Tag Archives: Toxic Employees

What’s the Cost of Retaining Toxic Employees and Workplace Bullies?

Posted on by
4

This topic is receiving increased attention today for a few reasons. First, 24 states in the US have reviewed or are reviewing legislation to make serious, targeted bullying a statutory crime. Second, increasing research demonstrates the cost of distractions these difficult employees cause within their teams. Third, studies are also showing that positive culture and employee engagement are correlated with increased financial success – these employees disrupt an employer’s efforts to fully engage their workforce. Finally, studies show that employees treat customers the way they are treated.

Let’s look at the cost

  • Distracted employees: employees who are concerned about the negative social tactics bullies use on them do not concentrate on work. They talk to other victims; they strategies how to stay out of the cross-hairs; they look for work elsewhere. They do this every day when the bully is at work.  There are various studies on this but assume that employees working in the same unit as the bully spend 20% of their day on these matters. Multiply their salaries and benefits by 20% and then by the number of work days in a year. 
  • Sabotage of work process: a fairly common tactic applied by toxic employees is withholding information from those who have fallen from favor. Perhaps a coworker has complained about them to the boss. Toxic employees who are responsible for distributing key information to others have the power to withhold that information as punishment. This slowed-down production costs you.
  • Lost sales and revenue opportunities: distracted employees don’t make sales and employees who are treated badly often apply that treatment to your customers. Let’s say this has only a small effect – five percent applied to annual sales.
  • Increased absenteeism: employees subjected to social isolation and other workplace abuse are more likely to be absent from work than peers in an otherwise healthy workplace. Take another ten percent of annual payroll for workers in the effected department. 
  • Long term health costs: workers subjected to bullying tactics are sick more often. They suffer physical symptoms of stomach and digestive distress, high blood-pressure, and body aches. Then there are emotional symptoms like lack of energy associated with depression. Eventually, medical claims will increase which, depending on the size of your company, may effect your claims experience rating. Increased premiums for you and your employees!
  • Reputation costs: Companies develop reputations both in their local communities and now in a wider, Internet-based community. A company’s negative reputation builds gradually. Over time, toxic employees target all the employees you want to retain. They go after employees they can’t manipulate like: high performers, workers with high ethics, and workers who don’t want to see friends victimized. People who are comfortable with a negative environment stay and those who are looking for a pro-social environment leave. The longer this goes on, the worse the overall atmosphere will get. It’s difficult to put a specific price on this dynamic but it sounds bad, doesn’t it?
  • Negative retention costs: Employers who ignore bullies and toxic employees are much more likely to be sued. Sooner or later the bully targets the wrong employee. Perhaps it’s an older person in a workplace filled with young people? What if their targets tend to be women? What if it’s the one gay employee whose “out” in your workplace. Emotionally injured and disgruntled employees sue. Even if they don’t prevail, lawsuits are a significant distraction to all involved. While not all employees whose rights are violated hire an attorney, the idea is to prevent this abusive and unnecessary behavior and engage the diversity of employees in a positive, healthy environment.

It’s worth the effort

There is so much to be gained by having a workplace of respect and collaboration. While it’s not easy to address a well-entrenched negative employee, it can be done. Employers need to articulate a positive standard of behavior; intervene when employees clearly violate this standard; and support the employees around the offender and help them set better boundaries. Finally, intervene swiftly and decisively when a bully retaliates against someone they think has spoken up against them. It will be difficult for you but it will clearly pay off in the end.

(c) Copyright BCSPublishing 2013 all rights reserved. 

6 Difficult Employee Types: Which are most toxic?

Posted on by
1

For HR professionals, understanding the source of difficult employee behavior is key to finding the most effective intervention. This article describes tactics and relative toxicity of six difficult employee types:

  • Gossiper
  • Clearinghouse
  • Emotional Victim
  • Emotional Venter
  • Negative
  • Strategic/Toxic

Gossiper

Gossipers are highly social and are often friendly and well-meaning, but they become difficult by either ignoring work duties or distracting coworkers from theirs. Gossipers are likely to be highly connected to others through social media. They are verbally adept and seem to have a need to control social information in the workplace; if smart, they will outmatch their fellow employees. They can be immature relative to professional sense but skilled at social information management. Workplace social information may include

  • who is dating whom,
  • coworkers’ financial situations,
  • where people live,
  • coworkers’ clothes/appearance, and
  • who is aligned with whom power-wise in the department.

