players and research current dynamics
Plan the intervention carefully
Intervene with the group and then primary offenders
Follow up with the group and offenders, as needed
Carry out legal, sound terminations where needed
Develop recruitment strategies to foster desired work climate
Implement ongoing team-building and employee engagement strategies

Employee Life Cycle: opportunities to transmit culture

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Suzi

Pre-service (attachment)

Vacancy: New job is added; employee resigns or employee is dismissed
Job Analysis: job design/review, establishing qualifications, selecting source
Recruitment: Sourcing and advertising
Selection: Application, screening, interview, offer, acceptance
On-boarding: Policies, HR paperwork, receive corporate culture materials
Employee orientation: culture orientation, job shadowing, practice

Early service (engagement)

Benefits: Employee signs up for benefits and begins receiving EBT, perquisites
Contribution: Employee begins contributing in the real job
Coworker relations: Ongoing interactions with co-workers at all levels
Employee guidance: supervision, evaluation, engagement,

2-year mark is the greatest threat of turnover (retention)

Medium service (seasoning)

Experience building: training and development, re-licensing, credentialing, re-qualifying
Giving back: helping to train less seasoned coworkers

Long service (adaptation and flexibility)

Employee re-contributing: retraining, lateral transfers, promotions
Cutting back and giving back: part time and flexible assignments as employees “semi” retire but continue contributing and mentoring less seasoned coworkers

(c) Copyright BCSPublishing 2012

When Institutions put Secular Goals Ahead of Everything Else

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Suzi

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 Workplace Culture Effects Business Success

Posted on November 4, 2011 by Suzi

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

Corporate Social Responsibility – an increasingly integrated approach

Posted on October 27, 2011 by Suzi

Community stewardship is increasingly expected from American companies of all sizes. Philanthropy used to be the purview of very large corporations through their own foundations. Today, even the smallest companies have creative ways to show affection for the communities in which they “live.” Old-school practices might have included a cash donation to one or two organized nonprofits in the community. Often these donations were meant to enhance the company’s image and might even be connected to a board member’s pet project. Things have really changed over the last 15 years. While many large corporations still have foundations, the bar has been raised to adopt a more integrated giving approach.

First: More pressing social issues

Global warming, pollution, high gas prices (sustainable agriculture and buy-local campaigns) and unemployment (employment sustainability) have been added to traditional vulnerable populations (poor, disabled, and displaced). While state and federal funds are shrinking, social concerns are in some cases getting worse. They are also top-of-mind when increasingly discussed in a global, media-based society. We know instantly when a rain forest is disturbed on the other side of the earth. When George Bush, Sr. gave his “1000 Points of Light” speech in 1989, we didn’t know it at the time but this would signal a permanent shift to increasing dependence on the private sector. His view was that charity is the responsibility of the private sector (small government, lower taxes, etc). Later, more pressure for this shift would come from severe budget shortfalls at states across the country. But I digress.

Second: Small company owners are passionate about sharing abundance

I recently heard a young woman (28-ish) describe her small company’s philanthropic activities and was struck by how clear and determined she was. Company size just isn’t a barrier in her thinking. She is committed and moving forward with a variety of creative ways to share her success with worthy local causes. I see this in many of the small businesses I advise regularly. It’s got nothing to do with me pushing an agenda. They are just there with a compassion that I imagine comes from a family where giving back is what you do. It’s inspiring and you can see how employees would “catch” the fever.

Third: Giving efforts are more creative and less formal

Companies interested in helping their communities are limited only by their imagination. Ideas include micro initiatives (car washes), macro initiatives (Facebook contests) and everything in between.

The United Way “Day of Caring” combined with the explosion of social media got company owners thinking and moving. In addition, nonprofit fundraising has ramped up in quantity, quality and creativity. A for-profit company writing checks to a few community nonprofits has transformed into: direct support for environmental concerns, buy-local support through employee discounts, funding nonprofit capacity building, education scholarships, community landscaping & gardening, days-of-caring and so much more. In my opinion, younger workers coming into the commercial and nonprofit workforce have influenced creativity both in how nonprofits ask for money and in how corporations are giving. Young people are also donating differently (web-based searches and analysis) pulling nonprofits into Internet-based marketing and online donations.

