Five Tips for Dealing with Uncomfortable Office Talk

I would like to welcome Holly McCarthy as our first guest writer. The following article comes from her blog at www.careeroverview.com/blog. As you can tell, she writes interesting articles on careers and job searches and this article focuses on office culture.

By Holly McCarthy

One of the unwritten rules of social conduct is that you should never engage people in conversations related to the topics of politics or religion. Some people, however, fail to realize just why we don’t bring these topics up with others, especially in the workplace. These topics can be particularly divisive and can create many problems within an office culture.

Other uncomfortable topics of discussion have to do with finances and business ventures. Oftentimes a co-worker will attempt to engage you in a conversation related to his or her home business. None of these topics are appropriate for the workplace, end of story. What follows is a list of a few tips for dealing with uncomfortable office talk.

Avoid those trying to initiate the discussion.

If at all possible, avoid the people who are trying to discuss divisive issues such as politics or religion. Perhaps these people congregate in a certain part of the office or have lunch together. Do your best to avoid these people when they are discussing these matters, and maintain a professional demeanor around them, avoiding rudeness or confrontation.

Don’t get involved.

If you absolutely cannot avoid being around these people, make sure you don’t encourage their behavior. As the saying goes, silence is golden. After a while, they may begin to get the message loud and clear without you having said anything at all.

Politely excuse yourself.

Again, if you happen to find yourself in a situation where being in contact with these people is unavoidable and you are uncomfortable, politely excuse yourself. If someone wishes to confront you or questions why you are leaving, explain why in a neutral manner. Letting them know that you don’t think it’s appropriate, whether you agree or not, is the main reason for not engaging in the conversation.

Change the subject.

Maybe you really do like the people, but don’t like discussing these sorts of matters at work. Make a joke or try and change the subject. Doing this a few times will let them know that you certainly want to be part of a conversation with them, but on another, less controversial topic.

Notify a supervisor.

If you feel that the conversations are inappropriate and are beginning to feel alienated or harassed, it is time to let someone else know. Many offices and companies forbid discussions related to politics and religion, and trying to drum up business at work is certainly a conflict of interest.

Note from Dale. Again, I want to thank Holly for finding my blog and contacting me. If you would like info on my Workplace Attitudes Test and possibly avoid problems like those Holly discusses please visit www.workplaceattitudes.com

Are Jerks Disruptors or Are Disruptors Jerks?

This blog has talked about jerks in the workplace and I was discussing this with a friend the other day. He made a point that I found interesting. He said that jerks are everywhere and they earn their status in a variety of ways, but jerks in the workplace are simply disruptive.

In the search to be ever more precise in using language, it appears to me that the “jerk in the workplace” description should be replaced by the word “disruptor.” To put it simply, if an individual yells at his spouse, kicks his dog and flips the bird to various people on the way to work, that person is a jerk. But once at work, if that person does a good job and treats others with a modicum of respect, that person may be a jerk but he is not a disruptor.

The Workplace Attitudes Test does a great job at identifying disruptors because it focuses upon the workplace. All the questions are related to workplace attitudes. Yeah, I know all you fathers with teenage daughters are probably saying, “You mean to tell me that I can’t use the Workplace Attitudes Test to weed out all those dweebs who are trying to date my daughter?” No, sorry, dweeb alerts are outside my field of expertise.

I think dweeb might be a little like a jerk, a little too general, and maybe a bit too imprecise. See www.workplaceattitudes.com to learn more about disruptors who may also be jerks or dweebs.

The Trickle-Down Theory

This morning on iGoogle I noticed an article referring to WikiHow entitled “9 ways to get by while living in your car.” This is depressingly relevant to more and more people. The situation stems from an abuse of trust and lack of regulation. I fear it was those at the top who proved James Madison’s admonition, “If men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” Anderson Cooper on CNN has a feature called “10 despicable bastards considered responsible to for our present economic situation.” (I paraphrased that.) Even Anderson thinks that 10 are not enough. I am reminded of a comment by Barnie Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts, in response to the statement, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” He said, “yeah, but what if you don’t have a boat?”

I must admit that I feel a little guilty testing people at the lower levels for “good workplace attitudes.” How many people with good attitudes worked for Enron and Merrill Lynch? I bet it was plenty, in fact the vast majority. It only took those at the top to bring the others down. Sure there are jerks everywhere, but I’m not so sure that the crème rises to the top. What rises to the top seems to be more a matter of what a skimmer removes at a sewage treatment facility.

I know, in times such as these it is easy to be cynical. I wish it was as easy as the scenario in the movie “Network” where Peter Finch encourages us to go to the window and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” What then? The movie doesn’t say.

