World-famous conductor 'bullied oboe player who asked him to stop singing in 16-year victimisation campaign'

In the artistic world of music, harmony between conductor and orchestra is paramount.

But in one loud clash, two musicians have apparently been engaged in a feud which has lasted 16 years. Yesterday, details emerged of the discord between Carlo Rizzi, the world-renowned Italian conductor of the Welsh National Opera, and principal oboe player Murray Johnston.

Claims: Murray Johnston leaving the employment tribunal in Cardiff, left, and in action as principal oboist with the Wales National Orchestra

The 61-year-old claimed he was ‘victimised, bullied, harassed and intimidated’ by Mr Rizzi after once ordering him to ‘stop singing’. The veteran oboist has been sacked after playing with the WNO for 34 years, performing in more than 50 recordings.

He is claiming wrongful dismissal, saying he was ‘persistently abused’ by Mr Rizzi, 50, who became musical director of the Cardiff-based company in 1992.

Their relationship ‘never recovered’ after a rehearsal two years later when Mr Johnston told Mr Rizzi to ‘stop singing’, an employment tribunal heard. The context of the order to the conductor, who had previously been at the Royal Opera Company, Covent Garden, was not explained.

But Nick Smith, for the oboist, said: ‘Rizzi’s behaviour was extreme on that day. He stormed off, locked himself in a room and kicked furniture about.’

Mr Johnston told the hearing he suffered bullying and intimidation by Mr Rizzi during his work with the 55-strong orchestra over the following years. The principal oboist had to re-audition for his job even though he had been doing it for decades.

Tribunal: Italian conductor Carlo Rizzi, who is accused of bullying Mr Jonston

Mr Johnston, of Radyr, Cardiff, told the hearing he passed his audition, but alleges he was subjected to an ‘attack’ by Mr Rizzi in front of the orchestra during a rehearsal.

‘He stopped the rehearsal probably 20 or 30 times to criticise my playing. I felt victimised and bullied,’ said the musician.

Mr Smith added that many orchestra members wrote letters to complain about Mr Rizzi’s behaviour.

‘The language of these letters was very, very strong,’ he said.

‘They are from numerous members of the union, some anonymous, some not.

‘They accuse Mr Rizzi of intimidation and harassment, of even making one woman ill.’

The tribunal was told that Musicians’ Union members wrote letters to opera managers ‘expressing anger at the treatment of Mr Johnston’. A motion was also passed accusing Mr Rizzi of bullying.

WNO managing director Peter Bellingham denied Mr Johnston was unfairly dismissed.

He told the hearing that Mr Rizzi felt the oboist’s standards had dropped to such a level, he was ‘holding the entire orchestra back’.

Mr Rizzi, who has since left the WNO, will not be giving evidence. The hearing in Cardiff continues.

source

Sacked oboist was 'bullied' by conductor, tribunal hears

Welsh National Opera musician claims unfair dismissal after 1994 incident triggered years of 'persistent abuse'

EXCLUSIVE: The Irony, Australian WorkCover Authority That Helps Investigate Bullying & Harassment in the Workplace, has been covering up its own bully

Intimidation and fear: welcome to agency charged with stamping out bullying

THE state government agency responsible for investigating workplace bullying is harbouring a serious bullying problem in its own ranks which it has been attempting to keep quiet.

There was a ''pattern'' of bullying within WorkCover's Licensing Solutions Unit, the agency's money-spinning department that approves workers to drive forklifts, operate cranes and work on construction sites, an investigation last year found. But the report has been buried and the agency has attempted to cover up the problem, telling its minister it revealed no bullying.

The inquiry, conducted by one of WorkCover's own safety inspectors, Petar Ankucic, found bullying had been ''occurring for a prolonged period of time and that various factors, including selective supervision, multiple chains of command, workload equity, continuous negative feedback and a somewhat autocratic management style … have contributed to unintended bullying''.

But when the Finance Minister, Michael Daley, was asked about the bullying, he twice denied it existed. In May he told Parliament: ''The investigation revealed no evidence of bullying as defined in the WorkCover publication, Preventing and Dealing with Workplace Bullying.''

A senior manager told workers in April there was no bullying in the department. But the report noted staff cried when interviewed. They also showed a ''mixture of intense dislike, fear and almost hatred'' towards two of their bosses.

In a follow-up review, the atmosphere improved, but Mr Ankucic said the ''seemingly calm work environment … is still very fragile and … is best described as a good work in progress".

A Herald investigation has discovered the agency is still plagued by mistrust and fear. A number of current and former employees claimed bullying was rife within the Gosford-based organisation.

Licensing officer Paul Newton, fed up with the ''spying'' and ''controlling'', resigned last week. He said colleagues had been reduced to tears and likened the workplace culture to East Germany. ''It's like the Stasi,'' he said.

''I just think it's terrible that an organisation that exists to protect the emotional and physical well-being of people in the workplace fails to protect the emotional well-being of its staff.''

An online survey of 816 WorkCover staff in April, seen by theHerald, showed problems extended beyond the licensing unit.

