Okay, no preaching about loving our enemies and all that jazz. The critter you`re afflicted with at work is a jerk. Maybe even an abusive jerk. Probably chews lunch with his mouth open, too. Yeggh.
Odds are, the feeling is mutual.
Neither of you says anything, of course.
”Aha. That`s part of the problem,” says Bea Young, senior vice president of Harbridge House, the Chicago division of a management consulting company created by Harvard University`s Business School some 40 years ago.
”Stay with those hostile feelings,” counters University of Chicago psychologist Salvatore Maddi, whose Hardiness Institute in Arlington Heights encourages exaggeration of ill will as the first step in reconciliation.
”Fight back; I`ll show you how. Don`t let the office Sherman tank run you over,” says psychotherapist Michele Solomon, who conducts one-day seminars in ”Dealing With Difficult People” through the Monnacep continuing education program in Des Plaines.
If all else fails, consider a ”group assault,” chuckles Richard Thain, dean for external affairs at the University of Chicago`s graduate business school. You may incur someone`s undying enmity, he says, ”but you may also bring a tyrant to heel.”
During George`s tenure as a departmental dean of a large Midwestern university (no, not the U. of C.), his staff was kept ignorant of office news. George shared nothing. Six months ago, he convened his first staff meeting in four years–to announce acceptance of another job. He expected disappointment. But at George`s chosen moment of revelation, his staff punctured his balloon. ”You`re quitting, finally,” laughed a secretary, producing a bottle of champagne. More champagne suddenly appeared on other desks. The celebration over his departure began with a vengeance. George was not invited to share a goodbye drink; in fact, they actually pushed him out the door.
A job ogre is something nearly all of us have in common. Usually he`s only a few steps away.
The snotty or abusive boss. The gossipy colleague. The lazy secretary who gets under your skin like a fingernail file (an infuriatingly apt metaphor for some managers). There`s the woman exec who emasculates male subordinates, the male exec who treats women like serfs or bed partners. . . .
Indeed, for every reassuring story of Pocahantas and Smith, it seems history can cite 500 examples of Cornwallis and Washington (not Harold).
Locally, we do have a Washington (not George) and Vrdolyak, Chicago`s two unpal pols. Do they actually despise each other? Who knows? Lawyers love to posture. But judging from Council Wars, one can reason that a team of Harold and Eddie never could win a Winston Churchill award for pulling together after a Dunkirk.
”Hate” may be too strong a word, though, says Young. ”More often I hear people saying, `I don`t like working here; no one listens to me.` ”
Recalcitrants are Young`s business. Often they`re on the VP level for corporations like Exxon, Sears-Roebuck and Motorola. She brings them together, helps them to regard one another as human beings.
”If there`s someone you don`t get along with, but you don`t do something about it, the whole person becomes negative. People get ulcers over this,”
Young says.
Maddi says guiding antagonists to a point where they must recognize each other ”as palpable human beings” is critical to job harmony. This means eventually confronting an object of disaffection–the key, common tactic in otherwise diverse approaches by experts toward getting along with someone you dislike.
She was called the Spider Lady. The company`s first woman project manager in data processing, she was exceedingly competent, but also tough and abrasive; she always seemed angry. Colleagues avoided her. When job tension threatened performances in eight departments, one for each manager fighting the Spider Lady, consultants were called. That`s how everyone learned she was only trying to win job approval–by acting in the same way as male colleagues. It was the first time she ever got honest feedback instead of avoidance.
The scary art of confronting co-workers requires preparation. Ventilation is the first step, according to Maddi.
”Exaggerate those hostile feelings. Really get into it. Imagine how much worse it could get. It`s an important initial step in resolving a bad situation at work,” he says.
Without a knowledgeable guide, the task optimally requires several minutes of solitary concentration–renewed several times over seven or eight hours if revulsion runs deep. Afterward, after wallowing in misery, do exactly the opposite, Maddi says: Imagine how much better the situation could be. That`s tough, as it means envisioning rainbows where a moment earlier were bloody rapiers.
OPENING THE OFFENSIVE
Reverse imagery helps us gain perspective before launching a final assault. Without such preparation, says Maddi, those initial, awkward overtures may get botched.
Some good ways to initiate an overture?
Start with something inoffensive, such as, ”Can we talk?” suggests Young. Later, focus on specific behavior, not personality flaws. An example:
”When you call me `stupid,` this is the effect it has on me. . . .” Then recall the effect in a job-related way. If ridicule hampers your work performance, say so.
”Very often when we get angry, we fight on all bases. We forget the good points someone brings to the office. That`s when the whole person becomes negative to us,” Young observes.
When the ogre is Boss, appeasement often seems advisable, especially if he pulls rank.
”Confronting someone works better when you`re equals. Otherwise you generally have to be pretty subtle,” says U. of C.`s Thain, who nonetheless recommends ”firm resistance” against dehumanizing management. ”You have to come to the mature realization that not everyone in the world will love you, but you can make them respect you. Be firm and resist.”
Employee resistance is something Solomon teaches in her Monnacep classes
($23 per session; the next is Feb. 1; call 982-9888). Because many of those who enroll also are managers having difficulty with troublesome subordinates, there`s a natural setting for real-life confrontations.
