You will never reach higher ground if you are always pushing others down.
—JEFFREY BENJAMIN,
Real Life Habits for Success
It is important to remember that the Blocker is most likely a perfectionist who is dealing with a lot of fear: a fear of failure and a fear of lack of control. Although his bullying may be targeted, the target should try not to take the blocking personally. Dealing with Blockers is usually best when it is immediate and in the moment because they usually do their blocking in meetings when people are trying to get things done. If allowed to block ideas as they are being shared, the Blocker will only pick up steam, and soon others will copy the behavior. When blocked in a meeting, you should come back with something along the lines of “Excuse me, I would like to finish my thought please” or “I am not quite through. I need one more minute.”
Over time, if you are consistent in dealing with the Blocker in the moment or shortly after an incident, you may help her change her behavior, at least in meetings. If there is no behavior change in meetings or in conversations with you, you will need to confront the Blocker privately in a quiet place and use paraphrasing skills throughout the conversation. Paraphrasing will make the exchange of information less one-sided, and it is a style of communication in which you reveal what you understand about what the other person is saying and request more information about what you do not understand. In this way, trust may be established with the Blocker.
Typical characteristics of Blockers are the following:
• They repel any new ideas and are suspicious of those who present them, making personal connections difficult. The overall impact on others is separation and isolation rather than collaboration.
• Blockers love bringing increasing levels of detail to the process of getting work done. Yet doing that without prioritizing the details can cause work to stall because no one knows exactly what to do first.
• They are consumed by details, procedures, rules, and the planning of tasks—yet they find it hard to make decisions once all the data is collected. A decision means they have to give up control of the process. Any attempts to come up with a faster, more focused way of doing things will draw fire from the Blockers, who find disagreement or change to be disrespectful.
• If the Blocker is the boss, the employee with new ideas will be targeted and micromanaged. This may continue until the target is totally exhausted and drained of his intrinsic motivation. The Blocker continues to be negative, naysaying, nitpicky, and whiny. The negativity sucks all the positive energy from others on the team as well. Although the Blocker may not raise her voice very often, she manages to kill colleagues’ enthusiasm and their desire to perform well. It only gets worse over time.
• The Blocker boss does not give praise, positive reinforcement, or financial or other incentives, but he will dispense plenty of criticism via demeaning and harassing comments.
• A Blocker boss often becomes suspect of the workers around her and their intentions and motivations. She may perceive that she is being falsely criticized. The Blocker will then go ballistic and become argumentative, hypersensitive, aggressive, and sarcastic.
• Blockers can be unforgiving of criticisms of their work or the way they get things done. They interpret criticism as attacks on their character. They suspect everyone is against them, and they become preoccupied with doubts about the loyalty and trust of others. This is when the bullying can escalate into more aggressive behavior, such as blaming or falsely accusing others, being irritable at having to listen or attend to others, and being hypertense in meetings with others. Blockers can become a source of great stress in the workplace. They exhibit impatience when working with others and have an overwhelming need to control the task.
Nadine was one of the founders of a very successful e-commerce retail company and was serving as its chief operating officer. In the five years it had been in business, the company had doubled its revenues each year and had won several accolades from the business community for its fast and impressive growth. The company had also hired over 50 employees to build the brand and the digital technology that was the business engine of the enterprise.
One of the most senior hires, Ted, became increasingly concerned that the business was serving only one industry and that doing so could be problematic because of the volatility of retail sales, which could be hurt by a slow market. In a leadership meeting, Ted suggested diversifying into other areas of trade using existing technology. Nadine immediately reprimanded Ted for going offtrack, and she used an abrupt and dismissive tone of voice while stating that the company had enough on its plate and that Ted should stick to the original mission.
When Ted brought it back up in private, Nadine again rebuked him for getting ahead of himself, and she shut down the conversation. She continued to cut him off in meetings, using a harsh tone in front of others, as she deflected his ideas for alternative ways to support and protect the business. Eventually, Ted chose to go to another company. Two years later, Nadine’s company dissolved, following the steep downward trajectory of the retail market. With no alternative strategy in place to offset the cyclical retail market conditions, the company had no choice but to close its doors.
Nadine, in spite of her entrepreneurial background, was a classic Blocker. The ramifications of her behavior on her and her company were disastrous and might have been avoided. She was so obsessively focused on her way of doing things, she was unable to tolerate any new or creative thinking. To make matters worse, her delivery style was degrading, impersonal, ungracious, and overly tough, probably based on her inability to share control of strategy with anyone. Ted definitely felt not only blocked but demeaned, both privately and publicly.
