Posts Tagged ‘workplace bullying institute’

The Worst Kinds of Bosses

Saturday, October 17th, 2015

Eight of the Worst Kinds of Bosses
By Scott Wooldridge, Benefits Pro, Oct. 16, 2015

Bad bosses are, unfortunately, more common than anyone would like. One silver lining, perhaps, is that they are easy to identify. What follows are some general characteristics of bad bosses, taken in part from The Bully at Work, the landmark book by Gary and Ruth Namie, plus some other bad-boss habits that are all too common.

The Screaming Meemie

This boss, as the name suggests, is probably the best-known type of bad boss, but not necessarily the most common.

“It’s the poster child of bullying,” says Frank Mulcahy, manager of business development at the Workplace Bullying Institute — which was founded by the Namies. This type of boss berates and belittles employees. “They intimidate to instill fear … they scream to mask their own incompetence,” Mulcahy says. “They’ll even invade personal space.” He points to former basketball coach Bobby Knight as an example of this type of behavior.

The Constant Critic

A much more common type of bad boss is this type — who may not act out as much, but who still works to destroy confidence. The constant critic does just that; always finding fault with a worker, regardless of whether the criticism is justified.

“[The work] is never going to be good enough,” Mulcahy says. “It’s very demoralizing.” He notes that the Constant Critic does a lot of damage in one-on-one settings, which provide more deniability.

The Two-Headed Snake

“The most prevalent type of a bully is the Two Headed Snake,” Mulcahy says. “This is the Jekyll and Hyde, passive-aggressive back-stabber.” Mulcahy said this type of manager (the type can also be a co-worker) manages his or her image for higher-ups, but turns into a bully for workers under his control. “It’s all about controlling the target’s reputation, starting rumors or even failing to stop rumors.”

The Gatekeeper

The Gatekeeper blocks resources, controls communications, or changes schedules to exert power over a worker. “They withhold the resources needed to get the job done,” Mulcahy said. “Or they say, ‘I know it’s your day off, but I need you to do this.’” “It always comes when they know somebody has to be somewhere.” The Gatekeeper is another type of bully that can be either a manager or a co-worker.

The Micromanager

Not all bad bosses are bullies — some just don’t have a good grasp on how to most effectively work with their team. A common case is the micromanager, who thinks they have to monitor every decision point for every project. This very common type of manager can drive workers crazy. There can be some hope that bosses will eventually “unlearn” this behavior, but until they do, the employees under them are likely to dread the sound of their manager’s approach.

The Recluse

The Recluse is the opposite of the Micromanager. According to Cam Marston, author and founder of Generational Insights, there is an entire cohort of Gen-X managers who grew up as latchkey kids and consider working solo, with little or no supervision or collaboration, to be the ideal way to get things done. These managers give orders to underlings, go back to their offices and shut the door, satisfied that the workers are happy to be left alone to do their job. In fact, many workers feel confused and abandoned by this approach.

The Workaholic

This type of boss never seems to stop working, texting and/or emailing on the weekends or late at night, making you feel guilty for having any personal time at all. The recent firestorm stirred by reports that was driving its employees to work all hours and become “Amabots” in their search for perfection is an example of committing to a workaholic lifestyle.

Perhaps it works for Amazon. For many employees at other companies, it won’t.

The Slacker

Another polar opposite, the Slacker sits on the other end of the spectrum of the Workaholic. This boss typically has some connection to top management that allows him to coast along, even though he is often not at work or tends to fall behind on projects.

The Slacker’s team runs a real risk of being blamed for late or incomplete work, even when it’s their manager who’s not getting the job done. Unlike the Recluse, the Slacker is not likely to have a basic level of competency — he is just overmatched in his job.


Contact Frank Mulcahy at 713.545.2222 to discuss solutions for your organization

Read the Namies’ book written for employers, The Bully-Free Workplace, seeking to end abusive conduct inside their organizations.


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in The Basics | Post a Comment »

Suicide Risk Doubled by Workplace Bullying

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015

At WBI, Dr. Ruth, I and several of the staff have listened to long-winded tales of misery endured at the hands of workplace bullies for many years. It amazes us that as many people survive the process as they do. It’s a testament to human resilience.

Suicide is the abandonment of hope, of not seeing any future, of not perceiving alternatives. It happens. How often it is the choice of bullied workers is not known. The international pioneer of the movement, Heinz Leymann, wrote in the early 1990’s that about 10% of those bullied do take their lives. It was his educated guess.

