02 September 2016

75% Of Workers Are Affected By Bullying - Here's What To Do About It

Published: Forbes.com 
by Christine Comaford, 27 August, 2016



Workplace bullying is frighteningly common and takes an enormous toll on our businesses. Research from Dr. Judy Blando (University of Phoenix) has proven that almost 75% of employees surveyed had been affected by workplace bullying, whether as a target or a witness.
75%. That’s huge.

So what exactly is workplace bullying?


“Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is: threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or work-interference, i.e. sabotage, which prevents work from getting done,” from Workplace Bullying Institute.


One of the main differences between schoolyard bullying and workplace bullying is that it tends to be less physically harmful and more psychological and verbal in nature. It’s subtler than schoolyard bullying but is quite distinctive from normal workplace stress.



One of the main differences between schoolyard bullying and workplace bullying is that it tends to be less physically harmful and more psychological and verbal in nature. It’s subtler than schoolyard bullying but is quite distinctive from normal workplace stress.
Recommended by Forbes

“Bullying is characterized by:

• Repetition (occurs regularly)
• Duration (is enduring)
• Escalation (increasing aggression)
• Power disparity (the target lacks the power to successfully defend themself)
• Attributed intent” (from Wikipedia)

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), bullying is four times more common than either sexual harassment or racial discrimination on the job.


Who The Bullies Are


Here is what you have to understand, the targets of workplace bullying are not the weakest players—they are often the strongest.

Let’s say that again. The common misconception is that, like schoolyard bullying, the targets of workplace bullying are loners, or “weird” or the people who “don’t fit.” In fact the reverse is true.

People become targets because something about them is threatening to the bully. Often they are more skilled, more technically proficient, have a higher EQ or people just like them better. They are often workplace veterans who mentor new hires.
“WBI research findings and conversations with thousands of targets have confirmed that targets appear to be the veteran and most skilled person in the workgroup” (quote from WBI).

Now the bully tends to be someone who is skilled at manipulating and controlling, but while they see everything as a competition, they do not feel skilled/competent enough to compete on their own merits. Hence they bully as a futile attempt to feel more powerful.

The bully often works hard to create the perception that they are strong by putting down and blaming others. Often the boss of the bully knows the bully is “disliked” but thinks that the organization cannot do without them and makes “allowances.” The bullying is framed as “personality conflict.”

What Bullying Is Costing Your Company


When you, as the leader of an organization allow bullying to occur you create at least five problems:


1. The target of the bullying will experience a loss of confidence and an increase in stress that often shows up in health problems. Their performance will decline. They may need more time off to recover. So you have lower performance by at least one person, the target.


2. By allowing the bullying to continue you are accepting a toxic culture, prevalent Critter State, and reduced performance and morale. The people witnessing the bullying will have to choose to side with the bully, leave, risk retribution by speaking out, or remain passive and try to stay under the bully’s radar. To be non-threatening to the bully they may lower their performance in some way.


3. Eventually the target will have no recourse but to leave. Research has shown that the vast majority of targets eventually leave. You now have lost a good employee and have all the costs of a new hire.


4. Plus you have the almost certain guarantee that the cycle will repeat itself. I find that organizations which condone bullying, which have prevalent Critter State, also have high employee turnover rates, far less revenue per employee, increased absences, and the list goes on and on.


5. You are opening yourself up to potential litigation. While bullying is not, strictly speaking, illegal it may be connected to a form of harassment or discrimination which can be subject to litigation. At the least attention will be taken up in tracking and “proving” a case.

All this from denying bullying—oh, and let’s add the personal guilt of not protecting one’s tribe.



How To Stop Bullying—And Start Boosting Smart State

Workplace bullies can be hard to detect because they work within the rules of the organization. That means that the solutions lie within the organizational structure.
I have been asked to coach several workplace bullies because someone, usually their boss, wanted them to change. The problem with this sort of coaching is that the person themselves doesn’t want to change. The coaching is seen as a punishment rather than as a reward and a path to greater leadership.

The reality is that the leadership team is responsible. Bullying cannot happen without approval (“oh that’s just how xx is!”). It’s up to you to create an environment that is safe and healthy for the entire team—the Smart State. The biggest problem with bullies is usually that someone higher up likes them – “oh xx is great at a party!” - or some other nonsense.
 

