Michael Skapinker: Don’t fear the workplace bully
Michael Eisner is going and Larry Summers' position is looking precarious. Being elected to Roderick Kramer's "Bully Hall of Fame" is a dangerous business.
Several of Prof Kramer's other hall-of-famers have already fallen: Martha Stewart, Margaret Thatcher and Richard Nixon, for example. Others are still hanging on: Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs and Harvey Weinstein.
Most of us deal with bullies every day. Prof Kramer asked the MBA class at Stanford Business School, where he teaches, how many had come across bullying at work: 86 per cent said they had. The remaining 14 per cent were, we assume, doing the bullying.
Speaking to a gathering of Stanford alumni in London recently, Prof Kramer pointed to a galling fact: bullies get ahead, as evidenced by many of the political and business high-achievers he had placed in his hall of fame.
Why do they reach the top? In some cases, it is because they bully only downwards - behaving horribly towards subordinates but ingratiating themselves with their superiors. Prof Kramer named, for example, Lyndon Johnson as a very effective upward ingratiator.
The second reason bullies rise is because they get their way. People prefer not to tangle with them, going along with whatever they propose in order to avoid a fight. "Fear works," Nixon said. "They don't teach you that in Sunday school, but it does."
There is a third reason bullies so often succeed: they are good at their jobs. Many of those Stanford MBA students who worked with bullies had no regrets about doing so. As many as 37 per cent said the experience was worth every minute because the bully was "brilliant", "passionate", "dedicated", "focused" or "knew the field better than anyone else".
But we also know that bullies prevent discussion, make people miserable and force talented employees to find work elsewhere. So how should we deal with workplace bullies? First, we need to know what kind of bullies they are. Forget the idea that they are all men. The surveys cited by Prof Kramer indicate that women are more often bullied by women than men, once sexual harassment complaints are screened out. (Men are more often bullied by men.)
Not all bullies are the same. Prof Kramer identified several categories.
Physical bullies. This is the standard version, the bully who uses a threatening physical demeanour, usually accompanied by a loud voice and an abrupt manner. Not all these bullies are large; indeed some of the most famous are short. According to Prof Kramer, however, when you ask people how tall bullies are, they tend to over-estimate their height.
Emotional intimidators. Prof Kramer did not expand much on this category, but we all know the type. These bullies employ many of the techniques of the physical bully, including sarcasm, withering scorn and wilful misinterpretation of what you say. The difference is that they wave their arms less and generally do their bullying sitting down.
Informational bullies. This was one of the most interesting of Prof Kramer's categories. Informational bullies get their way with cascades of "facts", which may or may not be true but which reduce everyone else to silence.
Perfectionist intimidators. These bullies set impossibly high standards and unrealistically short deadlines. They also give underlings more work than they can reasonably handle.
Passive-aggressive bullies. These operate by leaving people unsure where they stand. One Stanford student who worked as an assistant to a celebrated workplace bully described how the great man operated: "One moment he could be telling someone to their face that he wanted nothing more than to be in business with them, that their project was going to be the biggest deal of a lifetime, that this was the beginning of a great partnership. The next second, he could be telling an assistant: 'Never let that guy through my door again.'"
Bullies by proxy. These do not do the bullying themselves. Instead, they rely on a close subordinate to do it for them. Prof Kramer named Condoleezza Rice as George W. Bush's proxy bully. From this side of the Atlantic, Donald Rumsfeld looks a better candidate.
Prof Kramer advised caution when dealing with bullies. "When in doubt, under-react," he said. Earn the bully's respect by demonstrating your competence. Reduce their incentives to be nasty by showing there is a better way of working with you. Recruit allies before you act; there is safety in numbers.
The Stanford alumni seemed impressed. One asked how business could deal with bullying by outsiders, such as journalists. (Honestly, how wet can you get?)
I told Prof Kramer after his talk that I found his remedies over-elaborate. Was there not only one way to deal with bullies - to raise your voice when they raised theirs? Were not bullies probing for weakness, searching out those they could bully and those they could not? Were not all bullies cowards deep down? Was it not best to hit them as hard as they hit you? Prof Kramer agreed there was something to this, although, thinking back, I should have conceded that this would only work with the physical bullies and the emotional intimidators. The others present more complex problems.
The true consolation for the bullied is to remember that when bullies fall, they fall hard. When it became apparent that Mrs (now Baroness) Thatcher was vulnerable to challenge, many of her supposed allies were quick to help bring her down.
