It's not what you say – but how you say it – that counts

Effective communication isn’t just what you say.  How you say it is equally important. Consider the case of Pam, Jennifer and Greg.  Pam and Jennifer were valued employees about to be discarded because of a simple communication style difference.

To read the rest of this article from the Business Journal of Jacksonville, see: It’s not what you say – but how you say it – that counts,

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2005/03/28/smallb3.html

After Jennifer researched possible solutions to a problem, she’d tell her boss, Pam, the conclusions before presenting how she’d arrived at them.  Pam felt manipulated and insulted and considering firing Jennifer.

At the same time, Pam was getting great results but sensed that her boss, Greg, was upset with her.  He looked bored and impatient in their meetings.  She’d overheard him saying she was a fuzzy thinker who didn’t have the incisive mind necessary for promotion.

She’d tried to please him by giving him more extensive reports of potential projects, especially the process by which she’d gathered the information.  She wanted to make sure he had all the details so he could make up his own mind before she presented her suggestions.

Jennifer and Greg are “bottom liners.”  They present options or conclusions first so people can analyze their reasoning to see if they’d arrive at the same ones.  Greg wants a conclusion up front so he can decide rapidly whether he likes it or whether he needs to hear more details.  Once he reaches a decision, he doesn’t want to waste his time on extraneous information.

Pam is a “processor.”  She reviews how she arrived at a conclusion before giving her favored option.  That way, people can make up their own minds, without manipulation, to see if they arrive at the same one.

Miscommunication resulting from different communication styles causes escalating hostility, extra work, diminished productivity and lost profits.

Each style has benefits, but each also creates problems.  How do you discover what they are? Ask someone who favors one style about its advantages and about the problems with the other style.

Take responsibility for matching preferred work styles and communication.  Although it’s easy to become righteous in defending your favored style of communication, results are more important than style.

People are not their titles or functions, they’re individuals and most are trying to do their best in ways that have worked for them before - despite what you may think about them because you favor your style and can justify why it’s best.

In our time, diversity makes the problem worse.

Learn to detect other people’s preferred styles and how to communicate effectively in that style.  That’s not too much for you to learn. You’re a human being, designed to learn these styles rapidly.  That’s how all babies learn to please and manipulate their parents.

Whenever possible, communicate face-to-face when something might be sensitive or at the first sign of a misunderstanding or adverse emotional response.  Don’t text or use e-mail.  Get away from your desk and share coffee or food.  Create a human interaction with two people trying to understand how to talk to each other to get the best results, not an interaction to see who is right or can beat the other person down.

I typically focus on preferred styles in about 30 different situations.  A few other examples of important communication style differences are: saying things bluntly vs. talking around a subject; preferring written vs. verbal communication; brainstorming by talking vs. talking only after making a decision; focusing on the exact dictionary definition of words vs. expecting people to read between the lines; communicating in thoughtful monotones vs. passionate variations.

Are your messages going unheard or are you misunderstanding individuals and groups with different communication styles?

Often, individuals need coaching and organizations need consulting to help them design and implement a plan that fits the situation.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

Don't let employee with bad attitude prevail

Attitude is critical.  If your attitude is good, then misunderstandings, disappointments and adversity can be handled professionally and kept from escalating in serious problems. But a poor attitude can turn even minor issues into a job-threatening mess.

To read the rest of this article from the Denver Business Journal, see: Don’t let employee with bad attitude prevail http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2005/03/14/smallb2.html

For example: Opal was a young employee, new to a well-functioning team.  Her supervisor had already acknowledged that Opal was bright, competent, personable and likely to be a star.  Unfortunately, in Opal’s mind, she already was a star and entitled to celebrity treatment.

Like other team members, Opal was allowed to work four ten-hour days as long as she adjusted her schedule with the rest of the team to ensure coverage at all times.  But Opal rapidly began taking advantage, setting her own schedule without consulting anyone and taking time off at the beginning and end of the day.

These seemed like minor incidents to her supervisor, who reminded Opal of the team agreement about coordinating schedules and pointed out that she was alienating some people.  Opal became visibly upset and argued vehemently that she deserved special treatment.

Opal took a minor, easily fixed issue and escalated it into a big problem.  Opal’s supervisor told her that the agreement to coordinate flextime was the way it was.  Opal retorted that she didn’t like it and her supervisor could expect her to be displeased and show it.