Almost 60 per cent were not convinced people avoided politics and back-stabbing and only one-third believed management was almost always ''honest and ethical''. Just 20 per cent thought it was nearly always an emotionally and psychologically healthy place to work.

''Licensing is the bullying hot spot, but not the only place that has problems,'' a worker said.

"WorkCover's just so demoralised.''

A spokeswoman for WorkCover said it had firm internal policies to prevent and address bullying. ''All reports of bullying are taken seriously and investigated on the evidence,'' she said.

''A culture survey conducted in 2010 … found that 66 per cent of staff found WorkCover 'a great place to work'.''

In the five years to mid-2007 there were more than 4000 workers compensation claims for harassment or bullying in NSW, costing $80 million.

Queries about dealing with workplace bullying are now among the top five reasons people contact WorkCover's information centre.

'I hate working at WorkCover.'

Paul Newton, who resigned from the agency this month, said managers used bullying and favouritism, sometimes subtly, as a means of ''controlling staff''. Colleagues were encouraged to spy on each other and collect information to be used against workmates. "It's like orchestrated management bullying," he said.

'My hair started falling out.'

A former long-term staff member, granted workers compensation for work-related depression arising from bullying, said she was so stressed her hair fell out in clumps. One manager turned an allegation of bullying against an individual into a ''bitch fest''. The woman said she was accused of bullying without explanation. "During this time I was a mess.''

source

Probe ordered into WorkCover bullying claim

The NSW government has ordered an independent inquiry into allegations of widespread bullying in a division of WorkCover.

Finance Minister Michael Daley announced the inquiry - to be conducted by someone outside the government - following revelations in today's Herald that a "pattern" of bullying existed within WorkCover's Licensing Solutions Unit.

WorkCover is the state government agency responsible for providing "safe, secure and productive workplaces", which includes "preventing and dealing with workplace bullying", its website says.

The Licensing Solutions Unit approves workers to drive forklifts, operate cranes and work on construction sites.

Mr Daley said he had been previously told by WorkCover that the agency was addressing the problem but wanted to be sure the alleged harassment was stopped.

He has asked the director general of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to commission an independent review of the allegations.

"Due to WorkCover's role as the regulator of workplace safety, including bullying matters, I have requested that this review be conducted by somebody independent from WorkCover and the government," Mr Daley said in a statement.

"Bullying and intimidation in any workplace is unacceptable."

The Greens said a premier's department probe does not go far enough and a parliamentary inquiry should be held.

"If WorkCover can't stop bullying in its own ranks, how can it be up to doing its job in other workplaces in NSW?" Greens MP and the party's industrial relations spokesman, David Shoebridge, said.

"Neither WorkCover, nor this government, can be trusted with getting to the bottom of this.

"We must have an open and accountable parliamentary enquiry into WorkCover's palpable failure to deal with bullying.

"It is not good enough to fob it off with another behind closed doors report on a report." source

STUDY - The Calculated Tactics Revealed In How People Climb To The Top - Brown Tongue, Sucking Up, Bosses Pet, Manipuator

Flattery will get you far

Research by Assistant Professor Ithai Stern suggests that corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when they use subtle forms of flattery and conformity within their organizations.

New research reveals seven types of ingratiation that increase boardroom prospects for top executives

In the corporate world, board appointments are typically perceived as markers of success. However, new research from the Kellogg School suggests boardroom entrance strategies are rarely based on merit alone.

According to the study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior and Board Appointments,” corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when employing subtle, but sophisticated, forms of flattery and opinion conformity within their organizations.

“Past research has demonstrated the effects of corporate leaders taking part in ingratiation and persuasion tactics,” said Ithai Stern, assistant professor of management and organizations and co-author of the study. “However, our study is the first to look at the effectiveness of specific tactics in increasing the likelihood of garnering board appointments at other firms, as well as which types of executives are most likely to effectively engage these tactics.”

As part of the study, Stern and his co-author James Westphal, strategy professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, drew from theory and research on interpersonal attraction, as well as interviews with 42 managers and CEOs of large U.S. industrial and service firms, to identify a set of tactics that are less likely to be interpreted as manipulative or political in intent, and are therefore more likely to bring about social influence.

The researchers identified seven effective forms of ingratiation most likely to help executives win board seats:

• Framing flattery as advice seeking: Occurs when a person poses a question seeking advice as a way to flatter the subject (i.e. “How were you able to close that deal so successfully?”).
• Arguing prior to conforming: Instead of agreeing immediately, a person will yield before accepting his/her manager’s opinion (i.e. “At first, I didn’t see your point but it makes total sense now. You’ve convinced me.”).
• Complimenting manager to his/her friends: Praising manager to his/her friends or social network with hopes that word gets back to manager.
• Framing flattery as likely to make manager uncomfortable: Positioning a remark as likely to be embarrassing (i.e. “I don’t want to embarrass you but your presentation was really top-notch. Better than most I’ve seen.”).
• Engaging in value conformity prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Expressing values or morals which are held by one’s manager (i.e. “I’m the same way. I believe we should increase minimum wage.”).
• Conforming to opinions expressed by one’s manager to a third party: Covertly learning of manager's opinion(s) from his/her contacts, and then conforming with opinion(s) in conversations with manager.
• Referencing social affiliations held in common with one’s manager prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Mentioning an affiliation, such as a religious organization or political party, shared by both individuals. (i.e. “I watched the Republican National Convention last night. The keynote presented some great points.”).

