NOVEMBER 1992, VOL 56, NO 5
AORN JOURNAL
Covert Actions by a Coworker IDENTIFICATION, CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS Estlle Davison-Crews
E
very manager and personnel director should be aware that there may be saboteurs among their staff members. Many times, saboteurs are those we least expect. They are the staff members who come across as being well meaning, concerned, and caring. They use the information they gain from relationships with coworkers to destroy the credibility of others and gain power. These saboteurs are masters of deception. Although they pose as supportive friends, their motives are popularity, approval, and personal gain. Their unethical actions involve spreading gossip and rumors, undermining coworkers’ reputations, breaking confidences, and pitting coworkers against each other. On the surface, saboteurs get along with everyone. They listen to everyone’s problems, sympathize, and appear to patch up quarrels. In reality, saboteurs do not really fix things, they just make it appear that way to gain or maintain popularity. They usually have dozens of friends but no genuine friendships. Because women’s relationships with women tend to be more emotional than men’s relationships with men, sabotage by a female coworker can be an extremely personal battle. This problem is exacerbated when the majority of workers in an organization are women (eg, nurses in a health care setting). The bottom line, however, is that there is a job to be done. Personal feelings and emotions should not be a part of that job. A survey of business and professional women in the 1980s documented numerous examples of sabotage.
On the surface, they seemed to the victims to be nice,friendly, helpful, vulnerable, even needy-someone one would trust. But then, beneath that seemingly supportive, calm exterior, they plotted devious schemes that ultimately caused incredible pain. What made it even worse was that often, the perpetrator had once appeared to be a friend. What was significant about these stories was the way many of the unethical women involved were able to disarm and mislead the victims.’
Getting Away With Sabotage
S
aboteurs recognize one very significant fact-women tend to shy away from direct confrontation. As one researcher points out, there are rules about being feminine and there are rules about being masculine.2 Men are taught early in life to express aggression openly, whereas women are taught that being overt is unfeminine and unattractive.3 ~~
Estlle Davison-Crews, MA, MS, is managing partner of Davison-Crews Seminars, Lenexa, Kan. She earned her bachelor of arts degree in communications from Lindenwood College, St Charles, M o , her master of arts degree in human development from St Mary’s College, Winona, Minn, and her master of science degree in adult education from Kansas State University, Manhuttan. 869
NOVEMBER 1992, VOL 56, NO 5
AORN JOURNAL
Saboteurs are those who tell coworkers what others have said about them under the guise of concern. Although most women are able to talk openly about how someone else has annoyed or hurt them, they are uncomfortable talking directly with the person with whom the problem exists.4 Saboteurs capitalize on this reluctance and use it to manipulate their coworkers; however, they are careful to remain distant enough to deny involvement. Because saboteurs remain distant, documenting their involvement is difficult.
matter how many problems exist in a saboteur’s department, they are not acknowledged and often are denied. The reason for this is that problems cause tension, and the way to stay popular is to keep everyone free of tension. Saboteurs maintain that everything is wonderful even under the worst circumstances.
Identibing Saboteurs
n e f r u s t r a t i n g c o n s e q u e n c e of ‘ e m p l o y i n g saboteurs is that they drive away conscientious workers while they remain indefinitely. They get away with this because they are good workers who do not make waves. Also, because saboteurs act as messengers and are not directly involved in conflicts, their behavior rarely is documented-even though they instigate conflicts. Also, saboteurs capitalize on women’s tendencies to keep negative emotions inside for fear that expressing anger or frustration will brand them as h y ~ t e r i c a l .Keeping ~ negative emotions inside can cause behaviors such as lateness, errors, sarcastic tones of voice, and the inability to look others in the eyes for prolonged periods of time.6 Direct expressions of anger often are easier to deal with than these behavioral manifestations, and employees should be encouraged to express their initial emotions. If saboteurs are in management positions, their units probably run smoothly. Saboteurs’ units do not change, they are not creative, and therefore, they are not seen as problematic. These units usually are staffed by mediocre professionals who do not cause problems, ask questions, or seek to improve their performance because saboteurs do not like conflict or confrontation.