Before confronting the Blocker, Ted should have prepared. He should have documented several critical incidents using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT),1 and he should have written down what he expected when he signed on with the company and what he observed was the reality on the job.
Situation 1: This is a company founded on the basis of a creative idea. It is presumably a workplace where innovative thinking is appreciated. I joined with the expectations that I could contribute to its growth and well-being and also look to ways to expand the business model. My loyalty and commitment to the company are strong, and I have enormous enthusiasm for my job.
Behavior 1: When I gathered enough intelligence to raise a concern about our lack of diversification, I was treated like a child by Nadine and rebuked in front of the whole leadership team. Also, I observed that every time, subsequent to that meeting, that I raised an idea or made a suggestion, I was cut off and my comment dismissed. Using a harsh tone of voice, she continuously rejected any suggestions or comments I made either in private or publicly in meetings.
Consequence 1: I felt unappreciated. I felt like I was wasting everyone’s time. After several failed attempts to discuss this situation and behavior, I realized that she would never listen. By no means my first choice, I felt that I had to look elsewhere for employment.
Ted should arrange the meeting in a private office and, one hopes, at a time when Nadine is less stressed.
Ted: Nadine, in a very short period of time, I have come to love this company, and I hope to have a long and successful career here. By nature, I am also very protective of the company for which I work. It is with that deep sense of loyalty to you and the company that I raised my concern for our future in the last leadership meeting. [By preparing this delicate conversation with a statement of loyalty, Ted will seem less threatening and put the Blocker at ease that he is not quitting.] When I joined the company, I was impressed by its success and told that it was an innovative culture that had respect and tolerance for new ideas. I am surprised to have experienced the opposite when I offered suggestions for change. [Ted has now stated what he expected and then observed. He should pause and wait to see how the Blocker responds.]
Nadine: Ted, if you are referring to our last leadership meeting when I changed the subject from your idea for diversification back to our leadership agenda, you were offtrack and derailing the meeting agenda. [Nadine again dismisses Ted’s concern.]
Ted: Nadine, I believe the way you handled that indicated not only your lack of respect for me, given your tone and words, but also your lack of interest in hearing that I may have detected a serious chink in our armor.
Nadine: Of course I am interested in what you have to say, but perhaps the leadership meeting was not the best place to say it. [Ted may have to concede here that he should have presented his concern to Nadine privately.]
Ted: That is a fair point, but I brought it up to you again in private and received the same response. May I know how and where you would like new ideas presented? [Ted stays on point, but he asks for clarity on the right approach to present new ideas.]
Nadine: Ted, I had no intention to upset you. It is a tense time for the company. I don’t want to suppress your ideas. Let’s discuss how we might revisit your concerns and determine the next steps.
Ted: I can understand that this has been a rough quarter and that it has been stressful. [Paraphrasing back what he understands about the other person’s comments is a great technique for defusing any residual anger in the Blocker.] As I said, I like working here, and I only want the best for you and the company’s future. How about we set a meeting after the next earnings call to go over my thoughts about protecting that future? [Ted establishes a next step for the two of them.]
What is apparent in this story is that Ted wasn’t paying attention to all the factors that might have provoked Nadine to treat him poorly. Likewise, Nadine was unaware of the strength of her tone of voice and may be more careful in the future. Her bullying might have been due to the stress, more likely the fear, that she was feeling at work, so time will tell whether this work relationship can be remediated. At least, Ted will feel better that he addressed it with Nadine.
John’s Story
John was the vice president of communications and marketing of a medium-sized full-service advertising firm. He was viewed as a real talent in his field, repeatedly creating innovative and cutting-edge marketing ideas for the company’s clients. The CEO, Tim, brought him into all the client meetings in which new strategic thinking was on the agenda because he knew he could rely on John not only to think on his feet but also to present ideas that would address the clients’ needs in a coherent and enthusiastic way.
However, John’s direct boss, Eric, the COO, was not as pleased with John’s growing reputation as an up-and-coming star in the firm. John’s increasingly close relationship with the CEO made Eric worry about his own future. He became more irritable and paranoid. Eric’s value to the company was as a master of all the details of operations, and he insisted on absolute control of the process. All his direct reports always followed up with Eric and never went to the CEO as John sometimes did. Eric also felt that he had the best ideas for the company.