The Workplace Attitudes Test suggests that about one in twenty workers is a jerk. But there is another phenomna going on here. Jerks tend to congregate together and at all levels there is a tendency to ignore the rules. A lower-level jerk can be a pain in the butt to those around them, and jerks at the highest levels can cause untold damage, but the lesson is to ferret out jerks at all levels and don’t hire them. Hey, corporate boards don’t tolerate them. Government regulators, regulate them. Legislators, remember what Madison said about men (and women) not being angels and pass the appropriate legislation. Rules and consideration for one’s fellow man should apply to everyone. Maybe, the Workplace Attitudes Test should be considered a candle in the darkness. See, www.workplaceattitudes.com.

Workplace Attitude Insurance and More

I think you should assume that the Workplace Attitudes Test is like an insurance policy. But it is more than that. You buy insurance because you want to be compensated when something bad happens; you buy the Workplace Attitudes Test to prevent something bad from happening.

Our statistics show that about one in twenty hires is a bad one. That’s about five percent. Now I know you may think that the following quote could apply to me: "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts, for support rather than illumination." Andrew Lang (1844-1912) But I say unto you, as Johnny Carson said to Ed McMahon, “Wrong moose breath!” It really is about five percent.

Plus I’m not saying this as a perception thing. Like George Carlin observed, “Have you ever wondered why everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot?” It’s really is about five percent.

Yes, about one in twenty potential employees has an attitude problem. How many times have you had thoughts like this: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." (Clarence Darrow) Or along the same line, consider this quote from Mark Twain, "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."

Now, at least in the workplace, you don’t have to have these sentiments. You can screen out these people before nature does it for you. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.

So What’s the Problem With Self-Help Books?

Alright I admit it, I like self-help books. They might be a bit self-delusional but I think that they do a lot of good. What’s wrong with someone deciding that they need improvement and to seek out the inspiration to go about the task? Hell, even Ben Franklin made a list of things to improve on. At the very least, self-help efforts are good antidotes to such smug assertions as “We’re all screwed” or “Life is like a chicken ladder covered with shit from top to bottom.”

Sure Einstein probably didn’t read self-help books, but he had the intellectual tools to begin with. The rest of us probably could use the boost. Now, you have probably noticed that I have ended several sentences with a preposition. That reminds me of the old joke about the tourist who visits Harvard and asks “Excuse me sir, but could you please tell me where the library is at?” The Harvard man replies, “We at Harvard do not end a sentence with a preposition.” The tourist says, “Oh, I’m sorry, could you tell me where the library is at, asshole?” Why do I think that people who don’t end sentences with a preposition tend not to read self-help books? For more on attitude see: www.workplaceattitudes.com

What’s Up Down Under

Recently I received an e-mail from Fiona Smith, Work Space Editor of the “The Australian Financial Review” who wanted to interview me about the Workplace Attitudes Test. We scheduled a call for 4:00 pm in Washington, DC two days later. When I got the call I said, “Good morning, you’re up early,” and she seemed pleased that I knew that there was a 17 hour time difference. I try to sound moderately intelligent with reporters and invariably nice because I remember the quote, “Never argue with a person who buys ink by the barrel.”

Fiona Smith was very nice (I hope you read this Fiona) and was writing about some companies in the Australian workplace where jerks and bullies are less tolerated than they used to be. Her article is entitled “Now be nice – there’s no place for bullies” and it is in The Australian Financial Review, June 17, 2008. She starts her article by saying, “At Arup Australasia, there is a ‘no dickheads’ policy. If you can’t treat others with respect, you won’t be tolerated.”

She is quoting the managing director of this engineering consulting firm, Robert Care. Robert, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The article goes on to cite examples of intolerance for intolerance, or as the fine folks down under might say “We are not going to dick around with dickheads.”

Then Fiona went on to describe how to identify these people and she got to me - well, what I mean is she got to my Workplace Attitudes Test. The following four paragraphs are from her article.

“There are many consultancies offering psychological testing to make sure that new recruits will fit into the culture of their new employer, but one company in the U.S. is selling a test specifically targeted at weeding out jerks.

The president of Allegiance Research Group, Dale Paulson, says his Workplace Attitudes Test has not yet been picked up by the big corporations – ‘HR people are not as receptive’ – but is proving popular with small businesses, franchises, associations, and even a policy academy.

‘About ninety percent of problems come from ten percent of employees – people who have chips on their shoulders’ he says. The 45 question test, developed nine years ago, is very effective at the lower levels of the organization and for supervisors, he says, but, realistically, is unlikely to be used at the top of the organization. ‘If you are making ten million dollars you get to be a jerk’ he says.

But wouldn’t people with a history of difficulty working with others be tempted to lie about their attitudes in a test? ‘No, they are actually proud of their attitudes. They come in and say things like, ‘it’s a dog eat dog world,’ ‘you can’t trust anyone,’ and, ‘if you step on my toes and you don’t apologize you are going to get broken toes.’ he says.”

