It’s been a long week.  Your mom, who’s been successfully battling breast cancer, was hospitalized with a chemo-related infection.  Your fiscal quarter ends at the end of the month and you’re two deals away from making quota.  And could those rumors of more layoffs be true?  You’re barely keeping your head above water as it is.

Suddenly, in the middle of an important sales presentation, you can’t breathe.  Sweat starts to roll down your back and your heart races. Everybody is staring.  What in the hell is wrong with me? You suddenly flash on your Uncle Bob; didn’t he have a heart attack in his mid-forties?  Oh, God, am I dying?

Signs and Symptoms of Panic

No.  You’ve just had a panic attack, an episode of intense fear that is often accompanied by physical symptoms such as a racing heartbeat, chest pains, difficulty breathing, and dizziness/lightheadedness.  It’s far more intense than feeling “stressed out” or “worried.”  In fact, for many panic attack sufferers, the sensations are so severe that the sufferer worries that s/he will either die or go crazy.

If you’ve ever been in a life-threatening situation, and can recall the terror you felt, you know what a panic attack feels like.  These attacks, though, occur without warning and for no apparent reason.

Fear by Association

Even though they often initially have nothing to do with the situation the person is in, they can easily become associated with whatever the person is doing or where the person is at the time they have the panic attack.  In a way, it’s just like getting sick to your stomach after you’ve eaten something; it doesn’t matter whether or not the food had anything to do with your nausea.  Odds are, for weeks, months or even years afterward, just the thought of that food can make you feel queasy.  (A friend of mine off a car and got a nausea-inducing concussion after eating Kentucky Fried Chicken; thirty years later, she still can’t stand the smell of fried chicken).

So someone who has her first panic attack while driving starts to worry that she’ll have another one the next time she gets behind the wheel.  This worry, of course, creates more stress, making it more likely that she will have another panic attack.  Pretty soon, if this cycle continues, she can’t drive at all.

But – wait – now she unexpectedly has a panic attack in the grocery store.  The cycle repeats itself and, if left untreated, can result in increased isolation and decreased functioning.

Stress, Panic and Work

According to legal secretary Nancy Topolski’s lawsuit, by 2009 she was providing full time support to four attorneys at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.  The fourth, which had been added after a series of layoffs in early 2009, allegedly had a pattern of waiting until the last minute to give her projects, putting her under tremendous pressure and forcing her to rush to get the tasks completed.  After requesting a lighter workload several times and informing her supervisor that her job responsibilities were causing her significant stress, she suffered a panic attack at work.  After a second panic attack, she was terminated.

Remember that any stressful situation – work-related or not- can trigger a panic attack at the office. Most commonly, it’s a build up of lots of stressors over time that initially gets the panic attack ball rolling.  Once it starts, though, it can take on a life of its own, adversely affecting the employee’s productivity as well as his or her morale.

What You Can Do

If panic attacks are left untreated it can affect the body, emotional aspect as well as the behavior of the sufferer.  This can also lead to more serious problems like depression, substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) or physical ailments like ulcers or heart conditions.

1. Don’t play doctor.  If an employee’s symptoms last more than a few minutes, call 9-1-1 (especially if s/he complains of chest pains or has asthma).  Better safe than sorry.
2. If you know the employee has a diagnosis of panic disorder, reassure him or her that it will pass.  Allow the person to go somewhere where s/he feels comfortable doing deep breathing or relaxation exercises.
3. Understand where s/he is coming from.  Most panic attack sufferers work really hard to keep their disorder secret because they’re afraid of what others might think.  Remember; the person experiencing the panic attacks can’t will them away.
4. Provide the employee with referrals or encourage him or her to make doctor’s appointments as needed.

The Bottom Line

John Kenneth Galbraith once said, “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common . . . the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. “  As HR professionals, we have the opportunity to lead one person at a time – and encourage our employees to confront – and conquer – the anxiety that holds them back from their peak performance.

