Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / Drawing the Line: Setting Boundaries for External Conflicts at Work
Transcript
- Speaker 1 (00:05): Welcome to, it's All Your Fault On True Story fm, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you identify and influence the most challenging human interactions, those that involve someone with patterns of high conflict behavior. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my cohost, bill Eddie. Speaker 2 (00:23): Hi everybody. Speaker 1 (00:25): We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute in San Diego, California, where we focus on training, consulting, and educational programs and methods, all to do with high conflict. In today's episode, we are going to discuss a very hot topic, what is an employer to do about issues that are external to the organization but being talked about internally. So these are topics that people feel very strongly about. Politics, religion, global relations. Yes, we are talking about those strongly felt topics like the Ukraine, Russia conflict, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, political elections, immigration, you don't fill in the blank. There are many employers, HR and others in leadership must decide how to handle this. So we'll talk about it from the high conflict perspective and just give you our thoughts. But first, a couple of notes. Send your high conflict related questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or on our website@highconflictinstitute.com slash podcast where you'll also find all the show notes and links. Alright, bill, so we've been talking about this a bit amongst ourselves and we're hearing from people at various levels of organizations in both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations who are having to address what to do about hot topics that employees are talking about in the organizations and seem to be impacting negatively the workplace. So I know you have a study about this. What did you find the Speaker 2 (02:16): Study was looking at? Is everybody coming more high conflict online and online conversations are certainly getting very heated these days and some organizations want their employees to have groups online to kind of build stronger community and all of that. But here's what one study said, two researchers, one of them, Jonathan Haight, H-A-I-D-T, who studies a lot high conflict cultural issues. So what they found is across eight different studies, they found that quote, being online did not make most people more aggressive or hostile. Rather, it allowed a small number of aggressive people to attack a much larger set of victims. They also identified that small group of people as status driven individuals who are drawn to politics and are equally hostile both online and offline. Speaker 2 (03:26): But they explained that online discussions feel more hostile because their aggressive behavior is more visible online. In other words, online bullies are most likely this small group of aggressive status driven individuals who lack the normal restraints of most people on the internet, but also in their own lives. So when we think about high conflict, this is me talking when we think about high conflict behavior, we're really looking at a small percentage of people who really enjoy having more hostile conversations. And as the study found online and off and the sad thing is online, what happens is they dominate the conversation and people with more moderate views, more moderate personalities just drop out of the conversation. So the conclusion to me is if you have a work group that wants to communicate in Facebook groups and other groups online, is that it's really going to be helpful to restrain yourself and encourage people to not get into these kinds of conflicts because it's not really building a community. What it's doing is dividing a community. I think that's such an important thing to realize these days. You're not changing anybody's mind, you're just venting your point of view, hoping maybe to find a community around your point of view, but in the workplace you're going to have differing opinions and historically people have learned, just don't talk about politics and religion at work. If you want to get along, talk about the work, talk about sports, the weather just steer clear of politics and religion and I think that's actually a real good idea. Speaker 1 (05:26): Yeah, so I think it's interesting that the study found that the reasonable folks sort of drop out of the conversation. I'm probably off the channel or the Slack group, Facebook group, wherever they are. But I would wonder then if people that are more maybe have traits of a high conflict personality might be attracted, I would think they'd be more attracted to going the opposite direction and leaning into the conversation instead of out. Speaker 2 (05:54): Yeah, I think there's, and this comes into a book that I have that's coming out in June, which I want to start mentioning. So I'll mention the title. What Speaker 1 (06:04): Is it, bill? What's the name of that book? Speaker 2 (06:06): I'm so glad you asked. It's our new World of Adult Bullies, how to spot them, how to stop them. That's actually where I pulled that study from. I included that. What we're seeing is people are really looking for a sense of community and we have less and less sense of shared tasks. And so people tend to find communities and shared tasks, shared beliefs, shared enemies, shared geography, like a neighborhood or something. Well, we don't share neighborhoods much anymore, and we don't share tasks as much as we used to. So we're looking to beliefs and enemies to form tight knit communities around only that doesn't work when you have a larger community and it leads to division, anger and sometimes even violence. So I think the key here is to understand that some people want to dominate, they want to dominate discussions, they want to dominate other people, and that tends to be our bullies. Speaker 2 (07:14): And they may be five to 10% of people are high conflict personalities, so they're going to be in the workplace, but if they're restrained, they can be real productive and good contributors. My concern is that the kind of unstructured group conversations lead to bullies dominating the conversation. And so unless there's a role, we're not going to talk about politics and religion, then people can enjoy being in a group, share a recipe, share what their