Appendix: Spiral of DisrespectAll I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten…. Play fair…. Don’t hit people…. Clean up your own mess…. Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody….
—Robert Fulghum
Remember a time when someone made you feel respected. Did they listen to you, giving you their undivided attention? Perhaps they valued your opinion even if it differed from their own. Did they provide feedback in an honest and non-judgmental way? Did their actions show consideration? These are a sampling of workplace behaviors that are respectful.
Imagine an organization that defines its values through behaviors that exemplify them, where leaders and associates all live those values, and with no tolerance for disrespectful or disruptive behavior. If behavior stayed above the line of disrespect, issues such as harassment, discrimination, or worse would never occur.
Even in the best of organizations—those with strong and positive cultures—disruptive behaviors do occur. When they do, they affect working relationships. If disruptive behaviors are not addressed, they can spiral down a slippery slope and erode into bigger problems.
Appendix: Spiral of Disrespect
Disrespect is one of those words that can mean different things to different people. Like harassment, it’s often used when people are in conflict with each other. Employees may invoke the words harassment or bullying when, in fact, neither exist.
Jarrod is asked to update the department’s database. This specific task is not in his job descriptions; it’s someone else’s responsibility. So he protests and refuses to do it. After a heated exchange with his newly hired supervisor, he escalates his complaint to the department manager, saying that “the new guy” is treating him disrespectfully. After receiving a written reprimand for insubordination, he claims harassment because he spoke up for his rights (not to do a newly assigned task). This is not an example of harassment. Jarrod may not like being asked to do this new task. He may not like his supervisor speaking to him in a tone that is less than warm or friendly. Although Jarrod may feel like he’s being harassed because he’s being asked to do something new, there’s no basis for a legal claim of harassment.
Appendix: Employment Discrimination Laws and Related Websites
Three months later when it’s time for Jarrod’s performance review, both his supervisor, Frank, and the department manager, Brian, meet with him. Jarrod is not happy with their feedback or with the plan for improving his work performance, which had slipped along with his behavior. He raises his voice, uses course language, refuses to acknowledge the performance improvement plan, and storms out, heading to human resources to claim that he was being bullied. However, neither discipline for workplace behavior nor negative performance feedback with requests for improvement is an act of bullying.
Let’s consider the following definitions as we explore different types of disrespectful behaviors:
Micro-inequities can be looks, gestures, inflections, or body language of a dismissive nature. They are subtle and may or may not be intentional or isolated incidents. They can be rooted in stereotypes.
Discrimination occurs in the workplace when decisions are made or a person receives unfair differential treatment based on a particular characteristic. When the characteristic is protected by law, such as race or sex, the discrimination is illegal.
Harassment is unwelcome conduct based on a particular characteristic, which may or may not be protected by law. If the behavior is based on a protected characteristic, it becomes unlawful when enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment; or the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.1
Bullying is the repeated infliction of intentional, malicious, and abusive behavior that interferes with a person’s ability to do his/her work and is substantial enough to cause physical and/or psychological harm that a reasonable person would find it hostile or offensive.2
Workplace violence is any act or threat of aggression that implicates the safety, security, or well-being of an individual who is at work.3
There is a relationship among all of these behaviors—atmosphere and working conditions—and the lines between them can be very thin.
The term “micro-inequities” was coined by MIT researcher Mary Rowe, PhD. They can include things like a weak handshake with little or no eye contact, listening with arms crossed, and looking at your watch, cell phone, or other device during presentations or while speaking with someone (unless you’ve been invited to do so). They have the effect of devaluing other individuals and negatively impacting feelings of inclusion and self-esteem. Employees, who feel devalued or excluded disengage and their contribution is diminished.4
Remember Jacob from Chapter 4? He was hovering over Claire while she was on a client call, sending a message that he was unhappy that Claire didn’t put the call on hold. His behavior could be interpreted as controlling or menacing in some way—a more extreme, not-so-subtle micro-inequity.
Drop the cutting sarcasm and thoughtless humor. Think of the message that’s sent in this example: “Well, look who just arrived. Forget how to find the meeting room, did you?” Though this remark may be clever enough for a laugh, it’s pointed enough to be nasty.5
Lori is one of two women on a team. She’s rather soft-spoken compared to George, who is very aggressive and makes sure his opinions are heard. He’s impatient with Lori’s thoughtful approach and will often roll his eyes or make snarky comments when she speaks, such as “Did you say something?” implying she has nothing to contribute. Pete, the project manager, tends to ignore George’s behavior because the two have many common interests. Several months into the project, Pete also starts ignoring Lori. Last week, Lori offered a technical solution to a vexing problem. Pete appeared not to be listening. When George offered the same solution, Pete responded with “Great idea, George.” Besides monumental bad judgment, is Pete guilty of anything more than a micro-inequity behavior at this point? Probably not yet.
