February 26, 2010
In my last blog I talked about bullying behaviour and how organisations need to make provision for dealing with it when it occurs. But if you’re an employee who feels like you’re being bullied or close to being bullied by your boss, is there anything that you can do to improve the relationship? A good place to start is trying to understand the underlying cause of your boss’ behaviour – this can then empower you to become part of the solution.
In the most extreme and rarest form, the bullying boss feels threatened by others and needs to put subordinates down in order to enhance their own self-esteem. It is very difficult to deal with this type of bully, because of the deep-seated drivers of the behaviour – something that cannot be easily resolved or dealt with by employees. This makes it a matter for the bully’s manager and, in reality, leaves employees with two choices – escalate the matter or find another job!
For most bullies, however, behaviour is driven by the fact that they, themselves, are so overloaded or under pressure that they can’t handle their workload. This frustrates them and, often lacking the skills to cope, they ultimately take it out on their subordinates. There can be several underlying causes of this kind of behaviour: The bullying boss may not be able to handle the pressure inherent in their job; they may be unable (or unwilling) to delegate to others; or they may habitually blame others when things go wrong, rather than thinking about their own behaviour. Another explanation is that the bully is simply in the wrong job!
Fortunately in many cases the ‘overloaded bully’ can be helped – it’s possible for such managers to develop better skills in this area with the right help and support from the organisation. Just as importantly, though, employees can improve the way that they ‘manage upwards’ by being more aware during periods of overload. If employees understand a bit more about the triggers, they can become a source of support rather than contributing further to their boss’ stress and bad behaviour.
It can help to remember that our bosses are usually under at least as much pressure and have a workload that is at least as heavy as our own. There’s no excuse for bullying behaviour or poor management that is driven by personal needs ahead of what’s best for the organisation. However, next time you’re on the end of bad management behaviour stop for a moment and try to see things from your boss’ perspective. Think about your own behaviour and what would be most likely to get things back on track for the organisation. Consider how you would have behaved differently if you were your boss and file that learning away – you may be in your boss’ shoes one day!
This blog was adapted from a ‘Public Servant’ article published in September 2008.
2 Comments | 
bullying, Engagement, job satisfaction, Leadership, Management, Personal Resilience, pressure, Stress | Tagged: behaviour, blame, boss, bullied, bullying, delegate, employee, Management, manager, overloaded, persepective, pressure, relationship, self-esteem, skills, workload | 
Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 23, 2010
We have just heard this week about the allegations of bullying at No. 10, which raises questions such as ‘what is bullying?’; ‘what impact does it have?’ and ‘what can be done about it in the workplace?’. All are answerable questions.
A number of years ago now, my colleague Helge Hoel, from Manchester Business School, and I undertook a national study to explore the scale of the problem in the British workplace. The national investigation was sponsored by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation and was carried out among many public and private sector employers. We found that roughly one in ten employees in our sample had been bullied within the six month period of our investigation. By bullying we meant that someone had been persistently demeaned, devalued or harassed by someone else at work. In the majority of cases it was a boss but it could be a colleague, a subordinate to a manager or a client to a provider of a service. The evidence was that bullying did damage the mental well-being of the individual concerned – it led to more sickness absence than for someone who was not bullied and adversely affected self-reported performance.
In this area, organisations need a robust policy and a safe, confidential reporting procedure so that employees can highlight the issues they are facing – this enables the allegation to be investigated properly and action to be taken if appropriate. Obviously organisations have to be careful about employees using bullying as a means of avoiding tough managerial decisions, but any investigation of allegations should explore this as well. Bullying is not acceptable in any context – but it should not be confused with positive pressure being applied along with the appropriate managerial support to achieve great results. Bullying is very different – it damages people and the broader morale of an organisation.
Having said that, it’s a two way street – we as employees have a role to play in creating good relationships with our managers and I’ll blog on that topic tomorrow.