A Gossiper’s positive skills may include party planning or developing employee events since he/she probably knows who will like which kind of activities.

Tactics: The Gossiper collects (banks) social information and uses (lends) it to his/her advantage by spreading gossip or repeating rumors. These employees are likely to align with those who have power because they may be less politically savvy in today’s workplace. Gossipers use a variety of tactics against others. One of the clever but evil manipulation tactics invented by seventh graders is used in the workplace. It is called negative contracting and involves secret agreements to favor this person and marginalize that person. A similar juvenile tactic is what I call the third-party ambush. This is when employee 1 and 2 are aligned. Employee 2 goes to employee 3 (the target) and sets up a negative discussion about employee 1. Employee 2 then runs back to employee 1 and recounts all the unpleasant things employee 3 said. Employee 3 is victimized— caught by naively accepting the discussion with employee 2 at face value. I have seen this strategy both employed against my daughter when she was 12 and against adults in a professional setting. Being the target of this tactic is an event the most secure individual will remember and work to avoid in the future.

Toxic? The Gossiper can create power through social manipulation. When aligned with a truly Toxic employee, this can greatly enhance the power of the Toxic one, lending strategies of marginalization and so forth (see below).

 Clearinghouse

The Clearinghouse employee is primarily concerned with predictability and control. This employee is most comfortable when he/she has an information control system followed consistently by coworkers. The need to control information may come from perfectionism or may be masking fears about their worth to the company. If the former, the key factor is how far he/she will go to control the flow of technical or business information. Positions that might be a positive fit for a Clearinghouse – forms technician or some type of assignment tracker.

Tactics: The Clearinghouse employee uses essential business information to demonstrate his/her power over others. They may withhold information or criticize those who complain or try to change the information flow.

Toxic? This employee can be toxic if he/she acts up and retaliates against coworkers who grumble or seek to change the system. Another way the Clearinghouse employee can be toxic is when the information he/she controls is essential for other departments or colleagues to perform well. If financial success or quality customer relations is dependent upon timely information exchange, the employee who controls information can wreak havoc. Toxic strategies can include marginalizing unpopular coworkers and facilitating information flow to “allies of the moment.”

Emotional Victim

Emotional Victims are insecure individuals who are afraid their work isn’t up to par, have low self-esteem, or are fearful people don’t like them. I find that this kind of difficult employee is not emotionally equipped for the normal give and take of today’s workplace. They can become overly wounded by legitimate, mundane feedback or normal supervisory boundary setting.

Tactics: Some of the problematic behaviors Emotional Victims use in the workplace are crying, hysterics and promoting a view of those who critique their work as bullies. Because they don’t tolerate negative feedback well, they will use diversionary tactics to neutralize “critical” supervisors. They may leave out certain story details to support a narrative of themselves as “victim” and the supervisor as unfair.

Toxic? Whether or not Emotional Victims are toxic depends on how far they are willing to go to make themselves seem like victims. Depending on the level of fear or insecurity, these employees ally with more powerful Toxic employees to inoculate themselves from critical feedback. Initially, coworkers may rush to their defense but over time their peers may grow tired of the drama. At the extreme, their crying and hysterics over time can compel supervisors to avoid holding them accountable. Supervisors may contemplate serious intervention such as performance counseling or termination but often fail to follow through for fear of provoking an episode.

 Emotional Venter

Emotional Venters are emotionally unsophisticated— indiscriminately venting their feelings. This is a blunt instrument that does not necessarily include devious or negative intent. These employees can be insecure, fretful, and even panicky. The problem is that they don’t seem to be able to control the outward expression of these feelings in the work setting. I find that these folks are not self-aware and may not realize how extreme they get in the heat of the moment. Perhaps an Emotional Venter might be a good fit for an army sergeant, though even there one needs to have a good command of the effect of emotional venting on others!

