Delaware Employment Law Blog

Gossip in the workplace can be a powerfully destructive force.  Gossip spread by employees about their coworkers can be the result of passive participation or it can be triggered by a more affirmative attempt to cause harm to another.  Office gossip is an effective method to exact workplace revenge. 

What fuels efforts to engage in workplace revenge has a story all its own.  A new book, due out next month, takes a close look at what it is that workplace revenge entails and why employees engage in such conduct. In Getting Even: The Truth About Workplace Revenge - and How to Stop It, by Thomas M. Tripp and Robert J. Bies  conclude that workplace revenge is the product of individuals who feel that they have been victimized and seek to avenge justice on their own behalf.  The book is the result of years of research and the various lessons learned from the nearly 500 managers and workers interviewed for the project.  Pieces of the interviews are peppered throughout the book in the form of lively anecdotes.  

To read more about the problems of bullies and jerks at work, see these posts:

New Conclusions on the Potential Costs of Workplace Bullying

Women Who Bully Women at Work

"My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Workplace bullying

A "tool" is a loser, a wanna-be. A tool, usually a male, could also be described as a "poser"--someone who acts soooo coooool that he almost has the world tricked.  But, then a real cool person comes along and assures us that the individual in question is, in fact, a tool.  How, you ask, does the tool make such a convincing case for his false coolness?  Usually by berating others and kicking on the little guy.  You remember someone like this from high school, right?  At the time, he was very convincing but now, in your wisdom, you can look back and recognize that it was his insecurity that made him toss freshman into lockers--not his alleged coolness.

Most tools get out of high school and, sometimes college, only to realize that they're really not so cool and they may even take a few beatings themselves.  By professional life, most tools outgrow this nonsensical camouflage.  And the ones who don't?  In some organizations, they're promoted.  That's right, in some worlds, where I am thankful not to live, the biggest tools take the day and are promoted as a result of their obnoxious conduct.  Why this is, truly, is beyond me. 

Maybe you've been wondering whether your boss is a tool.  Maybe you've suspected it for quite some time.  If so, you can take the following test, created by male-fashion blogger extraordinnaire, MagnificientBastard, and find out. Only MB uses the term "toolbag," which leadership blog, What Would Dad Say, defines "men who are clueless, inappropriate and overall doofuses."  (And, for the record with regard to the tool-toolbag debate, I'm not discrediting the use of the term "toolbag, I'm just sticking with "tool" as my preferred term, ok?)  

Here's how to tell if your boss is a toolbag:

1. He takes credit for everything you do.

2. He walks around the meeting with a baseball bat, asking if anyone saw the movie Untouchables.

3. He steals money from the coffee jar.

4. He is all gushy about you to your wife, and asks her to call him if you get upset at him.

5. He demands the project be completed overnight for his 8 am meeting, but then doesn’t show up himself.

6. He broke down, cried and asked “why don’t they like me?”

7. He wanted everyone to dress like a pilgrim at Thanksgiving.

8. He monitors phone calls.

9. He brings in his kids’ grade school artwork and asks for your honest opinion.

10. He puts you down for ten boxes of Girl Scout cookies because “everyone else is buying this much.”

Workplace bullying is not a recent phenomenon.  I'd go so far as to say that jerks at work have a primary cause of conflict and adversity since the inception of the modern workplace.  In her recent paper, Nancy Haig analyzes and synthesizes the research on workplace bullying.  She concludes:

Workplace bullying  is . . . commonly defined as a pattern of psychological abuse, over time, intended to degrade, humiliate and isolate the bully’s victim. Bullying may be impacted by individual characteristics and/or corporate structure; and corporate practices themselves have been called bullying. The costs of bullying are significantly high to both employees and employers.

The paper is very well-supported and offers readers a whole host of resources for further reading.  [Via Brandon Hall Research]

Bullying in the workplace has been a hot topic in the labor and employment world since 2007, when The Workplace Bullying Institute published a revealing survey on the topic. Since then, the subject of Jerks at Work has played a regular role in scholarly discussions about how employers can work to improve the working environment.  The attention, at least from legal scholars, has been focused on the overlap between unlawful harassment and the bullying epidemic.  So the theory goes, bullying conduct looks enough like harassing conduct that a jury could reasonably interpret the former as the latter. 

I speak frequently on the topic and, when making a case for the implementation and enforcement of anti-bullying policies, I explain it as a matter of simple business sense.  Happy people don't sue.  (Most of the time.)  But pissed-off people make great plaintiffs.  Pick on someone long enough and be mean enough and it's just a matter of time until the person reacts.  The reaction can come in a myriad of forms, all of which are adverse to the employer's interest.   Workplace violence is one possible response to bullying experienced by workers.  Legal action is another. 

This topic also comes up when I give general employment discrimination training or harassment-prevention training.  When discussing the legal elements of harassment, I tell attendees that the harassing conduct must be because of a protected class.  If a male supervisor terminates a female employee, this is not gender discrimination.  For gender discrimination to exist, the termination decision must have been made because of the employee's gender.  There is a principle in discrimination law that stands for the idea that, where the alleged discriminator is in the same protected class as the plaintiff-employee, it is less likely that discrimination occurred. 

At this point in the lecture, I laugh to myself because I know what comes next.  I give some examples of this principle at work.  If a worker alleges that he was not hired because of his age, the fact that the hiring manager was older than the candidate weighs against the candidate.  Similarly, if an employee complains that he was unlawfully terminated because of his race (Indian), the fact that the manager who made the decision to terminate also is of Indian origin will weigh in the employer's favor.  I go on to give another example involving an employee who is not promoted and files a charge of discrimination alleging gender discrimination.  Just as in the other examples, if the manager who made the promotion decision also is a woman, this fact will weigh against the employee's case.  I then say, "As any woman in this room will attest, this idea is ridiculous.  Women are treated the worst by other women."  All the women in the room laugh--the truth is funny. 

