EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE: THE MISSING INGREDIENT IN WORKPLACE DYNAMICS

In my book ‘From Bully to Bull’s Eye - Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’, the first question I ask is - “Is your Workplace Culture a Ticking Time Bomb?” Well since its release in January of 2017 quite a few bombs have exploded.

So today I will ask you the same question - “Is your Workplace Culture a Ticking Time Bomb?” I will also challenge you with another question - “How do you know?”

In most instances where bombs have exploded, leaders have claimed they were not aware, which were, in my view were admissions of gross negligence. Leadership should have known because in most incidences they were open secrets.

The reliance on Human Resources, engagement surveys, 360 feedback, diversity and harassment training and whistleblower hotlines have largely been misplaced and do not address how employees feel.

Just imagine if only 17 percent of your employees feel that their coworkers are appropriately dealt with when he or she is not doing their job.

Just imagine if only 36 percent of your employees feel that their supervisor would support them when things get hard.

Just imagine if only 28 percent of your employees feel that all employees are held accountable for their work, regardless of their position in the company.

Just imagine if 77 percent of your employees feel that people are being unfairly recognized while others with better experience or skills don’t get recognized.

Just imagine if 74 percent of your employees feel that their work environment is overly focused on trivial activities and has overly bureaucratic company policies.

Just imagine if 71 percent of your employees speak poorly about your organization to others.

Now let me break this to you gently.

The odds are that these are the feelings of your employees. These appalling statistics represent how North American employees feel about their workplace. This is based on the Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study called ‘Mind the Workplace’, representing the feelings of over 20 thousand respondents.

Another disturbing statistic comes from the American Psychological Association, which shows bosses cause stress for 75 percent of employees. The question here is how much of this stress is unnecessary.

What these numbers convey is that the conditions for individual and group performance and success are not in place in the majority of organizations, which in my mind is the primary reason for our dismal rankings in performance, innovation and equity, the lack of diversity and non inclusive workplaces.

Beyond the workplace, the impact is more serious considering a 2016 Stanford/Harvard study, which indicates that there are 120 thousand deaths annually that may be attributable to workplace stress. Given that these are premature deaths, workplace stress is a one of the major killers. What has not been calculated is the impact this has had within the family unit. Studies done on the families of war vets who have suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, indicates the magnitude of this issue in society is huge.

The current state of the workplace, combined with the perceptions about new technologies, automation and artificial intelligence, have all of the makings for a modern version of an industrial revolution. Two books help put this into context - ‘The Seventh Sense - Power, Fortune, and Survival’ by Joshua CooperRamo, and ‘Edge of Chaos - Why Democracy is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth - and How to Fix It’ by Dambisa Moyo. Both Ramo and Moyo strongly argue the need for more humanity.

On the new Industrial Revolution, leadership can either wait for it to happen and try to ride the wave; or we could, and in my view, should orchestrate the revolution by facilitating an ‘Emotion Revolution’, addressing that need for more humanity.

The Faas Foundation has partnered with the Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence to develop the framework for this under an initiative called ‘Emotion Revolution in the Workplace’, which aims to help organizations create emotionally intelligent workplaces that are psychologically safe, healthy, fair, inspirational and productive.

There are a number of descriptions of what emotional intelligence is out there; however, Charles Wolfe of Emotional Intelligence Roadmap best captured it when he wrote, "Emotional Intelligence is the ability to identify, use, understand, and manage your own emotions, the emotions of others – and the emotional relationships with others".

􏰁For organizations to successfully do this will require a cultural shift, and for most, a cultural transformation.

First of all, culture needs to be defined as the way an organization operates in everything they do and with everyone with whom they have a relationship. This should not be viewed as a human resource initiative or program. It must be driven from the very top of the house based on a value exchange model that the organization has with all stakeholders, shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, regulators, and the communities in which they operate. And it must be based on what we all learned in kindergarten, the ethic of reciprocity - The Golden Rule - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Secondly, the conditions for success that I referred to earlier need to be in place.

There are five conditions that need to be in place to achieve success and to become the foundation for a psychologically safe, healthy, fair and productive culture and climate.