So Eric the Blocker took action. Eric dismissively blocked any ideas John put forward and continuously referred to his youth and inexperience, always explaining the “right” way to do something whenever John made a suggestion in meetings. John’s enthusiasm and energy eventually dissipated, and he left the company.
John’s ideas and suggestions were rejected by his boss, Eric, continuously until, dejected, he moved to another company. Had John had the tools to meet and discuss his disappointment with Eric, there might have been a different outcome.
Blockers bully directly by preventing any significant input from others. They do this to ensure that the work is completed “correctly”—that is, their way. That can happen only if they are in control. They often exhibit obsessive-compulsive behavior, and they have perfectionist tendencies. If they don’t get their way, they become paranoid. Even though the Blocker may not intend to harm another’s productivity, his belief that only if he controls the way the work is done will it be done right is bullying. Blockers’ comments are often blunt and seemingly negative, but those comments are based more on their own fears of failure. They do not show any generosity during interpersonal interactions, and they are obsessed with controlling, withholding, and limiting information in an exchange with others in order to feel more in control.
John should have set up a meeting with Eric. Before doing so, he should have documented at least one critical incident.
Situation 1: Our team meeting is a time when all of us expect a chance to share our ideas and leverage our expertise with others. Eric, apparently as a result of his seniority and position power, feels free to interrupt almost every suggestion I or others make, bringing the conversation back to what we “should” do and not “what is possible” to do.
Behavior 1: Every single time I offer my thoughts and ideas, Eric swoops in, even before I have finished my sentence, with comments such as “That is not right,” “Someone with more experience wouldn’t say that,” “That is how a young person would see it,” and concluding with, “We are definitely not doing it that way.”
Consequence 1: As a result, I have been more and more hesitant to offer any comments at these meetings. I notice others doing the same. My perception is that the full talent of the team is not being tapped. Moreover, I feel we can’t be open at these meetings and that we are misusing our time together. The company is losing the potential of collaborative problem solving and decision-making. I do not feel that I am adding value.
One of the essential elements in John’s discussion with Eric is to help him understand the unproductive way meetings are run and the impact of Eric’s behavior on him and the team.
John: Thanks for agreeing to talk with me. Since we have so many meetings together, I wanted to share my thoughts on how to capitalize on both our past experiences. I can learn so much from you and already have. Likewise, I expected to contribute and participate in the team’s strategic thinking from my own experience. But I observed that you feel your way of doing things is the best way to do it. Am I wrong in that perception?
Eric: I do feel I have more experience than anyone on the team.
John: Have you thought about how the team might feel about always being told what to do?
Eric: No. I don’t believe feelings should play a role in business. [Remember, Blockers are preoccupied with order and control, deny their own emotions, and lack the ability to see other people’s emotions.]
John: Well, let me share with you the way I see it. [John shouldn’t ask for permission because Eric may not give it.] I believe I have something to contribute to these meetings, and I feel I am being blocked from sharing my input.
Eric: Are you sure you have something to contribute? I haven’t heard much.
John: Well, yes, I do have a lot to contribute, but you have prevented me from talking at meetings.
Eric: Perhaps your real issue is with my being so knowledgeable.
John: [Ignoring that comment and using paraphrasing.] Your thoroughness and focus for near-perfect outcomes is good and will help all of us achieve success. I understand what you have accomplished on project A. However, I’m not sure I understand other people’s take on how project A connects with project B, for which Mark and I have responsibility. I believe others would be better served by my perceptions and thoughts if I could offer them at our meetings. They too might have good insights that could be helpful. [John would use his critical incident document at this point in the conversation.] Will you permit me and others to speak more at our meetings? I believe everyone on the team would then feel much more involved.
Eric: I think it will be a waste of time.
John: I’m disappointed you think that. I hope you can agree on one change. Can we have the first 10 uninterrupted minutes at our weekly hour-and-a-half meetings to share our work and suggestions with you? And might those reports come before you speak, so you can hear and reflect on our ideas?
Eric: OK. I’ll try it once, but if it doesn’t provide value, we will run the meetings my way. [This is a step in the right direction. John now needs to prepare the team so that the time will be well spent.]
