If you walk around your office or factory this morning, you probably could point out the perverts, mean idiots and potential abusers in your midst.
The workplace jerks are rarely kept hidden. Often times, even the people in human resources know Bob has a porno problem, or Sue starts cursing and throwing things when a project fails.
Why then is it so difficult to rid the work environment of these people, especially in a tough economic environment when so many people are getting laid off? I often hear from readers that all the good employees were let go but for some reason the higher ups thought it was a good idea to keep the one toxic worker.
In many cases, the people in the corner office don’t really want to know what’s going on on the ground and are turning a blind eye to it. They probably don’t even take time to read a file on an employee if they’ve convinced themselves that guy or gal is helping boost the bottom line. And some of these workplace jerks come off really well, even confident.
This is why these people get hired in the first place.
Carolyn Kepcher, founder of Work Her Way, did a blog post yesterday asking whether these types of employees can be spotted before they’re hired, as a way to prevent violence in the workplace.
It is, in fact, possible to predict the potential for violence with a high degree of accuracy. The science is there, and it’s in use every day in the workplace. Behavioral experts have helped to thwart violent acts before they happen, saving lives in the process.
It would be a great thing, but there are many caveats.
While I’m all for keeping the abusers out of the workplace, we walk a fine line when we attempt to profile job candidates. Many employers already do psychological testing of applicants, and I’ve always questioned the validity of those, not to mention how these tactics would impact one gender or racial group. That’s a no no under our nation’s labor laws.
Also, hiring managers do background checks, including looking at credit histories. Some believe bad credit may be a harbinger of a bad employee. But even this kind of worker snooping is starting to get labor law enforcement agencies worried because they to may hit a particular group harder than others.
And there are few if any tools for a job seeker trying to figure out if she or he is headed right into a toxic environment when they accept a job.
Some online sources are attempting to offer a type of Angie’s List for workers. eBossWatch recently launched a National Sexual Harassment Registry. I recently wrote about a background check service they were offering, and this seems to be an extension of that:
The National Sexual Harassment Registry is a searchable database of people who have been formally and publicly accused of sexual harassment by their subordinates or coworkers. The Registry is designed to be a resource to help job seekers better evaluate potential employers and to help organizations better evaluate job candidates.
Why the abuser is still at a company after a sexual harassment charge has been made public might be a bigger question about the company’s management’s sense?
There are some things to look for during an interview if you want to try and spot a sexual harasser, according to Ramani Durvasula, professor of psychology at California State University, Los Angeles:
* Language and boundaries: A job interview is obviously a “best behavior” scenario - certainly for the interviewee - this is supposed to be the person at his or her “best”, and one would like to think that is the case for the interviewer who may be the potential supervisor. What is their use of language? Are they using inappropriate verbiage (e.g. obscenity, off-color terminology, sexual referents), during this interview? Are they respecting the boundaries of the situation? Obviously at the most extreme, if this person touches you, or asks you to do something inappropriate (e.g. hey - would you ever consider dating your boss?) - that is obviously a red flag. But also look for other kinds of questions about family, spouse, dating, money, etc that may smack of “too much information” for a job interview.
* Information: If this is a detailed multi-interview process, and you get the luxury of speaking to other subordinates of your potential supervisor, ask strategic questions about their experience of working for him or her. Beyond the usual around what his or her working style is - ask them, what they liked best, worst, any concerns etc. And listen CAREFULLY to the answers. If the subordinate is still there - it is highly unlikely he is going to “out” his or her boss to an unknown person. So just listen.
If you listen, but still don’t hear much, don’t kick yourself. The interview process can be nerve racking and there’s a good chance you’ll be so wrapped up in your own performance you’ll miss important signs.
In some ways, it seems like job seekers and workers with jobs are on their own. Clearly, you can confront bad behavior head on. If nothing happens, report it to human resources or a manager. If nothing still happens, you can move on to another employer.
Alas, in this economy, everyone’s options are limited.
You can find a support network. Women and men looking for anonymous help with a harasser can check out Professional Women’s Anonymous.
But in the end, we have to realize that the workplace is just like the world at large. There are some great people out there and there are some pretty scummy people out there. How we deal with all these folks, whether we’re a rank and file employees or high level managers, is what will define us and our work.
How are you handling a jerk you work with, or who works for you? How did you handle such a person in the past?