And so folks, I’m here to tell you that in addition to shrimp on the barbie and Foster’s beer, there are jerks in Australia, except they are generally referred to as “dickheads.” See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

Some Thoughts on Vindictiveness

I remember the old Kingston Trio song, “I shot the Sheriff, got ninety-nine years and it sure has been a lesson to me.” Problem is, I don’t think vindictive people feel much regret. What is it with this mind-set? Vindictive people seem to feel compelled to “Get even.” This suggests that they see life as a zero-sum game where some people win and others lose. If they see themselves losing, they must do something to balance the game. Most people see the world in terms of cooperation where win-win possibilities dominate.

Vindictive people are quite proud of their assumptions. They tend to agree with these types of statements: “If someone insults me, I remember it for a very long time,” “Don’t get mad, get even,” and “I’m the wrong person to cross.” Vindictive people tend to be mad most of the time.

I’ve been told that they get more ulcers, have higher blood pressure and tend to have more heart attacks. I have even read somewhere that evolution hasn’t had enough time to eliminate these types of people. In the meantime you might want to avoid hiring them by visiting www.workplaceattitudes.com

Some Thoughts on Entitlement

One of the values tested in the Workplace Attitudes Test is a sense of entitlement. Of course some people feel very entitled, others not at all. I believe that a strong sense of entitlement makes a person more difficult to work with. In the workplace, problems arise because the highly entitled may assume that they are not being sufficiently rewarded, they tend to see work as an obligation rather than an opportunity, and they often feel put upon if they are asked to do anything extra.

Entitlement is an interesting value and it has, on occasion, been a source of humor. I am reminded of Woody Allen’s lament, “Oh Lord if you could only give me a sign—like putting 10 million dollars in a Swiss bank account in my name.” Or the story of a man named Joseph who prayed every day for thirty years to win the lottery. One day on a hilltop he beseeched God “God, why have you not honored my prayer? I attend church every week, I tithe, I am good to my family and my fellow man and yet you don’t honor my prayer.” And God spoke to Joseph, “So Joseph, buy a ticket.”

Why do we find this so funny? I think that it is because we all feel entitled to some degree. But like the other values measured in the Workplace Attitudes Test, values that are extreme and inflexible cause problems.

Recently there has been a lot of buzz about generational differences concerning entitlement. It has been argued that when you raise children where everyone gets a trophy, you area fostering entitlement. A recent generation has been labeled the “Me Generation.” The proportion of people from different generations may differ on a variety of values, but I caution you to remember that entitlement is an individual characteristic. We hire individuals not generations. This is where skilled interviewing and a good pre-employment test will help. See: http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

Why Does the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT) Work?

I think that the WAT test works for some very simple reasons: it has a limited objective; it is based on understanding values from the right cohort; people are fairly open about their beliefs and values and extreme or disruptive behavior results from holding certain values in the extreme. Let’s look at each point.

WAT’s limited objective. When I set out to develop the WAT I sought to answer a simple question. Do disruptive workers share certain identifiable attitudes? I made the assumption that the workplace is almost always a social environment and I wanted to understand individuals who do not get along well with others. This is much easier than trying to understand personality or trying to match people to a certain type of job. Personality has many components and jobs can be done in a variety of ways but there appears to be a limited number of ways to be disruptive in the workplace.

The right cohort. A cohort is simply a group of people that share some characteristic. I refer to them as turkeys or jerks. Fortunately they’re not hard to find and they tend not to be bashful. Part of my research included going to supervisors in various types of organizations and asking if it would be possible to interview some present or past employees about their work-related beliefs and attitudes. I didn’t say I was looking for jerks and I interviewed all kinds of employees but, in truth, it was a turkey hunt. I correlated problem employees with many variables such as job-hopping, negative work experiences, dislike of work in general, involvement in law suits, etc. As you may appreciate, it is not hard to find problem employees.

Beliefs and Values. Short of saying, “Yes I am a jerk,” turkeys or jerks are quite willing to talk about their beliefs and values. Often this is to amplify their low opinion of others. You’ve heard of the term “a people person,” well these are “anti-people persons.” Where Will Rogers said he never met a person he didn’t like, these individuals almost never met people that they do like. I am reminded of the pundit who said, “I love humanity, it’s people I don’t like,”

Now to understand values one must ask open-ended questions. This is much like the jury-consultant approach. They ask questions like, “What do you think of the justice system?” This is followed up with such questions as “Why do you think that?” or “Why do you feel that way?” Now, I’m not going to go into the exhaustive set of questions that I asked jerks and non-jerks but I am going to tell you about some of their answers and attitudes.

Here are some of the scintillating insights found in their answers. “Most people are stupid.” “You can’t trust anybody.” “My boss is so stupid, he couldn’t find his ass with both hands.” “I spend my nights lying awake thinking of ways to get even.” “Work sucks but you have to do it.” “I never get a break.” “I should be making more money.” And one of my favorites, “Step on my toes and forget to apologize and I’ll kick your ass—I don’t care who you are.” I was wise enough not to suggest steel-toed shoes for the last one. I could go on, but you get the idea. Next let’s look at some of the attitudes that underlie these sentiments. To name a few, the problem attitudes include judgmental, vindictive, adversarial, egocentric and entitled.

