Do You Have a Demanding Boss—or a Bully?

Very often in my classes, I see individuals who prefer to believe they work for bullies when in fact they’re resisting demands placed by a more exacting boss—eg, more appropriate work apparel, more reliable work hours, and higher standards for performance.

Over 75% of workplace bullies are bosses, so it’s easy to assume all bosses are bullies. The majority is also male, so it’s easy to assume all bullies are men, especially as female bullying behaviors tend to be less tangible and more covert.

Take a look at this criteria:

•  There should be clarity and consistency in what’s expected of you. A conscientious but anal-retentive manager may be a stickler for meeting performance goals, but a bully boss will cherry-pick and manufacture issues to make your life really miserable.

•  When you make an honest mistake, your boss should be able to state clearly how it needs to be corrected and prevented from happening again, even if it entails an unhappy conversation between the two of you with notes to your file. Bully bosses tend to inflate mistakes to personally humiliate you; but are just as likely to overlook and forgive them in pursuit of other targets or intentions.

•  Feedback from a demanding boss will focus on work and performance issues. A bully boss will personalize it, either by citing herself as “your model for success” or focusing on details of your life and personality irrelevant to work. You should also receive balanced appraisals, both positive and corrective.

Demanding bosses are human, after all, and will make errors in judgment if they’re under pressure or misunderstand your intentions. Consider keeping a “daybook” that logs any behaviors you think may be bullying, because if they’re good at anything, bullies are at least consistent in their inhumanity.

Freshman Required Courses: Courtesy 101, Empathy 102, or You & Internet Law

(Sorry for the longer than usual post).

           

Maybe this is just me, but any time someone sets up a task force, I figure they’ve either got to appear like something’s happening, or they’re in a rush to get it to happen.

Such was the case at Rutgers University, when the suicide of freshman Tyler Clementi ignited a national—no, global—scrutiny of civility, bullying, and the ethics of the Millennial generation (of which my daughter is a member).

In their response, Rutgers set up their own Civility Project. Several universities have them: P.M. Forni, the guy heading up the Rutgers project, was key to the one at Johns Hopkins.

For about a week I tracked the commentary thread on a particularly inflammatory op-ed piece in Rutgers’ student-run paper, The Daily Targum, and it was anything but a civil discourse, with disagreements devolving to infantile profanity and name-calling (eg, "ur a d*#k"). But in this regard, the now-commonplace phenom of abusing those who disagree with us is not limited to Rutgers students or even Millennials, given how easy it is to fire off venom from the safe anonymity of one’s computer.

This year was interesting for me as a consultant, because more and more I’ve been asked to speak on the value of workplace civility—in one case, to a group with a notorious workplace bully in a position of power.

What does all this mean for the current American workplace?

• Schoolyard bullies generally evolve into workplace bullies. The nature of their victims changes, however. Whereas schoolyard bullies tend to pick on kids who seem vulnerable or different, workplace bullies target personable, competent, popular achievers—and usually drive real talent away from the organization.

• The inability of any generation to hold civil discourse means there’ll be more conflicts—especially at work, where process disagreements are bound to occur. It wasn’t just that the Targum commentary thread got ugly, but that both the comments and the op-ed piece were inarticulate. Aside from spelling and grammatical errors, the sentiments were badly expressed and seemed (un)hinged on the belief that disagreement was a green light for reality-TV-style flying off the handle. There are conflicts that clear the air, strengthen relationships, and fix process bugs: this type of disagreement is not that.

How you handle yourself in conflict is considered part of your skillset. If you can’t articulate yourself in written or spoken words when you have a serious point to make, how can you expect to advance in your profession?

• Very little has been said about the role of the bystander. All week, it’s haunted me that few ever speak up for the victims of bullying—very likely because school administrators and workplace leaders are so passive about addressing it, everyone fears retribution from the bully. And yet some change might begin if only two or three people stood up to the bully on the victim’s behalf and said, “Stop it. Just stop it. This is abuse. We’re colleagues, this is not acceptable, and if it happens again we will do something about it.”

Why do bullying and incivility continue? My gut tells me bullies will always be with us, in every generation, because there will always be weak, frightened, attention-seeking individuals who need that rush of power over someone else.

What can and should be changed are the way we respond to bullying and incivility, and the environmental variables that foster these terrible behaviors. Add in too, the manner and speed with which transgressions are addressed. (At this writing, Rutgers’ Civility Project is a two-year commitment, and a recent Targum poll posed the question, “Should the University implement safeguards against Internet abuse in residence halls?” . . . Hmm. You tell me if these are durable solutions.)

As for civility itself, that white tiger of human values, all I can say is that whether or not you enact a task force to restore it to your workplace, ultimately, inevitably, it boils down to one person and how you choose to respond, especially in the face of conflict and disagreement. And, like the white tiger, it's a beautiful thing when glimpsed and experienced.