The easy short answer is no, but let’s apply a little rigour and objectivity to this topical question. A good starting point is always definition.
Bully n 1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing towards smaller or weaker people. 2. A person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear.
Bullying v-tr 1. To intimidate with superior size or strength. 2. Pressure or coerce a person to do something.
Bullying can be defined as the persistent use of offensive behaviour which gradually undermines a person’s self esteem and confidence. Whilst bullying does not include constructive criticism of behaviour or performance by line managers or supervisors upwards, it should be recognized that such criticism can often be used as a way to further undermine the confidence of a person who is already under the cumulative effect of harassment and that such poor performance may well be a direct result of that harassment. (source). This same source quotes BBC commissioned research by Staffs. Uni. and UMIST which concluded:
53% of the sample reported having been bullied at work
77% of the sample reported witnessing bullying at work.
Some observers and recipients of the managerial styles of both Gordon Brown and football manager Alex Ferguson have reportedly described them as bullies. Given their elevated positions and apparent success, it behoves us to question the acceptable boundaries of ‘forceful styles’ of leadership and management.
I suggest a few tests:
- The test of consciousness. When the ‘bully’ is applying the technique ( e.g. the hairdryer half time talk, or dominating body language) is he fully in control of himself and conscious of the likely consequences of his actions?
- The test of morality. Is the normal behaviour of the ‘bully’ in line with commonly accepted standards of human rights and ethics? Is it lawful?
- The test of precedent. Does management research support the effectiveness of ‘forceful’ styles in the particular type of circumstances where it is being observed?
If the behaviour is ‘selective’ rather than ‘habitual’ and the proponent is fully conscious of the likely consequences whilst acting within the law and standards of behaviour prescribed by the employer….then perhaps a ‘demanding style’ has its place in the leadership lexicon. Outside of these boundaries it is bullying and should be dealt with….forcibly.
These are the personal views of Ron Leagas, and not necessarily those of The Success Group Ltd.
TSG Comments on Bullying:
Bullying is rife and has ever been so. What is one person’s bullying is another’s forcefull comment.
The issue revolves around whether or not forceful comment stops a full interaction of ideas that build a better solution. Here again the issue is split: short term solutions under time pressure focus attention on the critically few key factors, ignoring subtler potential solutions.
We are living in increasingly short term environments: the perception of bullying will increase. We are also aware of massive fragmentation in all walks of life. Brand promiscuity, multi tribalism, ever morphing social networks, are reflections of an increasing lack of personal accountability and responsibility to the team rather than the ego.
In prior generations we were borne, grew up, raised families and died in “local” environments: how we acted and reacted was naturally placed in a local setting wher we all needed each other: even the bully. Clearly what went around came around all too quickly and clearly: we were held accountable by the people we needed in our working and social lives. Bullying would only get you so far….and there was always someone bigger than you!
So what? Bullies dominate when they can get away with it. Most bullies are destroyed by intelligent responses and / or bigger bullies. Intelligent bullies are the worst. They should know better but they use their intelligence to develop “worlds” that they can dominate.
So what do we do? Ridiculing bullies does not work – they just move territory…bullying bullies does not work….again they move territory.
The only solution is in our reaction to bullies….controlled, balanced rejection of their input until they “normalise” their attitude, beliefs and communication styles to acceptable standards of behaviour.
Passive acceptance of bullying is a cul de sac for human progress.
Yes bullying is a no!
However…robust decisions, shouting and exhorting, riding over people’s sensitivities have been applauded in extreme circumstances. Churchill’s reputation depends on it.
Daniel Goleman describes 6 management styles that need to be mastered in a complete leader. These include Coercive and Pacesetting.
Although, as he acknowledges, these cause negative culture, in crisis times and for a limited period they may be the necessary leadership styles. Important to stop them when the crisis is over, as they can prove addictive!
An interesting discussion and one to which all Managers and directors will be sensitive to.
There is a fine line between bullying and being forceful and perhaps a more appropriate word to use would be assertive.
A person in a leadership position being forceful may be seen as bullying and using his position to leverage his view / wishes. On the other hand subordinate team members may be forceful and this will be seen as a strength in them with no risk of being called a bully. There is always a level of threat which will discourage some team members from putting forward valuable contributions. We all know that often decisions need to be made which are not popular and are not consensus and being forceful is still not the answer. (e.g. The Iraq war where leaders were forceful and with hindsight would without doubt have decided on a different approach) If it is a well developed and cohesive team that clicks then the team will understand the reasons for making a necessary decision and understand your assertiveness (and contest your position).