Leave a Comment » | bullying, Leadership, Management, Motivation, Productivity, reward and recognition, Well-being | Tagged: boss, British Occupational Health Research Foundation, bullying, colleague, confidential, employees, employers, Helge Hoel, impact, manager, Manchester Business School, morale, policy, Private Sector, Public Sector, relationships, Well-being, workplace | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 22, 2010
I’ve been speaking to the press all morning in the aftermath of the allegations by Christine Pratt, Founder of the National Bullying Helpline, regarding bullying in Downing Street. From my perspective, the issue of whether there was bullying or not at No. 10 was secondary – the main issue for me as a patron of the Helpline was the breach of confidentiality – I had no choice, I had to resign.
When staff report a problem to a bullying or counselling helpline it is a matter between them and the operators of that line. Mrs Pratt did not reveal any names, but that is irrelevant. She has revealed the employer, No. 10, to the press: I think that is wholly wrong and inappropriate. There is no way any helpline or counselling service giving advice to people should release anything into the public arena based on calls it receives. I am involved with a range of charities, none of whom do that kind of thing – it is just not the way you behave and therefore I felt that I could no longer be a patron to that organisation. I told Mrs Pratt I wanted to resign last night and she asked me to sleep on it. I said I would, but I knew what I was going to do.
Don’t get me wrong – I am passionate about stamping out bullying and promoting well-being in the workplace. Leaders and managers have a responsibility to get this aspect of working life right for their employees, but naming and shaming specific organisations from a position of trust is just not the way to promote that kind of behaviour.
Lots of interviews to do today around this story, so that’s it for now but I’ll post again on this subject as things develop. Read my official statement regarding my resignation at http://www.robertsoncooper.com
14 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: bullying, Christine Pratt, confidentiality, counselling, Downing Street, helpline, National Bullying Helpline, patron | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 19, 2010
The most common definition of presenteeism relates to the act of coming to work whilst ill and the impact that this has on a person’s level of productivity. However, in recent years many researchers, and indeed organisations, have asked the question – can the presenteeism construct be extended? It could be argued that any behaviour that reduces productivity at work can be called presenteeism. Procrastination or conducting personal business cost organisations millions of pounds in lost productivity. For example, a recent report claimed that social networking sites such as Twitter are costing UK businesses £1.38bn every year.
Employees are still working the long hours – perhaps to prove that they are valuable members of staff, or to help keep their jobs secure – but they are not producing anything extra for their organisations, and perversely may actually be costing them money.
This seems a persuasive argument and has led many companies to simply ban ‘personal business’ at work. Either by blocking certain websites, or by punishing such behaviour, these companies are taking steps to ensure that staff are engaging with the work they are being paid to do.
You can see their point, but I do think that this line of thinking can sometimes go too far. By banning personal business at work, organisations take away an employee’s sense of control, reduce their work-life balance and, as Jill Flint-Taylor alluded to in an earlier blog, damage their personal resilience. Overall, it’s hardly a recipe for a flexible, happy workplace. Although an organisation sets out to improve productivity, they may end up reducing employees’ levels of engagement and well-being.
This is not to say that employees should be allowed to spend all of their time dealing with personal issues and thereby wasting time at work. The important point is that there is a balance to strike here. What works in some organisations may not work in others. Some companies may feel that a more flexible and open approach will encourage innovation – for example, someone in a creative role may get a brilliant idea from Twitter that really benefits the business. On the other hand, call-centre companies may prefer that autonomy is kept to a minimum as the objective is to get through as many calls as possible without distractions. It’s horses for courses, but it has to be consciously managed.
Personal business at work need not simply be a ‘black hole’ for productivity, but trust is the critical factor. It is for this reason that I don’t see the construct of presenteeism being extended to include these behaviours any time soon. The challenge for organisations is to get the balance right between the autonomy and trust with employees on the one side and what’s right for the overall good of the business on the other. We need to actively managing both.