What is expected:
CRITICAL INCIDENT 1
Situation:
Behavior:
Consequence:
You say:
Your response:
CRITICAL INCIDENT 2
Situation:
Behavior:
Consequence:
The Blocker may say:
Your response:
Blockers must learn that their actions shut down others and prevent them from offering their thoughts and insights on the work at hand. They must understand that their attempts to control every idea or action results in a lack of openness because of their insistence that others comply and submit exactly to their way of doing things. This, in fact, will drive out very creative and ambitious people, especially millennials, who are known to have little tolerance for oppressive management.
Within a team setting, Blockers must learn that listening skills, an empathic perspective, and the ability to be attentive will encourage team members to do their best work. They must also be made aware that their obsessive-compulsive behavior results not only in dismissing other people’s ideas but also in dismissing the people themselves. Blockers need to understand the value of having various members of the group collaborate and contribute to the team’s achievements—and that doing so will get the Blockers closer to their goal of perfection.
Most important, Blockers need to appreciate that no one will ever do the job exactly as they would. A different end result, however, could be even better and serve as a testament to their leadership. A manager might remind the entire team every so often that all of their contributions allow for a better result. Some teams use ground rules, posted on a flip chart or a permanent sign on the wall, that prompt the team to listen to everyone’s complete ideas without interrupting or judging the merit of those ideas until people have had a chance to finish.
We have seen teams elect an evaluator before the beginning of a meeting. In addition to participating, the evaluator guides the team members to being better collaborators and more inclusive of all ideas as well as making more effective decisions. According to one popular ground rule for such a plan, there are two phases of successful collaboration efforts. The first phase is to encourage idea generation by not making early judgments so that all ideas are received and considered with equal weight. The second phase is to then judge and evaluate those ideas.
With Blockers, your aim is to keep them comfortable in continuous communication. Learn what they know and make every effort to show them what you know, but not in a competitive way. You need to understand their world view so that they are comfortable with you and trust you. Ideally, their desire to protect their own way of doing things will lessen over time, resulting in a more open exchange of information.
• A Blocker often acts out of fear of a loss of control, to the point of obsession. Do research, if you can, on what factors may be contributing to the Blocker’s sensitivity about being in control. Was there a prior incident during her watch for which she was punished or reprimanded? Is she going through a personal situation that is causing stress? Are there other stress factors? This may affect both your understanding of what she is dealing with and the timing of your confrontation.
• If you are dealing with a Blocker, be sure not to present too many ideas at once. Because of his need to control information, logistics, and operations, he may be able to hear only one idea at a time. Speak slowly and carefully to ensure that he really hears the idea.
• Blockers are often blunt and harsh in their delivery. This is partly how they have built up their power in the company—by being difficult. People will avoid them, leaving them to control even more. As Blockers may never have received feedback on their tone, you may help them understand its impact by describing how it makes you feel.
• Consider sharing your ideas with other influential members of the team and ask that they support you when you present it. Getting their feedback and insight will also help you refine the idea.
• Blockers present a dilemma to their companies. They do excellent work, control a lot of important and strategic information, and usually aren’t going anywhere. However, if the Blocker is preventing your growth and advancement and discussions have not helped, it may be time to address the problem with human resources or with the Blocker’s boss. Your documentation of the critical incidents will be very valuable in this meeting.
Blocks progress by rejecting all ideas and arguing too much
Seeks sympathy for her monumental effort to get things right
Controls all aspects of a project in an obsessive-compulsive way
Monopolizes control of information, logistics, and operations
Prevents openness, efficiency, and collaboration at work
Has a pervasive preoccupation with orderliness and perfection
Focuses on mental and interpersonal control of targets
Compulsively focuses on controlling tasks at work
Controls and restricts his emotions and the emotions of others
Discourages, dissuades, and denies targets from contributing their ideas
Obsessively focuses on keeping her targets working the way she works
Overemphasizes details, rules, standards, and schedules
Overanalyzes to the point of paralysis
Lacks a humanistic, encouraging, and affiliative interpersonal style at work
Tends to target those with a lot of ideas or with suggestions to streamline work
Targets those who want to divide up the work
Brings more and more detail into a process
Perceives as threats those who have a highly intrinsic motivation to do well
Punishes with negative, naysaying, nitpicky, and whiny comments
Kills a target’s desire to do well on her own
Never praises or gives positive reinforcement
Criticizes with demeaning and harassing comments
Is blunt and critical
If you have checked eight or more of the items on this list, you are undoubtedly dealing with a Blocker.