First - TRUST - The #MeToo movement, and the exposures of corruption and wrongdoings in every segment of society, has highlighted the need for leaders to evaluate their at-risk positions. Advocacy and activist groups, current and prospective employees, shareholders and rating agencies will demand it. In most of the situations that have been exposed, the situation is secondary to the real issue, which is that they were open secrets for years, and in some cases decades; and leadership was either complicit or negligent. Bystanders and targets of abuse were afraid to expose any injustices or irregularities primarily due to a lack of trust that they would not face retaliation. Unless there is trust, any resources applied will be urinated away. Trust is the magic bullet.

Second - A sense of PURPOSE - Recommended reading on this is David Graeber’s book, ‘Bullshit Jobs - A Theory’, in which he highlights a UK study that showed 37 percent of people don’t believe their job makes a meaningful difference”. I often relate the story of when President Kennedy visited Cape Canaveral in 1962. While there, he did a walk around and asked people what they did. Most being rocket scientists, he got mostly very technical answers. A janitor he encountered responded with, “well Mr. President, I am helping to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely.” Just imagine if everyone you are responsible for would give that type of answer.

Third - A sense of EFFICACY – The 74 percent of North American workers I referred to earlier, who feel their work environment is overly focused on trivial activities and have overly bureaucratic company policies, suggests that any sense of efficacy is pretty much non-existent. A sense of purpose provides people with the why of what they do. A sense of efficacy is where people constantly ask, “why are wedoing it this way?”

Fourth - FREEDOM of EXPRESSION – Where the ‘Five D’s of Civil Dialogue are embraced by all. They are:􏰁 Discuss Disagree􏰁 Debate􏰁 Defend􏰁 Defy

The art of civil discourse has been lost. Consider if people in your organization are too afraid to tell you what you need to know, how likely will they give input on how to protect and grow your business? Also, how likely will they expose risks to the business?

Given the number of ticking time bombs that have exploded, leaders are starting to panic, and are desperately trying to find a magic bullet on how to protect their organizations from the huge negative consequences of exposures. Most are doubling down on what has not worked in the past, training and revising their policies.

Fifth - DIVERSITY and INCLUSION – If an organization does not reflect the communities in which they operate and the customers they serve, they are not getting essential perspectives on what they need to know. We are entering an era where the lack of talent is the biggest challenge employers face. Becoming more diverse allows organizations to tap into a huge pool of talent, which is largely under represented. However, without inclusion, diversity will fail. Being inclusive forces the organization to address the equity, conscious and unconscious bias’s, favoritism and old boy’s mentality that is dominant in most organizations.

Chevron, an organization we have established a relationship with, is an example of an organization who has made diversity and inclusion the foundational platform of their culture, which is supported by values and a code of behaviours that are inviolate, not just words on a wall or on a website.

At Chevron, these have been conditions of employment for close to three decades. Leadership there attributes these conditions for their success as consistently outperforming others in their sector, and having only a three percent turnover of staff.

The work we are doing at Yale on ‘Emotion Revolution in the Workplace’ is patterned after what Yale introduced into schools, where through a program called ‘RULER’, helped create upwards of two thousand emotionally intelligent schools internationally. The premise of this program is that emotional skills drive learning, decision making, creativity, relationships and physical and psychological wellbeing.

The schools where ‘RULER’ has been introduced have experienced improved academic scores, reduced delinquencies and fewer hostilities.

For the workplace initiative, we conducted a survey of 20,000 respondents across the United States from all sectors. We asked how employees feel about:

  • 􏰁  The work they do (the tasks)

  • 􏰁  The relationships they have at work.

  • 􏰁  The organizations they work for.

    More importantly we asked them to explain why they feel the way they do. These were all open-ended questions seeking their words.

    The most significant discovery was how employees who work for an emotionally intelligent supervisors feel versus how those who work for a supervisor who is not emotionally intelligent. If you have a supervisor with low emotional intelligence, you are more afraid to speak up and experience more pressure to conform to organizational demands. This is exactly the dynamic we have seen played out in organization after organization, where ethical misbehavior is occurring, and few are willing to say anything.

Sydney Finkelstein, a management professor at the Tuck School of Management at Dartmouth College, lamented, “Academics have examined and tried to measure corporate cultures for decades, but nobody has cracked the code” adding, “getting valid data on this issue is really, really difficult.” We believe with what this slide shows, and the mounds of data we now have, that we are on our way to “breaking the code”.

