48
Bullying Is Bad for Business
Business schools and leadership coaches say the same thing: an autocratic bully or a corporate clown is bad for business. Whether it’s about the bottom line or the use of a motivational technique, when people at the corporate table shove their ideas down the throats of others, it doesn’t make for progress or good business.
As on an athletic team filled with talent, records can be broken as a result of striving for team outcome over individual credit. We all want to shine, to be seen as smart and important, but the force of style and personality can be dominant.
The boss can be an autocratic leader and browbeat the staff to achieve results. There are plenty of narcissists sitting at the head of team tables. Or you can encounter a high climber who has a next best idea every time you sit at that table. Either case is dysfunctional.
I once knew of a chief executive who would call subordinates to report to him on matters of importance. If he didn’t get or hear what he wanted or expected, his technique for capturing the unwary staff officers’ attention was to pick up a book and throw it at them. Some leaders have a penchant for beating up on the little guy.
Workplace bullying often involves an abuse or misuse of power. Typically, it creates in the abused feelings of defensiveness, and it undermines a person’s right to his or her dignity at work.
Another form of bullying involves employees who individually bully their peers or even a group of coworkers targeting another worker. Regrettably, psychological aggression in the workplace is more common than it should be. By all rights this should not be allowed to be done anywhere or to anyone.
Forms of aggression by a manager toward a subordinate can range from unwarranted criticism to blame, exclusion, being yelled at, especially in the presence of others, or even excessive micromanaging. When it becomes entrenched in the culture of an organization, it simply becomes accepted as part of organizational behavior. Not good!
This happened to me when my office phone rang early one morning and the person on the line summoned me to the third-floor office of his boss, a rather important three-star general in the Pentagon. I suspected the cause immediately. A front-page Washington Post story that unforgettable day had suggested that the size of the U.S. Army, from that time in the mid-1980s going into the next decade and beyond, could actually grow far smaller as a result of new tactics and technology, such as the use of robots in place of soldiers.
Shudder at the thought, believed this general, especially since the notion of a probable downsizing was the departing forecast of the outgoing under secretary of the army, James Ambrose, a view the general strongly opposed.
As I entered the outer office of the deputy chief of staff for operations at the time, I was told by his executive assistant that I was to be seated—an intended purgatory. After the requisite 10-minute wait, I entered the general’s impressively large office and felt uncomfortably small standing in front of his desk at rigid attention. After a second attention-grabbing wait as the general studied a document he’d no doubt put by design on his desk, he looked up and glared into my eyes. He picked up the Washington Post front section, pointed to the article on page 1, and asked in a gruff voice, “Are you responsible for this?”
“Well, yes, sir, in a manner of speaking. I arranged the interview for Mr. Ambrose,” I told him. Actually, if the truth be known, when the under secretary told the late senior defense correspondent George Wilson his view of the future, I blanched and fidgeted, knowing we were going to be at the top of the news the next day.
Mr. Ambrose sensed my antacid moment, turned to me, and asked, “Something wrong?” Since it was an on-the-record interview and this would certainly go viral, I responded, “No, sir, as long as that’s what you meant to say.” He said that he stood behind his views that R&D would dominate and determine the army’s future end strength.
At my inquisition the next day, the general was unimpressed with my explanation. He railed on about how it was wrong for civilian leaders to judge and predict what was right for his army. So much for civilian control of the military in a democratic society, I thought.
For me, it reinforced my long-held view that you can learn as much if not more from something gone wrong than you can when things go right. I left the general’s office committed to the belief that displaced aggression is a fact of life but an anger-directed method I would continue to avoid at all costs.
I’ve seen similar bullying approaches by staff officers who are too smart or egotistical for their own good. It’s as if they feel it’s obligatory to dazzle their colleagues with their brilliance. They forever attempt to impress those present with their assertive view of things in the form of ideas they showcase as impressive even if they don’t have to implement their bold initiatives.
Fortunately, I have been in a position to temper or tamp down those next best ideas without killing the instinct of the staff to think strategically. Chiefs of staff need to conduct the orchestra harmoniously before the sounds become a cacophony.
That is more art than science. Find a way to recognize the effort of developing an idea but also find a way to put that next best idea back in its box without embarrassing the inventor or discouraging the notion of thinking futuristically and innovatively.
When you have a lot of strong-minded people in a room, all of whom sound and act like pachyderms, you need to quiet the jungle. Building consensus is the key.
As chairman, Colin Powell was incredibly adept at doing this when he sat at the table with other members of the Joint Chiefs. After the fall of the former Soviet Union, the decision was made to downsize the armed forces. The Cold War was over, and, albeit for a different reason, Mr. Ambrose would have taken comfort in this call for fewer soldiers.
Each service chief—army, navy, and air force—wanted his share of the reduced pie. Loud sounds came from Powell’s office during these Joint Chiefs’ meetings. Yet at the end of the day, each of them had to give up more than he wanted to. Powell was able to bring them to that point.
The boss is left with the burden of doing something with contrasting ideas or faulty invention. A staff in critical positions surrounding that boss can act as both catalyst and conduit without killing the mood or the moment. A defective but thankful response is useful. Politicians have it down to a science when they typically begin a rebuttal by saying, “With all due respect, . . .”
Bullying is not limited to playgrounds or schools anymore. It’s everywhere, not least in the halls of Congress and in C-suites. Workplace bullying has become a despicable trend that can wreak havoc on an organization if it is not met head-on. One way to do that is to have a clearly stated and widely distributed code of conduct. If your company doesn’t have one, tell the boss you need it. You’ll be doing him or her a great service.