Have you used the hiring interview as an opportunity to carefully assess how change-resilient the candidate is? Have you specifically ascertained whether the candidate will demonstrate desirable attitudes and behaviours as your organization continuously exposes him or her to the trials and tribulations of workplace change?

Most managers and HR professionals will answer “no” to both of these questions. A few may answer: “Yes, we ask people how they’ve dealt with challenges involving change in the past and we extrapolate from there”.

When it comes to assessing change resilience, these responses just aren’t good enough. Dealing with large and small changes requires people to avoid the traps of negativity, mistrust, victimhood and disengagement.

Here are some “change resilience” questions to ask in a hiring interview, along with some thoughts regarding the answers to look for:

• What kinds of changes did you encounter in your last position?
• What’s your perspective on how the organization’s leadership handled the change? (If candidate says that the leadership handled it wonderfully – be sceptical and probe deeper. There has yet to be a leadership that does not make some meaningful resilience-eroding mistakes when managing change, especially as experienced from the employees’ vantage point).
• What change did you find most difficult? Why? (Look for honest answers that indicate that the person experienced the trap of negativity or victimhood and how they handled themselves. Negativity is something that practically everyone experiences but resilient people pull themselves out of it quickly).
• When you encountered the negativity of others regarding the changes, i.e. things they said and rumours that circulated, how did you handle that? (Look for responses that demonstrate that the candidate was able to distance themselves from negative people and rumours).

Can you provide us with an example of a particular change initiative that you thought was problematic and how you handled your reservations? (You’re looking for someone who was able to express their concerns to their superiors in a constructive way).

• When changes were going in directions that you didn’t agree with, did you ever consider leaving? (You’re looking for a “yes, I did leave”, or “yes, I was working on my CV”‘. It’s better to hire someone who, when they don’t like what’s going on, will pick up and leave rather than `resign and stay’ in chronic disengagement!)

These types of questions will help you determine how your candidate will handle change in your organization.

You may be surprised at what you hear. One of my clients used these suggestions and discovered with great dismay that the preferred candidate, who had made a great impression overall, was surprisingly venomous when caught off guard on this topic. To the question “How did you deal with changes in your previous workplace?” she responded, “Well, I’ve learned from my previous jobs that you just have to live with the fact that management never tells the truth and basically doesn’t cares about the employees”.

If one of your preferred candidates responded like that, would you give her the job?

In Toronto in the past few days the sun has been shining. Spring – even summer – is in the air. You can smell it. You can feel it.
People have been coming out of their caves, sitting at outdoor cafes in the sunshine, clearing their yards, speaking with neighbours.
A welcome sense of openness and expansion is penetrating hearts and minds.
Here are two questions to ponder:
When YOU feel expansive and open, what do you do differently in your personal and professional life?
And the second, more important question:
How can you begin doing MORE of that, on a more consistent basis?
Happy spring!

One of the biggest triggers of disengagement is organizational change. People fall into the traps of negativity, victimhood and distrust and the natural consequence is that they stop feeling the same loyalty and engagement they previously did.

As management, there are actions you can take to proactively minimize these effects and make the change effort go more smoothly.
First and foremost, pay attention to the issue of fostering trust. Once you erode people’s sense of trust, it is extremely difficult to rebuild it.
Here are three key strategies for fostering trust amidst any change initiative:

1. Use TACTâ„¢ – based communication. TACTâ„¢ stands for Timely, Attentive, Concise and Truthful. You can drive a great change initiative but if you communicate late, inaccurately or in a confusing way, you will lose trust and buy-in in no time at all.

2. Work appropriately with various `Change Profiles’â„¢. In my work with hundreds of organizations I have identified seven typical `change profiles’ that describe people’s distinctive responses to change. Each profile requires a different managerial response. Once people feel that you are actively supportive of their unique journey, they are more likely to trust.

3. Maintain your authenticity. People trust leaders who are transparent and even share their own feelings in a mature, helpful way. If you practice being authentic and candid, people will trust you. In fact, they’ll go through fire for you.

Trust is the glue that will hold things together as you put people through the trials and tribulations of change. A little thought and planning around this issue will keep productivity up and disengagement down.

There’s much talk these days about `diversity’. For most people, the first association is `cultural’. After all, in Canada we are in the midst of a hugely important and complex enterprise to bring together dozens of cultures and make this country ever greater.

Yet there is another diversity developing in our midst and its impact may be as crucial to the workplace as that of cultural diversity.

I’m talking about generational diversity.

There were noticeable differences between the `Matures” (born prior to 1945), the Boomers (approximately 1945-1963) and Gen X-ers (approximately 1964-1980). Now the millennials, born in the 80’s, are coming. And they certainly are different.

Recently, several clients have relayed interesting encounters and previously unfamiliar interactions with millennials. An HR Director with a construction company described being grilled by several candidates as to the company’s `green’ building practices. Anther client, in the financial industry, described the example of a Millennial’s mother who accompanied her son to a high-stakes job interview. She introduced herself and waited for her son in the reception area until the interview was over. Another described a job candidate declared that she was `a Christian’ and as such she would not tolerate any kind of `inappropriate language’ in the workplace.

