By Chris Chittenden

We recently came across an article in an industry journal that spoke to the issue of workplace bullying. This article got us thinking about what gets in the way of managers addressing this issue in spite of the obvious legal and productivity risks for an organisation.

As a context for our thoughts, we had recently attended a workshop run by Human Synergistics, a well-known developer of personal assessment tools. Their extensive survey results from managers throughout Australia indicate that avoidance is one of the most prevalent styles employed by managers for dealing with people issues. In other words, many managers do not like to deal with issues, which may lead to confrontation. Given the predisposition of bullies to confrontation, it is little wonder such managers do not address the issue.

Another interesting conclusion drawn from the Human Synergistics’ data is that aggressive behaviours in the workplace are often consistent with reward and position. In other words, many bullies get rewarded for their style, because of the perception that they get things done. This is despite overwhelming evidence that a more constructive approach built on realistic achievement, self-actualisation, support and good relationships produces better long-term business outcomes. Many people, who have achieved a high position within organisations, use bullying tactics themselves, but perceive themselves as simply goal oriented people who can get things done. It is little wonder, therefore, that they perceive this as character strength and not an issue that needs to be dealt with in others.

From our perspective then, the issue is not so much how to deal with the bully, but rather to focus on how to create a more constructive workplace in which the bully has no place. The keys to such a constructive workplace can be found by exploring three domains.

The first domain is organisational culture. We agree with Dr. Robert Cooke of Human Synergistics who defines the culture as “the shared values, norms and expectations that govern the way people approach their work and interact with each other”. A constructive workplace is based on a constructive culture. To describe a constructive culture in detail would take more space than we have available to us here. However, there are a number of fundamentals that apply.

A constructive culture is based on realistic achievement and the belief that everyone’s effort makes a difference and mistakes are always seen as a learning opportunity.

Such a culture does not require perfection. The individual grows and the organisation prospers during this learning process, rather than squandering resources in misguided attempts to cover up mistakes. Employees have input with management in setting mutually agreeable, yet challenging goals and then are supported in achieving them.

Most people in senior organisational positions would tell us their culture had many of the hallmarks of a constructive culture, yet the evidence does not bear this out. All organisations we have dealt with believe they have or should have a constructive culture, yet there are only a handful that currently have such a culture. The big question is, “Why the disconnect?”

The well-known management theorist, Chris Argyris, developed an idea that provides insight to an answer. He distinguished between what people really do – “Theory-in-use” – and what they believe they do – “Espoused Theory”. In many cases, they think they are acting constructively when they are being perceived as acting in aggressive/defensive or passive/defensive ways. Human Synergistics’ data suggest that in two out of every three cases, there is disconnect between people’s perceptions of their own behaviour and how other people observe them.

It is well recognised that one of the major impacts on organisational culture is the style of the organisational leaders and the impact those styles have on others. We are not talking here about their “espoused theory” of how things should be, which usually ends up in value statements and the like. Rather we are talking about their “theory-in-use”, or what they actually do and how this is perceived by others.

The second domain involved in the development of a constructive workplace, lies in the systems, policies, etc that underpin organisational life. These systems must be consistent with a constructive culture, yet all too often we see that they are not. Take for example, performance management systems. When asked, most HR managers talk about a system that will develop performance into the future. Yet most performance management systems are used as a review system to regulate, reward and promote. The inconsistency is that the focus in periodic counselling sessions is on past performance, rather than the future. Hence, rather than come out of the conversation focused and motivated for the future, employees emerge feeling the worse for wear. And even in those rare cases when mutually agreed goals are set, managers rarely follow-up and give the employee feedback or generate the personal possibilities necessary to motivate them.

This leads us to the final domain – the individual. If an organisation is to change its culture to be more constructive, it must address the disconnect between “theory-in-use” and “espoused theory”. In order to implement cultural change, the need for change and the advantages of change must be recognised at an individual level. You have no doubt heard many of these ideas before. So how can managers, executives, and CEO’s, in particular, learn to “walk the talk”? Most of you will be aware of the upsurge in the use of organisational and executive coaches. We do not believe this increase in coaching is a fad, but rather correlates to a growing acceptance within organisations of the need to address the negative consequences of the “theory-in-use” and “espoused theory” disconnect. To see the value of coaching in addressing this dissonance, we must first understand what coaching is all about.

Even within the coaching industry, there is widespread discussion as to what constitutes coaching. As it currently stands, there is an inclusive approach that recognises many different approaches, however it is commonly agreed that at the heart of good coaching lie two fundamental skills – communication or conversational skills and the ability to observe and interpret the human condition and ways of behaviour.

These skills are used to assist people in developing their effectiveness in whatever domain of life the coaching is undertaken. In an organisational setting, this means being more effective in understanding ones self and others. This leads to seeing disconnect between espoused theory and theory in use and in developing new ways of acting. This includes communicating thoughts and understanding the communications of others, thereby effectively coordinating action, rather than just the transfer of information.

We think Sydney University’s Anthony Grant hits the nail on the head when he says:

“Workplace coaching is a solution-focused, results-oriented systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement’s of the work performance and the self-directed learning and personal growth of the coachee.

In summary, the core constructs of coaching include: a collaborative, egalitarian rather than authoritarian relationship between the coach and coachee; a focus on constructing solutions not analysing problems; the assumption that coachees are capable and not dysfunctional; an emphasis on collaborative goal setting between the coach and coachee; and the recognition that although the coach has expertise in facilitating learning through coaching, they do not necessarily need domain-specific expertise in the coachee’s chosen area of learning. ”

Hence, when we coach leaders, what we are doing is using our skills to help the coachee see the gaps between their “theory-in-use” and “espoused theory”. We point out their blindness and help them develop integrity about their actions. We help them see how their actions cannot only be consistent with their business goals, but also with their goals to develop an effective organisational culture.

There are three levels at which a coach can do this:

1. Setting goals and achieving tasks;
2. Developing new skills; and
3. Developing a new way of being.

Many coaches work only at the first level – setting goals and achieving tasks. They see their role as keeping the coachee on track and getting things done. This approach to coaching is based on the psychological approach of behaviourism, where people are expected to respond to external stimuli. In this case, the coach provides the external stimuli by partnering the coachee in setting goals and holding the coachee accountable to achieving them. As a general practice, this approach to coaching has a limited impact on learning, as there is a reliance on the coach to help the coachee get things done through external stimuli such as rewards. Once the stimuli are removed the tendency is for the coachee’s behaviour to revert back to their old ways of doing things. For example, a coachee may want to be more effective at time management. Using this first level of coaching, the coach would work with the coachee to identify his or her priorities and then establish agreements about specific tasks with the coachee. He or she would then report back to the coach about their success. This would then set up a cycle of behaviour whereby the coachee can achieve the better outcomes they seek, however, as we have said, this cycle is often broken when the coaching relationship ends.