How do you avoid or eliminate bad behavior in your organization?

[Robert Morris]

Obviously, the best way to avoid having employees who are toxic troublemakers (e.g. "politicians," rumor mongrels, backstabbers, etc.) is not to hire them.

In The Cost of Bad Behavior (published by Portfolio/The Penguin Group on 7/9/09), Christine Pearson and Christine Porath acknowledge that the total cost of incivility can be estimated but not calculated because (a) the total cost consists of much more than out-of-pocket expenditures and (b) it is impossible to know the nature and extent of damage to self-image, morale, latent pathologies (e.g. hostility), and motivation of perpetrators and their victims. Then, of course, there are the collateral costs associated with others (e.g. family members and friends) who also become involved. Let’s just say that the cost of uncivil behavior is substantial. That’s the bad news. Now the good news. According to Pearson and Porath, much of it is avoidable.

For example, it is possible to reduce (if not eliminate) incivility in the workplace. After leading off with an especially relevant quotation of Albert Einstein (“The world is a dangerous place, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”), Pearson and Porath devote most of Chapter 13 to explaining how to create a civil workplace. Here is an abbreviation of their suggestions, “grounded in hard evidence – interviews and survey results with thousands of targets of incivility, not to mention discussions, focus groups, and interviews of hundreds of executives and managers.”

1. Set zero-tolerance expectations. They must be driven by senior management or they won’t go anywhere.

2. Look in the mirror. How do you measure up in terms of your attitude and behavior? What example are you setting?

3. Weed out trouble before it enters your organization. Screen potential clients as rigorously as you do job candidates. Review Point #1.

4. Teach civility. Make certain everyone in the organization understands what civility is so that they can help to establish and sustain (and when necessary, defend) a culture of civility.

5. Train employees and managers. For example, explain how to recognize and cope with the inappropriate behavior of “cunning offenders.”

6. Put your ear to the ground and listen carefully. One option is 360º feedback. Be alert to consensus of opinion and a pattern of uncivil behavior.

7. “When incivility occurs, hammer it.” Incivility is like cancer. Once detected, it must immediately be treated aggressively.

8. “Take complaints seriously.” A culture of civility must also be a culture of candor. An open door policy will encourage people to confide.

9. “Don’t make excuses about powerful instigators.” Offenders’ supervisors must be role models for effective implementation of these and other suggestions, especially #1 and #7. To tolerate incivility is to condone it and then over time, to encourage it.

10. Invest in post-departure interviews. In terms of alleged incivility, there is more to be learned from former employees 45-60 days after departure than there is during an exit interview.

With regard to #3, Pearson and Porath acknowledge the difficulty of picking up on incivility during interviews. However, they do offer six recommendations:

• Up front and personal: “Let all candidates know how important mutual respect is in your organization, that you do not tolerate incivility.

• Tell me more: “Ask for specific examples of their past behaviors when you interview candidates. Get them to support their appealing descriptions of civil behavior with past actions that they actually took.”

• Unique perspectives: “Talk to people at lower levels who have worked with the candidate (think ‘kiss up, kick down.’)”

• Better now than later: “Use a team approach. If someone on the recruiting team [and there should be several involved in the process] gets bad vibes, pursue it. Time invested could save you a sour hire.”

• Trust but verify: “Check references. Check references. Check references.”

Note: Here’s an opportunity to check out the examples of civil behavior that the candidate cited.

• Drill down: “If you spot a problem [or suspect one], keep searching.”

“Approach each candidate with measured cynicism. Tap internal networks that you and your colleagues have worked so hard to build. Use those contacts to get a full profile of the candidate – across levels, across divisions, across functions.” These are only two of several clusters of specific suggestions that are inserted throughout the narrative.

What are your own thoughts about any of these issues?

[Doug Shaw]

Interesting post, thanks for putting it up here. I like the Einstein quote. I was drawn to this as I run a discussion group on Linkedin called "Is Bad Behaviour Killing Big Business?" , I'm fascinated by the subject. I think there's some potentially useful stuff here but personally I'm always worried by "zero tolerance" anything. We are all individual and react differently to the same things. I also find the term trust but verify somewhat odd. Surely you trust, or you don't? I know who I trust - and I don't need to verify them. Sure I'll get a few wrong along the way but hey - nobody's perfect eh?

