6

The Invisible Costs of Contempt

“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

—Mother Theresa

As we have established, the immediate payoffs of First Assumption are a sugar high, self-righteous indignation, and the superficial sense that we are elevating our status and bonding.

Unfortunately, the costs are hidden and delayed. Even though my work is immersed in workplace conflict, it took me many years to realize the costs of contempt.

Previously, we covered the four disadvantages of First Assumption:

1. The risk of depression.
2. The inability to think clearly, comprehend what is being said, and recall what happens when we flood.
3. Flooding is a risk for heart disease.
4. The loss of positive energy and camaraderie.

Following are ten additional costs. Knowing how these mistakes have damaged the prospects of others motivates us to be disciplined when we react to frustration and disagreement.

Cost 1: Mind-boggling amounts of wasted money

After we shift from First to Third Assumptions, many of my clients skillfully cover up their embarrassment as they painlessly solve entrenched problems that have festered in the background for months or even years.

The real problems, which are typically systemic, have been draining millions of hard-earned dollars while leaders and employees have been distracted by factions and drama. When organizations focus on people, problems are covered up, excused, and downplayed, or conversely, exaggerated and distorted. In the meantime, good citizen behaviors such as objective fact-finding, acknowledgement of other's contributions, admitting an oversight, collaborating, lending a hand, and side-by-side problem-solving have all but disappeared.

It's impossible to address the real causes of tension and waste when the key players are involved in a high-stakes power struggle. None of these costs are tracked or analyzed, and yet these power struggles are everywhere. In Chapter Nine, we'll drill down into a case study to get a sense of how much these dramas cost.

Cost 2: Problems multiply

When individuals avoid each other, the best-case scenario is the decisions for which they are responsible are delayed. In other situations, decisions are made without the input of key stakeholders, and quality is compromised. Frequently, decisions are simply abandoned and colleagues and employees stumble without direction. In the worst scenarios, decisions become weapons with the explicit intent to undermine an adversary and diminish their success.

When families did their own mending, there was a saying: “A stitch in time saves nine.” But during escalated conflict, the opposite has happened. The entire hem has fallen to the floor and everyone is tripping over it. Workplaces are so complex and interdependent that when one entity falters, the ripple spreads throughout the organization.

In conflict resolution projects, there is always a point at which parties have acquired enough rapport and trust that we can shift our focus to backlogged decisions. I am impressed and relieved when the talent and expertise of my clients rises to the surface again and they begin to identify solutions. They had the ability to reach these agreements, but during escalated conflict, solutions slipped through their fingers

I worked with a senior executive at a food bank on the east coast. He and his direct report were estranged, and after he heard me speak at a conference, he asked for my help. Prior to my arrival, their human resource representative tried to facilitate a resolution meeting between the two, which ended in a shouting match that was heard throughout the building. Their conflict included every dynamic that we've covered thus far in this book. After working together for a day and a half, the director said to me, “After we took out the drama, it was just logistics, wasn't it?”

Cost 3: Partners in crime sell each other down the river

Betrayal is the biggest risk of First Assumption. Colleagues and direct reports can take denigrating comments directly to the targeted person. I saw this behavior clip the rising career of a brilliant professional without any awareness on his part.

A university human resource professional asked me to untangle a conflict. One of the professors, Adam, had been at the school for many years. He was quiet, withdrawn, and his social skills needed polish. However, Adam's work was consistent and reliable.

Three years before my arrival, his colleague, Lance, who was gregarious, charming, and a recent PhD graduate of an ivy league school joined the university after being recruited aggressively. The institution hoped to benefit from Lance's prestigious reputation.

Adam had applied for the position Lance acquired, and Lance soon felt his resentment. Lance fell back on a now familiar strategy of bonding with Adam by nurturing a deep dislike for the dean, Pamela. Their obsession was so intense that every morning, they would shut themselves in Lance's office for coffee, doughnuts, and the daily round of “Pummeling Pamela.” They denigrated her decisions, her academic background, and her looks.

