Workplace Bullying and Organizational Culture: Learning from Jonathan Martin, Richie Incognito, the Miami Dolpins, and the NFL

(image from abclocal.go.com)

Taunts and trash talk abound in the National Football League (NFL), both in practice and on game days. Rookies are routinely hazed by being forced into bad hair cuts, paying for team dinners, or being taped to goal posts. The testoterone-laden culture of the NFL is one that encourages and prizes machismo and aggressiveness. But when do pranks, profanity, threats, and name-calling cross the line into bullying? This question is one that the NFL is struggling to answer on the heels of a recent drama that is still playing out.

Jonathan Martin recently quit his job as a football player for the NFL's Miami Dolphins  in order to receive help for emotional issues stemming from being the target of threatening behavior by teammate Richie Incognito. Incognito (who is white) reportedly referred to Martin (who is biracial) in text messages by using racial slurs and threatening to cause bodily harm to members of Martin's family. The Dolphins organization has since suspended Incognito and has said that it is working with the NFL to fully investigate the claims.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) defines workplace bullying as "persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating or insulting behavior or unfair actions directed at another individual, causing the recipient to feel threatened, abused, humiliated or vulnerable."

These types of behaviors are what some academic researchers refer to as interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors. An employee (or group of employees) engages in behaviors that impede the ability of a coworker (or group of coworkers) to do their job. In the legal arena of human resources, this could also be considered as harassment when is based on legally-protected characteristics (such as age, race, gender, or religion) and creates a hostile or abusive work environment.

Whether you refer to it as bullying, harassment, or counterproductive work behaviors, these types of actions typically are not viewed positively in most organizations, and likely have negative consequences in terms of individual, team, and/or organizational productivity and effectiveness. However, the culture in some organizations may actually foster this type of behavior. Studies and surveys on workplace bullying have shown that bullies are most likely to be male, are most likely to bully other males, and the individuals exhibiting bullying behaviors often do so out of a sense of their own inadequacies. In an organization like the NFL, where teams are made up exclusively of male players, and where competition between teams (to make plays and win games) and within teams (for starting positions, spots on the team roster, and higher salaries) is constantly present, the environment is ripe for bullying to occur.

One recent academic article^[1] examining harassment concluded that organizational culture was one of the strongest predictors of sexual harassment, and the NFL is learning the hard way that workplace bullying is likely similar. Reports are surfacing that Incognito may have been encouraged and enabled by team coaches in his treatment of Martin. Teammates have defended Incognito's actions and questioned Martin's toughness. And throughout the league, it seems that Martin's withdrawal is seen with more disdain than Incognito's alleged behaviors.

As reported by Sports Illustrated, one former teammate of both players, who questioned whether bullying really occurred, stated the following: "What people want to call bullying is something that is never going away from football. This is a game of high testosterone, with men hammering their bodies on a daily basis. You are taught to be an aggressive person, and you typically do not make it to the NFL if you are a passive person. There are a few, but it’s very hard. Playing football is a man’s job, and if there’s any weak link, it gets weeded out. It’s the leaders’ job on the team to take care of it."

Whether you think this player has a valid argument or not, I think he got at least one thing right - bullying is not going to go away from the NFL, at least not without a cultural change. Not only is toughing out physical and emotional pain the expectation in the NFL, but inflicting that physical and emotional pain on others is often encouraged, if not celebrated. The NFL made a strong statement against intentionally inflicting physical pain after the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal a couple of years ago. Now it's time to see the statement they make against intentionally inflicting emotional pain in the current Miami Dolphins bullying scandal.

-----------------------------
^[1] Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee., K. (2007).A Meta-analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Sexual Harassment, Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x.

Be Careful What You Post Online

image from thenextgreatgeneration.com

Does this story sound familiar? An individual sees something humorous or interesting, snaps a photo, and uploads it somewhere on the internet to share with others. Seems pretty innocuous, right? Most of us have probably done it ourselves - whether it be on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, or a personal blog. Unfortunately, things get a little muddier when the incident occurs in a work setting, refers to your job, or may cause others to look negatively at the organization that employs you. All of a sudden, what is seemingly innocent could end up being the grounds for disciplinary action - including termination.

Take the recent example of the waitress at Applebees who was fired for posting a customer receipt onine. Sure, a receipt from a self-proclaimed pastor questioning why a waitress should get an 18% tip when God only gets 10%, is interesting, humorous, and unexpected. But the problem came when the customer's signature was included in the picture and was used by the savvy internet community to identify the customer. The waitress (who wasn't even the one who served the table, by the way) took down the initial image and replaced it with one that did not include the signature, but nothing is truly erased from the internet as the image had already been reposted and taken on a life of its own.

