Dealing with Toxic Gossip at Work
David Maxfield is coauthor of two New York Times bestsellers, Change Anything and Influencer.
Dear Crucial Skills,
One of my main concerns at work is how we talk about each other—the staff lunchroom can be especially toxic. What feels most shocking to me is how our boss is often thrown under the bus.
I am having a hard time thinking of an appropriate comment to make as I feel that listening to these conversations implies my agreement. And I have to admit there have been times when I’ve piped up with a rude wise-crack or two, so I don’t want to seem like I’m above it all. There are times I just avoid the lunchroom and I know others do, too.
What suggestions do you have for responding to wisecracks made behind coworkers’ backs?
Staying In From the Lunch Room
Dear Staying In,
You’ve done a great job of describing a familiar problem. I bet many of us have been in the same situation. We’re joking around in the lunchroom, one-upping each other’s wisecracks, when somehow the topic turns to our boss or maybe to a colleague. We keep on with the jokes and banter, but at some point, it crosses the line from play to poison. As you said, we’re throwing someone under the bus—all in the name of fun.
In these situations, silence isn’t golden. It’s agreement. When we don’t speak up, we show our support for the people doing the badmouthing. We’re helping to throw the person under the bus.
It’s this kind of poisonous conversation that causes bad morale to spread across a team or organization. It begins with a seemingly innocuous joke, which is really the leading edge of an attack. Instead of saying something like, “I see it differently,” others in the conversation remain silent or add to the wisecrack, amplifying the attack.
The group is creating a villain story at someone’s expense, without stopping to question the story’s truth or giving the person a chance to respond. As the story is repeated and grows unchallenged, it becomes full of what the comedian Stephen Colbert calls, “truthiness.” It may be several steps away from the facts, but it feels true. And it poisons the workplace.
Why do we do this? Sometimes it’s because we don’t know the person’s true motives and we assume the worst. Jamaicans have a saying, “If you don’t know a man, you’ll invent him.” The implication is that we’ll invent him as an ogre. Few of us know our managers—especially senior leaders—really well. We aren’t privy to their information or motives. And as the saying suggests, we judge them harshly. We don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sometimes these conversations are as simple as failing to give the benefit of the doubt, but often there is more going on. Sometimes your colleague is motivated by jealousy, revenge, fear, or dislike. Regardless of the cause, you need to speak up when you see this inappropriate behavior.
Use CPR to decide what to say. CPR stands for Content, Pattern, and Relationship. CPR can help you think about a problem and decide how to focus your conversation.
Suppose a person at your table says, “Sure, the boss says she’s trying to improve staffing levels, but that’s just to shut us up. What she really means is ‘staphing’ levels—you know like a staph infection!”
A statement like this may contain issues related to Content, Pattern, and Relationship. As a problem-solver, you can decide which issues are most central to you. You can use CPR to focus on the issues that are closest to the heart of your concerns.
Content: Addressing the content means you focus on the facts in the person’s statement. Focusing on content is usually the simplest and safest way to respond because you aren’t drawing any conclusions beyond what the person has just said. An example of addressing the content would be, “I don’t think she’s trying to shut us up. Why do you think that?” Addressing the content frames the problem as a question of facts. It focuses the discussion toward what your manager said and why your colleague doesn’t believe it.
Pattern: Suppose this comment is just one in a pattern of passive-aggressive comments this group uses to badmouth the boss. Then, you might address this pattern by saying, “I like the way we kid around with each other, but not when we start to throw people under the bus—people who aren’t here to defend themselves.” Addressing the pattern focuses on your colleagues’ inappropriate behavior. It’s a tougher discussion, but it may be closer to the heart of your concern.
Relationship: The long-term impact of these corrosive conversations is the undermining of trust and respect. The relationship with the boss is put at risk. If you feel that people’s comments reveal a rupture in basic trust and respect for your boss, then you might address the relationship itself: “It sounds as if you’re questioning whether you can trust and respect her. Is that right? If that’s your concern, then I think you need to find a way to talk with her and hash it out.” Note that you may decide to have this conversation in private, instead of putting the person on the spot in front of everyone. Again, it’s a tough discussion, but it may be closer to the heart of your concern.
The mistake many problem-solvers make is to focus on content, the simple and safe route, when their true concern involves the pattern or relationship. They address a problem, but it’s not the problem they really care about.
This CPR skill can be used in a wide variety of situations, not just in confronting gossip about your boss. The next time you have a concern, use CPR to decide which part of the concern to address. CPR can help you focus on the heart of your gossip problem.
David
Related posts:
Dear David, This was an excellent answer to a nettlesome problem. I just reposted this on our ASTD Eastern PA website blog today. Thank you for your wise words. Peggy Salvatore, ASTD Eastern PA Chapter President
David,
I see this as both a micro and macro problem in out society. While you addressed the question asked —and quite well, I might add— I think this problem has infiltrated deeply into our society. Even the national news spends considerable time on trivial and “gossipy” subjects. We have become a very factioned nation because of this “ignore the facts for the sake of a juicy morsel of gossip (that may or may not be true)” style of daily communications with each other.