The first step is to confront the bully. Use my formal feedback steps to outline the specific behaviors that must change. Agree on objective performance measurements. Make sure that the bully transfers their feeling of threat from their target to the organization. Give them specific ways to manipulate and control their own outcomes—turn their skills into assets if possible. If not possible, they have to go. If you are serious about creating the culture of your dreams, you have to be willing to hire and fire based on your values.

I have found that what works best, culturally, is to focus on creating structures that reward “Smart State” behaviors and discourage/punish bullying behaviors. This starts with ensuring the confidentiality of anyone reporting bullying behavior and ensuring that there are no reprisals.

How To Stop Bullying—And Start Boosting Smart State

Workplace bullies can be hard to detect because they work within the rules of the organization. That means that the solutions lie within the organizational structure.
I have been asked to coach several workplace bullies because someone, usually their boss, wanted them to change. The problem with this sort of coaching is that the person themselves doesn’t want to change. The coaching is seen as a punishment rather than as a reward and a path to greater leadership.

The reality is that the leadership team is responsible. Bullying cannot happen without approval (“oh that’s just how xx is!”). It’s up to you to create an environment that is safe and healthy for the entire team—the Smart State. The biggest problem with bullies is usually that someone higher up likes them – “oh xx is great at a party!” - or some other nonsense.


The first step is to confront the bully. Use my formal feedback steps to outline the specific behaviors that must change. Agree on objective performance measurements. Make sure that the bully transfers their feeling of threat from their target to the organization. Give them specific ways to manipulate and control their own outcomes—turn their skills into assets if possible. If not possible, they have to go. If you are serious about creating the culture of your dreams, you have to be willing to hire and fire based on your values.

I have found that what works best, culturally, is to focus on creating structures that reward “Smart State” behaviors and discourage/punish bullying behaviors. This starts with ensuring the confidentiality of anyone reporting bullying behavior and ensuring that there are no reprisals.

Recommended by Forbes

Organizational structures
which put the focus on problem solving and which create clear and fair performance markers work to reduce bullying.

For example:

• reward ideas and innovations
• reward people for bringing safety or other problems to leaders’ attention
• use structures, like Kanban boards, which isolate bottlenecks as work flow issues only, and therefore reduce finger-pointing and blame
• implement an intranet system where team members can give each other high fives and recognize contribution

• make sure any performance measuring systems that you are using are fair and objective, and reward what you are actually interested in achieving (e.g. one client was rewarding employees for quantity but not measuring quality and our assessment found that their “high performers” were actually the ones creating problems).

For more on bullying in the workplace and how to put an end to it for good, see my previous post: How To Stop Workplace Bullies In Their Tracks

Christine Comaford is the author of SmartTribes: How Teams Become Brilliant Together.


Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2016/08/27/the-enormous-toll-workplace-bullying-takes-on-your-bottom-line/#eec89f3386ee

24 July 2016

KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice

Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by:

We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?

I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.


Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?


The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?

 Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg

Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.

If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.

The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.

But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.


Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.

Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."

"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.

As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.

In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.

In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.

She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.

As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.

Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.

So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.

Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.

There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.

So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html

COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...

  • Truffles McLobster
    Yep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
    • sangela
      You're joking, yes?
  • PaybackSydney,
    Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
  • MichaelBringelly,
    Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
    Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics..
  • DuralsumoDural,
    Too right she is!
  • Nullacritter
    Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
    Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen.
  • Black snakeWest Woombye,
    I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
  • topender
    Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
  • The Kiwi
    You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
  • rob1966Sydney,
    Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
    It's the worlds worst nightmare!
    Start digging your fallout shelter ...
  • Mike FCheltenham, NSW,
    But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
    ...Mike F
  • wellsie
    Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
  • James RSydney,
    Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
  • Rainer the cabbieLost at the interchange,
    I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
    Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well.
  • Dr Kiwi
    Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
    That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job.
  • ebtSydney,
    I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
    To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.

07 February 2016

Why would we want to inflict Rudd on the UN?

OPINION
The Drum
By Daryl McCann 
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am

Everyone knows how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd's leadership style was, so why would senior Coalition members consider backing his bid to become Secretary General of the United Nations? Daryl McCann writes.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 must rate as one of the lowest points in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. On that day a leadership spill in the Australian Labor Party resulted in caucus recalling Kevin Rudd to the prime ministership by a margin of 57-45. Few on the Labor side of politics could offer any reason for doing so other than political expediency ahead of the 2013 federal election - the national interest did not enter into their calculation.

Photo: Kevin Rudd is said to be hoping to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations. (Chip East : Reuters)
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.

Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.

On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.

So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.
"Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism."

The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.

Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.

Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.

Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.

Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.

Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.

Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.

Daryl McCann
writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408



11 January 2016

Is Your Workplace Full Of Corporate Bullies?


Published: FORBES.COM , 5 January 2016 @ 05:03PM
Writer: Dan Pontefract

I remember a period in my life as a 10 year-old when one of the neighborhood boys was being a bully. He was four years older than me—roughly 20 pounds heavier and four inches taller—and for a few months seemed to amuse himself by picking on me any chance he could get. If there was a road hockey game being played on the street with the neighborhood children, he’d purposely check me hard into the ground chuckling to himself afterward. The game was supposed to be contact free.  Wayne Gretzky he wasn’t.

One day during a game of hide and seek, he snuck up behind me and shoved dirty, wet leaves in my face. Shenanigans continued like this until one day I snapped. While playing with him and a few other kids in our backyard, unprovoked, I calmly walked up to him and said, “You’ve had this coming for a while now” and proceeded to punch him square in the nose. I was channeling the pent up frustration and anger of the previous weeks into an almighty wallop. It was the first, and to this day, the last time I ever hit anyone. It felt good, too.

Similar experiences to my encounter with the neighborhood bully seem to be cropping up in today’s workplace. According to Dr. Carroll M. Brodsky in The Harassed Worker, workplace bullying refers to “repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate or get a reaction from another. It is treatment which persistently provokes, pressures, frightens, intimidates or otherwise discomforts another person.” It sounds a lot like my former neighbor.

Researchers published an influential paper titled Metaphors of Workplace Bullying: Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves where they surfaced further ammunition to our already loaded gun of workplace bullying as a cause to employee disengagement. In it the authors note:

"Based on qualitative data gathered from focus groups, narrative interviews, and target drawings, the analysis describes how bullying can feel like a battle, water torture, nightmare, or noxious substance. Abused workers frame bullies as narcissistic dictators, two-faced actors, and devil figures. Employees targeted with workplace bullying liken themselves to vulnerable children, slaves, prisoners, animals, and heartbroken lovers."
This sounds even worse than my former neighbor.

In the January-February 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review, authors Christine Porath and Christine Pearson published data on the topic of workplace bullying or as they elegantly define it: “workplace incivility.” Through research and the collection of data points—after polling thousands of employees concerning the manner in which they are treated at work—Porath and Pearson found 98% of employees at some point in their working life were a victim of uncivil behavior while on the job. More distressing is that over a thirteen-year period between 1998 and 2011, the percentage of workers who reported being treated rudely at least once a week while at work rose from 25% to 50%. It’s not quite like my childhood bullying example, but a lack of civility in your place of work is the modern-day adult equivalent.

What happens to workers who are impacted by bullies and incivility in the workplace? Much like the bottom-line consequences of a disengaged organization—where disengaged and not engaged employees hamper profitability and customer satisfaction—there are performance and productivity related issues.

As a leader, you no doubt see the financial implications to such a predicament. Those factors uncovered by researchers include:
  •   47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work
  •   80% lost work time worrying about the incident
  •   66% said their performance declined
  •   78% said their commitment to the organization declined
  •   25% admitted to taking their frustration out on customers
What’s the bottom line?

Workplace bullies are not only causing employees to be disengaged, they are creating performance and productivity related issues that are likely causing harm to one’s career development. What occurs when an employee feels threatened at work? It accentuates the negative aspects of the organization and does nothing to help the employee see the positives of the role or situation. As a leader, you might want to observe and pay attention to the bullies in your organization. Those bullies may be part of the reason employees are disillusioned with their prospects of finding meaning or purpose in their place of work.

That stated, leaders are capable (and culpable) of bullying as well. To me, bullying is simply another term for “command and control” when that method of leadership is employed by the leader. Leaders who believe it’s their managerial right to flash the “I have a more senior title than you” card to ensure a decision goes in their favor or who aim to demonstrate to a larger audience that they are “the boss” are, in fact, another version of corporate incivility.

For example, a few years ago, two different members of a team separately approached me one week, asking for help. Their boss had decided to publicly berate both of them at different points during an all-hands team meeting. There were roughly 50 people in the meeting. The individuals were humiliated. One cried uncontrollably to me over the phone as he/she wondered aloud why the verbal lashing was necessary in the first place. In fact, this particular person felt as though the negative feedback was completely unfounded. The other wanted to take vengeance with some form of a smear campaign.