As part of these findings, the authors also discovered that managers and directors who have a background in politics, law or sales are significantly more likely to engage in sophisticated forms of ingratiation. Similarly, managers and directors who have an upper-class background are more sophisticated in their ingratiatory behavior than individuals with a middle- or working-class background. The authors argue that this proclivity is consistent with social norms in these environments. These findings shed new light on why there are only a few top managers with backgrounds in engineering, accounting or finance, as compared to top managers with backgrounds in politics, law or sales.

“Lawyers, politicians and salespeople routinely take part in flattery and opinion conformity to complete their jobs, similar to those operating in an upper-class social environment,” said Stern. “Ingratiatory behavior is a form of interpersonal communication that is acceptable and expected in both arenas.”

Stern and Westphal note that acts of flattery are successful in yielding board appointments at other firms if the influence target doesn’t recognize these acts as a favor-seeking motive.

“To tap into the corporate elite’s inner circle, a person cannot be too obvious,” Westphal said. “Being too overt with one’s intentions can be interpreted as manipulative or political. The more covert the ingratiation, the more sophisticated the approach and effective the outcome.”

Source
The study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior, and Board Appointments,” appears in the current issue of Administrative Science Quarterly.

THE ART OF SUCKING UP
This kind of subtle flattery can also help employees climb up the corporate ladder. The more you disguise the sucking up to bosses and managers, the less likely you will be seen as manipulative and scheming. According to one study quoted here, managers were more likely to come down hard on people they see as sucking up to them, who are not being subtle and who are going over the top. But the study notes that when managers are fooled into believing the compliments are sincere, they are more likely to rate that person’s performance highly.
In other words, you have to do it right. It takes practice and skill the fool the other person.

Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Andrew O’Connell says flattery appeals to people on an unconscious level. When people are gushing all over you, you don’t believe it. But on an unconscious level, he says, you want to believe it. So the trick is getting the person on an unconscious level. “Persuade a customer or colleague on a conscious level, and he or she will retain that conviction only until a better counterargument comes along … Persuade a person on a gut level, and the feeling will last and last. And last.”

What Makes A Great Leader? ... Listen, have a heart, be inspirational, don't Bully, don't harass or be arrogant ...

The secret to being a great leader isn't to bully or harass your underlings - it's to be a sensitive listener.

Researchers say the best politicians, businessmen and managers stay in touch with their followers and support those they lead. Their findings also revealed most leaders have a natural shelf life and that over time they tend to become so isolated they fall out of favour.

Good leader, bad leader: Baroness Margaret Thatcher was a good leader while William Hague was bad because he lost credibility over his beer boasts

The study sheds light on the rise and fall of some of the most influential leaders of the last 100 years, including Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

Prof Alex Haslam and Dr Kim Peters, psychologists at Exeter University, have spent the last year distilling the wisdom of 85 self-help books and biographies.

They discovered most leaders have seven secrets to their success and that most of those are surprisingly 'touchy feely'.

The most common of these was to be sensitive to followers, a trait cited by 57 per cent of the books. More than half of those studied were 'positive and inspirational', while 48 per cent treated followers with respect, the researchers told the British Science Festival in Birmingham.

Other so-called secrets included meeting staff expectations and avoiding arrogance.

Dr Peters said the findings clashed with conventional ideas that the best leaders were driven individuals with domineering personalities.

'Actually, it's someone who is always looking to their followers and who is concerned about their relationship with them,' she said.

The researchers identified a 'leadership trajectory' which eventually sees leaders fall from grace. This happens when, instead of recognising that their success depends on keeping a good relationship with their followers, they begin to believe their own hype and the decline in popularity begins.

Good leaders must also hide the fact they are trying to be 'one of the people'.

Former Tory leader William Hague lost credibility when he boasted about drinking up to 14 pints a day as a teenager.

source

Great Leaders Must Swap Bluster For Soft Approach ‎ Former South African president Nelson Mandela and wife Graca Machel with former British prime minister Tony Blair. Mr Blair and Mr Mandela were among 81 leaders analysed by researchers at the University of Exeter.

BECOMING A great leader is less about bluster and command and more about caring and sharing, according to a new analysis of the psychology behind “leadership and followership”.

It also shows that, no matter how popular, all leaders have a shelf life. The study of 81 “leaders” from Hillary Clinton to Attila the Hun, and from Tony Blair to Santa Claus, was one of the topics discussed on the opening day of the British Science Festival.

Prof Alex Haslam and Prof Kim Peters of the University of Exeter described their analysis of 85 books about the world’s greatest leaders, putting their findings into a soon to be released book, The New Psychology of Leadership.

The analysis provides insights into what makes a successful leader, and offers seven “leadership secrets” that can help achieve this.

Prof Haslam said leaders gain power and hold power not by being rough and tough, but by being recognised as one of the people. Leadership is a process of “social identity management” that counts on a leader’s ability to create in followers a sense of being “special” and a feeling of belonging to the group, he said.