Tactics: The Venter often yells, criticizes, blames and shames others when he/she is anxious. These situations can develop if the Emotional Venter gets caught making a mistake or if something goes wrong with workflow. He/she typically vents emotions and then gets over the issue and moves on.

Toxic? Whether or not the Emotional Venter is toxic or how toxic he/she might become depends on the degree of offense and trauma to others. The louder and more aggressive their language, the more toxic they become. The nature of their toxicity manifests in coworker fears that evolve into attempts to avoid becoming targets. Sensitive employees are more harmed by these outbursts and can become traumatized. Venters discharge their emotions and move on; meanwhile the roadside is littered with victims. Finally, this type of behavior expressed toward important clients may have a direct and negative effect on company financial success and/or customer service goals.

Negative  

The Negative employee has a pessimistic view of the world, the company and his/her prospect within the company. They tend to have a less trusting view of the company (and institutions in general) than the average person and therefore can be somewhat fretful. Because of their glass-half-empty take on life, Negative employees diminish the positive attitudes of others.

Tactics: Negative employees are naturally suspicious and have a knack for reframing positive company results or initiatives into a complaint with examples and cleverly crafted evidence. Coworkers often walk away confused about how a positive event can be twisted into a threat or disgruntlement. Negative employees are unhappy with the company and tend to work against its attempt to build morale and a positive culture.

Toxic? Negativism isn’t by itself toxic. However, when a Negative employee possesses strong verbal skills and high intelligence, his/her arguments for a pessimistic sense of the world can make it exhausting for others to support positivism. The negative talk, unhappiness with the company and general pessimism makes the Negative employee very difficult to motivate or shift. Fortunately, however, the Negative employee is sometimes eventually neutralized when coworkers grow weary of their complaining, unite and write them off as having little objective credibility.

Strategic/Toxic

Strategic/Toxic employees are smooth, smart and strategically controlling. They are often a ringleader for coworkers. The Strategic/Toxic employee is always several steps ahead of others. They are most comfortable when they are seen as favored and special in that the rules don’t apply to them. These folks may experience a high degree of performance success in technical areas. They may even be seen as having good people skills if others are too afraid to confront them. This is more likely to be the case if the company’s performance evaluation system focuses on technical results rather than collaboration and respectful treatment of others. Strategic/Toxic employee power depends upon the manipulation of others and on coworker silence about the techniques to which they are routinely subject.

Tactics: Strategic/Toxic employees are highly skilled manipulators. They use emotional manipulation (creatively making others feel responsible for their missteps), which generally has increasing success over time. Negative contracting, rumors, threats to ruin reputations and subtle intimidation serve to keep coworkers and even supervisors in line. These employees are motivated by personal gain and not company success or a positive work culture. Maintaining the status quo is very important to protect their power base. Another tactic is neutralizing those perceived as threats to retaining power. These “threatening” employees can be stopped by tactics of exploiting their mistakes or making provocative accusations against them to bring positive change to a halt.

Toxic? This group is by definition the most toxic of all the difficult types. The Strategic/Toxic employee has the capacity to create the greatest harm to the company and the most trauma to coworkers and supervisors; they control the company by creating fear. They can hijack the workplace keeping employees busy trying to stay out of the line of fire. Workplace productivity declines rapidly as staff members either choose sides with the Toxic person or lick their wounds with fellow victims. At first it requires a public thrashing for employees to see who has the power. Later, the mere threat of retaliation is sufficient to get coworkers to back off a confrontation and supervisors to refrain from holding them accountable. When the Strategic/Toxic employee is highly technically skilled or of long service, he/she is very difficult to dislodge. Their strategic mindset often leads to alliance with a powerful company leader or a key client. This, in turn results in their freedom to accost coworkers and prevent scrutiny. As a consultant, I am often retained to solve company problems with Strategic/Toxic employees. Successful intervention requires strong-willed leadership and a constituency of positive employees who can unite to shift the culture – definitely not for the faint of heart or inexperienced! Any attempts to diminish their power will be met with resistance and preemptive strikes to neutralize change.

For more information on Toxic employees see collective articles on this topic at: Benoit Blogs on Toxic Employees.