S
aboteurs a r e those w h o supply the office gossip and insinuate that it is true. They exaggerate and distort the facts until they become rumors that others are tempted to listen to and repeat. Saboteurs know that people are vulnerable to gossip, and they use that knowledge to their advantage. Workers should be wary of those employees who ask. “What d o you think of manager ‘X’?” These people get the ball rolling, back out of the conversation, and leave others “holding the bag.” Saboteurs are those who tell coworkers in hushed tones what others have said about them, convincing them they speak out of concern. Saboteurs convince coworkers they are all on the same side. Their pretense of sympathy makes them believable, but chances are they also exaggerate things that one coworker says and tell others. They rearrange facts to suit their purposes and cause rifts between otherwise congenial coworkers. By being only the messengers, saboteurs can claim innocence or misunderstanding if caught. They commonly use the phrase, “I don’t know why we can’t all be friends.” O n e of the e a s i e s t w a y s t o r e c o g n i z e saboteurs i s by their intense positivity, almost to the point of being unrealistic. No 870
Destructive Consequences
NOVEMBER 1992,VOL 56, NO 5
Solutions
E
ven after saboteurs are identified, they can be difficult to deal with. Because their unethical behavior is difficult to document, chances are they have glowing evaluations in their personnel files. Being the first to criticize and write a negative review could bring the reviewer’s motives under suspicion rather than achieving the desired result of documenting the saboteur’s unethical behavior. The saboteur ends up being the winner. Rather than writing a negative performance appraisal, the manager or reviewer should try to document the business-related facts, including whether tasks are finished and whether they are completed by deadlines. Direct confrontation likely will result in saboteurs’ tears and their inflicting feelings of guilt in those who confront them for even suspecting unethical behavior from them. Saboteurs know that if they can make a person feel guilty, they often can make that person back down. If directly accused of spreading rumors, they simply deny it and then distort and repeat the accusation to others, again making the accuser look like the villain. The problem with one-on-one confrontation is that it is one person’s word against the saboteur’s word. The only way to challenge saboteurs directly is to involve a witness. The witness does not participate in the conversation; he or she remains neutral and serves only to verify whether something was said if a question arises. Saboteurs tend to “hear” things that are not said directly. They twist words and often extract from them ideas that are not stated. The witness can verify whether something the saboteur “heard” was actually said. Witnesses are not to take sides; however, if the boss asks a person to be a witness, others may believe that the person is taking the boss’s side. People are reluctant to get involved if they fear accusations of their willingness to “back up the boss” rather than their coworkers. If it is not possible to involve a witness, documentation is the next best thing. The manager should record the exact time and place the con-
AORN JOURNAL
versation takes place and summarize everything he or she discusses with the saboteur. This provides some defense if questions arise about what is said. The only good solution is to open up the lines of communication between staff members and encourage overt behavior. Encourage employees not to repeat gossip and to explore the facts of rumors with the people directly involved. Verifying details with those who are involved not only thwarts the efforts of the saboteur, it ensures accurate information and gives the people involved a chance to defend themselves. It may be necessary to have a department meeting so everyone hears the whole story and knows that directness is the best policy. It is difficult, but not always impossible, to remove saboteurs from the staff. Documented evidence that saboteurs are costing the institution money has no defense. Any documentation of how their behavior has delayed work, blocked improvements, hindered patient care, or caused others to cite them as reasons for terminating employment may convince administration to investigate further. The important thing is documenting how the saboteur is wasting the institution’s money. For example, if an institution has a very high turnover rate but one or two employees remain constant, the manager should find out what the turnover rate was before those “constant” employees were hired. He or she should conduct post-exit interviews with previous employees to find out why they left and if it was because of a particular employee. Documentation showing that a particular employee is the cause of significant turnover is cause for dismissing that employee. It is a good idea to have at least three documented cases of a particular employee costing the institution money. Otherwise, administrative personnel might believe the incident is isolated and that the employee deserves a second chance. By making the battle economic rather than personal, the manager avoids having to confront the saboteur. When presenting the documentation to administration, the manager 871
NOVEMBER 1992, VOL 56, NO 5
AORN JOURNAL
should remain calm, logical, and unemotional and should discuss only pertinent facts relating to the saboteur’s behavior. If a manager presents personal reasons for dismissal to administration, he or she appears unprofessional and is less likely to be taken seriously.