Start with a newly promoted manager who has little to no experience supervising others.  Add a high pressure work environment – perhaps the threat of layoffs, unrealistic deadlines, etc.  Throw in a lack of training and direction and voila!   Before you know it, the tension level has reached powder keg proportions.

“Anxiety is a mean teacher,” was one of my colleague’s favorite expressions.  She knew, as does anyone who’s suffered with it, that the constant irritability, tension and energy drain that accompany anxiety can loosen just about anyone’s self-control.

The Different Faces of Social Anxiety

A socially anxious employee may be able to function very well as long as s/he concentrates on the technical tasks at hand.  However, when s/he is “rewarded” with a promotion, s/he is forced to find new coping strategies.  New research suggests that there is a subset of socially anxious workers who cope with their fears by acting out in aggressive, risky ways; it’s almost as if they hide their anxiety by adapting a bullying persona.

In fact, it’s my bet that, the higher you go up the corporate ladder, the less likely we are to see social anxiety expressed in the typical shy, inhibited way and the more likely it is to manifest itself in a controlling, domineering interpersonal style.  This coping strategy reduces anxiety in the short-term, yet it causes significant interpersonal problems as time goes on.

What’s your Problem?

For these individuals, what’s misunderstood as the real problem – the inappropriate behavior – is actually the coping strategy for the fear of failure and of being judged that’s driving them.  Now, don’t get me wrong; bullying is bullying is bullying and there needs to be clear limits on, and consequences for, inappropriate behavior in the workplace.  What this does suggest, though, is that these individuals are coachable; teach them how to manage their anxiety and their behavior will improve.  On the other hand, relying solely on discipline isn’t going to work because the “real” problem is still there.

The Bottom Line

Most people who suffer from social anxiety aren’t bullies and what drives most bullies isn’t social anxiety.  However, the fact that the motive behind some bullying behavior is an attempt to cope with fear suggests that not all bullies are created equally.  If you have a highly skilled manager who’s alienating employees with his abrasive interpersonal style, it’s worth a shot to get him or her some coaching before you give him/her the boot – and before s/he’s wreaked so much havoc that employees no longer have the capacity to forgive and forget.

Many of us have seen a manager yell at an employee or slam a door.  We’ve witnessed an employee throw a temper tantrum after an idea was shot down or someone else had taken credit for his/her work.  Just last night, I watched a customer at McDonald’s launch into a lengthy tirade just because the employee gave her barbecue sauce instead of ranch dressing.

Whether we’re overwhelmed by having too much to do and too few resources to do it with, or never learned the basics of emotional self-control, a short fuse at work doesn’t win anybody brownie points.  In fact, if it happens often enough, it can be career suicide.

Why Anger Can be Addictive

This is not headlining news.  Few short-fused employees would argue that their outbursts help them win friends and influence people.  So why do they happen so often?

Because – in the short term – it feels good.  Letting loose often gives us a short-lived “high;” it relieves stress and creates the momentary illusion that we’ve regained control.  It’s this temporary release that many managers I coach have such a hard time letting go of.   And, after a while, it becomes a habit

Then we hear the rationalizations. “That isn’t who I am.” (This is actually true; most people who blow up are calm and logical most of the time).  “I didn’t mean to be mean.” And the BIG ONE:  “I wouldn’t have to blow up if . . . John would get the job right the first time, Jessica wouldn’t interrupt me every time I open my mouth, I could get somebody to listen to me around here,” etc.

Here’s the Score:  You Lose

Here’s what happens if we lose our temper at work, particularly if this happens on a regular basis.  First of all, our reputation as a hothead takes on a life of its own.  In fact, it only takes one dramatically disruptive behavior to quickly become a story that defines the norm.

Second, we lose credibility and respect.  Sure, if we’re in a position of power, others might jump to do our bidding out of fear of being next in the line of fire.  But here’s what they’re thinking:

“My manager has no self-control.  He’s weak.”