Number 2 I like very much, not literally mind you (I went out to a meeting the other day and forgot to shave - d'oh!). And I certainly agree with the good news, that most of it is unavoidable. I try to do the right things for the right reasons and I have fun doing it. I hope that rubs off on people and that as the movement grows, so do we all.

Thanks again - Doug

[Nick McCormick]

I agree with Mr. Einstein. Most incivility exists because it is tolerated. I appreciate the extra info on #3. Thanks Robert.

[Guy Farmer]

Great post Robert. I've found that you can eliminate much incivility by getting rid of the root causes of negative behavior. Most people misbehave because they have nothing better to do. What I've noticed works very well is for organizations to move from a punitive model which aims at expunging or castigating infractions to a model that builds on people's strengths.

For example: In many companies an employee is labeled a "troublemaker" and immediately is treated as such until the wheels spit him or her out the back door. In other companies the employee is not labeled and instead is treated as a person who is not performing for some reason. Her supervisor talks and listens to her intently to find out the root cause of the behavior. Listening is the operative word. The supervisor then finds out what areas the employee loves working in and how they would like to contribute to the company.

In case after case, so-called troubled employees are simply bored, lack hope, are underemployed or are simply working in an area that they dislike. When someone is miserable they tend to behave miserably. Innovative employers take these scenarios as an opportunity to find out more about the employee and channel their efforts in a positive direction. Those employees who don't or will not take advantage of this growth opportunity tend to weed themselves out.

This approach requires some additional patience and somewhat of a paradigm shift for many companies but yields amazing results in happier, highly productive and non-disruptive employees.

Take care,

Guy
www.myrelationshigpuy.com/leadershiptraining

[Doug Shaw]

I like it Guy, very interesting thinking. Listening actively and helping people play to their strengths are good signs of powerful, engaged managing.

If I may, a note of caution around self weeding. Towers Perrin's research indicates that half of disengaged employees have no plans to leave, or at best are not looking but would consider another offer (methinks that other offer may be a loooong time coming). 39% of engaged employees are not looking but would consider another offer (and let's face it, that offer may come along a deal quicker). So what? Well I think it's worth mentioning as this means employers face a real risk of losing the people they’d most like to keep — while retaining those who are not contributing as they should.

Thanks again - Doug

[Robert Morris]

To Doug, Nick, and Guy.

Thank you all for your comments.

Earlier this week during a conversation with a self-described "old-fashioned, no-nonsense" owner/CEO of a smallish company, as I listened to him complain about his "worthless" workers, it occurred to me again that discussion of engagement is too often limited to those who are supervised when, in fact, many supervisors are either disengaged (i.e. passive, indifferent, coasting, "mailing it in") or undermining morale, efficiency, and productivity. I submit that responsibility (if not blame) for employee disengagement should be shared by supervisors as well as by those supervised. I suspect that many workers feel that the person to whom they directly report has little (if any) concern for them as a human being and little (if any) interest in helping them to succeed. Engaged supervisors are servant leaders.
The owner/CEO to whom I referred earlier obviously doesn't consider it a privilege to lead those for whom he is responsible. Therein, I submit, is the main reason why his workers underperform.

What do you think?

Best regards, Bob

[John Nicholls]

In small organisations, (10 -50 employees) , one approach I've found that is successful is creating a simple 5 item code of conduct, which all staff contribute to, refine and then commit to.
The discussions that arise before the final version of the code often enlighten others to their behaviour - not just the bad behaviour but also the strategies people use to deal with it.
Another interesting insight is the way bad behaviour surfaces during times of pressure or stress in the organisation - often people reacting to stress by behaving badly and also people reacting more emotionally to receiving the bad behaviour.

[Robert Morris]

John: You make an excellent point about bad behavior that, for me, raises another: Why not formulate 3-5 most important examples of good behavior? They could address issues involving (a) relations with one's supervisor, (b) relations with fellow workers, (c) relations with customers, (d) "going the extra mile," or (e) all of the above. The Gallup and Towerrs Perrin research data that attract the most attention concern disengaged and troublesome employees. Perhaps we need to devote more attention and give more recognition to (indeed celebrate) those who personify the core values that define an organization. Fofr example, always using good judgment (Nordstrom) and being ladies and gentlemen who serve other ladies and gentlemen (Ritz-Carlton). Best regards, Bob