The Bully-in-Chief Strikes Again—Very Predictable!

Donald Trump’s behavior and beliefs constantly befuddle everyone—the news media, pundits, academic experts and the average person are constantly trying to decode what he’s really saying and what he really believes. There’s a good reason that this is impossible, which David Roberts makes crystal clear on Vox in his insightful article, “The question of what Donald Trump ‘really believes’ has no answer.”

According to Roberts, there’s a simple reason that Trump defies logic—he doesn’t believe anything.  Roberts writes:

“The question presumes that Trump has beliefs, “views” that reflect his assessment of the facts, “positions” that remain stable over time, woven into some sort of coherent worldview. There is no evidence that Trump has such things. That is not how he uses language.”

He goes on to explain that when Trump speaks, it’s to position himself as dominant in the culture’s social hierarchy.  He has no interest in, or ability to share, an exchange of ideas; he only uses language to assert his superiority. “This essential distinction explains why Trump has so flummoxed the media and its fact-checkers; it’s as though they are critiquing the color choices of someone who is colorblind,” Roberts writes.

This is also why Trump is so very predictable. There are no deeper traits; he fits the bully archetype to a T, never digressing for a moment from this persona. This is why, as I wrote on Monday in my post, “Donald Trump: Bully, Coward and Traitor,” you don’t need to be an oracle or an expert to figure out what he will do next. This is why I dedicated an entire chapter of my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, to Trump as the very definition of what it means to be a bully.  And this is why I’ve been such a vocal advocate for psychological evaluation of senior executives before putting them in positions of power. That’s just as true for the C-suite as it is for the highest executive office in the land. Any company thinking of doing less should ask itself this—could you really afford to have a Donald Trump run your company?

Photo credit: Notey

Mental Health is a Major Challenge in All Environments

One of the unique features of the university setting is that it often doubles as educational institution and place of employment for students as well as staff. Like workplaces all over North America, providing mental health care is a major challenge. According to statistics from Mental Health America, one in four adults live with mental illness. And yet colleges are just now waking up to the pressing need for services on campus, according to a recent series in USA Today.

There are a number of reasons for the significant increase in the need for mental health services. For one thing, thanks to better treatments and therapies young adults living with mental illness are now able to attend college, something that was unobtainable a generation ago. But old stigmas die hard, and college students can be reluctant to get help if it means that their parents might find out. And for those willing to reach out, there are often too few services and those services are poorly conceived for this complex population. Sadly, many times little or improvement is made until a campus is turned upside down by tragedy.

Another issue is how to fund mental health programs on campuses. Charging students for services can be a deterrent to seeking help when issues are being kept from parents. There are grants in some states, but these may not be enough to increase services to needed levels.

All of this is why I’m working with Mental Health America and the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Our need for psychologically healthy, safe and fair workplaces can and must extend to higher education.

Andrew Faas is the author of From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire

Photo credit: BIGSTOCK

Donald Trump: Bully, Coward and Traitor

Any soothsayer will tell you that there is no pleasure in seeing negative predictions come true. I’m no oracle, but it’s been frighteningly clear to me from observable data and research just how predictable Donald Trump’s bullying behavior is. As I discuss in my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, a bully who has gained power will do anything and everything to hold onto it. This latest episode with the firing of FBI Director James Comey continues to prove this. It comes as no surprise that this action was taken just days after Comey requested a significant increase in resources to further the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, according to the New York Times. Or that there were reports that he had grown outraged over the probes in to Russia.

It’s all very predictable. Trump continues to reveal himself as a bully, a coward in his dealings with subordinates (especially the firing of Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates), and a traitor. It doesn’t take a forensic investigator to figure out that Trump is in deep with Russia. Today Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov into the Oval Office. The photos of their meeting were released by the Russian Foreign Ministry, not the White House.

In Congress, Democrats—and just three Republicans—are demanding a special prosecutor or independent investigation, in order to get to the bottom of Trump’s Russian ties. Meanwhile, a whopping 57 members of the GOP are neutral or even supportive of eliminating Comey and have nothing to say about investigating Russia. I would like to remind them of the need for checks and balances against the executive branch. They remind me of the character Seymour in the horror comedy Little Shop of Horrors who kept feeding the monstrous plant Audrey II the blood it craved never realizing that one day, Audrey would try to eat him, too. Beware feeding the bully: his hunger is insatiable and he doesn’t care whom he consumes.  

