|
Softpanorama
(slightly skeptical)
Open Source Software Educational Society |
May the
source be with you,
but remember the KISS principle ;-)
|
Bully Managers in IT Workplace: Type 1 of Corporate Psychopaths
Aggression in inherent in psychopath and to tell that a psychopath is a
bully is just to tell that the water is wet. But for some of them this pattern of
behavior serves as the most favorite tactics and they tend to use it more often
and more systematically. Those psychopaths have a distinct a tendency toward sadism
and derive perverse gratification from humiliating and/or psychologically and
sometimes physically harming others. They like to hurt, frighten,
tyrannize. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only
drop subtle hints about what they are up to.
At the same time they polish
their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation
as legitimate corporate behavior. Such pathological personalities
always seek out positions of power, such as teacher, bureaucrat, manager,
or police officer. You can also distinguish several subtypes. One not very
convincing subtyping was developed by the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute.
It includes for subtypes:
- The constant critic who uses put downs, insults, name-calling, and
makes aggressive eye contact.
- The two-headed snake who pretends to be nice while sabotaging you.
- The gatekeeper is also known as the micromanager and control freak
- Screaming Mimi is emotionally out of control and explosive.
Ms Horm (cited in MacDonald,
2004) state, “Studies indicate that bullies are actually
inept people who are not talented, maybe have a rage against themselves that they
express outward toward people they see as being better than they are.
It’s from a point of weakness that they express their violence toward others” (p.2).
Thus, without the green flag there is little room for the bully boss and it is she
or him that must prepare to leave the organization as opposed to the victim of the
bullying.
Often bulling behavior is combined with paranoia tendencies (paranoiac self-defense).
Again this category is fuzzy.
- Many if not all corporate bullies can simultaneously be classified as paranoid
managers.
- Many of them are also belong to the category of micromanagers.
- Dominant part also falls into the category of narcissists.
I would like to stress it again that aggression in inherent in psychopath
and to tell that a psychopath is a bully is just to tell that the water is wet.
US National Center for Education Statistics suggests that bullying can be broken
into two categories:
- Direct bullying,
- and indirect bullying which is also known as social aggression or indirect
bullying.
The latter is characterized by forcing the victim into
social isolation. This
isolation
is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including refusing to socialize
with the victim and criticizing the victim's communication manner or other socially-significant
markers. Indirect bullying is more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such
as the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation,
gossip, staring,
and mocking. While women can be as aggressive or even more aggressive then men (gender
differences in aggression are subject to review; human society is too complex and
direct project form animal world for example from great apes is of limited value)
they usually are more indirect.
Here is one type from popular literature that fits the pattern:
The Fearmonger Boss. People do what a “fearsome” boss says
because they’re afraid of him, which actually encourages further intimidation.
He always has a threat, and he constantly follows through with that threat in
order to keep his employees acquiescent.
Simplifying you can assume that most "classic types" of corporate psychopaths
are simultaneously bullies. For example micromanagers (especially paranoid incompetent
micromanagers -- PIMM) often are one trick ponies
and just try to hammer suckers who are unfortunate enough to be their subordinates
into complete submission. Like a cancer, most organizations are infested with bullying
in one form or another. Side effects of bullying may include low efficiency,
bureaucratic muddle, lack of accountability, incompetence, greed, dishonesty
and corruption. Bullying at is rife is large corporation. For example
BBC managers have been described as "managers and damagers" ! Companies
can develop corporate psychosis,
corporate narcissism (ref, for example, Enron or Worldcom)
or their own brand of Lysenkoism.
As being a bully is typical for all types of corporate psychopath this category,
in general, does not bring you to any deeper understanding of the problem
you face. Bullying is just one of the intimidation tactics used by all corporate
psychopath, especially narcissists (extremely easy
to mix with bullies), micromanagers (more subtle strangulation type of bulling is
used in additional to traditional methods of bullying) as well as paranoid bosses
( hypersensitive to critique and often taking offense where none is intended).
Like with any type of corporate psychopaths only extremely naive people can expect
to reform bullies. Actually the best insight into bulling can be obtained
not from reading "bulling self-help" literature, but from literature devoted to
the
analysis of the behavior of the leaders of high demand cults. The
same is actually true for narcissists. Neither bullies nor narcissists usually act
alone: they try to create their power base of patsies. And you should not
underestimate the role of patsies in bulling. "Mobbing" -- a
group activity at work in which one person is singled out to be eliminated is often
the way bullies deal with their targets. Study after study in psychology proves
that people draw a perverse strength from the group and will do in a group
what they would never do alone. As Susan Dunn noted in her paper
Mobbing in the Workplace
Has This Happened to You,
Normal moral behavior, common decency, if you will, is discarded by the same
sort of mentality that produces a gang rape. Done by peers, subordinates and/or
superiors, the goal is to force someone out using gossip, ostracism, intimidation,
discrimination, humiliation, and just plain meanness.
As any psychopath use violence to achieve their goals, those who are classified
as bullies just use it more frequently and are more sophisticated in this type of
sadism. Again it is very naive to think that they can stop that practice by appealing
to their senses. As psychopaths they have none.
Female bosses are usually more cunning and inclined towards more sophisticated
bulling:
- The cold shoulder
- Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
- Sulking
- Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator nor
the recipient.
They also tend to more often combine direct and indirect intimidation (like ignoring
you). Again this is a kind of low-grade sadism, and most bullies both
male and female are undeniably sadistic and just enjoy to inflict pain. Female just
tend to be more malevolent, mean-spirited, and nasty. I think females constitute
larger percentage of micromanagers, especially a special type call paranoid incompetent
micromanager. Like one correspondent aptly formulate it: "I hate to say it but female
bosses are worse than male bosses when it comes to attitude and bullying." They
usually are more malevolent too. When organizational psychologist Mary Sherry
wrote in a national newspaper that female managers were far more likely to bully
staff than male ones it triggered a large reader response - almost all backing her
view.
|
Tim Field believes the
stereotypical view of men as aggressive and women as nurturing often
prevents the female serial bully from being seen for what she is:
"A sociopath in a skirt."
|
It is important to understand that bully just want to "get" the target.
The bully's criticisms and allegations, are usually based on distortion,
blame and fabrication. They are fabrications for the purpose of control.
Their typical tactics include:
- Blaming their targets for errors,
- Making unreasonable demands,
- Applying made-up rules inconsistently,
- Threatening workers with job loss,
- Regularly using insults and put-downs,
- Discounting accomplishments and stealing credit for employees' work.
| Number One mistake people make is to not recognise the serial
bully as a
sociopath or disordered personality Naivety is the greatest enemy - most people
can't or won't believe that the person they're tackling is a serial
bully, and consequently expect the bully to recognise their wrongdoing
and make amends. Serial bullies cannot and will not - but they will
ruthlessly exploit other people's naivety to ensure their own survival.
Never underestimate the serial bully's deviousness, ruthlessness,
cunning, and ability to deceive - and their vindictiveness. The serial
bully is easy to spot once you know what you are looking at: Jekyll
and Hyde nature, compulsive lying, manipulation (or emotions, perceptions,
beliefs, etc), unpredictability, deception, denial, arrogance, narcissism,
attention-seeking, etc - whilst always charming and plausible, especially
when impressionable witnesses are present.
In memory of
Tim Field
The Gentle
Man Who Battled The Bullies
24.4.1952 –
15.1.2006
|
The British Chartered Management Institute
distinguishes between 11 types of bullying behavior. According to the
study,
Bullying in the workplace - the experience of managers , the most common types
were:
- misuse of power,
- followed by verbal insults
- undermining by overloading or criticism.
Other forms of bullying, in descending order:
- unfair treatment,
- overbearing supervision aka micromanagement (see also a page about
micromanagers, who perfected this form of
intimidation into an art))
- exclusion,
- spreading malicious rumors,
- blocking promotion or training opportunities,
- making threats about job security,
- sexual harassment,
- physical intimidation and violence.
According to available data women constitute the majority of targets, making
up 75% of all victims of bullying. Tanenbaum also found that professional women
were often hardest on their own sex [My
boss, the bitch]
"Many professional women confess they prefer male rather than female supervisors.
They complain that women at work refuse to share power, or withhold information,
or are too concerned about receiving credit for every little thing they accomplish,
or are cold toward underlings (male and female alike). In such
complaints they use the word 'bitch' a lot," she says.
Tim Field believes the stereotypical
view of men as aggressive and women as nurturing often prevents the female serial
bully from being seen for what she is: "A sociopath in a skirt."
... ... ...
Evelyn Field said female bullies were often more subtle in their behavior
than their male counterparts. "Women are usually less physical, they would use
techniques such as excluding others, over-supervising and controlling and verbal
abuse."
Ricky Nowak, a workplace communications training specialist and head of the
company, Confident Communications, says women's bullying is "often quieter,
behind closed doors, over the phone, via curt emails, or through giving their
staff a sense of . . . (being overwhelmed), for example: asking women with families
to stay behind when they don't really have to do so."
Nowak runs leadership groups for professional women and says she has had
many disclosures from women admitting they had bullied their colleagues.
"It was behavior such as intimidating others, standing over them, giving
colleagues the silent treatment and so on."
Evelyn Field describes bullying as a problem for everyone. "The micro level
is the individual target who can be affected emotionally, physically, socially,
career-wise, financially, family-wise over a long-term basis and many of them
have severe health problems," she says.
"The onlookers also get affected — 20 per cent of onlookers will leave the
job, others will have sick days and suffer poor morale. And the cost to industry
is enormous — bullying is everyone's problem."
In the article by
Roger
Dobson published by Independent (Beware
the bullying female boss) the author stated:
"Workplace bullying among women is increasing, partly because they are occupying
more senior positions," said Tim Field, an Oxford counsellor who runs anti-bullying
workshops. "Women when they are bullies tend to be more manipulative and divisive,
whereas men in the same situation are more overtly hostile.
Women also tend to leave less evidence about their bullying activities. "In
around 10 per cent of the cases dealt with by the advice line, suicide had been
contemplated. Eight cases involved actual suicide." Elaine Bennett, a director
of the Andrea Adams charity which was set up to tackle bullying, believes that
the increase is probably in areas where women have not been in positions of
power before. "Where women have been at the top for a long time, as in health
and education, you do get the tyrant matrons and headmistresses."
She says that in some cases women moving into management jobs are copying
the male managers who held the job before them. "Women who are finding themselves
in roles which hitherto have not been held by a woman - maybe they are the first
one on to the board or to be a senior manager - may well take on some of the
traits of male managers with much more of a macho aggressive culture," she said.
National Workplace Bullying Advice Line: 01235-834548.
Bullies don't usually torment everyone. Like any corporate psychopath bully at
times can threaten and manipulate any of his/her subordinates, but usually they
are very selective and carefully chose the victim. They like to intimidate people
who are somehow bound to the particular place stronger then other or have nowhere
to go. The factors that affect target selection include: the depth of the bully
complex of inferiority, ability to bully without being punished or confronted, the
level of target resistance and skills in countering bulling, etc. In many
cases, the serial bully appears to select targets in the order of his/her perception
of danger of exposure of inadequacy.
Often bullies use deception combined with amoral behavior and blatant abuse of
power that reminds the behavior of high demand cult leaders. And this analogy is
actually far from being superficial. That's why it is extremely important to see
bigger picture and along with bulling see all set of tricks used by a
corporate psychopath.
You need to study the topic and probably get some external help.
If you are dealing with a psychopath remember that naivety
is your greatest enemy. Attempts to "change" a psychopath are doomed
and counterproductive.
One often neglected type of bulling is strangulating over controlling (aka micromanagement).
Few publications consider it a typical "corporate style" bulling. Among few exceptions
is a book "The Bully at Work" by Gary and Ruth Namie They defined controller
in the following way (p. 70)
The bully lives, eats, and sleeps to control others. She never really
experience life in any other way. Living, for her, is to control other with
power. The power, real or imaged, she is both in title and her ability to generate
fear and chaos in a work group.
Obsessive desire to control other is actually the modus operandi of all
corporate psychopaths. Methods used can be different and have quite wide spectrum
of individual variety but the essence is always the same: to control and enslave
other like members of high demand cult. To protect themselves from rebellion
bullies destroy group solidarity by selecting set of patches and all spend a lot
of time in "kiss-up" activities. They are usually well connected and adept in schmoozing
up. Among typical corporate micromanagers is a stereotyped harsh and petty
female boss (over promoted secretary) or as this type sometimes called "paranoid
incompetent micromanager" (PIMM).
Here are eight typical signs that you are bullied by a corporate psychopath:
- Unrelenting petty control of projects and other activities. Overcontrolling
is type of intimidation preferred by psychopaths with obsessive disorder
(control freaks); please note that over-control
is the type of intimidation that is used in the same way as other intimidation
methods.
- Unfair and/or unexpected critique of your performance. Criticisms
and allegations, which are ostensibly about you or your performance and which
sometimes contain a grain (but only a grain) of truth. But generally they are
targeted at you not your performance.
- Wooden-Stick Behaviors: Behaving in rigid, inflexible, and
controlling ways including severe cases of micromanagement ("my way or highway"
mentality). This is typical for all corporate psychopaths but especially well
noticeable in bullies.
- You have a distinct feeling that workplace became a constant battlefield
- She constantly ignores you: do not answer your phone calls and
emails.
- She rarely inform you in written and explicit form about your assignments.
They prefer using phone instead or pass them via patsies in order to be
able to twist it later; at the same he/she expects you to guest their slightest
whim and run to do whatever humanly possible to meet their expectations.
- You perceive that the reason for being bulled is that fact that you
refuse to be subservient, to not go along with being controlled. Bully
often envy the target skills, knowledge or the ability to work with people.
- Group solidarity is destroyed. Bully instantly and purposely destroys
group solidarity. That was they eliminate group resistance.
See also an excellent article by Joan Lloyd
Management doesn't mean mind control; use power responsibly in St. Paul Business
Journal (November 8, 2002 ). In her WSJ article
Overcontrolling Bosses Aren't Just Annoying; They're Also Inefficient Jared
Sandberg noted :
Deeply untrusting and puffed up with some devil-in-the-details
justification, control freaks wrest tasks from colleagues, along with the colleagues'
sense of self worth. It's as if they were burned by someone or
something long ago, and everyone they come into contact with is a walking evocation
of the past demon. The irony is that in the name
of efficiency and cost savings, these managers are often the most guilty of
operating far below their pay scales.
Really close to bullies is an extreme type of micromanagers --
control freaks who more use strangulating control
then direct attacks although they can use combination of both. Both are typical
and stereotyped corporate psychopath behavior. They are just variations of the same
behavior pattern.
One of the better articles on the subject is the column by Tristan Loo
How To Deal With a Difficult Boss.
The serial bully appears to lack insight into his or her behavior
and seems to be oblivious to the crassness and inappropriateness thereof; however,
it is more likely that the bully knows what they are doing but elects to switch
off the moral and ethical considerations by which normal people are bound.
Notes:
- This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help
You For Free) site written by people for whom English
is not a native language.
Some amount of grammar and spelling errors should be
expected.
- The site contain some broken links
as it develops like a living tree...
Please try to use Google, Open directory,
etc. to find a replacement link (see
HOWTO search the WEB for details). We would appreciate
if you can
mail us a correct link.
|
|
|
|
USATODAY.com, USA TODAYKathy Shedd had red hair. Meg Rafferty was
shy. And Jodee Blanco was just
different. Those were their crimes.
The punishments for
Blanco, Shedd, Rafferty, and others like them?
Being kicked, punched and spit upon. They were
yelled at, taunted and shunned. They spent hard
time in isolation, crying themselves to sleep at
night, sometimes wanting to die.
They weren't in prison.
They were in school. And their tormenters were
not adults, but other children. And yet, now as
adults, the memories of childhood bullying still
haunt their daily lives.
"I was relentlessly
tormented from fifth grade until the end of high
school simply for being different," says Blanco,
a former public relations executive from
Chicago. Blanco wrote about her experiences in
Please Stop Laughing at Us. .. : One
Survivor's Extraordinary Quest to Prevent School
Bullying, which was published in the spring.