However, during Lance's third year, Adam made a series of errors. At first, Lance hid his colleague's mistakes, but eventually Pamela discovered this scheme. She was furious and insisted that Lance give Adam a written warning.

Adam, who was used to being a respected, albeit modest, performer handled his fall from grace poorly. He withdrew even further from the social life of the office and the quality of his work deteriorated. Increasingly, the high-status assignments were handled by Lance.

Several months into this painful decline, Adam made a desperate attempt to regain some of his status by tarnishing Lance's rising star. Unfortunately, Lance had given Adam plenty of ammunition to accomplish his goal.

Adam stopped by Pamela's office and asked if he could share something in confidence. Pamela agreed, and Adam disclosed some of the most noxious comments Lance had made behind her back. To boost his credibility, he included insider information that Pamela had told Lance in confidence, which Adam could not have learned from anyone else.

Despite the fact that Adam's self-oriented motives were transparent, he achieved his goal. Pamela agreed to confidentiality before her conversation. Consequently, she decided not to confront Lance directly. Instead, she retaliated subtly, and quietly blocked future advancements.

Lance continued to work at the school, oblivious to the fact that his colleague, Adam, had poisoned his relationship with the person who had the most influence over his future. Lance had unwittingly played a significant role in his own downfall by choosing to bond with Adam by creating an adversarial faction against Pamela.

Although this was the most extreme act of betrayal I have witnessed, I have seen many that are less dramatic. These situations have taught me that the only way we can keep others from repeating our disparaging comments is to never give them material to exploit. Refusing to initiate or take part in backstabbing not only preserves our reputations for integrity and honesty, but it's also essential to maintain a clean and unabashed relationship with anyone who affects our careers.

Once we target another person, our relationship begins to change. We can never be certain if they have heard our disparaging remarks, and that subtle doubt will affect our interactions. We will become slightly more guarded, less warm, and uneasy in their presence. A shift that they often detect and reciprocate.

If we are not willing to make a comment directly to a colleague, we should refrain from saying it to someone else, no matter how clever or witty we think we are. It's too likely that it will be relayed to the target—and because we will not be informed, we will be powerless to undo the harm.

During my time at this organization, it was so clear to me that Lance could have moved in the opposite direction. When he sensed Adam's resentment, he could have become invested in his well-being and found ways to advocate for him and help him advance.

In a sense, Lance's mistakes are our gains because we can learn from his experience. But if I had had a reset button for him, I surely would have pushed it.

Cost 4: Credibility suffers

Sometimes people use First Assumption to sidestep responsibility. Individuals hope that by pointing a finger their own behavior won't be scrutinized.

However, the “Quick! Look over there!” scapegoat strategy harms, rather than helps, our reputations and careers. Colleagues, supervisors, and direct reports learn to doubt our word and suspect, fairly or not, that our version of truth is likely to be incomplete or distorted.

If I attempt to convince my supervisor, Larry, that the cause of a joint problem lies entirely within someone else's domain and I am merely an innocent bystander, it will not be long before he gathers enough information to discover that I am covering up my role in the problem.

However, it is unlikely that Larry will mention his findings to me. He will anticipate more denials, and he won't want to waste his time. Consequently, I will not discover how his opinion of me plummeted when he uncovered facts I withheld. Larry will surmise that he cannot take me at my word, and will resent having to fact-find on his own, rather than trust me to relay the situation accurately.

Cost 5: Resentment of First Assumption leaders and colleagues

Direct reports and colleagues carry deep, carefully hidden resentments when a supervisor attempts to discredit others as a means of winning allies. They won't speak up for one very heartbreaking reason: they do not want to become the next target. Everyone pays a price for First Assumption.

This happened at a respected high-tech R&D company. They were conducting small-scale experiments on new applications of rare minerals. Rob, the director of operations, ridiculed the chief engineer with the regularity of an atomic clock. When Rob was present, the operators would grin and shrug as he spun his latest “evidence” of the engineer's incompetence.

However, in private interviews, every one of the seven operators told me, “I wish Rob would stop. It's like he wants the engineers to fail. Sometimes I think he sets them up. Rob is making our jobs harder—not easier.”