You don't have to look far to find other examples of people being fired for information posted online, such as a teacher who was suspended (and eventually fired) after posting insulting comments on her blog about her students. In fact, here are 25 Facebook Posts, some more major than others, that led to firings.

These stories have received media attention because the question of separation between life inside and outside of work is a complex one. Often, these stories include legal action on the part of the employees who were terminated because the issue of if and when internet postings constitute a valid, job-related termination decision is a blurry one. And technology is changing so rapidly that it's almost certain that the courts won't be able to keep up.

- - - The Bottom Line Tip - - -

So what should you do as an employee? First of all, know what your company's policy is regarding online information. Secondly, always err on the side of caution. If there is any question as to whether you should post something online or not, the answer is probably no.

And what should you do as an employer? Make sure your company has a policy regarding internet use and posting information online. The company will be in a much better legal position if it has instituted, communicated, and consistently enforced such a policy with its employees.

Two Employees Terminated for Leaking Private Information

Two state of Utah employees are in hot water after they used a state government database to compile a list of 1300 names, addresses, birthdates and phone numbers of suspected illegal immigrants. The list was then distributed to multiple law enforcement agencies and new media organizations.

Leaders on both sides of the immigration issue have condemned the actions of the two state employees, as distributing protected information is against both federal and Utah state laws (and even harsher penalties can be assesed for stealing of state records).

One of the two employees has already been fired and termination of the second employee (a 15-year state employee) is currently in process. The state of Utah is also looking into whether criminal charges should be pursued.

More information on this story can be found here, here and here.

The Purpose of HR

I am working right now to put together a training on the subject of effective HR practices, and one of the first questions I plan on asking the training group is this:

"In one sentence, how would you describe the purpose of HR?"

In my research (a.k.a. Google search), here are some of the answers that I came across:

• HR's duty is to bring the best people into the best position.
• HR exists to protect a company from its employees.
• The purpose of HR is to fulfill organizational goals by implying tools which focuses on enhancing performance with concern for its employees.
• The purpose of human resources is to live.
• The HR department is to is there to guarantee that the right candidates get appointed to the right task at the right time and the job offered to them utilizes their capabilities to the maximum, adding to self-motivation and leading to better performance.
• HR is there to hire and fire.
• The HR function is to hire, train, motivate and support productive employees.
• An effective Human Resource department facilitates the execution of your company’s mission within the boundaries of employment law.
• HR's sole purpose is to take the fun out of work for everyone.

I have my own thoughts on the issue, which I will save those for another post. But I want to hear your perspective. Do any of the answers listed above ring true to you? Or is there a better way that you would describe HR's purpose?

You're Fired!

Imagine for a moment that you are called into the office of the Big Boss. When you show up, you see the rest of your team there.

After discussing with you the problems with your current performance, the Big Boss publicly proceeds to bring up your (arguably non-job-related) pending criminal charges, and then makes a couple of ill-advised racial, religious, lifestyle and cultural comments before finally finishing by stating those words we all dread: "You're fired!"

Think it would be difficult to convince a lawyer, or even a judge, that you've got a pretty compelling discrimination claim? Probably not.

But that's exactly what happened to former Governor Rod Blagojevich on the most recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Maybe being on a reality TV show and being Donald Trump gives you leeway that true reality doesn't.

Check out the third-to-last segment of the following video if you missed the show (or just check out my transcription below the video):

With the full team looking on (I know, that's just how the show is done) and while talking to Blagojevich, Trump states: "I think Rod is being extremely nice because, you know, you have some pretty big things to do when you finish this, right?" (referring to his pending charges)

Pointing at Michael Johnson, Trump goes on to say: "I think Rod doesn't want to get angry at you because, frankly, there may be some black jurors. And they may be angry that he got angry with you."

"He doesn't want to get angry with Goldberg," he continues, "because I assume you're Jewish. Are you Jewish, Goldberg?"

As Goldberg nods, Trump chuckles and continues: "Because otherwise you'd be the only guy with the name Goldberg that isn't."

"And he doesn't want to get angry at the rock star because he wants to keep . . . You know, it's a very . . . And I don't know what to say about Curtis. He's like a central casting WASP."

And then, a little while later, The Donald gives Blago the boot with the two by-now immortalized words: "You're fired!"

So, what do you think? If this really were reality, who would win the case of Trump vs. Blagojevich?