"I was ambushed. I would find my belongings
floating in the toilet. I was spat at and kicked
and worst — ignored."
Blanco, a school
consultant who talks to students and teachers
about ways to prevent bullying — often
cyberbullying — still bears the emotional pain
of bullying, including raw flashbacks to
childhood torment. But she's getting help and
now also wants other adults who have been
bullied to seek help as well.
Though cyberbullying has
taken center stage among many in the
psychological community, "adult survivors of
peer abuse," as she calls her demographic, often
suffer in silence, she says.
Rafferty, of Eden
Prairie, Minn., 52, knew she was different and
"that there was something wrong with me," she
says. But like many adult survivors, "I tried to
hide it."
Not everyone who is
bullied has lifelong trauma. But there's no
question that "unrelenting, daily hostilities
that maybe escalate to threats or actual
aggression can be on par with torture and child
abuse," or that "repeated and severe bullying
can cause psychological trauma," says Daniel
Nelson, medical director of the Child Psychiatry
Unit at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital
Medical Center.
"There's no question that
bullying in certain instances can be absolutely
devastating."
The abuse that Kathy
Shedd of Lafayette, Ind., endured more than two
decades ago still affects her, even at age 42.
Shedd's crime? Being born
with red hair — and having a name that
unfortunately made rhyming taunts simple.
"Being bullied set me up
as a mark," she says. "I don't fight back." It's
so bad that she likes to have her husband with
her when she goes out in public — although
lately things have been improving for her, ever
since she began focusing on the issue.
"I've always wanted to
know: Why? Why do they bully?"
That's a simple question
with many answers. Experts have different
theories on why certain children get picked on,
but most agree that being different — in even
the smallest way — can lead to bullying.
As a teenager, Jenny
Morsch, 28, of Hinckley, Ill., became the target
of anonymous letters that called her fat and
threatened her. She has her suspicions about the
teens in town who might have written the
letters. But even police couldn't identify the
perpetrators, leaving Jenny ostracized,
sentenced to sit alone at lunch with kids
staring at her. The letters made her frightened,
depressed and suicidal."
She did get help in
college. But a decade after it happened, it
still affects her.
"I feel like everything
sucks and I can't do anything right. I feel like
I have to be perfect."
Blanco is also still
affected today, even though she spends her life
counseling other victims. Recently she began
therapy to help her put the pain behind her.
And she strongly believes
that others who have survived years of abuse
also need to find ways of healing.
"I want people who are
victims, who are survivors like me, to know that
if you're affected by it, you have to take it
just as seriously as you would if you were
abused in any other way as a child, and you need
to incorporate it into whatever therapy you're
doing," she says. " You have to acknowledge it."
READERS: Have you ever
been bullied? How did you deal with it? Does it
affect you now? Or have you ever been the bully?
Why and is there anything someone could've done
to make you stop? Share your experiences and
opinions below, keeping in mind USA TODAY's
community guidelines against personal attacks
and hate speech:
There was a lot of ignorance for quite some time. But research
over the last decade has now made us all aware of the serious impact
of bullying not only on those who are victimised but also those who
become desensitised to the cruelty involved in bullying. Acceptance
of bullying (even by doing nothing about it) creates a culture in
which those with ‘power ‘ (eg because they have more social power or
they are in a group and the person being victimised is temproarily
without social support or because they have a greater capacity for
cold-blooded mistreatment of others) feel they are entitled and
should be more successful. The National Safe Schools Framework has
started to change things in schools. It has made them more aware of
the issue of bullying and suppoerted them in developing stronger and
more effective policies, procedures and programs to tackle bullying.
... ... ...
Firstly consider the possibility that what is happening to your
son, although unpleasant (eg rejection), may not be bullying. The
defintion of bullying has 5 key characteristics. It is behaviour
that causes distress,is intended to do so, is directed towards the
same person each time, is repeated and is the result of a power
imbalance
If you think this is what is happening ask to speak to the principal
and if you feel that you havent received a reasonable response,
consider contacting the regional educational authority about the
situation.
Workplace bullying, such as belittling
comments, persistent criticism of work
and withholding resources, appears to
inflict more harm on employees than
sexual harassment, say researchers who
presented their findings at a conference
today.
“As sexual
harassment becomes less acceptable in
society, organizations may be more
attuned to helping victims, who may
therefore find it easier to cope,” said
lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of
the University of Manitoba. “In
contrast, non-violent forms of workplace
aggression such as incivility and
bullying are not illegal, leaving
victims to fend for themselves.”
This finding was presented at the
Seventh International Conference on
Work, Stress and
Health, co-sponsored by the American
Psychological Association, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health and the Society for Occupational
Health Psychology.
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling,
PhD, of Queen’s University in Ontario,
Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted
over 21 years that compared the
consequences of employees’ experience of
sexual harassment and workplace
aggression. Specifically, the authors
looked at the effect on job, co-worker
and supervisor satisfaction, workers’
stress, anger and anxiety levels as well
as workers’ mental and physical health.
Job turnover and emotional ties to the
job were also compared.
The authors distinguished among
different forms of workplace aggression.
- Incivility included rudeness and
discourteous verbal and non-verbal
behaviors.
- Bullying included
persistently criticizing employees’
work; yelling; repeatedly reminding
employees of mistakes; spreading gossip
or lies; ignoring or excluding workers;
and insulting employees’ habits,
attitudes or private life.
- Interpersonal
conflict included behaviors that
involved hostility, verbal aggression
and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can
create negative work environments and
unhealthy consequences for employees,
but the researchers found that workplace
aggression has more severe consequences.
Employees who experienced bullying,
incivility or interpersonal conflict
were more likely to quit their jobs,
have lower well-being, be less satisfied
with their jobs and have less satisfying
relations with their bosses than
employees who were sexually harassed,
the researchers found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported
more job stress, less job commitment and
higher levels of anger and anxiety. No
differences were found between employees
experiencing either type of mistreatment
on how satisfied they were with their
co-workers or with their work.
“Bullying is often more subtle, and may
include behaviors that do not appear
obvious to others,” said Hershcovis.
“For instance, how does an employee
report to their boss that they have been
excluded from lunch? Or that they are
being ignored by a coworker? The
insidious nature of these behaviors
makes them difficult to deal with and
sanction.”
From a total of 128 samples that were
used, 46 included subjects who
experienced sexual harassment, 86
experienced workplace aggression and six
experienced both. Sample sizes ranged
from 1,491 to 53,470 people.
Participants ranged from 18 to 65 years
old. The work aggression samples
included both men and women. The sexual
harassment samples examined primarily
women because, Hershcovis said, past
research has shown that men interpret
and respond differently to the behaviors
that women perceive as sexual
harassment.
Source: American Psychological
Association
The Consultant
Dr. Gary Namie, director of the Workplace Bullying and Trauma
Institute in Bellingham, WA, and co-author of The Bully at
Work, also says to discriminate between people who are
merely difficult but who are rational and can be negotiated
with and bullies, whom he calls "difficult people with horns."
Bullies can't be reasoned with, he says, because they're "all
about power, the abuse of power, the pursuit of power. They have
superior communication skills. They will slice and dice you."
That's why, he says, the brilliant comeback line you think up
right after a confrontation just won't work. Targets, he says,
don't have the ability to be aggressive, so the bully who has
trained and rehearsed his aggressions can always keep them off
balance. And, he says, "Unless you were born that way, it's hard
in middle age to become verbally aggressive."
Aggression, however, is exactly what will back a bully down.
"They're cowards," Namie says. "But when you become like them,
you've lost."
Instead, he offers these tips:
-
- Don't appease the bully or seek his or her approval.
"You don't need their definition of you to survive."
- Don't backpedal, apologize or jump higher to please the
bully.
- Don't expect human resources to be your ally.
- Do ask your co-workers to support you. "They can't fire
everybody. It breaks the silence and makes it a normal,
accountable world. But you've got to ask early. If you
don't, it's like crying wolf. Use the power of the group to
shame, humiliate and face down the bully."
- Do make a business case to higher-ups several levels
above the bully, appealing to the company's mission, vision
and values. "It's a dollars-and-cents issue on absenteeism,
turnover, litigation costs, slowed productivity and
intangibles like morale. Refine the message to make it
unemotional, which is hard to do."
- Then, he says, take time off to heal. "You've got to be
offsite and heal before you can go back and be able to make
an unemotional business case."
- Be clear about your demands. "What do you need to be
made whole and safe?"
The Academic
Dr. Loraleigh Keashly, associate professor of communications at
Wayne State University in Detroit, says psychological warfare
against a bully boss is never a good idea, mainly because the
balance of power is unequal, the situation will escalate, and
you'll be doubly victimized because others will see you as a
troublemaker.
Further, she says, the bully may be of greater value in helping
the company achieve its goals. Thus, if the company is forced to
choose between a complaining target and a valuable bully, guess
who will get the pink slip. However, she says, "Good companies
will step in to ask why a formerly good employee now is a
troublemaker."
Still, she offers this advice:
-
- Keep a journal, "for yourself and to provide
documentation if there's an investigation."
- If it's early on, confront the bully in a constructive
way using basic conflict-resolution techniques. "Over time,
your resources to respond become disabled and you're more
vulnerable."
If you follow the "Don't grieve, leave" pathway, she says,
pursue ways to recover from the damage you sustained. And watch
out for what she calls "leaking" carrying your old defenses
and hurts into new situations. "Recognize that you are in a new
workplace, and that's not the place to work on those issues."
And if, like targets A and B, you're uncertain about how to
explain leaving your last position during a job interview,
Keashly says, "Keep it professional. Focus on the work you love
doing and finding an environment that will enable that work, not
the messy details of the position you left." She suggests an
approach along the lines of, "The nature of the work I was doing
and the kind of support I got didn't match."
Carl Ford's appearance at the senate Foreign Relations Committee proceedings
were not without personal risk as he described John Bolton, President Bush's
nominee for United Nations ambassador, as 'a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down
sort of guy' whose attempt to intimidate a mid-level analyst raises 'real questions
about his suitability for high office.'
So why did Carl 'defender of the little people' Ford, come forward to tell
the truth about John 'serial abuser' Bolton?
It can't be big P politics because Ford is Republican and conservative so
it seems most likely that Ford believes at least two things:
that abusing power and authority is wrong and that
it is an ineffective style that will damage the objectives of the USA.
Clearly, Ford has an impressive gift for a powerful and damning phrase, but
is he correct?
- Let's look first at the evidence describing Bolton's style. In 2002
he berated an analyst and sought to have him fired simply because he disagreed
with Bolton's assessment that Cuba has a biological weapons program with
the consequence that analysts did not feel that they could speak the truth
if the truth ran contrary to the opinions of their superiors.
- It is also alleged that he tried to get a CIA Latin America analyst
fired. According to USA Today, 'Rumors of Bolton's temper have swirled around
Washington for years', and according to Ford,
'he's got a bigger kick and it gets bigger and stronger the further down
the bureaucracy he's kicking.'
Why was the analyst so intimidated that he couldn't
speak the truth to Bolton's face?
Bolton on Monday acknowledged trying to get the analyst reassigned but said
it was because he had 'gone behind my back', which leaves the obvious
question: why was the analyst so intimidated that he couldn't speak the truth
to Bolton's face?
Leaders need the truth but Bolton's approach will reduce communication
to him to flattery and capitulation. It's something that Machiavelli
recognised 500 years ago when he counselled the princes of the Medici family
to conduct themselves in such a way that those around them,
- 'realize that the more freely they speak, the more they will please
you',
- 'for there is no other way to guard against flattery than by making
men understand that by telling you the truth that they will not injure you.'
Machiavelli distrusted flattery because it prevented useful information
and discordant voices from being considered by those in power. He reasoned
that it was better to have the information and choose to ignore it or act counter
to it than to act in ignorance.
And so it is today or tomorrow. Or thirty years ago when the 'infectious
optimism' of John F. Kennedy's team allied to the 'arrogance' of the CIA team
working for him led to the ludicrous night time amphibious invasion of Cuba,
the capture of 1,977 Cuban rebels, and the mortifying embarrassment of the US
president. The plan was always doomed to failure but no-one would tell the president
the truth to his face. Why not?
The Bay of Pigs fiasco was one of the presidential decisions that received
analysis from Irving Janis, social psychologist at Yale, who in 1971 described
his, very popular, theory of 'groupthink' as one where faulty decisions
are made because of 'a desire for conformity and concurrence within the leadership
group at the expense of critical and objective thinking.'
The only trouble with it as a theory was that it could only explain the past
retrospectively after it was, like Charles and Camilla's apology, too late.
It would be far better to be able to know in advance which groups, teams
or regimes are likely to avoid the truth and make stupendously stupid decisions.
This is why a team at the University of California at Berkeley has developed
something with the unappealing acronym of GDQS, or Group Dynamics Q Sort, that
tests groupthink using a set of 100 questions that assess the groups decision-making
dynamics (e.g. 'The group leader is insulated from criticism' versus 'The group
is exposed to a wide range of views and arguments').
The team is now assessing governments to see to what extent they are 'well-informed
and open to alternatives'. These include the Bush administration and its ability
to shield itself from any information that contradicted its desired course of
action.
If being open to alternatives really does improve decision making, as Janis
and the Berkley group argue, then what are we to make of the view of a contributor
to the Al Franken, Air America radio show, who said, in response to the Bolton
situation,
'Wake up call: The vast majority of managers at every level in
American business and government are mindless thugs, abusive kiss up kick
down morons who have not the ability to lead. Welcome to the culture that
is the United States of America!'
Is Bolton just a bad man with a bad haircut, poor impulse control and unruly
facial hair? Or is he also symptomatic of a management quality issue?
The response of shareholders and boards of directors when confronted with
the bad behavior of senior, or junior managers, is often very similar to Senator
Richard Lugar, the committee chairman, who distanced himself from Bolton's approach
saying, 'obviously, Secretary Bolton's demeanour is not my style', but still
felt that he would vote for Bolton because, 'the paramount issue is reform of
the U.N. and the confidence President Bush and Secretary of State (Condoleezza)
Rice have in this nominee'.
Or, in other words, 'if the Pres wants a bully who am I to argue?' or 'if
he gets results then it might be morally distasteful but business is business.'
But being too scary or too powerful stops the truth getting to the very people
who need it most. (Think Star Wars - No one ever told Darth Vader that he needed
an inhaler and no-one seems to tell Lucas about how his CGI obsession is ruining
his legacy).
And so we find a situation where the weak – employees - become targets for
abuse and stop sharing valuable truth with their managers, while the powerful
- boards and senators - act weak because they are willing to ignore means in
return for ends.
But if history demonstrates one thing it is that this kowtowing to
bullies is both morally and pragmatically wrong, something
the pitiful decisions made by the 'kiss up, kick down' guys will keep proving
again, and again, and again.
This article comes from www.management-issues.com
According to the study,
Bullying in the workplace - the experience of managers , the most common
type was misuse of power, followed by verbal insults and undermining by overloading
or criticism. Other forms of bullying, in descending order, were unfair treatment,
overbearing supervision, exclusion, spreading malicious rumours, blocking promotion
or training opportunities, making threats about job security, sexual harassment,
or physical intimidation and violence.
The study found that bullying is most prevalent among line managers. Personality
and lack of management skills were usually cited as the main reasons.
... ... ...
I don't know if this fits the definition of bullying, but there's nothing more
deflating and de-motivating than a boss who shows no respect for the professional
skills and expertise of his staff.
The problem with workplace bullying is that often the perpetrators are very
subtle in thier execution. So subtle, that those who are on the receiving end
would find it difficult to mount a case.My workplace has been subjected to
bullying for the last few years. The perpetrator is the boss, who has misused
and abused his power over this time. He does so by isolating other workers,
not feeding them information, taking work away from them, promoting people who
support or do not question his decisions.
Over the eyars i have seen work colleagues lose self esteem and become depressed
over this situation.
What makes this situation impractical and impossible to change is that the
perpetrator is the boss. What makes this situation especially corrupt is that
it is occurring within the public service. Over the years, the boss has learnt
how to hide and disguise his decisions, so it's almost impossible to take any
action.