Now comes an important study from our Norwegian friends at the Bergen Bullying Research Group led by Stale Einarsen. The principal author of the study published Sept. 17 in the American Journal of Public Health is Morten Birkeland Nielsen.

The subtitle of the article is “A 3-Wave Longitudinal Norwegian Study.” The key contribution made by the study is that it measured the same group of people during three different time periods. Its longitudinal approach clarifies the sequence of events. It was a test to determine which caused which — bullying at work or considering suicide (the academics and clinicians call it suicidal ideation). The one that preceded the other can be considered a cause of the second.

The study overcame a problem common to all cross-sectional studies (in which different groups of people are measured only once) — the question of correlation between factors. That is, if we ran a study here at the WBI website of bullied individuals and asked two questions — have you been bullied and have you considered suicide — and the two scores were highly correlated, we still could not say with certainty that bullying caused people to consider suicide. The Nielsen, et al., study solved that problem with its unique tracking of a single group over time — in 2005, 2007 and again in 2010. In wave 1, 2,539 (our of 4500 solicited from a national random sample) returned the researchers’ surveys. By 2010, the sample was still at 1,291 individuals — the final group with three measurements.



Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Science | 1 Comment »

Unnecessary Organizational Shame & Guilt Related to Bullying

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015

By Gary Namie, PhD

Individuals targeted for bullying by other employees, regardless of rank, suffer a great deal of personal shame. Sadly it is the consequence of being on the receiving end of humiliation, degradation and threatening misconduct. It freezes the person and inaction leads to stress-related health problems.

Shame is the negative emotion associated with a feeling of worthlessness. The external message directed at people being shamed is that they are worthless. It cuts to the person’s core sense of who they are. It says you are a bad person. Guilt feels similarly negative, but it differs from shame. The guilt message is that one did something wrong knowing there were options. Guilt is feeling bad over one’s behavior, one’s choices, not over one’s identity.

Guilt has a way of influencing organizations in a bad way, too. We’ve seen it all too often in our consulting. It leads to a paralysis, nearly a parallel form of inaction, an inability to solve the bullying problem that has festered for months or years.

For instance, good moral individuals, who may serve as Sunday church deacons, somehow fall into the trap of ignoring bullying because U.S. laws say they can. But gnawing at them is the knowledge that it is wrong to turn one’s back on suffering individuals. Personal guilt ensues. Then coommon rationalizations — “we have no policy,” “it’s a matter of he said/she said,” “I can’t believe the complainant – the story sounds too bizarre and extreme,” and “Bob is a friend — I’ve never seen him be cruel to anyone” — make it easy to move on. Guilt is assuaged.

Decision makers who become internal anti-bullying advocates avoid guilt through a much different path. They act on their internal moral code. They call us. But their fight is uphill in asking permission to address abusive conduct within the organization. They rarely get the permission they seek.



Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Traps to Avoid | Post a Comment »

Consistency vs. Case-by-Case Approaches to Solving Workplace Bullying Problems

Tuesday, September 29th, 2015

By Gary Namie, PhD

One of the major complaints from bullied workers is the unfairness and inequity inherent in their employer’s approach to bullying complaints. As a group, bullied individuals are very sensitive to perceived injustices.

It is key to remember that if it is an American employer, there is no legal risk-avoidance reason to compel them to take complaints about bullying and abusive conduct seriously. If they treat complaints as legitimate and serious at all, it is because they choose to do so voluntarily.

When a sympathetic, well-intentioned employer does allow bullying complaints to be lodged, that openness is often followed by resolution attempts on a case-by-case basis (CBCB). Adopting CBCB sounds good but is plagued by unintentional consequences.

To employers, CBCB affords flexibility. It allows the investigator and decision maker to take into account mitigating circumstances. For instance, offenders can be forgiven if their misconduct is found to be based on following orders from a higher ranking manager. It also makes sense to be lenient in delivering negative consequences for first-time offenders. How could this be unfair?

From the perspective of rank-in-file employees the CBCB method is perceived much differently. From that view, in the first instance the given orders were unseen. Only the absence of punishment or changes was noticed. Therefore, the decision smacks of favoritism. And if the offender was a department head or director, then it appears the employer is protecting managers. Bullying is met with impunity.Leniency, too, looks like the employer decided to grant the bully wide latitude.

In both cases, employer flexibility feels like employer betrayal to workers.

This is a preventable error.



Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in What to do | Post a Comment »