Workplace Violence

"Workplace violence is now recognized as a specific category of violent crime. . . "  FBI, Workplace Violence, Issues in Response.

 

It is believed that 2 million American workers are victims of workplace violence each year.  2012 statistics reflect that nearly 1 out of 5 occupational fatalities is attributed to workplace violence.  In 2011, 780 fatalities (attributed to violence) occured with men making up the majority of fatal workplace injuries.   Media coverage has a tendancy to create an impression that workplace violence is more widespread than it is.  While incidents of workplace violence are serious, the rates of workplace violence have dropped sharply since the mid-90s.

 

Whether harassment or intimidation, the threat of physical violence or other threatening behavior, the prevention of workplace violence is a major concern for employers and employees.  Employers should train managers and supervisors to recognize the warning signs of potential workplace violence. 

 

Here's a couple of basic steps you can take:

1. Communicate, Communicate, Communicate.  Ensure that the employee has an outlet for frustration.  Allow the employee to vent.  If your organization offers an Employee Assistance Program, ensure employees are aware of it and can use it as needed.
2. Assess your business climate.  Be aware of what's going on in your workplace. Pay attention to unusual changes in employee behavior. Has there been any recent events which could increase the sensitivity of an employee?   (Devil's Advocate here.  A couple of questions.  Do you know the spouse's names of your employees?  How many children they have, their names?  Are they going through a divorce or other life trauma?  If you can't answer these questions, you don't know your employees.  If you don't know your employees, how can you tell if there is something wrong?)
3. Prevention.  Employees spend the majority of their lives in the workplace.  Disagreements are always going to happen, how you handle those disagreements is key.  Potential aggressors can be identified - just look for the warning signs. Warning signs can include strange behavior such as the employee becoming reclusive, erratic behavior, deteriorating appearance.  Other observable warning signs can be emotional problems and/or performance problems.

The 2012 documentary, Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal, is framed around the USPS shootings that took place in the 80s and 90s. I found the documentary interesting as a provided the perspective of a postal carrier who survived a shooting in 1991 (Royal Oak, Michigan) and his ongoing efforts to urge lawmakers to pass legislation designed to curb workplace employee "abuse."  Not just a film about mass murders, the documentary addresses some of the underlying issues within the workforce that drove individuals to begin killing at random.   

 

In the closing minutes of the documentary, possibilities other than mass workplace shootings are considered.   James Alan Fox, Ph.D., Lipman Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, states; "Sabotage could be even more deadly and a greater risk to safety than bringing a gun to work." "It could be poisoning products, creating environmental contaminants. . . "  (September 1982 seven people in the Chicago area were killed by Tylenol capsules laced with potassium cyanide.  I don't believe this case was ever solved, so I can proffer the scenario that this could have been the work of a disgruntled employee. )

 

The bottom line? Workplace violence needs to be proactively dealt with.   We can't completely eliminate it, but we can mitigate risk for violence by educating and training our managers, supervisors and employees.

Tortious Interference?

Employee John Doe has been working for XYZ  for two years, being recognized as nothing more than one of the many cogs in the wheel.    As a result of John's role within the company, he frequently comes into contact with a large number of company clients.  Then one day, something extraordinary happens. One client, Acme, realizes that John is a rising star!  After ensuring that no non-solicitation is being violated with XYZ, Acme extends an offer of employment to John.  John is excited about this new opportunity. It's the next logical step in his career and a nice increase in his compensation.  After all of the necessary pre-employment requirements are completed and the hire date is set, John submits his resignation to XYZ.    But this story doesn't stop here and there's no Cinderella ending.

The President of XYZ is astounded.  Why would you quit?  You're one of our rising stars.  Those last six words astound John, he's never heard them.   The President offers him more money to stay.  The office he'd like to have.   But in John's eyes, this recognition comes a bit too late.  After a lengthy discussion, John is more dedicated than ever to begin his new career with Acme.

Behind the scenes, the following happens.  While no non-solicitation exists in their contract, the President of XYZ calls Acme and schedules a meeting with them.  After a heated meeting and threats of pulling business, Acme is forced to rescind the offer of employment to John Doe.  John, somewhat reluctantly, remains in the employ of XYZ. 

Two months later, still at XYZ, John Doe hasn't received that proposed increase and the office has gone to another employee. 