kids are up to, all of that. But if you allow politics and religion to get into the discussion, it will eventually dominate because that'll appeal to more aggressive personalities and the whole group slowly will deteriorate. And that's what we see with comments online a lot is slowly it deteriorates because anything goes. And when there's no rules, only bullies will rule. Speaker 1 (08:16): Oh, nice. I bet that's in your book. It's Speaker 2 (08:20): Three times. Speaker 1 (08:23): Not that we're counting, but yeah, three times. Okay. So let's go one level deeper with your bullies book. Did you find any research about what type of individual is doing more bullying? I know we've in the past relied on a study that shows that the split is about 75, 25 male to female in those with antisocial personality. And not that all anti socials are bullies, maybe they are, I don't know, but Speaker 2 (08:53): Mostly, Speaker 1 (08:55): Yeah. Yeah. So what did you find on that? Speaker 2 (08:58): Generally three personalities tend to be bullies. Not everybody with these so antisocial, significant percent of them really are bullies. Part of what their personality is, it's dominating other people being more aggressive, deceiving people, lack of remorse, lack of empathy, all of that. So there's probably the largest group of bullies has traits of antisocial personalities, but also people with narcissistic personalities. A lot of people say everybody's a narcissist today. Well, everybody's not a narcissist, but some research says as many as 6% of people of adults may have a narcissistic personality disorder, and that means they really lack empathy and it means that they really are demanding attention and admiration. And I think in the workplace that you're more likely to see the more narcissistic bullies. But I want to say that there's many people with narcissistic personalities who aren't bullies and aren't even high conflict people. They're just self-centered, but they're not out to get other people. But some of the narcissistic bullies only feel good when they're dominating other people. And that's why you see them in organizations often stepping on the people around them to get higher and higher. I think most likely that's the most common bully type of personality. And it's true on the internet too. They want to show up everybody if you say you have an opinion, they want to show you their opinion so much better. Speaker 1 (10:46): And you're just trying to be logical and foster communication and discussion. Speaker 2 (10:51): Exactly. And the average person doesn't realize when you think you're having a discussion with a bully, the bully's figuring out how to dominate you rather than how to solve a problem, you're trying to solve a problem. So you may go, we have this problem, we need to do this or this. And so I suggest we take this approach and the bully says, that's totally wrong, you're an idiot. You need to take my approach. And the next thing you know you've shut yourself up and you don't feel good because the bully's taken over the conversation because the bully's not really looking for problem solving as much as dominating. That's the problem. And that's so easy online because there's less restraints, Speaker 1 (11:38): Right? It's just so fascinating too, to explain this to someone that the conversation you're having and what you're trying to do with an innocuously seeming discussion topic, you want to have a constructive conversation about it. What's going on in that person's brain is entirely something different. Like you said, they're either trying to dominate or they're trying to be superior. So that's their calculation. It has nothing to do with having a nice, logical, engaging conversation about points of view. So I think when we accept that this is what's going on, and then adapt how we are having these conversations, if we are, I like just saying, no, we don't do it. Because now I think, I don't know about you Bill, but I find when I'm in a group of people in a social setting and someone brings up race or gender or an election, I know everyone gets tense. I know for sure I do. I can't speak for everyone, but I kind of can sense it around the table. And there are those that are just going to go there and they're going to make their opinions known, and then they're going to be mad when you don't agree with them and they're going to shut you down and maybe humiliate you in front of a group of people. Speaker 2 (13:01): Yeah, I think what happens, it comes a contest between the most aggressive people. In many ways, the bullies win because no one else wants to put the energy into that. It's like, why? I'm not going to change anyone's point of view and they're not going to change mine. So why should I keep talking? Why should I keep listening? And so the only people that keep talking and listening eventually are those that want to dominate the conversation, dominate the other people. So I believe there should really be firm rules to just keep that stuff out of the conversation and that organizations that try to have kind of fuzzy policies are going to end up with it, these conversations deteriorating. But if you can say, look, we're not going to talk about politics, we're not going to talk about religion. Feel free to talk about anything else. You're going to have full participation. People have a lot they can talk about, but if you get into those two areas, it's just lose lose. No one's going to change anyone's mind. Can you imagine in the upcoming election that there's someone that hasn't figured out what they think? Speaker 2 (14:19): So it's really, I think sometimes hard and firm boundaries really make people feel safe and make people feel freer. It's just you got to have some, if you have none, then it just deteriorates. So that's my thoughts. Speaker 1 (14:36): Alright, well let's take a short break and we'll come right back and we'll talk about then, what is an employer to do in the C-suite, the executives, what's management to do as far managers, department directors, and what's HR employee relations to do? So we'll be back in a moment. Speaker 1 (15:02): All right, welcome back. So let's keep going. Bill, I think we've laid out pretty clearly that having bullies, I mean, there's going to be bullies in the workplace and we have to do what we can to restrain them so that they can produce their best work. So now let's move on to what should an organization do? SO'S start at the management