Opal dimmed her own rising star with her bad attitude, made worse because she was so blatantly self-centered and oblivious to team processes.

Opal then reported her displeasure to her boss’s boss.  Later, when Opal’s supervisor took her for coffee, Opal was smug.  She was sure her supervisor had been reprimanded for not handling her the way she wanted.

But Opal’s supervisor hadn’t been reprimanded.  She had a well-deserved reputation for being a considerate, calm person who built highly productive, caring teams - and her boss assumed Opal was the problem.

Opal’s supervisor told her she expected Opal to “display a wonderful attitude toward me and the rest of the team members, whatever your feelings.”

Opal’s supervisor gave her a great gift by having private conversations, being clear about what it took to rise in that company and offering specific advice to help Opal get back on track.

This was a crucial time for Opal.  She hadn’t gotten what she wanted and had thrown a fit.  She’d acted like she did when she was a child facing her mother – using emotional intimidation and bullying to get her way.  If she didn’t change her attitudes, she’d lose her job.

A major test for us is, what do we do when we’ve made mistakes, been reprimanded or been defeated.  Look at the 100 richest people in the world, the 100 greatest people in all of history, the 100 greatest athletes.  They’ve all made mistakes, been dressed down and defeated … and their setbacks have usually been in public.

If you were Opal’s supervisor, what would you do to try to save a potential star?  Some suggestions are: See whole article for details.

• Meet away from the office for only one heart-to-heart talk about attitudes required for success.
• Set clear boundaries – “show this behavior or else” - and stick to them.
• Review the plan with your manager, including a plan if Opal continues going over your head.
• Hire a coach, for two sessions maximum, so Opal hears what she needs from an outside expert.
• Don’t give more chances; don’t reward Opal in hopes she’ll like you and act better.
• Don’t wallow in self-doubt - you wouldn’t get better results if you were sweeter, kinder and gentler. Opal’s mother never did.

Often, individuals need coaching and organizations need consulting to help them design and implement a plan that fits the situation.  To get the help you need, call Ben at 1-877-828-5543.

How can we stop bullies if we're compassionate?

Carl loved his 45 year-old son, Brian, and was overwhelmed with feelings of compassion for his son’s plight.  Brian could never hold a job.  Also, any time Carl or his wife, Vickie, didn’t do exactly what Brian wanted or didn’t give him what he wanted, Brian would throw a fit – he’d yell and scream and curse them, even in front of his own wife and children, or in public.  Many times, Brian would suddenly turn on his own long-suffering wife and children in the same way. How could Carl love his son and have compassion for him, and still protect himself and his wife from Brian’s harassment and bullying?

Everything I say about this family situation is the same I’d say to people trying to have both compassion and protection when dealing with abusive and suffering:

• Parents.
• Friends.
• Extended family.
• Co-workers.
• Drunk drivers.
• Strangers in public places.

The tactics we choose would depend on the specifics of the situation, but our attitude and general direction would be the same.

For decades, Carl had bit his tongue as best he could and had asked Vickie to do the same.  His heart went out to Brian because of his suffering.  Brian’s mother had died when he was 9 years old and two years later Carl had married again.  His new wife, Vickie, had done her best to take care of Brian and she did love the boy.  But no matter how she tried, Brian hated her and made her pay.

Out of compassion for Brian’s struggles, Carl had given Brian hundreds of thousands of dollars and also had bought many things for Brian’s children.  But it never seemed to be enough for Brian.

Brian denied that he needed any help.  He thought he was fine the way he was and he had good reasons every time he exploded.  It was everyone else’s fault that he lost his temper, and they deserved what he said or did to them.

He told Carl clearly that if Carl didn’t do what he wanted and didn’t endure the attacks, Brian wouldn’t allow Carl to see his grandchildren.  There it was; not only attacks but also blackmail.

Carl was stuck.  His compassion didn’t allow him to set any limits.  All he’d allow himself to do was to beg Brian to change.

Separate from the blackmail, Carl suffered from a common misunderstanding about compassion.  He thought compassion meant that he had to give Brian what he wanted and to keep giving and to take the abuse in hope that, someday, his love and forbearance would cause Brian to have an awakening and become a grateful, appreciative, civil and polite person.