Photo credit: Little Shop of Horrors

How to Leave a Toxic Legacy

Bully bosses are notorious for being short-sighted—most can see no further than their immediate objective. Given how they manipulate and torture people, it might come as a surprise that many want to be liked—even loved. For a perfect example of this look no further than Donald Trump. In spite of his toxic tweets and abusive statements, he often displays the demeanor of a small child who is aching for adoration.

Ada Brunstein explores a similar type of boss in her recent New York Times essay, “In a Law Office, Coping With a Boss’s Toxic Trail.” In it, she discusses the daily abuse she and other young, female paralegals received from the estate attorney who employed them. The lawyer, whom she calls “Mr. S,” couldn’t understand why his employees disliked him and never stayed long. It couldn’t be the blatant disregard for his staff, his incessant smoking in the office, his temper tantrums or name calling, could it? In fact, his inability to retain staff ultimately hurt his business and did nothing for his legacy.

Leaders should ask themselves how they would like to be remembered. Their behavior reflects directly on how employees feel and why they feel that way and any issues on the boss’s part that impacts the workplace negatively needs to be addressed immediately. Leadership is no place for people who don’t understand—or care—how feelings drive organizational behavior.

Andrew Faas is the author of

Photo credit: BIGSTOCK

Why Being a Revolutionist is Critical Now

The image may forever be seared into the collective consciousness—Republican members of the House boarding buses to the White House to have a beer to celebrate passage of the American Health Care Act of 2017. Never mind that the AHCA has an enormous list of pre-existing conditions that unconscionably includes cesarean section and PTSD brought on by sexual assault, or that it makes it possible to charge people over 50 more than five times the rate of younger people, or that it included an exemption for Congress. And ignore that in their zeal to defeat the national healthcare safety net created by an African-American president, many Republicans admitted to never having read the thing or that they refused to wait for the cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. Just remember this: This may be the moment when the average American becomes a revolutionist.

As someone who has been a revolutionist for psychologically healthy, safe and fair workplaces for almost a decade, it gives me hope to see Americans fired up. It’s this energy that I hope to direct to employment issues, which differ from your rights as a citizen in an important way—the freedom of expression that you are guaranteed under the Constitution does NOT apply to the workplace.  This is why keeping an eye on workplace issues is extremely important—the man currently in the White House wants to run the government like one of his workplaces.

Examples of how employees lack rights abound. Donald Trump’s friends at Fox News continue to be in the headlines with new lawsuits and federal investigations due to sexual harassment and gender discrimination allegations. Most of the women who were harassed had no recourse at work. One of the most pernicious aspects of the culture at Fox News is the practice of human resource departments to encourage employees to come forward then use that information to facilitate retaliation. As I discuss in From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, this is far from unusual. I would even argue it’s the norm; in toxic workplaces human resource departments are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Far too often they suffer from what I call “Sean Spicer Syndrome”—zero credibility, zero courage.

One of the most egregious examples of employees lacking rights at work come from Wells Fargo. I’ve written a lot about the bank’s improprieties and I’m not fooled by the assurance of its new CEO, Timothy J. Sloan, that retaliation against whistleblowers won’t be tolerated. Or, according to a recent New York Times article, that it’s “critically important” that all employees feel safe at Wells Fargo. It does nothing for the employees who were fired for reporting the bank’s abuses and then show up only as a footnote in a 110-page report by an outside law firm. In order for there to have been abuse at the levels that took place and the whistleblowers silenced, the exploitation by Wells Fargo had to be deep and systemic.

That is why I take being a revolutionist so seriously and you should, too. Fighting on against depressing odds is difficult, but we don’t have the luxury of sitting back. Trump has tried to silence the press, boost religious extremists and roll back protections for the LGBT community, in addition to that outrageous bill that masquerades as health-care reform. But it’s not over. Not only does the AHCA still need to pass in the Senate, but 2018 midterm elections are coming up quickly. Use your anger to fuel your resolve to resist. Record donations yesterday poured into sites that will fund Democratic candidates in 2018. There are marches planned, including the June 11 Equality March for Unity and Pride in Washington, DC. I predict we will see record crowds for Pride around the world this year. As my 98-year-old mother, a veteran of the Dutch underground during World War II told me, “you don’t want to feel as you grow older that you should have done more.” Take action now.