Extreme values. I found a strong correlation between disruptive behavior and holding the above mentioned values in the extreme. For each value, five test questions were developed. Each question had three options, one weak, one moderate and one strong. For example, for the judgmental attitude the following question is an example:

When I feel I have been treated unjustly …

* I will do whatever is necessary to defend my rights.
* I seldom feel I have been treated unfairly.
* I probably should do more but oftentimes just let it go.

It is only when the respondent answers four of five questions like this it is deemed that they hold that attitude in the extreme.

Respondents have strong (belief-related) rationales for their extreme answers and these extremes are strongly related to disruptive behavior. This test works because people tend to be proud of their values and they use those values to justify their behavior. Although job candidates may not reveal this information in a job interview, they are willing to express themselves in the test.

There you have it. The WAT works because it doesn’t try to do too much, it is based upon understanding the right people, they are willing to reveal their beliefs if given the chance, and strongly held disruptive values are related to disruptive behavior in the workplace See: www.workplaceattitudes.com.

The Best is the Enemy of the Good

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the expression, “The best is the enemy of the good.” Just exactly what does it mean? I think it describes the tendency of some jerks to criticize any new or innovative idea that is not perfect. It is like saying, “Sure we are dealing with a crappy situation but your solution isn’t perfect and I don’t think we should settle for anything less than perfect.”

This allows the critic to take a position of moral superiority and yet not offer anything of value. I am often amazed how often people put up with this sort of jerkdom. Someone offers a good solution and our jerk takes the opportunity to raise their eyebrow, dip their chin and say, “It’s not perfect and I can’t agree.” Most often we as an audience say “Gee, I guess you could be right.”

This is a subtle form of jerkiness, and I think it may hide an inferiority complex. I suppose I should be more sympathetic but I choose a tranquil workplace over psychological tolerance. I am reminded of an episode of “MASH” where psychiatrist Sidney Freedman described Frank Burns and his problems by saying, “He is such a walking sack of fertilizer that it is hard to care.” Now I’m not totally unsympathetic. For example I would probably chastise the wag who said of someone with an inferiority complex, “It’s not a complex.”

Each of us must decide to what extent jerk behavior should be tolerated, but all of it has its cost. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

A Fork in the Road

There is a parable about an old gent who lived near a fork in the road. Let’s give him a long white beard and assume that he was very wise. I’ll call him Oscar. Oscar would sit near the road smoking his meerschaum pipe filled with happy-go-lucky brand tobacco and passers-by would ask him about what it was like in the next town. Well, granting that Oscar sat near a fork in the road, there were two towns ahead but it didn’t really matter because the conversation was always pretty much the same. When someone would ask, “What are the people like in the next town?” Oscar would ask them “What were the people like in the last town?” They would say, “They were mean and unpleasant, that’s why I am moving on,” or they would say, “I loved those people and I hated to move.” Oscar would reply, often in a cloud of smoke, “Well, I think you’ll find the folks in the next town pretty much the same.”

I called Oscar wise because he was always right. I think it had something to do with understanding the importance of attitude. See: www.workplaceattitudes.com

So High Self-Esteem is a Good Thing Right?

During the interview the job candidate has a great deal of self-confidence and obviously has high self-esteem and you’re thinking this is going well. But it turns out that researcher, Michael Kernis, Ph.D, Professor of Psychology at the University of Georgia says, “There are many kinds of high self-esteem, and in this study we found that for those in which it is fragile and shallow it’s no better than having low self-esteem.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/28/health/webmd/main4050443.shtml

Now there is good self-esteem and bad self-esteem. The self-esteem goodnicks were less likely to be verbally defensive by blaming others or providing excuses when discussing past transgressions or threatening experiences. The baddies were more verbally defensive. The professor sums up, “These findings support the view that (high self-esteem involving) heightened defensiveness reflects insecurity, fragility and less-than-optimal functioning rather than a healthy psychological outlook”

My conclusion, self-esteem probably is not a great predictor of job performance and HR professionals should probably stay out of the psychoanalytic business. I think that this is true of pre-employment tests as well. A good pre-employment test should be related to the job environment and not one’s personality.

The Workplace Attitudes Test makes the following assumptions: 1) the workplace is a social environment; 2) people should get along with each other; 3) people with bad attitudes don’t play well with others; 4) certain work-related attitudes pre-dispose people to act in certain ways; 5) workplace attitudes can be measured; 6) disruptive people, often described as jerks, have problem workplace attitudes; and 7) jerks, identified by behavior or consensus, are happy to reveal all of their workplace attitudes because they are proud of those attitudes.