level. Let's say you are the department manager supervisor and you have a team or two working with you, and you have these discussions coming up and they have their own either private discussions in person or they're in Slack channels or on Facebook groups. Wherever it is, you're starting to hear about it and people growing uncomfortable with this person just keeps going on and on about this and telling me I'm wrong and whatever the case may be, and it's causing disruption in the workplace. So what's a manager to do? Well, Speaker 2 (16:10): It's tricky because if you follow my thinking of firm boundaries, I think that it's good for an organizations and managers to have a policy. And one of the policies that didn't become clear to me until writing this book about bullies is that we think of free speech as you should be able to say anybody should be able to say anything. But what I realized is the bullying speech focuses on making it personal. So making it about the person, not the idea, not the issue, whatever is the person, the way you look, your morals, your ethics, you're stupid, you intelligence, Speaker 1 (16:57): You're an idiot, right? It's always your I hear that so often, idiot, idiot. Speaker 2 (17:02): That's where the discussions often head downhill to the spiraling to the bottom of the basement where you're an idiot. No, you're an idiot. But the thing I think is if we can have a policy that we will try to avoid making conflicts personal, that will try to stay focused on the issue that saying, I've been saying a lot lately is keep the conflict small because small conflicts usually can be easily resolved the bigger you get, and people escalate to bigger and bigger to the point where it can't be resolved, and then it gets personal and people say, you're an idiot, or you don't know what doing, or in the legal profession, it's like, how did you ever get a law degree says one lawyer to another disrespectfully, try not to make things personal. And I think managers as the leaders, and so much of standards has to do with leaders. Speaker 2 (18:08): Leaders really set the tone for organizations. So if they can say, we're going to try not to make stuff personal, the world is just Rico ricocheting with nasty comments, and we really want to be a team. We want to nurture each other, we want to be glad we're here, we want to look forward to seeing each other when we come to work, whether it's on Zoom or in the office. And I think that that kind of approach makes people feel safe, feel welcome, but I don't believe that unbridled speech makes a group grow closer. I think it makes a group divide and that the dividing line is this, making it personal. If it's not personal, then you can say just about anything. But if you allow personal attacks, you're going to end up dissolving your organization, your family, your marriage. Research on marriage shows that disdainful remarks basically will underline a relationship. Speaker 2 (19:15): So I think we're caught up with the idea of freedom of speech today without being really clear what it means. And while I'm at it, I want to add, there was the congressional hearings with three heads of universities about free speech, and it was about Israel and the Palestinians, Hamas, et cetera. And I think where the problem came in is the idea that if we have pure free speech, then people are going to say things like death to this group or death to that group. And to me, that's the kind of line we don't want to cross that we can hear each other's opinions. But when we start talking about it, making it personal that that's where there really should be a line drawn. And I don't know that it should have to be like you go to prison if you cross that line, but that we should all make an effort not to cross that line and that people don't think about it. They think if I say I don't like Fred versus I think Fred should die, that those are two totally different speeches. And I think that we have to realize that making it personal, that does not help having some kind of internal guideline. And that's where I think managers can help people say, let's have an internal guideline that we're not going to make it personal here, that we're a team or a work group and let's solve problems by focusing on the problems, not the person. Speaker 1 (20:53): That's brilliant. Bill. I do, I focus on the policy of not making it personal. That's very clear. What does a manager do though when they don't have the support of let's say, executive leadership or the company internal policies? I guess what you're saying is there's only so much you can do when you're in that situation. And what that something is, and it isn't only I think it can be very powerful, is to be that leader who says on our team, here's how we're going to relate to each other. Speaker 2 (21:26): Exactly, exactly. I think that's what you can do. You don't have to have a rule or a policy to even say that. I think you're right. Speaker 1 (21:35): And just work one-on-one with that individual, connecting with that individual setting limits, helping them analyze options. And I think if you are a manager listening to this and you've had a situation like this and you've perhaps had an employee who is a very strong intimidating bully, I would say that's where HR and an employee relations comes in. There needs to be, it probably would need to be escalated. Would you agree? Yeah. Speaker 2 (22:05): And I think this is where coaching comes in, is if we have signed of some guidelines that we're coaching around like, Hey, Joe, you crossed that line we talked about a couple months ago, which is let's not make it personal and it's making it uncomfortable for other people and we value you as an employee. Let's practice, and you can do this with a coach. Let's practice roleplaying. Some situations where somebody's like spills your coffee or something and what you can say so that people learn the words they can use. And I find coaching people often they say, I just didn't have the words. I didn't know I could say it that way. And so I blurted out something else. And I think some of the research shows that you really can coach a lot of people in the workplace into better behavior. Maybe let's say somewhere between 60 and 80% can improve their behavior. Maybe 20% will end up having to leave the organization even despite coaching. But I think it's really worth it to not just reprimand or argue with people, but say, let's practice what you can