Carl also thought that if he acknowledged his anger and dislike of Brian, or really did anything serious, that would mean that he’d given up on his son.  Also, it would be wrong to try to force Brian to do anything against his will.

After coaching, Carl decided that there were two distinct and separate scales he had to operate on in order to protect himself and his wife from Brian, and to preserve their retirement funds that Brian wanted to get his hands on.

On one scale, he could love Brian and have infinite compassion for his suffering, even though it was self induced.  And Tom could always pray for Brian’s spirit to take charge of his life.

On the other scale Carl could see that he had to deal, not with Brian’s spirit, but with Brian’s personality – his weakness, selfishness, arrogance, need, sense of entitlement, anger and narcissism.  Against Brian’s personality, Carl had to protect himself.  Out of compassion, he’d do that calmly, lovingly and clearly.

So what did Carl do?

• He and Vickie decided to tell Brian that they wouldn’t take the abuse any more.  They were going to create an Isle of Song for the rest of their lives.  Good behavior was required from anyone to get on that Isle; blood wouldn’t count.
• They knew they’d said that before, but they’d always given in and had pretended that the bullying had never happened.  They knew also that Brian counted on that.
• The next time Brian exploded at them in front of his 11 and 13 year-old children, Carl said publically that they weren’t going to put up with that behavior any more.  They weren’t going to see Brian.  They’d love to see the kids but Brian probably wouldn’t allow that.  They wanted the kids to know who was responsible for the breach.
• Carl told Brian they were taking a break from involvement with him for at least six months.  He’d have to make it on is own.  After then, if he wanted to resume contact he’d have to call and apologize and promise never to act that way again.  He’d especially have to apologize to Vickie.  Carl was going to protect his wife against all comers, even his son.
• Even after that time, they were going to continue to withhold money because they wanted interactions to be based on fun, not need or greed.

This time Carl and Vickie kept to their bargain with each other.  They said they were able to stay on track because they still allowed themselves to feel compassion toward Brian, and especially his wife and kids, but they weren’t going to rescue Brian from the effects of his behavior.  Also, they saw that the most compassionate thing they could do for Brian was to demand good behavior and maintain their boundaries.  Their new vision would determine what they did, not some old, out-of-date feelings and assumptions.

My experience has been that the Brian’s of the world never learn by being coddled.  The only chance they have to learn is by being kicked out of the nest and letting the world, not their parents, teach them the natural consequences of their obnoxious behavior.  That doesn’t always work, but it’s the only chance.

Some other situations are examined in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”

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.

Best Methods to Stop Bullying in Schools

The principal and teachers at Sheila’s school were proud of their efforts to stop bullies.  They had a team, including a psychologist, to deal fairly with students accused of bullying. They were certain that:

1. Students became bullies because they’d been bullied at home.
2. Bullies had low self-esteem and weren’t aware of other ways of making friends.
3. Bullying was in retaliation for bad treatment and that if provocation decreased, so would bullying.
4. If other students stopped hurting the feelings of bullies, bullying would eventually stop.
5. Since bullying was not the fault of one person, negotiation and mediation, would eventually stop bullying.
6. The best way to stop bullying was through forgiveness, sympathy, compassion, understanding, education and compromise.

These educators were not going to let those poor, damaged kids who’d turned to bullying be harassed, taunted or abused, verbally or emotionally, or through unjust accusations.

What’s wrong with this picture?

For example, when Sheila finally had enough and complained that a clique of mean girls made disparaging remarks about her weight, hair, pimples and un-cool clothes, her teacher asked for proof.  Sheila could only offer her word against the girls who denied being mean to her.

Since there was no proof, and the accused clique was composed of popular girls, Sheila’s teacher told her that she didn’t believe those girls would act so mean and Sheila better watch her false accusations.  The teacher said that Sheila was probably jealous and maybe she should dress better, lose weight, make friends and avoid antagonizing the popular girls.

Sheila’s mother met with the teacher, principal and school psychologist.  They assured her that there was no evidence for Sheila’s accusations.  Then they asked many questions about Sheila’s home life and psychological state.  Maybe Sheila was going through something difficult at home.  Or maybe she was simply jealous and suffering from some teenage turmoil because she didn’t fit in.