“The real secret about leaders is it is not about me, it is about the group.” While ultimately it is all about power, getting there is about getting cosy with the followers. “Emotional connectivity is important for leaders because it shows they are part of the shared group,” said Prof Haslam.

Margaret Thatcher hardly seemed to depend on emotional connectivity, and yet she also depended on her support group, those who disagreed with the power of the trade unions and those who backed an approach suited to the middle class.

Tony Blair was also particularly good at making an emotional connection, said Prof Stephen Reicher of the University of St Andrews. Successful leaders ally themselves with those they represent, all the time remaining ordinary members of the group, he added. “They are extraordinary in feeling ordinary.”

They also, however, tend to follow a familiar trajectory, said Prof Reicher. Early success as a popular leader often begins to make them think they know better and have all the answers, in effect losing contact with the group. “Leadership has a shelf life. The risk is they begin to believe in themselves, and lose the sense of us.”

US president Barack Obama has faltered in the polls because of this, said Prof Peters. He assumed power with a close emotional bond with the voters. Yet he failed to see and respond quickly enough to strong public anger about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This has broken his link with the public, she said.

Those with leadership ambitions also need to be convincing when attempting to connect with the people.

Former Tory leader William Hague failed miserably in this regard, Prof Reicher said. “He was the quintessential ‘other’, he was a geek politician.” The baseball cap fooled no one.

Choosing the greatest leaders was likely an impossible task, said Prof Michelle Ryan of Exeter. “It depends on who is deciding. There is no one greatest leader,” she said.

The participants were slow to suggest a top three, but Prof Haslam tentatively offered former South African president Nelson Mandela. He was extraordinary compared to other leaders in that he also knew when to bow out, “exiting gracefully”, Prof Haslam said, adding that it could be difficult to make people leave when their connection with the public was lost.

The science festival got under way in Birmingham yesterday and continues into the weekend.

Ruling class how to command

A STUDY of world leaders by Prof Alex Haslam and Prof Kim Peters of the University of Exeter has established seven “leadership secrets” for success:

1 Be sensitive to followers;
2 Be positive and inspirational;
3 Treat followers with respect;
4 Work hard for the group;
5 Meet or exceed followers’ expectations;
6 Support followers;
7 Don’t be overbearing or arrogant.

source

Also see 'Bullies at the Top - What happens when the bully is the Prime Minister of your country? 'Rudd outburst an abuse of power'

Whistleblowing on Bullying - Time for Management to take ownership and deal with the Bullies

There is a conspiracy of silence when it comes to workplace bullying. In the many thousands of words recently written about bullying at work in the local press the conspiracy has been maintained.

A conspiracy of silence occurs when everyone knows that bad behaviour is occurring but there is a tacit decision not to talk about it and certainly not to do anything. It was first used to describe incest in families and, more recently, other forms of abuse. People don’t do anything because they don’t want to rock the boat, to avoid conflict, and because it is just too hard. Sadly, by not speaking up or doing anything the observers validate the perpetrator and invalidate the victim.

As I have often seen in clinical practice, the effect of these conspiracies on the victims is monstrous. The victim feels as if he or she is somehow at fault, they are confused, and feel alone and unsupported. Most importantly they come to feel powerless and it is this that results in anxiety and depression, the most common effects of being bullied.

In all that is written about bullying at work there are two major conspiracies of silence that result in enormous pain and suffering for victims. It also seems that workmates who see the bullying can also be badly affected resulting in significant symptoms on their part too.

The first gaping silence is that senior managers in organisations prefer not to do anything about bullies. This conspiracy of silence occurs despite the fact that bullying is against the law and CEOs and boards of directors are in fact culpable by not acting. It is interesting to watch an organisation move a victim of bullying to another branch or even another job, and leave the bully in place: even after admitting openly that the bullying has occurred. Sometimes, it is easier to call a case of bullying a personality conflict and call in a mediator. The damage these behaviours do to the victim is enormous.

It’s also common to blame the victim. This is easy because the bullied worker has repeatedly made complaints, as instructed by the legislation and the bullying literature that is lying on the coffee table in the CEO’s waiting area. The victim, who has become increasingly distressed over time, can be simplistically labelled as unstable or over-sensitive: a trouble maker. Let’s not forget too that bullies often pick on already vulnerable people who might have a reputation already for being over-sensitive.

There have been some notorious bullies in organisations in and around Lismore that have been allowed to get away with bullying behaviour time and time again: I have seem many of their victims at the clinic. Many of these bullies get promoted. There are also large numbers of senior managers that know that their staff are being bullied but do nothing. Under the legislation they are just as culpable as the bully and their organisation can be fined many thousands of dollars. But they still engage in the conspiracy and more often than not put the fox in charge of the chook shed.

The preferred personality profile of a successful manager (or one on the way up) appears to be someone who is aggressive, dominant, single-minded, achievement-oriented, and task-focused. Throw in a little pinch of narcissism, low empathy for others and an unsatisfied need for power and this is a nasty recipe for bullying behaviour. These are not easy people to deal with which makes it so much easier to turn a blind eye. Bullies often appear so good at their job and they create the right relationships with the right people to protect themselves.