We can research and write all the reports we want, but until workers have
protection and are given the time and attention to deal with these bullying
problems, this type of culture will continue to sustain and grow.
The funny ones are the guys who are real paraniod and insecure.
Selective sharing of information, vague emails to cover their butts, and incomplete
handovers can be very frustrating to deal with.
But it's fun to laugh at... amazing how many so called "experts" that are so
"flat-out" can find the time to cover all the bases when they are being found
out.
People should try to remember that the truth will never condemn you
I was bullied by two diferent managers, both female, and the bullying took the
form of more emotional, passive aggression eg. barbed comments, ignoring you,
poor performance reviews even when you had done a good job etc. When I went
to HR it was me who was teh trouble-maker, being over-sensitive etc. The irony
was, both these companies made a big deal of 'equal opportunities' and a 'safe
worlplace', but when it came down to it, did nothing about bulling.
March 26, 2007
(bulliedacademics.blogspot.com ) The green flag is clearly essential
to the bully boss. As Ms Horm (cited in MacDonald, 2004) state, “Studies indicate
that bullies are actually inept people who are not
talented, maybe have a rage against themselves that they express outward toward
people they see as being better than they are. It’s from a point
of weakness that they express their violence toward others” (p.2). Thus, without
the flag there is little room for the bully boss and it is she or him that must
prepare to leave the organization as opposed to the victim of the bullying.
... ... ...
Perpetrators typically use five methods to reduce the indignation. (1) Cover-up:
the action is hidden. Torture is almost always carried out in secrecy. (2) Devaluation
of the victim: if the victim is thought to be dangerous, inferior or worthless,
then what's done to them doesn't seem so bad. That's why enemies are labelled
as ruthless, subhuman and terrorists. (3) Reinterpretation: a different explanation
is given for the action, making it seem more acceptable, or blaming someone
else. The protesters might be called dangerous and threatening. Or shooting
them might be claimed to be an accident, or the action of "rogue" elements.
(4) Official channels: experts, formal inquiries or courts are used to give
a stamp of approval to what happened. Justice appears to be done, but actually
isn't. For example, an inquiry into prison abuse might take months or years
and lead to minor penalties against a few scapegoats. Meanwhile, public anger
dies down and the system remains in place. (5) Intimidation and bribery: victims
and witnesses are threatened or given incentives to keep quiet and not oppose
what happened. Witnesses to a brutal assault might be threatened that they could
be next.
Employers regularly use these same five methods in unfair dismissal.
(1) Cover-up. The person dismissed knows
what happened, but others are kept in the dark. No announcement may be made.
Settlements often involve a silencing clause. When the dismissal is public,
often the reasons are covered up. Files may be destroyed.
(2) Devaluation.
The person dismissed is slandered as a poor performer, difficult personality
or slacker. Rumours may be spread alleging theft, bullying or unsavoury sexual
behaviour.
(3) Reinterpretation.
The dismissal is said to be due to restructuring, redeployments, financial difficulties
or some other pretext. Alternatively, the dismissal may be justified as due
to the victim's failures.
(4) Official channels.
Dismissed workers are advised to go to tribunals, ombudsmen, courts, or any
of a host of other agencies that supposedly offer justice. Seldom do these address
the source of injustice in the workplace.
(5) Intimidation and bribery.
Workers may be reluctant to oppose a dismissal because they will receive a poor
reference or be sued for defamation. Co-workers may support management in the
hope of retaining their own jobs, a form of implicit bribery.
So here are some ways to prevent dismissal by good preparation.
- Collect lots of information about your own good performance. Keep copies
in safe places. If you plan to act against corruption or bad practices,
collect extensive information to back up your claims.
- Develop your skills in speaking and writing.
Know how to talk with others. Learn how to write persuasive accounts, how
to prepare a leaflet, how to run a publicity campaign and how to set up
a website - or have reliable friends willing to assist.
- Avoid doing things that can be used against
you. If you spend much of your time bad-mouthing others, getting others
to do your work, and claiming credit for what you didn't do, you can't expect
support when the crunch comes. Have others help you gain insight into being
collegial, collaborative, approachable and civil.
- Be prepared to survive. You may need financial
reserves. You will need psychological toughness. You need exercise and good
diet to maintain your health. You need supportive relationships. When you
come under attack, you may need all your reserves: financial, psychological,
physical and interpersonal. If you're living on the edge, you're more vulnerable.
- Build alliances: there is great strength
in collective action. If you have a decent union, join it and be active.
- Develop options. Find out about other potential
jobs. Think about a career change. Consider downshifting to a less costly
lifestyle. Sometimes it's better to walk away from a stressful job. If you
have such options, you're actually in a stronger position to campaign against
an unfair dismissal.
- Be prepared to resist. Many workers
learn to be subordinate and can't bring themselves to resist even the worst
abuse. When dismissed, they do just what the boss wants: leave quietly,
perhaps with token compensation. If you're known as a resister, you're less
likely to be targeted.
Help others. If you assist other workers
who come under attack, you develop useful insights and skills - and others
are more likely to help you should you need it.
(MSNBC.com)Linda
Barkdoll, Coordinator of the Human Resources Development graduate program at
McDaniel College, offers some tips when you’re caught up in a boss’ fury:
- Do not escalate the boss's ill humor by being
argumentative, or shouting back.
- Do not be insubordinate.
- ... ... ...
- Use a calm and quiet voice when speaking to the
boss. It can have a de-escalating, calming effect.
- ... ... ...
- If the situation is unbearable, or the boss is
hopeless, consider finding another job. Your physical and mental health
should not be sacrificed to keep the boss happy.
The Bottom Line Be strong and believe
in yourself. Don't think like a victim.
Workplace mobbing - My experience
May 24 '06
The Bottom Line Be strong and
believe in yourself. Don't think like a victim.
Description of mobbing:
Mobbing is a modern term for systematic bullying, harassment, or psychological
terror, especially in schools and workplaces, whereby one person is "ganged
up" on and stigmatized by peers and/or superiors for reasons that are not genuinely
or justifiably known to most of those who are mobbing the victim.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing
How I Was Mobbed At Work
Basically, my supervisor would do almost anything to demean or minimize me in
the eyes of my co-workers.
Insulting jokes, negative comments about my work, the way I staple papers, my
appearance.
If she asked me a question, it would be in an accusing manner, instead of simply
a request for information.
She would tell people that I have an bad temper
and to be careful of what you say to me. I may "blow up".
Or tell people that I was attracted to her and wanted to date her.
Another favorite was for her to speak to someone with her hand to her mouth
and point at me with the remark, "Don't worry, I'm not talking about you", then
laugh.
The common thread here is all of the above always took place in front of an
audience.
Human nature being what it is, the co-workers went
along with the supervisor and her theme, eventually doing themselves what previously
only the supervisor would do.
It got to the point that if I spoke to anyone at all, people would giggle or
raise their eyebrows and smile at me or each other.
How I Tried To Stop It
In my ignorance I tried to ignore everything. I felt that if I ignored it, they
would stop if I didn't respond or defend myself. All that did was make me frustrated
and angry and it probably encouraged my supervisor and co-workers.
I tried talking to the supervisor. She denied everything
and accused me of being paranoid. The subject of our "talk" then
became the source for new material to use against me in front of my co-workers.
I finally lost my temper and did "blow up". That was a temporary fix but all
I accomplished was to reinforce the negative perception of me the supervisor
was creating.
How I Stopped It
I have one of those mini tape recorders and I made an audio recording
of my supervisor and her "crew" harassing me and I played it for my supervisors
boss. [ Note that this might illegal in some states]
It didn't cure the underlying problem which caused the mobbing. But I was no
longer being mobbed.
What I Learned
These are written as statements but they express my beliefs rather than what
may be factual. In other words, my opinion.
1. My co-workers went along with my supervisor out
of fear and instinct. That they felt if they did not go along, they would be
aligned with me and also be targeted.
2. My supervisor was/is not suited for being in charge of employees. Possibly
she is a sociopath.
3. While there are laws about harassment, the laws mean nothing unless someone
is willing to act on them.
4. Ignoring mobbing will never make it go away.
5. Never accept harassment as being the price for having a job.
6. Never accept responsibility for being harassed.
7. The people who harass you are not your friends. That may seem obvious but
it isn't. In most cases the mob includes people you previously got together
with after work, or shared rides to and from work.
Your co-workers who become part of the mob may in the future be civil to you
but they should never again be considered as someone to trust.
Their fear and weakness which caused them to mob
you is not a quality you want in a friend. After all, if your
"friends" refused to go along with the crowd, the mobbing would be done by a
much smaller mob. Just keep your distance but remain civil and civilized. You
don't have to like them.
8. If you find yourself again being harassed or mobbed, immediately make
it known to several layers of management. For example send an email to your
supervisor and a copy to his or her direct supervisor. Print and keep a copy
for your own records.
We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter
in employment, that it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that women are
equally as capable of bullying behavior as men.
Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more inclined
towards empathy, and less towards seeking dominance. Women are often portrayed
as caring more than men about personal experience and feelings.
It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized rages
- public swearing and shouting - and in physical violence, though I am sure
that all of us could think of exceptions. Research indicates, however, that
women are inclined towards
- The cold shoulder
- Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
- Sulking
- Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator
nor the recipient.
Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not know
how to elicit positive attention, or to assert ourselves so that our views and
rights are recognized and respected. So we use inappropriate and ineffectual
means to attract attention any way we can. We have been conditioned very early
that girls do not shout and scream. No one is surprised, however, if girls go
quiet or even sulk.
The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will not resolve
their differences.
What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally
damaging social and professional isolation and exclusion from networks can be.
D Gray, Manager, Equal Opportunity, 2003
May be reproduced with acknowledgement
seek help and leave the environment, March 21, 2005
I'm currently dealing with the affects of this type of cowardly behavior, and
I would like to send a message to anyone who has found themselves here at this
web page:
If you "feel" like this is happening to you, if you "think" this may be happening
to you, if you are waking up in the middle of the night, by intrusive thoughts
and worries surrounding your work situation, and wondering what is wrong with
yourself, then trust your instincts. Leave the environment and seek help. Please
do it for the good of yourself, your health, and your loved ones.
This has been one of the most crushing, defeating experiences of my life. I
hope that I can at least help keep someone from making the same mistakes in
not trusting in their own perceptions.
Don't worry about revenge via lawsuits, or fighting back, or personal
pride. Be concerned about your own mental and emotional well being.
Surround yourself with people who give a damn about you. Seek resources such
as this book in order to understand your situation, and try your best to start
dusting yourself off.
These types of environments are severely ill and fronted by phonies. They
are the most ignorant, the most scared and would be the first ones to crumble
under the same circumstances you have found yourself. There is no honor or valour
where you are at. Let them be. Rise above it, and out of it...
Study after study in psychology proves that people draw a perverse
strength from the group and will do in a group what they would never
do alone. Normal moral behavior, common decency, if you will, is discarded by
the same sort of mentality that produces a gang rape. The new manager whose
reports decide to drive him out ... the competent but beautiful new receptionist
who's pulled down by jealous co-workers ... the manager who becomes threatened
by the talents of a report ... Done by peers, subordinates and/or superiors,
the goal is to force someone out using gossip, ostracism, intimidation, discreditation,
humiliation, and just plain meanness.
The blame is projected on the victim, who, 'gas
lighted,' becomes confused, has trouble perceiving correctly
(that people could really do this), and accepts that he or she is incompetent,
to blame, etc.
Dr. Heinz Leymann, German industrial psychologist, is credited for identifying
the syndrome in Europe, Japan and Australia where he studied it for nearly 20
years. He lived in Sweden and estimated that 15% of the suicides in Sweden were
the result of mobbing in the workplace. It is cruelty in the extreme, a group
bullying process that can go or weeks, months, even years, until the job is
done. When interviewed, mobbers often claim they didn't know they were harming
anyone.
Mobbing is a particularly insidious form of emotional
abuse, and the impact on the individual can be devastating. The
authors cite cases of individuals unable ever to return to work after mobbing.
In addition, mobbing is a serious behavioral risk-management issue for organizations.
It destroys morale, erodes trust, cripples initiative, and results in
dysfunction, absenteeism, resignations, guilt, anxiety, paranoia, negativity,
and marginal production. Key players leave and the effects are long-lasting.
Mobbing is a "widespread, vicious, workplace tort [civil wrongs recognized by
law as grounds for a lawsuit--and in this case an intentional tort]," says Scott
H. Peters, Esq. of The Peters Law Firm. P.C., Iowa (quoted in the article "Did
You Hear of Mobbing?" by Elliott. It is difficult to stop once it gets going,
but managers can learn to recognize the patterns.
In the book the authors even cite cases where HR managers were 'ordered' by
superior 'mobbers' to support a mobbing process.
In personal correspondence with Ms. Elliott, she told me that people often come
up to her after her talks and say, "This will never happen again on my watch,"
which is heartening. Emotional intelligence (EI) and awareness in the work place
are one of the antidotes to mobbing.
Systematic Abuse
Psychologists and behavior researchers have only seriously studied mobbing--group
bullying--among students since the beginning of the 1980s, led in large part
by Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus of the University of Bergen. In his pioneering
study of Swedish and Norwegian students, Olweus
concluded that children can be very skilled in systematically using their social
clout at the expense of weaker schoolmates. The goal is to enhance their own
position.
Mobbing thrives in hierarchical settings because
they allow dominance and strength to reign as the measure of an individual's
social value. It is therefore not surprising that prisons and
military bases, with their emphasis on rules and rank, are often the scenes
of mobbing. Schools, in which older or stronger children can lord their age
and power over younger or weaker ones, share similar traits. Thrown into a diversity
of personalities, certain individuals try to create a social structure that
confers on them an advantage. And usually that power is wielded to abuse others.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2003 some 7
percent of U.S. students ages 12 to 18 reported that they had been bullied at
school in the past six months. (And certainly far more never said a word.) The
likelihood of bullying was highest in the younger grade levels: 14 percent of
sixth graders, 7 percent of ninth graders and 2 percent of 12th graders reported
that they had been picked on. A 2001 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and
Nickelodeon found that 74 percent of eight- to 11-year-olds reported the existence
of bullying at their school; 86 percent of 12- to 15-year-olds also noted bullying.
Sufferers must usually face the harassment alone. Other boys and girls generally
take the side of the perpetrators, fearing that they could be next in line.
Or they pretend events did not happen and keep their mouths shut. Few find the
courage to stand up for their fellow students. In the end, mobbing affects the
entire school atmosphere, not just the bullies and their targets.
Power-Hungry Predators
To learn about what motivates the abusers, a research team (of which I was a
part) at the University of Munich conducted a long-term study of 288 second
and third graders from different elementary schools in southern Germany. We
questioned them about their experiences: What kinds of children were apt to
fall prey to bullies? How did the rest of the class react? We interviewed the
same children six years later, when they were in the eighth and ninth grades.
We asked if former victims were still targeted. And we asked how victims dealt
with such problems now that they were teenagers.
Our first important finding was that bullies can be identified early in elementary
school: even at a tender age, they are able to organize
a mob against certain individuals. They appear to always be on the lookout for
new kids to pick on. And they find it difficult to abandon their roles over
time; perpetrators tend to remain perpetrators over many months and even years.
Bullies are usually very dominant children who
have learned early on that they can become the leader of a group by being aggressive.
Their modus operandi is to humiliate a student who is physically or psychologically
susceptible to rise to the top of the social order. They try to force others
to kowtow to them by acting tough, and other children may oblige simply out
of fear. Often the bullies have learned about the power of aggression at home.
Researchers at the University of Arizona who studied more than 500 middle
school students found that the children most likely to engage in bullying had
experienced more forceful physical discipline from their parents, had viewed
more TV violence and had fewer adult role models. To a degree, they had learned
by example.
... ... ....
