Tablet depicting the castle of Loenersloot. Part of the current interior of this castle, RCE monument number 511837. Copyright 2018 Bart van Leeuwen


The bad boss challenge (part 2)

In the previous part I looked at some factors which make a 'bad boss' a somewhat difficult to tackle problem. In this installment I'll be looking at some things I've found very helpful.

One of the most important factors for reducing or even eliminating this challenge in any company is the CEO. If she doesn't tolerate intimidation and bullying, and is prepared to not only say so but takes action to enforce this, it becomes much easier to deal with things like intimidation and bullying, and it becomes much more difficult for a 'bad boss' to hide.

However, saying and doing are different things, and words are easy. Action isn't so easy however, and in order to take action, the CEO should get the information she needs. Even when the CEO is genuinely interested in this, it's not always trivial to get this information, to hear about cases of intimidation and bullying. Also, action is not enough, it must be the right kind of action.

Dealing with the negatives of positive thinking

Trying to keep bickering and gossip to a minimum is important, as both can have a seriously negative effect on culture and productivity, but it can also create a situation in which important information about problematic situations never makes it to the people who could act on those situations.

An effective solution for this is channeling complaints, making sure people have somewhere to go when they have a serious issue.

Sometimes it is enough to make people aware of how this bickering actually gets in the way of addressing an issue, this especially happens when those in charge demonstrate they do address serious problems, and at the same time make people aware of the negative impact of 'talking behind their back'.

Many years ago, at the very start of my career I had a manager, who found himself in a situation where people were talking about him behind his back, and were bickering about how things were being handled.
At some point, this manager called for a meeting to discuss this, and during this meeting he made it very clear that if there were any real complaints, he'd rather hear them, and if people thought this was not working, he'd leave. He made sure everyone involved understood he was being very serious about that, essentially putting his fate in the hands of those reporting to him, but also made sure people understood how and why the talk behind his back was affecting him and his ability to deal with real problems.

As it turned out, there were some real problems, but lot of the bickering was actually due to people finding it difficult to discuss those problems, and none of the problems seemed so big that they couldn't be addressed.

Understanding the effect of talking behind his back, and how actually talking to him instead could help, changed a lot. The bickering mostly stopped, and actual problems got discussed. One of the big factors in this was him putting himself in a somewhat vulnerable position, and taking responsibility for the issues at hand.

Contrast this with another organization I worked for, where at some point the basic response to anyone trying to address any kind of possible challenge was to accuse that person of being a 'silent blocker'. Well.. someone talking is not 'silent', so obviously that accusation is nonsense, yet it was uttered together with comments about 'them' knowing what to do with silent blockers.

Unsurprisingly, this resulted in an environment where people felt intimidated and were unwilling to report on any kind of challenge they encountered.

That is not to say 'silent blockers' do not exist, they definitely do, but to use it as a basic assumption whenever people bring up a potential issue ensures lots of relevant information will never make it to those who should have that information and can act on it, this concerns much more than the issue this article is about.

Dealing with intimidation

When intimidation becomes a prominent factor, many people will just shut up to ensure they won't become the target of this intimidation.

In part 1 I discussed how anonymous reporting on issues can help, but also some of the possible issues with it.

The most prominent issues are the difficulty of getting additional information about a situation when it is reported anonymously, and how enough detail on a situation will often still expose those reporting on it anonymously.

Some organizations I worked for created a system to overcome those issues at least to some extent, and I've found this to be very helpful.

Important for such a system is having confidential advisers to which employees can turn for discussing issues and for advice. Such advisers should be able to operate independently of the hierarchy om am organization, and a legal framework should be created to ensure this independence and the confidentiality of anything reported to them.

Those advisers should report directly to the CEO, and get legal protection to both keep their sources confidential, and to shield them from retaliation

Additionally, employees should be encouraged to talk to such trusted advisers.

Creating such a process may look like distrust, it can easily communicate the message that management is not trusted and is seen as incapable of dealing with issues. However, people within management are just as often the victim of those issues, and such a process should explicitly be open to them as well, this can be as important, or even more important than ensuring your typical employee gets access to this.

There may be technical means to help people report things anonymously, while also allowing for a conversation about what is being reported, but those typically only work for initial contact. When more details about a situation become clear, it is often easier to deduce who did the reporting. This makes such technical means a good way to lower the barrier, but it is only the first step. A process with legal protections is still needed to cover the follow-up.

Trust and relationships

Over the years I've encountered senior management and board members who are quite approachable, and take a keen interest in preventing the issues of bullying and intimidation. Usually those mingle with typical employees, you'll find them at your table during lunch, they'll be talking to people in the coffee corner, they'll be present at unofficial, employee organized gatherings, and in general, they maintain very good relations with their reports, beyond the scope of the official business relationship. This obviously only works well when those people are trusted. Building trust requires giving trust, and hence being somewhat open about ideas, possible directions, upcoming decisions and such can be of significant help. Making sure people feel taken seriously and feel trusted is key.

How to do this depends a lot on the size of the organization and on culture, but ensuring you manage down and not just up is a key element. Having the confidence of your reports, being interested in the challenges they face, and actively helping them with those challenges is an important ingredient for inspiring trust and confidence in your leadership.

Organize your employees

When it comes to getting people to speak up, one of the most important things is to ensure people feel supported by their peers. Obviously, one can see it as the responsibility of employees to organize themselves, and of course that is true, but on the longer term, an organization is well served by its employees organizing themselves. Hence, an organization should not just allow this, but facilitate and promote this, and depending on culture may find it helpful to take the initiative in this.