Twitter ‘costs businesses £1.4bn’ – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8325865.stm
3 Comments | Absenteeism, Attendance, employee engagement, Engagement, job satisfaction, Management, Motivation, presenteeism, Productivity, reward and recognition, Well-being | Tagged: Absenteeism, autonomy, cost of twitter, employee engagement, Engagement, Flexible Working, happiness, HR, improving well-being, internet cost to business, Management, morale, motivated, Motivation, personal business at work, Positive psychology, presenteeism, psychological well-being, Robertson Cooper, staff, staff retention, twitter, twitter cost to business, unproductive presenteeism, wasting time at work, Well-being, work-life balance, workforce sustainability | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 18, 2010
Starting in April this year the traditional ‘sick note’ is to be replaced by a new system which will see GPs completing a ‘fit note’ instead. Under the new arrangement GPs must decide whether a patient is ‘not fit for work’ or ‘fit for some work’. If the GP selects the latter, they must then choose from a list of four actions to assist with the return to the workplace: phased return, amended duties, altered hours or workplace adaptations. The change was a recommendation made in Dame Carol Black’s report ‘Working for a Healthier Tomorrow’ – based on research showing that a return to work is beneficial to both employer, employee and also the wider economy. But the big question is whether this particular approach is likely to be successful?
The key to the success or failure of the new ‘fit note’ scheme is the quality and effectiveness of a tripartite relationship – between the GP, the employee and the employer. Each has a responsibility and a part to play in making the new system work. Pressure points will occur when GPs fail to understand what’s possible in the workplace; when employers fail to be sufficiently supportive or flexible with returning staff; and if employees don’t really want to return to work and end up ‘playing’ the system. However, if all play their parts positively the new system has the right ethos and components to make a big difference. My hunch is that GPs are the ones who will need the most support because this way of seeing patients and their jobs will be completely new to them and many will be set in their ways after years of issuing sick notes on request.
However, it’s good to see that the government has thought about this aspect of the new system and is taking action to help GPs make the right judgements. The ‘options’ on the new form are a good idea because they will cause GPs to think actively about the advice they dispense regarding return to work. The ‘fit note’ represents a major paradigm shift in terms how we think about illness and work – any process that encourages the ‘operators’ of the system to consider and discuss a range of options for the patient and employer is a positive thing. The absence of an option for ‘occupational assessment’ is also to be welcomed as it places the emphasis firmly on getting people back to work, rather than further diagnosis that could prolong absence. More diagnostic tests may still be required, but they are not seen as a substitute for re-engagement with work – in this sense, the goal of the system is clear.
So the new scheme carries much promise, but in the end two factors that have always been key in absence management will be critical if this culture change is to be successful: trust and communication. All staff need to know the organisation’s expectations regarding attendance and return to work – and this includes the consequences of failing to meet them, plus the support that is available. It’s no good amending your policy, announcing the change and expecting staff and managers to work the rest out for themselves. You will have a head start if a culture of trust already exists to support the change – if not, it’s almost certainly an underlying area that needs development.
Finally, don’t forget the strategic angle. Absence management processes are important, but they are no substitute for creating a business culture that is characterised by high levels of well-being and employee engagement. Over the long-term this is your insurance policy against high levels of absenteeism because if staff are happy and committed they will do their best to perform for the business and are unlikely to betray the trust you invest in them. When your staff actually want to return to work because they enjoy it absence management becomes a whole lot easier.
This post is adapted from a contribution that my university spin-off company, Robertson Cooper made to a People Management article on the subject: http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2010/02/employers-wary-of-new-fit-notes.htm
1 Comment | Absenteeism, Attendance, citizenship, employee engagement, Engagement, health, Management, Motivation, Private Sector, Public Sector, reward and recognition, Well-being | Tagged: absence management, Absenteeism, Attendance, Attendance management, carol black report, Dame Carol Black, employee engagement, Engagement, Fit notes, government, HR, improving well-being, Personal Resilience, Productivity, return to work, Robertson Cooper, sick notes, Sickness Absence, staff, staff retention, support, workforce sustainability, working for a healthier tomorrow | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 10, 2010
A large-scale survey on the state of Britain, carried out by The Young Foundation, was published a few weeks ago. I won’t go into the detailed findings of the report, but I would like to highlight one of its key messages about personal resilience:
“Resilience matters and can be influenced. Everyone is bound to face shocks and setbacks at some point in life. But what makes the difference is how well we cope with these shocks, how well we bounce back. This is in part a matter of social support from family and friends, teachers or GPs, as well as skills and financial assets. But resilience – and psychological fitness in a broader sense – can also be learned, and enhanced.”
(‘Sinking and swimming: understanding Britain’s unmet needs’, p. 249)
As regular readers will know, my university spin-off company Robertson Cooper is increasingly looking at this powerful psychological phenomenon with clients – linking resilience with success and performance at work. The above passage contains a key message and mirrors our thinking closely.