One small company I know selected a nonprofit through a strategic process (focused on a particular mission); underwrote production of logo wear (polar fleece vests) with the nonprofit’s logo; and sold them at a reduced cost to their 80 employees. All the proceeds of these sales were donated to the charity. Employees were encouraged to explain why the charity’s logo is on their vest when asked in the community. It’s essentially a 360 degree internal marketing campaign for the charity and a clear demonstration of the company’s commitment to the local community.

Fourth: Standards for community investment are just higher

The Human Resources group “Society for Human Resource Management“ (SHRM)considers corporate social responsiblity to be an integral component of every company’s strategic plan and something HR professionals must be prepared to help organize. I studied for the SPHR (Senior Professional of Human Resources) exam in 2009 and learned about a more integrated and institutionalized approach to corporate giving. The SHRM Learning System ® 2009 describes four phases of increased quality giving covered in the “Strategic Management” module in a section on “Ethical Issues Affecting Organizations.” That is a serious endorsement!

The phases begin with 1. Reactive corporate philanthropy, and move to, 2. Strategic contributions, 3. Mainstream involvement, and the most integrated, 4. Corporate accountability. Social responsibility is seen as an investment in the community. Employees want to work at a company that’s engaged in the community. The idea is that companies go through these phases over time as they grow. The highest level, Corporate Accountability, means employee involvement at all levels. This doesn’t mean merely giving money – it can include allowing paid employee time off to volunteer some part of every month on a nonprofit site. Yes, this approach improves the company’s image in the community but it also results more robust support for local nonprofits.

An ancillary benefit of corporations getting smarter about giving is elevated expectations for ethical and efficient nonprofit operations. Companies want to be sure their cash or time donation is used wisely and consistent with the public trust. No waste; good financial checks and balances; and other business-like efficiency practices are raising the bar for community nonprofits. Always a good thing!

Summary of DADT, Workplace Culture and the Impact of Repeal

Posted on September 18, 2011 by Suzi

On September 20th, 60 days after the repeal order was signed for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), it goes into effect. Popular media have covered Military preparations for the changes. Though many see this as a necessary step in the right direction (some think it was way overdue), no one thinks this will put an end to problems. The military has had little success with consistent enforcement of DADT. Nor has the military dealt all that well with blackmail and intimidation that the secrecy of DADT fomented. DADT may end discharges using sexual orientation as the stated reason but it will likely be the beginning of a number of other issues: Can hate-crimes be prosecuted within the service branches? Will spousal benefits become a part of the employee benefits package? and many other related cultural issues.

Sometimes we forget the serving in the military is a job-the employer is the federal government-and it is an American workplace or more accurately a collection of related but different (branches) workplaces. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal represents a significant philosophical departure from past practice and such will have workplace culture-changing repercussions. Creating a sound Military work culture requires attention to a number of different goals. If you are anti-war or anti-military you will take issue with this entire article. If you accept that a functioning military is necessary, I can imagine three different fundamental principles or philosophies, necessary for a sustainable military. First they must try to prepare humans who are otherwise peaceful creatures to kill others and destroy property. As American children grow up in a civilian world where these acts are against the law, it is a challenge to say the least whether or not you think it is wrong altogether. Second, this workplace must also try to respond humanely when service members are wounded physically and emotionally. Finally, I would like to see a workplace free of abuse and intimidation among coworkers (pie in the sky, I know). I’m not sure how average service personnel think of the last goal but American employees have a right to work free of abuse, harassment and intimidation based upon American civilian law. If we are keeping score, the military is doing well with waging war but not so well with humane treatment of their wounded and really not well at all with the free-of-abuse-and-intimidation goals. While we don’t have current federal legislation making discrimination a crime based upon sexual orientation, many states have taken this step, including my home state of Maine.

Recent suicide statistics have given military management pause especially in the months in which suicides have outnumbered warfare deaths. Incidentally, it is difficult to find exact numbers for suicides and hostility-related deaths by month. Time magazine has covered this story extensively. Increased suicides are both a comment on how horrible warfare is and the unfortunate way in which the military has handled personnel mental health needs. It’s not like the clinical expertise and strategies required to treat and prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) aren’t available. Ironically, most of the research that supported the formalization PTSD as a psychiatric diagnosis comes from research by the military on combat fatigue.