Would you view this as Tortious Interference by XYZ?   Tortious Interference:  n.  Encouraging a breach, infringing on another's agreement, interfering with contract or contractual commitments, wrongful interference with business relationships.  For there to be liability under this tort you must show some improper or illegal actions as an intermeddler. You must evaluate whether actions, or contemplated actions, can be construed to have an appearance of impropriety.

For the laymen, tortious interference occurs when a person damages another person's contractual relationships or other business relationship on purpose.  Liability ensues where proof of economic injury exists.  The wrongful interference with some right or economic opportunity belonging to a person which causes that person some monetary loss.  Interference with prospective economic advantage.

 

What is your call on this?  Tortious Interference or No?

 

Fair competition is always legal.  An employee may leave employment and avail himself of whatever expertise he has acquired from his former employer.  As long as there is no use of former employer's trade secrets.

For "John Doe."

Gun Control?

This morning I began working on a blog addressing gun control in the workplace.  Little would I know that later today, at 1:30PM, a handful of people would be shot at the Lone Star College here in Houston.    I wasn't aware of the situation immediately, being holed up in my office behind a computer screen at the time.   The situation was brought to my attention by a fellow employee whose girlfriend was on campus that day.  Her safety became our immediate concern.  (I'm glad to say she is fine, having been in the Student Services office at the time.)

For employers:
In September 1, 2011, SB321 went into effect restricting public and private employers from prohibiting employees who are concealed handgun license holders, or otherwise lawfully possessing firearms or ammunition, from transporting or storing firearms or ammunition in the employee's privately-owned, locked car on the employer's premises. (This bill does not apply to an employer owned or leased car; most school districts, chemical manufacturers and oil/gas refineries.)

With employers focusing more and more on the safety of employees, some employers feel that SB321 is an infringement on their property rights. Further, that allowing employees to be in possession of firearms on company property endangers all employees by allowing easy access to weapons by any potentially violent or disgruntled worker.

The gun control debate continues to be waged furiously between those who want tougher gun control laws and those who support the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.   Adding fuel to the fire are employers and employees squaring off on the subject and the potential threat to safety in the workplace. 

The blog on gun control will have to wait until another day.  The subject hit a bit too close to home today.

Management and Mr. Likert

Do you ever have to go through your old emails in search of some missing piece of information?  It's akin to a trip down memory lane.  You never know what you will stumble across or where you will end up.    During a recent journey,  I rediscovered this one small email and felt it worthy of discussion.   Yes, the email is cryptic.  But the message screamed volumes to me.

Him:  Are you familiar with Likert’s management theories? 

Me:  Are we speaking of exploitative authority?

Him:  We are.  Like verbatim.

Me.  Yes sir.  (End of conversation)

There are a lot of different definitions of the word “management,” but for the sake of this blog, I’m going with a very fundamental definition. Getting things done through and with people.  

Rensis Likert, an American educator and organizational psychologist, is best known for his research on management styles.  (And let’s not forget The Likert Scale.)   Likert identified a four-fold model of management styles,  each style revolving around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision making process:

1. Exploitative Authoritative;
2. Benevolent Authoritative;
3. Consultative; and,
4. Participative.    

With that email in mind, let's explore the Exploitative Authoritative management style.  For the EA, responsibility lies in the hands of the people at the upper echelons of the hierarchy.  The supervisor has no trust or confidence in subordinates and motivation is based on threats.  Decisions are imposed on sub-ordinates and teamwork/communication is extremely limited.  Essentially the communication style is almost entirely downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of the employees are ignored. With a style of “do what I tell you,” the overall impact to an organization is extremely negative.

In short, the leader imposes decisions on subordinates and uses fear to achieve employee motivation. 

“E-A leaders are highly production-oriented, display no confidence in their subordinates, provide them no influence in decision making, seldom seek or use subordinates’ ideas, use fear, a threat, punishment and occasional rewards to enforce compliance, and engage mainly in downward communication.”  Organization & Management by R.D. Agarwal.

Let's compare the EA management style against the characteristics of an effective work group.  In an effective work group there is a high degree of confidence and trust in each other.  The values and goals of the group all link in harmony with each other and there is strong motivation by each member to communicate fully and frankly.  An important factor is that employees feel secure in making decisions.  That is 100% at odds with the EA management style.