This discovery has reinforced for us the need to initially focus on the boss/subordinate relationship. Based on the Mental Health America and Yale research, and that of others, we can safely assert that for the majority of workers, the interaction between the supervisor and employee is limited to the annual or semi-annual performance review, or when things go south. We can also safely assert that introducing emotional intelligence into the equation will help build and maintain positive relationships. The key to this is making people feel comfortable in having positive and constructive interactions/critical discussions.

The model we are advancing is one of a value exchange, where the manager sets clear expectations on tasks, behaviours and attitudes.

The next step is to ask the employee what they need from the manager and organization in order to deliver on what the employer expects from them. By reaching an agreement on this, it becomes a Covenant. The key to the success of this is to have regular and ongoing discussions using the covenant as the framework, not just the annual or semi-annual performance review.

Emotional intelligence, while embraced by many, is rarely applied in the workplace. The main reason for this is that it is perceived as soft and only serves to make people happy and nice to each other. David R. Caruso (a friend and associate at Yale) and Lisa T Rees in their book ‘A Leader’s Guide to Solving Challenges with Emotional Intelligence’ make it clear that their goal is “not to have you be happy, upbeat and cheery all of the time”; they want you to “engage with and grapple with the toughest leadership challenges.”

Applying emotional intelligence to performance management turns it into a hard skill producing hard results. It forces the critical dialogue that is so severely lacking.

I have used this performance model for years, and found that it not only improves performance, but it also reduces the ambiguity and subjectivity inherent in most performance management systems. Furthermore, it enhances the boss/subordinate relationship; fosters innovation, creativity and inclusion; and reduces surprises and excuses. Perhaps the biggest benefit is that bosses hear what they need to hear.

Here is a story I often tell:

On being appointed to head National Grocers, the wholesale division of Loblaw Companies Ltd., Canada’s largest retail chain, I commenced quarterly visits to all of our distribution facilities across thecountry, where we had town hall meetings with every shift.

In the first of these meetings, we outlined the expectations we had of the facility; and we asked for feedback on what employees expected from us to deliver on the expectations we had of them. Among the expectations were facility improvements including cleaner washrooms, lockers and cafeterias - a pretty basic and easy request to deliver on.

A year or so into my tenure, while I was in a city where we had a facility, I thought I would drop in for a quick visit. Shortly after arriving, I went to the washroom and was appalled by the condition it was in - much different than what we saw during our quarterly visits.

Seething, I went to the plant manager’s office and politely asked him to have someone bring a pail, Lysol, Windex, a mop, sponges and paper towels. Confused, the manager asked why, to which he got my response, “just humour me, ok?” The cleaning supplies arrived; I took off my Armani suit jacket, rolled up my shirtsleeves, and headed to the washroom followed by an anxious manager and the guy who brought the supplies. People working on the floor all observed this, causing a bit of a buzz.

Once in the washroom, I said to the plant manager, “I’ll start with the toilets, and you can do the urinals”; and to the guy who bought the supplies, “you supervise”. Well, both of them (excuse the pun) did not know whether to shit or go blind, but they were smart enough not to argue.

Once finished, I asked whether it was necessary to do the other washrooms on the premises, to which I received assurances that it was not. On leaving, I indicated that I would be back in a week to have a town hall meeting with all shifts.

As you can imagine, this incident was relayed to all of our facilities and offices across the country by nightfall, without me having to say a single word.

At the meetings the following week, I apologized on behalf of management that we had not delivered on their expectations of us on having clean washrooms.

I also expressed my disappointment that they had not delivered on our expectation of them, which was to call us out on when we were failing, saying, “We have no problem in calling you out; and for us to be able to trust each other, it’s got to be reciprocal.”

This single incident solidified a strong relationship we enjoyed for almost a decade, where we moved from being a significant laggard against industry performance benchmarks, to becoming an industry leader.

Many people may view this as an insignificant incident; however, it sent a powerful message - trust and respect are not earned by words alone.

In the ‘Emotion Revolution in the Schools’, a wonderful dynamic that has emerged is what we refer to as a spillover effect, where students in emotionally intelligent schools apply emotionally intelligent skills at home, creating emotionally intelligent families.

We anticipate by creating emotionally intelligent workplaces it will have a spillover effect in the community.