“Heck, if he can’t even control himself, how can he manage others?  What a loser!”

“I’d like to show her how it feels.”

Anger Management:  Emergency Measures When Your Fuse is Lit

So how do we interrupt the momentum once we’re already on the way to a meltdown?  Just as our blood is about to boil over, we need very specific strategies that can bring us back from the brink.

Here are some tips for ways we can maintain our professionalism and handle emotions effectively:

1.  Get your head on straight.   When someone says something insulting, disagreeable or aimed at ticking you off, say nothing.  Hold your tongue no matter how tempted.  Under your breath, repeat after me:  “It’s not personal; it’s just business.” If that doesn’t work, try this:  Or, “I have a really good reason to be ticked off right now, but if I blow up, I’ll end up being the bad guy.”

2.  Do something else. Stall for time by asking questions. Repeat what the other person just said to make sure you understand what was just said and give him/her a chance to clarify any misunderstanding.   Take deep breaths and count to ten. Focusing on something else is a great way to derail the physical symptoms that build up steam.

3.  Get out of there. As soon as you feel yourself getting hot under the collar, remove yourself from the situation.  Tell the other person you need to think through what the two of you are talking about before you respond.  Fake a page or another call to extricate yourself from a non-productive telephone call so you can step outside to calm yourself. Whatever it takes; just give yourself time to cool down.

The Bottom Line

Reigning in a short fuse is torture when you’re already feeling out of control, overwhelmed, misunderstood or frustrated.  And, it’s true; exercising self-discipline under pressure doesn’t provide nearly the immediate release a good door slamming or ear chewing does.  However, as American author Jim Rohn once said, “We must all suffer from one of two pains; the pain of discipline or the pain of regret.  The difference is discipline weighs ounces while regret weighs tons.”

Your most gregarious employee suddenly becomes withdrawn and aloof.  Your previously decisive team leader can’t seem to make the simplest decision.  Your easygoing coworker starts arguing with coworkers and takes offense at the drop of a hat.  Your most dependable employee shows up late, calls in sick, and doesn’t finish projects.  These are some of the symptoms of depression in the workplace.

So what’s a manager to do?  On one hand, production must continue, yet the compassionate manager should also be concerned for the well-being of the employee.   Performance issues have to be dealt with and yet the employee’s previously stellar record – or obvious emotional pain – tempts the manager to just pick up the slack until the employee gets back on his or her feet.

The scenario of the depressed employee often presents a dilemma for his/her manager. So why does the manager have to deal with it?  The employee is a grown-up; why doesn’t s/he come to the manager first?

Note to Manager:  Don’t Wait for Me to Come to You

The odds are, s/he won’t.  Most depressed employees would rather eat dirt than admit to their managers that they’re depressed.  Part of this is because of the shame many depression sufferers feel about what they feel is their “weakness.”  However, a large part of their silence is due to the stigma many people continue to experience around mental illness.

For example, in an online survey of 1,129 workers conducted by the American Psychiatric Association of 1,129 workers, a high percentage believed that seeking help for particular psychological problems – such as drug addiction (76%), alcoholism (73%) and depression (62%) – would not be as accepted.  As I mentioned in another article I wrote, for every story I’ve heard about a supportive manager or caring HR professional, I’ve heard ten from employees who felt their disclosure led to being teased, overly scrutinized, or discriminated against.

The First Step:  Recognizing how Depression Impacts Work

Most managers have some employees they’d like to clone and some they’d like to clobber. And, certainly, a slacker can become depressed just as a superstar can.  What’s noticeable about depression, though, is the change in the employee.  The good employee’s performance declines while the marginal employee gets worse.

