Bullies in the Workplace

I have recently been told several stories, where those in position have been freely bullying their team members.

Some of the examples:

A friend of mine switched jobs with great expectations, moving to work for a globally renowned financial brand. We assumed that her career would soar, when only one month later she was desperate to return to her previous company. She and her whole team were being systematically humiliated each day, her new upline singling them out for their perceived ignorance, lack of expertise, and insufficient engagement. All this happened in front the colleagues, many times in front of customers.

Another ex-colleague started a new job as a senior manager, but could only withstand the inhuman environment of constant shouting for two weeks..

Changing the job is not even necessary to get into a stressful situation: a new manager may be placed above your head at any time. This happened to some of my former colleagues when a new upline with a “dynamic” management style assumed the Director role. The new leader brought in her own management team, but even her ‘inner circle’ had issues working with her: within two years all of her first-liners left the company already. The Director’s excuse for her bullying style: it’s never enough, she wants more, better, and higher performance. There is nothing wrong with these expectations. The problem is the way of expressing it.

We have also seen examples of bullying in the recruitment phase already. An old friend of mine participated in the selection process for the Managing Director position of a global company. The contract was finalized except for one minor clause request. However, when she asked for an amendment, she was attacked in the meanest, most humiliating way by her would-be up-line. She refrained from signing the contract and was happy to close this chapter while she could do that without further consequences. The bullying already started before she would even join the organisation.

Bullies in the Workplace

The number of complaints about regular workplace mobbing and bullying seems to be growing exponentially.

After nearly two years of stress, uncertainty, and anxiety of the COVID period, people have become less tolerant of dispiriting working environments.

When confronted with their conduct, bullies aren’t usually aware that they’ve done anything wrong; it’s natural for them to behave emotionally and only want to achieve better performance. The list of excuses and explanations is interminable. Does this imply that the other person can respond in the same manner without repercussions?

When I was very young, I had a boss with a high temper who frequently raised his voice in anger. I was very young, with not much to lose and I decided not to allow that. The first time he did it to me, I took a deep breath (my legs shaking, my voice trembling), asked him calmly to calm down, and never to raise his voice at me again. It worked and he never shouted at me again. In fact, I earned his utmost respect.

Still, I’m not advising readers to follow my example for every bully is different, some of whom are functional psychopaths. Those confrontations may result in irreparable damage. Attempt them only when you have nothing to lose or when you are ready to leave; as two of my colleagues did when they raised their voice against their upline and were forced to resign, leaving the bully free to rage on further.

The Theory about Bullies

Brian Klaas, in his book, Corruptible is working around the three main questions:

• Is it predetermined, who thrives for power,
• Does power corrupt further those, who already have it,
• Why do we choose narcissistic psychopaths to powerful positions when our intentions are exactly the opposite?

Three dark traits are clearly identified in leaders’ behaviour that might lead to mobbing and bullying.

1. Machiavellianism comes from the reductive caricature of a single idea from Italian political philosopher: the end justifies the means. Machiavellianism therefore refers to a personality trait marked by scheming, interpersonal manipulation, and moral indifference to others.
2. Narcissism, named after Narcissus from Greek mythology ( who is destroyed because he falls utterly in love with himself), refers to personality traits that often manifest as arrogance, self – absorption, grandiosity, and a need for recognition from others.
3. And psychopathy — the darkest trait of the dark triad — often shows up as someone who lacks the ability to feel empathy and is impulsive, reckless, manipulative, and aggressive. Just because psychopaths don’t naturally feel for others, it doesn’t mean that they’re unemotional. In fact, one emotion comes extremely naturally to psychopaths: anger.

Each of the three traits exists on a continuum.

Research has proven that who pursues power is not random. Certain types of people crave it and try to seize it for themselves. Some of us are addicted to power. Some of us avoid it altogether. But whether that variation is driven more by nature or nurture is still a somewhat open question waiting to be resolved. We just don’t know.

The Image of the Organization matters

The first question is: who applies at all to a certain position that’s advertised.

Charity, non-profit organizations will attract fundamentally different types of applications than a military or any other armed organization.

Therefore, as a first step, look deeply into your employee branding and define, whether the picture your organization projects of themselves is in line with the type of candidates you want to attract.

Why do we Choose Them?

Genes definitely affect who gets power because certain traits make you better at obtaining authority over others.

Consider how we hire and promote people. Success relies on charm, charisma, and likability. Job interviews are performances. You may have gotten there with your CV, a good cover letter, and a strong recommendation. But once you’re in the room, it’s all about making the people there like you — while creating the perception that you’re qualified for the job.

If you seem nervous, timid, or shy, you’re less likely to be hired. But if you seem confident and polished and always have an answer to whatever question is thrown at you, you’re more likely to be selected.

For narcissistic, Machiavellian psychopaths, the standard job interview is the perfect format. They love to talk about themselves. They strategize about how to get what they want. The end justifies the means — even if it means manufacturing lies about themselves or inventing false credentials.

And they’re naturally gifted at showcasing superficial charm and charisma.

When psychopaths and Machiavellians are measured in job interviews, they differ from the rest of us in intriguing ways. As you might expect, people who score high on Machiavellianism fabricate, inflate, and lie more during job interviews. Psychopaths also fabricate, inflate, and lie, but they do so according to the interview that they’re doing: they turn colours like chameleons, they fabricate and lie different things for the different interviews.

The Solution

Blind recruitment and promotion should be used whenever possible. In many universities, students do not sign their tests, they only have identification numbers. It is not easy, but – at least for initial rounds – the possibilities of personality bias should be eliminated from recruiting processes.

It is also important to carefully look at those who are sitting in hiring and recruitment panels: those panels should be as diverse as possible – on the one hand to neutralize individual biases, on the other hand so that all candidates can see themselves in the organization.

How does the dark triad perform, once they are in the organization?

Open any book about psychopathy and the phrase superficial charm is probably on the first page. Psychopaths are smooth talkers. They’re often incredibly likable, although in a glib way. They seem exciting to be around. A key to their success is manipulating others, but doing so requires making others let their guard down.

Many psychopaths can blend in. The successful psychopaths are in boardrooms. They’re signing legislation. They manage hedge funds.

The areas where the dark triad is most overrepresented are many of the most influential areas of society. A small number of destructive people can make a big difference.

Here’s the emerging picture : Psychopaths are rare, but they’re more drawn to power and are better at getting it. They’re therefore overrepresented in positions of authority.

Research study suggests that there are about twenty times more psychopaths in corporate leadership than in the general population.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

When we are faced with moral decisions, many of us are incapable of ignoring our ethical guides and we would avoid making the difficult choice. For example, in case of business reorganization, in restructuring the organization, we often need to decide which well-performing employees will need to lose their jobs so that the organization can survive or even flourish further. It is a tough decision that many avoids.

Perhaps it’s a benefit in modern society to be immune from moral self-reflection. Some people are horrified at the prospect of an amoral CEO, president, or prime minister.

But others find it reassuring that someone who constantly faces unbearable moral choices is able to disregard compassion and focus on hard-nosed costs and benefits.

Source: Brian Klaas, Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us; Scribner (November 9, 2021)