Managers must be proactive to effectively handle smear campaigns

Suppose you’ve bitten the bullet and fired an employee for cause such as fraud, harassment or behavior inconsistent with your organization’s values.  And now your reputation is being tarnished because the employee and his friends are bad mouthing you.  They want to generate fear of and antagonism toward management. To read the rest of this article from Business First of Louisville, see: Managers must be proactive to effectively handle smear campaigns http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2006/11/06/editorial4.html

Your overall goals are to resist the insidious smear campaign, maintain your reputation and establish the company’s support of its values and integrity, especially when dealing with sensitive personal information.  But, even though you have good evidence to justify firing the employee in question, you can’t reveal confidential, personal information in your defense and you want to minimize the risk of a defamation claim.

How can you get your side of the story across?

Here are some suggestions – see the complete article:

A great cue card for a conversation is: “We don’t discuss our employees’ personal issues with their co-workers because those issues are confidential.  I’m sure you wouldn’t want your personal issues discussed with others.”

“Unfortunately, sometimes, employees who have left the company or their supporters provide incorrect or incomplete information about their separations.  This starts rumors in the workplace and is very disruptive.  I’m glad that you came to me with your concerns.  I hope you understand that we need to take the ‘high road’ and continue to maintain these matters in confidence.”

Of course, some people will enjoy thinking the worst of you but most people will give you the benefit of the doubt if they’ve come to trust your integrity and judgment.  They’ll base their judgments on what you say and do day-to-day, before there’s a situation like an employee’s sudden dismissal to deal with.

If have a reputation for being open, honest and trustworthy, your employees will be more likely to accept that you acted with cause even if you can’t outline the specifics.

But if you’ve earned a reputation for being arbitrary and autocratic, employees will believe the worst – no matter what really happened.

Ultimately, you expect good employees to understand the need for confidentiality.

In addition to value statements containing general words such as trust, integrity, honesty and respect, specifically state company values as situational expectations of behavior. For example:

• We aren’t negative, don’t grumble, don’t feed the rumor mill, and don’t leave anonymous hate mail.  If we have an issue with someone or some decision that affects performance – not just a matter of personal taste or style – we go directly to the source and talk appropriately and professionally.
• If we don’t get what we want, then continued participation in negativity, the rumor mill and smear campaigns is participation in a one-sided attack on management, and will be evaluated as behavior below standards of team performance.

Sometimes, the smear campaigners, like terrorists, will attack you for stifling free speech.  Stand your ground.  We always put limits on what we say in public.  For example, free speech does not include shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, slander or promoting treason.

Legitimate leaders must take a strong stand to resist smear campaigns or they’ll create a power vacuum that will attract the most hostile and ruthless seekers of power.

Being righteous can blind you to unwanted consequences

Too many people are blindsided because they think that being right is enough.  It isn’t. And righteousness can make you blind to the unwanted consequences you’ll create.

So what should you do when you’re absolutely right about what’s wrong?

Three examples of blinding righteousness:

To read the rest of this article from the East Bay Business Times, see: Being righteous can blind you to unwanted consequences http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2006/11/27/smallb3.html

All three examples had the same underlying pattern: people who were sure they were right and confronted, harassed and bullied other people with their righteousness.  In each case also, the other people pushed back hard, and the righteous person suffered and felt blindsided by unwanted consequences.

Sally was surprised her boss was angry after the grapevine told him what she said behind his back.  After all, Sally knew she was right.  She was also surprised her boss thought she was negative, difficult to work with, didn’t want to plan with her and now had his eyes out for her replacement.

Jane was always surprised when people disliked her.  She couldn’t understand why.  She was only telling the truth.  She was also surprised when Barry’s boss wrote her up as abrasive, abusive, disruptive, bullying and not a team player.

Harry was released that day.  The owner said that although Harry had tremendous promise and had been the spark plug of the project, he wouldn’t allow any employee to take that hostile approach with senior staff.  They’d suffer without him but they’d manage.

Sally, Jane and Harry’s righteousness blinded them to fairly predictable reactions from the people around them and to the importance of acting strategically in making their points.

I’m not saying they should have overlooked what they saw and remained silent.  But being right isn’t enough.

Be strategic in how you go about trying to fix the problem. After you’ve judged what you see, step back and think about the most effective strategy to change the situation without going up in flames.

If you’ve decided that you’re being treated unfairly and the situation won’t be rectified, make your point with good grace and leave, if necessary, with a good referral.  Or choose to go up in flames and be happy with the consequences of your choices.

Good tactics and high standards protect everyone from unprofessional behavior.  You can learn to eliminate the high cost of low attitudes, behavior and performance.

All tactics are situational.  Expert coaching and consulting can help you create and implement a plan that fits you and your organization.