Here’s what that change in performance may look like:

• Unfinished projects
• Forgetfulness
• Increased errors
• Trouble concentrating
• Indecisiveness
• Irritability
• Loss of interest in work or socializing with colleagues
• Seems tired/fatigued

What to Say to a Depressed Employee

Managers are not there to talk about medical problems, counsel, or diagnose.  They are there to talk about work performance and behavior.  They are also there to care about their employees’ wellbeing.  When talking to a potentially depressed employee, here are some ways to do both:

1. Start with your concern for the employee.  “Sandy, I’m concerned about you.”
2. Focus your comments on observable behaviors.  “You’ve been late to work four times in the past two weeks and your reports have had twice as many errors.”
3. Acknowledge the change.  “This isn’t like you.  You’re normally the first in to work and the last person in the department to make mistakes.”
4. Offer them an olive branch.  “I don’t know if things in your personal life are affecting you, but if they are we have a confidential employee assistance plan that might be able to help.”
5. Be prepared to set limits.  For instance, if the employee mentions marital discord, problems with a child, financial problems, and so forth, the manager should be empathic but should limit the conversation.
6. Refer to an E.A.P.   Offer the employee the telephone number for the employee assistance program or suggest that it would serve the employee well to consider outside professional counseling through health care benefits, a community clinic, an employee assistance plan, or even through pastoral counseling.
7. Reinforce your concern.  I’m very invested in helping you get back on track.
8. Reinforce the need to improve performance.  However, whether or not you contact this service, you will still be expected to meet your performance goals.

The Bottom Line

Clinical depression has been described as a black dog, a suffocating blanket, and an endless, dark hole.  Untreated, it can sap the energy and motivation out of the most productive employee.  With the right help, it can be managed, overcome, or worked around.  In fact, for some people, coping with depression has given them some gifts that might now have otherwise received – such as a greater perspective and empathy for others.  At least, that’s what one lifelong depression sufferer you may know said – Abraham Lincoln.

For many employees-turned-plaintiffs, the unsolicited advances, kisses, groping and requests for sexual activities from a boss or coworker are less injurious than the humiliating and biased sexual harassment investigation that followed her complaint.  The investigator who is good friends with the accused, the manager who makes an insensitive comment or the fact that the alleged offender is a senior officer – any of these can lead an upset complainant running into the nearest attorney’s office.

Believe an Investigator is Biased and You’ll See It

It doesn’t take much.  In fact, although folk wisdom usually has it that “seeing is believing,” a study published in the September 2009 issue of the journal Psychological Science suggests that “believing is seeing,” too – at least when it comes to perceiving other people’s emotions. Researchers found that the way we initially think about the emotions of others biases our subsequent perception (and memory) of their facial expressions. So once as person initially interprets an ambiguous or neutral look as angry or happy, she or he will later remember and actually see it as such.   In order words, thinking has a noticeable effect on perceiving.

This research adds credibility to what misconduct investigators already know; when a complainants believe his or her motives are being questioned or that HR is partial or sympathetic to one side or another, s/he is more likely to see “evidence” to support this belief.  In this situation, the internal investigator doesn’t have to do anything wrong for an upset complainant to believe the investigation was either whitewashed or an outraged accused to argue that the conclusion was merely a pretext for firing the individual without breaching his or her contract.  This is just one of the circumstances where it pays to bring in an outsider.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

EEOC Chairwoman Castro has repeatedly emphasized the EEOC’s position with respect to the importance of using outside investigators to conduct investigations into suspected discrimination or harassment.  Specifically, Chairwoman Castro noted that the use of outside investigators is important:

1)    where the employer lacks the resources to conduct investigations in-house

2)    where the employer wishes to have an objective and unbiased party investigate the conduct at issue;

3)    where the conduct complained of was perpetrated by very high-level employees within the company.

Although the EEOC does not generally require employers to use outside parties to conduct investigations into harassment claims, the EEOC has expressed the view that using outside investigators is important in certain circumstances, and may even be necessary where the accused harasser is a senior company official or where there is otherwise a conflict of interest.  Examples of such conflicts include situations where an investigator:

* Has a personal relationship with either party.

* Has witnessed any alleged material occurrence.