What if Pete acted on George’s great idea and assigned him to lead a task force to address this vexing issue, passing Lori over for a developmental opportunity? The treatment is unfair to Lori. Pete’s behavior could be moving closer to discrimination.
Workplace harassment, sexual or otherwise, can take many forms, including:
Jokes or comments of a sexual nature or that disparage specific groups such as ethnic groups;
Graphic images;
Gestures or lewd actions;
Introduction of inappropriate topics, such as those of a sexual or racial nature into business conversations;
Unwelcome hugging, touching, or other physical contact; or,
Specific comments about someone’s body or physical characteristics.
Joey likes to tell jokes and keep everyone’s spirits high at work. His jokes are lighthearted and never mean-spirited. When he spots Penny in the break room looking a bit down, he tells her a silly joke he heard about surfer dudes and blonds (Joey’s hair happens to blond). Penny smiles and laughs. Sally overhears this and gets upset, telling Joey that he’s perpetrating the “dumb blond” stereotype and creating a hostile work environment toward women. (The surfer dudes were the brunt of the joke.) At worst, Joey may have been guilty of a micro-inequity, but the joke was neither severe nor pervasive enough that it would fit the definition of hostile work environment harassment.
Wendy had just joined the firm and found it odd when she began receiving e-mails with jokes and funny stories. When she asks about it, she’s told, “We just try to keep things lively around here.” There is nothing wrong with that; fun at work can be important. With time, however, the nature of the jokes begins to change, often becoming sexually suggestive or racially or ethnically pointed. Wendy finds them offensive and intimidating, making her uncomfortable. The behavior had eroded into hostile work environment harassment.
Before a meeting, Gene rolled his chair closer to Daria to look at her earrings, commenting they looked nice. She told him they’d been a gift from her boyfriend for her birthday. Later, he came into her office, pulled a chair very close, and told her she smelled nice and that her perfume was intriguing. Now she was growing uncomfortable. The next day he approached her and placed his hand on her shoulder, squeezed it firmly. Come to think of it, she’d seen him do this with other women: pay them compliments, then slowly move to behavior that was more personal and intimate. Clearly, Gene is exhibiting a pattern of unwelcome and unwanted behavior, in this case behavior of a sexual nature that is pervasive.
Appendix: Preventing Harassment—Managers’ Guide Appendix: Workplace Harassment—Employee Rights and Responsibilities
Like harassment, workplace bullying can take many forms, including shouting, screaming, or other verbal abuse; singling someone out for unjustified criticism or blame; excluding someone from work activities; purposefully ignoring work contributions; using language or actions that embarrass or humiliate; or, making jokes that repeatedly target the same person.6
Remember Renata from Chapter 9? Her behavior went beyond interrupting and making snide comments. Left unchecked, she could be especially aggressive. When confronting Mark with her accusations, she slammed a file onto his desk as she leaned forward and pounded her fist. Was she merely making sure that she, unlike Lori, was heard when she talked, or had she crossed that thin line and now was walking the path to becoming a bully?
Meanwhile, Wendy received an e-mail one morning that was likely poking fun at Ian, a coworker. She could tell from the subject line it was yet another joke and she deleted it. Even more disturbing was when other associates started responding with seemingly mean-spirited comments. When she asked what was going on, Nicola responded, “We’re just having some harmless fun at Ian’s expense. After all, he can be difficult at times!” When workplace fun is targeted toward one individual or group of individuals, when it is one way and the targeted individual is not participating, and when it’s personal, such as comments about someone’s body type, it can quickly erode beyond disrespectful. In this case, the comments were cruel and many people were participating. The behavior was eroding and, if not addressed soon, was in danger of slipping to the level of bullying.
Many believe that bullying is the younger sibling to violence. Recognize that there’s a relationship between verbal aggression (such as harassment and bullying) and actual physical violence. Disruptive behaviors should not be seen as completely separate, but rather as part of an environmental ailment that weakens the organizational immune system and allows violence in.7
When Lars joined the organization, he was enthusiastically welcomed. Accomplished in his profession, he brought a great deal of expertise. His relationship with his peers and Lorraine, his manager, started positively. Just as he was getting comfortable in his new role, Lorraine’s attitude started to change. At first, she’d respond to his input in staff meetings with snarky comments and sarcasm, sometimes even belittling his work or his credentials. Then she started excluding Lars from meetings and, if questioned, responded that his presence wasn’t necessary. However, when he didn’t complete assignments that were discussed in the meetings—assignments about which he had no knowledge—she’d yell at him publicly, scathingly attacking his work and tossing humiliating insults. As if that wasn’t enough, she started making sly comments about him online. Others were quite surprised by her behavior and morale began to decline. Lorraine had realized that Lars’s qualifications and background far exceeded hers. She was intentionally being abusive, and she was creating a toxic work environment for everyone.