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

All About Toxic Employees in the Workplace

Posted on by
1

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

Don’t Let Employees Manipulate You – strategies for supervisors

Posted on by
Reply

Who suffers when employees manipulate supervisors?

When I speak to supervisors about how to respond to toxic employee behavior I am often struck by the pain they feel when employees mount these manipulation attacks. There is usually a point where someone cries.  It’s actually not because they’re sad, but it is relief that someone finally understands and validates what they’ve been through. They feel tremendous comfort from sitting among others who have had similar experiences. It’s the power of the group. Of course the company also suffers as employees are distracted from job duties by social turmoil.

Vulnerable Supervisors

Manipulative employees are among the most challenging for any supervisor. However, inexperienced managers are especially vulnerable when supervising crafty long-service staff.  These super manipulators have antennae for finding your weak spots.  Maybe you care what others think of you.  Maybe you can’t stand to get the silent treatment from coworkers. Whatever it is, they’ll find it.  Building on what pushes your buttons, manipulators will create fear and through that fear, control you and the actions of those around you. These strategies are all meant to prevent you from holding them accountable and they typically work very well. Supervisors need the knowledge and strategies to see the manipulation in order to neutralize it.

Emotional manipulation in the workplace can involve:

1. Power – Arguments over who has authority and how policies are enforced;

2. Personal attacks – meanness directed at the supervisor; and

3. Emotional blackmail – threat to become overly/highly emotional.

_ _ _ _ _ _

1.  Power

Here are some of what I like to call “conversation stoppers” manipulative employees use to get their supervisor to stop the offense and get on the defensive:

“You didn’t tell me I couldn’t leave early”

It works: supervisors will second guess themselves that they haven’t been clear, try to clarify their instructions and then feel guilty about enforcing consequences.

Try this instead: “I hear you but no supervisor is expected to make an exhaustive list of everything an employee can or can’t do.  What we are looking for is good judgment from all our employees. People who think about the company’s needs. We have two choices.  We can remove all your decision-making authority or I can provide coaching to you about all the negative effects your leaving early has on coworkers and customers.”

“You didn’t warn me about this change”

It works: The supervisor feels badly that employees might have been caught off-guard. He/she will hesitate and again, may not feel comfortable holding the employee accountable.

Try this instead: “Yes. You’ve mentioned that before. I guess what we are looking for is for people who are flexible.  We also like it when employees think ahead and anticipate changes.  For the company to be successful in today’s business climate, we have to be prepared to change rapidly.  We have to move with the markets. Maybe this just isn’t a strength for you. Maybe you might feel comfortable in a different assignment.”

Here are some other “power and authority” proclamations you might encounter:

  • I was promised this schedule when I started
  • You told me I could use my discretion
  • You never told me my performance was a problem
  • My performance has always been evaluated as above average
  • My old supervisor was okay with it
  • You come in late, you leave early
  • Jane comes in late, she leaves early
  • We all discussed it and we changed the decision

2. Personal attacks

These can be especially painful for supervisors who want to be well-liked.  Here are some examples:

“We talked about it and we all feel that you are the worst/meanest supervisor.”

It works: No supervisor wants to hear this.  The trouble is that it probably isn’t true.  When a manipulator wants others to hate you they tell people only the parts of the story that make you look bad.  And if people do hate you as you are the only supervisor actually making employees accountable it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Try this instead: “It seems like you’ve been busy talking negatively about me and the company . You don’t seem to understand what supervisors are asked to do here by our bosses. I get paid to make sure employees all contribute to company sustainability.  I guess if making sure employees get their work done makes me the worst supervisor, then oh well.  I need to correct you on the “mean” comment, though. If you experience a supervisors questions or evaluations of your work as “mean” you might want to rethink working here because that “mean” thing is going to happen every day.  We’ve established that you think I’m mean. What’s next?”  Move on to the next topic.

Other person attacks meant to control you or distract you from holding employees accountable include:

  • No one likes you
  • No one wants to sit with you at lunch
  • I don’t think the boss respects your work
  • We don’t think this is the right job for you

3.  Emotional blackmail

The use or threat of use of strong emotions to control others is less common that the other two techniques but can be very effective. Using this strategy, supervisees become overly emotional (tears, upset, victim) at the slightest hint of negative feedback from their supervisor.

