How Ellen Killed Bob

Ellen was one of Bob's associates. They'd entered the company at about the same time. quickly established ties as the new supervisors on the block, and eventually gained promotions into middle management. They often went to lunch together although there was never a whiff of anything romantic. Both had happy marriages and each would describe the other as a friend. Neither would have suspected that Ellen would murder Bob's career but then that crime developed over time and was quietly performed.

Even now, Ellen would deny any ill-will toward Bob. She always thought of herself as one of Bob's boosters and could readily cite instances when she'd praised and aided him. A review of the evidence indicates, however, that for all of her good intent, Ellen adopted practices that would eventually be lethal. Her conduct included the following:

• She promptly told Bob, who was notoriously sensitive, about any negative gossip that she heard about him in the office grapevine. This upset him enormously. Many of the tidbits damaged his perception of some co-workers who may or may not have said what they were alleged to have remarked. Ellen felt it was her duty as a friend to pass along the bad news. The effect was to make Bob feel like he was surrounded by enemies.


• Whenever she and Bob worked together on projects, she was consistently late with her share of the work although she knew tardiness was one of Bob's hot buttons and shot his stress levels off the charts. This was especially disconcerting if both had to make presentations.
  
• While at lunch with her other friends, she quoted some of Bob's off-hand - and what he thought were confidential - quips about executives. Those comments eventually reached the wrong ears and created some serious enemies for Bob. He never knew the reason why certain promotions were mysteriously blocked. To this day, Ellen denies any culpability, declaring, "I told them not to repeat anything."


• Ellen passed reports on their joint projects to various executives with the simple line, "Here's a project that I worked on that might be of interest." On a few of those projects, Ellen's work was ten to twenty percent of the total project while Bob did the rest.

All of these did their work in time and Bob's career was effectively stymied while Ellen moved on up the ladder. Bob knew little of most of these actions and it is easy to see him as a victim.

The real question, however, is how much of this was Bob's fault?

Old Reliable: Lines from the Passive-Aggressive

Did I forget to tell you about that meeting? Oh, I'm so sorry.

I ran your idea past Scott. He made some changes and submitted it to the boss. Hope you don't mind.

I know I promised to support that project but then I learned about the potential objection from the Marketing folks and didn't have time to get back with you.

When I accepted the praise for the team's achievement, I'm sure that everyone knew that I wasn't the only one who did the work.

We forgot to hand out your packet of supporting documents at the meeting but I can assure you that everything was covered in the discussion. Too bad they didn't adopt it.

10 Acts of Hidden Aggression

1. Freezing the hiring of needed staff.
2. Not permitting the firing of incompetents.
3. Forcing the work unit to provide staff support to an ever-increasing group of committees.
4. Not financing attendance at professional conferences.
5. Reorganizing the work unit every six to seven months.
6. Holding the managers responsible for decisions outside of their control.
7. Permitting all work units except the targeted one to flaunt various rules.
8. Failing to support the work unit in the wake of meritless attacks from community groups.
9. Bringing in executives who have no experience in the work unit's specialty to run the work unit.
10. Not creating a career path so the work unit consequently becomes a dead-end.

Prima Donna Departments

Whenever prima donnas in the workplace are discussed, the tendency is to focus on individuals, not departments. There are, however, prima donna departments and you can spot them by these signs:

• They think the rules that apply to other departments should not apply to them. In their eyes, they face special challenges that are not encountered by other departments and therefore they should be cut extra slack or should be able to devise their own procedures without interference from the "civilians" at the main headquarters.


• They want their own departmental attorneys and HR-types and do not want to rely on ones who are independent of their department.


• They want to investigate all complaints against their own department and justify such authority by arguing that their culture is such that their employees would not open up to outside investigators. [That is rarely true.] They deny encouraging such attitudes.


• They may in fact provide more services or income than other departments. That adds to their view that they are special. It does not, however, justify any exemption from outside oversight.


• They are not above using outside leverage, such as customers or public opinion, to push their claims.


• They operate with a We - They view of the world where anyone who is not in their circle is viewed with suspicion.
  

Caving in to the demands of prima donna departments is always a mistake. Give one concession and you can bet they'll be back for more. Resisting takes no small amount of courage but the CEO must be prepared to draw the line. It's difficult enough dealing with individuals who are prima donnas. When that attitude extends to a department, the difficulty is multiplied.

If Only the Czar Knew

In Czarist Russia, there was an expression often used by people bemoaning some difficulty:

"If only the Czar knew."

The idea was that if the Czar caught wind of the misconduct or injustice, he'd put an end to it. Truth be known, the Czar probably knew of many of the problems and yet saw no reason to change matters. Those who used the expression may well have suspected as much but it was nonetheless reassuring to think that there existed at least a remote possibility of reform.

"If only the Czar knew" was an expression of hope.

You can hear equivalent lines in the workplace - "If the manager found out about this, heads would roll" - and a natural question is, "Why doesn't the manager know about this?"

In many instances, the manager doesn't know because he or she doesn't want to know. (To learn about some things triggers an obligation to act and many managers are conflict-adverse.) Others don't know because they lack the ability to spot a problem when it's dancing on their desks. Still others will know but will steadfastly deny that they know. Those are the most irritating.

I knew an executive who had the habit of adopting an innocent choirboy expression whenever any problem arose that had a career-jeopardizing odor. "How can this be?" he'd exclaim before rushing to affix blame to anyone other than himself.

His act was sufficiently plausible that he rose in the ranks.

And one day some credulous superiors tapped him to be the new "Czar."

Ah, if only the Czar knew.

Clients and Office Politics

David Maister, who has a distinguished record in advising professional service firms (I frequently delve into his book on the subject), has written two posts to generate some comments on the touchy issue of how to handle client politics.

Here’s the first and here’s the second.

A point he touches upon: What to do when you feel that you're being used as a weapon?

There is no easy answer. One of the complicating factors in the office political wars is there can be a legion of stakeholders depending upon your conduct and not all of them are scoundrels. The tricky part is you may not learn of the factions until you're well into the project. It can help to have an escape clause in the initial agreement but clients may regard such language with suspicion, especially if they know you're about to be manipulated into performing an unpleasant task.

Like most swamps, they are easier to stay out of than to get out of.