There are various ways in which employees can organize themselves, both as a recognized part of the organizational structure, and independently. Some parts of the world allow or even mandate the creation of workers councils as a vehicle for employees to elect a representation which can discuss possible challenges and solutions at the board level. This can be a very helpful tool, not only does it create a channel for discussing issues, it also involves employees in the issues of running the company, and can help them understand why certain seemingly problematic measures need to be taken. It is paramount that those participating in such a workers council can do so without fear for retaliation, and hence some legal protections need to be in place. In most cases where laws mandate the creation of such a council, this is provided for. In cases where no such laws exist, internal rules and procedures should guarantee this.

In most places where such a council is mandatory, it is also the organization which has to provide the means for this, and take the initiative in creating the council.

Another thing an organization may consider is ensuring their employees are unionized, either with a dedicated, industry or with a company specific union. Many organizations are more than a bit wary of this for understandable reasons, as it often makes it more difficult to implement change. However, having your employees be part of the process can initially be more costly, but usually reduces the loss of confidence after a reorganization, and can also create significant support for change once an agreement has been reached. It certainly can give employees the peer network to fall back on when they are having trouble with things like bullying and intimidation, and where needed, this also provides employees with legal advice and support. How appropriate this is depends a lot on industry and local culture and size of the organization.

Neither approach may be fitting for your culture, but that in my opinion means you should look for suitable alternatives. Unless you actually think intimidation is a useful tool for getting people to do what you want, making sure your employees have a strong enough position to deal with things like bullying and intimidation is key to ensuring it won't play a big role in your organization.

Alternatives should have at least the following attributes to be viable:

  • Confidentiality (to guard against retaliation against those reporting issues)
  • Support from the top of the hierarchy (to ensure it has the power to investigate)
  • Independence (to guard against intimidation of those investigating)
  • Accessibility (to make sure people will actually make use of this to report things)

Pretty much every organization gets to deal with a 'bad boss' every so often, but I found those which do at least some of the things mentioned in this article are usually much better at dealing with such a situation, without it resulting in serious damage.

So what should an organization do with a 'bad boss'?

The very first thing is to ensure the person in question gets proper training, and gets guidance and coaching to change her behavior. However, when the 'bad boss' refuses this, or when it turns out to be ineffective, removing the 'bad boss' from his position is really the only solution.

It's not unusual to find those who behave like a 'bad boss' are simply not the right person for the job, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful for your organization in a different position. This can have a number of reasons, but the Peter principle usually plays a role in this. Discuss a change in career with such people, and support them in making this change. This may require an investment in someone who objectively was not performing well, but it also inspires confidence, and encourages loyalty, whereas firing someone can result in the exact opposite. If you want loyalty from your employees, be loyal to them.

While it is very difficult to discuss the details of such a situation publicly, as this has a significant risk of resulting in things like public shaming of people and will often not be possible for legal reasons, it is important to provide some form of feedback to the organization about action being taken. This creates confidence and helps people speak up.

When you are reporting to a 'bad boss', the first thing is to not assume bad intention, but instead talk to the person in question and see if you can help them to change the situation. This requires some diplomacy and being open to alternative possibilities. As explained before, this 'bad boss' may not even be aware of being a bad boss. Additionally, what is obvious to you might not at all be obvious to those not in the same position.

Of course when intimidation plays a role, it becomes difficult to do this, and you will have to look for alternatives. Talking to the boss of your boss might be an option, but this might also be the person causing the problem, so be wary of any signs of bullying and intimidation and make sure to not be confrontational at least initially. Investigate instead of accuse.

Eventually, you'll end up talking to HR, maybe to move to another position within the company, or to address the specific 'bad boss', but before doing this, make sure you talked to others who might be in the same situation as you are in, together you are stronger, and if multiple people come with the same issue, it is much easier for the organization to take it serious.

Possibly none of this helps, this is especially often the case when the actual cause of the problem is higher up in the hierarchy. In this case, if your organization has a process for reporting issues of bullying, harassment or intimidation, make use of it. This should normally be the last resort before deciding to leave, but, when intimidation plays a big role in the problem, it may also be the first thing to do.

In the end, when an organization does not care enough about such issues to have a process in place, ask yourself if this is the right organization for you, it very likely isn't, and you will be better off elsewhere. This is especially the case when the issue goes all the way to the top of the organization. In such a case the entire leadership is toxic, and getting away from such a situation is the best you can do.

However, do not assume this goes all the way to the top, often it doesn't, and lack of awareness is merely giving the impression it does. To me there is a difference between a 'bad boss' and 'toxic leadership', where the first involves an individual, whereas the second concerns the leadership structure as a whole.

Personally, I'm not easily intimidated, and have taken things up to the board level myself. This can be very effective, through it takes a lot of diplomacy, patience, confidence in yourself, and lack of fear of losing your job. Especially the later is difficult unless you happen to have very little trouble finding a new job, or do so in an organization which appreciates this. From experience, very few people will go this route.

In all cases, keep in mind change takes time, and do not expect the issue getting addressed immediately. Often you will not hear much if anything about what happens with a reported issue, and often it takes following up on it yourself. A very important question to ask yourself and the people you talk to, is what you can do to help address this. Be a partner, not an opponent.

As few people will go all the way from floor to board with such issues without some kind of process to facilitate this, especially not in larger organizations, I think the best chance an organization has to address the 'bad boss' challenge is by both providing a process to facilitate reporting issues, and by having your employees organized well enough to have a good position for speaking up about intimidation, harassment and bullying.

I hope this gives you some food for thought for dealing with such situations, and I'd like to hear about your thoughts and experience.