All About Toxic Employees in the Workplace

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.

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

© Copyright BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved – sbenoit@benoitconsulting.com

Employee Resistance to Change

The process of change – how the world of business works is aptly described in Spencer Johnson’s 1998 book Who Moved My Cheese?*

I recently needed an illustration of the maladaptive ways in which employees respond to change, while teaching Psychology in the Workplace.  Students didn’t have the time to read an addition text so I created the following outline based upon Johnson’s book.  I showed my students the book, recommended it and presented the class material.

In this work, I explain the irrational dynamics of people hanging on to old ways even when evidence of change is obvious and failure to change may result in business failure (or starvation for the little mice!). I offer it here for my followers:

  1. People pay more attention to the things-they-need when things are new
  2. People exert effort toward having the things-they-need
  3. People realize that having the things-they-need makes them happy – nice!
  4. As time goes on, things-they-need and already have, are less on their minds
  5. People put less effort into doing what they have to do to keep getting the things-they-need
  6. People assume that the things-they-need will always be there
  7. People stop paying attention to what is going on around the things-they-need
  8. Some smart people (thinkers and planners) understand the dynamics of change and that things-they-need might be difficult to get in the future
  9. Some smart people talk about planning and building contingencies but others don’t listen
  10. Things begin to shift gradually–there are signs of impending change but most people don’t notice
  11. Some smart people notice the subtle shifts, they talk but most people don’t listen
  12. People work harder in the old way to get the things-they-need but it doesn’t work
  13. The world changes in a clear way — the things-they-need may be available, but now they:
    1. Are located in a different place
    2. Require extra work to get them
    3. Are no longer available in the old form
  14. People go into denial — pretending things haven’t changed
  15. People work harder to hold fast to the old ways of the world
  16. Business starts to decline
  17. It becomes clear that the things-they-need are no longer available
  18. People have to notice —  now they begin to react:
    1. People become anxious and over-wrought
    2. People talk about how it isn’t fair
    3. People blame others who should have warned them
  19. People begin blame others for the change
  20. People verbally attack and make complaints about those they see as responsible
  21. People get stuck in the I-want-things-to-go-back-to-the-way-they-were camp
  22. Some smart people have been thinking and planning, they see themselves as responsible for solving the problem
  23. These smart people talk about what needs to be done and try to convince people to change and move
  24. People react to these “change agents” and they begin to resist by:
    1. Overt sabotage of people and processes
    2. Worker’s compensation claims
    3. Staying at work and complaining
    4. Quitting (good turnover — Bye bye!)
  25. Some smart people get discouraged and leave (bad turnover — Oh no!)
  26. Some smart people begin to find new ways and locations to get the things-they-need
  27. Eventually, the people come over to the new way of getting things-they-needbut at a variable pace:
    1. Early adopters
    2. Near-time adopters
    3. Late adopters
    4. Refusers – those who never adopt (performance counselings?)
  28. Finally all the people agree to the new way
  29. People get used to the new way and the process starts over again
  30. Some smart people know things will change and continue to pay attention to clues

* An original deconstruction work based upon:  Spencer Johnson, MD (1998) Who Moved My CheeseNew York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons

(c) BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

Summary of DADT, Workplace Culture and the Impact of Repeal

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.

Positive Culture and the HR “Rule of Thirds”

Unless you have been unusually successful managing your workplace culture (more on this below), there are some general rules that can help you when planning changes, improvements or just plain communicating company decisions to your employees. Not all your employees think alike.

Rule of thirds

The rule of thirds is used in political campaigns in order to tailor messages to undecided voters. Campaign managers assume that some will support the candidate no matter what he/she does, some would never vote for the candidate and some might vote for the candidate but it will take some convincing.

At any given time your employee base is made up of three general groups with a range of attitudes about you, their employer.  Approximately one-third of your employees like the company, appreciate the job and work to achieve company quality and results goals (champions).  Approximately one-third do not like the company, do not enjoy their work and may not be all that hard-working (negatives).  Finally, one-third are neutral, and can be swayed by their employee peers (undecideds).  If you take the time to survey employees you will be able to pinpoint more exact numbers but you get the general idea.  Competent human resource professionals spend a lot of time talking with employees and since negatives tend to complain, HR folks generally know who they are.  Another way to identify negatives is when implementing change.  Even if they don’t speak up to owners, they will speak up to their peers.

How to use this information

This information is key to creating a positive work culture overall.  Highly successful and efficient companies spend more time cultivating relationships with champions and undecideds and less time trying to convince negatives to like the company. I always watch with frustration when my client companies agonize over the picky, negative opinions offered publicly by disgruntled employees. You can’t please everyone so why beat yourself up over criticism that may have little or no real value?  Spend time working to reward the “positives” and engage the “undecideds.”

When making changes/improvements

Knowing your employee groups when changing company processes is essential.  If you have a great idea for improving a work process and the positives love it, it’s probably a good idea.  If the positives have concerns or critique, it probably needs work.  Negatives tend to complain about any change particularly if it means working differently. As mentioned above, when you communicate something new negatives will let you know that you can’t count on them to work harder/smarter.  Listen carefully and think about how you manage employee performance and attitude. When negatives  move from just talk into negative actions, it is time to look at your performance evaluation process.  Do you include an accountability for promoting a positive company image or perhaps something about not interfering with company improvements?  If not, you may want to refine your performance management tools.

Who is negative and who is just picky?

Negatives may simply be glass-half-empty people or they may be negative because of some interaction with management that didn’t go their way.  In any event, they speak up about what they don’t like.  As mentioned above, address their attitudes and actions through the performance evaluation process.  You should be careful, however, not to dismiss every negative comment as irrelevant. If you have positives who are perfectionists you will find that their natural process is to analyze processes for weaknesses.  They make great editors and would be good “early testers” when you want to test out new ideas. Harnessing this energy to improve company processes is smart.

360 degree culture management

When a company embarks on a comprehensive workplace culture improvement initiative, it will be helpful to know the exact proportions of the company’s “thirds” and not just a general estimate. How you might improve workplace culture overall is beyond the scope of this piece but it would clearly involve an agreed upon set of values and strategies to see that employees work within those values every day. Recruitment and performance evaluation systems should be bringing “positives” into the company and rewarding them when they operate in a way that foster’s company goal achievement. It would involve mechanisms to improve poor performance and poor attitudes that negatively impact the work of others. Finally, it would include company leaders and employees who model/live by the company’s stated values.

Hire and reward more positives; convert undecideds into positives; curtail the complaining and unproductive behavior of negatives;” and when necessary, move negatives out of the company all together.