When I shared this feedback with Rob, he was astonished. By pointing out the foibles in the engineering department, he thought he was elevating himself and his team. But his direct reports were correct; he was making their jobs more difficult.

When it was time for Rob to share his feedback with his team, he had the courage to admit his mistake to his direct reports, apologize, and commit to ending his daily ritual of disrespecting the engineers. We created a feedback loop by giving his direct reports permission to speak up if he broke his commitment.

When the boss targets others, few direct reports confront the situation directly. However, as the following story reveals, resentment simmers just below the surface.

The troubled dialysis unit

I have clear memories of sitting in my small office at a major metropolitan hospital when a vice president, Eleanor, whipped in and plopped down in a seat next to my desk. I was a recent graduate, a newly licensed psychologist, and an organizational development consultant with one year of experience. Pretty green.

Eleanor was usually laid back and funny, but at this moment, she was dead serious. “Anna, there's an escalated conflict in our dialysis unit. There are three leaders in this unit: the head nurse, the assistant head nurse, and the head of the “techs,” the group that services the dialysis machines.

“They are embroiled in a fight that has drawn in other employees and is widely known throughout the hospital. Nurses tell me privately that everyone has picked a side, and the preoccupation with the conflict is compromising patient safety. Even the patients hear stories about this drama! I'm going to close down the dialysis unit and send patients to another hospital if you don't go up there and fix it.”

Me? I remember three simultaneous realizations:

1. Her duty to protect patient safety would mean revenue loss that would run into the millions.
2. Despite two degrees and years of training in psychology, I had no idea what to do.
3. If I lacked skills in conflict resolution, probably most employees did, too. Where else in the hospital could Eleanor go?

Regardless, I had no plan and no process, so I jumped right in and flew by the seat of my pants.

I asked to speak to each of the three leaders alone. They each had different versions of the situation, but individually they had come to the same conclusion: Each of the three leaders believed they were winning. In private interviews they told me they had the majority of staff loyalty and respect.

Obviously, they were deluded. But how could I break through their illusions in a way that would not make them defensive? I asked them if they would agree to an anonymous employee survey. They all readily agreed because they were each confident that they were the hero of the staff narrative.

You, dear reader, can anticipate the outcome more accurately than they did. As you have probably guessed, the feedback on all three was extremely critical and occasionally crude. The staff comments were laced with bitter complaints about the immaturity and irresponsibility of the three leaders. In contrast to the leaders' beliefs that they were winning staff loyalty, the staff was furious at the leadership group for destroying the unit's cohesiveness in order to fulfill their personal vendettas.

After removing all identifying information, I turned their data into a master document, asked the three of them to join me in a small meeting room, and gave them each a copy. To say I felt anxious about their reactions is inaccurate. I was terrified (and I would handle this situation differently today). But the ad hoc process worked. There was silence in the room, throat clearing, paging and re-paging through data, tight jaws, and eyes everywhere but on each other.

But here is the lesson that we landed on that day: the goal of each individual had been to save their reputation by obliterating the status of the other two. They each had the same goal: to get the others demoted, fired, sent to the corner facing the wall.

Now their secrets were exposed, and they realized they had covertly shared the same false hope. However, even if they succeeded in getting one or both of their colleagues fired, they would not have “won.” The controversy would have roiled on. As we covered in “The Nine Stages of Escalated Conflict,” loyalists to a terminated leader guarantee the team does not heal, and their workplace continues to be full of tension and drama.

Together the four of us contemplated the reality that the only way they could salvage their reputations in the hospital was together. Their hostility toward each began to soften, and small overtures of reconciliation occurred. That afternoon we began the hard dig to the root causes of, and solutions to, their disagreements. They eventually apologized to the staff for their disruptive feud and returned to reputable leadership based on client needs. Their reconciliation lasted for several years until, one by one, they left for opportunities at other medical centers. However, they left with their reputations and futures intact.