They suggested that Sheila try to make friends with the popular girls – be nice to them, ask them what upset them and try to change that, give them friendship offerings, open her heart to them or turn the other cheek if she was misunderstanding what they said to her.  Maybe Sheila was simply too sensitive to the way high school girls naturally were.

They told accused clique of girls that Sheila had complained about them and encouraged them to be nice to her, despite her complaint.

Having been forewarned and directed at Sheila, but having no consequences to make them stop bullying, the accused girls escalated their attacks and got sneakier.  Sheila was subjected to daily barrages of hostility, venom and meanness.  When nothing happened to the clique, they got bolder and eventually beat Sheila up in the bathroom.

Unfortunately for them, a teacher happened to be in one of the stalls and heard the whole scene.

The school officials now initiated their program to stop bullies.

• They investigated to find out what Sheila had done to provoke the attack.
• They told Sheila’s parents to trust them.  They were working on the problem, but because of confidentiality issues, they couldn’t share what they were doing.
• They encouraged Sheila’s parents not to talk with the parents of the clique girls.
• They encouraged Sheila’s parents not to go to the media or to a lawyer.
• They assured Sheila’s parents that the quieter the issue was kept, the more likely there would be a rapid resolution to the situation.

The principal and therapist had Sheila meet with the girls to mediate the situation by themselves.  They told the girls that they thought the students could solve the hostility on their own and that Sheila was willing to compromise with them.

At that meeting, the girls pinched Sheila, punched her, pulled her hair and threatened her with worse after school.  Then they told the principal and therapist that they’d apologized and promised not to do anything if Sheila would treat them nicer, but that Sheila had called them names, insulted them and refused to compromise.

Over the next six months, the attacks on Sheila increased, and the principal and his staff kept trying to educate the bullies.  Subjected to repeated teasing, taunting, harassment and physical abuse during this time, Sheila’s inner demons emerged, she gained more weight, became morose and depressed, and often had suicidal thoughts.  Her confidence, self-esteem and grades plummeted.  She even went through a period of guilt, thinking that the way the girls treated her was, indeed, her fault.

It took a lot to overcome her sense of despair and defeat, activate her fighting spirit and help her recover a sense of purpose, determination and hope.

By the way, the truth of Sheila’s accusations was later verified because one of her narcissistic persecutors had proudly used her phone to record most of the attacks.

There were many early warning signs that could have alerted Sheila’s parents that school officials would do nothing to stop the bullying. There were:

• No school-wide program including parents to stop bullies.
• No training for teachers, administrators and other personnel (janitors and bus drivers) to recognize the early warning signs of overt, covert, verbal, emotional, physical and cyberbullying.
• No effort to monitor areas of the school where most bullying occurs.
• No proactive effort on the principal or teacher’s parts to look for bullying.
• No effort to gather proof before it dropped unexpectedly into their laps.
• No effort to keep Sheila’s complaint confidential.

I could say a lot about specific steps that the principal, teachers and therapist could and should have taken to protect Sheila.  But they were the kind of do-nothing administrators who eventually make the headlines.

However, for this article let’s focus on the assumptions these educators had that assured that they wouldn’t consider protecting Sheila effectively.

1. There are the ones listed at the beginning of this article.
2. These supposedly responsible authorities cared more about understanding, educating and forgiving the bullies than about protecting their target or about creating a safe environment at their school.
3. They thought that the feelings and confidentiality of the bullies were more important than Sheila’s pain.
4. They were willing to sacrifice Sheila for the sake of education and therapy on the bullies.

Almost every student at the school knew what was happening and recognized the accepted culture of bullying.  That’s why there were no witnesses; the students knew better than to risk their necks when they wouldn’t be protected by the adults.

As is usually the case, in a school in which bullies are not stopped, Sheila’s treatment was not an isolated case.  When Sheila’s parents made her situation public, many other parents came forward with reports of how their children had been bullied by other students and how the administrators had not protected them.  Even after many other cases surfaced, the principal and his staff maintained the same approach.

Only the results of extensive media publicity, a court case and the intervention of a district administrator changed the situation.  Actually, more publicity resulted in a faster resolution of the situation.