July 27th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Yet another reason why I choose to work for myself. lol If there is only one person allowed to harass or abuse me, that person be ME. (I think I do enough of that as it is…no need to bring in a 3rd party to make me miserable!) Plus I do not have to deal with the personal dramas some toxic employees wield daily. While it is great that all these tools are at workers’ disposal to out unsavory characters, I really wish they would keep them from coming through the gates in the first place.
That would be such a service to good employees everywhere!
Karen, The Resume Chick (on Google or Twitter if you need me)
July 27th, 2010 at 9:08 am
You are right Karen, stopping them from getting in the gates would be ideal. But unfortunately, that’s easier said than done.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:13 am
And now you have me thinking of entrepreneurs Karen, like yourself. I’ve written a lot about small businesses and one of the big issues has been dealing with customers, disgruntled customers, stupid customers, customers who won’t pay. Even as business owners we can’t shield ourselves from the jerks of the world. What’s different for entrepreneurs if they often have to take some of the abuse adopting the customer-is-always-right mentality. You can do this for only so long. But we all put up with a lot for the job. That’s not to say anyone should be abused. I’ve seen that type of behavior impact the mental health of workers, not to mention the physical health if violence occurs. You can’t just read a career book that will tell you how to deal with this situation. You have to look at your particular circumstances and come up with your own plan of action.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:37 am
I believe one reason why many employees are hesitant to fire “the jerks” is this–they are perceived as the ones most likely to sue for wrongful dismissal if given the axe. I’ve worked closely with a number of HR people who have had to build cases for dismissal–yes, build cases! They’ve had to document everything and had to keep a lot of history before senior management was willing to let difficult people go. This was especially true if the employees were subtle drags on the workplace, or a source of ongoing low-level issues. Those with major issues (like the person who thought the new color printer would be perfect for printing his porn collection over the weekend, and fogot to pick up the prints before the work week started), typically left in strom clouds large enough that there was enough supporting information in the most current event to allow for a dismissal.
It’s a shame when fear of a lawsuit from a bad employee holds more sway than the potential harm such employees pose to the company and other employees.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Thanks for an excellent article. You’ve opened up a whole new facet of this topic–what if the potentially dangerous employee makes it past the hiring screening and lands a job? Should they be let go, preferably during a probationary period, or should they be kept on until they do something that causes harm to another person or exposes the organization to a potential lawsuit?
I’m not a huge fan of multiple-choice psychological testing; it has its limitations, as do many of the employment screening options. As you say, they can and have been used to unfairly screen out certain ethnic or racial groups.
However, I’m in favor of training that helps hiring managers to look past stereotypes and pick up behavioral cues. It’s the opposite of profiling, really, since racial and ethnic profiling looks at things like skin color and accents, which are totally meaningless predictors of future performance. Behavioral signals are what flushes out the well-dressed, well-spoken potential problem.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I first would not classify anyone as a jerk, I would simply note that the employee is lacking the proper “attitude”. Attitude is my number one button. Every employee must have the proper mind set that will allow them to flourish or even simply co-exist in the work environment. The best tactic I have found for bad or disruptive attitudes is to sit the employee down, look eye to eye and say point blank…are you with the program or not…if not perhaps you should find another job. You would be amazed how this can shake someone up who does not realize that they even have an attitude or are being a jerk. (Oh I forgot, I do not use that term.)
July 30th, 2010 at 9:33 am
I agree with you to a point, Jim - this works unless we’re talking about an employee who is engaging in seriously aberrant behavior. They may not have the ability to adjust their attitude and function well in the workplace (or society).
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Interesting thread on the workplace “jerk.” Jim, there are many kinds of people whose behavior goes beyond a “proper attitude” as the reason for their jerkiness. I once worked for a very famous, highly funded and well regarded research institution. One of my supervisors was a tenured doctor whose behavior was quite aberrant–shoving chairs across the room when he got annoyed, door slamming, and looking the other way when post docs whom he managed were creating a hostile environment for a minority worker. It took nearly a year to build a case against this doctor–only AFTER the miniority worker grew tired of being the focus of much hostile behavior by others. The minority worker left the research institution, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, and they ended up having to settle out of court (I was a witness called for the inquiry made by HR because I was a direct report to the doctor in question). The doctor ended up being demoted (lost his lab and put on an ice floe so-to-speak) but he got to keep his tenure and his title. Justice? Unfortunately, no. So, this is indeed a difficult situation for all parties–especially when workplace violence or harrassment is creating a difficult enviroment. There is no way to fully filter workplace jerks–especially if they are considered intellectually invaluable to the company.