The Workplace Attitudes Test works not because it is psychoanalytic, but because it looks at attitudes related to social aspects of the workplace. See, www.workplaceattitudes.com

Silly Me, I Thought It Was Obvious

Recently, I started a discussion session on the HR website called ERE and the address is http://www.ere.net/forum. The topic was “Should HR be Pro-Actively Anti-Jerk?” I even cited the book, “The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t” by Robert I. Sutton. This book describes the high costs of jerks in the workplace. It goes on to describe how jerks are personally abusive and that they tend to treat subordinates with derision and superiors with some respect.

About eighty percent of the comments tended to agree that jerks are costly and that HR should do its part to bring tranquility to the workplace. However, about twenty percent of the comments demonstrated a fair amount of tolerance for jerks.

One comment asked (in Latin) who is going to watch the watchers. My Latin is non-existent so to add insult to injury, I had to look up the quote on Wikipedia. Another person said that “One man’s victim is another man’s whiner.” Someone else said “The purpose of HR is to serve as a protective device. Make sure everything is legal, fair and compliant and quash anything likely to result in litigation. When you are done with all that then by all means, you may devote a few minutes per day to your Utopian ideals on human potential.”

Others have suggested that jerks are necessary to shake things up and to keep people on their toes and that if someone is really good at their job then jerkiness should be tolerated.

There you have it, some justifications for tolerating jerks in the workplace: (1) who has the right to judge; (2) their victims may just be whiners; (3) the anti-jerk idea is utopian; (4) people need jerks to motivate them; and (5) and some jerks are so important that we need to tolerate them.

This is an old debate, but I agree with James Madison’s sentiments when he said, “If men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” In other words, certain actions should be taken to guard against the worst instincts of some people. Even gun rights advocates tend to agree that hand-grenades and bazookas should be regulated. I’ll grant that some people would disagree, but they are jerks. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/

Why Jerks Kill Creativity

I suppose there are some jerks or turkeys working by themselves who are creative. But most endeavors, including creative endeavors, involve working with other people. As noted in earlier blog entries, jerks tend to demean other people, especially those working under them, and they generally pollute the work environment with caustic remarks.

Creativity may involve confrontation and the challenge of ideas but it cannot tolerate personal attack. Let’s look at the process of creativity to see why this is so. Some years ago I wrote a paper on creativity and group dynamics and I noted that there is a difference between renovation and innovation. Renovation involves the modification or improvement of something that already exists, whereas innovation involves the development of something new. I suggest that renovation can be strangled by jerks but innovation is stopped dead in its tracks.

Renovation is hampered by jerks because they tend to personalize critiques and this discourages suggestions. Innovation is stifled because this type of creativity requires some very special conditions that are antithetical to jerk behavior.

What are the conditions of creativity? I suggest the creativity requires: 1) persistent determination to solve the problem; 2) willingness to expand the boundaries of the problem; 3) willingness to consider multiple possibilities; and 4) respect for something I call the “gestalt.”

The persistent determination to solve the problem is somewhat self-explanatory. It involves a willingness to think about a problem and to learn as much as possible about things related to the problem. In short, it is strong curiosity. It is also lack of certitude, and jerks tend to be blessed by certitude. I am reminded of the quote by Bertrand Russell, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts.”

A willingness to expand the boundaries of the problem is another form of
open-mindedness. If the problem is faster communication, then breeding faster horses for the pony express is not as good as working on the telegraph. In fact, sometimes creative innovation finds a solution to a problem that you didn’t know existed. The Walkman and the Ipod come to mind. Again jerks get in the way. Steve Jobs appears to be an exception because some people think he is a jerk ( “The No Asshole Rule” book written by Robert Sutton, Ph.D.), but a creative one. I contend that he is a genius first and a jerk second. He would probably do even better if he were less of a jerk.

Willingness to consider multiple possibilities is a process where ideas need to be evaluated without regard to status or personality. I recall a story of a group of executives trying to solve the problem of long wait times at elevators at a busy hotel. There were many complaints. They finally decided it was necessary to tear out several hotel rooms to make way for more elevators. The lady cleaning the room and emptying the ashtrays muttered that she thought that this was silly. One of the executives was smart enough to ask her why she thought it was silly. She said, “Well at the last place I worked they had the same problem. They installed mirrors on each side of the elevators and people were so busy looking at themselves that they forgot about the wait time. The complaints stopped.” If the executive was a jerk, I suspect that he would not have asked the advice of a mere “cleaning lady.”

Finally, respect for the gestalt. This is a little more difficult to explain but many scientists suggest that oftentimes their pre-occupation with a problem is rewarded with a sudden solution to their problem. It springs full-blown into their mind. Oftentimes in the shower or at night. These insights must be respected and they seem to be the result of patient
open-mindedness. Again, jerks seem to be excluded from this process. Maybe you want to make your workplace more creative, see www.workplaceattitudes.com.

A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk

Now that would seem obvious. Why isn’t it? In a world that claims that there are no absolutes, believe me, there are absolutes. Newtonian physics is not cancelled out by Einstein’s theory of relativity, especially if you hit a tree at one hundred miles an hour in your car.