In this case, and many more, a formal complaint sent into the HR department (or the Workplace Discrimination Officer, if there is such a bureau in one’s place of work) is the first course of action, and one I suggested. Leaders who ridicule or admonish employees in open meetings—whether on a conference call or face-to-face—are no different than my old neighbor. They’re a disgrace, and should be reported. (I don’t advise the knuckle sandwich approach of my youth to combat your corporate bully problem.)

Leaders who poach internal employees from another team—without being proactive and discussing the opportunity or situation in advance—are another type of corporate bully. It’s a form of peer-to-peer bullying, as often the individual thinks he/she can use pure, unadulterated force to get what they want to build their own team.

Leaders who make impossible demands on deadlines, who set up their staff for inevitable failure, and who take credit for the positive results an individual or team created without said leader’s involvement, are also facsimiles of corporate bullies.

Leaders who cancel a meeting at the last minute, never to reschedule again, are inflicting another form of hierarchical bullying. We might call this calendar bullying.

If any of the examples mentioned ring a bell, perhaps it is time to come face to face with the possibility you (or your leader) may possess characteristics of workplace incivility, if not bullying outright. Unfortunately, this is leading to the potential for workplace dissatisfaction. It most certainly is not paving a way towards a purposeful and engaged mindset for many employees at work.

Workplace incivility and corporate bullies can be a problem. If you are in such a scenario, it just may be time to turn inaction into action.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2016/01/05/is-your-workplace-full-of-corporate-bullies/#2fffe8e77aa1

25 August 2013

Outbursts become rude reminders of Kevin Rudd's past

Published in : The Australian    
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM

Written by:
Reporter, Melbourne and , National Affairs Editor, Canberra

A RETIRED air vice-marshal has accused Kevin Rudd of "bully standover tactics" and a make-up artist has declared he was rude as she prepared him for the people's forum debate, reviving questions about the Prime Minister's character that emerged in his first stint in the role.

Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss revealed Mr Rudd had warned him in a private meeting that funding for veterans would be at risk if he "bagged" the Labor government. He accused Mr Rudd of using "classic bully standover tactics" and threatening veterans with getting nothing if they criticised Labor's military superannuation indexation policy.

The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.

The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."

The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.

As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.

The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.

"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.

"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.

On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.

Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.

"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.

"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.

"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.

"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."

Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.

"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.

When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.

Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.

"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".


"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.


"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."


Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.

He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.

Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".

Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".

"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.


Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808

26 July 2013

Horror in UK Hospital as Bully Nurses are 'struck off' after worst hospital scandals in living memory!

The bullies who will never nurse patients again: Pair who ruled A&E unit at scandal-hit Stafford hospital 'with fear' and covered up neglect are struck off

  • Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified A&E discharge times
  • They wanted to hit target for patients to be dealt with in four hours
  • Hearing told some racist staff even forced black patients to wait longer

Disciplined: Tracy White and Sharon Turner faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital. Today, they were struck off
Sharon Turner, left, and Tracy White, right, falsified Accident and Emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. A string of allegations was found proved including Turner instructing nurses to ‘lie’ about waiting times in A&E and saying she planned to make another nurse’s life ‘hell and get rid of him in six months’.

Two senior nurses at the centre of one of the worst hospital scandals in living memory have been struck off.
Sharon Turner, 48, and Tracy White, 52, stood accused of ruling the A&E unit at Mid Staffordshire ‘with fear’ by bullying other nurses into covering-up the appalling neglect of patients.
They are the first two nurses from the trust to be struck off. Up to 1,200 patients are feared to have died there unnecessarily between 2005 and 2009.
Sharon Turner
Tracy White 
 
Disciplined: Tracy White, left, and Sharon Turner, right, faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital. Today, they were struck off 
This year a damning report into the scandal concluded that ‘appalling and unnecessary suffering’ was inflicted on hundreds of patients who were left ‘unwashed, unfed and without fluids’.
But until now, not a single doctor or nurse had been struck off or even lost their job over the failings, to the dismay of grieving families.
Yesterday the Nursing and Midwifery Council banned the two nurses from ever practising again for undermining the public’s faith in the profession.
The panel ruled they had conspired to fiddle the figures on waiting times ‘with sheer dishonesty’ and had ‘coerced and frightened’ other more junior nurses to do the same.