* Has very strong feelings about either the complainant or the accused

Thus, employers who indiscriminately conduct internal investigations not only lose what advantages exist for having neutral third parties conduct such investigations, they risk running afoul of EEOC guidance.

Making a Case for Independence

In addition to reassuring a complainant that the investigation is fair and impartial, hiring a third party reduces the risk that an employee will be disciplined or discharged for something he or she did not do and provides a powerful defense against a claim that the company condoned unlawful conduct in the workplace.

Employers should consider using an outside investigator for four reasons:

1)    Promptness. Misconduct investigations should, as a rule, be completed within two weeks of the initial complaint.  The outside investigator will be brought in specifically for the purpose of carrying out the investigation and will not require that someone from the organization find time in his or her schedule to do the work.

2)    Expertise. Outside investigators are specialists whose expertise results in a more thorough investigation.  This expertise is particularly critical when the allegations are serious in nature and the stakes are high, such as sexual assault.  In addition, outside investigators have the courtroom experience that will make them a powerful witness should the complaint eventually go to trial.

3)    Impartiality. Although the employer hires the investigator, there still is the sense that the investigation is not an “inside” job. Employees are generally more open and more willingly share more information with an outsider who will not have to “live” with either the accused or the accuser after the investigation.  This is especially true when the allegations are against a high-ranking individual.

4)    Confidentiality. There is a strong need for confidentiality during a misconduct investigation.  Hiring an outside party, who is more likely to be perceived as an authority figure, reduces the odds the complaint process will be a topic of water cooler conversation and reassures the complainant that s/he will be protected from retribution.

The Bottom Line

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said that Fairness is what justice really is. Increasingly, the fairness scales are tipped in favor or employers who use outside investigators to investigate misconduct allegations, particularly when they involve a potential conflict of interest, possible litigation, or high-ranking individuals.

His peers described him as naturally irritable with a fiery temper.  His brilliant subordinate resigned because his boss couldn’t keep his emotions in check.  He had a large ego and could be easily offended by threats to his sense of honor and strong need for regard.

Sound like anyone you know?  Well, you know this man; his name was George Washington.  Cursed with a hot temper from birth, George Washington copied all 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior” into his exercise book and carried them with him throughout his life.  He spent his entire life consciously practicing self-control and courteousness, to the extent that, at his life’s end, others described him as a model of self-mastery and self-control.

Behavior Coaching for the Bad Manager

Fast-forward to 2010 and, every week, I get phone calls from frustrated HR managers and fed-up CEOs who have finally had it with a domineering, insensitive or bullying manager.  Perhaps a customer has complained about an insensitive remark.  Maybe the turnover in the manager’s department has reached an all-time high.  More often than not, an employee has filed some sort of offensive behavior complaint.

And yet, in spite of the manager’s unacceptable behavior, s/he contributes significant value to the organization – through technical expertise, industry contacts, or an extremely high work ethic.

The caller is on the horns of a dilemma.  Should they throw in the towel and get rid of the manager (and the assets s/he brings to the company) or give him/her a second chance (and risk more problems)?  And, if they give him/her a shot, can s/he change?

Can Bad Managers Change?

Yes, bad managers can change, BUT only some of them and only some of the time.  Yes, they should be given a chance to – BUT only some of them and only some of the time.

First of all, if a manager has committed a serious ethical violation, s/he should be fired – not coached.  A true harasser is not likely to benefit from coaching or invest in it.  On the other hand, a smart, overly competitive manager who impatiently interrupts others, dismisses any opinion other than his own, or whose unrealistic demands and lopsided (critical) feedback alienates peers and subordinates alike is a good coaching candidate.  In other words, there’s a difference between a true harasser and someone who exhibits bad judgment.

Necessary (But Not Always Sufficient) Ingredients for Change

In order for ineffective managers to benefit from behavior coaching, these ingredients are necessary:

1) Be aware of the need for change.  I don’t just mean someone sits the manager down and reads him the riot act.  I’m talking about some specific feedback about the impact of his/her behavior on subordinates, peers, etc.  This can involve a 360 degree evaluation or an executive coach gathering data through interviews.