Federal Anti-Cyber Bullying Laws Needed to Stop Harassment, Bullying and Abuse

According to the Wall Street Journal article, “CyberBullying Report Opposes Regulation,” a recent report on cyberbullying suggests that, unlike other Internet scares, this one is well-founded, but it questions some of the regulatory efforts that are gathering steam.  “The report, by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a right-leaning Washington think tank that focuses on technology public policy, says that data from child-safety researchers” indicate that much of the furor is overblown. I disagree strongly: The furor is not overblown and we do need Federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The right-leaning think tank’s objections to new anti-cyber bullying laws are that:

• Worries over online predators are overblown because one study of arrests from 2000 to 2006 showed that most of the offenders approached undercover investigators, not kids.  I’m glad the offenders approached undercover investigators.  But that’s no reason not to have laws.  Between 2006 and now, offenders have gotten smarter.  And, of course we want laws so we can protect the kids who are approached.
• They estimate that threats due to peer-to-peer bullying are more serious than those due to cyber bullying.  Even if that’s true, that’s no reason to abandon kids who are targets of cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.  As shown by the case of Lori Drew, without Federal laws, cyber bullies can’t be prosecuted effectively.  The Judge acquitted this adult even though she set up the MySpace site that was used to harass and abuse teenager Megan Meier until she committed suicide.
• Laws pose “thorny issues” that are entwined with free speech.  Again, that’s no reason not to enter the thicket.  That simply lets us know that the laws will have gray areas and both the law and the interpretations will be continuously evolving as hardened criminals find loopholes.  Laws encourage angry, potentially vindictive people to think twice before doing anything impulsive and rash.
• Laws would make statements that defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties illegal online, even though such statements would be allowed if said on a playground.  That’s not a problem; that’s an obvious benefit.  That acknowledges the truism that statements made in a local context or face-to face usually have very different consequences than hostility put out to the whole world on the internet, especially if the statements are anonymous or made through the safety of false identities.
• We can solve the problem best through better education.  Nonsense.  Of course, education and vigorous stop-bullies programs are very helpful, but they’re not enough.  Education alone does not yield the most benefits.  Education, anti-bullying programs and enforced laws all together yield the most benefits.
• Teaching people to behave civilly online is no different than teaching children to use proper table manners, to cover their mouths when they sneeze or to say, “thank you.”  That’s also nonsense.  If an adult is a slob at home, no one else is harmed.  If someone gets drunk and disruptive at a restaurant, a movie theater or a ball game, they can be asked to leave or ejected or arrested.  The harm caused by eating with the wrong fork or not saying “please” or “thank you” is minor compared to the harm that can be caused by cyber bullying, harassment or abuse.  Ask the families of Megan Meier or Jessica Logan, both of whom committed suicide after they were made the targets of cyber bullying.  Ask the families of the thousands we don’t hear about them in the media.  They suffer, helpless to stop their abusers, but valiantly and quietly to struggle through life.

Online attacks are becoming an epidemic.  Some sites even specialize as forums for anonymous bashing and attacks.

Laws are made to state the standards to which we aspire and to diminish people’s ability to harm others as much as possible.  Laws may be imperfect and enforcement may be difficult and spotty, but that’s better than nothing.  I’d rather have anti-bullying laws that protect kids 90% of the time and have difficulties 10% of the time, than have no laws to stop cyber bullying and leave kids vulnerable 100% of the time.

Our laws and even our system of checks and balances are founded on our understanding that no matter how much education people have, they will often seek power and revenge.  They won’t always be good and sweet and kind.  If given the chance, people will be mean, nasty and vicious to others, especially if they can act anonymously or the target can’t fight back effectively.

We must rise to the challenge posed by new technology and keep evolving laws and enforcing them the best we can.  We must stop cyber bullying.

Arrogant, Abusive and Disruptive -- and a Doctor

Even doctors, supposedly intelligent, skilled, well-trained and focused on giving the best care possible to their patients, are sometimes bullies toward other staff.  The behavior of that 3-4 percent of doctors can cause medical mistakes, preventable complications and even death to patients who could otherwise be saved. In her column in the New York Times, on December 2, 2008, “Arrogant, Abusive and Disruptive – and a Doctor,” Laurie Tarkin gives compelling evidence, surveys and examples of this bullying behavior. The examples included obnoxious, intimidating, abusive behavior; shouting, yelling, belittling, insulting, humiliating, ridiculing, blaming, berating and denigrating actions, often in front of patients and other staff members.  Some staff had to duck to avoid scalpels thrown across the operating room by angry surgeons.

Often, staff was made to feel like the bottom of the food chain.  Sometimes, staff was intimidated by a doctor so that they did not share their concerns about orders for medication that appeared to be incorrect

This hostile environment erodes cooperation and a sense of commitment to high-quality care.  Surveys of hospital staff members blame badly behaved doctors for low morale, stress and high turnover.

Although this article focused on doctors, we all know that the same behavior goes on at companies and organizations in every industry and area.

Do you have examples of your own?

I’ve described similar behavior in posts on the top ten ways to create a hostile workplace, verbal abuse by a know-it-all boss, a bullying coworker in the next cubicle and an unhappy employee creating a hostile workplace.

You’ll also find ways to combat this behavior in my book, “How to Stop Bullies in their Tracks.”  Leaders and managers who want to change hostile work environment should listen to my CD set, “Eliminate the High Cost of Low Attitudes.”

As a coach, consultant and speaker, I encourage people to fight to win.  It’s crucial to design tactics for your specific needs and the situation.