Summary
S
aboteurs survive if Overt cornmunication exists. Open lines of communication discourage unethical behavior and make it difficult for saboteurs to cause problems. Managers must learn to confront problems directly and then move on. be encouraged to practice direct, open communication and not to repeat rumors and gossip. Also, it is important to provide overt support for overt communication and
behavior. Supporting directness is one way to discourage sabotage. Everyone involved needs to remember that it is easy to blame the messenger, but saboteurs cannot continue to practice deceit if others are not willing to listen to and encourage their continuous gossip. 0 Notes 1. J Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support (Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1987)
229. 2. L Shapiro, “The mind: Guns and dolls,” N e ~ s w e e k115 (May 28,1990) 583. Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support, 275. 4. L Eichenbaum, S Orbach, Between Women (New York City: Penguin Books, 1987) 147. 5. Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support, 277. 6. Ibid.
Avoid Congress Problems by Planning
Information from Pediatric Nurses Needed
The 40th annual AORN Congress will be in Anaheim, Calif, Feb 28 through March 5,1993. If you plan to attend Congress this year, be sure to investigate the staff scheduling and budgetary constraints at your place of employment early. Think about your housing accommodations for Congress, and reserve your room through AORN early to ensure your first hotel choice. Remember that advance registration for Congress will save you money. Also, AORN offers discount file numbers for airline flights, and there are airline incentive drawings. See the Congress brochure or the Congress story in this issue for more details. This year’s Congress will provide more than 70 educational sessions highlighting the newest procedures and standards and more than 186.000 sq ft of exhibits from leading surgical supply and service companies. Meeting space is available for special interest groups that want to meet and discuss current issues.
AORN needs the help of all pediatric nurses interested in forming a Specialty Assembly. Headquarters has no data base information about the pediatric specialty but has received requests to form a Specialty Assembly for pediatric nurses. If you have any interest in forming a Specialty Assembly in this area, please contact AORN Headquarters as soon as possible at (303) 755-6300.
872
AORN JOURNAL
Covert Actions by a Coworker IDENTIFICATION, CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS Estlle Davison-Crews
E
very manager and personnel director should be aware that there may be saboteurs among their staff members. Many times, saboteurs are those we least expect. They are the staff members who come across as being well meaning, concerned, and caring. They use the information they gain from relationships with coworkers to destroy the credibility of others and gain power. These saboteurs are masters of deception. Although they pose as supportive friends, their motives are popularity, approval, and personal gain. Their unethical actions involve spreading gossip and rumors, undermining coworkers’ reputations, breaking confidences, and pitting coworkers against each other. On the surface, saboteurs get along with everyone. They listen to everyone’s problems, sympathize, and appear to patch up quarrels. In reality, saboteurs do not really fix things, they just make it appear that way to gain or maintain popularity. They usually have dozens of friends but no genuine friendships. Because women’s relationships with women tend to be more emotional than men’s relationships with men, sabotage by a female coworker can be an extremely personal battle. This problem is exacerbated when the majority of workers in an organization are women (eg, nurses in a health care setting). The bottom line, however, is that there is a job to be done. Personal feelings and emotions should not be a part of that job. A survey of business and professional women in the 1980s documented numerous examples of sabotage.
On the surface, they seemed to the victims to be nice,friendly, helpful, vulnerable, even needy-someone one would trust. But then, beneath that seemingly supportive, calm exterior, they plotted devious schemes that ultimately caused incredible pain. What made it even worse was that often, the perpetrator had once appeared to be a friend. What was significant about these stories was the way many of the unethical women involved were able to disarm and mislead the victims.’
