I know that eavesdropping is bad, but traveling by train negates this moral principle. Eavesdropping on other people's conversations is possible, and sometimes even useful! Especially when people are sharing their sorrows and joys loudly, all over the train, and you, listening carefully, relate their unmade stories to your knowledge and life experience. I remembered this telephone confession, overheard the other day on the train, almost verbatim, because the described situation of bullying in the workplace is stereotypical, and I was pleased with the heroine's attitude towards her. And it was precisely this reaction of the “victim”, who does not consider herself a “victim” at all, that made me, as they said in old stories, take up the pen. I'll tell you what I heard.
A young woman works for a construction company. It has been working well for a long time. Her superiors were satisfied until her head of department hired a “deputy” who actively began taking revenge with the “new broom”. She started by putting two new employees in our heroine's department, whom she needed to get up to speed and supervise. And after a while, the heroine was instructed to do only her part of the job and not do anything over her deputy's head — not to call “subsidiary” organizations, not to contact partners working in conjunction with their company, not to check the data received from customers. Our heroine, realizing that with such an approach, the well-functioning mechanism of work would be completely disrupted and this could damage the company, continued to do what she had always done well - she controlled her work at all stages. After a while, the deputy started accusing her of something she had never done. She called her in and listed her “mistakes” she hadn't made. When our heroine asked the department staff, including those two “newcomers”, to confirm her point, no one wanted to support her and confirm that she really had nothing to do with these serious mistakes. Moreover, she heard a direct one-on-one threat from her deputy: “I'll make you eat the earth.” Our heroine was not a shy dozen and went to the head of the department. After politely expressing her complaints about the new leadership style, she asked if he had been happy with her work before. The boss smiled “sympathetically” and confirmed that he was always happy with her work. Our heroine asked him for advice on what to do — whether to listen to his “deputy”, but then serious mistakes and problems may really arise, or continue to act as before, trying not to argue. The boss did not answer her, but apparently said in defense of his zealous deputy: “People do not gain authority in a team right away.” Our heroine ended her telephone conversation with the statement: “I have decided that I will act as I am used to. In this case, at least I will be able to control my own work at all stages. In a situation where I can be accused of anything, I must be sure that I have brought everything to the desired result. If I only do my part and give it to her without knowing if it will reach the addressee, I may soon be accused of being unprofessional.”
Why did I decide to tell this story? It is very typical of today and, at the same time, it is full of stereotypes of bullying. Let's try to understand this bullying situation.
Our heroine should have been alert even when this “new broom” appeared. Managers usually hire such people in order to “optimize” the work of the team during a crisis. And these “SEOs”, who may find themselves in different positions in the company, understand their task for sure — to cut costs by getting rid of people who do their job either very poorly or very well, take on “too much”, know all the “pitfalls” of the workflow and have authority among their colleagues. Why do these people — good specialists and charismatic individuals — suddenly find themselves in the “risk group” and can be fired in the first place? The fact is that in an era of crises, the leadership is ready to take unpopular measures, and these people can form an opposition by persuading people to resist. The boss usually hires a deputy in order to strengthen the vertical of power. “Optimizers” or “crisis managers” are needed not so much to actually optimize the company's work, but to prepare people for dismissal with the least financial losses for the company. And to do this, people are often groundlessly accused of not working well, making mistakes, not following orders, not submitting plans and reports on time, letting the team down, etc. etc. Why does management need such trumped-up accusations? Under constant pressure from specially appointed people, employees begin to “go out of their way” to please their superiors. At this time, people become victimized, competition increases and, accordingly, it is easier to manage a team in which employees are afraid of being fired. But there is one more task that “optimizers” are faced with. It is necessary to collect a sufficient number of “flagrant facts of gross violations” about each employee in case he is dismissed. After proving “guilt” or “incompetence”, it is easier to fire a person not under the article “redundancy” with all social benefits prescribed by law, but under an article that does not involve any payments, but only involves a damaged reputation. And ruining a reputation is simply necessary in order to completely discourage the former employee from complaining about his former management — “they kicked him out for doing a good job there.”
Let's assume that the deputy in this story acts as such an “optimizer”. Apparently, our heroine did not understand the true intentions of her management. She didn't understand why they hired new employees. The deputy brought her people to the team to have support at a stage when unpopular measures are being taken and credibility has not yet been formed. And this is where the heroine should be wary. New people in the team in times of crisis — in time for the upcoming layoffs. Companies with financial difficulties often open vacancies for strikebreakers and “informers”.
Our heroine missed the moment when it made sense to go to the boss and talk. She should have done this right after the proposal to “curtail” her powers. It was at that moment that she should have gone to the head of the department to ask these right questions (“is he happy with her work”, “does he have any complaints against her”, “should she follow the lead of a deputy who does not yet understand the specifics of their work, and who can also make serious mistakes”). The heroine waited until she was told her imaginary mistakes in order to have levers of pressure on her and grounds for possible dismissal. If she had gone to her boss and asked all these important questions earlier, she would have known from his reaction whether he values her as a specialist in order to think through his behavioral strategy. In this conversation, she could outline what consequences the new leadership style could have for the entire company. Of course, not every manager should have such conversations, but our heroine's story led me to believe that her boss is a sane person. During the conversation, she warned him that her possible future “mistakes” would be related to his deputy's new orders. And then she did the right thing, shifting the boss's attention to the fact that the mistakes that would be reported to him or had already been reported were related to the work of the “new broom”.
Another tactical mistake made by the heroine of the story. In her department, she discussed this whole situation with her colleagues, ignoring the “Cossacks sent” whom her deputy put “under her wing”. You should not discuss superiors with colleagues. In a mobbing/bullying situation, colleagues most often take the position of observers or support attacks on the victim if they have long wanted to get even with her for something.
At the end of the phone conversation, my neighbor on the train admitted that she was going to continue doing everything as she saw fit, and then “see what happens next.” From her intonation, I understood that she was a strong woman and would go all the way. And I wish her to come out of this situation with honor. The question is the price she'll have to pay for this result. She can change the situation only if the head of the department does not have the task of “knocking” her out of this position by someone else's hands. If I were her, I would like to see a little more how events would unfold, how her head of department would behave, and avoid “framing”, “insults” or “threats” against her. The danger of a strong leader fighting against his buller is that fighting can become the meaning, goal and basic value of life. Fighting or confronting a strong opponent is a fascinating state of mind. I think we should use this time of “monitoring the situation”, among other things, to find a new job, to leave on time, or simply not to focus on your problems. Remember: there is life outside your office too!
.png)