When it comes to jerks, I am reminded of that cartoon about two guys standing in a pot surrounded by cannibals. The caption reads “It doesn’t help to add more salt once you’ve crapped in the soup.”

Why do I bring this up? Well, I’ve been reading some blogs lately that say that one jerk in the workplace may be a good thing. The argument goes that some people are indispensable, that it is impossible to find enough reasonable people, and that one jerk will help keep everyone else on their toes.

There is an interesting book called The "No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t," written by Robert Sutton a professor at the Stanford School of Engineering and the founder and co-director of Stanford’s Center for work. He points out that there is a calculated “total cost of assholes” and it is surprisingly high, plus it is almost impossible to enforce a civility rule with one asshole (or jerk) in the workplace.

I have often wondered why there is such great tolerance for jerks. I think one of the reasons is that a lot of jerks have money and we have an almost irrational appreciation for conspicuous consumption. We tend to forgive people with wealth and give them credit for virtues that are conspicuously lacking. They also tend to like the attention and they get a lot of press. For every Warren Buffet, a reasonable man, there seems to be ten Donald Trumps. I like to refer to this as the jerk or asshole halo effect.

But let’s look a little closer at the behavior of the office jerk. Mark I. Schickman, in his review of the aforementioned book, says that jerks “take credit for other people’s work. They manage expectations by making employees feel bad about themselves. They have the laser-like ability to find the weakest, most insecure people and focus their aggression on them. The symptomatic behaviors include insults, threats, teasing, shaming and ostracizing.” http://hrheroblogs.com/resources/2008/02/06/the-no-asshole-rule-building-a-civilized-workplace-and-surviving-one-that-isnt

Do you want to have even one jerk in your workplace? Shouldn’t it be a primary function of bosses and HR to keep these people away from the rest of us? I am reminded of the Tylenol scare of a few years ago. Some nut was putting poison in Tylenol. It would have been unthinkable to say it was only a few poison capsules in millions and millions of bottles. Come on folks, end the suffering. Screen for jerks and assholes. See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

We Offer a 100% Money Back Guarantee and Frankly That Guarantee Isn’t Worth a Tinker’s Dam

If you’re wondering what a tinker’s dam is, it is usually defined as something that is worthless. Some think that it was a curse as in a tinker’s damn which was considered of little significance because tinkers were always swearing; or it is a tinkers dam which is a small dam to hold solder made by tinkers when mending pans and once used, it is then of no value. www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tinkers-damn.html

I lean towards the second tinker’s dam definition. Albeit, why would I say that the guarantee, for the Workplace Attitude Test (WAT), is worthless? The WAT test is designed to ensure that you don’t hire a person with a bad attitude in the workplace. Presumably, if you are asking for your money back you have hired a “turkey.” This puts you in a bit of a sticky wicket which is defined as a difficult situation.

(A wicket is the playing surface used in cricket. It is a direct allusion to the difficulty of playing on a wet and sticky pitch. www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/334550.html)

Overall, you’ve hired the wrong person and a few dollars back from us isn’t going to help you much. Fortunately, the Workplace Attitudes Test works well and no one has every asked for their money back.

See http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/

Hammocks, Margaritas and Turkeys

At this very moment, I find myself seated at my computer with a decided disinclination to write this blog. You see, I am visiting Ajijic, Mexico located thirty or so miles from Guadalajara. Ajijic is situated between the mountains and Lake Chapala meaning that it has one of the most pleasant climates in the world. Temperatures day after day hover at plus-or-minus three degrees of 72 degrees Fahrenheit. www.lakechapalasociety.org

This area attracts a lot of Americans and Canadians, and Canadians never tire of telling you, “We are just like Americans except that we are unarmed and we have health insurance.” After hearing this several times one sometimes wishes to be armed.

For me this looks like the land of hammocks and margaritas and naptime. It appears that one of the most pressing questions should be “prone or supine?” Imagine my surprise when one of the local American business people expressed interest in my Workplace Attitudes Test. It appears that everywhere there are people who will take advantage of the system and create problems for employers.

In Mexico the system decidedly favors the worker. Add to this the fact that some Americans have difficulty believing that other countries are not like the U.S. and you have a cauldron of misunderstanding.

In Mexico employers, including and maybe especially North American employers, have certain obligations to their employees even if part-time. This is probably as it should be but it includes maids and gardeners and others that we might consider self-employed, contract labor, or hired as part of a larger maid service or landscaping company, etc. The wages are low but when you hire someone, in many ways you take responsibility for them. You will be expected to pay for some vacation time and possibly other obligations such as payment into a retirement account or keeping them employed while you travel for a few months. In others words, they expect a certain amount of security. Loyalty cuts both ways and the system works well if both parties act in good faith.