If she had been in the training session, Peggy Klaus of the N.Y. Times would have laughed, too.  In her recent article, A Sisterhood of Workplace Infighting, Klaus discusses the reality that exists among women at work. As she puts it, "we can be our own worst enemies at work."  She cites the Workplace Bullying Institute's study, which found that women bullies target other women 70% of the time, whereas male bullies are equal-opportunity abusers. 

Why is it that this dynamic is so true?  Why is it that women are most likely to pick on other women at work?  Although this certainly has been true for as long as women have had a seat at the table, I think that the tides have begun to turn and that women are comfortable enough in their seats so that they have no need to worry about someone kicking them out. 

Bad bosses can kill you.  Even more so than factors such as whether the employee smokes, exercises, or has weight problems. The data comes from a four-year-long study in Switzerland and was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Workers who were subject to inconsiderate and uncommunicative bosses were about 60% more likely to suffer a heart attack or other life-threatening cardiac condition.  Employees who had strong leaders as bosses, on the other hand, were roughly 40% less likely to suffer heart emergencies. 

Got boss troubles?  Check out these posts:

How Crazy Is Your Boss? No, really, how crazy?

15 Things that Jerks at Work Usually Do

Inside the Mind of a Super Jerk

5 Costs of Coworker Bullying

And In This Corner. . . Susan From Accounting. Office Rage in the Ring

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Workplace bullying

You Know You’re a Bad Manager When. . . Mutiny at the Post Office

Bosses Aren't the Only Workplace Toxins: What to do with toxic employees?

Employee Handbook Policy #502: Respectful Workplace

Everything You Needed to Know About Your Toxic Boss

How Crazy Is Your Boss?  No, really, how crazy?  Crazy boss?  Psycho boss? If you've had some suspicions about the sanity level of your supervisor, now's your chance to have those suspicions confirmed.  Take the test at Fast Company.com and find out! 

If the crazy-boss test does not confirm your suspicions, maybe you are the one with the personality disorder.  Find out at Personality Types.net

Workplace bullying is not unlawful. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is not stopped by that, though.  It has entered into a consent decree with the State of Oregon, ending a lawsuit involving workplace bullying.  The case, filed by the EEOC on behalf of Sheri Peters, a former juvenile court clerk, was filed under federal employment laws but, at its core, alleged egregious workplace bullying.

Peters claimed that her former boss, the juvenile justice center manager, Linda Simonson, engaged in a variety of hostile conduct towards her subordinates. Peters claimed that, after working at the center for a month, she told Simonson that she was pregnant.  Simonson responded that she felt Peters had concealed her pregnancy to get hired and called Peters at her unborn child "garbage."  When Peters went to the hospital with a ruptured placenta in December 2004, she claimed, Simonson called her and chastised her for being not at work.

Court documents do not paint a pretty image for the center's management style.  Several current and former employees testified about the "bullying conduct" of Simonson who, as one witness described, “managed the department like an abusive parent.”  Another employee reported that she was harassed "relentlessly" by Simonson while out maternity leave.  Another claimed that, while she was pregnant, she was subject to “harassing and intimidating behavior” by Simsonson.  And one employee stated that Simonson was harassing, “cruel and vindictive."

As part of the settlement, Peters will receive $315,000. 

The real lesson here is not about pregnancy discrimination or even gender-based harassment.  The real lesson is about respectful conduct in the workplace.  Employers who fail to recognize that respect is an essential component of every job will eventually have to face the fallout of a distrusting workforce who feels they were thrown to the wolves by the organization that turned a blind eye to bullying and disrespectful treatment by management.

Jerks at Work.  Nobody likes them.  Everybody knows them.  Jerks at Work are easy to identify--you know one when you see one.  But for managers who want to eradicate the problem of workplace bullying, it may be difficult to identify just what it is that indicates the employee is a legitimate jerk and not just someone having a really bad day. 

To help those who want to make a difference and eliminate the Jerks at Work, here is a list of 15 common behaviors and offenses that indicate that there is a real problem.  

1.  Takes credit for the achievements of others.

2.  Repeats information learned in confidence.

3.  Talks about others in terms of stereotypes.

4.  Tells jokes that make others look stupid or unequal.

5.  Is adverse to any perceived change.

6.  Interrupts others while talking.

7.  Micromanages subordinates.

8.  Fails to keep commitments.

9.  Never volunteers to help coworkers.

10.  Gossips indiscriminately.

11.  Constantly seeks approval from others.

12.  Defensive in response to feedback.

13.  Inflexible with requests by others.

14.  Cannot be found when needed.

15. Places blame when unwarranted.

Bullies and jerks at work are finally being taken to task. Although there has not yet been an “Anti-Jerk Revolution,” there has been significant media coverage of the true havoc caused by a toxic employee. Companies are taking steps towards a more formal recognition of the problem, too, by implementing Respectful Workplace Policies. I’ve seen a greater attention being paid to the issue by the increased number of speaking engagements that I do on the topic. Instead of being retained to teach managers how to recognize and stop sexual harassment, I’m now asked to teach the same skills for spotting and stopping workplace bullying.

There have been a few interesting pieces recently, which have taken a different perspective on the question of workplace bullying. Instead of asking how to recognize the behavior when it starts, they look to what causes the conduct in the first place. Toni Bowers, at TechRepublic’s Career Management blog, for example, posted about the nature of power in the workplace and asks whether the first taste of power is addictive enough to turn a perfectly normal colleague into an intolerable bad boss.

For a slightly different take on the question of “why,” the always prophetic marketing guru Guy Kawasaki tells readers how to use the DSM-IV-TR to determine if it’s all in your mind or whether your boss really is crazy.

And, of course, the man leading the Anti-Jerk Revolution, Bob Sutton, has a blog full of insightful posts on the root causes of bullying behavior, as well as answers to the question of how to deal with bullies and save your sanity.

Work-life balance, toxic bosses, and generation gaps.  Three of our favorite topics at the Delaware Employment Law Blog.  They're also the focus of a Special Edition of Businessweek.  The magazine, on stands Monday, has a feature called Business@Work.  The workplace special report was created, really, by readers.  In surveys, blogs, and polls, readers talked about their top concerns at work and their strategies and practical tips for how they deal with it all.  The topics covered include, in addition to the ones above, how to stay creative and entrepreneurial in uncertain economic times, time management, and managing the bureaucracy of Corporate America.