Sounds `different’? I highly recommend viewing a piece aired on CBS’s 60-Minutes on this topic. I invite you to view it by clicking here.

Organizations will need to change in order to embrace this new type of worker (in fact, the construction company is in the midst of such changes, and they’re pretty major ones). Equally important is the fact that the three generations – Boomers, X-ers and Millennials – will need to work alongside one other, communicate with each other, accept and even embrace their differences.

I believe that this emerging issue is so huge that I have now begun designing a workshop focusing on this very topic. Hey, being proactive is always a virtue, isn’t it?

Where does stress really reside?

Last night I met with a friend who was visiting from New York. A Chassidic Jew, she brought along her seventh child, a nine-week old baby girl. There we sat, one mother of four who `opted out’ of an executive career and lives an affluent life caring for her children and household; one mother of seven (all under the age of 13), with limited financial means, living in very tight quarters, who also maintains a small coaching practice; and one hard working business owner, married mother of one (me).

As the evening unfolded it became clear that of the three of us, our Chassidic friend was the calmest, most balanced and productive of us all. If one were to use objective stress measures on the three of us, the indicators would likely suggest that she has the least amount of stress indicators in her system.

What hit home yet again was that the real place that stress resides is in the mind.

My New York friend possesses a deep sense of the Lord’s wondrous workings in her life. When times are tough she turns to God for guidance and comfort. She is on a constant journey of learning, growth and development.

In her stress hardiness, she is very similar to many people I’ve encountered in my Stress Resilience workshops. My qualitative observations consistently suggest that those least stressed tend to fall into one of two major groups. First are people of religious faith – any faith. Second are those who regularly practice yoga or mediation.

I invite you to ponder the following question: What are YOU currently doing to ensure that YOUR stress resilience shield is as solid as it can be?

Bullying is the most serious on the incivility-harassment-bullying continuum.

There are many definitions for workplace bullying. Some emphasize its malicious nature, while others believe that it may be done without conscious intention at all. Here are two solid definitions.

Bullying is “the repeated mistreatment of one employee targeted by one or more employees with a malicious mix of humiliation, intimidation and sabotage of performance”

Or bullying is: “the repeated mistreatment of one or more employees, sometimes by an employee in a position of influence or authority, who, intentionally or unwittingly, subjects others to behaviour that humiliates, demoralizes or otherwise undermines the victim’s credibility, effectiveness and personal wellbeing. The behaviours are unwelcome to the victim and undertaken in circumstances where the victim has difficulty in defending themselves”.

Generally, all definitions tend to differentiate bullying as a repetitive behaviour. The same offensive or humiliating behaviour could be labeled `harassment’ if done once or twice but would probably be labeled as `bullying’ if persistent.

Research suggests that the most common form of bullying involves the abuse of power by superiors against subordinates. This often takes the form of public rebuke, temper tantrums, unreasonable requests, unfair assignment of work, threatening etc.

As is the case with `harassment’, to a large extent bullying is in the eyes of the beholder. In today’s Canadian environment, a manager with an abrasive style runs the risk of receiving a complaint for bullying. But there’s another point of view too. Some of the best known, trail blazing leaders were admired by many of their people while being perceived by others as `bullies’. Need some commonly acknowledged examples? Think of General Electric’s Jack Welch or Motorola`s Ed Zander, Harvey Weinstein of Miramax or Martha Stewart.

In fact, according to Roderick M. Kramer, professor of organizational behaviour at Stanford Graduate School of Business, many of those CEO’s considered to be intimidating bullies have had “educational and sometimes transformational” relationships with combative bosses. In their demanding ways and impossible-to-meet standards, they can actually make their people excel and be the best they can be.

Clearly, the issue of bullying is a complex one. If you’re interested in understanding its not-so-obvious side, I highly recommend reading Kramer’s interview with the Boston Globe at http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/26/need_to_shake_things_up_a_bullying_boss_may_be_best, it sure provides some food for thought!

`Harassment’… how would we define that?

To a large extent, harassment is judged by its effect on the receiver or bystander rather than by the actual action itself. The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act currently defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”.

This definition means that when it comes to actions that can reasonably be classified as `vexatious’ (provoking, irritating, threatening, annoying, insulting or demeaning), it is the recipients’ perception that determines whether these actions are `unwelcome’.

Some harassment policies add elements that further define harassment as any behaviour that “may have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; interfering with an individual’s work performance; adversely affecting an individual’s employment relationship; and/or denying an individual dignity and respect”.

Many managers and even HR professionals think of `harassment’ as denoting serious behaviours such as unwanted fondling, rude racial or sexist remarks or outright discrimination.
But as you can see, given the emphasis on the impacted person’s experience both in law and in many existing policies, `harassment’ can cover quite a large terrain. If I work beside you and your vexatious actions cause me distraction and stress and therefore `interfere with my work performance’, we are squarely looking at a behaviour that would, under such policies, be defined as `harassment’.