2) Be motivated to change. One of the arguments I hear all the time is that you can’t make someone else change.  And that’s true.  However, just because the initial motivation for coaching is external, i.e., provided by someone else, doesn’t mean the manager can’t buy into the process.  When I was a practicing therapist, I was often amazed at how much some of my therapy clients – ordered into the therapy by the courts – actually used the therapy to their benefit once the trust in our relationship was established.  No, they weren’t thrilled to be in my office, but they were often thrilled as a result. (Of course, it goes without being said that the external motivation needs to continue throughout the coaching process and beyond).

3) Know specifically what needs to change and how to replace it. Bad managers act they way they do because a) at some level, it’s worked for them and b) they don’t know a better way to manage.  Effective behavior coaching involves evaluating (and often challenging) the manager’s beliefs about his or her current problem behaviors and helping him or her develop specific skills to replace them.

4)  Receive constructive feedback, support and encouragement throughout the change process. Without question, bad managers need the stick to get them into coaching.  However, once in it, they also need the carrot.  In fact, the more domineering and insensitive the manager, the more likely it is that I find insecurity and fear underneath.  Connecting with the underlying fears often allows the manager to lessen his defensiveness and be more open to the ongoing feedback s/he needs to support behavior change.

5) Gain some kind of personal reward (reinforcement) from having changed. Ah, here’s where the coaching really gets to be fun.  No matter what led the manager to the coaching trough, once s/he begins to experience the rewards of behavior change in his or her environment, it becomes a self-perpetuating process.

The Bottom Line

Change is hard.  It’s much easier to hire or promote a good manager than try to remediate a bad one.  However, there are times when a manager’s greatest weaknesses are also his greatest strengths; the manager who has unrealistic expectations of others often sets (and achieves) extraordinary goals for himself, the domineering, opinionated boss may also act decisively and have a keen sense of intuition, the impatient, close-minded executive may be stellar at thinking outside the box.  Behavior coaching can help these managers channel their natural skills into being better bosses – not bullies.

I love “talking” through e-mail.  I don’t know what it is, but there’s something about communicating from one glowing screen to another that feels just as private as if I were speaking to that person behind closed doors.  Unfortunately, a court of law doesn’t see it that way.  Legally, an e-mail is as formal a communication as a letter typed on company letterhead and sent by first-class mail.

E-mail:  More Like a Letter Than a Phone Call

The false sense of intimacy that e-mails create has led more than one company astray.  In 1995, for example, Chevron Corporation shelled out 2.2 million dollars to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit stemming from inappropriate e-mails circulated by male employees (sample topics:  25 reasons why beer is better than women).  Apparently, some of the 1.1 billion business e-mails sent daily by 80 million U.S. workers cross the line between candor and recklessness.

Best Practices in E-mail Policies

For many of us, e-mail is the backbone of how we communicate with partners with partners, vendors, customers and each other.  For management, the challenge is to keep this backbone from breaking the company’s bank, and the best defense is a good offense — an e-mail policy.  A policy that is likely to protect a company from the fall out of e-mail abuse should:

a)      be tied to a company’s harassment and discrimination policy

b)      clearly state that the content of e-mails are the property of the company; and

c)        specify the scope and frequency of any monitoring that occurs.  A generic warning that e-mail can be read by company officials at any time is better than nothing, but not likely to be as effective a deterrent as coming clean with a full disclosure.

Attorneys disagree about how restrictive an e-mail policy should be, from outlawing personal use completely (conservative but often unrealistic) to setting clear guidelines about acceptable personal use.  In my experience, companies that set clear guidelines about personal use (lunch time, off hours), outlines specific boundaries about appropriate communication (no gambling, pornography, offensive language), and address in detail disciplinary action for violating the e-mail policy may be most effective in balancing efforts to protect the company legally with the realities of human nature.