Helping the Victim
Further understanding of what makes bullies prevail will help break down
their sources of power. In the meantime, though, more should be done to minimize
the long-lasting effects on those who are hurt. In 2002 my colleagues and I
interviewed 884 men and women from Germany, the U.K. and Spain, more than 25
percent of whom recalled having suffered physical and psychological attacks
by other children when they attended school. Their bitterness at being excluded
and threatened continued to affect them in their adult lives.
Former mobbing victims more frequently had trouble
developing trusting relationships and lacked confidence when interacting with
other adults. Their expectations of themselves and others were
lower than average. The one positive note was that their previous experience
was not usually repeated in their work lives, although mobbing in the
workplace--the ganging up of subordinates or superiors through rumor, innuendo,
intimidation, humiliation, discrediting and isolation--does happen.
The long-term consequences of mobbing make clear that early prevention is
critical. The tricky task of intervening at the right moment falls to teachers
and parents--who may not be prepared to act appropriately. For example, Norwegian
students told a government ombudsman that adults do not even recognize their
predicaments in the classroom.
Whenever someone becomes intolerably belligerent on the phone, put them on hold
and let off steam with your co-workers or calm yourself by literally counting
to ten. This invariably makes your co-workers laugh, which makes you laugh and
realize that the person on the other end of the line has no bearing on your
life and that you shouldn't be taking the situation all that seriously.When
you get back on the phone with them, you are calm and cool. Instead of shooting
stupidities right back at them, use logic, tell them what they need to know,
thank them for their call and hang up.
One of the best policies for dealing with people who are grating a bit on
one's nerves is to be honest (you'll get caught if you try to lie) but don't
reveal anything about yourself. If they don't know you, then they can't hurt
the real you. Inside, you are laughing, while the outside is free to look upset
or offended if it will get the job done.
Kill them with Kindness
Experience throws up two constants:
- Most of the things people say while in any kind of bad mood are not
meant, are unmeditated, and are the verbal equivalent of a roaring animal.
- Responding like with like only ever aggravates a situation further and
reaches no positive conclusion.
Any Jerry Springer will serve as proof of this.
So, the best response is to rise above all provocation
and attempt to deal with difficult behaviour in a calm and understanding way.
Here's one Researcher's experience:
Having spent over a decade in retail customer service, I've found the
best way to deal with problem people is to kill them with kindness. I know
it sounds hard to do, but it really works the best. When someone comes into
a store in a bad mood, nine times out of ten it is something other than
the store itself that has made them mad. They want to drag someone down
with them. Smile real big and completely ignore anything offensive they've
said. Example:
Angry customer - 'Do you work here?!? Can you help me?!?'
You (with nauseatingly big smile) - 'Why, certainly, sir! What
can I help you with today?'
Nothing works better to burst their bubble. When they find their anger
will get them nowhere, what else can they do? It works even better if you
can get them what they want right away, because then they have to go into
sheepish mode.
Dealing with difficult people in a calm and tolerant
manner will most likely ease their tempers down somewhat. It
also helps, if you're dealing with aggravated customers, if you know what you're
talking about, or at least try to sound as if you know what you're talking about.
If you can sound confident in what you are saying you are more likely to get
your point through than if you sound uncertain. Most people that are already
angry about something will be able to pick up on the uncertainty of the other
party and use this uncertainty to strengthen their own argument.Teenagers
Oh this one is really easy - how to deal with teenagers. I only really
have experience of male ones, but my one lives in a completely different
time warp from me, I never see him... and if I do ever see him standing
up he only says 'Uuurrghh!' so what's the problem? While he's sleeping he's
not eating, so that's around 16 hours per day sorted. The rest is OK too,
he's got a computer, so that's another quiet pastime. I don't think he has
the energy to be a problem (bless him!). Of course, things could change...
Not all of us are blessed with such easy-to-please teenagers, so what do
you do if you do have a youngster who is hard to handle? If you tell them you
will do something, make sure you do it. The point with any difficult child is
to never make threats you won't keep, never attempt to patronise them, unless
you are sure you will get away with it. It will only make matters worse.Teenagers
A Researcher's experience:
I can't tell you how to handle these as an adult or a parent, but as
the little brother, I tried the nice approach which failed much like the
attempt of my scrotum to accommodate the same space and time as my sister's
knee. Hitting back was no good either. There is no use seeking help with
your parents because they are completely terrified of the teenage monster.
Basically what I did was to try and keep a low profile until I got larger
than her, by then she stopped recognising my existence altogether.
For some strange reason, today we get along just fine. Well, maybe you
can chalk it up to me still getting bigger and her staying the same size...
Whenever you have to deal with an unruly person, it's best to keep a level
head about your shoulders, no matter how much they annoy you. If you get angry
right away, there's no chance that the dispute, whether it be with your fiancé,
sister, mother etc, will be resolved quickly or without upsetting everyone involved.
If you can't see the problem from the difficult person's point of view, ask
them. While this may not work with some, it's usually a good idea in the case
of closer relationships. The trick is, in arguments, you need to have patience
with the other person, and self-restraint with yourself. Then, not only will
you both get a different point of view, but also more respect for each other.
BBC Links
Oct. 15, 2004 ( money.cnn.com )Then there are the gatekeepers
-- people who are obsessed with control -- who allocate time, money and staffing
to assure their target's failure. Control freaks ultimately want to control
your ability to network in the company or to let your star shine. Another type
is the screaming Mimis who are emotionally out of control and explosive.
2. Don't take it lying down
If your boss has a difficult management style, you don't have to
let their bad behavior go. You can respond -- just remember to stay professional.
So, if your boss insults you or puts you down, Susan Futterman, author
of "When You Work for a Bully" and the founder of MyToxicBoss.com, suggests
responding with something like, "In what way does calling me a moron
or an idiot solve the problem? I think that there's a better way to deal
with this."
If you find out that your boss is bad-mouthing
you to higher-ups in the company,
confront them directly and professionally. Get the evidence in writing
from your source if you can. Then, ask him or her what is causing
them to do this.
You could say, "I've been hearing from other
people in the company that you're not happy with my work,
you and I know that this isn't the case and I want to talk about how we
can fix this."
If your boss has been defaming you, that's illegal. You may want to consult
an attorney.
If your boss is a control freak who's breathing down your neck, you should
address it. Say, "I can't function effectively
if you're going to be micromanaging me and looking over my shoulder all
the time. If I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, let's talk about it.
But this isn't working."
If someone screams at you, don't be a doormat.
If you've made a mistake, acknowledge it. But let your boss know that
they're creating a difficult work environment. Even if you
haven't made a mistake, you may want to calmly ask what they're upset about
and if you can address it.
3. Take notes. Documenting your boss's bad behavior is
key for two reasons, according to Futterman.
First, you might not even realize the extent of the problem. Futterman
explains, "Taken in isolation, these events
may seem trivial, but taken as a whole, it often becomes more clear what's
actually going on. Some victims may be in denial or discount these events
as isolated incidents. Your written records can document how severe the
situation is."
And, of course, if you decide to take legal action down the line, you
may need the information. It's best to document these incidents as soon
as possible so they're fresh in your mind.
Documentation is also important if you plan
to report the behavior to your boss's boss or to your company's human resources
department. And don't dismiss the idea of taking the bull
by the horns and working toward a solution.
Try arranging a face-to-face meeting with your boss. Tell them you want
to discuss the problems you've encountered because you want to resolve them.
Chances are often slim that this will work, however. If they reject the
opportunity to discuss things with you, add that to your documentation.
4. Know when it's too much.
Bosses may exhibit bad behavior sometimes. Hey, no one is perfect, not
even bosses. But if your boss is abusing you, that's a problem.
The problem takes on greater urgency if the abuse starts to make
you feel bad. If you chronically suffer high blood pressure that started
only when you began working for your boss; or you feel nauseous the night
before the start of the work week; or if all your paid vacation days have
been used up for mental health breaks.
When the bullying has had a prolonged affect on your health or
your life outside of work, it's time to get out. It's also time to leave
if your confidence or your usual exemplary performance has been undermined.
Ironically, targets of abusive bosses tend
to be high achievers, perfectionists and workaholics.
Often bully bosses try to mask their own
insecurities by striking out.
5. Control your destiny.
Even after you leave your nightmare boss, you'll still have to explain
why you left to potential new employers.
Futterman advises against dramatizing your old work situation.
One way to gracefully sidestep the issue: say you and your manager had a
longstanding disagreement over the most effective way of getting things
done and you thought the most professional way to resolve it was to move
on.
"You certainly don't want to start recalling and recounting the abuse
you suffered. You'll inevitably get upset and that's not the way you want
to handle a job interview," she says.
Try to control the interview situation to the extent you can. Don't give
your abusive boss as a reference but rather someone else with whom you worked
previously. Another good choice might be a colleague or a peer you're on
good terms with or someone who can speak about you professionally.
Also, if you only worked for your bullying boss for a short time, you
may want to consider leaving that job off your resume altogether
Like a cancer, most organisations are infested with bullying in one form
or another. Side effects of bullying may include
low efficiency,
bureaucratic muddle, lack of accountability, incompetence, greed,
dishonesty and
corruption.
Bullying at the
BBC, for example, is rife. BBC managers have been described
as "managers and damagers" !
Companies can develop shared psychosis, corporate psychosis,
corporate narcissism (ref, for example, Enron or Worldcom)
or their own brand of Stalinism.
In their article, "A Comparison of Impulsive
and Instrumental Subgroups of Batterers", Roger Tweed and Donald Dutton
of the Department of Psychology of the University of British Columbia, rely
on the current typology of offenders which classifies them as:
"... Overcontrolled-dependent, impulsive-borderline
(also called 'dysphoric-borderline' –
SV) and instrumental-antisocial. The overcontrolled-dependent differ qualitatively
from the other two expressive or 'undercontrolled' groups in that their
violence is, by definition, less frequent and they exhibit less florid psychopathology.
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart 1994, Hamberger & hastings 1985) ...
Hamberger & Hastings (1985,1986) factor analyzed the Millon
Clinical Multiaxial Inventory for batterers, yielding three factors which
they labeled 'schizoid/borderline' (cf. Impulsive), 'narcissistic/antisocial'
(instrumental), and 'passive/dependent/compulsive' (overcontrolled)... Men,
high only on the impulsive factor, were described as withdrawn, asocial,
moody, hypersensitive to perceived slights, volatile and over-reactive,
calm and controlled one moment and extremely angry and oppressive the next
– a type of 'Jekyll and Hyde' personality.
The associated DSM-III diagnosis was Borderline Personality. Men high only
on the instrumental factor exhibited narcissistic entitlement and psychopathic
manipulativeness. Hesitation by others to respond to their demands produced
threats and aggression ..."
... ... ...
Impulsive batterers abuse only their family members.
Their favorite forms of mistreatment are sexual and psychological. They are
dysphoric, emotionally labile, asocial, and, usually, substance abusers.
Instrumental abusers are violent both at home and
outside it
– but only when
they want to get something done. They are goal-orientated, avoid intimacy, and
treat people as objects or instruments of gratification.
Still, as Dutton pointed out in a series of acclaimed
studies, the "abusive personality" is characterized
by a low level of organization, abandonment anxiety (even when it is denied
by the abuser), elevated levels of anger, and trauma symptoms.
It is clear that each abuser requires individual
psychotherapy, tailored to his specific needs
– on top of the usual group therapy
and marital (or couple) therapy. At the very least, every offender should be
required to undergo these tests to provide a complete picture of his personality
and the roots of his unbridled aggression:
-
The Relationship Styles Questionnaire
(RSQ)
-
Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III)
-
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)
-
Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI)
-
Borderline Personality Organization
Scale (BPO)
-
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI)
These tests are the topic of our
next article.
When organisational psychologist Mary Sherry wrote in a national newspaper
last month that female managers were far more likely to bully staff than male
ones it triggered a large reader response - almost all backing her view.
When organisational psychologist Mary Sherry wrote in a national
newspaper last month that female managers were far more likely to bully staff
than male ones it triggered a large reader response - almost all backing her
view.
Why are some women much worse bullies than their male counterparts?
One female respondent to Shelly's
article said: "Women bosses are worse bullies than men. I also agree with Sherry
that usually they employ more insidious tactics such as isolating people and
nit-picking in order to undermine the other person's confidence."
Another wrote: "Your article has provoked me to put down on
record that the unhappiest years of my life were caused by female bosses. I
was treated so badly that I lived in a state of fear for the last few years
of my employment."
And a third said: "I work for a government department and have
been off work since late October due to stress and anxiety exacerbated by a
two-year campaign by my female line manager. Women bosses are certainly worse
than men at bullying."
Sherry said the level of response was surprising but not the
content. "During the work I have been involved in for the past 12 years all
cases of bullying that I have come across have involved women as the bully,
though I am certainly not saying that all female managers are bullies.
"I don't want to say how many bullying cases exactly we have
dealt with but it is certainly more than double figures."
She said these cases show that female
bullies rarely match stereotypical images of aggressive bullies who use physical
intimidation and foul language to cower their victims.
Their approach is a lot more subtle
and psychological. They nitpick and undermine through constant criticism which
leads to those on the receiving end losing their self-confidence and becoming
risk and responsibility averse.
So who are these bully-girl bosses?
In Sherry's view they tend to be middle managers who are managing
beyond their level of competence.
"For example when they are asked to perform at a certain level
and don't have the managerial competence to get the best out of people they
may bully. I don't think people actually decide to become bullies. It is because
they don't have the competence to fulfil their management role."
And who, typically, are their victims?
According to Sherry the victim is rarely a new starter. They
tend to have been employed for 18 months to 15 years.
"A new female manager is brought in and undermines the person concerned
by nit-picking and disempowering them."
She said that although it sounds like she is banging her own
drum she does not think internal HR departments are best at dealing with serious
bullying cases, especially if they involve senior staff.
"It is very difficult for internal investigators to look into
bullying cases," Shelly said. "HR departments often don't have the level of
delicate questioning techniques."
Nor is she a fan of befriender networks where bullying victims
can seek advice and support from colleagues. "They don't work. We have seen
one company use a befriender programme and we told them `you are wasting your
money'. They set it up for two years and no one used it.
"You cannot expect a progress chaser or admin clerk to become
a bullying adviser."
Sherry is a partner at Southport firm Asset Management Partnership
which advises clients on preventing and eradicating bullying in the workplace.
It runs a website,
www.bulliesatwork.co.uk
which features an online questionnaire where victims can answer questions about
their experiences.
Actually, I have found that more women than men actually bully. Weaker men
in positions of "power" (management) allow it to go on, as well.
Here's a link to another case that's going on at the moment, due mainly to women
bullying, yet again (and a weak male boss!):
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-05-17a.50.0&s=section%3Awrans+speaker%3A13667#g50.1
I believe the person bringing the case is suing privately...
Employees exposed to difficult or unjust circumstances may not only become
sullen and unproductive workers: they may get physically sick, as well.
... ... ...
Although plenty of research has linked stress to poor health,
there is no comparable study on workplace justice. However, studies about bullying
and psychological violence in corporate culture prove that the phenomenon exists
in the U.S., says Steve M. Jex, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology
at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Such situations may be on the rise
due to the stagnant economic climate.
"Organizations are getting more harsh, what with layoffs and
people being escorted off the premises" after they've been let go, says Jex,
noting that studies like Kivimaki's can be useful in a culture where most workers
stifle complaints and put up with whatever the boss dishes out.
... women are just as likely to be bullies as men. According to British antibullying
campaigner Tim Field, at least half of the 3000 bullying reports made to the
British National Workplace Bullying Advice Line last year were complaints against
women. There are no gender-specific figures for Australia but local experts
suggest they would be similar.
Psychologist Maxine Cornwall says: "Women are
more methodical with their workplace bullying - short emails, standing over
someone, giving them the silent treatment. It's a lot more cloak-and-dagger
style than men's."
Nevertheless, the male workplace bully is alive and well. "Men are more openly
aggressive - yelling, intimidating others with their size. Everyone is likely
to know if your male boss dislikes you."
What do soldiers under fire and bullied workers have in common?
Not much, you may think.
However research from a leading psychologist suggests that bullied workers
go through the very same emotions and stresses as battle-scarred troopers.