And it happens every day in organisations in which we all work. In a recent case a colleague of mine was told by the human resource manager of her organisation that it would be better to let a case of bullying drop because it was against a very senior manager. The reason being that the consequences would not be worth it in the end.

The other conspiracy involves an unholy alliance between the organisation and the insurance company. Despite the pretty advertisements, insurance companies want to avoid liability. To do this they will find any excuse to blame the victim rather than make the workplace deal with the problem. Everyone’s a winner: the insurance company doesn’t have to pay out and the organisation’s premiums are protected.

The main way this is done is to find a pre-existing condition in the victim such as a history of previous abuse, anxiety, depression, previous bullying or any other negative behaviour. This is then used as a means of blaming the victim. This is easy to do by running an unbalanced investigation and being highly selective with ‘the evidence’. For someone who has genuinely been bullied at work this outcome is extremely damaging.

It is time for the conspiracies of silence to be broken. Those with the power to act need to make the hard decision and deal with the perpetrator rather than leaving it up to the victim, who is already disempowered.

Dr Stewart Hase is an Adjunct Fellow with Southern Cross University and a consultant psychologist.

source

Research - Childhood trauma can shave years off life

Although this research is not about Bullying or Harassment in the Workplace, I thought that it was still of interest to post as Trauma is Trauma and the effects are lasting whether it be for a child or adult as the sufferer.

Report - Childhood trauma can cut your life short, according to new research that shows how adversity during childhood can shave a decade or more off your life.

"Our latest research shows that those reporting multiple adversities could shorten their lifespan by 7 to 15 years," Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, a health psychologist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, told a Saturday sesson of the American Psychological Association meeting here.

Kiecolt-Glaser and her research partner Ronald Glaser and co-authors found that "childhood adversity can lead to inflammation and cell aging much earlier than for those who haven't experienced these events." Such adverse events include losing a parent, being abused or witnessing parental marital strife.

"What we have is clear evidence that adverse childhood experience may have lasting measurable consequences, even later in life," she says.

Using a community sample of 58 caregivers for a spouse or parent with Alzheimer's disease or dementia and a control group of 74 demographically similar people who had no caregiving responsibilities, researchers analyzed participants' depression levels and occurrence of childhood trauma to see how negative emotions and stressful experiences affect known biochemical markers of stress.

The researchers measured several blood inflammatory markers, including telomeres, which are the ends of strands of DNA. Shorter telomeres have been linked with aging, age-related diseases and death.

Participants completed questionnaires on depression and responded to questions about past child abuse or neglect; a parent's death during childhood; witnessing severe marital problems; growing up with a family member suffering from mental illness or alcohol abuse; or lacking a close relationship with at least one adult during childhood.

"We found that childhood adversity was associated with shorter telomeres and increased levels of inflammation even after controlling for age, caregiving status, gender, body mass index, exercise and sleep," Kiecolt-Glaser says. "Inflammation over time can lead to cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers."

In the sample, 32% of participants reported some form of abuse — physical, emotional or sexual — during childhood; 68% reported no such abuse. Just under half (44%) reported no childhood adversities; 33% reported one, and 24% reported multiple adversities.

Participants with cancer or diabetes and those who had surgery recently were excluded from the study, as were those taking anti-inflammatory drugs.

Kiecolt-Glaser says the study found that childhood abuse and caregiving were also associated with higher levels of depression, which she says suggests that psychological factors may influence the incidence and progression of a variety of age-related diseases.

"Interventions that diminish stress or depression or inflammation may enhance health and have a positive impact on immune and endocrine regulation," Kiecolt-Glaser says. Psychological treatment, exercise, yoga and meditation can lessen these negative emotions, which she says may diminish the inflammation.

"In terms of the whole inflammation literature, I'm very much impressed by the data in terms of exercise and how powerful it is. Of all the things that people can do for themselves, exercise is perhaps one of the best interventions," she says.

source

The Daily WarZone - Strategies to Survive the Workplace Warfare of Toxic Cliques

The antagonism starts at high school. Which peer group were you in? Were you a stoner, a geek, a jock, a mean girl or one of the elite, the in-crowd cool set that suavely operated above the rules?

Whichever clique you joined, in the office you may still be haunted by past alliances.

"When reacting to toxic cliques," says executive coach Stefanie Smith, "old feelings from long-ago school days may creep back into our psyches. We're only human.

"But you're a professional now," Smith adds. "So be careful to judge your best response based on present circumstances not past unresolved memories."

Gang warfare
Take sides in a divided workplace and you will be pitted against a gang of colleagues, Smith notes. So, if you are toying with taking a stand, ensure the commitment will be worth it down the track or forget it.

"Respond analytically, not emotionally," Smith says, adding that you should nevertheless resist the urge to play the referee unless your job is curbing conflict.

Divide and confide
If you are already entangled in a corporate civil war, step back and hear both sides, Smith says. Sort through the options and issues. If you have a strong view on the dispute or can inject valuable insight, then go ahead, express yourself, she says.