But the issue isn’t all black and white. Military officers are not all narrow-minded conservatives. There are military officers who are both strategic and progressive in their thinking and work approach. I was struck by this when reading one of many quotes in a fascinating Gentlemen’s Quarterly article: “Tell: An Intimate History of Gay Men in the Military.” (Read more at: GQ, Sept 2011). The article notes stories from dozens of gay service men who served during war times from WW II to today. These stories are mixed. Yes, there are terrible stories of physical abuse, blackmail and intimidation (some are nauseating for sure) but there are hopeful stories in which those in charge refused to make being gay an issue even when disclosed. Some of this depended on the branch. It seems that the most progressive branch, according to first-hand accounts is the Navy. Generally, the Marine Corps was the worst from a hazing and harassment working-conditions standpoint. But one gay Marine says that the Marine Corps was the best place to hide as long as you were tough and “straight-looking.” Some gay service men were very clever in how they maintained a neutral sexuality stance. Some pretended to be straight.

Here is one of the stories I found optimistic:

A gay male Marine confided in a female friend/peer that he was gay. When the two had a falling-out, the female attempted to get him in trouble by going to their superior officer with the disclosure. The chief officer replied, “He’s a good Marine. I’m not really interested in any of this nonsense ….Mind your own business.” That was the end of it. The gay Marine attributes his good fortune to his good job performance. I think it also had to do with the ethical thinking on the part of the officer.

There is so much more to read-I highly recommend reading the entire article. It is long and full of various different strategies for remaining “sane” while maintaining secrets. It also describes the various different ways in which gay service members and their coworkers handled the excruciating contradiction of apparent neutrality (just don’t talk about it) with the psychological effects & risks of dangerous secret-keeping.

Researching this issue, I found a number of other resources for those who haven’t followed this issue up to now but who might be interested once the repeal takes effect on September 20th. I’m sure the issue will generate considerable media coverage next week.

Resources from a variety of angles, appear below:

Historical summary

Good old Wikipedia can always be counted on for a historical summary that includes important dates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_ask,_don’t_tell

The legislative process

The Human Rights Campaign website includes information about who worked on repeal wording and how it came about legislatively:

http://www.hrc.org/sites/repealdadt/index.asp?gclid=CL2qnr2spKsCFWsEQAodXEu80Q

Military communicating its position on the repeal

The Military’s official website includes a July 2011 video in which the Marine Commandant articulates how diversity and professionalism are consistent with lawfulness and the United States constitution. Pretty clear statement though I realize that some service men and women to not behave consistently with the stated value or rules. Here is the video link:

http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/marine-commandant-on-dadt/1040941450001/

More specific legal matters affecting service members

The Service Member Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide legal guidance and support to gay service members. To this point, support has centered around ensuring that legal rights are protected and providing a place for gay service members to turn when their orientation threatened their service. This link is to a page that provides an excellent legal history of DADT and the site

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

Transgendered service members

Often, discussion of GLBT issues are heavy on coverage of gays and lesbians and light on coverage of transgendered individuals. According to the Service Member Legal Defense Network, transgendered individuals are barred from serving for reasons unrelated to DADT. According the their website, the reasons are physical and mental while other sites describe the lack of care (drugs and counseling) within military service as the reason. I am puzzled by a transgendered person who would want to serve in a military branch and subject themselves to this environment but they are protected from discrimination in several states who include gender identity in their anti-discrimination statutes. Here is an excellent legal discussion of the issue by the SLDN:

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/ncte-and-sldn-advise-transgender-service-members-coming-out-may-lead-to-dis/

List of equality issues remaining after repeal of DADT

Here is a list of military equality issues that still remain for the GLBT community according to this private nonprofit website: equalitygiving.org.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/DADT?page-version=0&date=20110917132057

I hope you find this material informative.

What is 360 Degree Workplace Culture?