Just imagine how by having emotionally intelligent families, schools, workplaces, communities and countries can change the global downward spiral we are on.

Key to creating this more civil society is having people be allowed and comfortable in having civil discourse; to discuss, disagree, debate, defend and yes even defy.

My challenge to you is lead this ‘Emotion Revolution’ in the environments you are responsible for. Not only will this hugely benefit your stakeholders, it will also help protect democracy.

 

'Q' is for Quirky

This article is part of a series currently being published on MoneyInc. Previous submissions can be viewed on the MoneyInc site by clicking here.

“Always remember that you are absolutely unique, just like everyone else.”  Margaret Mead

In my experience,quirkiness defines one’s uniqueness. I have also found that those who wear their quirkiness on their sleeve usually have great passion,are disrupters, unconventional thinkers, non-conformists and wonderful teachers. 

Quirky is a characteristic that people generally don’t readily embrace. Perhaps this is because most associate being quirky withbeing weird and/or eccentric.  At an early age,when I was the President of Student Government at St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology in Windsor Ontario, I learned that one’s quirkiness can be an effective and powerful leadership attribute;and I proudly accept and accentuate my quirkiness and encourage others to embrace theirs.

Dr. Q, also known as just Q, was Richard C. Quittenton, who was the President of the College. He became my coach, mentor and hero.  Dr.Q, who passed away in 2012, was well named,as he was quirky in spades. He was a total non-conformist who taught us to challenge conventional wisdom;and took some pretty extreme positions to generate out of the box thinking and to being disruptive. Q was a professional engineer by education and profession, but his true genius was his approach to education. For example, he wrotea book,‘An Engineering Origin of God’,because he was troubled by what he read in the Bible. 

Q forced students to engage in what I refer to as the five D's of emotional intelligence: Discuss - Disagree - Debate - Defend - Defy.  He taught through example;for example,when there was a North American auto slump,with the Japanese automakers taking a huge chunk market share, he led a ‘Buy Canadian’ movement which had a tag line in Windsor,being a car town - ‘Buy a car that is built by your neighbour’. When, during one of our weekly meetings he asked me what I thought, I politely demurred, byindicating I was not sure, to which he chastised me by calling my response “a cop out”. This emboldened me to indicate that a ‘Buy Canadian” position was inconsistent with Canada’s aspiration to become a major trading nation.  Another point I made was that the quality ofcars made in North America waslower than those made by the Japanese; andI told him about a banner I had recently seen which was,‘Build a car that your neighbour would buy”.

This led to a vigorous debate,which shifted his position on ‘Buy Canadian’ to encompass the concept of providing quality goods and services that people outside of Canada would buy. This he advanced in his bid to become the leader of the Conservative party of Canada. Unfortunately, he lostbecause most felt he was too quirky.

Bernie Sanders reminds me of Q. In my view,Bernie’s quirkiness is in large part the reason for his appeal to so many, particularly those who are decades younger than he is. He has readily acknowledged, “I’m a grumpy old man”, to which he could haveadded, “with much to be grumpy about”. His grumpiness is his most obvious quirk,and he uses it to the hilt, allowing him tobe very direct in his messages. For example,his view on social media postings -“People don’t need to know what I buy in the grocery store or what the name of my dog is - I don’t have a dog, by the way;but they need to know why the billionaires are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.”

As anhistorical figure,Mahatma Gandhi was perhaps the quirkiest. In ‘Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India’,Joseph Lelyveld describes Gandhi this way:“possessed quirkiness, elusiveness and genius for reinvention”.  Lelyveld also labeled Gandhi as being “complicated, sage, spokesman, pamphleteer, petitioner, agitator, pilgrim, dietitian, nurse, seer and scroll.” 

In Gandhi’s, autobiography‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth’,where he explored his experiences of different faiths, philosophical ideas and moral impulses,shows how heused his quirkiness to open hismind to alternatives;thereby to become that “genius for reinvention”.

In her book,‘Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School Valedictorians: A Fourteen-year Study of Achievement and Life Choices’, (Jossey Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series),KarenArnold describes her tracking high school valedictorians and wrote about their outcomes. What she found is they “did well but they were not real innovators or disrupters in their fields”, adding “They obey rules, work hard and they like learning but they are not mold makers”. And further adding, “They work best within the system and aren’t likely to change it.”