The “difference between a leader and a manager is that a manager pushes while a leader pulls.  By this, we mean that a manager uses its authoritative powers to push people to reach the set targets and pressurize them to achieve the firm’s goal.  He orders actually.  While a leader pulls, that is, it motivates people and develops zeal in them towards achieving a goal. . . “    The Role and Effectiveness of Leadership in Team-Working: Abstract.

In closing, I ask the following question:  If your employees had the chance, would they "vote" you out of your position?

Workplace Bullying Increasing

New survey results.  And no, the results aren’t good.  CareerBuilder released the results of a survey addressing workplace bullying.  The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive (May 14 – June 4, 2012), collected the responses of more than 3,800 workers nationwide.  The survey found that 35% of the respondents admitted they felt bullied on the job.  Unfortunately, that’s an 8% increase from last year.    

Bullies are found at all levels of the organization. The largest offender?  The boss at 48% followed by co-workers at 45%.  In a 2005 survey, when participants were asked to identify factors "which impair their organization's ability to deal effectively with bullying, the most commonly cited factors were management's unwillingness to acknowledge that a problem exists, and the prevailing management style."   Where are we 7 years later?  We acknowledge that a problem exists, but we're not making much headway in solving the problem. 

Bullying takes many forms:

• applying different standards to different people;
• constant criticism;
• ignoring an employee;
• false accusations of mistakes.

No matter what shape or form bullying takes, it can cause more harm that just hurt feelings.   Seventeen percent of the respondents to the survey indicated that they quit their jobs to escape the situation.  Sixteen percent said they suffered health-related problems as a result of being the target.

CareerBuilder released the results of their survey for Canadian employees on August 29^th.  How did our neighbors to the North do?  Of the 552 full-time employed Canadians, 45% of respondents said they were bullied.  The source:  24% coworkers, 23% immediate boss, 17% higher manager.  Twenty six percent of the bullied workers stopped their bullying by quitting their jobs.  A larger survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute indicated that 28% of the targets voluntarily quit, but another 25% quit after being forced out (constructive discharge).

The Workplace Bullying Institute defines bullying as "repeated, health-harming, mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. .. . ".   Workplace bullying may violate an organizations ethics standards, company policies or even the law.   Review your policies.  Has anyone in your workplace been subjected to bullying?  What steps have you taken to eradicate bullying from your workplace?

 

 

Office Politics. Is Survival Possible?

Organizational politics refers to behaviors “that occur on an informal basis within an organization and involve intentional acts of influence that are designed to protect or enhance individuals’ professional careers when conflicting courses of action are possible” (Drory, 1993; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981).

Politics are the unseen elephant in the living room. We know it’s there, it’s just difficult to define and describe. And politics, seen or not, have a long-term negative affect on the organization and ultimately, organizational outcomes are damaged.  I have provided examples below of some the more obvious results of politics: 

1. Environment: Politics lead to a negative environment; spoiling relationships among individuals.   The overall climate of the organization may have an influence on an employees’ performance through mistrust, threats, defensiveness, low support, and/or poor communication.
2. Demotivator: No matter how much hard work an employee puts in, it goes unnoticed in a politically driven organization.  The employee who works hard is not rewarded suitably versus the non performer who is rewarded due to politics (favoritism rather than merit determines who gets ahead).
3. Increased Stress:  Politics increase the stress levels of employees (mistrust, threats, defensiveness, etc.). 
4. Information: Information is manipulated and either not passed on in its desired form, or is withheld. Managers/Supervisors have an incorrect view of what is happening in the organization.
5. Turnover (Organizational Commitment):  An employees’ desire to remain in the organization and/or willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization are greatly impacted by politics and behaviors. 

R. Buckminster Fuller (Critical Path) said that rather than attempting to teach people the right things to do, one should design organizations such that doing the right things was simply the path of least resistance.   Good advice.

Here's some ideas to help you survive a politically driven environment:

• Maintain your composure.
• Have those “hard” conversations and make your case.  The truth is hard to resist (however, there may be some harm to the messenger).
• Be the best you can be.
• Never join other voices to persecute the establishment.
• Never join hands to persecute a co-worker.
• Learn to know each co-worker individually and not base a relationship on gossip.

 

Top 25 Signs of a Dysfunctional Workplace

Ran across this great article from 2008, Top 25 Signs of a Dysfunctional Workplace.  Published by HR World, I thought I'd share some of my personal highlights.  For the full article, the link has been provided. 