Since those early days, I've seen many similar scenarios in which individuals believe that escalation and dominance, including the obliteration of the other person's status, are the only way out of escalated conflict.

However, as you proceed through these pages, you'll discover that there's a better way. You'll discover how to back away from the free fall of escalated conflict and never again find yourself feeling like you have to “win.”

Cost 6: Blame turns potential allies into enemies

As the following story reveals, power struggles alienate individuals who are, or could become, significant assets to our careers.

The president's torn loyalties

The president of a high-tech printing company asked for assistance with a conflict between the “two most important people in my life.” The VP of sales, Mark, was the president's son, a dapper, polished young man and proud recipient of a newly acquired MBA. The president's business partner of thirty years, Bob, was the COO, and he was an easygoing, reliable, salt-of-the-earth graduate from the school of hard knocks.

These two executives couldn't have been more different in upbringing and outlook. When I arrived at the company, their disagreements about the future direction of the organization had been simmering for two years. Mark and Bob were each accumulating evidence and privately lobbying the president to terminate the other person.

At the height of the conflict, Mark had reluctantly invited Bob to a sales meeting at the offices of one of their biggest customers. Because Bob had years of experience with the technicalities of their products and Mark was relatively new to the trade, Mark needed Bob's expertise to close the deal.

However, Mark's desire to see his nemesis fail couldn't help but impact the meeting. Mark neglected to coach Bob on the norms and formality of a high-status meeting. Bob, who had never been included in a sophisticated sales call, arrived in scruffy attire that was appropriate for the shop floor, but not a corporate environment.

Bob's embarrassment and discomfort over his obvious faux paus increased as the meeting progressed. Bob was in over his head and didn't know how to regain his equilibrium. Unfortunately, he fell back on a technique that worked well back at the plant: he swore. In this setting, however, his language hung awkwardly in the air, and the meeting came to a premature end. No more than five minutes after returning to work, Mark was in his father's office with the latest proof that Bob was too old-school and clumsy to make the transition to working with high-end corporate clients.

However, Bob had his own ways to bring Mark down. He deftly undermined Mark's support and popularity. With his crew—the majority of the employees—Bob spread accusations that Mark was a hopeless, silver-spoon opportunist totally out of touch with the realities of their trade and privileged only by his father's authority. Consequently, when Mark walked the shop floor, the crew would barely acknowledge his presence, let alone help him learn the nuances of the trade.

Although the conflict centered on these two men, every employee in the organization knew about this conflict, fed it, gossiped about it, and picked sides.

Employees in their respective departments carried half-baked prejudices and unjust criticisms of both leaders, and eventually everyone in their departments. Customers were pulled into the web. The two men became invested in the other's decline and began contributing to each other's blunders. It undoubtedly cost the organization thousands, if not millions, of unmeasured dollars in the form of off-task behavior, lost opportunities, and deep mistrust between operations and sales.

The hapless father/owner responded to the tension and his torn loyalties in a manner similar to many conflicted leaders: he spent more time at the golf course! The organization's growth was stymied, and system problems grew.

I worked with Mark and Bob intermittently over several weeks. As they began to learn more about each other and address the root causes of their disagreements, they realized the vast majority of their dislike and fear was based on rumors and speculations that were distorted and amplified as they circulated through the organization.

Now, face to face, they talked in-depth about their expertise, ideas for expansion, and their vision of the future. Their commitment to the company and its owner was obvious, even though it was expressed in very different ways. Bob showed his devotion through his unwavering reliability and know-how. Mark's commitment to his father's enterprise was expressed through gutsy and charismatic risk-taking. During the time we met, their annoyance developed into admiration. Their former hostility over the dramatic differences in their personalities morphed into fascination over the unique combination of Bob's superb craftsmanship and Mark's creativity, chutzpah, and business savvy.

As their bond solidified, they knew they had to break the habit of bringing forward distorted half-truths and speculations about the other person. I suggested they not only tell other employees that they had begun to strengthen and repair their partnership but also to begin speaking highly of each other in front of their direct reports, peers, and the president. The message was out. The conflict between the two men was history and employees gratefully dropped their guard and settled back into work.