The Bottom Line

At the very least, an effective e-mail policy will communicate the message that the legal buck stops with the person sending the e-mail.  At the most, it will help protect your company from liability, and, hopefully, encourage reckless e-mailers to pause and reconsider before hitting the send button.

Employees who “get no respect” are future plaintiffs, particularly when they’re being fired.  In fact,  the results of structured interviews with 996 recently fired or laid-off workers (Administrative Science Quarter, September 2000) found that the way an employee was treated at the time of termination had nearly twice as much effect as any other variable in predicting who would sue for wrongful termination and who would not; less that half of one percent of the respondents who felt they had been treated with “very much dignity” at their time of dismissal filed claims in comparison to 15 percent of those who said they had “not at all” received respectful and dignified treatment at the time of termination.

What employees were told when they were let go was also important.  Less than 2 percent of terminated employees who were given an accurate and honest explanation of why they were being fired filed wrongful termination claims.  In contrast almost 20% of employees who were given no explanation (or this was the first time they were hearing it) filed a claim.

I Don’t Deserve to Be Treated This Way

Looking at the reasons employees file wrongful termination lawsuits (and why they don’t) offers us some insight into how our employees expect to be treated while they’re still working for us.  Basically, our employees want us to be FAIR.  In particular, they feel entitled to two things from their managers – interpersonal sensitivity and accountability.  In other words, employees believe they deserve to be treated politely and respectfully (regardless of the circumstances) and they expect truthful explanations for actions and decisions that that affect them personally.

There are some good psychological reasons why our employees want to be treated this way.  For example, research has consistently shown that people who are treated with dignity emerge from experiences – even painful or negative ones – with a sense that they have been treated fairly. And being treated fairly helps us not take the negative outcome quite so personally; when we’re disciplined for something we’ve done, we can handle it.  When we’re treated like a bad or insignificant person, it’s a different ball game.

Message from Jurors:  Don’t Make a Bad Situation Worse

Jurors apparently agree. In my experience, jurors in employment lawsuits are much more motivated to punish an employer whom they believe has been rude or insensitive during a tough time they are to reward a plaintiff whom they like or feel sorry for.  In fact, jurors don’t even have to like, respect, or empathize with a plaintiff if they feel indignant about how an employer handled a termination, layoff or discipline decision.

The good news is that the employer (and, in particular, the immediate supervisor) who treats employees fairly throughout the employment process  has a great advantage not only in terms of reducing the likelihood of employees filing claims, but in defending the ones that are filed.

The Bottom Line

While no one is happy about being terminated, it’s the way it’s handled that most often gets the litigation ball rolling.  Employees who are fired without warning, who are, without cause, marched out the door by security, or who learn about it through a nasty email are employees with an axe to grind.  And there are plenty of lawyers to help them grind it.  “It’s not FAIR” is the battle cry of the legal war zone.

Of course, not all mistreatment is intentional.  Few managers are trained in how to communicate around discipline and termination and, as a result of their own discomfort, may come across as emotionally uncaring or cold (or take the chicken’s way out and communicate it from a distance).  Let’s hope employers wise up to the fact that a manager who doesn’t know how to deliver bad news – a skill that can be easily learned – can be as detrimental to the workplace as one who makes bad decisions.

There’s a fascinating article in today’s New York Times that, once again, has some dismal news about employee satisfaction.  Apparently, it’s at an all-time low.  Less you think it’s all about the economy, a survey of 5000 workers revealed that the major sources of dissatisfaction had to do with the job itself and, in particular, the immediate supervisor.

The annual performance review, in particular, came under fire as a major source of angst for employees.  What was interesting about the critique is that most criticisms I’ve read about performance reviews had to do either with a) the substitution of a formal annual process at the expense of providing regular, ongoing feedback, or b) the structure of the form itself (for example, a forced rating system or vague rating descriptions that provided little useful direction to the employees being reviewed.  This article, however, offers the argument that the annual review is less about the employee’s actual performance and more a reflection of how much the supervisor likes the employee (check out Paul in NYC’s ironic interpretation of his performance review ratings in the comments section).