Obviously, I don’t think that education, compassion and therapy are the best methods of stopping bullying.  The best method is to stop the behavior:

1. Create an atmosphere in which bullying is not tolerated.
2. Remove bullies.
3. Protect targets; don’t convert them into victims.
4. Encourage witness to come forward, not to become bystanders.

Then we’ll see which bullies respond to education, compassion and therapy.

I won’t sacrifice the targets for the sake of the bullies.

For some examples, see the case studies in “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids,” available fastest from this web site.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

Well-Meaning, Meddling 'Peacemakers' can Disrupt Your Workplace

You want the people on your team to get along with one another and to work well together. But beware of self-appointed middle-men or peace makers.  They actually promote whining and complaining, and lead your team to wallow in emotional turmoil and dissention.

For example, Carl felt it was his job as a “people person” to smooth over ruffled feelings and make his teammates happy.  He said, “When we get along better, we produce more.  Happy employees are productive employees.”

To read the rest of this article from the Pacific Business News (Honolulu), see: Well-Meaning ‘peacemakers’ can disrupt your workplace http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2010/04/26/story11.html

The Carl’s of this world:

• Pour gasoline on the emotional fires and leave a trail of misunderstanding and anger.  But they insist they’re just trying to help.
• May be well-intentioned, but when they act as go-betweens, gossip, innuendo and hostile emotions invariably escalate.  Work suffers.
• Are abusive, sneaky, manipulative bullies.
• Usually they love the emotional turmoil and uproar.  They feel alive when emotions are on the line and necessary when they’re intervening.  They can’t resist being middlemen.

Meddling managers, setting the tone for their teams, cause the most damage.   Of course, women meddle just as much as men.

Distinguish the Carl’s of this world from the bridge people who are crucial to the success of any organization.

There was a way Carl’s manager could eliminate the high cost of his bullying and low attitudes.

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

Stop Toxic Coworkers and Other Bullies

There are toxic people in every environment – toxic family, toxic friends, toxic lovers and toxic coworkers.  If you don’t recognize and respond effectively to toxic, bullying coworkers they can make your life miserable, harass you, turn the rest of your team against you, scapegoat you and even get you fired. For example,

Jane is known to be difficult, obnoxious and an out of control retaliator.  But she’s very bright and hard working so management tends to minimize the problems she causes, overlook the tension, hostility and chaos she creates, and explain away her behavior by saying, “That’s just Jane.  She must have a good heart.”  She specializes in vendettas.  Most people are afraid of her; they usually walk on egg shells around her and try to avoid setting off one of her tirades.

The bosses make you the leader of an important project that requires tact and people skills because they don’t trust Jane.  Jane is enraged.  Sometimes she blames and threatens you – you stole her job, she’ll report everything you do wrong, she’ll ruin your reputation and she’ll get you fired.  Sometimes she acts sweet – as if she wants to be your best friend.  Sometimes she tries to make you feel guilty so you’ll refuse to lead the project she thinks should be hers – that’s the only way you can prove to her that you’re a good person and her friend.

Is Jane right?  Are you sneaky and manipulative and have you wronged her?  Or is this a misunderstanding you can overcome so she’ll still be your friend?

How can you distinguish a friendly coworker who’s justifiably upset from one of these toxic bullies?  Simple.  You look for patterns in how Jane acts and how you and others feel when you’re around her.

Typically, toxic coworkers have patterns in which they:

• Are selfish and narcissistic – it’s always about them; only their interpretations and feelings matter.  Only their interpretations are true.
• Are sneaky, manipulative, back-stabbing stealth bullies.
• Are over-reactive, control freaks – their interpretations give them permission to search and destroy, no matter how slight or unintentional the insult.  They throw fits and attack or embarrass people they’re upset at.
• Act sweet one time only pry out people’s secrets and look for the opportunity to strike back even more.  Remember, they’re acting polite doesn’t mean they’re nice.
• Will openly lie and deny it.  They’re always 100% convinced and convincing.
• Relentlessly disparage, demean, spy on and report “bad” conduct (often made up) about their targets.

Typically, teammates of these bullies should ask themselves:

• Are you afraid of what Jane might do or that Jane won’t be friends with you?
• Does she threaten you?
• Have you seen Jane attack, manipulate or lie about other targets before you?
• Does Jane apologize but not change or even strike back later?
• Does Jane tell you that you’re special and she’d never go after you?
• Does Jane make efforts to be reasonable and to overcome misunderstandings, to say that the problem is partly her fault and then does she make amends and change?