I enjoyed several meetings with the executive team over the next few months and watched Bob and Mark become each other's strongest defenders. On multiple occasions, I observed one or the other spontaneously come to the other's defense. I stayed in touch and learned that the company entered new markets and created products that revitalized the organization.

At the close of the project, the president struggled to express his profound relief that the tension between the two most important people in his life had finally come to an end. He had been painfully caught in the middle, feeling guilty and disloyal. I suspect that the resolution of Bob and Mark's conflict not only contributed to the prosperity of the company but it also added several years to the president's life.

Sometimes when I dig for the original barriers to a working alliance, all I find are fragments of rumors and negative speculations. It makes me wonder how many brilliant partnerships have crumbled under the paradoxical weight that the vacuum between two key players creates.

Cost 7: Blame becomes an automatic response

Sometimes individuals with low interpersonal skills or poor self-confidence compensate for insecurities by tearing others down. Sadly, sarcasm and putdowns become the one thing at which they excel, and they use it to increase their status within the group. They often develop a cutting sense of humor and a keen ability to deflate the intentions of any person or project. The quip in mental health circles is that “hurt people, hurt people.”

Repetition strengthens neurons, and denigrating remarks can easily become an automatic response. We read about sports figures who are unable to stop destructive, aggressive reactions even when faced with the loss of their jobs. And we've seen politicians whose use of First Assumption was the undoing of their political careers. Early in a campaign, voters may admire their irreverent style and willingness to challenge the status quo. However, as their term progresses, their aggressive reactions fail to bring about substantive solutions, they alienate the press and their colleagues, and eventually, their broad base of support.

Cost 8: Blame demoralizes employees and destroys pride in work

Leaders are conduits of information. Explaining the rationale behind management decisions is one of their most important roles. This does not mean they need to agree with every decision. Leaders at all levels need to be involved in ongoing dialogue and share their enthusiasm and doubts about decisions. However, there is a world of difference between face-to-face disagreement and ridiculing other decision makers behind their backs. Denigrating other leaders destroys employees' motivation, morale, and pride in work.

Conflict within the ranks

Until I worked with chiefs of police and supervisors, I didn't clearly see the link between First Assumption and the loss of pride in work.

The first time I facilitated a seminar with a police department, I was somewhat paranoid. Leaving home, I kept checking my driver's license, car tabs, and insurance card. A room full of constabularies! Despite my nervousness, the officers were warm, funny, and grateful to learn about flooding, heart disease, and hostility.

What surprised me most was that they all agreed that interacting with perpetrators or victims was not the hardest part of their jobs. In a group of eighty officers there was a strong consensus that the most demoralizing part of their work was conflict within the ranks.

Midmorning during the seminar, three officers were paged out of the room. A local citizen had locked himself in his apartment with an arsenal of guns, threatening to kill himself or anyone else within range. My heart went out to the officers as they left. I learned later that they convinced the man to surrender, and he was taken to jail for a psychological evaluation.

That evening as I drove back to the Twin Cities, the incident triggered a stream of questions. I wondered what it would be like to have a job in which you risked your life and reported to a boss who used First Assumption.

Imagine Trevon, a seasoned officer, returning from this dangerous call. In his situation, it would be appropriate for the officer, who minutes ago risked his life, to be flooded with adrenaline, cortisol, and hormones. Because of the fight-or-flight response, his blood would have thickened to prevent blood loss, and his pulse and blood pressure would be elevated.

Consequently, Trevon, who is partially (and appropriately) flooded, is primed to overreact to the next frustration. Sure enough, he sees an email from the mayor, Joy. The email begins, “I regret to inform you that your department's request for upgraded bulletproof vests has been denied.”

He marches into the chief's office and demands, “Have you seen this? What an idiot! Does the mayor know anything about police work? Has she ever walked a beat? All she cares about getting re-elected, like all politicians!”

This is a critical moment for the chief. If he takes the bait, his reflexive response will be similar to: “I saw that memo. I'm convinced Joy is depriving some village of an idiot. If you think that's bad, wait until I tell you what she said at the team-building barbeque when she didn't think I could hear her.”