There were lots of fascinating tidbits among the nine pages of text.  One of the main articles deals with the initiatives being taken by employers that focus on their employees' "happiness."   Go figure.  A "happiness initiative" is not necessarily a new idea.  After all, that's what employee benefits are, for the most part.  But some of the efforts being made by companies like Safeco, IBM, and BMW N. America, are new to me. 

How would your employees like the idea of being flown to Disneyland for the day--families included.  (If you like it enough to transfer, you'd want to apply at the L.A. office of law firm DLA Piper).  Or maybe you'd be interested in hiring a Chief Happiness Officer, who, if he's like the CHO at London ad agency, iris Worldwide, is in charge of managing regular pub crawls.  And for the academics in the group, there is happiness learning just around the corner.  Companies including Qantas and Sanofi-Aventis have called in experts to assess the emotional health of their employees. 

So are these "perks" really seen as perks by the employees who receive them?  Or does the fact that they occur during working time with coworkers and monitored by management make them any less enticing?

Workplace bullying has been a hot topic since the release of the 2007 Zogby survey, which showed that 49% of American workers report that they've been the target of a bully's bad behavior.  Employers have begun instituting tolerance training and implementing respectful-workplace policies.  Awareness is key in preventing this prevalent workplace disease. One way to make top management place value on eliminating jerks at work is to talk dollars.    

Bullying costs companies big money.  Here are some of the ways that your bottom line is directly affected if you fail to eradicate bullying at work:

1.  Targeted employees have higher absenteeism rates.  Wouldn't you?  When the workplace becomes increasingly intolerable and unpleasant, people stop coming to work. 

2.  Decreased productivity.  Those who do manage to get themselves into work are less productive.  They're nursing emotional wounds, meaning they're more likely to hide in their office than dare engage with others at the risk of being put on the firing range.  Stress-related illness is not conducive to high productivity, either.  If you don't feel well, you're not putting your best efforts into your work.

3.  High turnover.  Replacing an employee can cost a business up to 3 times that employee's yearly salary.  And dedicated, enthusiastic employees are not easy to find.  Yet, employees who are bullied at work will almost certainly leave.  Some leave because of their health.  Others leave because the bully has succeeded in sabotaging their reputation. 

4. Unhealthy Employees Are Expensive.  Employers have campaigned to rid the workplace of smokers, who are more costly to insure.  Obese employees may be next on the list.  But what about bullied employees?  Targets are affected with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, which is especially common with male targets, and other stress-related illnesses.  Physiological illnesses, such as headaches and backaches.

5.  Infected-Workplace Syndrome.  As devastating as these effects can be, they can, and likely will, get worse.  Bullies are infectious and contagious.  Other employees who witness bullying behavior feel sympathy for their coworkers and guilt for doing nothing about it.  They shrivel up, just like the target, in the fear that the bully will turn his or her anger towards them next. 

Workplace bullying is often seen as a top-down problem, with supervisors largely to blame for bullying their reports.  But bullying is also a lateral issue as seen in colleague-to-colleague harassment.  The conduct can even go up the chain of command--bullies don't tend to follow the rules that don't suit them. 

Colleague-to-colleague bullying can overlap with on-the-job anger known as "desk rage."  Although the two can include the same type of conduct, desk rage is generally considered a short-term or one-time outburst, whereas bullying involves a course of conduct repeated over a period of time. 

Desk rage has been in the news since a study released in July reported an increase in angry outbursts in the workplace.  Desk rage can take many forms--everything from the "silent treatment" and social exclusion, all the way to workplace violence, fall into this category.  The most common scenario involves abusive or threatening conduct such as cursing and screaming at another employee in the workplace. 

So why the increased hostility at work?  There are lots of reasons that this inappropriate conduct has become more common.

Is this conduct a result of tougher economic times?  Maybe.  It's certainly conceivable that employees who sit in an extended and difficult commute while shelling out more and more for gasoline, are on the edge by the time they get to the office. 

And employees facing financial difficulty at home are already under a high level of pressure.  As the safety net of financial security unravels, people begin to point fingers at others, blaming an incompetent or callous organization or leader. 

But the cause of desk rage isn't entirely economics.  Another reason may be generational. As older boomers enter retirement and the workplace becomes more populated by employees who are used to wearing their emotions on their sleeves. 

And who are the worst offenders?  Overachievers.  Type-A personalities with impossibly high standards tend to expect more than what is reasonable from others, as well.  Putting together the evidence, it appears that you are most likely to be spit on, cursed at, or slapped by that super-smart younger co-worker, right?

The healthcare industry can be characterized by some not-so-flattering statistics.  The industry has one of the highest rates of workplace violence, for example.  It is also known for fostering an environment that breeds distrust among co-workers and that acts as a petri dish of sorts for bullies and jerks.  That is, until now. 

The problem with bullies and jerks in healthcare is contagious.  Doctors, nurses, and other clinicians, who work in an environment where hostility is tolerated and where bullying behaviors are common, aren't the only ones paying a price.  For years, bad behavior among workers has been linked to medical errors. 

In his book, The No Asshole Rule, Bob Sutton discussed a study of hospital employees as evidence of this link.  The study looked at two groups of nurses and doctors.  One group was led by a jerk-doctor, the other by a non-jerk-doctor.  The researchers were surprised when they found that the first group (led by the jerk), reported a significantly lower rate of medical errors than did the happy, nice-guy group. 

So what was the deal?  Was the second group just too busy being nice to one another to pay attention to crucial medical procedures?  Or was the first group really more responsive to the reign-of-terror leadership style that the jerk doctor embodied?  Don't kid yourself.  The researchers soon learned that the first group had a lower reported rate of errors because they reported fewer mistakes--not because they made fewer mistakes. The second group, on the other hand, reported their mistakes without fear.  And the patients of the nice guys finished first after all. 