 

http://www.hrworld.com/features/25-signs-dysfunctional-workplace

1.  Nothing gets done without the bosses approval.  (Bottleneck anyone?) 

2.  Nothing can get done unless employees go behind the bosses back.  (If "it" works - you're gold.  If not, see #16 below.)

3.  No one is sure who the boss really is.

10.  Reward system?  What reward system?  (You can't have a stick and no carrot!)

16.  "Wall of Shame."  (Boss openly chastises employees in public.) 

21.  What matters is not what you've accomplished in a day, but how many hours you were seen "working."  (Let's reward productivity, not time spent in the office.)

25.  No one ever gets fired, no matter how ineffective they are at their job.  (Would someone please explain this to me????)

 

 

Going Postal - Violence In The Workplace

The 1986 killings by a part-time letter carrier, and his subsequent suicide, was not the first episode of its kind.  From 1983 forward, the United States has become chillingly aware that a trend had been developing with postal workers committing acts of violence against co-workers.   These events raised awareness of workplace violence. The term “going postal” became American English Slang for an individual becoming uncontrollably angry, and often committing violent acts in a workplace environment. 

I’m not going to address whether or not U.S. Postal Service workers are more likely to “go postal” than other employees.  I just want to address workplace violence. 

In 2003, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime issued a paper titled Workplace Violence, Issues in Response, which stated; “Mass murder on the job by disgruntled employees are media-intensive events.  However, these mass murders, while serious, are relatively infrequent events.  It is the threats, harassment, bullying, domestic violence, stalking, emotional abuse, intimidation, and other forms of behavior and physical violence that, if left unchecked, may result in more serious violent behavior.  These are the behaviors that supervisors and managers have to deal with every day.”

The OSH Act of 1970 General Duty Clause requires employers to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees”.  Citations can occur if an employer doesn’t take reasonable steps to prevent or abate a recognized violence hazard in the workplace.  While there are industries considered particularly vulnerable to workplace violence, all companies should take steps to implement effective safety measures to reduce the threat of workplace violence.  In 2011 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration released a new directive on workplace violence. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 600 people a year are victims of workplace homicide.  As recent as 2009, homicide was the number one cause of death for a woman on the job.   In 2010, workplace violence accounted for 18% of all work related fatal occupational injuries (assaults and suicides). 

Warning signs that an employee may be contemplating violence include a confrontational attitude, threatening co-workers, clients, customers, or boss, bragging about guns, and/or aggressive behavior.  Take steps to protect your employees: 

• Be aware of the warning signs. 
• Understand your policy. 
• Report to HR and upper management so that the organization can take action to protect its employees.

Workplace violence can affect employees, visitors, customers, and clients, even at times, employee families. Prevention programs that do not consider harassment in all forms and threats are likely to be ineffective. As an employer, we have a legal and ethical obligation to provide employees with an environment free from threats, harassment or violence.

Caveat Emptor (Part 2)

Ethics comes from the Greek roots 'éthiké' meaning the ways and habits of a group of people and would translate into the actual customs and practices characterizing specific cultures. We are all familiar with the term “culture.” Ethics is a part of culture. Culture = identity.

With the above being said, let’s continue our discussion of that 62 page ethical report shall we? Overall, yes we have done well in some areas, but in others the report clearly indicates there is hard evidence that the expectation of workplace ethics to continue to decline is well founded.

The percentage of employees who say their business has a weak ethics culture increased to 42 percent in 2011, a seven percentage point surge and the highest level since 2000. As we all know, where cultures are weaker, misconduct is more prevalent.

One of the major drivers of ethics culture are the senior executives. Executives must set the standards for the organization and mirror them. Do you think that the executives at ENRON would have tolerated questionable practices if they knew how it would look as the subject of a story on the front page of The New York Times? Doubtful. Remember, unethical behavior doesn’t have to be illegal or even clearly unethical to have a negative impact on the organization.

Confidence in senior executives and supervisors fell 62% in 2011. This matches the historic low in 2000, and down 6 percentage points from 2009. Fewer employees believe their direct supervisors act as ethical leaders: One-third of employees (34%) say their managers do not display ethical behavior, up from 24% in 2009 and the highest percentage ever. This clearly supports the assumption that the decline in workplace ethics is under way. Of significant concern is that 56% of reports of misconduct reported by employees are received by supervisors, and 26% higher management! The survey additionally revealed that retaliation is linked to employees’ reporting of misconduct. “Where employees did not experience retaliation, they were less likely to consider reporting misconduct to an outside source.”

