This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
In the 15 years at my current company, I have had two episodes that I thought about when reading your post.
The first one was my own boss. She was pushed into the position without having acquired the competent skills (layoffs and re-orgs) and always had a chip on her shoulder for people with seniority and experience (like me). We used to be peers and now I reported to her. I had no problem with the structure since I never aspired to be management. However always be cautious. if your supervisor/boss is insecure about his/her abilities. It never ends well. During my first annual review with her, she brought in HR and basically laid out a development plan for my lackings. I was shocked and surprised. To whomever said that HR works for the organization and not the mere employee, that was a prime example. HR rep did not even do a check and just took to face value that if a "senior leader" of the org wrote up someone then it must be true. WRONG. I had already done a decade by then at the company and as per my former training as an engineer, I kept very meticulous notes even as an RA. I refused to sign anything, escalated the matter to above both my manager and the HR rep with the explanation that I had full evidence that the plan was fabricated and biased to discredit me. It took a while but I endured and prevailed. On that day, I also set feelers through all my networks and had a backup plan to move divisions. The final outcome was that the plan was rescinded, I was temporarily] moved under someone else while she was put to pasture with no direct reports and the HR rep was demoted.
The second incident was when a colleague went to HR to report that I was allegedly "threatening" to another colleague. It was a different division and the HR at that one was a lot more thorough and competent. She did check on all the facts but still alerted my direct supervisor that such a report was made (as per our internal policy). I reported to the DVP RA directly at the time and my good reputation/tenure preceded me so while I was in the clear, so to speak, I appreciated that I was told about the report (without mentioning the person, as per policy) and to still be careful on how I am perceived. To keep the potential frictions to a minimum, I asked to be moved to a different franchise with a peer colleague. Same level, same role but different teams. However in this case, I thought that maybe I am the adverserial colleague and took this episode to reflect on my own interactions with others. I saw this quote (no idea on the author) that said "Life is hard as it is, you do not have to be." and it resonated with me.
Original Message:
Sent: 05-Jul-2023 16:43
From: Nancy Singer
Subject: Dealing with an adversarial colleague
Carol,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and detailed response. It is clear from your answers that you have a lot of experience leading and working collaboratively with others.
To provide context for the situation, the colleague is at the same level and is in a different department. The person wants attention, so he asks a lot of questions and disagrees with any suggestion that is made.
An anonymous person asked that I avoid writing controversial questions. If my question offended this person, I apologize.
1. Avoid him/her.
You said: "Avoidance outside required work interaction while maintaining a professional cordial demeanor might be a good option. However, I'd caution against overtly avoiding the adversarial individual in public (e.g., meetings) where collaboration is required or expected. Also, writing down the instances where this person initiates their attacks and keeping a log of their behavior can be helpful later on should the matter end up in HR."
My response: I really liked your answer and especially appreciated your suggestion about keeping a log.
Option 2. When you are going to be in a meeting, ensure that you have solidified your position with others before the meeting.
You said: "Trying to solidify one's position may be misconstrued as creating an 'us versus them' culture. I've personally witnessed many times how 'alliances' can come apart and backfire."
My response: I agree that sometimes solidifying a position can backfire. However, for important topics, talking to people in advance allows me to try to persuade them in a relaxed environment without others judging or watching the interaction.
Option 3. Work on a project with him/her and share the credit.
You said: "(a) Disagree on working with the antagonist out of choice. Why would anyone' volunteer' to work with someone who is adversarial? The office is not a place to practice psychotherapy on others. It is rather a temporary stage to earn a living while developing and growing one's career and corporate skills. While I'm all for having a collegial and respectful work environment, someone who is antagonistic has personality issues they need to resolve outside work."
My response: I see your point. However, this would be my attempt to try to create a cordial working relationship. Sometimes this has worked, and sometimes it has not.
You went on to say: "Agree on giving credit if the person deserves it and you're required to work with them. In the past, when I've been required to work with adversarial individuals, I've kept my communication professional and cordial, but always created an email record of any meeting or verbal interaction afterwards and copy my manager and other team members. I've used the argument that email helps us be 'on the same page,' adding 'feel free to correct or clarify anything I may have forgotten. Thank you, team.' That way, it is clear that I'm just about open communication and keeping everyone looped in while getting the ball rolling. You can't go wrong by staying focused on the team and giving due-credit to team members."
My response: I agree and appreciate the guidance you have provided.
Option 4. Try to discredit him/her so they will lack the creditability to undercut your position.
You said: "Disagree. By doing so, you'd be stooping down to their level while giving ample opportunity to discredit yourself. Spreading hallway rumors about someone else is just detrimental to the organization." <o:p></o:p>
My response: I agree.