If the officer and chief continue down this path they will address the problem with First Assumption. They are primed for attack and withdraw—and they will probably do both.

If they attack the mayor by spreading negative opinions of her, it is unlikely they will be in a mind set to problem solve with her. After they agree she is a political sell-out, there is little chance they'll be successful in changing her mind.

There's a consequence to this conversation that will occur after the meeting that most leaders miss. Although the supervisor has superficially bonded with the officer, his behavior has failed to bridge him to the upper management and the mission of the department.

After Trevon leaves his supervisor's office, he has to go back on his beat. Halfway to his squad car, it will hit him: “Wait a minute. I'm putting my life on the line for a self-serving political has-been! I'm a chump! Why do I care so much about this place? I think I'll call in sick.”

After multiple repetitions of this scenario with various officers, the chief will discover that he has a demoralized workforce. He will sense that his officers' pride is waning, or they are becoming increasingly fixated on the financial aspects of their work. Without knowing it, the chief is inadvertently destroying the intrinsic rewards of work, which include service, pride, camaraderie, identity, and meaning.

Employees want their sacrifices, overtime, and commitment to matter. When they are told their leaders are incompetent or unethical, they feel foolish for caring.

When the chief uses ridicule to explain disappointments, he lowers the possibility that staff will understand the pressures and opportunities of their organization and leverage its strengths. Without information employees cannot align their efforts in a meaningful way, nor will they feel pride in belonging to an ethical workplace worthy of their deep investments.

When leaders attribute the source of a problem to people, it means they must change in order for the problem to be resolved. This is unlikely, so employees will conclude that they are stuck with intractable problems, and their desire to improve and make a deep commitment to work will decrease.

Cost 9: We risk being seen as hypocrites

Returning to the previous example of the chief and his officer, imagine that after they've done a thorough job of discrediting Joy, she unexpectedly drops in. The chief quickly shifts gears and responds to his supervisor with warmth and a statement that he is pleasantly surprised to see her. They start sharing insider stories about the barbeque cook-off and who might have been too friendly with the judges.

While the chief retreats from his negative behaviors from just moments ago and chats up the mayor, the officer is busy “reading” the chief. The officer won't miss a single nuance. He concludes that the chief is a hypocrite willing to flatter and charm the same people he ridiculed just seconds ago.

The officer wonders whether the chief does the same thing behind his back. The officer never again feels certain that his supervisor speaks well of him in his absence, or will come to his defense.

Even if Trevon previously looked up to the chief, he now sees him as a blowhard without a moral compass.

Cost 10: Accountability and standards decline

Employees and leaders go above and beyond because they have pride in what they do and the mission of the organization. However, after the chief denigrates the leadership of the organization, he is going to have a hard time holding Trevon accountable.

Trevon has become disillusioned with the department and its leadership. Later when he sees his colleagues at the union meeting, he'll share what he witnessed, and disenchantment will spread.

No one is safe

Blame is on the rise in our society. Conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame neoconservatives, parents blame schools, schools blame society, the rich blame the poor, the poor blame the 1 percent. Wives blame husbands, husbands blame the boss, farmers blame immigrants, and corporations blame government. We blame based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, political leaning, sexual orientation, and age. We blame politicians, minorities, the police, attorneys, and so on. Any perceivable difference will do.

I have seen groups break into coalitions based on the kind of motorcycle they drove to work or the sports team they favored. Workplaces divide into destructive factions based on age, education, union membership, shift, rank, geographic location, longevity, gender, race, and job function.

When we use First Assumption, we signal to others that we tolerate blame. Eventually, they will turn the arrow of contempt in our direction. After all, we taught them that denigrating others is an appropriate response.

In the next chapter, we will cover a powerful alternative to blame when a colleague or customer is flooded. Using the following technique we will see how to save relationships, bond with direct reports, and address the problem! If we avoid the mistakes of the chief, we will be able to preserve morale and protect our reputations as individuals with integrity.