Organizations and individuals have to constantly reinvent themselves-the taxi industry is the most recent example of the fate that befallsthose that don’t. 

While organizational leaders have long held the view that innovation and creativity are essential to their sustained results, and many organizations have innovation imbedded into their value statements, few view the traits associated with creativity as beingpositive for leadership positions. Most are more comfortable with the high school valedictorians who Arnold tracked - those who “work best within the system and aren’t likely to change it.”

In her paper, ‘Recognizing Creative Leadership: Can aCreative Idea Expression Negatively Relate to Perceptions of Leadership Potential?’, Jennifer Mueller at Cornell Universityargues that creative people lose out on leadership positions because of a bias against those who are “quirky”. Mueller asserts, “Companies need to debunk the stereotypes against creative people”,adding, “Key is how companies view the traits associated with creativity -  like ‘quirky’ and ‘unfocused’.”  Her warning is,“If those traits are viewed negatively, you have a problem.”

View your quirkiness, and the quirkiness of others as positive. Accept and accentuate your quirks and encourage others to embrace theirs.

(Andrew Faas is the author of From Bully to Bull’s Eye - Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fireand a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University)
 

 

A SLAVE NATION

Employees who are underpaid, harassed or discriminated against have been left to press their cases alone in arbitration.

This decision comes at a time when workers need protection more than ever. Tying this decision with the ‘At will’ provisions in the labour code, which allows employers to dismiss employees for any reason and without warning, as long as it is not illegal, makes America a slave Nation. 

This decision means that employees who are robbed of their wages, harassed or discriminated against are on their own in pressing their cases in arbitration. Most who go to arbitration will face high powered, high priced lawyers, who will use tactics to turn the victim into the villain. Most workers don’t have the resources to fight this, which denies them access to justice. Shame on the Supreme Court!

Force the Dialogue!

There are some great lessons to be learned from the recent disgraceful racial profiling and arrest of two black men experienced in Philadelphia at a Starbucks coffee shop. I believe the solution rests with the call to action I have been advancing for years, which is forcing dialogue. 

While this incident focuses on race, this important dialogue can and should also apply to other issues such as harassment, abuse, equity and fairness. This article highlights what has not worked including ineffective training programs, the primary motivation being to provide organizations with a legal shield against discrimination.

In this Washington Post article on leadership by Jena McGregor, we can clearly see that “just sending a message is not enough”. Corporate America is beginning to wake up to the notion that conversing with one another is critical to the process of bringing inclusivity and diversity into the 21st century.

My foundation is working on an important initiative with the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence called ‘Emotion Revolution in the Workplace’. One of the cornerstones of this project is to encourage people to have debates and difficult discussions about the serious issues that continue to plague our society.

No Red Flags? No Motive? Eyes Wide Shut?

This Washington Post article, which reports Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s assertion that there were no red flags or motive, shows how blind he and those around him were. Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who had a fondness for trench coats and a growing darkness, was bullied by other students and by coaches. He was a loner. Like so many loners, he was likely very lonely, a victim of the loneliness epidemic.

There were bystanders to his being bullied. There were bystanders to his increased isolation. There were bystanders to his changed behaviours. What did these bystanders do? What could they have done? Just imagine if just one of the bystanders came to his defense when he was being bullied. Just imagine if just one of the bystanders befriended him. Based on the extensive research I have done on bullying, this tragedy could have been avoided. 

Having researched emotional intelligence and the link to bullying, it becomes more and more apparent to me the need for schools, workplaces and communities to become emotionally intelligent. This is something that my foundation and the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence have embarked on. Our initiative, Emotion Revolution in the Workplace, patterned what Yale has done in the schools with the RULER program.

We have come to recognize, however, that just being schooled in emotional intelligence does not make one emotionally intelligent. What it takes is for individuals to internalize their emotions so that they can influence the emotions of others, simply by applying what we all learned in kindergarten – the ethic of reciprocity, or The Golden Rule.

This also requires a safe environment and an encouraging climate where people are able to apply and practice their emotional intelligence skills, which is simply building relationships and communicating with each other.