To quote ERC "The findings are clear: the reduction of ethics risk is the result of two primary drivers. The first driver is the presence of a well-implemented ethics and compliance program. The second driver is employees' perception that they work in a strong ethical culture."

To have an "ethical culture" here's the metrics:

1. Ethical leadership setting the tone at the top.
2. Supervisor reinforcement of ethical behavior.
3. Peer commitment by supporting one another in doing what is right.

In closing, I have a couple of questions to throw out there:

• Should ethics be rewarded?
• Or should they be expected?
• Do we punish those that cross the ethical line?
• Should we reward those that walk the ethical line?
  

There’s a universal paradox; “You are free to choose; you are not free from the consequence of your choice.”

Caveat Emptor (Part 1)

Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware! Business ethics has been a societal concern going back a long ways and they continue to be of concern today.

On March 15th, Forbes featured an article entitled "The World's Most Ethical Companies." The Ethisphere Institute, a New York City think tank, announced its sixth annual list of the World's Most Ethical Companies. In 2011, 3,000 companies were nominated, or nominated themselves, and 110 made this list. For 2012, out of the 5,000 companies that threw their hats into the ring, 145 companies made the list. To check out the "winners" the link is listed here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/03/15/the-worlds-most-ethical-companies/

It's rather interesting that the number of "ethical" companies continue to grow when you read publications such as the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey by ERC. HR Morning recently featured an article regarding the Ethics Resource Center biannual survey. Luckily ERC had sent me an email advising that the survey results were available for download. I’m sure you can guess my next step.

The “ethic” weather of the U.S. work environment, based on the survey, seems a bit stormy:

• Retaliation against employee whistle blowers rose sharply. More than one in five employees (22 percent) who reported misconduct say they experienced some form of retaliation in return. That compares to 12 percent who experienced retaliation in 2007 and 15 percent in 2009.

• The percentage of employees who perceived pressure to compromise standards in order to do their jobs climbed five points to 13 percent, just shy of the all-time high of 14 percent in 2000.

• The share of companies with weak ethics cultures also climbed to near record levels at 42 percent, up from 35 percent two years prior.

In closing this part of my Caveat Emptor blog, I want to leave you with:

The Top Five Most Frequently Observed
Types of Misconduct in 2011

I'll continue discussing the ERC survey in my next blog.

Keep communicating people!

Are You A Bad Boss?

The New York Times ran a short article back in 2008 which referenced the findings of The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business advocacy group. The NFIB asked the question, "Are you a good boss or bad boss?" The group suggested you ask yourself the following questions if you truly want an answer.

1. Have you ever publicly criticized an employee?
2. Do you take credit for your employees' work?
3. Do your employees fear you?
4. Do you expect employees to do what you tell them without question?
5. Do you believe employees should know what to do without you telling them or providing guidelines?
6. Are you a yeller?
7. Do you demean employees as a form of punishment?
8. Do you play favorites?
9. Do you hate delegating?
10. Do you check everyone's work?

According to the answer key, the more "yes" answers, the greater the likelihood that you are a bad boss.

Do You Bully Your HR?

In late 2011 a workplace survey was conducted by the Kentucky chapter of SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). The results of this survey indicated that some HR professionals (31.4% of the respondents) have been "bullied" simply because they worked in HR!


Here's some results:
- 42.4% subjected to work interference or sabotage;
- 33.3% suffered verbal abuse; and,
- 24.2% experienced offensive conduct (threats, humiliation and intimidation).

The survey participants felt such conduct may be a result that HR:
- Must often tell managers "no"
- Role is misunderstood and/or not appreciated
- Is perceived as lacking business acumen
- May be perceived as a threat by insecure managers
- May sometimes lack professional credentials/education, or
- May be perceived as lacking "organizational fit."

Only one minute of self-pity is allowed.

When The Boss Is The Bully

I was amazed to find the other day that Working American has an annual contest for the worse boss. Aptly titled "My Bad Boss" some of the entries are astounding. There’s one story about a boss who demoted the office manager when it rained at the company picnic. Really? What a bully.

There are two types of bullies in business. Successful ones and unsuccessful ones. There are leaders who instill the fear of punishment, scorn, and humiliation in their subordinates. Yes, fear can be a powerful motivator, driving people to avoid the sting of punishment and public humiliation.