“I don’t feel safe here, why does my supervisor keep doing these things to me?”

It works: Everyone is on egg shells to keep the person from expressing their strong emotions all over the office. In the long term, this gives the individual tremendous power.  First it is emotional breakdowns. Then it’s just the threat or idea that it could happen.  Before you know it, decisions that could result in their upset are re-thought. This dynamic has a chilling effect on creativity and innovation as these emotional employees are generally averse to any change.

Try this instead: “I understand that you were upset when we turned down your request to leave early today.  There are coverage issues this afternoon. The problem is that the things that cause you to be emotionally overwhelmed are things that most people in the office take in stride. In addition, these are things that will continue to go on in the office. The way you handle this . . going around to everyone’s office and talking trash about me and the company are enormously disruptive to everyone’s work. I would like to work with you to come up with some strategies that will reduce the amount of emotional outbursts in the office.”

General strategies for supervisors

If you stay grounded and understand these remarks as manipulation attempts instead of true or possibly true statements, you can stay detached and keep your cool.  Another strategy is to bond together with other supervisors and help them to see how these tactics distract supervisors and wear them down.  Staying united and supporting one another can be a powerful way to respond to manipulative techniques.  Finally, find ways to de-stress and associate with supportive healthy friends outside of work. If needed, see a coach or therapist to maintain healthy self worth and prevent yourself from victimization by this kind of behavior.

(c) BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

Who Needs Help with Bullies at Work?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Quick Tips For Surviving Toxic Worker Run-ins

Posted on by
Reply

Toxic employees understand how to take advantage of others.  They can verbally escalate any discussion to that point which will make you walk away mad.  You know it’s coming but for some reason you fall for it every time.

Common mistakes

  • Thinking you can out-toxic them.  Forget it
  • Thinking it’s about you.  This is what they do to people around them. You happen to be the victim of the moment
  • Thinking because it’s unfair it needs to stop.  No question that it is unfair.  No one thinks abuse and intimidation is fair.  But they’re not driven by a code of fairness.  It’s more like a code of it’s-all-about-me. The problem is they are good at staying below the radar.  It’s complicated to terminate them.

Mental re-frame

Unless you’re the supervisor, you don’t have the power to stop it all together. You can, however, control your behavior and how you see it. Here is a mental reframe to help you stay grounded, healthy and productive at work.

 Five quick tips – think of it this way

  1. It’s not me – you know they do this to others.  If you’re insecure get some help to feel better about yourself but don’t let this toxic person make you feel like any of this is your fault.
  2. It’s not everything – the more your job is everything in your life, the more this person will get under your skin.  Develop a full and rewarding life where work is only a part – hobbies, activities, interests will make this seem less important.
  3. Don’t power struggle – there’s an Al-anon expression that you “don’t go to every fight you’re invited to!” Resist the temptation to set yourself up to lose a power struggle.  Don’t start.
  4. Use a friendly voice – tone of voice is something toxic people read immediately.  If you start there, you’re done.  Start and end with a friendly voice. It costs you nothing.
  5. Talk about what is happening – “So, I came and asked you for a training file and though I’m the trainer you’re saying I can’t have it because it’s Tuesday.  Hmmm, okay.  I’ll let the VP know your reasoning.  Have a nice day (friendly voice).”  Walk away while they try to have the last word.
In the end, be glad you’re you and not them. 
(c) Copyright BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

Four Potential Causes of Employee Poor Performance

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

There are many reasons why employees can’t or won’t perform up to supervisory expectations or even up to their own potential. Often there are clues that suggest the ultimate source of poor performance but anecdotal evidence of today’s performance shortfall not sufficient to diagnose the underlying issue. A comprehensive look at the environment in which the employee works is in order.

Because the objective of initial performance counselings must be improvement, it’s important to assess the person, the supervisor and context in which the work takes place. If it is determined that real improvements are possible, this will help in crafting the performance improvement plan.

In those cases when termination is the end result of attempted performance improvement, knowing the causes can help you can tailor the discussions to create the smoothest, most professional and compassionate separation process. It will also support an affirmative defense if needed.