I plan to circulate your column widely (unedited, of course), in hopes of bringing some objectivity and common sense back to some troubled workplaces, and potentially, our country. I recognize that my fellow Americans have always had our differences, but we seem to have moved past respectful cooperation to perpetual argument. If we truly discussed issues, we would find our commonalities outweigh our differences.
Excellent article! Thank you so much. I will be sharing this with my teams.
Content: Why would a completely rational and reasonable person complain at lunch? Could it be that your coworkers are filling a need that they themselves are worried about. Throwing the boss under the bus can often be a cry for help. Have you ever felt that your boss doesn’t pay attention to the details? Or doesn’t take the time to identify the quality of issues at hand. My own personal need at work is to contribute, and frustration surfaces when I am trying and it seems I am continually let down by lack of information in the hands of decision makers. I may complain during lunch – looking for understanding of my need for ease and contribution not being met.
When others complain, I try to find the need in their comments. With a need at hand, I can question my coworkers about the need, which offers peaceful support even when my guesses are not accurate, without the judgment of their behavior (villain story), or allowing things to continue down a darker path (agreement.)
“Sounds like things would be so much easier for you if she considered meeting with you away from her phone so she could focus. Maybe she would trust your judgment a little more”
Guesses: Need one – Ease of making decisions; Need two – trust;
Suggestion for your coworker without “should’s” – meet away from distractions.
All guesses, but engages coworker in dialog that doesn’t go toxic.
Pattern: Coworker’s comments can be addressed a little more effectively, when needs are identified. I have, on occasion helped a coworker with workload because of lunch time comments. “I have noticed that you have complained about this for a while and nothing has been done. Can I help? I can print all of the documents for you this afternoon.” Even if I can’t help with the complaint – my coworkers feel heard and recognized for what is troubling them and can release some pent up frustration knowing that someone cares. Or you can help them identify a need in a friendly way. “Friend, you get yourself so wrapped up in the details. You do understand that you do that because you care so much, right? But, you are making yourself crazy expecting other people to work like you do.” It can be as simple as “you have been complaining about this for a while and it can’t keep going like it is. I’m worried about you, what are you going to do?”
Relationship: So, how can I preserve the relationship of the seething coworker while remaining loyal to my values and needs? In the past, I would avoid them. I couldn’t see that I was in judgment of their behavior and deemed them a dangerous villain. Now, my honesty and values lead the inquiry of my coworker’s world. I avoid the attribution error that they ARE their comments, but rather a coworker looking for ways to meet their own needs. I decide what I want in my relationship to the people involved, and act in ways that support what I really want.
Can I find that rational and reasonable person behind the comment? Can I fill their need? Can I be a part of the change I wish to see? Can I extend my friendship past toxic behavior and be open to the humanness that is there behind it all – to bring that humanness out into the light of awareness for positive change? It doesn’t always work, but it’s my goal. Honesty about my own values, check. Kindness and professionalism extended, check. Relationships valued, check.
David,
You must work at our facility! Lunch in our breakroom and work in our offices! I believe that you present a viable solution with Content Pattern Relationship.
There will always be problems at work that need to be aired in a therapeutic manner. Really, people will talk until they are heard and reach some solution. I see 1 maybe 2 issues: how can we address concerns without taking them out on people? & How can we enjoy lunch? Dave gives a great start!
I received this great article becauce of a co-worker (thanks, Chris!)
Although I agree that gossip can get out of control and do harm, I think your tactic of handling it can be considered an affront to a co-worker, almost confrontational, which in itself could alienate the person trying to prevent further harm by the gossip/criticism.
For example, rather than say, “I don’t think she’s trying to shut us up. Why do you think that?” I instead typically perform a counter/deflect to redirect the conversation. Something like, “Now, to be fair, I’m sure that there’s budget limitations or higher-ups that are part of the equation for staffing levels. We just have to keep on them about the need for more staff. How busy are things in your area lately(insert co-worker), what could be done better to make things smoother?”
The last thing I would want is to have folks feel like they’ll be “avoided” for such conversations, because that doesn’t solve the problem and only hides it. You don’t want people saying, “here they come, don’t talk bad about the boss.” You want people that can turn around a toxic gossip session into a productive conversation.
@Mike In fact, one could call it CDE, counter/deflect/empower.
Counter the gossip/criticism “maybe they’re just having a bad day.”
Deflect “Remember a couple weeks ago when you got a flat tire?”
Empower “Hey, what can we suggest to have them think harder about the problems we’re having. Who’s got a solution?”
A co-worker started a trend when he started saying “My US West buzzer just went off.” He’d had extensive training at a previous job at that organization on workplace behavior (discremenation, etc.) We all started using it, even those of us who’d never worked at US West started using it when conversations got close to That Line. It was a remarkably effective way to give people permission to call time out on a conversation–oddly without appearing to judge the other person.