Robert I. Sutton, PhD states that " . . . followers are driven by both the "sticks" of punishment and humiliation and the "carrots" of hard-won warmth and recognition. One of his "key lessons" in being an effective asshole, "If you demean your people to motivate them, alternate it with (at least occasional) encouragement and praise. Alternate the carrot and the stick; the contrast between the two makes your wrath seem harsher and your occasional kindness seem even sweeter."

RIS posed the question: Why do so many people act like assholes and believe it is generally effective even though there is so much evidence that it is a downright stupid way to act?" Great question and one that begs, no needs, to be answered! When you are in an environment where employees run like cockroaches when they see the boss coming, it's just not healthy! *If anyone out there has an answer to the aforementioned question, please share the answer with me!*

Hey You. Yes, I'm talking to You! Being impolite, rude, nasty, mean, etc. is not crucial to your success.

While bullies inhabit the middle ranks of large concerns, they are positively thriving at small companies. "There are lots of bad bosses out there,' says Atlanta-based management consultant Neil Lewis, Ph.D. "In smaller companies the quality of management is not as good as at large companies. They're not professional managers."

Bullies do a lot of damage in organizations. They make subordinates run scared. They put people in a protective mode, which interferes with the company's ability to generate innovation. Remember, organizations that drive in compassion and drive out fear attract superior talent, have lower turnover costs, and have less dysfunctional internal competition. Companies can gain a competitive advantage by giving their people personal respect, and training them to be effective and humane managers.

So, what do you do when the boss is a bully? Who do you complain to? Even more important, do you complain? It's a delicate situation for everyone involved. For HR, first and foremost provide the distressed employees with an avenue to discuss the allegations. Allow them to realize that they have been heard. A distressed employee needs the opportunity to vent and you need to provide an environment of calmness and provide assurance that is it okay to vent.

Communicate to all employees the expectation to comply with the values of the organization. Make it everyone's responsibility to keep your workplace free from bullying and harassing behaviors.

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

Communication has always been a hot topic for me. It always will be. Recently an acquaintance asked for input to a situation she was struggling with. She asked the question, "Why is it that when a woman is assertive she is considered a bitch?" Good question.

With that question asked, let's look at "gender" privilege for a moment. Why is it that a man can speak more forcefully and yet a woman is not afforded the same privilege? Oftentimes the woman will be labeled as pushy, abrasive or a bitch. How can a woman be strong and assertive, and yet avoid creating a negative or poor reputation for herself? Are women being stereotyped? Yes, in some instances they are and it's unfortunate. Is there privilege associated with speaking forcefully?

In a 2009 Psychology Today article titled "Assertive or Aggressive - Are Men Assertive and Woman Aggressive?" Gabriela Cora states "This is the quintessential question. We tend to say a man is aggressive when he's about to strike at his opponent's jugular while many refer to women who assert themselves as aggressive, instead. Is this a double standard?"

Stereotyping and gender privilege aside, let's talk about communication styles. A thin line exists between being assertive and being aggressive. Assertiveness is the ability to express our desires and opinions in a FIRM YET RESPECTFUL manner. Aggressiveness is FORCING your thoughts and ideas on another person in a bullying manner. Unfortunately, some people view assertiveness and aggressiveness as the same.

Assertiveness is firm, but polite.
Speak in courteous, conversational tone.
Friendly eye contact.
Open and relaxed body language
Considers others feelings
Participative group behavior

Aggressiveness is firm, but impolite.
Speaking using loud, intrusive tones.
Glares
Rigid body language
Considers self only
Controlling group behavior

Often people think they are acting assertively when they are really acting aggressively. That mistake is often accidental. People are simply trying to have their needs met.

Remember, being assertive isn't the same as being rude. It's about letting people know what you need, and what work needs to be done, in a direct way. Workplaces are a melting pot of communication styles and personalities. Miscommunication can happen quickly and easily. As a woman (or a man) we need to be aware of how we communicate. We need to modify our message to our target audience or to the culture of our organization.

Patience must be developed, human nature must be considered. There must always be a space between listening and reacting.

The "No Asshole Rule" Part II

The Ivey Business Journal (November/December 2003) defines workplace bullying as "status-blind interpersonal hostility that is deliberate, repeated and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status".