A 2004 study of workplace intimidation by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) found that nearly 40 percent of clinicians have kept quiet or ignored concerns about improper medication rather than talk to an intimidating colleague.  More than 90 percent said they’d experienced condescending language; nearly 60 percent had experienced strong verbal abuse and nearly half had faced negative or threatening body language.

The Joint Commission, though, is trying to put an end to these bullying tactics.  The Joint Commission is a national hospital accrediting agency, making it one of the few agencies with the power to effect real change.  Beginning in January, it will require hospitals to have implemented codes of conduct that define inappropriate behaviors and have plans for dealing with them.  This requirement is a recognition of the correlation between intimidating tactics and an increasing number of costly medical mistakes.  The Joint Commission's special Alert, Stop Bad Behavior Among Health Care Professionals, and corresponding report, Behaviors that Undermine a Culture of Safety, is packed with data and statistics that support the directive and is well worth the read for those who have an interest on the impact of Jerks at Work.

Bullies in the workplace cost employers a substantial amount of resources.  Work Happy Now had a great idea--an ombudsman to listen to your employees' complaints and act as an intermediary to help resolve conflicts.  The post explains the potential benefits:

An Ombudsman could help a company see mistakes from the employees’ point of view. Let’s say a company tries to restructure the organization, and perhaps an employee sees a potential problem, but they are afraid to tell management. Employees are more likely to see a different type of problem because they are closer to the day to day operations. For instance they might recognize that a group of customers could become neglected by the restructuring. This employee could voice his opinion to the Ombudsman without fear of being fired or discovered for his dissenting views.

This sounds like a great bully-fighting strategy, too.  Often, employees want to speak up about the bullying behavior of a Jerk at Work.  But, often, employees have been bullied into silence and are scared to report the bully for fear of retaliation. 

An ombudsman could eliminate those fears.  If employees felt certain that their reports would be kept in strict confidence and told only to the persons who could (and would) address the problem.  Is this a viable solution for employers to use in the counter-attack against bullies in the workplace?

 Other Posts on Jerks at Work:

Abusive Bosses Should Watch Their Backs

Are Bullies Beating Up Your Employees' Health?

Bullies In the Workplace is Water-Cooler Talk on Good Morning America

Bullying Can Be Physical . . . But Torture?

The Cost of Bully Legislation

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Workplace bullying

You Know You’re a Bad Manager When. . . Mutiny at the Post Office

Bosses Aren't the Only Workplace Toxins: What to do with toxic employees?

Employee Handbook Policy #502: Respectful Workplace

Everything You Needed to Know About Your Toxic Boss

Jerks-At-Work Expert Confirms Fridge Raiding Is #1 Worst Workplace Incivility

Although studies show that most workplace bullies are in a managerial or supervisory role, this is not always the case.  Employees who bully co-workers pose an equally dangerous threat.  Just as employees with a bully boss may feel like hostages, subject to the unpredictable whims of a tyrant, there are plenty of managers who feel the same way about toxic employees.

For supervisors who are facing the challenge of managing a Jerk at Work, there is an answer.  Here's a roadmap to get you started.

What

What behavior constitutes "toxic conduct."

Start by identifying what behavior is unacceptable.  Often, bullies are very subtle, leaving their targets questioning whether they are just imagining the abuse.  They may become very critical of others, try to take credit for others' work, seek approval or validation, or even sabotage interpersonal relationships by spreading gossip and rumors or creating internal conflict.

Why

Why do toxic workers engage in this behavior.

Bullies are often driven by their own insecurities.  They worry about their competence, popularity, or rank in the office hierarchy.

How

How can a manager retain her control when she's being bullied by a toxic employee.

There are three steps in dealing effectively with a bully in the workplace.  Supervisors must deal with herself, with the bully directly and with the bully's coworkers.

Dealing with yourself.  The trick here is that, as hard as it can be to address bullying behavior, by avoiding it, the bully is likely to gain more and more confidence in the effectiveness of bullying tactics and then expand the scope of his efforts. A big part of eliminating toxic conduct is to rally up the nerve to actually deal with it in the first place, especially due to how easy it is to ignore.

Dealing with Coworkers.  Supervisors should also foster an environment that encourages employees to report unacceptable behavior.  It's not uncommon for employees to be scared to "tell" on a bully colleague.  But speaking up is essential to send a message to others that they need not tolerate nor accept bullying behavior. 

Dealing with the Bully.  The first step is to talk to the bully directly about his behavior.  Be clear about what conduct will not be accepted.  Make certain that the employee understands what will and will not be tolerated.  And then tie those behaviors to real rewards and discipline.  And as tempting as it might be to take a hard-line approach concentrating on punishing the employee, it's often more effective to focus on rewarding positive behavior.  The employee may need to be motivated and challenged in new ways.  He may have come to a point where his work is no longer challenging enough, leaving him bitter, jealous, and resentful, with lots of free time to concentrate his energies on bullying conduct.

Toxic bosses infect the workplace and affect the workers in it.  BusinessWeek has been running a special series, Business at Work: Toxic Bosses.  The series focuses on the dangerous impact of what I call Jerks at Work. Bob Sutton, who is mentioned often on this blog, is one of the guest contributors. 

Dr. Annie McKee, Managing Director of Teleos Leadership Institute, is also a contributor.  McKee's post had a particularly important lesson I think is worth repeating here:

That’s one of the reasons why toxic bosses are so dangerous—their poisonous emotions cause us to sink to the lowest common denominator. Worse, when destructive emotions emanate from the most powerful amongst us, we catch the disease, then spread the pain. It’s not long before we live and work in an environment that is caustic, dissonant, and just plain miserable

McKee goes on to encourage workers with a toxic boss to try to resist the urge to fight back with equally toxic behavior.  I concur--enthusiastically.  As difficult as it can be, the most effective strategy is to channel our energies into maintaining a positive attitude.  We know how infectious negative emotions can be in the workplace.  It only takes one negative coworker to bring a rain cloud over the entire office. 