Again, however, talk to combatants separately - avoid getting marooned in the middle. "The last thing you want is to be caught in the crossfire. Instead, talk to each side from behind the battle lines or stay away altogether," Smith says.

Align with Switzerland
Author and consultant Barry Maher champions a similarly dispassionate tack that he calls the modified Switzerland approach. According to Maher, you want to be seen as ultra-neutral - above getting sucked into the maelstrom.

"It's not that you think you're better than the combatants; it's just that you're focused on other things, like reaching your goals and getting the work done and seeing the good in people, instead of trying to tear them down because they're in the enemy camp," Maher says.

Spread the love
Be cordial with everyone, Maher suggests. Remember that anything you say about anyone may well get back to that person and draw you into the quagmire.

The Switzerland approach sets you up as a potential impartial arbitrator if down the line you decide that you can help resolve the feud, Maher says, echoing Smith. He adds that if the conflict turns so sour that it interferes with doing or enjoying your job, it might be time to move to a firm where the air is less toxic.

The art of war
Partisanship apparently brings only one benefit. "You'll have someone to eat lunch with every day," writes employment analyst Dave Saunders in an online post.

Despite the guaranteed social gain, Saunders says aligning with a tribe is "a very dangerous political move" that may well backfire. Subsequent gossip, name-calling and isolation can be devastating, Saunders writes.

Avoiding alliances is "the single best thing you can do to ensure your rise in your company", he adds before going on to warn of what happens when an enemy gets promoted above you. Imagine the awkwardness.

If, despite the consequences of involvement, dodging conflict strikes you as the easy way out - cowardly even - note that the darling of corporate strategists and military tacticians, Sun Tzu, endorses avoidance.

According to The Art of War author, "winning without fighting" is a key principle for managing every confrontation.

Pacifism carries the day.

source

THE BAGGAGE OF BULLYING

Workplace bullying can trigger post-traumatic stress disorder similar to that suffered by people who have been in combat situations, according to psychologist Dr Noreen Tehrani.

"Both groups suffer nightmares, are jumpy and seem fuelled by too much adrenalin."

Melbourne psychologist Christopher Shen says in extreme bullying cases victims experience trauma that requires professional support and advice.

If you are being bullied, phone WorkSafe Victoria on 1800 136 089 or WorkCover NSW on 136 089 or visit worksafe.vic.gov.au or workcover.nsw.gov.au.

Toxic Personalities: Discovering their systems of power & shaping workplaces of respectful engagement

Counterproductive work behaviours can debilitate an organisation's productivity and seriously harm individual incentive, a new study reveals.

"The day this person left our company is considered an annual holiday!" This quote from our national research study on toxic personalities echoes the sentiment these individuals have on an organization's culture and bottom line.

We conducted a research study in the United States that included in-depth interviews and an 82-item online survey of over 400 leaders. These leaders representing males and females, as well as profit and non-profit organizations, indicated that a whopping 94% have worked or currently work with a toxic person! Efforts to work with these individuals have generated a long list of anecdotal suggestions, but few practical and effective solutions. Yet, statistics below reflect the degree in which counterproductive work behaviors can debilitate an organization's productivity and seriously harm individual incentive, as indicated by these statistics:

• 25% of "victims" of incivility ceased voluntary efforts.
• 50% contemplated leaving their jobs; 12% did!
• 20% reduced their rate of work.
• 10% deliberately cut back the amount of time they spent at work.

With the costs of recruiting ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 times the person's annual salary, the financial erosion from the effects of toxic behaviors is significant. When you factor in the human toll, the costs become exponential, as this quote from our study illustrates: "This toxic person is in the most Sr. HR leadership role in the organization. He has experienced 80% turnover of his direct reporting team and staff." The toxic individual is a profit saboteur from two contexts-financial and human.

Here are some of the commonly held myths regarding toxic persons in the workplace that our findings refuted. That is, these common assumptions are false:

1. Don't mess with their success.
2. Give them feedback.
3. Most people won't put up with toxic behaviors.
4. HR and other consultants can solve the problem.
5. Fire them to resolve the issue.
6. Toxic persons know exactly what they're doing.
7. Toxic behavior is a solo act.
8. When hiring, seek a little extra competence over a little more likeability.
9. Leaders see the systemic effects.

So what did we find out about toxic behaviors in organizations? Toxicity included behaviors that did not necessarily meet the threshold of bullying or harassment, but rather were more subtle and habitual. Based on our research, we discovered three types of toxic behaviors:

• Shaming
• Passive hostility
• Team sabotage

These types of behaviors included, for example, pot shots, sarcasm, passive aggression, team surveillance, and territoriality. Sound familiar?

We also asked leaders if their reactions and strategies in coping with these people were effective. Surprisingly, they reported that the typical reactions of reconfiguring the team, simply avoiding the person, or giving performance feedback, just did not work. In fact, the often touted strategy of one-on-one feedback is largely ineffectivebecause toxic individuals are unaware of the negative effect they have on others or simply feel justified in treating others badly. As many of our respondents claimed, "the toxic person is mostly clueless they are toxic".

