How to deal with antagonistic 'rule people' in the workplace

Company rules and employees who follow them are essential for the success of your business.  But antagonistic “rule-people” can reduce team effort and sabotage your operations. To read the rest of this article from the Denver Business Journal, see: How to deal with antagonistic ‘rule people’ in the workplace http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/02/13/smallb6.html

Rule people aren’t necessarily malicious.  But their rigid inflexibility can cause as many problems as any troublemaker.  Rule-people:

1. See everything in black and white, need all procedures and boundaries clearly defined and labeled, with rewards and consequences spelled out exactly – no gray areas and no choices.  They need uniformity and repeatability, can’t handle ambiguity, uncertainty and what they perceive as mixed messages.
2. Insist on clear titles and privileges.  They want to know everyone’s exact job description, authority, responsibility and accountability.  They can’t handle matrix management – multiple reporting and task relationships.
3. Use authority and experts to back up their opinions.
4. Don’t like change unless they can see immediate and obvious advantages.
5. Need closure, want decisions made and set in stone, even if nothing has to be begun for years.
6. Compare themselves with everybody on every criterion.
7. Relate only through power dynamics – command, control and obeying orders. They’re bullies.  They don’t get things done through relationships or by simply pitching in.  They need to know where everyone stands.  They’re more comfortable knowing they’re on the bottom, than wondering where they are.

We all follow the rules sometimes, but “Edna” is a good example of an antagonistic rule-person. She uses the rules to intimidate people and advance herself at the expense of your supervisory authority and departmental productivity.  For example:

Other typical examples of rule-people in crucial roles are human resource and financial managers, and administrative assistants.

To work with an antagonistic, rule-person, you’ll have to:

• Be exacting and clear about rules, and demand what you need specifically in writing.
• Be prepared to be challenged if you treat the rule-person differently from anyone else.
• Include “professional, team behavior” rules – specific, detailed behaviors, not abstractions or attitudes – as important components in performance evaluations.
• Clearly label your actions; indirect cues, kindly suggestions, informal messages or casual conversations will not be counted as important.  You must say, “This is a verbal warning” or “This is a disciplinary action.”  Antagonistic, rule-people take any softening to mean that your feedback doesn’t have to be acted on.
• When they excuse their bad behavior with innocuous labels like, “It was a misunderstanding,” or “I’m just an honest person,” you must re-label it clearly as unprofessional.  For example: “Yelling or name calling is not a misunderstanding or honesty.  Neither is acceptable behavior at this organization, no matter how you feel.”
• Document everything.

Overly rigid rule-people who use the rules to serve their own selfish interests are problem employees.  They need to be dealt with promptly and decisively – or they will create big problems for you and your organization.

Generally, rule-people who want to help can become good managers and administrators, but they won’t be outstanding leaders.  They can oversee repeatable operations, but they won’t be able to act creatively and appropriately in the face of uncertainty, novel problems and risk.

Stop Bullies Who Move Back Home

It had been a wonderful 9 months for Jane and her husband.  Their youngest child went off to college and they had the house and their lives to themselves.  No more picking up after the kids, waiting on them, cleaning up the bathrooms after them, helping them through their emergencies.  They got over the initial shock of having an empty nest.  They felt free and spontaneous again.  Their chores were light. Then their son moved back in for the summer.  And it was like having a 200-pound-baby thrashing about in their nest.  He was a good kid, had done well his freshman year and they did love him.  But it was a royal pain taking care of him again.

What could they do?

They tried the usual ways of asking, lecturing, berating and arguing, but he continued acting the way he had before he’d left.  He seemed to think he was an entitled prince.  This was his vacation and he wanted to do only what he wanted to do.  When they wanted him to do more, he tried to beat them into submission with angry temper tantrums or to manipulate them to back off by using blame and guilt.

Jane and her husband realized they were making no progress.  They had training him to expect to do nothing and get away with being surly.  Asking without consequences was just begging.  Appeasing him didn’t buy them the civil, polite behavior they wanted.

They didn’t want to throw him out; how could he support himself?  Or would he start hanging out with bad company?

They finally told him that since he was no longer a little baby and since he wanted all the rights and privileges of a responsible adult, he was now a guest in their home.