Dr Noreen Tehrani has counselled victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland,
soldiers returning from combat overseas and victims of workplace bullying.
"The symptoms displayed by people who have been
in conflict situations and workplaces where bullying happens are strikingly
similar," Dr Tehrani told BBC News Online.
"Both groups suffer nightmares, are jumpy and seem fuelled by too much adrenaline.
"In addition, they show greater susceptibility to illnesses, heart disease
and alcoholism."
The favoured definition of bullying amongst psychologists is persistent devaluing
demeaning or harassing of someone at work.
Disorder
To back up her years of experience, Dr Tehrani conducted a study of 165 professionals
in the caring sector such as nurses and social workers.
Dr Tehrani found that 36% of the men and 42% of the women reported having
experienced bullying.
Overall, one in five people exhibited the main symptoms of Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD).
According to Dr Tehrani, the three signs of PTSD are hyper arousal, a feeling
of constant anxiety and over-vigilance; avoidance of anything to do with the
traumatising event; and re-experiencing, in which subjects suffer flashbacks
or obsessive thoughts concerning the trauma.
Early signs of workplace bullying are sickness and absenteeism, Dr Tehrani
added.
Inflict pain
Bullying can take many forms from malicious gossiping to overt physical violence.
"Generally, male bullies indulge in quite physical and loud verbal bullying,"
said Dr Tehrani.
"Female bullies favour a strictly psychological
approach to inflicting pain on others such as gossip and persistent criticism."
Interestingly, the image of the bullying boss terrorising staff doesn't paint
the whole picture.
"Bullying managers grab the headlines, but it also occurs between people
on the same grade or even on occasions subordinates can intimidate their boss."
Sick
There are no hard and fast estimates as to how much workplace bullying costs
the UK economy.
However, research conducted for the British Occupational Health
Research Foundation (BOHRF) by the Lancaster University Management School and
UMIST in 2002 suggested that bullying in the UK workplace is rife.
The research found that one in 10 people had
been bullied at work within the previous six months.
Bullied employees take, on average, seven days per year more sick leave than
others.
"The cost to firms must be astronomical, many millions of pounds, and that
doesn't include the mental impact on workers," said Professor Cary Cooper, co-author
of the study.
In addition, it appears that bullying can have a negative impact on observers.
"Our research showed that witnesses to the bullying suffered many of the
same mental problems as the people being bullied," said Professor Cooper.
Public spectre
Bullying was found to be particularly prevalent in the police, prison service,
teaching and healthcare professions.
The government is so worried about the problem of bullying in the public
sector that is has given the Amicus trade union £1m to conduct research into
its causes.
Patricia Hewitt, Trade and Industry Secretary, called workplace bullying
"a terrible issue with terrible consequences".
The BOHRF study singled out the postal service as a hotbed of workplace bullying.
Stung by the findings, Allan Leighton, Royal Mail chairman, launched a programme
in January 2003 to stamp out bullying amongst the firms 200,000 staff.
"Quite frankly I've been appalled by the cases of bullying I have heard about
since I joined Royal Mail. These have been some of the worst cases I have heard
about in my working life. There can be no excuses," Mr Leighton said at the
time.
A crack squad of harassment investigators and a 24 hour bullying helpline
were set up by the Royal Mail.
"We recognised that we had a problem and that a change in culture was needed,"
Christine Gregory, Royal Mail spokeswoman, told BBC News Online.
"Ending bullying brings huge advantages for us, it should reduce absenteeism
and boost productivity
---
I have been bullied by a female boss but no one else could
see it because it was done behind closed doors and through persistent criticism
and inducing a feeling in me that I was no good at my job, a failure. It's very
hard to stamp out this sort of bullying because the victim will not be believed
and is always cast in a bad light. There is a lot of this in the profession
I work in - market research. Surprising? We are supposed to be objective and
open minded but in this business, sexism, racism and egotism among bosses is
rife. I have had 3 sexist bosses one of whom was also racist.
Anne, Kent, UK
Push back
Respond assertively as soon as someone bullies you. Most bullies will start
to push you gently and then gradually increase pressure. Bullies most often
respond best to being bullied so being assertive is the best approach. They
might not like you, but they will respect you and they will stop the bullying.
Use "I feel" statements
Use a phrase such as: "When you shout at me I feel annoyed and want to be aggressive
but as you are my manager that would be inappropriate. You will find that I
work better when I am spoken to reasonably".
Using "I feel" statements makes it non-negotiable because that is the way you
feel.
Disarm with courtesy
If the above suggestion is too dangerous in terms of your career, then you can
just say politely: "I would be grateful if you did not shout."
Put the problem back on your boss.
For example, if you are given an epithet such as "you're stupid" or "you're
hopeless" you could respond with: "That's an interesting comment. I wonder why
you felt obliged to make it." This puts the problem back on your boss. Or you
can use the agreement technique "You could be right. However, my track record
says I am good at x,y,z". The fact that you have a track record attests to your
intelligence and not your stupidity.
Deflect the negative
You could just make a comment such as "how disappointing". It means nothing
but it does get the bully to think.
Importance of body language
When you are working with bullies ensure that your body language supports your
comments. Make sure your shoulders are parallel with theirs and that you maintain
high eye contact. If the latter is difficult, look at a spot in the middle of
their forehead because if you are more than a metre away they will think you
are looking directly at them.
Collective Response
If fear is running rife in your department because a tyrant is running it, then
you and your colleagues should write a round robin memo to the tyrant's boss
and CC the HR Department. The memo should outline the specific behaviours that
you all find unacceptable. It should be unemotional, to the point and factual.
A boss, no matter how tyrannical, is only successful through his or her people
and every organisation knows this. Whilst drastic, I would expect that you will
only have to do this once.
Be successful.
Article with thanks to
www.careerone.com.au
That's why, he says, the brilliant comeback line you think up right after a
confrontation just won't work. Targets, he says,
don't have the ability to be aggressive, so the bully ‚ who has trained and
rehearsed his aggressions ‚ can always keep them off balance.
And, he says, "Unless you were born that way, it's hard in middle age to become
verbally aggressive."
Aggression, however, is exactly what will back a bully down. "They're cowards,"
Namie says. "But when you become like them, you've lost."
Instead, he offers these tips:
- Don't appease the bully or seek his or her approval. "You don't need
their definition of you to survive."
- Don't backpedal, apologize or jump higher to please the bully.
- Don't expect human resources to be your ally.
- Do ask your co-workers to support you.
"They can't fire everybody. It breaks the silence and makes it a normal,
accountable world. But you've got to ask early. If you don't, it's like
crying wolf. Use the power of the group to shame, humiliate and face down
the bully."
- Do make a business case to higher-ups several levels above the bully,
appealing to the company's mission, vision and
values. "It's a dollars-and-cents issue on absenteeism, turnover,
litigation costs, slowed productivity and intangibles like morale. Refine
the message to make it unemotional, which is hard to do."
- Then, he says, take time off to heal. "You've got to be offsite and
heal before you can go back and be able to make an unemotional business
case."
- Be clear about your demands. "What do you need to be made whole and
safe?"
If you follow the "Don't grieve, leave" pathway, she says, pursue ways to recover
from the damage you sustained. And watch out for what she calls "leaking" ‚
carrying your old defenses and hurts into new situations. "Recognize that you
are in a new workplace, and that's not the place to work on those issues."
And if, like targets A and B, you're uncertain about how to explain leaving
your last position during a job interview, Keashly says, "Keep it professional.
Focus on the work you love doing and finding an environment that will enable
that work, not the messy details of the position you left." She suggests an
approach along the lines of, "The nature of the work I was doing and the kind
of support I got didn't match."
The Targets
Target A says:
-
- "You can't keep your head in the sand about office politics. Know the
dynamics of the upper-management people. I was there to do a job and didn't
do the political thing. But not playing is a form of politics."
- "As soon as things start happening, don't assume they'll go away. Document
everything."
And Target B says:
-
- "Bullies are like catalysts. They like to hit quickly and watch. If
you get back in their face and let them know it's unacceptable, they'll
back off."
- "It's important to make complaints to the state unemployment offices,
senators and attorneys general to help build a trend."
But what are the worst examples of workplace bullying? How does it usually happen?
The British-based Chartered Management
Institute provides some clues. It has a study showing 11 types of bullying
behavior.
-----According to the study,
Bullying in the workplace - the experience of managers , the most common
type was misuse of power, followed by verbal insults and undermining by overloading
or criticism. Other forms of bullying, in descending order, were
- unfair treatment,
- overbearing supervision,
- exclusion,
- spreading malicious rumours,
- blocking promotion or training opportunities,
- making threats about job security,
- sexual harassment,
- or physical intimidation and violence.
The study found that bullying is most prevalent among line managers. Personality
and lack of management skills were usually cited as the main reasons.
So is this study on the money? What types of bullying have you seen or experienced?
Who are usually the main culprits? Is it always the same kind of people in the
same sorts of jobs?
Posted by
Leon Gettler
November 8, 2006 9:35 AM
I had a female supervisor once who definitely had "short people syndrome".
Nobody did anything to hurt her, but she seemed to be determined to prove
her worth as a short person and as a woman by bullying in the
office; being a young shy girl, i copped it. She would do things like
smoke - yes, in the office - and blow it in my face; get me to pull down lots
of heavy folders one day when she'd heard me complaining of a bad back, only
to put them all back up again straight afterwards because she'd "changed her
mind"; threw papers deliberately across the office and told me to pick them
up; yelled at me in front of clients for not doing any work or doing work improperly
when actually I was doing exactly what she'd told me to do. What can i say ...
i was young and it was my first job; i didn't know any better.
I worked in the OHS/bullying area for a several years (my anti-bullying website
is at www.sangrea.net/bully
in case anyone is interested).Most workplace bullying cases fall into these
categories (in no particular order):
1. The sadist: this could be a sociopathic personality or a person
who feels inadequate and needs to brings another down to feel better (the power
freak).
2. The agenda: this could be making life unpleasant for a worker so
that the boss can hire a friend or someone with similar values. Plenty of workers
are bullied between their 9th and 10th year of service to save on LSL.
3. The personality clash: obviously not everyone gets along.
4. The failed romance: the nature of the sparks between the protagonists
change ...
5. Jealousy: talented workers can be bullied because they threaten
a co-worker or supervisor.
6. Clumsy management: where the worker knows all the rules inside
out and stretches them constantly, and is too cunning to be caught out. In frustration
the manager may resort to bullying to oust him or her.
7. The chronic victim: this is the "Kick me" or "Shlemiel" type of
person (As per Berne's definitions) who subconsciously invites attacks.
8. Mobbing: where a relatively homogenous work group tries to
push an outsider right out.
Obviously the above categories can overlap or occur simultaneously.
It's after midnight and I'm a bit tired so I could easily have missed something
obvious.
-------
I hate to say it but female bosses are worse than male bosses when it comes
to attitude and bullying. I worked at a place that had a male boss first for
years, and then a female boss who replaced him. The morale definitely decreased
after she took over. For some reason women need
to prove themselves not only they have the balls to do the job but they can
do it better - but they come off much worse being heavy handed and autocratic
in dealing with people as a result.
I was glad I found a new job after my experience
but it left a very sour taste in my mouth over having a female boss in future.
Tim Field believes the stereotypical view of men as aggressive and women
as nurturing often prevents the female serial bully from being seen for what
she is: "A sociopath in a skirt."
It's a little-known fact that a woman can be
as severe a bully in the workplace as a man, and according to experts, such
behaviour among women is increasing.
Melbourne psychologist Evelyn Field says women bully just as much as men
do, "but because more bullies are managers and more managers are male, more
bullying is done by men. But you certainly get a lot of bullying from women
and sometimes they behave more aggressively than males."
Field, author of Bullybusting, a self-help book for children faced
with bullying, is also writing a book on workplace bullying. According to information
she has gathered from interviews for her new book as well as her own observations
(speaking to groups of women), women often feel
pressured to adopt male behaviours in the workplace to get ahead.
"Women will copy the patterns and behaviours
of males, so that they become really quite aggressive," Field says.
The Academic
Dr. Loraleigh Keashly, associate professor of communications at Wayne State
University in Detroit, says psychological warfare against a bully boss is never
a good idea, mainly because the balance of power is unequal, the situation will
escalate, and you'll be doubly victimized because others will see you as a troublemaker.
Further, she says, the bully may be of greater value in helping the company
achieve its goals. Thus, if the company is forced
to choose between a complaining target and a valuable bully, guess who will
get the pink slip. However, she says, "Good companies will step
in to ask why a formerly good employee now is a troublemaker."
Still, she offers this advice:
-
- Keep a journal, "for yourself and to provide documentation if
there's an investigation."
- If it's early on, confront the bully in a constructive way using
basic conflict-resolution techniques. "Over time, your resources
to respond become disabled and you're more vulnerable."
1) The Man-Manager bully
For the Man-Manager bully, men are her thing. She has a lot of experience
of them (none of it good) and is very concerned to pass on her observations
to anyone who cares to listen. You'll find her quite uncompromising and outspoken
(she's the one who suggested you leave your husband when he was a bit depressed
last year; she's also the one who kept on saying, "It's not too late to change
your mind", in the lead-up to the wedding). Sometimes the Man-Manager bully
can seem genuinely concerned for your happiness and sometimes it seems as if
she is talking about men in the abstract (the enemy) rather than your particular
circumstances. She is very big on Rules - what you have to do to catch a man,
what you have to do to keep him in line, what you should and shouldn't tolerate,
how much he should be spending on your birthday present, etc.
THE TEST: If you feel her advice generally leads towards conflict it
is not a good sign.
THE SOLUTION: Only ever see her when you're in male company.
Well, I don't believe women in this country have ever (that's right, I said
ever) been more oppressed than men. That alone is enough to get me treated
like a pariah in some circles, but I'm increasingly fine with that.
That's how female bullies work anyway: ostracizing,
demeaning, and badmouthing someone who dares to question them.
But if I have an opinion you don't agree with, and you treat me like
garbage instead of asking me why I came to my conclusions? Good. That
tells me that you're just a closed-minded, kneejerk reactionary, and that I
shouldn't bother wasting my time with you.What's more interesting to me is
to discuss these things with open-minded and decent people. Because I do believe
women are fundamentally different from men in many key areas, that this is rooted
in biology, and cannot be eliminated. What can be done, however, is to channel
it in creative and positive directions. In order to channel it creatively and
positively, however, you have to first acknowledge that it's there. Which is
why I find articles like Cathy Young's so fascinating. It's nice to see self-described
"feminists" questioning their own dogma and openly examining issues like this
for once, rather than hiding their heads in the sand or blaming "the patriarchy."
While we're on the subject of "feminists" challenging their own dogma, I'd
be remiss in not pointing out this
amazing article on domestic violence in the Boston Globe that the redoubtable
Kathy Kinsley (proprietor of
On The Third Hand)
recently pointed out to me. Which dovetails quite remarkably with all the rest
of this. You really should read it. It's already caused me to put
this book on my wish list.
When it comes to relations between the sexes, it makes me feel good to contemplate
that my son will (probably) grow up in a far more tolerant world than the one
I grew up in. Now if only I could say that with the same confidence about race
issues.
Bullies within the family, especially female bullies, are masters (mistresses?)
of manipulation and are fond of manipulating people through their emotions (eg
guilt) and through their beliefs, attitudes and perceptions. Bullies see any
form of vulnerability as an opportunity for manipulation, and are especially
prone to exploiting those who are most emotionally needy. Elderly relatives,
those with infirmity, illness, those with the greatest vulnerability, or those
who are emotionally needy or behaviourally immature family members are likely
to be favorite targets for exploitation.
The family bully encourages and manipulates family members etc to lie, act
dishonorably and dishonestly, withhold information, spread misinformation, and
to punish the target for alleged infractions, i.e. the family members become
the bully's unwitting (and sometimes witting) instruments of harassment.
Bullies are adept at distorting peoples' perceptions with intent to engender
a negative view of their target in the minds of family members, neighbours,
friends and people in positions of officialdom and authority; this is achieved
through undermining, the creation of doubts and suspicions, and the sharing
of false concerns, etc. This poisoning of people's minds is difficult to counter,
however explaining the game in a calm articulate manner helps people to see
through the mask of deceit and to understand how and why they are being used
as pawns.