If the person is in the wrong position, demanding higher performance can unnecessarily frustrate and stress the employee. It would also be useless if there is something amiss with the supervisor or work atmosphere. It is best to conduct a comprehensive look at the overall picture. This article explores the four different dimensions that might combine to cause an employee’s poor performance.

FOUR DIMENSIONS OF EMPLOYEE POOR PERFORMANCE

1. It’s the employee
2. It’s the supervisor/poor employee preparation
3. It’s the job
4. It’s the workplace atmosphere
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. It’s the employee

There are several potential issues with an origin in the person themselves. Some may be technical and some may be relational (can’t get along with others). Of course if the person lacks technical skills there could also be issues with recruitment. In this case attention can turn to whether there is time and capacity for the person to learn the required skills. Depending upon the company investment to this point and the employee’s capacity to learn the new skills, additional training may work. Below is a listing of potential internal issues which would contribute to poor performance. The employee may:

  • Lack requisite technical skills (recruitment process?)
  • Lack requisite people relations skills (recruitment process?)
  • Lack work ethic (references checked?)
  • May be an acceptable performer but is unhappy and wants a different position (self-sabotage)
  • Have an undisclosed learning disability or medical condition affecting performance
  • Have problems with authority: rejects idea that someone will judge their work
  • Have mental health challenges: depression, personality disorder, PTSD, etc.

2. It’s the supervisor or poor employee preparation

Sometimes the person has the capacity to perform at a higher level but has not been given the initial tools and direction to create an opportunity for success. The result can be unspoken or disparate assumptions about what is considered good performance by the supervisor. Perhaps the supervisor has failed to meet regularly with the employee. Employees need the opportunity to ask questions privately and to admit they might need more information. Perhaps the supervisor is a poor communicator. Below is a listing of potential issues which may originate with how the employee is readied for the position or managed once in the job:

  • Employee does not understand the relative priorities of various tasks
  • Employee does not know company policies or procedures
  • Employee does not understand what supervisor likes, wants or dislikes

3. It’s the job

Sometimes the person is capable and knows what to do but the volume is just too high for one person to handle. Another issue is whether the employee has the information and tools to complete their work in an optimum fashion. Sometimes poor job design can be the culprit. There are natural groupings of tasks or assignments that allow a person with certain strengths to be successful. When unrelated or markedly different tasks are thrown together, it may be difficult to find the unique individual who is good at all of them. An example would be a position that requires high-level people relational skills AND high-level scientific skills. You can see the point. Below is a listing of potential job design issues that might contribute to poor performance.

  • Job volume is based on extremely high performer and person is new
  • Job contains too many unrelated accountabilities
  • Quality standards are impossible to meet
  • Long vacancies mean heavy workloads for those filling in (recruitment and job design)
  • The job qualifications used in recruitment don’t actually match what is required for the position

4. It’s the workplace atmosphere

Most of us have experienced a toxic workplace environment in which good employees are so distracted by stress and drama that they cannot properly attend to job performance. Studies show that toxic coworkers, bosses and an otherwise negative work culture are associated with productivity decreases. It’s not enough to have the right people and the right goals; someone has to ensure that the workplace is conducive to employees reaching their potential. Here are potential environmental issues that might be a source of sub-par performance.

  • The workplace atmosphere is overly negative: toxic employees and power struggles
  • A powerful informal leader calling the shots
  • Good people aren’t consistently praised/rewarded and so become disinterested
  • Negative conduct is not redirected so that coworkers are stressed by coworker abusive behavior

Summary

Performance issues can be a result of one of the four dimensions noted here but it can also be a result of a complex combination of more than one dimension. When there are several poor performers or a trusted and valued performer’s success begins to slide, it may be helpful to look at the supervisory team or the department as a whole. Often, companies are well-served to bring in an external consultant to bring an objective, seasoned diagnosis of all the barriers to departmental success. In any event, if you pay attention to potential causes the chance of a successful performance intervention is greatly increased.

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

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.

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.

Why Public and Private Nonprofits Tolerate Toxic Behavior

Posted on by
Reply

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!