1. As a guest he had certain responsibilities, like treating their stuff the way they wanted (not the way he felt like), picking up after himself and asking permission to use their things.  They knew that he would act like a good guest if he was staying at a friend's or even an aunt or uncle’s house.  They loved him and he was doing well at school and seemed to be on his way to making an independent life for himself and they expected him to act like a good guest.
2. They said they wouldn’t accept being treated like victims, servants or slaves, cleaning up after their master.  They wanted an adult relationship with an adult they might like being with.  If he wanted something from them like room and board, loan of a car or college tuition, he had to pay for what he got by being fun, polite and civil.  He also had to get a job so he wouldn’t be hanging around all day.  That’s what adults do.
3. They said that in his absence, they had created an “Isle of Song” for themselves.  No toxic polluters allowed.  Anyone who wanted to get on that isle had to add to the music and dance.  Was he willing?  They knew he could because he acted great around everyone else.

Of course be blew up and tried anger (how could they treat him that way) and guilt (didn’t they love him any more?) to continue to get his lazy, selfish, narcissistic, self-indulgent way.

Even though they suddenly saw him as a bully, they laughed good-naturedly and applauded his efforts to get what he wanted from them.  Literally applauded.  And then they graded his tantrums: was that a 9.2 or a 6.5?

They told him that he had ‘til Friday to find a place with a friend.  They were converting his room into the exercise room they’d always wanted.  They told him they were going to buy boxes to pack up all his stuff stored in the garage.  And then they went out for coffee and left him alone.

When they returned, their son apologized.  He could see they were serious and he’d be a great guest.  They had previously agreed to act sad if he said this, and to pretend hat they’d really wanted the exercise room.

They’d also agreed with each other previously to take him back provisionally on a weekly basis.  They’d provide a list of chores and met weekly to review performance.  But cheerful, gracious and polite behavior was graded at every interaction.  Harassment, bullying or verbal abuse were not tolerated.

Summer with him became fun; except when his older sister came home for two weeks.  But that’s a different story.

Some variants:

1. A grown child who is independent but has to move back suddenly because he lost his job or just got divorced.  It’s only for a short time while he gets back on his feet and moves out again.
2. A grown child who’s life is a mess and needs to move home because she can’t make it on her own.  She hates you and blames all her problems on you.  And you’re afraid she’ll move in permanently.

Fire People Who Think They're Entitled to Run Things

Imagine you’re a newly appointed project leader of an existing management team.  How do you know if you’re walking into a club of entrenched buddies who want to run the show and will sabotage your efforts?  And what can you do about it? To read the rest of this article from the Business Journal of Jacksonville, see: Fire people who think they’re entitled to run things http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/04/23/smallb3.html

I recently observed a team of a dozen managers with that dynamic.  Harry was the newly appointed project leader.  His two predecessors, also experienced leaders, had been unable to move the team forward.  Both reported problems building team agreement and developing aligned effort.

Sitting in on a team meeting, I saw two people repeatedly cast furtive glances to a third, who signaled displeasure by frowning, eye rolling and head shaking.  After each instance, the trio resisted the direction being taken by the rest of the group.  During a break, the three clustered outside, reinforcing caustic personal comments about Harry.

A little investigation on my part revealed the extent of the pattern.  One person was the Queen Bee, obediently supported by her attentive court.  She thought she should run the whole team because she always “knew best.”

The core of the pattern is that righteous and arrogant people feel entitled to special privileges.  They make their own rules and have double standards.  They’re self-reinforcing, and ignore or don’t care about what other people think.

The pattern is a common one.  It’s especially prevalent on boards of directors and in government offices and nonprofits.  People like this trio will fracture any group, destroy productivity and subvert the next generation of potential leaders. Their personal agendas to achieve power and esteem take precedence over the job.

What can you do if you find yourself in a similar situation?