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Suzi

The purpose of my work is to use human resource and business operations expertise to create positive and quality workplace cultures. In these ideal cultures, not only are company business goals more likely to be achieved but employees are happier and treated respectfully in all interactions.

360⁰Workplace culture excellence

A 360⁰Workplace Culture is when:

The culture and organizational values are purposeful, promoted throughout the organization and truly inform employee behavior across all programs and departments;
The culture and organizational values support employees operating at their highest level of functioning toward the achievement of company business goals;
Talent management structures and policies reflect the “on purpose” culture and values at all points along the employment life-cycle: at recruitment; at new employee orientation; through the performance management program; in promotion decisions and very importantly; when it’s time to go, an employee must be moved out of the organization if they cannot or will not follow the rules of respect and integrity. The desired culture and values apply as much to employee relations as to customer relations.
Work values include and promote honesty, integrity and lawfulness in all company activities.

Example of unrealized workplace culture opportunity

Poor or disorganized workplace culture results when an organization has articulated values but does not follow them. I’ve worked with many companies who have a wonderful list of values and might even ask employees to sign a code of conduct. Meanwhile there is a long service toxic employee talking about people behind their back and targeting employees that don’t agree with them. Another example would be a company with no stated set of values. In this case, employees’ personal values will be quite varied, will not help focus employee efforts on company goals and at worse, lead employees to work against the company’s and co-worker best interests.

Years ago, I worked for a wonderful nonprofit that serves mentally ill clients. Client needs were at the center of service development. Company policies and program standards were very high. The problem was that one employee in a key, one-of-a-kind position, used her power to move fellow employees around like chess pieces on a board. I once caught her red-handed starting a false rumor about a new employee and yet couldn’t get the CEO to conduct performance counseling with any real consequence. She’s probably still there. The same would apply in a company that says client/customer needs are important but where the company fails to redirect the behavior of employees who mistreat clients.

Sorry to bring up poor ENRON, but this was a company with two separate cultural groups. In high level leaders, the culture was success and ambitious goal achievement regardless of their consistency with legal and accounting standards. In addition, this group feared the financial collapse but kept it secret from others. The second culture included rank and file employees and a few leaders who did not know or understand the conspiracy to keep the secret of impending financial disaster. Clearly, honesty, integrity and lawfulness were not even articulated in this company.

News of the World appears to have suffered from a similar lack of intentionally positive work culture and values. In the absence of a positive culture standard and with the context of very aggressive reporting goals, it appears that some employees did not balance their activities with that which is allowed by law or what most would consider basic morals.

The ideal cultural quality and excellence

In the ideal company, leadership will have spent time crafting a statement of desired culture and values. These values describe the organization’s concept of sustainability; how the company sees success and quality; how the company sees the importance and value of client/customer relationships; and finally, how the company sees employee relations. Everyone working in the company would know, understand and agree with this desired standard.

The closest ideal company I’ve personally experienced was my family’s clothing business, A. H. Benoit and Company. Though the company folded in the 1980s as a result of shifting retail centers (away from down towns), leadership changes and economic conditions, but in it’s day, the historical culture and standards were excellent. I didn’t realize it at the time (I was barely in high school), but my years there would represent one of my best workplace experiences. A couple of years ago, we uncovered a company employee handbook from the early 1900s that articulated the connection between happy employees and happy customers! They were known for very high quality men’s clothing, excellent customer service and being a place that employees loved to work. Many employees worked their entire career in this business. Thirty years later people still ask me if I am related to this business and then tell me of some fond memory about either working or shopping there.

Zappos is a modern example of cultural excellence we know about because CEO, Tony Hsieh has spoken publicly about the intentional culture he built there. He has implemented his 360 degree culture in a way that has facilitated tremendous, sustained success despite tough economic times. One example as I understand it is that Zappos monitors employee performance in the first few months and moves employees out of the organization with a generous severance package if it becomes clear that their values are not consistent with stated corporate values. They are wished well and treated with respect but not everyone fits with a given culture/values.

360 degree culture means determining what you want the workplace atmosphere be, how it can help you achieve your business goals and then implementing it in a comprehensive way so it becomes a part of the institutional personality.

Benoit Consulting

Strategies to promote a positive workplace culture

Tag Archives: corporate values