McKee says, pointedly, "Remember, the poison is his or hers, not yours! You have a choice about whether you mirror destructive emotions, moods, or styles." 

One way to do this?  Use the power of numbers.  Engage in your own campaign.  Gather the troops.  You are not the only one suffering at the hands of your toxic boss.  Make a pact.  If one of you is targeted, agree that the rest of you will rally around and fight back with positivity and support.

Fight back with positivity.

Earlier Jerks-at-Work Posts:

Jerks-at-Work Expert Confirms Office Incivility

Abusive Bosses Should Watch Their Backs

The Cost of Bully Legislation

You Know You're a Bad Manager When . . .

No Jerks Allowed, Catchy, Isn't It?

Respectful Workplace Policy

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Bullying Can Be Physical . . . But Torture?

Are Bullies Beating Up Your Employees’ Health?

Bullying in the Workplace is Water Cooler Talk on Good Morning America

The topic of "Jerks at Work" is one of my favorite. Why co-workers and bosses act like jerks.  Why employees don't get in trouble for being jerks.  What to do about a jerk at work.  And why employers should face jerks at work head on.  

Hand-in-hand with Jerks at Work is the topic of Workplace Etiquette--or lack thereof.  The sheer volume of workplace affronts workers must confront daily can be overwhelming.  Not to mention the incredible variety of crude, rude, and downright discourteous conduct in the workplace is alarming. 

I posted earlier in the week about a report from The Ladders.com about which of these numerous breaches of office etiquette employees took most personally.  I was surprised to learn that the #1 most offensive exhibit of bad manners is lunch theft!  That's right, your coworkers just cannot, will not, shall not, tolerate the extraordinary disrespect they equate with the office refrigerator raider.  Apparently, across the country, rogue employees, surely outcasts of mainstream office-worker society, are sneaking into the closest kitchenette and snatching your left-over lasagna.  (See my earlier post, Put Down the Brown Bag and Back Away From the Lunch).

According to a post earlier today, An Anti-Rudeness Warrior On Handling Jerks at Work, by Tom Weber at the WSJ Blog, there is an "expert" who can speak to both issues--Jerks and Lunch Theft!  Dr. P.M. Forni, author of The Civility Solution and Choosing Civility: The Twenty Five Rules of Considerate Conduct, has started a campaign of sorts to convert the Jerks of the world to conduct themselves with a bit more respect.  You can read all about his mission at the Johns Hopkins website devoted especially to Civility.

But, much to my delight, in Weber's interview with the Doctor of Do-Right, he concurs that the severity of the "sandwich situation" has really gone too far.  He gives the following advice to help us cope:

Buzzwatch: What’s the most common workplace rudeness question you hear?

Dr. Forni: At the very top of the list, a common act of incivility is that of taking credit for other people’s work. At the top of some other lists is the person who takes food from the office refrigerator, or takes a bite from another person’s slice of pizza in the office fridge and then puts it back. That’s not to be taken lightly, but I don’t think it’s as egregious as taking credit for someone else’s work.

Buzzwatch: How would you handle that?

Dr. Forni: Depending on how egregious it was, I would start with the culprit. I would say, give the culprit some benefit of the doubt and say, “You failed to mention that a good part of the report was done by my office under my direction. It was a collaborative effort and I think the boss had the impression instead that the bulk of the work was done by your group. I think we should rectify that impression.” The burden is on that person to send an email to the boss with a carbon copy to you.

If the culprit is reluctant to set the record straight, then you go one rung up the ladder and you explain to the supervisor what happened and say that you owe it to yourself and to your team that she, the boss, know exactly how the plan came into being. You do this without being judgmental about what the colleague did, without using harsh words, without revisiting in a blaming way what your colleague did or did not do. Stay focused on the issue that this is the version of the facts that the boss needs to hear.

Source:  An Anti-Rudeness Warrior On Handling Jerks at Work

When I do employment law training and seminars, I solicit feedback from participants with a questionnaire.  One of the questions is what other topics are of the most interest to audience members. Recently, I've seen a surge of requests for employment law seminars on How to Create Employee Manuals. Because I aim to please, I'll be conducting a seminar on the topic in October.  But, to hold you over until then, I thought readers might appreciate some posts on specific handbook policies. 

Given the recent movement against Jerks at Work, we get more and more requests from clients for a Respectful Workplace policy for their employee manuals.  These types of policies have significant flexibility depending on the level of the organization's commitment to eradicating jerks in the workplace. 

Here are some pointers for crafting a Respectful Workplace Policy:

Start Here.

The golden rule for these types of policies is to start with a hard look at the values, both written and unwritten, of your organization.  The worst thing to do is to craft a policy that is totally out of line with your company's everyday practices.

Don't overpromise and don't overhype the company's commitment to a respectful workplace.  Employees aren't fooled that easily and they'll resent you for thinking otherwise.  If you implement a comprehensive policy, be prepared to stand by it and hold employees and management accountable.

Be Specific. 

As easy as it is to create policies in the abstract, a policy needs specifics in order to be effective or enforceable. The word, "respectful" is a start but use words with more concrete meanings.  Better yet, give examples of what is and is not considered respectful behavior. 

As a matter of course, all such policies should include anti-retaliation language that assures employees that there will be no retaliation for reporting incidents that the employee believes are in violation of the policy.

A Respectful Workplace policy often can be incorporated into an anti-harassment policy.  But if you choose to combine the two, be sure to differentiate one from the other.  In other words, harassment is illegal and will not be tolerated.  Disrespect, on the other hand, while not illegal, is destructive to the overall health of the organization and, therefore, will not be tolerated.  Be sure to separate the two.

Carry a Stick. 

Policies of any type are useless unless they include an enforcement mechanism.  Spell out what consequences there are for violations of the policy. And don't limit yourself to disciplinary consequences.  It's a good idea to identify the social consequences that behavior like gossiping, making snide remarks, and purposefully excluding coworkers can have on the team as a whole.