The bully may try to establish an exclusive relationship (based on apparent
trust and confidence) with one family member such that they (the bully)
are seen as the sole reliable source of information;
this may be achieved by portraying the target (and certain other family members)
as irresponsible, unstable, undependable, uncaring, unreliable and untrustworthy,
perhaps by the constant highlighting - using distortion and fabrication - of
alleged failures, breaches of trust, lack of reliability, etc. The process is
reinforced by inclusion of the occasional piece of juicy gossip about the target's
alleged misdemeanors or untrustworthiness in respect of relationships and communication
with people. Mostly this is
projection.
The objective is to manipulate the family member's perceptions and create a
dependency so that the family member comes to rely exclusively on the bully
and see the bully as the sole source of reliable information whilst distrusting
everyone else. Any person who is capable of exposing and breaking the dependency
is targeted with venom and will find their name blackened at every opportunity.
When close to being outwitted and exposed, the bully feigns victimhood and
turns the focus on themselves - this is another example of manipulating people
through their emotion of guilt, e.g. sympathy, feeling sorry, etc.
Female serial bullies are especially partial to
making themselves the centre of attention by claiming to be the injured party
whilst portraying their target as the villain of the piece. When
the target tries to explain the game, they are immediately labeled "paranoid".
Attention-seeking behavior is common with emotionally immature people.
The serial bully is easy to spot once you know what you are looking at: Jekyll
and Hyde nature, compulsive lying, manipulation (or emotions, perceptions, beliefs,
etc), unpredictability, deception, denial, arrogance, narcissism, attention-seeking,
etc - whilst always charming and plausible, especially when impressionable witnesses
are present. For the full profile of the serial bully, click
here. Everybody
knows someone in their life with this profile - who is it in your life?
Serial bullies can be male or female - the main difference is that female
bullies are more devious, more manipulative, more cunning, more sly, more psychological,
more subtle, leave less evidence and will often bully with a smile. Female bullies
will often manipulate a male into committing their violence for them. Male bullies
tend to be less subtle, have a tendency towards physical aggression, and are
generally less clever than female bullies. Click
here for more information
on female violence. Females often display a greater tendency towards attention
seeking behaviors.
I believe half the population are bullied or harassed or abused; click
here to see
if this fits your experience in life. Many emailers and callers to my UK National
Workplace Bullying Advice Line are dealing with a violent or abusive partner
or ex-partner, sometimes as well as a serial bully at work.
Bully
OnLine provides insight and practical information to validate
the abuse people are experiencing; the sound of relief is often audible!
other women can often be a girl's worst enemies.
In "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman," pioneering feminist Phyllis Chesler dares
to talk about the ways women -- including famous feminists -- stab each other
in the back.
By Laura Miller
Pages 1
2 March 29, 2002 | Comedian Chris Rock does a routine in which he instructs
men on how to listen to a wife or girlfriend talk about her day. Actually paying
attention, he insists, isn't essential, just remember to look at her, nod your
head and at regular intervals say "Uh huh," "Really?" and "I told you that bitch
was crazy." That last response might seem overspecialized, but, Rock insists,
no matter what a woman does for a living there's always another woman at work
who she's convinced is trying to ruin her life.The thing is, she just might
be right. Phyllis Chesler, author of the pioneering 1972 feminist exposé of
the psychiatric profession, "Women and Madness," has produced a mammoth volume,
based on 20 years of research, arguing that other
women can often be a girl's worst enemies. The supporting evidence
in "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman" comprises primate and anthropological research,
workplace studies, sociological data, original interviews, memoir, even literary
criticism and fairy tale analysis -- all documenting the usually underhanded
and often devastating ways that women attack each other.
To which some readers will say, "So what else is new?" Even Chesler admits
that she is hardly the first to write about the subject, and she makes a point
of listing such predecessors as Dorothy Allison, Margaret Atwood and even Sophocles
(for his characterization of the deadly conflict between Electra and her mother,
Clytemnestra). Neither is "Woman's Inhumanity to
Woman" the definitive book about intrafeminine warfare; despite its heft and
the wide range of materials it draws on, it's just too repetitive and rambling
to be the kind of galvanizing work that brings a thousand inchoate impressions
into crystalline focus.
We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter
in employment, that it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that women are
equally as capable of bullying behavior as men.
Women are supposed to be co-operative rather
than competitive, more inclined towards empathy, and less towards seeking dominance.
Women are often portrayed as caring more than men about personal experience
and feelings.
It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized rages
- public swearing and shouting - and in physical violence, though I am sure
that all of us could think of exceptions. Research indicates, however, that
women are inclined towards
- The cold shoulder
- Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
- Sulking
- Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator
nor the recipient.
Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not know
how to elicit positive attention, or to assert ourselves so that our views and
rights are recognized and respected. So we use inappropriate and ineffectual
means to attract attention any way we can. We have been conditioned very early
that girls do not shout and scream. No one is surprised, however, if girls go
quiet or even sulk.
The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will not resolve
their differences.
What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally
damaging social and professional isolation and exclusion from networks can be.
D Gray, Manager, Equal Opportunity, 2003
May be reproduced with acknowledgement
Only recently has society begun to deal with female bullying, perhaps more insidious
because it rarely involves fists. Rather pointed barbs and cruel remarks are
used, frequently leaving much more lasting damage.
Management doesn't mean mind control; use power responsibly
Joan Lloyd
November 8, 2002
They were locked in their cages. Some had been there for years. After years
of abuse, most of them were subdued and easy to control. Even when the doors
of the cages were unlatched, most of them preferred to stay inside, where they
had become comfortable. They didn't trust that it was safe to come outside.
Sadly, I'm not describing dogs. These were people who worked for an overcontrolling,
vindictive boss.
Empowerment for them meant they could bring sweet rolls and cookies to work.
Independent thoughts and actions were beaten out of them long ago.
Does this seem far-fetched to you? Impossible, perhaps? Unfortunately, I have
seen cases this extreme. One situation was a department and the other was an
entire company.
I found it interesting that both authoritarian leaders were successful in exerting
control through similar means:
- Hire people who are underqualified for their
positions and then overpay them so it would be difficult for them to find
a comparable job elsewhere. For example, if the position
typically requires a college degree, promote internal candidates without
degrees. They will be grateful to you and more loyal.
- Hire people who are compliant and not likely
to challenge your authority. Look for traits such as an eagerness
to please and nonassertive personalities.
- Keep a tight leash on your staff and limit
their exposure to outside conferences, professional organizations and other
forms of continuous education. You can keep them from hearing
about new opportunities and new ideas that could be better than yours.
- Limit their activities within the organization,
too. Make sure that only your most loyal employees are allowed
to interact with other managers and executives. The more you can keep them
in their cages, the more you can isolate them and control them. Make sure
that you are the only one who attends committee meetings outside of the
department or the company.
- Make all the important decisions yourself.
Insist that every project, policy and new initiative get your personal approval
every step of the way. If things pile up on your desk and your staff has
to remind you and even beg you to take action, it will reinforce your importance.
- Discourage independent action by limiting
the scope of your employees' jobs. Since you will be the
only person with the whole picture, it will make you feel superior and it
will keep people from outshining you. They will have to come to you constantly
for direction.
- Insist on ironclad loyalty.
Employees who challenge you and disobey you must be tormented, ridiculed
and even fired. This will teach others how to behave.
- Try to catch people making mistakes.
This will demonstrate how superior you are and will cause your employees'
self-confidence to suffer. If you've done a good job of hiring people who
have low self-esteem, this technique will result in a submissive, easy-to-control
staff.
- Keep expenses extremely low, so you can
stay off the radar screen of senior management. As long as
your budget is tight and you aren't demanding much, they will likely leave
you alone to do what you want.
- Make sure you look good to your manager
and other key people. Be as sweet as pie to people who count.
Run when they call and serve their needs personally, so they become your
advocates. You never know when someone might complain about you and you
will need strong supporters at high levels.
- Spread negative stories about anyone who
challenges your authority. Try to damage the reputation of
these people and discredit them slyly, so you never look like the guilty
party. Quote "other people" and feign support while you are spreading these
destructive stories.
Joan Lloyd is a management consultant, trainer & professional speaker. Reach
her at Joan Lloyd & Associates, (800) 348-1944,
info@joanlloyd.com or www.JoanLloyd.com
- There is no law that mandates that the employer be courteous and decent.
But there are laws that forbid certain kinds of mistreatment under certain
circumstances.
- The employer’s “hostile” conduct toward you can be relevant and useful in
court if you find yourself in a legal dispute on some legal theory, even if
your case is not, officially, a “hostile environment” case.
- To determine if you have an official “hostile environment” case, lawyers
look primarily at the law of
Discrimination
or
Wrongful Termination or
Retaliation
or even Contract
law.
- When the employer creates or tolerates a “hostile environment” directed
at you, the employer might be trying to force you to quit. Beware. Please read
my article about
Constructive Discharge before you resign, and consider seeing a lawyer.
- Lawyers can often help you resolve hostile environment problems efficiently.
Consider calling a lawyer right away.
- Caution: As with almost everything on this website, this article focuses
on the rights of private employees. Once again, if you work for the government
then please read my article about
Government
Employees.
John Nicholson is an attorney in the Tech-nology Group of the firm of Shaw Pittman
in Washington, D.C. He focuses on technology outsourcing, application development
and system implementation, and other technology issues.
<John.Nicholson@ShawPittman.com>
In last issue's column, I discussed the concept of a "hostile workplace"
and the need for companies to monitor the behavior of their employees. Having
introduced the concept, I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss workplace
harassment and explain something that frequently confuses people about freedom
of speech (and other Constitutional rights). While this topic is not directly
related to computers and technology, it is something that managers need to know
and understand.[1]
Reader Questions
Before we get to the hostile workplace, however, a reader of the last issue's
column noted that although I discussed the rights (or lack thereof) that an
employee of a company has with regard to privacy of computer files stored on
company computers and sent through the company network, I did not address any
right to privacy or other rights that a third party (nonemployee) sender of
an email message might have regarding how that message is treated.[2]
As I discussed in the April issue, Title 18 Section 2701(a) makes it a crime
to access a system without authorization and to obtain, alter, or prevent authorized
access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage
in such system,[3] except that "Subsection (a) of this section does not apply
with respect to conduct authorized — (1) by the person or entity providing a
wire or electronic communications service; (2) by a user of that service with
respect to a communication of or intended for that user."[4] This language means
that if you send an email message to a person, then any company whose network
that message passes through can probably access and store that message, including,
if you send the message to the person's work address, the recipient's employer.
If the recipient then stores the message on a computer provided by the employer,
then it would be just like the employee receiving a written letter and putting
it in the company's files.
What Is Harassment?
Harassment is employment discrimination consisting of unwelcome verbal or
physical conduct (such as comments, jokes, or acts) relating to the victim's
constitutionally or statutorily protected classification (such as race, religion,
gender, ethnic origin, or age) that has the effect of substantially interfering
with a person's work performance or of creating a hostile work environment.[5]
According to the courts, speech in the workplace can be punished as workplace
harassment if it:
is severe or pervasve enough to create a "hostile work environment"
is based on criteria including, but not limited to race, religion, sex, national
origin,[6] age, disability (including obesity),[7] military membership or veteran
status,[8] or, in some jurisdictions, dishonorable discharge from the military,[9]
marital status,[10] family responsibilities,[11] sexual orientation,[12] personal
appearance,[13] cross-dressing,[14] political affiliation,[15] criminal record,[16]
citizenship status,[17] student status ("matriculation"),[18] receipt of public
assistance, [19] or even smoking or use of tobacco outside the course of employment
[20]
for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person.
Prior to the advent of email and the Internet, employers and employees did
not have as much to worry about (although many of the "hostile workplace" cases
come from the era before email and the Web). It was more difficult for speech
or other behavior to be sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to create a hostile
workplace. Employees had to actually tell each other jokes, either one at a
time or in groups, or make copies of cartoons by hand. Employees could not email
jokes, pictures, executables, links to Web pages, etc., around the company.
Now, however, the ease and speed with which information can be sent to multiple
people (and sometimes the wrong people) creates a situation ripe for workers
to be offended by their co-workers' sense of humor. Additionally, the casual
and spontaneous nature of email may allow employees to write things that are
disseminated beyond their intended audience and could be taken out of context.
Moreover, the seeming privacy and anonymity of email and the Internet makes
some people do or say things they would not do or say if they thought they might
be seen or overheard by a third party. Unless employers can show that they have
policies in place that prohibit such behavior and take action against those
who violate such policies, employers can be held liable for substantial damages.
What Is "Freedom of Speech," and Does It Apply
to Companies?
When a company places limits on what employees can say or wear or what posters
they can put up, employees frequently claim that such rules are a violation
of their right to free speech. Since the company is telling them what they can
and cannot say, this seems to be true. At the same time, however, companies
are being held liable for the behavior of their employees when the employees
create a hostile workplace. This apparent conflict causes a great deal of confusion
in the workplace. Frequently, neither the employees claiming the right to freedom
of speech nor the person writing the corporate policy prohibiting harassment
understands precisely what rights to "freedom of speech" are granted by the
Constitution.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."[21]
The key language in the First Amendment is the first five words — "Congress
shall make no law." The thing that many people do not realize about the Constitution
is that it only controls what the government can do. Thus, on private property,
generally, as long as the restrictions are applied to all employees equally,
a company can impose whatever regulations on speech or expression (putting up
posters, etc.) it wants without violating an employee's constitutional rights.
What Should an Employer Do?
1. Develop a written harassment policy statement. This policy statement should
begin by stating that harassment is illegal and will not be tolerated. The policy
statement may further include the employees' right to work in an environment
free from harassment and from retaliation for reporting harassment, the fact
that harassment is a violation of state and federal law, identification of specific
behaviors that constitute harassment (like those noted above), and an outline
of consequences for engaging in harassing behavior.
2. Communicate the policy by posting it in the workplace and including the
policy in employee handbooks or policy manuals.
3. Develop procedures that will be followed upon filing a claim of harassment
and identify the person(s) to whom the employee should report the harassment.
4. Finally, charge employees with the responsibility to report any harassment
or other discriminatory practices.
You Hear So Many Ridiculous Stories . . .
Just like many of the stories of children being suspended from school for
bringing aspirin or a squirt gun that looks too realistic, there are lots of
stories about people objecting to things that seem harmless but that employers
remove because of a complaint. For example, in one of the more extreme cases,
a harassment complaint was filed against a graduate student who had on his desk
a 5" x 7" photograph of his wife in a bikini. The employer ordered that the
photo be removed.[22]
Unfortunately, because harassment law is potentially so broad (it applies
to any conduct that is "severe" and "pervasive" enough to create a hostile workplace),
because it operates based on aggregate effect rather than specific incident,
and because the potential liability and publicity associated with a lawsuit
can be so severe, companies must respond to each individual complaint. If a
company were to ignore some complaints while responding to others, the company
would effectively be saying that some conduct that is offensive to a particular
employee is acceptable while some other conduct that is offensive to another
employee is not acceptable. By doing this, the company could open itself up
to liability.
The potential for workplace harassment creates a difficult environment for
companies. On one hand, employers do not want to be draconian and punish workers
for seemingly petty offenses. At the same time, however, any individual comment,
jokes, or action could, when taken in the aggregate with all of the other comments,
jokes, or actions, be the straw that breaks the camel's back for an individual
employee. To avoid the risk of creating a "hostile workplace," an employer cannot
simply tell all of its employees not to do or say so many offensive things that
the sum of all of the offenses would create a hostile workplace. There is no
way for any employee to know what other employees are doing or saying at all
times. One employee may be present in different groups on different occasions
when a single employee or even different employees make similar comments or
tell similar jokes that are offensive to that one person. These separate events
could be interpreted by a judge or a jury to be sufficiently "severe" and "pervasive"
to create a hostile work environment. Because there is no way for any individual
employee to know whether other employees are making similar jokes or comments
or are doing or saying enough other things that the result of the collective
actions is to create a hostile workplace, an employer has to prohibit all potentially
offensive behavior and respond to each complaint equally.