This tragedy exemplifies one of the best arguments for all of us to develop our emotional intelligence skills. Being bullied, targeted and abused is a very lonely place to be. Have we, as a society, deteriorated to the point where we see people nose dive into depression and isolation, and think it is ok? It is little wonder why the loneliness epidemic isn’t resonating.

In my book, ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’,I challenge readers to consider their role as bystander and to ask yourselves the following questions:

            Could I have helped avoid a physical or mental breakdown?

            Could I have helped avoid ruining a career?

            Could I have helped avoid a family breakdown?

            Could I have helped avoid the organization’s downfall?

            Could I have helped avoid a suicide (or attempted suicide)?

            Could I have helped avoid a murder?

Although it has been several years since I wrote about this unfortunate lack of awareness, and how to change it, in the chapterDefining the Unjust – Advice to the Bystander, nothing has changed. What this lack of inertia tells me is that bystanders don’t have the kind of emotional intelligence to see this and then do something about it. Emotional intelligence isn’t a matter of just being nice to one another, it is a matter of life and death.

YET ANOTHER CASE OF LEADERSHIP ONLY ACTING AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT

The situation described in this New York Times article is yet another example of where leaders need to be held accountable for not dealing with abuse in the first instance. Leaders everywhere should be reviewing what they knew, and what they did about it. Coming clean on it before it is exposed in the media is a less risky proposition for them and the organizations they are responsible for. Governing boards must start taking heed and challenge management on whether their organizations are in a ‘at risk’ position.  

Michigan State University recently was nailed with a $500 million fine, which taxpayers are on the hook for. If similar negligence, corruption and abuse, as alleged at the University of Southern California, and any other universities, are proven to be true, taxpayers could be on the hook for equally substantial fines.

Startling Statistics! – Or, Are They?

Among thousands of LGBTQ teens, a survey finds anxiety and fears about safety. Despite all of the advancements made, including same sex marriage, attitudes towards LGBTQ people remains hostile. This Washington Post article spells out, using startling, horrible statistics, how LBGTQ teens feel, based on what they endure. It is becoming increasingly more apparent that people feel it’s okay to torment those who are different.

In his commencement address to Hillsdale College, Vice-President Mike Pence painted a hopeful, yet naïve, view of how Christians are winning the culture war. Eugene Scott’s analysis in this Washington Post article suggests a very different reality - America is not as religious in practice or identity as Mike Pence told college graduates. The reason is a simply one;if Pence was accurate, the hate epidemic would not exist. 

Everyone hates a tormentor. But too few do anything about it.

In this New York Times opinion, Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, has captured the essence of why bullies bully, they are not called out by the bystanders, who make up the majority of witnesses. In my book, ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’, I devote this chapter - ‘Advice to Bystanders’ to helping people move from being a bystander to being an active part of the solution. . 

NBC News Should Not be in the Business of Reporting on Workplace Abuse

The symptoms of widespread sexual misconduct described in this Washington Post story are typical of what most organizations cover up, deny or whitewash bad behaviour and wrongdoings. Media outlets should shoulder a greater responsibility to investigate and deal with internal issues appropriately, using external resources. Unless they become more transparent, they just don’t have the credibility to investigate and report on the wrongs of others.

I wrote about this same dynamic at Fox News in 2016 when the whole issue of sexual harassment and abuse emerged. Clearly, things haven’t changed much.

So why did NBC not have an external investigation?

The in-house investigation that “found no evidence” that anyone in authority at NBC received complaints about Matt Lauer until days before he was fired does not adequately address the question of who knew what and what did they do about it. If the brass and Human Resources did not know until days before Lauer was fired, as it is implied in the report, then it acknowledges gross negligence. 

Tom Brokaw’s accuser offers the perspective that most people who are harassed face, which is where predators, abusers, and bullies, with the help of the brass, try to turn the ‘victims into the villains’.

It is patently obvious that employees are afraid to be seen going to Human Resources, who work in glass offices at NBC, for fear of retaliation. It is no small wonder that there were no complaints filed. Just because there were no complaints filed does not mean there wasn’t a problem. This, like most of what we have covered, appears to have been an open secret for years with Human Resources and people at the top, only acting on it after it gets exposed. 

This is yet another classic example of the question I ask in my book 'From Bully to Bull's-Eye; Move Your Organization out of the Line of Fire', “Is your workplace culture a ticking time bomb”?