The Harvard faculty of arts and sciences' vote of no-confidence in Mr Summers as university president this month stemmed only partly from his speech about women and science. Faculty had complained about his abrasive style and imperious manner. Workplace bullies have few real allies and the ones they thought they had melt away at the first sign of trouble
对付工作场所的霸王
迈克尔?埃斯纳(Michael Eisner)要走了，拉里?萨默斯(Larry Summers)的职位也岌岌可危。被列入罗德里克?克雷默(Roderick Kramer)的“霸王名人堂”可是一件危险的事情。
克雷默教授的名人堂中其他几个人物也已落马，如玛莎?斯图亚特(Martha Stewart)、玛格丽特?撒切尔和理查德?尼克松。而拉里?埃里森(Larry Ellison)、史蒂夫?乔布斯(Steve Jobs)和哈维?温斯坦(Harvey Weinstein)等其他人还支撑着。
我们当中的大多数人每天都要和霸王打交道。在斯坦福大学商学院(Stanford Business School) 授课时，克雷默教授问MBA班学生，有多少人曾经在工作中遭遇霸王的情况：86%的学生都说曾有此经历。我们猜想其余14%的人都是霸王。
克雷默教授最近在伦敦斯坦福校友聚会上发言时，指出一个令人感到屈辱的事实：霸王是赢家，他选入名人堂的许多政界与商界顶尖成功人士即是佐证。
他们为什么会到达顶峰？在某些情况下，是因为他们只是欺负下属，而对上司则竭力讨好。例如，克雷默教授点名指出林顿?约翰逊(编者注：Lyndon Johnson，1963至1968年任美国总统)就是一个实实在在的溜须拍马之徒。
霸王之所以会发迹的第二个原因，是因为他们能随心所欲。为了避免争吵，人们宁可不与其发生争执，而接受他们的一切提议。尼克松说过：“恐惧心理会管用。主日学校并不教你这个，但事实就是这样。”
霸王常获成功还有一个原因：他们的工作能力很棒。曾经与霸王共事的很多斯坦福MBA学生都不觉得有何遗憾。多达37%的学生表示，这种经历寸金难得，因为霸王“才华横溢”、“富于激情”、“敬业”、“专心致志”或者“比任何其他人都更在行”。
但我们也都知道，霸王制止讨论、让大家感到苦恼、迫使有才华的职员另谋他职。那么，我们应当如何应对工作场所的霸王呢？首先，我们需要了解他们是哪一类霸王。要抛弃霸王都是男人这一想法。克雷默教授引用的问卷调查显示，如果排除性骚扰方面的投诉，女性更经常受到女性(而非男性)的欺负。(男性更经常受到男性欺负。)霸王各不相同。克雷默教授识别出几大类型。
肢体型霸王：这是标准类型，霸王使用一种威胁性肢体行为，通常伴有高嗓门和唐突的举止。并非所有这些霸王的身材都很高大；事实上一些最著名的人都很矮小。然而，按照克雷默教授的说法，当你问大家霸王有多高时，他们往往会过高估计那些人的身高。
情感恫吓型霸王：克雷默教授对此类型并未多说，但我们都知道这种类型的人。这些霸王使用体能型霸王的多种技巧，包括冷嘲热讽、尖刻奚落以及蓄意曲解别人的话。区别在于：他们较少挥舞胳膊，通常都是坐着欺负人。
信息类霸王：在克雷默教授所列出的类别中，这是最有意思的类型之一。信息类霸王利用一连串“事实”达到目的，这些“事实”或真或假，但足以制止其他人发言。
完美主义型恫吓者：这些霸王设定高不可及的标准和不切实际的期限。他们给下属布置的工作超出大家的合理应对能力。
消极-进攻型霸王：这些人得逞的办法，是让别人不知所措。一名斯坦福学生曾给一位著名的霸王担任助理，他是这样描述此人行事方式的：“他这会儿可能当面告诉某人：他是如何迫切想与他们做生意、该项目将是一生中最大交易、伟大伙伴关系就此开始。但过一会，他可能就会对助理说：‘永远别让那家伙再进我的门。’”
借用他人型霸王：这一类型的人自己并不欺负人。但他们借助一位关系密切的下属达到目的。克雷默教授点名指出，康多莉扎?赖斯(Condoleezza Rice)就是布什总统的霸王代理人。从欧洲人的视点看，唐纳德?拉姆斯菲尔德(Donald Rumsfeld)似乎更符合这一定义。
克雷默教授建议，与霸王打交道要谨慎行事。他告诫说：“在不确定情况下，要低调反应。”显示自身能力，赢得霸王的尊敬。证明有更好的共事方法，以削弱他们的逞强动机。在行动之前寻找同盟；人多力量大。
这似乎给斯坦福校友留下深刻印象。有人问公司该如何应对外来人(如新闻记者)的霸王。(真是的，窝囊的人还真不少。)
在克雷默教授结束讲话后，我对他说，我觉得他的办法过于复杂。当他们大声喊叫时，你也提高嗓门，这难道不是对付霸王的唯一办法吗？霸王难道不是在寻找他人弱点、分辨强者和弱者吗？霸王在内心深处不都是懦夫吗？以其人之道还治其人之身，这难道不是最佳对策吗？克雷默教授同意我所说的不无道理，但后来一想，我得承认这些仅适用于针对体能型霸王和情感恫吓者。对付其他类型的霸王会比较复杂。
使被欺负者真正感到慰藉的是，霸王一旦失势，便会摔得很重。在撒切尔夫人的权威明显下降时，她那些所谓的同盟者迅速将其拉下马。
本月，哈佛文理学院对校长萨默斯投不信任票，这部分源于其所发表的有关妇女和科学之言论。教职员工抗议其粗暴论调和傲慢举止。工作场所霸王很少有真正的同盟者，那些他们觉得可称为同盟者的人会在麻烦来临时销声匿迹。