Photo credit: CSPAN

When Workers Sign Non-Compete Agreements, No One Benefits

On the surface, it seems like common sense: keep your employees from taking what you’ve taught them and bringing it to your competition by making them sign non-compete agreements. Logical, right?

Not so fast.

Every analysis of this burgeoning practice is showing that not only is this a terrible thing to inflict on workers—who are ensnared in a kind of servitude where they must stay with a bad job or risk leaving their profession entirely—but it destroys innovation, economic growth and entrepreneurship.

Employment and labor law Professor Orly Lobel of the University of San Diego School of Law wrote in today’s New York Times just what non-compete clauses really mean to the burgeoning ranks of the 30 million employees who have signed them. According to Lobel, instead of just requiring non-competes from the top echelon of employees, now one in six workers without a college degree are also forced to sign them. “By including them in employee contracts, employers can use the threat of litigation to constrict wages and employee mobility,” she says.

The effect this has on the workplace can’t be underestimated. Psychologically healthy, safe and fair workplaces don’t shackle employees’ ability to freely leave their jobs for better wages and benefits, to advance a career, or to accrue working capital. Parents are especially penalized when they can’t move to a state that doesn’t enforce non-competes because of the need to live near family, their children’s education or their spouse’s employment.

For the clearest proof as to how non-competes hurt industry, Sobel cites the example of California and Massachusetts, both of which benefited from an early boom in high-technology. California, which does not enforce non-competes, is now a thriving hub of tech innovation. Massachusetts on the other hand, which enforces them, had its tech boom die out. If employees wanted to stay in the industry they had to leave the state—much to the state’s detriment.

In From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire I discuss how psychologically healthy, safe and fair workplaces are fertile breeding grounds for creativity, innovation and productivity. If you want the exact opposite of all these things, introduce a non-compete agreement. But beware. The employee you exploit the most may wind up being yourself.

Photo credit: BIGSTOCK

Why Do the Big Tech Companies Drive Away Women and Minorities?

There are toxic workplaces and then there are toxic workplaces in the tech industry. Up until now the evidence was heavily anecdotal. There was the female employee who revealed sexual harassment at Uber, followed by the heart-wrenching tragedy of the African-American engineer at Uber who took his own life as the stress became unmanageable. There is the gay employee taking on the Omnicom Group for horrific abuse and the well-known story of Ellen Pao, whose gender discrimination suit made national news.

At last we have some data to support the chorus of diverse voices begging us to pay attention to the working conditions they’ve been forced to endure. The Kapor Center for Social Impact and Harris Poll just conducted a study to explore the reasons why people leave tech companies. What they discovered was that the outpouring of first-person stories of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, bullying and racial bias is borne out by the numbers: eight in 10 employees who left tech said they did so due to unfair behavior or treatment.  Eighty-five percent observed such behavior and 37 percent left their jobs because of it.

Women experience and observed far more toxic behavior than men, with women of color being most likely to be passed over for promotion. In addition, LGBT employees endured the most bullying and public humiliation leading to the decision by 64 percent to leave their company.

Given that employee retention problems due to toxic workplaces are costing $16 billion a year, one would think that the tech companies would use their brain power to work harder at a solution. However, Facebook, whom we recently praised for its new policy about gender-diverse legal teams, has been cited in the Wall Street Journal for its hidden biases against female engineers. Perhaps Cheryl Sandberg might want to figure out how to help her company lean in. Right now it’s not getting the job done.

Andrew Faas is the author of From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire.

Illustration credit: Womena/greenlining.org

The Majority of Organizational Leaders Don’t Care About Ethics

In his book, The Golden Passport: Harvard Business School, the Limits of Capitalism, and the Moral Failure of the MBA Elite (HarperBusiness; April 2017), Duff McDonald outlines how professors at the Harvard Business School sold their soul to Wall Street by abandoning a 75-year-old philosophy articulated in 1951 by John D. Rockefeller: “The job of management is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly affected interest groups...stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.”