”There`s a good deal of role-playing in our classes,” she says. ”An important thing I teach is to stop wishing these people were different. Stop trying to turn a frog into a prince. It won`t happen.”
What must change first is a sufferer`s behavior, she says.
”Remember dealing with your children during their `terrible 2s`? Their temper tantrums aren`t really different from some people`s at work. What you must do is play parent; instead of trying to talk the person out of a tantrum, walk away.”
Let`s say the boss explodes with ”You idiot! You mistyped this letter again. . . .” Solomon says such employers probably treat everyone in a demeaning manner. ”But you don`t have to take it. What you need to say in response is, `I made a mistake, and I will correct the errors. But it`s not very professional for you to speak to me in this manner.` ”
There`s no guarantee you`ll win. ”But you can fight the Exploder on more even ground,” says Solomon, who gives names to troublesome personalities.
ANTI-TANK WARFARE
The Sherman tank tries to run you over. ”I call him Mr. Sherman. He, too, will call you `dumb` or `stupid.` He`s a bully; everyone always lets him get away with it.” Interrupting him with job-specific responses is an effective maneuver. Get him in a chair, though, so he won`t tower in a power position.
The Complainer isn`t interested in solutions. He wants to carp. So boomerang his dilemma by asking him for suggestions. ”He`ll shut up if he`s not interested in a real resolution,” Solomon says.
The office Clam causes trouble for herself more than anyone else. She is clearly unhappy but stays determinedly powerless. ”Ask Clams open-ended questions, stuff that cannot be answered with a `yes` or `no.` ”
Like Solomon, Bea Young finds labels useful. There`s the Barn Boss, who creates conflict, often simply to get credit for the rescue. The Great Pretender is a managerial type who pretends everything is hunky-dory with troubled troops. The Weasel sets people against one another, often by breaking confidences or lying.
For each of these human irritants, the most effective course of action is to confront in an undemeaning, nonthreatening way, experts say.
If dialogue fails, there are few recourses: quit, learn to accept a bad situation or retaliate.
Accepting job conflict without destroying yourself is difficult. Maddi recommends seeking satisfaction outside the job–in home life, a hobby or language classes. ”You can`t afford to let everything collapse because work isn`t going well,” he says.
If you must quit, ”cover your exit,” counsels Thain. ”Telling the boss to `take this job and shove it` can hurt you later.”
The final alternative? Attack. This may consist of ostracism and silence, neglecting to pass memos along or fostering insecurity by playing up someone else`s performance.
Thain says group attack against unreasonable bosses is the best retaliation strategy, although he strongly advocates trying other paths first. ”Group attack can bring a tyrant to heel, and maybe even to smile at himself. Of course, he also may hate you forever. But he`ll have to hate a whole big bunch.”
THE EDGE OF CRUELTY
Bea Young tells the story of a group of salesmen who videotaped complaints about a manager–then sent the video to him. The route spared everyone from awkward moments of personal overture. Fortunately, the manager recognized legitimate conflict and immediately set out to resolve the situation.
When colleagues attack co-workers, however, cruelty may run ungoverned.
There were three–two women and a man–and they intensely disliked Margaret, whom they judged incompetent. They took to telephoning Margaret`s extension and hanging up when she answered. They`d leave unsigned messages on her desk inviting her to quit. They took turns knocking on her office door and running off. This went on for three years. No one said a word. Finally defeated, Margaret left to practice her occupation–psychology–elsewhere. Her three former colleagues also are psychologists.
Dealing with someone you hate, or intensely dislike, obviously can involve nasty behavior among co-workers even at enlightened levels.
If confrontation is the road you choose, keep in mind that a ”solution” might be risky: A smart manager may solve the dilemma by sweeping two problems out the door instead of just one. —
WORKING TOGETHER: A FEW TIPS
”A manager is responsible for creating a climate where hostility and conflict are not rewarded,” says Bea Young, senior vice president of the Chicago management division of Harbridge House.
Problems often arise because of voids in leadership by otherwise well-meaning managers. Still, if they don`t know how to solve conflict, it doesn`t necessarily require intervention from a platoon of expensive consultants.
When subordinates complain of inadequate feedback from managers, insufficient knowledge of job expectations and absence of a sense of participation, there`s room for improvement. Maybe different management styles are needed, Young says.
They include:
— Leveling with subordinates. When managers level with employees, employees will level with each other. An absence of honest communication and feedback usually results in greater office friction.
— Involving employees in decisions. That means holding regular meetings at which openness and candor are encouraged.
— Working out conflicts as they occur. Confront a colleague or superior over behavior you find disturbing.
— Considering dialogue techniques.
In a Harbridge House dialogue session, employees are encouraged to list questions (among themselves, in groups) about the corporation, or behaviors they`d like to see ”more of” and ”less of” among supervisors and colleagues. These techniques usually work better with a consultant to help frame questions on sensitive issues without being offensive, and to ensure that defensive managers respond candidly, according to Young. But they can be attempted without a hired guide–if supervisors and employees both remember the others` feelings.