Actions of `incivility’, such as not saying `good morning’ or refraining from helping a colleague, being moody and unfriendly, will probably not qualify as harassment under most policies. But anything `stronger’ than that probably can.

As Canada’s workplaces become increasingly diverse, more and more of us will feel that certain behaviours that others engage in are unwelcome in their demeaning, threatening or provoking nature to ourselves or others. That’s why it is extremely prudent to invest in prevention!

So, what is `incivility’?

“Incivility” refers to a `lower grade’ form of harassment which occurs regularly in many organizations.

One definition for incivility is: “low intensity deviant behaviour that violates workplace norms for mutual respect. It may or may not be intended to harm the target. Low intensity connotes verbal rather than physical, passive rather than active, and indirect.” (Pearson and Porath, 2005)

There are no laws that prohibit incivility. As a result, incivility and its repercussions generally occur without organizational awareness.
Although the effects of incivility often go unnoticed by the organization and unreported by the target, research shows a spiralling effect, often involving `getting even’. The means of getting even when incivility occurs are often enacted covertly, so they are extremely hard to quantify.

For example, research demonstrates that many targets of a `Serial Instigator’ who holds a powerful position (you know, the Director who’s allowed to have temper tantrums in public, break into meeting anytime, scold people in public etc) will:
• Seek retribution by engaging in deviant behaviours that adversely affect the organization.
• May intentionally decrease the effort, time and quality that they put into their work
• Male targets will strive to get even. Female targets tend to reinforce their support, regain their balance, and recoup their strength so that they are ready to take recourse when the best opportunity arises.
• Most targets will spread the news about what has happened to them

A 2005 survey of 1253 employees in an Ontario public organization by researchers at Brock University’s Workplace Health Research Laboratory showed that “Higher exposure to negative acts was clearly related to poorer organizational outcomes such as lower organizational and job satisfaction, lower satisfaction with manager, and lower satisfaction with the quality of the employment relationship…… Also, those respondents’ reporting higher exposure to negative acts are less likely to remain working in their organization”.

Furthermore, a study of more than 2,400 workers, managers and executives in the U.S. and Canada who represent organizations in all industrial classifications, ranging in size from two to more than 100,000 employees showed that “When targets (of incivility) believe that someone at work has treated them disrespectfully, half will lose work time worrying about future interactions with the instigator, and half will contemplate changing jobs to avoid a recurrence, one-fourth of research respondents who feel that they have been treated uncivilly will intentionally cut back their work efforts. A few will steal from their instigators or their organizations. Some will sabotage equipment. Most will tell friends, family, and colleagues about how badly they have been treated”.

Interesting stuff, isn’t it?

The bottom line is this: not following your grandma’s good advice about treating people with respect can be very costly to organizations!

Academic experts and organizations alike use a wide range of terms to describe disrespectful behaviours. This sure can get very confusing!
And so, in the service of simplicity, I have identified a continuum that describes and labels the range of behaviours at hand. Click the following link to review an image of this continuum: incivility-harassment-bullying-continnum.pdf

As you can see, Incivility is the lowest form of disrespect in the workplace.

Harassment is a more serious form of disrespect.

Bullying, with its repetitious and often intentional nature, is of even higher concern.

Finally, physical violence is the most serious of all.

In the next entries, look for a more specific definition of these terms!

Over the past few weeks I took the time to immerse myself in some of the latest articles and research regarding `respect in the workplace’. Here’s what I re-learned: when it comes to disrespectful behaviours in the workplace, it is often extremely difficult to clearly define the lines between various levels of problematic behaviours. And it is equally difficult to determine the appropriate classification label to assign to the various behaviours.
Over the past two decades, researchers have used a wealth of names to define what are essentially very similar types of behaviour. Here are some of the labels commonly used in the professional literature: Harassment, Workplace Deviance, Workplace Bullying, Mobbing, Workplace Incivility, Generalized Workplace Abuse, Workplace Harassment, Workplace Violence, Poisoned Workplace, Emotional Abuse.
Over the next several blog entries I will share my own classification, one that I think helps simplify things. I will distinguish between Incivility, Harassment and Bullying and discuss the effects that these have on people and organizations.
In the meantime, following is a partial list of the kinds of behaviours in question. I invite you to consider, how problematic, on a 1-10 scale, are each of them?
• Rudeness
• Spreading rumours or gossip
• `Off colour’ jokes or comments
• Insulting or offensive language and comments
• Practical jokes
• Withholding information that a colleague needs in order to perform their job
• Impoliteness, discourtesy
• Misrepresenting another person’s work as one’s own
• Rebuking of subordinates in public
• Remarks about another employee in front of customers
• Refusing to help a colleague
• Public temper tantrums
• Social exclusion, isolation
• Psychological harassment
• Intimidation
• Humiliation
• Shouting, hostility
• Profanities
• Discriminatory practices
• Personal criticism, ridiculing or demeaning;
• Sexual advances
• Removing areas of responsibility without consultation
• Setting unreasonable tasks or deadlines
• Physical threats or assault

Next time… the Incivility-Harassment-Bullying continuum!