Conclusion
Harassment is any speech or other behavior that, if "severe" and "pervasive"
enough, can create a hostile workplace. The First Amendment protections for
freedom of speech generally do not apply in the workplace; they apply only to
government action. Because the terms "severe" and "pervasive" are so vague,
to protect themselves from liability, employers must establish and enforce policies
that restrict any speech or activity that, if repeated enough times or by enough
people, might be held by a jury or judge to be "severe" or "pervasive" enough
to create a hostile workplace.
NOTES
[1] This article provides general information and represents the author's
views. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be used or taken as
legal advice relating to any specific situation.
[2] For a discussion of an employee's right to electronic privacy in the
workplace, see "Electronic Privacy in the Workplace," in the April 2000 issue
of ;login:.
[3] Section 2701(a) states: "Offense. Except as provided in subsection (c)
of this section whoever (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility
through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally
exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters,
or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it
is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection
(b) of this section."
[4] 18 U.S.C. 2701(c).
[5] Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) <http://dictionary.findlaw.com/scripts/
results.pl?co=www&topic=7c/7cea1d560bd690325e45218463669979>
[6] See, e.g., Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993) (barring
harassment based on race, religion, sex, or national origin).
[7] Eggleston v. South Bend Community Sch. Corp., 858 F. Supp. 841, 847—48
(N.D. Ind. 1994) (barring harassment based on age and disability under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act).
[8] 38 U.S.C. §4311 (1994) (barring discrimination against present or former
armed service members). Additionally, several states, including California,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, have passed statutes that prohibit discrimination
against present members of the armed services and/or the National Guard.
[9] Ill. Stat. Ch. 775 §§5/1-103(Q), 5/2-102 (1997) (barring discrimination
in "terms, privileges or conditions of employment" based on "unfavorable discharge
from military service").
[10] See, e.g., Cal. Gov't Code §12940(h)(1) (West 1992 & Supp. 1995) (barring
discrimination based on marital status).
[11] D.C. Code Ann. §1-2512 (1981 & Supp. 1988) (barring discrimination in
"terms, conditions, . . . or privileges of employment" based on "family responsibilities").
[12] Leibert v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65, 67 (Ct. App.
1995) (barring harassment based on sexual orientation).
[13] D.C. Code Ann. §1-2512 (1981 & Supp. 1988) (barring discrimination in
"terms, conditions, . . . or privileges of employment" based on "personal appearance").
[14] New Orleans Code §86-1 (stating that discrimination based on "gender
identification," which includes cross-dressing, is to be treated as discrimination
based on sexual orientation), 86-131 (barring discrimination based on sexual
orientation, defined to include discrimination "with respect to . . . terms,
conditions or privileges of employment," which includes hostile environment
harassment).
[15] D.C. Code Ann. §1-2512 (1981 & Supp. 1988) (barring discrimination in
"terms, conditions, . . . or privileges of employment" based on "political affiliation").
[16] N.Y. Correction Law §752 (generally banning discrimination based on
having "previously been convicted of one or more criminal offenses").
[17] Ill. Stat. Ch. 775 §5/2-102 (1997) (barring discrimination in "terms,
conditions or privileges of employment" based on "citizenship status").
[18] D.C. Code Ann. §1-2512 (1981 & Supp. 1988) (barring discrimination in
"terms, conditions, . . . or privileges of employment" based on "matriculation").
[19] Minn. Stat. Ann. §363.03(2) (barring discrimination in "terms, conditions,
. . . or privileges of employment" based on "status with regard to public assistance").
[20] D.C. Code Ann. §1-2512 (1981 & Supp. 1988) (barring discrimination in
"terms, conditions, . . . or privileges of employment" based on "smoking or
using tobacco or tobacco products outside the course of . . . employment").
[21] U.S. CONST. amend. I.
[22] Nat Hentoff, "A 'Pinup' of His Wife," Washington Post, June 5, 1993,
at A21. The law's ban on sexually suggestive materials in the workplace is not
limited to those containing nudity; see, e.g., In re Butler, 166 Vt. 423, 697
A.2d 659, 664 (1997) (concluding that "a poster of a woman in a skimpy bikini"
could count as harassment, because "the posting or display of any sexually oriented
materials in common areas that tend to denigrate or depict women as sexual objects
may serve as evidence of a hostile environment")
Most people at some point in their lives have to deal with a difficult boss.
Difficult supervisors vary in personality from being a little pushy or rude,
all the way to being downright abusive. Many people feel that an abusive boss
has control of their personal life outside of work by lowering their self-esteem
and making them live in constant fear. The role of a supervisor sometimes attracts
certain controlling-type personalities because they crave the power it gives
them and because they lack such control in their own personal lives. A supervisor
has complete control over your most basic human needs—your ability to put food
on the table and a roof over your head. These are powerful motivating factors
that allow a difficult supervisor to control people out of fear of losing these
basic needs. We may not be able to always correct their behavior, but we should
never have to live in fear and let our difficult boss control our lives.
Here are some strategies on handling a difficult boss situation.
- Always have a plan B. Most people are scared about having a discussion
with their boss concerning their abusive behavior because they fear reprimand
or losing their job as a result of it. Their fear is usually justified if
the supervisor is a control-freak and feels that their subordinate is threatening
their control. Before you deal with any type of conflict, you always need
to have a plan B in case things don’t work out. A plan B is the best alternative
that you can come up without having to negotiate anything with your boss.
In this type of scenario, your best plan B would probably take the form
of having an actual job offer in hand with another employer before you have
your talk. By not having a back-up plan, you have given your abusive boss
even more leverage over you because they know you have no where else to
go. Having a plan B, however, empowers you with the ability to walk-away
at any time should the negotiation not go right. Increase your power and
have a plan B before you deal with the conflict.
- Never react to verbal abuse or harsh criticism with emotion.
This will always get you into more trouble than you started with because
it will become a war between egos and chances are good that your boss has
a bigger ego than you have—hence why he is difficult in the first place.
When a personal attack is made on you, they are trying to bait you into
reacting emotionally because once you react, you become an easy target for
additional attacks. The key then is not to react, but to acknowledge and
move on. By doing this, you effectively strip all of the power behind their
verbal attacks away from your abusive boss, without creating conflict.
If your boss happens to be an intimidator or a control freak, then
the best way of dealing with their behavior is to remain calm and acknowledge
their power by saying, "I'm sorry." By saying this, you take away any chance
of them lashing back at you because you have sidestepped [deflected - NNB]their
verbal attack rather than meeting it head on.
- Discuss rather than confront. When your boss criticizes you,
don’t react out of emotion and become confrontational with them about it
because that just breeds more conflict. Instead, use their criticism as
a topic for discussion on interests, goals, and problem-solving and ask
them for their advice. If they criticize your work, then that means that
they have their own idea on how that work should be done, so ask them for
their advice on how your work can be improved.
- Manage the manager. A source of conflict usually occurs when
a group of employees gets a new manager who demands that things run differently.
These changes are usually reactionary in nature because the employees go
about their regular duties until the manager comes by and criticizes the
way it is being done. Instead of waiting for their criticism, take a proactive
approach and be absolutely clear from the very beginning on how your boss
wants things to be done so that there is no miscommunication later on. There
are many ways of completing a task and having a discussion about them at
the very beginning will allow you to see things from their perspective as
well as sharing your own with them. Get to know their likes and dislikes
inside and out so that you can avoid future criticisms.
- Know that you can do little to change them. Being a difficult
person is part of their personality and therefore it is a very difficult,
if not impossible thing to change in a supervisor, so don’t think that you
can change how they act. Instead, change the way that you view their behavior.
Don’t label them as being a jerk--just merely label them as your boss. By
avoiding derogatory labeling, you avoid making it easy on yourself to be
angry with your boss.
Stop Creating
Conflict
It's better to prevent unnecessary conflict than to manage conflict
once the flames have started.
Click here to preview Conflict Prevention In The Workplace
- Using Cooperative Communication |
- Keep your professional face on. Know the difference between not
liking your boss and not being professional. You don’t have to make your
boss your friend or even like your boss as a person, but you do have to
remain professional and get the job done and carry out their instructions
dutifully as a subordinate, just as you would expect them to be professional
as do their duties as a supervisor.
- Evaluate your own performance. Before you go attacking your boss,
examine your own performance and ask yourself if you are doing everything
right. Get opinions from other coworkers about your performance and see
if there is any warrant to the criticisms of your supervisor before you
criticize their opinions.
- Gather additional support. If others share in your concern, then
you have the power of numbers behind you to give you additional persuasion
power over your boss. It is often easy for a supervisor to ignore or attack
one employee, but it becomes more difficult to attack all of his employees.
He might be able to fire one of you, but he will look like an idiot (and
probably get fired himself) if he tries to fire all of you. An interdepartment
union is a good way of mustering power against an abusive employer.
- Don’t go to up the chain of command unless it’s a last resort.
Going straight up the chain of command is not an effective way of dealing
with a difficult supervisor because it only increases conflict in the workplace.
Your immediate supervisor will consider this
a very serious backstabbing maneuver and might seek some sort of retribution
in the future against you and your career. Also, other people
in your workplace might brand you as a whistleblower because of your actions.
Try to discuss issues with your supervisor first and only go up the chain
of command as a last resort.
Stop Letting
Conflict Control YOU
Learn to manage conflict by "using
your head", rather than your heart. Find out about
pro's and con's of different conflict methods.
Click here to preview Using Your Head to Manage Conflict
Helpcard.
|
- Encourage good behavior with praise. It is easy to criticize
your superiors, but criticisms often lead towards resentment and hostile
feelings. Everyone likes a pat on the back for good behavior, so you should
strive to watch for good behaviors from your supervisor and compliment them
on that. Proactive praising is much more effective than reactive criticisms.
- Document everything. If you choose to stay with a toxic employer,
then document everything. This will become your main ammunition should a
complaint ever be filed down the road. Document interactions with them as
well as your own activities so that you can remind them of your own achievements
at performance review time.
- Leave work at work. Get into the habit of leaving work at home
and not bringing it into your personal life because that will only add to
your level of stress. Keep your professional life separate from your personal
life as best as you can. This also includes having friends who you don’t
work with so that you can detach yourself from your work life rather than
bringing it home with you.
As many as 30 percent of employees experience workplace bullying, research
shows. A bully boss aims to control subordinates by using demeaning methods.
Screaming and throwing things, as Bolton is accused of doing, are actually rare.
More common are covert techniques such as constant fault-finding, changing work
schedules and withholding needed resources, said Gary Namie, director of the
Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute in Bellingham, Wash.
"They get you behind closed doors and start to chip away at your self-confidence,"
Namie said. "They use personal data about people for reconnaissance, just to
shame and humiliate the person."
That's what happened to Stacey, a Pennsylvania nurse. A month after she started
at a nursing home, she was called into the nurse manager's office and "my whole
performance was attacked," she said.
For the next four years, the manager periodically chewed her out for practices
that were common among the staff, changed her schedule from full-time to part-time,
and told her there were negative rumors about her, she said. She was criticized
for having attention deficit disorder, for getting pregnant and even for having
a Jewish husband.
"My formal performance evaluations were always good," Stacey said. "It was these
off-the-record things designed to break my spirit."
Often, the only symptoms of a bully boss are a steady trickle of staff resignations,
low productivity and the glum faces around the water cooler.
Companies should remember the workplace truth that people don't quit jobs, they
quit managers, human resource experts said.
Almost two-thirds of people who leave a position cite bad leadership, with compensation
and benefits "way down at the bottom" of reasons, Wellins said.
Bullying causes stress, which costs corporations $300 billion each year and
is responsible for 1 million absences each day, said Kathleen Hall, a stress-management
expert based in Clarkesville, Ga., and author of "Alter Your Life."
"Employers have to understand it is going to kill and take the lifeblood out
of their company," Hall said.
Chapter1
When You Work For A Bully: Assessing your options and taking action
Do you work for a boss who doesn't appreciate you? Do you feel ignored or
excessively criticized? If you do, life can be a misery, if you make it so.
Or you can work around it. It's up to you to choose.rad appeared at Lauren's
door. "Got a few minutes?" He didn't wait for her answer. He just closed the
door behind himself and sat. Lauren wasn't surprised, because Brad hadn't been
himself for days. She closed her laptop and rotated her chair to face him.
"You seem a little down...you OK?" she asked.
"Not really," he said. "I've had it with Warren." Warren was his boss. "No
matter what you do, he isn't satisfied. When you tell him good news, if there's
nothing obvious to criticize, he changes the subject. I'm done."
Lauren was sympathetic. "I know. He's a horror. What's happening with your
transfer?"
Brad works for an unappreciative boss, and Lauren is reminding Brad of one
of the truly useful tactics for this situation — moving on. Sometimes
you can get out either by transferring, finding a new job, or waiting for your
boss to move on.
But even if you can't move on, you can still change your own experience of
the unappreciative boss. Here are five tactics you can use today.
- Even when you can't
move on, you can
still change how you
experience your
boss's behavior
-
- Recognize that the situation is unacceptable
- Failing to appreciate excellent performance, or failing to recognize
it publicly, is bad management. It's abusive and you deserve better.
-
- Stop using it to make yourself feel bad
- You are 100% in charge of your own feelings. Although you can't really
know why your boss behaves this way, you can decide that you won't use the
behavior to make yourself feel bad or angry.
- Seek support
- Everything is easier with support. Perhaps you have peers who feel the
same way, and you can form a validation circle. Or you can ask for understanding
from a friend or spouse.
- Avoid the Fundamental Attribution Error
- Humans tend to attribute others' motivation too much to character and
inclination, and too little to context. For instance, your boss might be
distracted by troubles outside of your awareness, and might lack the energy
or attention to recognize your work. There might be dozens of scenarios
like that. See "The
Fundamental Attribution Error," Point Lookout for May 5, 2004.
- Understand that some things aren't about you
- Your boss might not be trying to send you a message of unappreciation
— something else might explain what's going on. Some bosses feel that by
keeping the pressure up, they'll produce better performance. Some feel threatened
by superior performance by subordinates. Some have designated a "star" subordinate,
at least in their own minds, and have decided not to praise anyone else.
Others have difficulty expressing appreciation, for reasons of personal
history.
Most important, recognize that basing your self-esteem on what another person
says to you is a risky strategy — it surrenders control and power to that person.
To keep your own power, and to maintain your autonomy, listen to your inner
voice. You are in charge of you.
Cutouts are people or procedures that enable political operators to communicate
in safety. Using cutouts, operators can manipulate their environments
while limiting their personal risk. How can you detect cutouts? And what can
you do about them?
In espionage, a cutout acts as a secure means of communication. Its security
usually derives from an asymmetry in its connection to the larger system. That
is, while the people who communicate through the cutout know how to send messages
to the cutout and how to receive messages from the cutout, the cutout probably
doesn't know how to contact the communicators. A "dead drop" can be an example
of a cutout. Another example: a courier who doesn't know the source of the freight
carried.
Cutouts also play roles in organizational politics. Here are three examples
of cutouts or their use in the workplace.
Scott McLellan, White House Press Secretary, 2003-2006.
Source:
US White House.
By simply making information available in a deniable way, an operator might
encourage an ambitious subordinate to pursue a project. The disclosure might
be something as simple as an apparently careless exposure of a memo on a desk
or screen. The subordinate receives the information, but cannot reveal its source,
without seeming to be a snoop.
Ambiguous direction
Ambiguous direction creates a chance that subordinates will do what the operator
wants when the operator cannot ethically direct the subordinate to do so. If
ever a problem arises, the operator can assert that he or she had something
else in mind, and that the subordinate initiated the ethical breach. When combined
with subjective cues, such as facial expressions and knowing glances, especially
when delivered in private, ambiguous directions are especially effective.