Getting Away With Sabotage
S
aboteurs recognize one very significant fact-women tend to shy away from direct confrontation. As one researcher points out, there are rules about being feminine and there are rules about being masculine.2 Men are taught early in life to express aggression openly, whereas women are taught that being overt is unfeminine and unattractive.3 ~~
Estlle Davison-Crews, MA, MS, is managing partner of Davison-Crews Seminars, Lenexa, Kan. She earned her bachelor of arts degree in communications from Lindenwood College, St Charles, M o , her master of arts degree in human development from St Mary’s College, Winona, Minn, and her master of science degree in adult education from Kansas State University, Manhuttan. 869
NOVEMBER 1992, VOL 56, NO 5
AORN JOURNAL
Saboteurs are those who tell coworkers what others have said about them under the guise of concern. Although most women are able to talk openly about how someone else has annoyed or hurt them, they are uncomfortable talking directly with the person with whom the problem exists.4 Saboteurs capitalize on this reluctance and use it to manipulate their coworkers; however, they are careful to remain distant enough to deny involvement. Because saboteurs remain distant, documenting their involvement is difficult.
matter how many problems exist in a saboteur’s department, they are not acknowledged and often are denied. The reason for this is that problems cause tension, and the way to stay popular is to keep everyone free of tension. Saboteurs maintain that everything is wonderful even under the worst circumstances.
Identibing Saboteurs
n e f r u s t r a t i n g c o n s e q u e n c e of ‘ e m p l o y i n g saboteurs is that they drive away conscientious workers while they remain indefinitely. They get away with this because they are good workers who do not make waves. Also, because saboteurs act as messengers and are not directly involved in conflicts, their behavior rarely is documented-even though they instigate conflicts. Also, saboteurs capitalize on women’s tendencies to keep negative emotions inside for fear that expressing anger or frustration will brand them as h y ~ t e r i c a l .Keeping ~ negative emotions inside can cause behaviors such as lateness, errors, sarcastic tones of voice, and the inability to look others in the eyes for prolonged periods of time.6 Direct expressions of anger often are easier to deal with than these behavioral manifestations, and employees should be encouraged to express their initial emotions. If saboteurs are in management positions, their units probably run smoothly. Saboteurs’ units do not change, they are not creative, and therefore, they are not seen as problematic. These units usually are staffed by mediocre professionals who do not cause problems, ask questions, or seek to improve their performance because saboteurs do not like conflict or confrontation.
S
aboteurs a r e those w h o supply the office gossip and insinuate that it is true. They exaggerate and distort the facts until they become rumors that others are tempted to listen to and repeat. Saboteurs know that people are vulnerable to gossip, and they use that knowledge to their advantage. Workers should be wary of those employees who ask. “What d o you think of manager ‘X’?” These people get the ball rolling, back out of the conversation, and leave others “holding the bag.” Saboteurs are those who tell coworkers in hushed tones what others have said about them, convincing them they speak out of concern. Saboteurs convince coworkers they are all on the same side. Their pretense of sympathy makes them believable, but chances are they also exaggerate things that one coworker says and tell others. They rearrange facts to suit their purposes and cause rifts between otherwise congenial coworkers. By being only the messengers, saboteurs can claim innocence or misunderstanding if caught. They commonly use the phrase, “I don’t know why we can’t all be friends.” O n e of the e a s i e s t w a y s t o r e c o g n i z e saboteurs i s by their intense positivity, almost to the point of being unrealistic. No 870
Destructive Consequences
NOVEMBER 1992,VOL 56, NO 5
Solutions
E
ven after saboteurs are identified, they can be difficult to deal with. Because their unethical behavior is difficult to document, chances are they have glowing evaluations in their personnel files. Being the first to criticize and write a negative review could bring the reviewer’s motives under suspicion rather than achieving the desired result of documenting the saboteur’s unethical behavior. The saboteur ends up being the winner. Rather than writing a negative performance appraisal, the manager or reviewer should try to document the business-related facts, including whether tasks are finished and whether they are completed by deadlines. Direct confrontation likely will result in saboteurs’ tears and their inflicting feelings of guilt in those who confront them for even suspecting unethical behavior from them. Saboteurs know that if they can make a person feel guilty, they often can make that person back down. If directly accused of spreading rumors, they simply deny it and then distort and repeat the accusation to others, again making the accuser look like the villain. The problem with one-on-one confrontation is that it is one person’s word against the saboteur’s word. The only way to challenge saboteurs directly is to involve a witness. The witness does not participate in the conversation; he or she remains neutral and serves only to verify whether something was said if a question arises. Saboteurs tend to “hear” things that are not said directly. They twist words and often extract from them ideas that are not stated. The witness can verify whether something the saboteur “heard” was actually said. Witnesses are not to take sides; however, if the boss asks a person to be a witness, others may believe that the person is taking the boss’s side. People are reluctant to get involved if they fear accusations of their willingness to “back up the boss” rather than their coworkers. If it is not possible to involve a witness, documentation is the next best thing. The manager should record the exact time and place the con-