One of the big problems is getting rid of someone with a bad attitude or someone who does not do the job. Most Mexicans work very hard for what we would consider very little money. Albeit, there are turkeys everywhere and woe be it to the Gringo employer who does not follow correct procedures when firing someone.

As I understand it, in Mexico there is something that is called a “Denuncio” where an aggrieved party goes to the local police station or City Hall to file a complaint. This is probably a little like a scene from the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy is told “You’re not in Kansas anymore.” Now you get to experience the legal system in a foreign country. Most people simple settle and this can be thousands of dollars. I heard a few stories about having to pay $25,000. This may explain the interest in the Workplace Attitudes Test in a village in Mexico.

At this point, please note that the Workplace Attitudes Test has not been tested or validated for use in a non-English-speaking foreign country. It should work, but I am not sure. I do know that there are plenty of turkeys to look for in the United States. So if you want to know more about the best darn bad attitude test available, please see www.workplaceattitudes.com.

Using The Workplace Attitudes Test With Existing Employees and The Supervisor Who Was Too Good

In most cases, people are hired for their aptitude and fired for their attitude. The primary goal of the Workplace Attitudes Test is to identify prospective employees with problem attitudes so the interviewer has the info and may decide not to hire them. In fact our welcome aboard letter reads as follows:

Congratulations,

You are about to enter a new era of employee selection. This is truly a breakthrough. Now for the first time you can understand the values that motivate potential employees. When selecting new hires you can avoid the landmines while you pick the cherries.

Without getting too complicated, we analyze workplace attitudes to predict likely behavior.

Wouldn’t you like to avoid potential employees who may sue you or your company?
How about identifying gadflies who would rather socialize than work?
Maybe you would like to know about people who are likely to be hostile to your customers or clients?
Conversely, how would you like to find people who are grateful to have a job, who are willing to put in extra effort, and who are team players?

Now you can.

All you need to do is have job candidates take the Workplace Attitudes Test which consists of forty-five questions, and we will evaluate it for you. You then receive a bar chart that describes the individual’s relevant workplace values and an overall score that tells you how likely they are to be disruptive in the work place. Remember, everyone is on their best behavior during the job interview. With the Workplace Attitudes Test you are in a position to hire good employees by avoiding bad ones. It makes you a better interviewer and applies to a variety of environments including business, non-profits, and the public sector.

Just because Ben Franklin wanted to make the turkey our national bird doesn’t mean that you have to hire one

This sums up the primary purpose of the Workplace Attitudes Test. Still, many companies have used it to evaluate and help existing employees. I used to think that this was a little like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. After all, once a person has worked for your organization you should know who has problem attitudes.

Also, the test reports on bad attitudes and as mentioned these are difficult to discuss. For example, an interviewer might not want to say “I see here that you are quite judgmental” or “I note that you tend to be a bit vindictive.” Dale Carnegie who wrote “How to Win Friends and Influence People” would not approve.

You can have the information but you don’t need to state it in a negative way. Each attitude relevant to the workplace is not single dimension, rather it exists on a continuum. That is, each bad attitude that is related to “disruptive behavior” has a corresponding attitude that is related to “getting along with people.” Next, I will look at the nine attitudes to show you what I mean.

Judgmental versus Accepting

Vindictive versus Forgiving

Adversarial versus Accommodating

Egocentric versus People-Oriented

Entitled versus Unassuming

Undisciplined versus Self-Disciplined

Insubordinate versus Respectful

Risk-Inclined versus Cautious

Non-Traditional versus Traditional

Each of the “bad” or disruptive attitudes has a corresponding “good” of socially-skilled attitude. Note our research has shown that the bad attitudes are disruptive only when they are extreme.

When working with existing employees and when reporting the results to a job candidate, it is the positive attitudes that are reported. It is important for the interviewer to understand that extreme and negative attitudes are warning signals, but is better to report the results in a positive way.

Although, it is the primary goal of the Workplace Attitudes Test to screen out potentially disruptive employees it is also useful for matching people to different types of workplace environments and to help some employees perform their jobs better.

In terms of matching people to work environments, command-and-control workplaces such as the military or the Catholic Church will likely find that individuals with respect for tradition and a respect for authority tend to fit in better. Conversely, entrepreneurial or team-building organizations may not need as much respect for authority and tradition and would prosper with people who are more self-disciplined and people oriented.

In one instance, the Workplace Attitude Test helped a young supervisor work with older sales representatives. Joyce was in her late twenties and supervised six sales reps who were twice her age. She did a great job. All of her reports were done on time, her meetings were short and efficient all of her staff liked her, business was great and she was miserable.

She wasn’t sure why she was miserable and discussions with her boss didn’t help. The big boss wanted to keep her and gave her raises and more time off, but still she was miserable. At that time, the Workplace Attitudes Test was under development and the entire staff agreed to take the test. No one had warning signals but the test solved the mystery.

Joyce proved to be accepting, forgiving, accommodating, people-oriented, unassuming, self-discipline somewhat cautious and very traditional.