This Job is Killing Me

Another disheartening focus of this article is the significant mental and physical health problems that arise when an employee works in a toxic environment – depression, high blood pressure, heart problems.  Not surprisingly, the immediate supervisor had an enormous impact -good bosses served as a buffer against other workplace stressors while destructive leaders amplified other workplace pressures – on the stress level of employees.

While in theory employees have avenues for dealing with a bad boss (human resources, the boss’s boss), in reality, employees often fear retaliation for speaking out against an abusive supervisor.  Unfortunately, this can tempt an employee to try to regain a sense of control indirectly, i.e., by attempting to covertly sabotage the boss (calling in sick when there’s an important deadline, turning in work late or doing a bad job on it).   This, of course, ultimately hurts the employee.

So What’s the Solution?

I wish I knew.  The most disturbing part of this article to me was the barrage of bitter, cynical comments that followed it.   While I do work with plenty of companies who hold supervisors accountable for their relationships with their employees, I encounter many more who don’t.

In the meantime, if you’re an employee stuck in a toxic work environment, the onus is on you to take the best care of yourself you can.  Find a mentor who can give you emotional support and brainstorm with you about how to handle your bad boss, keep updating your skills and marketability, exercise and eat right and, if things don’t get better, get the heck out of there when you have the chance.

In an ideal world, no one would.  However, in the real world, we form an impression of a person in the first 30 seconds to 2 minutes after we meet him or her.

Okay, you may be thinking.  I’m willing to sacrifice a little upfront pr for comfort since I’ll have the chance to impress them later with my business acumen.  Don’t count on it.  Recent research suggests that, not only are first impressions hard to change, if someone makes a negative first impression on us, we’re less likely to seek that person out again.    So while initial impressions can be changed, human nature works against us having the opportunity to do so.

Why do Clothes Matter?

You are seen before you are heard.  As a result, before you open your mouth, your appearance has already spoken volumes about you.  Whether the other person realizes it or not, s/he has already made assumptions about your competence, intelligence, judgment and so forth.  In fact, according to Dr. Albert Mehrabian’s research, our visual image (physical appearance and body language) accounts for over half of the first impressions we create.

Are People That Superficial?

Yes we are, although not quite in the way you might think.  Because we have so much going on in our brains, our ancestors learned to make mental shortcuts, i.e., simple rules to help us categorize and make quicker decisions about things we encounter.  Unfortunately, these often lead to unconscious biases where we tend to see what we expect.  In other words, people are affected by your appearance, whether or not they realize it, and whether or not they think appearance is important.

So here’s how this works when it comes to what we wear.  Two psychological shortcuts people use are the “halo effect” and its opposite, the “devil effect.”  The “halo effect” is our tendency, if our first impression involves one or two positive things about a person, to develop a generally positive overall impression, sometimes in spite of later evidence to the contrary.   And, of course, the “devil effect” is the opposite side of the same coin.

A Lapse in Judgment or Fashion Faux Pas?

In other words, the reason what we wear to work is important is because of what our attire represents.  What’s really being evaluated by what you wear is your judgment – how well you understand the social rules of the context you are in and whether or not you are willing to follow them.

An attorney who shows up for court has the same skill level whether he’s dressed in blue jeans or business formal.  However, he is likely to get a very different reception from the judge, who is likely to assume a Levi-clad attorney either doesn’t know the social codes or doesn’t care about them.  And, from a client’s perspective, a professional who doesn’t “look” like one isn’t likely to inspire confidence that she can excel as one.

The Bottom Line

No, it shouldn’t matter if a woman wears a tight, pencil skirt or a man wears Birkenstocks and Bermudas as long as s/he excels at work.  But know that to some people, it does.