Option 5. Try to get them fired.
You said: "If the only reason behind trying to get them fired is their adversarial approach, you're out of luck because toxic behavior (unless pervasive and egregious), seldom results in employment termination. If there is solid proof, as in hard evidence, that an individual has done something illegal or grossly unethical, then that evidence can be submitted, preferably anonymously, to HR or an officer of the company. If the egregious behavior was witnessed by a group of people who are willing to give testimony to HR or Management, that might be an option as well."
My response: I agree.
Option 6. Other.
You said: "[F]rom my past and present experience, both as an individual contributor as well as a member of executive management, individuals with an adversarial personality tend to be insecure and are often envious of others' accomplishments. So, they feel a need to challenge, belittle, or undermine anyone they perceive as more competent. If the adversarial behavior (unless severe) is unprovoked and a one-off, I recommend letting it go, as trying to address a single isolated incident might end up making the targeted individual be seen as the one causing drama. On the other hand, if the attacks are pervasive, the targeted employee should raise the matter to their immediate manager who will likely escalate it to the aggressor's chain of command."
My response: I agree. Thanks for your insights.
------------------------------
Nancy Singer JD, FRAPS, RAC
President, Compliance-Alliance
Newport Coast CA
United States
Original Message:
Sent: 04-Jul-2023 12:01
From: Carol Castillo
Subject: Dealing with an adversarial colleague
Hi Nancy,
Some context for your question would be helpful.
• Is the adversarial colleague in the same department?
• Are they in a more senior position?
• What seems to 'trigger' adversarial behavior?
• Is the target of the adversarial behavior the same person or does it appear to be random?
As for the points you raised, here's my take:
-
- Avoid him/her. Agree. Avoidance outside required work interaction while maintaining a professional cordial demeanor might be a good option. However, I'd caution against overtly avoiding the adversarial individual in public (e.g., meetings) where collaboration is required or expected. Also, writing down the instances where this person initiates their attacks and keeping a log of their behavior can be helpful later on should the matter end up in HR.
2. When you are going to be in a meeting, ensure that you have solidified your position with others before the meeting. Disagree. Trying to solidify one's position may be misconstrued as creating an 'us versus them' culture. I've personally witnessed many times how 'alliances' can come apart and backfire.
3. Work on a project with him/her and share the credit. (a) Disagree on working with the antagonist out of choice. Why would anyone 'volunteer' to work with someone who is adversarial? The office is not a place to practice psychotherapy on others. It is rather a temporary stage to earn a living while developing and growing one's career and corporate skills. While I'm all for having a collegial and respectful work environment, someone who is antagonistic has personality issues they need to resolve outside work. (b) Agree on giving credit if the person deserves it and you're required to work with them. In the past, when I've been required to work with adversarial individuals, I've kept my communication professional and cordial, but always created an email record of any meeting or verbal interaction afterwards and copy my manager and other team members. I've used the argument that email helps us be 'on the same page,' adding 'feel free to correct or clarify anything I may have forgotten. Thank you, team.' That way, it is clear that I'm just about open communication and keeping everyone looped in while getting the ball rolling. You can't go wrong by staying focused on the team and giving due-credit to team members.
4. Try to discredit him/her so they will lack the creditability to undercut your position. Disagree. By doing so, you'd be stooping down to their level while giving ample opportunity to discredit yourself. Spreading hallway rumors about someone else is just detrimental to the organization.
5. Try to get them fired. Disagree. If the only reason behind trying to get them fired is their adversarial approach, you're out of luck because toxic behavior (unless pervasive and egregious), seldom results in employment termination. If there is solid proof, as in hard evidence, that an individual has done something illegal or grossly unethical, then that evidence can be submitted, preferably anonymously, to HR or an officer of the company. If the egregious behavior was witnessed by a group of people who are willing to give testimony to HR or Management, that might be an option as well.
6. Other - from my past and present experience, both as an individual contributor as well as a member of executive management, individuals with an adversarial personality tend to be insecure and are often envious of others' accomplishments. So, they feel a need to challenge, belittle, or undermine anyone they perceive as more competent. If the adversarial behavior (unless severe) is unprovoked and a one-off, I recommend letting it go, as trying to address a single isolated incident might end up making the targeted individual be seen as the one causing drama. On the other hand, if the attacks are pervasive, the targeted employee should raise the matter to their immediate manager who will likely escalate it to the aggressor's chain of command.
Hope that helps.
Carol
------------------------------
Carol Castillo M.S.
Head of Quality and Regulatory
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
United States
------------------------------