Of course, you want to be careful that you’re not overreacting.  You want to know if you’re seeing their actions clearly.  But if you answer the first five questions with “yes,” and the last one with “no,” you should beware.

When you identify Jane as someone who is relentless, implacable and has no conscience in pursuing her targets, you know what you’re dealing with.  She’s out to destroy you just like she went after other coworkers in the past.

Your first thought may be, “How can I win her friendship?” or it may be, “She’s suffered so much in her own life, how can I not forgive her?”  If you follow these thoughts with feelings of kindness, compassion and compromise, if you don’t mobilize to protect you life, limb and job you will be sacrificing yourself on an altar of silly sentimentality.

I take a strong approach: Recognize evil and recognize crazy or out of control people who won’t negotiate or compromise.  The Jane’s and John’s of this world are bullies, abusers and predators that do tremendous damage.  They’re why well-meaning people have to consult with experts.  Remember, you would have already resolved situations with coworkers who are reasonable, willing to examine their own actions honestly, and to negotiate and compromise.  You need help with the terminators that you face.

So what can you do?

Divide your response into two areas:

1. Will – determination, perseverance, resilience, endurance, grit.
2. Skill – overall strategy, tactics and the ability to maintain your poise and carry out your plan.

Will

1. Convert doubt and hesitation into permission to act and then into an inner command to act effectively.  Until you have the will, no tactics will help – you’ll give in, back off, bounce from one strategy to another and you'll fail, even with the best plan.
2. Don’t let your good heart blind you to the damage she’ll do to you.  You’ve already given her second and third chances.  That’s enough.  She’s not merely misunderstanding you in any way you can clear up; logic, reason and common sense aren’t effective with the Jane’s of this world.
3. See Jane as a terminator – she’s relentless, implacable and has no conscience.  Under her human-looking skin she’s out to destroy you.  Your good heart and attempts to reason politely won’t stop her.
4. Assume that you can’t rehabilitate or convert Jane in your life time.  That’s not what they pay you for at work anyway.  You’re merely Jane’s coworker with an important personal life, a personal island that needs protecting.  Let Jane’s therapist change her in professional space and on professional time that she pays for.
5. You don’t owe her anything because she got you the job or rescued you from drowning.  She’s out to get you and you must protect yourself.  Let Jane struggle to change on someone else’s professional time.  Don’t put your reputation, your job or your family’s livelihood in harm’s way.  Don’t minimize or excuse.  Deal only with Jane’s behavior.

Skill

1. All plans must be adjusted to your specific situation – you, Jane, the company, your personal life.  Added complications would be if Jane is your boss or the manager of your team likes her or is afraid of her and will collude with her against you.
2. Don’t believe Jane’s promises; don’t be fooled if she acts nice and sweet one time.  Pay attention to the pattern of actions.  If she’s sweet, she’s probably seeking to get information that she can use against you.
3. Don’t expect her to tell the truth.  She’ll say one thing to you and report exactly the opposite to everyone else.  She’ll lie when she reports bad things you have supposedly done.  She knows that repetition is convincing; eventually some of her dirt might stick to you.  Have witnesses who’ll stand up for you in public.
4. Don’t argue the details of an interaction to try to convince her of your side.  State your side in a way that will convince bystanders.  Always remind bystanders of your honesty, integrity and good character, which they should know.
5. Document everything; use a small digital recorder.  Find allies as high up in the company as you can.  When you report Jane, be professional; concentrate on her behavior, not your hurt feelings.  Make a business case to encourage company leaders to act.  It’s about the money, coworkers and clients that the company will save when they terminate Jane.
6. When you listen to voice mails from Jane or talk with her in person, tighten the muscles of your stomach just below your belly button, while you keep breathing.  That’ll remind you to prepare for a verbal gut-punch.
7. Get your own employment lawyer and a good coach to strengthen your will, develop your courage and plan effective tactics.

Each situation is different – you, the toxic coworker and the rest of the company.  The need to protect yourself and your career remains the same, while the tactics vary with the situation.  All tactics are situational tactics.