Horrific: Up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily at the ¿horror hospital¿ as managers put benchmarks above patient care
Horrific: Up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily at the 'horror hospital' as managers put benchmarks above patient care

Mrs Turner, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, admitted to the three-strong panel she had once said she ‘did not give a flying f***’ about one of her patients.
When told by other staff that a patient had requested something, she said: ‘They want to get f****** real’, the panel heard.
Mrs Turner, who qualified as a nurse in 1993, also allegedly branded Asian junior doctors ‘suicide bombers’ and ‘Osama’s mate’, in a reference to the late Al Qaeda leader.
The former ward sister, who worked in the A&E department between 2003 and 2009, also vowed to make one male nurse’s life ‘living hell’ leading him to take an overdose – which he survived.
Mrs White, who has been a registered nurse since 1992, bullied staff into lying about the length of times patients waited in A&E to meet the Government’s maximum four-hour target.
Astonishingly she is still working at the hospital and since leaving the A&E unit in 2009 had been promoted to one of the most senior management positions.
She is currently clinical site manager – in charge of allocating patients to beds – on a salary of up to £47,000, about £10,000 more than her previous nursing role.
Whistleblower: Helene Donnelly said Sister Turner - along with Sister White - would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged
Whistleblower: Helene Donnelly said Sister Turner - along with Sister White - would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged
Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly revealed Sister Turner – along  with Sister White – would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged. She recalled: ‘They would frequently lie about discharge times, and pressurise members of staff to lie. They would speak nastily and swear at people who did not change the times, or would change the times themselves.
‘The drive for targets was obviously a huge thing at the time. We were told that jobs might be on the line if we didn’t do it.’
Stephen Redmond, who chaired the hearing at the Old Bailey, told the two nurses that they had failed to put patients and their care first.
‘Instead you made the achieving of statistical targets, by honest or dishonest means, your primary aim. This was not a one-off failing, rather it was at the heart of the way you worked over a sustained period.’
He said they had resorted to ‘sheer dishonesty’ by altering paperwork and said they had ‘coerced and frightened other, often junior, members of staff into doing the same. You shouted and swore at them if they did not comply when you should have been setting an example.’
Julie Bailey, who helped expose the appalling neglect at Mid Staffordshire following the death of her mother in 2007, said: ‘This is the start of accountability in the NHS. We’re all very pleased at the outcomes. But there is clear evidence these nurses should have been suspended long ago by the trust.’
She also said it was ‘frightening’ that despite being struck off, the pair could still work in hospitals as healthcare assistants.
The cases began in March but had been repeatedly adjourned and had only begun considering evidence against the pair this week.
Another five nurses from Mid Staffordshire are having their cases considered by the NMC including the former chief nurse, Jan Harry.
Maggie Oldham, chief executive at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Tracy White is still employed by the trust. We will need to take some time to consider the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel’s findings.’
The trust said Mrs Turner had stopped working for it in 2009.

SHE MADE THOSE IN PAIN WAIT

Among the most repellent examples of the behaviour of Tracy White was her lack of care and respect for an elderly woman in her final 24 hours.
She reprimanded the seriously ill patient by calling her a ‘naughty little monkey’ for not taking her laxatives, and refused to help lift her from a wheelchair to a bed, saying: ‘I’m not doing this. I’m not hurting my back.’
Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly said the woman, who died the next day from a pulmonary oedema, or fluid on the lungs, had been given ‘a very uncared-for and undignified last 24 hours’. Another patient, who arrived at A&E suffering from bleeding after having an abortion, was refused immediate treatment by Sister White, who said: ‘She can wait, if you can do that to your baby.’
The whistleblower also claimed: ‘Sister White would deliberately make patients wait. Black patients were being made to wait.’
When junior nurse Mrs Donnelly was scathingly told off by another manager for faking a discharge time, she said she looked at the paperwork and recognised White’s handwriting.
But the senior nurse did not come forward to admit the forgery and was later promoted to her current role as clinical site manager.

FIGURE OF FEAR FOR HER STAFF

On the wards, Sharon Turner sent waves of fear through junior staff afraid to challenge her expletive-ridden diktats.
When one bullied male nurse took an overdose in despair, she said he ‘should have taken a few more and done the job properly’.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council was told Sister Turner had vowed to ‘make his life hell and get rid of him in six months’ and ‘drive him to drink’ so that ‘he would be out of here’.
When a colleague was taken to hospital with  a head injury, the mother of two is said to have told staff: ‘I don’t care if she lives or dies.’
Asian junior doctors had to put up with appalling racist abuse from the senior nurse.
She asked one, ‘What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?’ and referred to others as ‘him in the turban’ and ‘her with the yashmak [veil]’.