While I hate to do this, let's remove the "people" from the equation for a moment and focus on the economic impact to the organization. The Orlando Business Journal cited an estimated cost of $180M in lost time and productivity to American businesses each year. The Workplace Bullying Institute estimates that between turnover and lost productivity, a bully could cost a Fortune 500 company an astounding $24,000,000; then add another $1.4 million for litigation and settlement costs.

Employers have begun to consider the impact of negative emotional behavior on work productivity. When people feel mistreated and are dissatisfied with their jobs, they are unwilling to do extra work (discretionary effort) to help their organization. Employees experience a significant loss of motivation. Employers see increased absenteeism and turnover, expend time reorganizing departments, interviewing, recruiting and training the replacements for the victims and/or bullies that are no longer with the company. Then there's the potential legal costs; settlement fees, legal fees associated with counsel. Increased health insurance or worker's compensation as a result of stress, EAP's, etc.

In The No Asshole Rule, Robert Sutton sites a study completed by Frank J. Smith in the late 1970s. The industrial psychologist demonstrated the power of work attitude on "discretionary effort" in a study of three thousand employees at the Sears headquarters in Chicago. "Smith found that attitudes didn't predict which employees were absent from work until the day a crippling snowstorm hit Chicago. On that day, when employees had a good excuse to stay home, employees who were more satisfied with their supervision and other parts of the job were far more likely to make the tough commute into work than those that were dissatisfied. When I am stuck working for, or with, a bunch of assholes, I don't go out of my way to help, But when I admire my superiors and colleagues, I'll go to extreme lengths."

Oftentimes bullying is poorly understood. But face it, it affects the overall "health" of an organization. Eliminate bullying in your organization. Have your managers and supervisors examine their own behavior to ensure they aren't engaging in inadvertent bullying behavior. Communicate to your employees that bullying will not be tolerated. Tell employees who are being bullied to report it to management immediately.

The "No Asshole Rule"

The title is rather eye-catching isn't it? I was browsing the business section of Barnes & Noble Bookseller recently, specifically looking at books relating to Human Resource issues, and I ran across this little gem. Curious, I picked up the book and read the inside cover. It's "the definitive guide to working with - and surviving - bullies, creeps, jerks, tyrants, tormentors, despots, backstabbers, egomaniacs, and all the other assholes who do their best to destroy you at work."

Bullying in the workplace has become a hot topic over the past few years. It's something that no longer happens in just the schoolyard. Bullying can be covert or overt as described by Tim Field (see the "Serial Bully"). "Bullies are deeply prejudiced but at the same time sufficiently devious to not reveal their prejudices to the extent that they contravene laws on harassment and discrimination."

On July 30, 2010 at the University of Virginia, the 52 year old managing editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review committed suicide. Co-workers said they had "warned" university officials about his growing despair over workplace bullying.

Is this an isolated incident? Perhaps not. Workplace Bullying is a problem because it has invaded the life of 37% adult Americans. It disrupts the persons' immediate job and career. In its more severe forms, it can trigger stress-related health complications. Complications such as hypertension, auto-immune disorders, depression, anxiety and even PTSD.

As an employer, how do you identify Workplace Bullying? Workplace Bullying is defined as repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators that takes one, or more, of the following forms: verbal abuse, offensive conduct/behavior (including nonverbal) which are threatening, humiliating or intimidating. And, last but not least, work interference - sabotage - which prevents work from getting done.

There is a grass-roots movement in many states to pass anti-bullying laws. "Workers' rights advocates have been campaigning for years to get states to enact laws against workplace bullying, and in May they scored their biggest victory. The New York state senate passed a bill that would let workers sue for physical, psychological or economic harm due to abusive treatment on the job. If New York's Healthy Workplace Bill becomes law, workers who can show that they were subjected to hostile conduct - including verbal abuse, threats or work sabotage - could be awarded lost wages, medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages." (Time Magazine, July 21, 2010)

Are the courts taking notice? Yes. In 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court struck a blow against workplace bullying when it upheld a $325,000 verdict against a cardiovascular surgeon. A medical technician who operated a heart and lung machine during surgery accused the surgeon of charging at him with clenched fists, screaming and swearing. The formal legal claims were intentional inflection of emotional distress and assault, but the plaintiff argued it as a bullying case, and had an expert on workplace bullying testify at trial.

Check back with me for Part II!