AORN JOURNAL
versation takes place and summarize everything he or she discusses with the saboteur. This provides some defense if questions arise about what is said. The only good solution is to open up the lines of communication between staff members and encourage overt behavior. Encourage employees not to repeat gossip and to explore the facts of rumors with the people directly involved. Verifying details with those who are involved not only thwarts the efforts of the saboteur, it ensures accurate information and gives the people involved a chance to defend themselves. It may be necessary to have a department meeting so everyone hears the whole story and knows that directness is the best policy. It is difficult, but not always impossible, to remove saboteurs from the staff. Documented evidence that saboteurs are costing the institution money has no defense. Any documentation of how their behavior has delayed work, blocked improvements, hindered patient care, or caused others to cite them as reasons for terminating employment may convince administration to investigate further. The important thing is documenting how the saboteur is wasting the institution’s money. For example, if an institution has a very high turnover rate but one or two employees remain constant, the manager should find out what the turnover rate was before those “constant” employees were hired. He or she should conduct post-exit interviews with previous employees to find out why they left and if it was because of a particular employee. Documentation showing that a particular employee is the cause of significant turnover is cause for dismissing that employee. It is a good idea to have at least three documented cases of a particular employee costing the institution money. Otherwise, administrative personnel might believe the incident is isolated and that the employee deserves a second chance. By making the battle economic rather than personal, the manager avoids having to confront the saboteur. When presenting the documentation to administration, the manager 871
NOVEMBER 1992, VOL 56, NO 5
AORN JOURNAL
should remain calm, logical, and unemotional and should discuss only pertinent facts relating to the saboteur’s behavior. If a manager presents personal reasons for dismissal to administration, he or she appears unprofessional and is less likely to be taken seriously.
Summary
S
aboteurs survive if Overt cornmunication exists. Open lines of communication discourage unethical behavior and make it difficult for saboteurs to cause problems. Managers must learn to confront problems directly and then move on. be encouraged to practice direct, open communication and not to repeat rumors and gossip. Also, it is important to provide overt support for overt communication and
behavior. Supporting directness is one way to discourage sabotage. Everyone involved needs to remember that it is easy to blame the messenger, but saboteurs cannot continue to practice deceit if others are not willing to listen to and encourage their continuous gossip. 0 Notes 1. J Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support (Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1987)
229. 2. L Shapiro, “The mind: Guns and dolls,” N e ~ s w e e k115 (May 28,1990) 583. Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support, 275. 4. L Eichenbaum, S Orbach, Between Women (New York City: Penguin Books, 1987) 147. 5. Briles, Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support, 277. 6. Ibid.
Avoid Congress Problems by Planning
Information from Pediatric Nurses Needed
The 40th annual AORN Congress will be in Anaheim, Calif, Feb 28 through March 5,1993. If you plan to attend Congress this year, be sure to investigate the staff scheduling and budgetary constraints at your place of employment early. Think about your housing accommodations for Congress, and reserve your room through AORN early to ensure your first hotel choice. Remember that advance registration for Congress will save you money. Also, AORN offers discount file numbers for airline flights, and there are airline incentive drawings. See the Congress brochure or the Congress story in this issue for more details. This year’s Congress will provide more than 70 educational sessions highlighting the newest procedures and standards and more than 186.000 sq ft of exhibits from leading surgical supply and service companies. Meeting space is available for special interest groups that want to meet and discuss current issues.
AORN needs the help of all pediatric nurses interested in forming a Specialty Assembly. Headquarters has no data base information about the pediatric specialty but has received requests to form a Specialty Assembly for pediatric nurses. If you have any interest in forming a Specialty Assembly in this area, please contact AORN Headquarters as soon as possible at (303) 755-6300.
872