Make it a point to put responsibility on everyone with mandatory reporting.  If one coworker sees another gossiping or otherwise undermining another, make it their responsibility to report the conduct--either by going to HR or management, or by "calling out" the gossiper directly. 

Supervisors who manipulate employees may just have what's coming to them.  According to a new study, a surprising number of employees commit acts of sabotage against their bosses. 

A study from the University of New Hampshire found that approximately 20% of employees admitted to engaging in underhanded tactics in an effort to make their boss look bad.

Some did it as a way to seek revenge.  Making their supervisors appear to be incompetent, foolish, or oblivious is a way to inflict punishment.  Embarrassment is a technique employed by those who cannot "fight back" outright--or at least not without the risk that they'll be disciplined or fired. 

Others were more calculated, using backstabbing as a way to get around a boss who might otherwise block them from career success. Goal-oriented retribution, you could say. 

To accomplish these "goals," employees reported to spreading false rumors and trying to sabotage their bosses' work. 

The researchers concluded that abusive bosses were the targets of this conduct.  Not surprising, considering the suffering that a Jerk at Work can impose on a colleague, coworker, or direct report.

Related Posts:

You Know You're a Bad Manager When . . .

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

"No Jerks Allowed" . . . Catchy, Isn't It?

Bullying Can Be Physical . . . But Torture?

Are Bullies Beating Up Your Employees’ Health?

The Cost of Bully Legislation

Bullying in the Workplace is Water Cooler Talk on Good Morning America

Source: Abusive bosses invite retribution, Study: Angry workers burn supervisors (The News & Observer)

Good management is learned.  No one is born a good manager.  But we learn as we go. Well, at least some of us do. Others maybe haven't gotten that far.  And how do you know which one of the two categories you're in?  For one Post Office manager, the signs are pretty clear.

Earlier this month, about 100 postal workers put up a lively picket line that stretched half a block long.  And what were they protesting?  Their boss.

That's right, the employees had established an informational picket demanding that an abusive supervisor be removed.  Their signs read, "Ron Malig Is Hostile and Cruel," "It's Impossible to Work With Ron Malig."

A press release issued by the picketers read: "His behavior there was chronically abusive and resulted in numerous grievances and EEO complaints and a petition to Congressional representatives."

I think it's safe to say that Mr. Malig could use some additional training. 

Source: San Francisco Indybay.org, "San Francisco Postal Workers Call for Removal of Abusive Boss."

The Jerk at Work.  We all know him.  We all avoid him.  And we really hope we never end up like him.  Instead of hoping, here are the Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work.

Lifehack.org says that there are at least seven lessons employees can learn from a bad boss. 

It just so happens that I agree.  Each of the lessons can be learned from watching a mean boss, a/k/a The Jerk at Work.  All of the lessons can be boiled into one fundamental principle of management:  Know who it is that you want to be and know who it is that you don't. 

Any employee who has had to endure the nightmare of the Jerk Boss surely will attest that, after having that experience, they never treated others in the same way.  Witnesses of jerk behavior, if removed from the environment before becoming jerks themselves, appreciate the value of kindness, courtesy, and gratitude.  They were starved for it and have no desire to starve others.

Adapting the seven lessons, here are my Top 5 lessons to be learned from the Jerk at Work.

• Being a jerk is a lot of work.  Extra work.  Nice people get their way with much less effort. 

• Coping mechanisms can be lethal.  When a targeted employee realizes that it's not this fault, he gets mad.  Unable or unwilling to engage in a true showdown with the Jerk, he resorts to secret plots of sabotage. All the while feigning the smile of the loyal employee.  Being hated is not beneficial to your career. But being hated so much that others in the workplace actually look for ways to harm you--that is more like career suicide.

• Once a liar, always a liar.  Jerk bosses tell lies to get their way.  Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, well, you know how it goes.  After being duped a few times, an employee will withdraw her trust permanently. No matter what the Jerk says or pleads, he will not be trusted.  Don't tell lies.  And definitely don't tell them to the people upon whom you rely.

• Jerks at Work are bad for productivity.  Jerks cause decreased creativity and innovation, the near elimination of successful team collaboration, increased sick time and overall, disengaged employees.  None of these are good for business.  And, what's worse is that these problems will expand over time. 

• Stubborn self-perceptions lead to failure. It is indisputable that innovation, which leads to change, is the way success is born.  It is not until you do something different than everyone else that you can get noticed or begin to break away from the pack.  Jerks are always right.  And when you are always right, change is the enemy.  No change, no growth. 

And one bonus:

• Just look at him (or her).  The Jerk is just plain awful looking.  Face it, they're not getting a whole lot of time at the beach this summer.  If they left the office they'd have no one to pick on and, [gasp!] someone might just pick on them.  The life of the Jerk is no life at all. 

Delaware attorneys are not strangers to civility. In 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Bar Association promulgated the “Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers.” The Principles provide insight into the practice of law in the First State. “Civility” is defined in the Principles and is taken seriously by the courts and bar as a whole.

The Principles demonstrate that civility in the workplace is not limited to the cubicles of corporate America. Jerks at Work are not welcome in any workplace, including the lawyer’s workplace—the courtroom. Here's a story about a judge outside of Delaware who is an advocate of civility:

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange sanctioned lawyer Gerard Pignato for his extraordinarily jerky conduct. Pignato was reprimanded for comments he made in letters to his opposing counsel. As penance, the judge ordered the sharp-tongued Pignato to write an article on civility. He must include why he is writing the article and direct it to new attorneys, so they might avoid a similar embarrassment.

Here are some examples of his noxious and debasing comments:

Your self-serving comments are putting me to sleep. Can you not say anything in a page or less? You're just a broker who refers difficult cases to experienced attorneys. Be like a potted plant and sit quietly in the corner.

{The court's full Opinion can be read here.}

You don’t have to be a lawyer to experience this type of attack from a colleague, vendor, or customer, even. This conduct is very effective—no matter how illogical, it is difficult to jut brush off degrading comments.

