An brilliant article appeared in Vital Smarts (a newsletter by the authors of Crucial Conversations, and Critical Conversations. I highly recommend it for the Q&A they have every issue. The URL is www.vitalsmarts.com).
An issue or so ago they in print a letter from a school administrator who was concerned about what to do with one of their teachers who was a bully. They had heard that several staff were going to leave the school because of this individual, yet when they delved into the situation a bit more, none of the people who were complaining were willing to be quoted. This, the writer, said, made it impossible to coach the bully, or even hold her accountable with factual information about her events.
I thought their answer (the first part of it) was right on the cash, and I’ll share it with you.
“When supervisors presume to expose an erring employee to the scourging experience of long-withheld negative pointer, we must do so with utmost caution. When a community colludes for a long period of time in sustaining a name’s distorted view of themselves, we stand to inflict enormous pain on this person who is suddenly dragged kicking and screaming from the cave into piercing daylight. The experience can ultimately be healthy, but it can also drive a name back into the cave if not handled appropriately.
I say this for two reasons.
First, I’d like all of our readers to reckon carefully about the committed hurt we do when we collude with others by withholding negative pointer for a colleague. When we allow colleagues to take up again for long periods of time with a distorted image of themselves, we set them up for profound distress in the long term—not to mention immediate ineffectiveness as they take up again their terrible habits.
Second, while I have no desire to absolve this teacher of responsibility for her abusive events, I want to temper the emotion that evenly accompanies long-withheld pointer. The longer we wait to confront others, the more toxic our emotions become. The other person continues to behave in the same way, but our emotions get hotter and hotter. Why? Our reaction to the first offense is the maximum amount of negative emotion we should attribute to that person. The rest of it that accrues over time is due to our own give up—our long-standing choice to deny the honesty we owe others.”The newsletter Q&A then goes on to suggest some steps to be taken to handle the problem.
The point that I thought was so vital, but so seldom made, is the “collusion” on the part of others which permits terrible behaviour to go on for a long period of time. We teach others how to treat us. If we do nothing about the behaviour of others when it negatively impacts us, then we bear some responsibility in having that behaviour take up again. As hard as it may be to read this, the fact is that for every bully who treats people terribly, there are victims who allow themselves to be abused.We have all seen or been in this situation. A staff member goes to the boss and complains about a colleague’s behaviour. When questioned if s/he had talked with this person to try and resolve the situation, most evenly the person has not done so. S/he wants the boss to fix it for her/him.
In situations where there is a considerable power differential (the bully is your boss, for example) then there may be no other sensible route to take than to complain to a name who has more power, organizationally, than the bully.
The topic of bullying in the workplace is beginning to appear more frequently with some researchers suggesting that it takes a higher toll, mentally, physically, and for the organization, economically, than anyone had realized.
We have an on-line bullying survey that may be of interest to you if you wish to determine whether bullying is an issue in your organization. Please contact me for further information.
© 2008, Pitsel and Associates Ltd.
Bullying in the Workplace
Comments are closed.