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

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Suzi

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.

All About Toxic Employees in the Workplace

Posted on January 24, 2013 by Suzi

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

Introduction

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

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

Who are toxic employees?

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

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

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

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

The problem

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

How this dynamic harms employees

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

How this dynamic harms your business

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

Informal power structures and dynamics

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

Ringleader motives

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

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

Control techniques

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

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

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

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

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

Negative dynamics thrive when . . .

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

Ringleaders are often technically strong . . .

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

Negative dynamics are more difficult to maintain when . . .

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

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

Strategic plan to shift negative workplace dynamics

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

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

Who Needs Help with Bullies at Work?

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Suzi

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.

Employee Resistance to Change

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Suzi

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:

People pay more attention to the things-they-need when things are new
People exert effort toward having the things-they-need
People realize that having the things-they-need makes them happy – nice!
As time goes on, things-they-need and already have, are less on their minds
People put less effort into doing what they have to do to keep getting the things-they-need
People assume that the things-they-need will always be there
People stop paying attention to what is going on around the things-they-need
Some smart people (thinkers and planners) understand the dynamics of change and that things-they-need might be difficult to get in the future
Some smart people talk about planning and building contingencies but others don’t listen
Things begin to shift gradually–there are signs of impending change but most people don’t notice
Some smart people notice the subtle shifts, they talk but most people don’t listen
People work harder in the old way to get the things-they-need but it doesn’t work
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
People go into denial — pretending things haven’t changed
People work harder to hold fast to the old ways of the world
Business starts to decline
It becomes clear that the things-they-need are no longer available
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
People begin blame others for the change
People verbally attack and make complaints about those they see as responsible
People get stuck in the I-want-things-to-go-back-to-the-way-they-were camp
Some smart people have been thinking and planning, they see themselves as responsible for solving the problem
These smart people talk about what needs to be done and try to convince people to change and move
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!)
Some smart people get discouraged and leave (bad turnover — Oh no!)
Some smart people begin to find new ways and locations to get the things-they-need
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?)
Finally all the people agree to the new way
People get used to the new way and the process starts over again
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 Cheese? New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons

2012 Human Trends That Threaten Positive Workplace Culture

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Suzi

Companies and nonprofits are attending to their culture in greater numbers than ever. Inspiring stories from companies like Zappos are making their way around social media circles. Further, unless you’ve been living under a rock you know that younger workers have less tolerance for the workplace shenanigans of bullies and disagreeable coworkers that others have just put up with for years. If we could all start from the same point, employees would have a wonderful choice of working in companies where respect and quality are governing values. Unfortunately, the business climate is bobbing and weaving and a number of trends will make things worse for you if you do nothing. If you’re an HR Professional and having a hard time convincing senior management to pay attention, here are some thoughts about positive culture-busting trends.

2012 Human trends

Continued, rapid business change – if you keep doing the same thing you’re losing ground.
Business mistakes are publicized instantly – think Netflix, News of the World. Social media can be brutal.
Increasing worker stress – financial uncertainty, care-giving, lean staff and tougher goals are weighing on employee minds.
Emphasis on efficiency and productivity – employee absenteeism and presenteeism (physically here but mentally elsewhere) are working against your efforts to keep costs down.
Business regulation – there is some recognition that over-regulation can be anti-business but the Healthy Workplace Bill is coming. It’s new legislation which some conservatives will fight but it started because companies ignored brutal, ongoing employee targeting that had a direct relationship to their mental health.
Workplace bullying websites abound – your employees have options for free advice of how to react to workplace bullying in your company and how to seek legal advice.
Increased employee litigation – this is just a fact of doing business, if you lose touch with disgruntled employees or you aren’t listening trouble will find you.
A third of employees are ready to move when economy improves – because your employees are afraid to move now doesn’t mean they are thinking about it.
Increasing cultural diversity – inclusion requires preparing the ground. Employees unencumbered by things like respect and company no-tolerance stance on slurs, etc., can be brutal. Sexual orientation discrimination claims are on the rise.
Employees no longer work in the same office – homes, virtual space, remote locations create challenges for creating a united workplace culture.
Multiple generations working together – you’re adding generations X, Y, and Z to established workers. Do you pay attention to culture clash?
Increasing disparity between high and low employees’ disposable income – your lower-income employees are borrowing, taking money from 401(k)s, and even if they’ve had raises, medical costs and other prices have eroded disposable income.
Decline in civility, everywhere – Sorry to say this but arguing, short tempers and narcissism are on the rise. Positive culture articulation is an important counter-point.

Good Luck!!

Four Potential Causes of Employee Poor Performance

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Suzi

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.

How Workplace Culture Effects Business Success

Posted on November 4, 2011 by Suzi

How workplace culture affects business success

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

Best workplace culture example

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

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

It’s in the literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unrealized, disorganized or person-centered culture

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

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

Honesty, Ethics and Integrity

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

Next steps

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

Summary of DADT, Workplace Culture and the Impact of Repeal

Posted on September 18, 2011 by Suzi

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

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

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

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

Here is one of the stories I found optimistic:

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

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

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

Resources from a variety of angles, appear below:

Historical summary

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

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

The legislative process

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

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

Military communicating its position on the repeal

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

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

More specific legal matters affecting service members

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

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

Transgendered service members

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

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

List of equality issues remaining after repeal of DADT

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

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

I hope you find this material informative.

Why Public and Private Nonprofits Tolerate Toxic Behavior

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Suzi

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!

What is 360 Degree Workplace Culture?

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Suzi

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

360⁰Workplace culture excellence

A 360⁰Workplace Culture is when:

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

Example of unrealized workplace culture opportunity

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

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

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

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

The ideal cultural quality and excellence

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

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

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

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

Benoit Consulting

Strategies to promote a positive workplace culture

Tag Archives: Workplace culture