Joyce’s sales reps were, well, sales reps. They too had good people skills, but they had little respect for authority, were a bit undisciplined, and quite entitled.

In short, Joyce wanted to please people, and her sales reps tended to take advantage of her. She met everyone’s needs but her own.

I am reminded of a great quote from the movie, “Three Days of the Condor” when a young CIA agent asks a grizzled old veteran played by John Housman, “What do you miss about the old days (referring World War II)?” Houseman replied, “The clarity.”

Joyce finally had clarity and the story has a happy ending. Joyce got a private office and a gatekeeper secretary. The sales reps could no longer barge in and talk to her at anytime. They had to make an appointment, unless it was critical, and they received an incentive to get their reports on time.

Joyce regained her sanity and the organization kept a good supervisor. To learn more, see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.

People Can Seem To Be So Darn Nice

I have come to the conclusion that I am a lousy interviewer. I have hired some real turkeys. I remember thinking what nice people they seemed to be. In future blog entries I’ll tell you about some of the worst but the person that I am thinking about now is a drama queen named “Gloria.” Of course, at the time, I didn’t know that she was a drama queen. After all, she made it obvious that she thought that I was clever and intelligent and that counts for a lot.

Later, I developed the Workplace Attitudes Test (WAT) and she agreed to take the test. The results showed that she is - well, a drama queen. She tested very high on entitled, undisciplined and insubordinate but what did I know? Now I consider the WAT the best darn bad-attitude screening device available today and Gloria deserves some of the credit for inspiring me to develop it.

Gloria did some part-time work for my company and then moved on when she found a full-time job. Gloria makes a good first impression because she has seemingly good social skills which are important in an interview. On the job, she is a disaster. She cannot focus because she prefers to socialize, and she quickly ignores the chain of command. She often fails to do her job or finish a project and always blames someone else. In other words, her survival skills are highly developed and she has a tendency to scapegoat people.

Supervising Gloria became a Herculean task for her new boss. Picture this, she was on several committees, interacted with almost everybody, especially the higher-ups and to her, work was party time. Several of her colleagues and her immediate boss became fed up with her but by then she had friends in all the right places.

It took over a year but after countless intrigue, much of it orchestrated by Gloria herself, she was finally encouraged to move on. And if you don’t want to fire someone like Gloria, you give her a good recommendation to make sure that she moves on. Did I mention that one of the people that Gloria befriended was the organization’s legal counsel? He thought a good recommendation might be wise. Of course, one can’t outright lie but everyone agreed that Gloria has great people skills. Take a look at www.workplaceattitudes.com and see what Gloria helped inspire.

Why Look for Bad Attitudes in the Workplace Rather Than Good Attitudes?

After all, if you are looking for good employees why not look for people with good attitudes? The simple answer is--it tends not to work. Looking for good attitudes does not identify individuals with bad attitudes.

I am reminded of a speech given by the president of a gold-mining corporation who stated “Our company must process two tons of dirt to find one once of gold.” An audience member then asked, “How is that possible?” The executive replied, “Well, you look for the gold, not the dirt.”

This is not as obvious as it first appears. For example, the goal of mental therapy is and was to develop well-adjusted happy individuals. Since Sigmund Freud, psychologists and psychiatrists tended to assume that the simple absence of mental illness equated to happiness.

It was Professor Martin E. P. Goldman of the University of Pennsylvania who did empirical research and turned this upside down. He developed a system that showed that happiness is not simply the absence of mental illness, rather it is a proactive phenomena based upon an individual’s beliefs and actions. He did not believe that happiness was the absence of mental illness and he began to look for the factors related to happiness, and a new branch of psychology was born called Positive Psychology. There is more info in his book “Learned Optimism” that was published in 1992.

I suppose it is possible to use Dr. Goldman’s system to identify individuals who score high on the happiness scale and this would likely produce happier workplaces. In fact, this may a good idea but there can be a few legal issues because pre-employment tests must be related to the workplace.

The Workplace Attitude Test focuses on identifying individuals who possess bad attitudes or warning signals that are related to disruption in the workplace and the test looks at a total of nine attitudes.

Without going into great detail, here are three attitudes that I found can be critical problems in the workplace. These include “judgmental” which involves a strong sense of right and wrong; “vindictiveness” which involves a zero-sum approach to relations with customers, fellow employees or supervisors; and “entitlement” which is somewhat self-explanatory. During our research to develop the Workplace Attitudes Test, when problem employees were interviewed it was discovered that these attitudes were almost always present in the extreme. Therefore, these attitudes - judgmental, vindictiveness, and entitlement – are included (among others) when we look for warning signals.

It would be wonderful if we could hire happy well-adjusted individuals every time but a more reasonable goal is to find people who don’t have a chip on their shoulders. For more details on Dr. Goldman’s research, see http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx. For more details about our Workplace Attitudes Test please see http://www.workplaceattitudes.com/.