I think Judge Miles-LaGrange should be applauded for taking action when she saw what can be described only as unbecoming conduct. And her response is commendable, as well. Unlike a monetary fine, Mr. Pignato is forced to sit down, pen in hand, and mull over his behavior and put into words just how dishonorable his actions were and how embarrassing this type of attitude is for other members of the bar. Plus, if his article deters even a single junior lawyer from scribing a seething note to opposing counsel, he’ll have made a real contribution to the profession.

The Preamble to the Principles of Professionalism states:

The purpose of adopting the Principles is to promote and foster the ideals of professional courtesy, conduct and cooperation. These Principles are fundamental to the functioning of our system of justice and public confidence in that system.

Maybe Mr. Pignato can use the Delaware Principles as a reference as he writes his article for the Oklahoma Bar Journal.

[Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog]

John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law noted the ABA Journal's post on this story, as well.

Robert Sutton's book, The No A**hole Rule, has been an eye-opener to many, myself included. In his book, Sanford Professor Bob Sutton (pictured below) addresses a message sure to resonate with every employee who has ever worked with or for a toxic coworker or boss.

Michael P. Masklanka, managing partner of Ford & Harrison in Dallas, has written a top-rate article for the April 2008 edition of In-House Texas titled, No Jerks Allowed: How and Why to Stop Angry, Rude and Demeaning Workplace Behavior.

The piece is heavy on the human-touch element that is essential for an effective work environment. But for each antecdote, Maslanka follows up with a hard-hitting statistic, many of which derived from Robert Sutton's book (or, as I like to call it, "The HR Bible"), The No A**hole Rule.

Mike has been kind enough to share the article with our readers up North. Here's an excerpt to whet the appetitie. Mike is discussing the revealing results of a "jerk experiment":

41 employees carried a palm-sized computer for two to three weeks. Researchers prompted the employees at random intervals to answer questions about their interactions with co-workers and then to rate their resulting feelings as positive, negative or neutral. Here’s the expected: 30 percent were positive interactions, 10 percent negative, the rest neutral. Here’s the unexpected: The negative interactions had a fivefold stronger effect on mood than the positive ones and thus took much longer to get over. Talk about radioactive.

For those of you who, like myself, are strongly "anti-jerk,"this article is a must-read. Thanks, Mike!

For prior posts on Bullying and Jerks in the Workplace, see:

Are Bullies Beating Up Your Employees' Health?

The Cost of Bully Legislation

Bullying in the Workplace is Water Cooler Talk on Good Morning America

Bullying Gets Physical, . . . But Torture?

Team-building or torture? A sales rep in Provo, Utah has filed suit over what appears to be an extreme case of workplace bullying. The young man claims, and his employer doesn't particularly deny, that he was waterboarded by his supervisor as part of a "team-building exercise." He claims that he volunteered when his boss asked for participants for a "new motivational exercise." But the 26-year-old says that he had no idea that the "exercise" would involve his supervisor pouring water out of a gallon jug over his nose and mouth, while his coworkers held him down. The last time the team had done an exercise outside, it was an egg toss.

His supervisor remarked immediately afterwards, "You saw how hard Chad fought for air right there. I want you to go back inside and fight that hard to make sales."

It seems that the supervisor truly believed that causing your reports to feel the near-death experience of forced drowning is actually a motivational tool. The employee has filed suit for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination.

Another of the supervisor's "motivational tools" was to remove all chairs, forcing employees to stand for the entire shift. This was his response to a day without sales. He kept a "motivational 2 x 4" wooden "paddle" on his desk on stand-by.

Normally, this is where we would provide sage advice on preventative measures, "be proactive with an anti-bullying policy," and reparative tactics, such as follow-up training for all employees. This case, though, is so extreme those normal reactions seem inappropriate. Instead, my recommendation is to to take a very close look at the supervisors in your workplace. Keep your eyes open for physically aggressive behavior, even if it's couched as "positive reinforcement."

This will definitely be a case to keep our eyes on.

Women

Yale psychologist Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern University recently completed three separate studies to explore a phenomenon that is all-too-familiar to many women in leadership positions: Anger is not a pretty thing. The studies conclude that men who get angry are accepted and even rewarded but women who lose their temper are perceived to be less competent.

The studies, published in the March issue of Psychological Science, provide women with recommendations for navigating emotional hazards of the workplace. Brescoll says it pays to stay emotionally neutral and, if you can't, at least explain what ticked you off in the first place.

One method employed by the studies was to show both men and women scenes of men and women (actually actors) who were ostensibly applying for a job. The study participants were then asked to rate the applicants on (1) how much responsibility they should be given; (2) their perceived competence; (3) whether they should be hired; and (4) how much they should get paid.

Male and female participants reached the same conclusions:

Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.

The study participants provided the same responses regardless of the type of job for which the candidate was applying. Executive- and entry-level candidates were ranked equally.

Emotions, however, had a much greater impact. When the actor-applicants expressed anger, the men were selected as the preferred candidates. And when the actors expressed sadness, the bias seemed to lessen, and women applicants were ranked equally to men in status and competence. Emotions did not have any impact on the participant's opinions about salary--in both scenarios, the viewers awarded male applicants a higher salary.

A final study showed another way bias against female anger could be mitigated. When women actors explained why they were angry, observers tended to cut them more slack. Men, on the other hand, could actually be hurt when they explained why they were angry - perhaps, says the Yale psychologist, because observers tend to see this as a sign of weakness.

The study seems to lend some credence to the saying, "Kill 'em with kindness."

Women don't win by playing the anger card, according to a new study from Yale University psychologist Victoria Brescoll.

Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern University recently completed three separate studies to explore a phenomenon that is all-too-familiar to many women in leadership positions: Anger is not a pretty thing. The studies conclude that men who get angry are accepted and even rewarded but women who lose their temper are perceived to be less competent.

The studies, published in the March issue of Psychological Science, provide women with recommendations for navigating emotional hazards of the workplace. Brescoll says it pays to stay emotionally neutral and, if you can't, at least explain what ticked you off in the first place.