While this report is a study of Britain at the societal level, the idea that resilience can be learned and enhanced is an important one for the workplace as well. People genuinely differ in terms of their natural reaction to hurdles and setbacks – think about people you know – but worthwhile development work can be done to improve these reactions in everyone.
Indeed, many organisations that have strategic, cohesive, holistic and successful well-being programmes are addressing the psychological resilience of their workforce, as well as the physical. And we already know that businesses that invest in the well-being of their workforce are more successful than those that do not, but the definition of well-being must be broad enough to go beyond physical well-being.
I lose count of the number of times I hear of examples of organisations who put in place initiative after initiative and still have no success: “People are not using the discounted gym memberships;” “Hardly anyone has signed up for the walking club;” “The healthy options we introduced in the cafeteria are not being eaten. Neither are the fruit baskets.” Like any initiative, the investment can be less than effective (at best) and wasted (at worst) if it is not well thought-through and integrated. Another barrier is when those involved are not ready to change.
The most resilient people have adaptive strategies for dealing with and overcoming setbacks – when things go wrong they are constructive about why it happened and proactively look for ways to do better next time. That’s great for them and for the business, but also suggests that the most resilient people are more likely to seek out and make use of traditional well-being initiatives in the workplace. This may help to make them more successful and the investment more “worthwhile”, but we also have to make provision to build positivity and resilience in those who are not naturally that way inclined. This is not about toughening people up so we can give them more work; it’s about helping people to deliver better quality and to be in a position to play a full role in organisational life.
Important lessons can be drawn from this work by the Young Foundation, and from the wider research base on resilience. If you have an interest in the areas of well-being and resilience, I’d encourage you to take a look at the report.
For the full research report from the Young Foundation, go to: http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/YF_needsreport_screen.pdf).
Leave a Comment » | Personal Resilience, Well-being | Tagged: bounce back, Britain, initiatives, integrated, investment, performance, positivity, resilience, setbacks, success, Well-being, Young Foundation | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 8, 2010
I was very privileged to be at the recent World Economic Forum global get-together in snowy Davos last week. It got a lot of media coverage, but I thought you’d like to hear about it from someone who was directly involved in the discussions.
Those present included global business leaders, senior politicians, academics, representatives from the third sector and many other leading lights in their respective fields. I had my forebodings about the event, wondering whether, and how, this diverse group of people would be able to explore some of the global challenges ahead. The issues under discussion included how to best emerge from the recession without getting us into another downturn in the near future; how to deal with climate change; how to control the increasing menace of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, mental ill health, heart disease and the like; how to create sustainable companies / communities / countries; how to feed the poor; managing greed in the developed world. A daunting list indeed!
It was fascinating that most of these topics were discussed with key international decision-makers there and involved – this meant that they came up with, at times, very novel ideas and solutions. Of course, these global problems cannot all be solved at Davos in a week, but the issues and potential remedies will be taken forward by the various global agenda councils of the World Economic Forum – ‘off piste’, as it were – during the year following the conference. Obviously some issues are more difficult to resolve than others, but progress can be made and there was definitely an appetite to do something – to make an effort to drive change.
As a participant observer I was struck by the informal nature of the event (although well organised), and the presence of so many opinion-leaders and decision-makers in one place. This made it work in a way I had not anticipated. Between the sessions there was a casual and laid back atmosphere that made for stimulating conversations and unforeseen connections between various people working on different, but related topics from a variety of angles.
On balance, people seemed to be focused on the big picture global issues, and not on narrow self-interested ones relating to their company, country or sector. The organisers had found the right tone and encouraged the right focus. It was heartening to see delegates going beyond their comfort zone and trying to grapple with the big challenges that concern most citizens today— the recession, health and well-being, job and financial security, sustainability and food shortages – in short, the survival of the planet.
Leave a Comment » | change management, citizenship, Community, Leadership, Uncategorized, Well-being | Tagged: academics, change, citizens, climate change, communities, conference, countries, Davos, diabetes, downturn, future, heart disease, international, leaders, mental ill health, politicians, recession, sustainable, third sector, World Economic Forum | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