• Recognize that fixing it will take determination and skill.  A powerful image of the situation will help keep you on track.  Harry saw them as a grown-up version of a high school clique; three princesses who know they’re the best and deserve to be in charge.
• You can try reaching out to the offenders in an effort to get them working with the rest of the team.  But don’t count on that approach succeeding.
• Harry tried a conciliatory approach but the trio was so arrogant and deluded that every gesture he made to find common ground was interpreted by them as an admission that he was wrong, was begging forgiveness and was ready to follow their direction.  The previous two leaders had also tried to placate them and failed
• But, whether you’re a peer or a project leader, you can’t afford to ignore them.  If left unchallenged, they form a not-so-secret power structure that will sabotage your best efforts to succeed.  They will force you to take sides.  For them, it’s about control and adoration.
• Don’t be a faithful drone.  Take steps to take away their power to do harm the organization.
• Reasoning and evidence won’t change these people.  And only a small percentage of them learn their lessons from their obvious failures.
• This is not a task for wimps.  You’ll need the help of your management, which means you need to do your homework and document your case.  Look for a smoking gun.  When you’re ready, shine a light on the pattern and confront the offenders head on.

If you find yourself in a situation like this one, quietly build an airtight case, gather allies and act decisively.  And be prepared for a battle.  People like that trio are a cancer in any organization. Remove them surgically before they metastasize.

If we don’t act promptly and decisively, performance decreases.  Behavior sinks to the lowest level tolerated.  Narcissists, incompetent, lazy, gossip, back-stabbing, manipulation, hostility, crankiness, meeting sabotage, negativity, relentless criticism, whining, complaining, cliques, turf control, toxic feuds, harassment, bullying and abuse thrive.  Power hungry bullies take power.

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.

Catering to a few troublesome workers can backfire

It’s natural to respond to employees going through personal crises or enjoying tumultuous events, such as marriages and births. But have you volunteered to serve as therapist to some of your most troubled employees?  If so, have you asked the rest of your staff if they like your new role?

For example, Joe spent much of each day talking with people on his large team about their personal problems.  He thought his tender ministrations could turn anyone into a stellar performer.

To read the rest of this article from the Denver Business Journal, see: Catering to a few troublesome workers can backfire http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/04/14/smallb3.html

Joe was proud that he was a caring, people-person; a friend.  He wasn’t an insensitive, bullying, abusive, slave driver.  He wanted his team to be a family.  He expected success as a result of his people-centered approach.

However, I saw that it was the same few unprofessional performers who always needed Joe’s support and care.  For example:

• Jane lacked emotional control and blew up if she was ever asked to meet deadlines.
• Chuck always made sarcastic, personal comments about anyone who performed well.
• Bob was a negative, hostile, controlling and defensive bully.
• Joan was a smiling, manipulative, gossiping, backbiting rumor monger.

These four had chronic problems that spread their unprofessional behavior and prevented high-performance.  They weren’t solid performers who maintained their professional demeanor and productivity despite being distracted by joyous events or suffering from personal turmoil.

Joe had created a culture of entitlement.  He had to micro-manage them for them to be even a little productive.

Most of the solid performers still on Joe’s staff were looking to leave.  They felt harassed, stressed, abused and abandoned while he was doing therapy on those four underperforming employees.  Joe’s peers thought he should be reprimanded because his department was a bottle-neck.

Joe finally saw his problem and moved to fix it.  Over time, through evaluations for both productivity and behavior, he held everyone on his team accountable.  Despite the chance Joe offered them, three of the needy people did not begin to produce better or stop infecting the rest of the team.  They continued to drag down the behavior and performance standards of the team.

Typically, when people have been given many special privileges, they sue when they stop getting catered to.

However, in this case, Joe got some gifts; one of the people needed the job and started performing, two left of their own accord because the environment had “turned hostile,” and only one had to be terminated.  That person sued because of Joe’s “harassment.” But Joe had acted and documented appropriately and was vindicated.

Joe is unusual.  Most rescuing meddlers don’t change.  They’re addicted to the meddling role.  Similarly, most passive-aggressive or conflict-avoidant managers don’t change.

Re-read your job description: It probably doesn’t ask you to victimize most of your staff by catering to the emotional and psychological needs of a few people in the workplace.

Remember what Mr. Spock, from the original Star Trek, said, “Don’t sacrifice the many for the sake of the few.”  Mr. Spock was always right.

Learn what you can do 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.