Another revealing finding was that many toxic persons have a protector in the organization or on the team. In some cases the protector was a person who deliberately covered for the toxic person because they received something in return (such as high sales numbers or special consideration for advancement).

However, some protectors were actually trying to protect their teams from the debilitating effects of the person's behavior and were inadvertently enabling the toxicity to continue unabated. In our workshops, there are many participants who report the "aha" of discovering that they have become part of the problem by protecting! We found three types of protectors:

• The relationship protector
• The power protector
• The productivity protector

The most critical discovery in our study was the systemic effect of toxicity in the organization. A toxic person could relatively quickly infect leader and staff confidence, team cohesion, organizational culture, and individual well-being.

Our findings led to the development of effective strategies to prevent the spread of toxicity through a systems approach. In our Toxic Organizational Change System (TOCS) © a number of interventions that can be effectively used in concert with one another are discussed.

The interventions are delivered at organizational, team, and individual levels of the organizations and a few of these are listed below.

1. Organizational strategies:

• Large-scale design of concrete values of respectful engagement
• Critical integration of values into existing performance systems
• Design of formal "skip-level" evaluations

2. Team strategies:

• Proactive interventions
  • Behavioral team selection via the "BIG-FIVE" personality factors
  • Translation of organizational values to team norms
• Reactive interventions
  • 360-degree team assessment systems from within and outside the team
  • Innovative use of exit interviews
  • Identification of "toxic protectors" who enable toxicity
    • Special relationship protectors
    • Power protectors
    • Productivity protectors

3. Individual strategies:

• Targeted feedback
• Systems coaching
• Use of formal authority
• Fair-process terminations

As a result of our research, we have been working to help leaders understand the systems components that should be engaged proactively to reduce the probability of a toxic person entering the organization and to create cultures of respectful engagement.

We are very interested in your experiences with toxic persons and intervention strategies that have worked-both in terms of working directly with toxic personalities as well as creating cultures of respectful engagement. Please share your insights by leaving a comment on this blog.

source

Also see information here

Back to the Future .. from 2001

Coping with 'toxic co-workers'

---

A new book offers survival tips

OK, so who among us hasn't secretly suspected the boss is a psycho?

Or thought the man/woman in the cubicle to the right is a borderline personality ready to love you/hate you/boil your pet bunny — all before the drama queen/king pushing the doughnut cart rolls around? Or are you worried that your co-workers gather around the water cooler every day to secretly plot against you? Paranoid, eh?

A happy and supportive workplace can make the hours from 9 to 5 seem positively golden.

But toss a personality-challenged co-worker into the mix, and those work hours can turn into torture. And that's not taking into account the potential for collateral damage, ranging from ulcers to job loss, litigation and outright violence.

PERSONALITY DISORDERS

• Want to find out if you have a personality disorder (or make an educated guess about a co-worker)? Check outwww.med.nyu.edu/Psych/screens/pds.htmlfor diagnostic screenings on the 10 types of personality disorders. • Cast of toxic characters

There are a lot of sick people out there, say New Jersey psychologists Neil J. Lavender and Alan A. Cavaiola.

Many of them have jobs.

Maybe they work with you.

“We believe, as do a lot of other people, that they're kind of like a hidden cancer in businesses,” says Dr. Lavender, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at Ocean County College in Toms River, N.J.

He and Dr. Cavaiola have written a new book, Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job(New Harbinger Publications; $13.95), that provides a mini Psych 101 course for coping with the not-so-well-adjusted folk who inhabit the workplace right along with the rest of us. In telephone interviews, they elaborated on their published primer.

Unhealthy behaviors

Every workplace has its share of odd ducks and office cranks. But Drs. Cavaiola and Lavender say people with psychological issues like narcissism and borderline personality disorder can make the workplace downright venomous.

“Toxic” personalities are a fact of life in the workplace, says Dr. Lavender, and they turn up at all levels of the corporate hierarchy, from the new intern who hacks into corporate e-mail accounts to the CEO who just walked away with a golden parachute and all the cash in the employee pension fund.

“Over the years, we've seen them at work and read about them in the newspaper just bringing corporations down, due to their own personality flaws,” he says.

Personality disorders refer to a broad set of unhealthy and destructive behaviors — lying, avoiding social contact, sabotaging others — people use to cope with everyday stress. Because personality disorders are based in behavior, they're very hard to treat: First the person has to admit there's a problem, then he has to change.

Most personality-disordered individuals “view their symptoms as their strengths,” says Dr. Cavaiola, so change doesn't come easily. He is a clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Monmouth University in Long Branch, N.J.

But if you're working with the middle manager who makes everyone miss deadlines so she can double-check everything from the arithmetic in the annual report to the way the document is collated, you know there's a fine line between taking pride in your work and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

People with personality disorders have problems dealing with everyday life — sometimes they can't hold jobs or maintain relationships — and their problems make problems for the rest of us, Dr. Lavender says. In the workplace, personality disorders can make the most well-oiled corporate machinery grind to a halt when employers realize they literally can't work with a personality-disordered co-worker or supervisor.

Dr. Cavaiola talks about a woman with paranoid personality disorder who sued her employer because her co-workers weren't telling her dirty jokes. She argued they were deliberately leaving her out of the grapevine.