As Frank and Brian struggle to align changes in the department to those in their industry, Jarrod continues to challenge Frank. He questions him constantly about what process to follow, what changes will be made next, or how he should interact with Frank on assignments. He badgers Frank with e-mails, often as many as 25 per day. His questions and comments are filled with offensive language and are often accompanied by insults and shouts. Because of Jarrod’s physical size and temperament, Frank is intimidated by both his presence and behavior. When Frank loses his composure and shouts back, Jarrod accuses him of bullying, when, in fact, he is the one engaging in the bully behavior.
Boundaries have eroded as today’s workplaces have become more relaxed and informal. Yet boundaries—those invisible lines that help define roles and manage interpersonal relationships at work—are important. Boundaries define limits—where you end and where others begin. They define responsibilities and foster accountability. Gene clearly crossed a physical boundary with Daria. Boundaries also define limits for language and communication. They are a close cousin to expectations.
Chapter 6: You Want Me to Do What?
Watch your language when sharing public space with others. Be mindful that other people of varying demographics may have different values and standards. Be courteous. Keep your voice down. Use cell phones with discretion. Avoid explicit or intimate conversations. Choose a neutral vocabulary that minimizes the possibility of offending, angering, or embarrassing those within earshot.8
Even in non-hierarchical organizations, boundaries at work establish clarity for job responsibilities and relationships such as who is responsible for giving job assignments and feedback. The reprimand that Jarrod received stated that his job description includes a provision for other related duties as assigned. It reiterated established responsibilities and relationships. The boundaries were clear.
Establishing boundaries also helps to differentiate between issues in our personal lives versus those in our professional lives. Maintaining a balance between openness and privacy, even in an era where social media is so prevalent, is important. Look at the difference between the following two statements:
“I just moved to the area.” (Open statement.)
“I just moved to the area and my spouse and I fight now fight constantly.” (Private statement.)
Play it safe. Topics best avoided in workplace conversations include:9
Detailed health problems,
Details of sex life or sexual activity,
Problems with spouse, partner, or family member,
Personal finances (positive or negative),
Political topics that evoke passion, and
Gossip or discussions about coworkers’ personal lives.
If you’re the recipient of too much information, be polite and non-judgmental as you let it be known that the information makes you uncomfortable or is not an appropriate topic for work. You can use phrases such as:
“I’m not comfortable talking about… [for example, personal issues].”
“I don’t think this is an appropriate topic to be discussing at work.”
“I don’t appreciate… [for example, that type of humor, those remarks or comments].”
Wendy’s colleagues started out to have fun. Did it matter that they didn’t mean for their behavior to be offensive or intimidating? Regarding sexual harassment, most courts have generally held that the effect of the conduct on the person who is on the receiving end determines if the conduct constitutes sexual harassment. The underlying premise comes from the reasonable-person standard. Would a reasonable person consider the conduct harassing, intimidating, and/or offensive? Men and women generally hold differing perspectives about behavior that could be sexual harassment. Thus, the courts have held that harassing conduct must be evaluated from the perspective of the victim.10
People are affected by different things, different jokes, and different language. A joke you tell within your circle of friends and family may not be offensive to them, but you can’t assume that it won’t be offensive to someone at work. You may intend to be lighthearted, but if the subject touches on protected characteristics, for example, someone may conclude that your behavior is harassment.
That’s the legal standard for determining unlawful harassment. Though not all disruptive behavior is harassment, it’s a good standard to use. In workplace conflicts, we may be tempted to assume the other person’s intentions from the impact their behavior has on us. We feel hurt, slighted, or dismissed—micro-inequities. We can’t know what their intentions are because they exist only with the other person.11
Equally important, we can’t assume that despite our intention, our behavior won’t have a negative impact on others. We don’t know what other people’s sensitivities are. Ian may have been teased by older siblings as a child and the comments in the e-mails may bring back some painful memories.
Tatiana had an abusive stepfather with a fierce temper. He would often grab her arm, just to get her attention. As a result, she developed a very low tolerance for anyone touching her. Her coworker Roland had quirky mannerisms that included touching people on the arm or shoulder when he talked to them, which made many people uncomfortable. However, Roland didn’t seem to pick up on the signals people were sending. One day, in an attempt to get her attention, he grabbed Tatiana’s arm. She reacted and took a swing at him while her coffee cup was still in her hand, causing quite a scene as a shouting match between the two followed.
