Dear Bahar, One of my pet peeves at work is how we talk about each other. Moreover, our company cafeteria and cafeteria section can be a highly toxic area for this. What strikes me the most is that in these conversations, managers are usually vilified.
I find it hard to figure out how to make an appropriate comment, as I feel that the mere fact that I am listening to these conversations implies that I agree with the opinions expressed. I admit that there have been times when I have chimed in with a few crude jokes myself, so I don't want to come across as superior to everyone else. Sometimes I even avoid going to the lunchroom or cafeteria during rush hour just for that reason, and I know others do the same.
What advice do you have on how to deal with jokes and accusations made behind the backs of coworkers and especially managers?
Nickname Anonymous
Dear Anonymous
You have done a great thing by describing a very familiar problem. I'm sure many of us have been in the same situation. We're cracking jokes in the lunchroom and cafeterias, responding to each other's jokes, and somehow it becomes about our manager or a coworker. We continue to joke and make fun of it, but at some point it stops being fun and becomes toxic. As you said, we end up bashing someone and we do it all for fun or to vent our anger.
In such situations, silence is not golden. To remain silent is to join that person. When we keep silent, we are supporting those who talk and curse behind his back. We are helping someone to be vilified.
It is this kind of toxic talk that spreads bad morale to a team or organization. It starts with a seemingly innocent joke, which essentially sets the offensive line of an attack. Instead of saying, "I see it differently," others involved in the conversation remain silent or join in on the joke, adding to the attack.
Why do we do this? Sometimes it's because we don't know the real motives of the person, so we create a bad version of them. The Jamaicans have a saying "If you don't know a person, you invent him". The implication here is to invent him as a monster. Few of us know our managers and especially our senior leaders and their day-to-day problems intimately. We are not privy to their information or their motives. As the saying goes, we judge them too harshly. We do not assume their innocence.
Sometimes these conversations are as simple as not assuming innocence, but often it is more than that. Sometimes your coworker has motives out of jealousy, revenge, fear or antipathy. Regardless of the reason, you need to speak up when you see this inappropriate behavior.
Use IMI to decide what to say. IMI is an important technique that we teach extensively in Crucial Conversations and Accountability training, but I will simply introduce it here. IMI stands for Content, Pattern and Relationship. IMI helps you to understand how to handle a conversation about something you are uncomfortable with. Let's say someone at your table says, "It's true that the manager says that it's critical for the company to meet the targets this year, but if we meet the targets he will improve salary levels, but he's just saying that to shut us up. He's really trying to save himself, he knows that if he doesn't meet the targets he will be fired" and he says it sarcastically.
You have to decide very quickly whether you should take a statement like that in terms of Content, in terms of Model or in terms of Relationship.
Content: Addressing the content means that you focus on the facts in a person's statement. Focusing on the content is often the simplest and safest way to respond because you are not inferring anything beyond what the other person has said. An example of addressing the context would be, "I don't think he's trying to shut us up. Why do you think that?" Taking the context frames the issue as a question of fact. It focuses the conversation towards what your manager said and why your coworker doesn't believe it.
Model: Let's say that this comment is just another passive-aggressive comment that this person keeps making to speak badly about the manager. So now it has become a recurring pattern. In this case, you can address it by saying, "I like joking with each other, but I don't like it when we start bashing someone in a sarcastic way and that person is not here to defend themselves." Addressing the pattern focuses on your colleague's repetitive inappropriate behavior. This is a more challenging and critical conversation, but it makes it easier for you to address your main discomfort if it is a recurring patterned behavior.
Relationship: The long-term effect of these corrosive conversations is the undermining of trust and respect. The relationship with the manager is put at risk. If you feel that people's comments and gossip reveal a fundamental breakdown of trust and respect for your manager, then you can address the relationship with the person itself: "It feels like you are constantly questioning in public whether he or she can be trusted and respected. Is that true? If you have concerns that you are not telling the truth, then I think you need to find a way to talk to him or her and get it off your chest." You can have this conversation privately with the person rather than in public. This is also a difficult discussion, but it makes it easier to address what is really bothering you.
The mistake that many people make in addressing uncomfortable situations is that they focus on the content, which is the simple and safe way, when their main concern is at the model or relationship level. They address an issue as content, but their main concern and the issue that is bothering them is not the content in the moment, but a repetitive behavior or an attitude that is now damaging the relationship.
The IMI skill can be used in a wide variety of situations, not just to confront gossip about your manager. The next time you have a concern, use IMI to decide what the concern is really about. IMI can help you focus on the cause of your real problem with gossip.