Cutouts enable devious operators to limit
the risks of organizational politics
Typically, human cutouts deliver or leak information on behalf of their
operators, but they're unwilling or unable to credibly reveal sources or other
related information. This protects the operator when the information leads to
undesirable consequences or to pressure to reveal more. If the ploy backfires,
then the operator can assert that either the human cutout misspoke, or exceeded
authority, or any of a variety of other insulating claims.
When you spot a ploy that could be a cutout, what can you do?
- Decide if it's acceptable
- You might be content to receive the information through the cutout.
This is a risky approach, but always a possibility.
- Seek clarification
- Ask for a direct disclosure instead, especially if you're receiving
ambiguous direction. For instance, "You certainly wouldn't want us to act
unethically...do you mean X or Y?"
- Smoke out the operator
- If you receive information that you "shouldn't" have, ask about it directly.
"I've heard that Marigold might be revived. Know anything about that?" The
operator now has a stark choice: to deny, to lie, to decline, or to reveal.
If the information is revealed in front of witnesses, you're safe. If the
operator continues to withhold, or dissembles, you might have found an accidental
slip. Otherwise, take care.
Cutouts give you information that can be too hot to handle. Sometimes
it's best to just ignore it — to appear to have missed the message. But don't
miss this message.
In case of broken links
please try to use Google search. If you find the page please notify
us about new location
The Lawyer
Sam Samaro, a partner at the Hackensack, NJ, law firm Pashman Stein who
specializes in employment law, says, "Bullying that isn't caused by the
victim's membership in some protected class is not illegal." In other words,
if the bully attacks men and women; Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists;
blacks, whites and Asians; disabled and non-disabled people equally, he
says, "It's hard to make a legal case."
Rather, he says, when a target asks for his help, he takes a
crisis-counseling approach. He first tries to determine whether the issue is
persistent bullying or just situational, and what triggers it. "We all have
the capacity to be a bully in the right or wrong circumstances. Is this
just a performance issue?" he asks. Unfortunately, he adds, "There's no
general protection from unpleasant people."
More than half of the bullies reported to a new
national helpline are women - and most of the
victims are other women.
In the first half of this year, nearly 700
complaints were made about women managers, according
to a report from the National Workplace Bullying
Advice Line.
The data from the line also reveal that
white-collar bullying among professional and office
workers is far more common than among shopfloor
workers. Nine out of 10 calls involved office-based
workers. The public sector accounts for more than
half the calls, with one in five complainants
working in the caring agencies, the NHS or social
services. "Workplace bullying among women is
increasing, partly because they are occupying more
senior positions," said Tim Field, an Oxford
counsellor who runs anti-bullying workshops.
"Women when they are
bullies tend to be more manipulative and divisive,
whereas men in the same situation are more overtly
hostile. Women also tend
to leave less evidence about their bullying
activities. "In around 10 per cent of
the cases dealt with by the advice line, suicide had
been contemplated. Eight cases involved actual
suicide."
The woman at my last job, who was the reason I left, was the worst one of
the lot. She was a classic workplace bully. She would whisper to your
colleagues in front of you, causing you to wonder what they could possibly
be talking about that couldn't be said out loud (or in a quiet conference
room somewhere). She would set impossible tasks and give you very little
direction and no time to do it in, then question your commitment to your job
in front of the Manager.
Her power-move was the one where, if you finally got up the nerve to tell
her that she was asking too much of you, was to BURST INTO TEARS in front of
the Manager, making
him believe that you had said something unkind to her, and thus causing him
to ask you to leave one week into your four weeks' notice. That woman still
works there, the people above her still think she's great, her clients think
she's terrific, but there are now twelve former employees of that company
who have left on account of her behaviour. She gave the illusion of being a
nice person, but scratch the very thin surface and you see that it's just
that - an illusion. A dozen people, men and women, can't be wrong. But I'd
be willing to bet her friends all think she's wonderful.
People who claim they're being bullied are just trying to hide the
fact they're not very good at their job, aren't they?
In at least 95% of the cases of bullying reported to the UK National
Workplace Bullying Advice Line, the person has been picked on because they
are good at their job and popular with people. Bullies are driven by
jealousy (of relationships) and envy (of abilities). The target just
happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If you have an employee who is genuinely underperforming, then:
a) there will be substantive and quantifiable evidence that they are
underperforming
b) there is already a problem with that person's manager for i) causing and
allowing that situation to develop, ii) not taking positive action before,
c) bullying will always make a problem worse so any manager who thinks that
bullying improves performance is revealing their inadequacy as a manager
How do I tell the difference between someone who is really being
bullied and someone who's claiming bullying to hide their poor performance?
The person who is being bullied will have, or quickly be able to construct,
a fat folder of evidence, often covering several months, maybe years. They
will report a stream of bullying behaviours, especially nit-picking,
fault-finding and constant criticism and allegations, all of which lack
substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are just the bully's
opinion. It's the patterns, the regularity and the number
of incidents which reveal bullying.
The person who is making a spurious claim might produce half a dozen sheets
of paper, if that.
But you've got to bully people to get the job done, haven't you?
Bullies are weak, inadequate people who lack people skills, lack empathy,
lack interpersonal skills, lack leadership skills, lack motivational skills,
lack judgement, lack foresight and hindsight, lack forward thinking skills,
etc. Bullies bully to hide the fact they lack these skills. Serial bullies
are compulsive liars with a Jekyll and Hyde nature who use charm and mimicry
to deceive peers and superiors. Bullying results in demotivation,
demoralisation, disenchantment, disaffection, disloyalty, ill-health, high
sickness absence, high staff turnover, an us-and-them culture, low
productivity, frequent mistakes, low morale, non-existent team spirit, poor
customer service, no continuity of customer care, etc. And that's just for
starters.
Isn't there a fine line between admonishing people who are not
performing and using strong management to get the job done?
a) Bullying is a cause of underperformance, not the solution
b) There are recognised ways of dealing with underperformance; bullying is
not one of them
c) Bullying makes underperformance worse, not better
d) Bullying prevents employees from fulfilling their duties
e) "Underperforming" employees seem to follow the bully wherever s/he goes
f) It is always the bully who is weak, inadequate, and underperforming
g) Bullies are weak managers; bullying is designed to hide that weakness by
giving the appearance of strength whilst diverting attention away from the
bully
Surely a manager has a right to deal with the underperformance of a
subordinate?
False allegations of underperformance are designed to divert attention away
from the bully's own inadequacy and to create conflict between those who
might share incriminating information about him/her.
Isn't it always just a case of the employee and employer fighting
each other?
Almost always the employee and employer end up in an adversarial contest in
which both are losers regardless of the outcome. However, the employee and
employer should be on the same side fighting the bully. Bullies are adept at
creating conflict between those who would otherwise pool incriminating
information about them. Bullies also gain gratification (a perverse
indulgence in that nice warm feeling we call satisfaction) from encouraging
and then watching others engage in destructive conflict. Bullies are also
adept at manipulation (especially of people's emotions), deception, and
evasion of accountability.
My Human Resources department refuse to take me
seriously. Instead, they are doing everything they can to support the bully
whilst getting rid of me. Why is this?
From dealing with thousands of cases in which this happens - albeit a
self-selecting audience which may not scale up nationally - I've identified
the following reasons:
1) Human Resources (HR) people are not trained in dealing with bullying -
it's not in their textbooks, not in their training, and their professional
body in the UK (CIPD) has not given the issue the attention it needs.
2) The HR profession seems to attract a number of people who are not
people-focused and thus not good at dealing with people problems.
3) HR is not there for employees. The role of HR is to keep
the employer out of court.
4) The majority of HR people are female, and females seem particularly
susceptible to charm, which is one of the bully's main weapons of deception.
5) By the time HR get to hear of the bullying they are faced with an
articulate, plausible, convincing, charming "bully" and a gibbering wreck of
a "target" who is traumatised and thus unconvincing, inarticulate,
incoherent, obsessed, apparently paranoid, tearful, distressed and highly
emotional. By this time the bully has already convinced HR that the target
has a "mental health problem", is a liability to the organisation, and needs
to be got rid of.
6) When it's one word against another with no witnesses, HR take the word of
the senior employee (almost always the bully).
7) There's no law against bullying so there's no case to answer.
8) The employer doesn't have an anti-bullying policy so it's not a
disciplinary issue.
9) The employer does have an anti-bullying policy but it's just words on
paper
10) The bully is a tough dynamic manager who gets the job done and the high
turnover of staff in the bully's department is because they're all wimps who
can't meet the demanding standards of performance demanded by this exemplary
manager. Yawn.
11) If HR recognise they have a bully, they're not going to admit it because
to do so is tantamount to admitting liability for this - and previous -
cases.
12) HR are not going to admit that they've made a mistake recruiting an
incompetent individual who bullies to hide his or her inadequacies.
13) When push comes to shove, HR do what they are told to do by management,
regardless of the rights and wrongs.
14) HR are sometimes an outsourced and contracterised profession with little
influence.
15) The constant change, reorganisation, restructuring, downsizing,
outsourcing, contracterisation etc mean that there is no continuity in
treatment of staff and thus the bully is able to hide the fact that he or
she has a history of conflict with employees.
16) Over the last few years employers have been burdened with numerous
legislative changes (working time, data privacy, parental leave, etc) and
have no desire, resources, time or energy to deal with issues for which
there is no legal requirement.
17) Bullying cases are so long and complex (a situation the bully fosters)
that most HR (and most people) don't have the time, energy or resources to
unpick the case.
18) There are only a handful of people who are capable of providing HR with
the training
and insight to undertake a successful investigation.
19) Where HR want to investigate they are sometimes overruled.
20) HR (and management) are frightened of the serial bully too - and
sometimes more frightened than the employees.
21) HR people get bullied too.
When organisational psychologist
Mary Sherry wrote in a national newspaper last month
that female managers were far more likely to bully
staff than male ones it triggered a large reader
response - almost all backing her view.
Why are some women much worse
bullies than their male counterparts?
One female respondent to Shelly's
article said: "Women bosses are worse bullies than
men. I also agree with
Sherry that usually they employ more insidious
tactics such as isolating people and nit-picking in
order to undermine the other person's confidence."
Another wrote: "Your article has
provoked me to put down on record that the
unhappiest years of my life were caused by female
bosses. I was treated so badly that I lived in a
state of fear for the last few years of my
employment."
And a third said: "I work for a
government department and have been off work since
late October due to stress and anxiety exacerbated
by a two-year campaign by my female line manager.
Women bosses are certainly worse than men at
bullying."
... ... ...
Their approach is a lot more subtle
and psychological. They nitpick and undermine
through constant criticism which leads to those on
the receiving end losing their self-confidence and
becoming risk and responsibility averse.
So who are these bully-girl bosses?
In
Sherry's view they tend to be middle managers who
are managing beyond their level of competence.
"For example when they are asked to
perform at a certain level and don't have the
managerial competence to get the best out of people
they may bully. I don't think people actually decide
to become bullies. It is
because they don't have the competence to fulfil
their management role."
And who, typically, are their
victims?
According to Sherry the victim is rarely a new
starter. They tend to have been
employed for 18 months to 15 years. "A new female
manager is brought in and undermines the person
concerned by nit-picking and disempowering them."
She said that although it sounds
like she is banging her own drum she does not think
internal HR departments are best at dealing with
serious bullying cases, especially if they involve
senior staff.
"It is very difficult for internal
investigators to look into bullying cases," Shelly
said. "HR departments often don't have the level of
delicate questioning techniques."
JCU - Female
bullies by D Gray, Manager, Equal Opportunity, 2003
We hear so much of women as victims and the disadvantages women encounter
in employment, that it sometimes comes as a surprise to realize that
women are equally as capable of bullying behavior as men.
Women are supposed to be co-operative rather than competitive, more
inclined towards empathy, and less towards seeking dominance. Women
are often portrayed as caring more than men about personal experience
and feelings.
It may be true that women are less inclined to indulge in vocalized
rages - public swearing and shouting - and in physical violence, though
I am sure that all of us could think of exceptions. Research indicates,
however, that women are inclined towards
- The cold shoulder
- Refusing to communicate with the perceived offender
- Sulking
- Passive aggressive behavior - which respects neither the perpetrator
nor the recipient.
Such behavior is evidence of women's socialization: often we do not
know how to elicit positive attention, or to assert ourselves so that
our views and rights are recognized and respected. So we use inappropriate
and ineffectual means to attract attention any way we can. We have been
conditioned very early that girls do not shout and scream. No one is
surprised, however, if girls go quiet or even sulk.
The problem, however, is that unless people communicate, they will
not resolve their differences.
What comes as a shock to many people is just how personally and educationally
damaging social and professional isolation and exclusion from networks
can be.
D Gray, Manager, Equal Opportunity, 2003
May be reproduced with acknowledgement
Whilst the focus of Bully OnLine
is bullying in the workplace, the
serial bully at
work is a serial bully at home and in the community. All serial bullies have
been through school and all have families and neighbours. An increasing number
of enquiries come from people dealing with family bullying.
The violence committed by a serial bully is almost entirely psychological,
for psychological violence leaves no scars and no physical evidence. Most commonly
the violence takes the form of verbal abuse and emotional abuse including trivial
nit-picking criticism, constant fault-finding combined with a simultaneous refusal
to recognise, value, acknowledge and praise. Manipulation,
isolation and exclusion are other favourite tactics, as is feigning victimhood
or persecution, especially when held accountable.
The objectives of serial bullies are Power, Control, Domination and Subjugation.
These are achieved by a number of means including disempowerment, the stimulation
of excessive levels of fear, shame, embarrassment and guilt, manipulation (especially
of emotions and perceptions), ritual humiliation and constant denial.
When you live with someone who is constantly denying what they said or did a
day ago, or an hour ago, or even a minute ago, it drives you crazy.
When the symptoms of injury to health start to become apparent, the bully will
tell others you have a "mental health problem". You may be mad, but this is
not mad insane, this is mad angry.
Control is a common indicator of the serial bully at home - control of finances,
control of movements, control over choice of friends, control of the right to
work, control over what to think, and so on. All
are designed to disempower.
A favourite tactic of the bully in the family is to set people against each
other. The benefits to the bully are that:
a) the bully gains a great deal of gratification (a perverse form of
satisfaction) from encouraging and provoking argument, quarrelling and hostility,
and then from watching others engage in adversarial interaction and destructive
conflict, and
b) the ensuing conflict ensures that people's attention is distracted and
diverted away from the cause of the conflict
Bullies within the family, especially female bullies, are masters (mistresses?)
of manipulation and are fond of manipulating people through their emotions (eg
guilt) and through their beliefs, attitudes and perceptions. Bullies see any
form of vulnerability as an opportunity for manipulation, and are especially
prone to exploiting those who are most emotionally needy. Elderly relatives,
those with infirmity, illness, those with the greatest vulnerability, or those
who are emotionally needy or behaviourally immature family members are likely
to be favourite targets for exploitation.
The family bully encourages and manipulates family members etc to lie,
act dishonourably and dishonestly, withhold information,
spread misinformation, and to punish the target for alleged infractions,
ie the family members become the bully's unwitting (and sometimes witting) instruments
of harassment.
Don't overreact. As much as we want to protect our kids, remember
that it is not your fight. Outward intervention in many cases may make a bad
bully situation worse. Many well-meaning adults intefere in their
offspring's issues. In most all cases, a grown-up should remain neutral,
listen, and offer some non-emotional responses about bullies and any bully
threats.
Copyright © 1996-2008 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov.
www.softpanorama.org was
created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
in the author free time.
Submit
comments This document is an industrial compilation designed and created
exclusively for educational use and is placed under the copyright of the
Open Content License(OPL).
Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made
for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
Standard disclaimer:
- The statements, views and opinions presented on
this web page are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily
reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other
organization the author may be associated with.
- We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its
fitness for any purpose
- In no way this site is associated with or endorse cybersquatters
using
the term "softpanorama" with other main or country domains (e.g. softpanorama.com) with
bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill belonging to
someone else.
Last updated:
April 22, 2009
The person works hard with the information they are given, then at the key moment the secret info is revealed either causing large reworks or used to make the person look like a fool.
Usually management playing politics.