To avoid conflict, try to disentangle impact from intent. To frame your discussion with the other person, ask yourself three questions:
1. Actions: “What did the other person actually say or do?”
2. Impact: “What was the impact of this on me?”
3. Assumptions: “Based on this impact, what assumptions am I making about what the other person intended?”12
Priya and Jon are colleagues. During lunch one day, Jon leans over and tells her that he finds her exotic looks very sensual. Just then, the waitress returns with their change and Priya hurriedly grabs her things and says, “Time to get back to work.”
Later, Priya asks herself the three questions. Now she has a starting point for her conversation with Jon, which begins as follows: “Jon, I was surprised you made that comment at lunch. It was uncharacteristic of you and made me feel embarrassed. I could have assumed you did it purposefully so I’d be thrown off guard in the meetings we have to attend together.” Priya didn’t make any accusations. She related what he did and said (he can’t refute he made the statement), explained its impact on her, and stated her assumption of his intention. This gave Jon the opportunity to explain his actions in a non-threatening way.
There are many things that may motivate someone to behave in a disruptive manner. Is it narcissism (perhaps George or Jarrod?), low self-confidence (perhaps Lorraine?), or low emotional intelligence—just plain cluelessness (perhaps Roland?); or, an environment that turns a blind eye to such behavior (perhaps Wendy’s or Lori’s situation?). Just like with intent, it’s futile to try to figure out why. It’s more effective to determine the best approach to confront the situation and resolve the conflict.
Say “no” to a request or demand that is unwelcome, a behavior that is inappropriate or abusive, or a situation that is not fair. However, you also must make it clear that the behavior has to change:
Describe the disruptive behavior.
Explain the impact it had on you or others.
Ask for the behavior to stop.
After giving Jon the opportunity to explain, Priya needs to ask that he stop making personal comments. Wendy went along with the jokes from her coworkers until they reached the point of becoming offensive to her. She can explain that though the initial jokes were fine, the ones that are of a sexual, ethnic, or racial nature are not okay, that they make her uncomfortable, and to please remove her from the e-mail list. She’s not attacking the individuals sending the e-mails, but she is pointing out their behavior. In this case, because workplace harassment is involved, management intervention should take place.
If you’re receiving a respectful confrontation:
Listen, with full attention.
Don’t get defensive.
Remember intent vs. impact.
Ask for specifics. “Help me understand how I violated a boundary.”
Express gratitude for bringing the matter to your attention.
Apologize, if appropriate.
When Gene admired Daria’s earrings, he seemingly was making an innocent comment. When he remarked about her perfume, he crossed a thin line. Daria could have sent a direct but neutral message that the behavior was not appropriate: “It’s okay to offer a compliment or admire a piece of jewelry. It’s not okay to get close and comment on my perfume or scent. That behavior is creepy. Please don’t do it again. If you want to have a conversation, please honor my personal space and don’t get so close when you speak to me.”
When Lorraine began disparaging Lars’s work in meetings, he could have let her know that the comments were not okay with him: “Please stop! I can take criticism, but putting me down in front of other people is embarrassing for me, for you, and for everyone present. If you have issues with my work, let’s talk privately.”
When Ian became aware of the e-mails being sent with taunting comments about him, he could have confronted Nicola, who started the e-mail chain, in a firm yet polite manner: “Please stop teasing me. It’s disruptive and it humiliates both of us. If you have work issues with me, come and talk to me directly, but please don’t try to have fun at my expense.”
Roland’s behavior caught Tatiana by surprise and rather than think, she reacted. It’s unfortunate that no one said anything to him about his annoying mannerisms before the altercation. Once things calmed down, Tatiana explained her reaction: “Look, it’s not okay to grab me. You’re strong and you had a firm grip on my arm. Your actions were physically intimidating. Please refrain from touching or grabbing me in the future. If you want to get my attention, say something or send me a text or e-mail.”
All of these examples sent a strong, firm, yet polite message about the behavior, not the person. They were clear, feasible, positively framed, and respectful. All described the behavior and its impact and asked that it stop. All offered an alternative to the behavior—a constructive way that the relationships can continue in a manner where everyone feels respected. When all else fails, bring it back to respect.
If relationships become damaged, they have to be fixed because they affect the entire workplace and the organization.
When in doubt, think about the impact that your behavior may have on others.
Employment discrimination laws don’t guarantee a utopian work environment or protect employees from personality or workplace conflict.
When dealing with disruptive behavior, don’t accommodate, don’t avoid, and don’t attack.
Be hard on the problem and the behavior, but not on the person.