Team members will respect a strong leadership prerogative made in the very best interests of the team and the company / country and calmly put to them and clearly reasoned and being prepared to change their view if there is “seemingly” valid doubt.
In underdeveloped teams or teams where trust is not established then being forceful may be very inappropriate and will damage the team trust.
We all also know that building a first class team is based upon trust and trust is established through “doing” not through talking. Openness, integrity and calm consistency are key to developing world beating teams.
There are always exceptions and disruptive personalities but these are usually in an underdeveloped team. A “quick fix” should be avoided. Identify the stage at which the team has developed and respond accordingly, with underdeveloped teams tread softly until full trust is established.
A must read for Managers and Directors / Recruiters is “Snakes in Suits”. I have no connection with the book but found it very enlightening. http://www.snakesinsuits.com
A recent unfortunate bullying accusation was directed at Gordon Brown and we are all sure that he would not bully but would perhaps get a little impatient knowing that he needed to quickly try and gain consensus for decisions that he knew were right and knew that this was what would be done.
Frustrating but leadership is about building trust with patience, understanding, integrity, assertiveness and many other things and it really takes practice and training to get right most of the time.
The sign of a good leader is that the team genuinely believes the decision was theirs and the leader simply guided / facilitated the team to that decision and most of the time he will receive no acknowledgement or praise and not need it as the results will be on the bottom line.
John
http://www.dairyconsultant.co.uk
When the leader is weak in certain areas where the staff can do much better than him/her and produce results or staff fail to produce results – perceived bullying may happen. Usual actions – speaking in abnormal tones, unexpected facial expressions, poor support for empowerment, favours a colleague who is a slave to him/her and when the ’slave’ is eager for a promotion – bad atmosphere when it spirals to discrimination,suppression, etc…to others especially when working in a team, impatience, demanding – actions may stray to bullying over a period of time when the leader does not realise his/her change in behaviour or does it with intention on a continuous basis. Of course, some leaders don’t learn from their staff when they have the power and motive to bully and hence more friction and conflict. Some good leaders have the tendency of moving to a ‘bully’ character by listening to others – clicky with other bullies within the team or making poor decisions when the bullying issues from staff are raised. These are my observations!
Bullies are an interesting lot, and particularly because they don’t think of themselves as bullies. Think all the way back to your youth and recall those kids who were considered bullies in your school. Not one of them thought of themselves that way, and in fact almost always saw themselves as the victims. “It’s not my fault”, “He made me mad”, “They wouldn’t let me play/have the ball/etc.” were the childhood bullies’ refrains. When they did get in trouble with adults for their actions, they became angry at the adults for punishing them, and even angrier at the kids they bullied for ratting them out; they were the ones who’d been wronged, not the other kids they’d been picking on.
Bringing this into the working adult world, and it’s much the same. A bullying manager never sees him/herself as a bully. Instead, they’d describe themselves as “strong”, “decisive”, “uncompromising”, or “driven”. We could probably discuss endlessly the psychological characteristics of such people (insecurity, a need to prevail over others, narcissism, etc.), but perhaps it’s best to save that for another day and thread.
How should Leaders behave?
Trust your subordinates.
The Definition of Leadership.
Leadership has been called “The ability to get followers.”
One of the deepest cravings of human nature is the need to feel important, to have a sense of meaning and purpose in life and work. Leaders are invariably those who can tap into the deeper emotions of others and get them to rise above and beyond anything they may have accomplished in the past.
Trust Other People
The key to getting followers in every case is to “trust your subordinates.” Many studies have concluded that it is the mutual bond of trust and respect that acts as the catalyst that creates high performance. Not only must you trust your subordinates, but even more important, they must trust you.
Act With Integrity
In order to “get followers,” your subordinates must have an absolute belief in your integrity. They must believe that you will abide by the highest ethical standards of fairness and justice. Integrity appears over and over as the most important leadership quality. People can only put their whole hearts into their work when they feel secure and they can only feel secure when they can relax and trust you completely.
Action Exercises.
Here are two things you can do immediately to bring out the very best from the people who look up to you.
First, make people feel important. Tell them how important and valuable they are and then give them both the responsibility and the opportunity to do their job the very best they know how.
Second, set a good example. Be an inspirational leader by being a role model for everyone else to follow. The more people look up to you, the better they will do their work and the happier they will be.
John Watson
http://www.dairyconsultant.co.uk