One method employed by the studies was to show both men and women scenes of men and women (actually actors) who were ostensibly applying for a job. The study participants were then asked to rate the applicants on (1) how much responsibility they should be given; (2) their perceived competence; (3) whether they should be hired; and (4) how much they should get paid.

Male and female participants reached the same conclusions:

Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.

The study participants provided the same responses regardless of the type of job for which the candidate was applying. Executive- and entry-level candidates were ranked equally.

Emotions, however, had a much greater impact. When the actor-applicants expressed anger, the men were selected as the preferred candidates. And when the actors expressed sadness, the bias seemed to lessen, and women applicants were ranked equally to men in status and competence. Emotions did not have any impact on the participant's opinions about salary--in both scenarios, the viewers awarded male applicants a higher salary.

A final study showed another way bias against female anger could be mitigated. When women actors explained why they were angry, observers tended to cut them more slack. Men, on the other hand, could actually be hurt when they explained why they were angry - perhaps, says the Yale psychologist, because observers tend to see this as a sign of weakness.

The study seems to lend some credence to the saying, "Kill 'em with kindness."

Our Annual Seminar for Employers was held today at the Chase Center on the Riverfront in Wilmington, Delaware. The attendance at the seminar was our best ever, with more than 130 of Delaware's best human resource professionals, labor relations specialists, senior managers, and small business owners.

Our many thanks to The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, who spoke candidly about the federal mediation process. Her comments were direct and insightful for everyone, including for the attorneys!

Another thanks to all of the attendees who completed and submitted a survey at the end of the day. We're looking forward to reviewing your comments. Our objective is to make the seminar as effective and enjoyable as possible. Your opinion really tells us what we can do to better to maximize the client experience. We are especially interested to learn what topics most interest you for future seminars. If you were in attendance today but did not have an opportunity to submit an evaluation, just let us know and we'll send you one that can be completed and returned electronically--no stamp necessary!

Again, thank you to all of our clients, colleagues, and new friends, who gave us your attention and participation for a very full day on a variety of employment-law topics.

This week, on Good Morning America, a feature segment ran about Bullying In the Workplace. The forums on the GMA website, where viewers can post comments about the show's topic. There was an overwhelming response to the Bullying segment. So much response, in fact, that Tory Johnson, GMA's Workplace Contributor, was invited back the next day to continue the discussion.

On Tuesday, the topic focused on how to spot a bully at work. On Wednesday, the discussion was aimed on how to handle a bully if you are being targeted. Both episodes were spot on. One of the best points I heard Ms. Johnson make was:

Document, document, document.

On Wednesday's episode, Tory Johnson talked about documentation of the bullying as a survival strategy. Of course, in the world of the employment lawyer, nothing could be more true. One reason documentation can be so important is for your mental health. When you are on the receiving end of workplace bullying, you are likely to experience a great deal of self-doubt.

Bullying usually comes in passive-agressive forms. A roll of the eyes, a deep sigh, a whispered comment, or a mumbled expression of exasperation can all seem very normal when taken in isolation. Sure, most of us occassionally give in to the daily frustrations and take those feelings out on our co-workers and colleagues.

That's why it's not uncommon for targets of bullying to get push-back if they do report the behavior. Likely, they'll get a response of, "Oh, that's just her personality," or, "He didn't mean it, he was having a really tough day," or, my personal favorite, "She's like that with everyone."****

Why don't HR professionals and managers seem so determined not to believe that there is bullying on in their working environment? Because they're people. People don't like to get involved in personality conflicts. Inevitably, the manager will be on the "bad side" of at least one of the fighting employees. And let's face it, nobody likes to be unpopular.

Documentation helps with both problems. First, by having a written record of the conduct, you won't question yourself about the validity of your feelings. When it's all set out on paper with dates and details, that chronology makes it clear that it is not just a series of isolated incidents, but a regular barrage of assaultive conduct.

Second, that documented chronology will force superiors to see the same picture that you've been seeing. To say to a manager, "Sarah is hurting my feelings," might be effective--but it's highly unlikely. But what if you said to that same manager, "Sarah has spent the last several weeks making inappropriate comments directed towards me. She has also spread untrue rumors to my co-workers about me, which has negatively affected my professional reputation. (Or, how about, "defamatory" instead of untrue?! Even better!!) When your manager wants examples of that behavior, you'll have them.

And if the manager still doesn't bite, that's ok. Keep documenting. If for no other reason but to prevent that question, "Am I just being oversensitive?"

[****A sidenote on that last one: Employers, please, please, please, do not EVER use this as an "excuse" for an employee's socially unacceptable behavior. If you would not want the comment made to your mother or to your spouse, then it should not be said in the workplace. Although it sure can feel like it sometimes, the workplace is NOT a battle zone. Save your combat gear for that Nintendo Wii.]

There is a general agreement among commentators that Workplace Bullying is an undesirable workplace behavior that affects the bottom line. Bob Sutton's book, The "No A**hole Rule", was tremendously popular among the B-School types and HR professionals alike.

There has been a recent flood of proposed legislation that would make bully behavior unlawful. And, of course, laws that restrict are laws that have remedies. The legislation, thus far unsuccessful, would provide another basis for employment litigation.

At some point, there must be a cost-benefit analysis by legislators and advocates. Workplace bullying is bad for business. It leads to increased absenteeism and turnover rates, and is tied to reduced productivity and teamwork. The costs of recruiting and training, managing "problem employees,"
and trying to rally the affected employees' support. These are all costs that the business must bear when it permits bullying to go on in the workplace.

But what is the cost of increased employment litigation to businesses? Any employer that has earned its stripes in the courtroom knows that the cost is no small burden. Litigation is expensive. More expensive than the direct and indirect impact of bullying?

Great question! At some point, those who are advocating for this new legislation should stop to have a look.

Not that I am an advocate of bullying, of course. But I do think that the recent movement against bullying will serve only to help prevent it. Part of prevention is knowledge. Now that employers are becomming more aware of the costs of bullying, the market will likely work to eradicate it far better additional legislation.