And Dr. Lavender talks about a work site where he was called in to counsel employees. “It was a car dealership, and all the salesmen were anti-social personalities,” he says. “They had a lot of their older customers convinced that a rebate was something they had to pay extra to get the car.”

Spotting a disorder

So how do you spot a personality disorder?

It's easy, Dr. Lavender says. Just listen for the shouting, and watch your own responses.

“If you see two staff members fighting consistently, that's a clue,” he says. “Usually there's a guy or a gal who seems to be in the middle of every brouhaha. They're always involved. They're the ones firing off the memos. They're the ones who are demanding time to meet with supervisors. And they all have hidden agendas that are relevant to their personality disorders.”

Your response to a problem co-worker can also be a sign of trouble, Dr. Lavender says.

“The first key is that you kind of become obsessed with this person. You start thinking about them night and day. They're in your dreams,” he says.

“I think the second thing is — and this is the almost magical quality these people have — they bring out feelings in you that you've never had before and that are very uncharacteristic of you.

“There are certain people that bring out the desire in people around them to beat these people up. So here you are, a peaceful kind of person and you are very charitable and loving and giving and you're talking to this person and getting nowhere and all of a sudden you want to hit them. You begin to feel horrible about yourself. How can I have these thoughts?”

Keys to coping

Personality-disordered people aren't going to change, Dr. Cavaiola says, so the key to to coping is to change the way you respond to them.

If you're dealing with a borderline or histrionic personality, don't respond to their dramatic stories or pleas for help, he says. If you're dealing with a psychopath, stay out of their way or risk becoming a target.

And, looking on the bright side, personality disorders are well-suited to certain jobs, provided there's little stress involved.

People with schizoidal tendencies — a disinterest in interacting with others and the inability to negotiate daily “give and take” activities — work very well with machinery and technology.

Perfectionism, provided it's not carried to extremes, can be a good trait in accountants or engineers.

And some psychopaths, with their “win at all costs” attitude and abundant charm, might make great salespeople, as long as they're not prone to violence, say both Drs. Lavender and Cavaiola.

But jokes about used-car salesmen aside, there's a potential for tragedy where “toxic” co-workers dwell. Drs. Cavaiola and Lavender point to workplace shootings and other incidents of violence, as well as the scandals that arise when executives are caught stealing from the company.

Human resources directors know there are problem employees out among the cubicle-dwellers and in the corner offices, but too few employers either screen for or try to remedy the headaches that personality-disordered workers can cause, Dr. Lavender and Cavaiola say.

Background checks can provide good clues, they say, although smaller employers might not be able to afford them. Employers should also ask potential employees lots of “how” questions about interactions with co-workers and customers: How would you handle this situation?

And letting the candidate's peers meet with him or her during interviews also can provide some idea of how he'll fit in with the group, they say.

source

Cast of toxic characters

---

Everyone who works has had an unpleasant experience with a co-worker, but is that co-worker having a bad day or really disturbed? A new book — Toxic Coworkers/How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job — says these are the people you should worry about when you see them around the office water cooler:

Mr. Schizoid: Potentially lethal, he is the co-worker most likely to poison the office water cooler, especially if someone's made him mad. If he were to poison the water cooler, he wouldn't stop there because he really, really doesn't like people.

Mr. Anti-Social: Also potentially lethal, he could poison the office water cooler — but he would blame whoever doesn't die for the incident. He will sabotage your computer, files, car — whatever. Otherwise, he's a very charming guy, a great salesman.

Mrs. Histrionic: The drama queen isn't a threat, but if the water cooler is poisoned, she will rattle off a dramatic account of the time at her last job where she almost died after a jealous co-worker tried to kill her by sprinkling the Monday morning doughnuts box with rat poison. She might try to fake a poison-induced seizure.

Mr. Narcissist: Unbelievably self-centered, you don't have to worry that he might poison the water cooler. But he won't care if anyone dies drinking the stuff unless the incident makes him miss his lunch hour. Then he'd really complain.

Mrs. Obsessive Compulsive: She won't drink from the water cooler — too much time wasted. If someone poisons it, she will complain that the casualties are going to contribute to missed deadlines.

Miss Dependent: She won't poison the water cooler, unless you want her to. She will carry the sick and injured to the paramedics.

Mr. Borderline: Love him or hate him — maybe at the same time, he's the guy who will blow up at the office manager for not ordering the right kind of water in the office cooler. He wouldn't poison the water, but he'll throw enough tantrums to make some co-workers wish they were already dead. Or schizoid.

Mrs. Passive Aggressive: She won't poison the water cooler — that's too overt. If someone did poison it, however, she might re-arrange the furniture so the paramedics can't get through, especially if she's mad at the boss.

Mr. Avoidant: He wouldn't poison the water cooler, because it's wrong. Very, very shy, he won't even stop at the water cooler, because he might have to talk to someone, and he might say the wrong thing or maybe he'd spill something, and then he'd be embarrassed.

Ms. Paranoid: She's not likely to poison the water cooler, but she's she's pretty sure she's the target.

source