say in this situation and people will like you better and you'll be more successful. Speaker 1 (23:29): So now let's talk about human resources or employee relations. So it's surpassed the manager level and now we're in HR and there's two maybe groups of employees in disputes or two people not getting along over this. It's disrupting a whole team, maybe a whole department. What's HR to do? Speaker 2 (23:54): I guess I'm going to come back to coaching. I think if you can say, look, let's give two people, just keep getting into conflict. Let's give them both three coaching sessions to manage their behavior. And guess what? We have a method called New Ways for Work Coaching, which actually can help with this. It's simple skills, giving each other empathy, attention and respect or ear statements, practicing Biff response emails. I was consulted with by one of the high tech companies. We had a middle manager who was a fairly brilliant person from another country, so she was an immigrant in a sense. We value her work, but she was really turning people off. She had, I don't know, 30 employees and wrote nasty emails. And they said, well, let's give her some coaching, try three coaching sessions to teach her how to do Biff, emails brief, informative, friendly, and firm, and see if she can change even a little bit so that she's on the road to changing a lot and then decide what to do. Speaker 2 (25:06): Because often organizations feel like I have to decide what to do based on where things are at right now. And high tech companies have a lot of brilliant people they want to hold on to. So give them coaching. Don't just go, well, you're fired, or Well, we're going to tolerate your bad behavior. Neither of those may be the right answer. Give them some coaching and then see what needs to be done. So I think HR should encourage coaching more because I think in many cases HR feels their hands are tied and that either nothing's going to happen or they're going to have to try to move the person out. And this is an intermediate step. And today the rules are so vague that people don't know, am I violating? The rules are not of behavior, of decent behavior. So I think HR needs to be backed up with more tools like coaching. Speaker 1 (26:03): And now let's move to lastly to the employee themselves. So let's say you're experiencing this as the person who seems to be being bullied or picked on, or you feel like the tension in the department and what do you do? Speaker 2 (26:19): A lot of employees do feel bullied. And in the United States there's very few anti-bullying in the workplace laws. Some states are starting to have some for some categories of employees, certain kind of workplace situations, but mostly there's no anti-bullying laws like there is anti-sexual harassment laws. There's more about that than there is about bullying. But I think as coaching employees who feel bullied, first of all, I encourage them to talk to somebody. And of course, if you're in HR and they're talking to you or you're an ombuds person at a university and they're talking to you, that's a good start. And let them know, first of all, that it's not fair to be bullied. It's not right. It's against policies and also that they're valued because people often don't feel valued. They feel like I'm the target of a bully and nobody cares. And so listen to them, understand what they're experiencing, and then often talk about their options. Speaker 2 (27:33): You could speak up to the bully maybe, or tell management, and someone will talk to the bully. You could ask to change divisions. Some people go, I like the company, but I don't like my boss. And so look into options to change positions. Maybe even get some assertiveness training for themselves. Even three coaching sessions can help a bullied employee feel more confident and get better at setting limits. Maybe they need to learn, it's okay to say, if you keep talking to me that way, I'm going to have to leave this conversation to a peer, not a boss. That's a harder one. But to appear, you can say that people don't realize they can end a conversation if somebody's speaking real disrespectfully to them. So you say, if you keep saying that, and we've talked about that before on this podcast, if you keep talking to me that way, I'm going to end the conversation. Speaker 2 (28:31): Okay, I see you've chosen for me to end the conversation. They kept talking that way with a boss is, Hey, can you clarify? You've given me six urgent assignments. I can only do them in order, which would be the first priority. So learning to be able to talk like that to employees, to coworkers, to supervisors may really help an employee. I know we've gone into organizations and trained a whole team, 20, 30 people with some of these types of skills, and people feel better, they feel more confident, and the organization has standards that value them rather than put them adrift. So these are just some thoughts, but I think it's having a sense of setting limits and giving people empathy, attention and respect. Finding the balance is true for individuals as well as organizations. Speaker 1 (29:31): Well, that's a good way to wrap this up, bill. That was excellent. So we'll put some links to our new Ways for Work coaching training. We have two or three of those coming up this year. So if you're in management or hr, mostly HR coaching, employee relations, that's a good one for you. And we're also just now announcing this year we'll have new ways for work for leaders, so speak for managers, directors, supervisors to learn how to handle situations just like this. We have lots of other things as well. We have employee coaching now in the individual section of our website. So we'll put all those links in the show notes. Thank you for listening as usual, and want to remind you to send your questions to podcast@highconflictinstitute.com or submit them to high conflict institute.com/podcast. And we'd love it if you tell your friends and colleagues about us, and we'd be very grateful if you'd leave a review wherever you listen to our podcast. Until next time, keep learning and practicing these skills. Be kind to yourself and others while we all try to keep the conflict small. It's All Your Fault is a production of True Story FM Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins and Ziv Moran. Find the show notes and transcripts at True story fm or high conflict institute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.