Harvard fell under the influence of former University of Rochester Professor Michael Jensen in the 1980s. Jensen wrote a paper that laid the groundwork a seismic shift in philosophy to the economic theory that shareholders must always be first, insisting that institutional investors and Wall Streeters be released from “the obligation of considering anything but their own narrow wants and needs” according to Newsweek article by McDonald. By 1985 Harvard invited Jensen to join their faculty.

In 2003, Harvard created its Leadership and Corporate Accountability course. McDonald doesn't buy it, I don't buy it, nor should you buy it. McDonald references a New York Times interview where Jensen responded to a question on ethics with, “But I admit, we scholars don't yet know the real answer on how to make this happen."

McDonald succinctly retorts, "That's called ethics, and Jensen is right: Harvard Business School doesn't know how to teach ethics as well as it knows how to teach financial engineering, and it never will."

The propagation of Harvard’s teachings has long tendrils. In my book From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire. I point out, "Rarely a day goes by when there is not a story in the media about abuse of power, inappropriate behavior, corruption and greed on the part of leadership in every segment of our society, worldwide. Whether it is business, industry, government, education, sport, media, social services, military, police, entertainment, not-for-profit or religion, not one is immune.”

The effects of the Harvard Business School philosophy reach to the highest office in the land. In a recent Financial Times article, “Complacency will eat the heart out of Whole Foods,” writer Andrew Hill cites Donald Trump’s recent encounter with the Associated Press. "Is there anything from your business background that isn't applicable to the job of president?” the correspondent asks.

“Well, in business, you don't necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people,” Trump says, then adds: “In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it."

And the hits keep coming. Last week, in a note to shareholders of American Airlines about the decision to give pay increases to pilots and flight attendants who were paid less than the industry standard, Citi analyst Kevin Crissey wrote, “This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again. Shareholders get leftovers.”  This Wall Street idiot just reinforced the results of Harvard selling its soul with his disregard for all stakeholders other than the shareholder.

As I discussed yesterday, in a study conducted by Mental Health America sponsored by the Faas Foundation, an astounding 69 percent of more than 17,000 people surveyed admitted to speaking poorly about their organizations to others. Given what this legion of Harvard Business School graduates have done to capitalism, is any surprise?

Those Who Rely on Whistleblower Hotlines are Fools

Reports about the effectiveness of harassment hotlines are leaving me cold. In a recent Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, an attorney who formerly worked with the Labor Department’s Whistleblower Advisory Committee stated that hotline reporting went up 8 percent in 2016 and the average length of resolution dropped from 46 to 42 days. While I have the deepest respect for this individual and the work he does, he’s sadly misinformed.

I have also worked with a number of organizations on ethical issues and have done a fair amount of research in the field, which have led to two books on workplace dynamics—the most recent one being From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire. My research has shown that most employees do not trust hotlines and other mechanisms to report workplace wrongdoing. There’s a good reason for this. Take the example of Michael J. Lutz who reported an impropriety he spotted in his work as an accounting specialist at the Radian Group. The company scheduled an investigation and concluded that he was wrong and everything was proper. Frustrated, Lutz reached out to the internal compliance hotline—and one of his superiors found out and retaliated and started to force him out of the company. That’s when he contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is supposed to be the whistleblower’s advocate. In spite of having solid evidence of the retaliation, nothing happened.

Ironically, one of his tasks was to make sure that internal accounting controls were in proper compliance to avoid the strict penalties that resulted from the Enron-era legislation. When he was ousted, Radian hired an outside accounting firm to prove that they were in compliance. The firm? KPMG—the Big Four accounting firm whose improprieties I recently wrote about.

Clearly, business leaders aren’t hearing what employees have to tell them on every level. In a study conducted by Mental Health America sponsored by the Faas Foundation, an astounding 69 percent of more than 17,000 people surveyed admitted to speaking poorly about their organization to others. And yet, as in the case of Bill O’Reilly, leaders continue to insist that no one had a problem because there were no complaints to the whistleblower hotline.

Boards of Directors and senior executive often tout their policies, programs and HR departments as proof that they have a value-based, inclusive, safe and fair workplace culture that includes freedom of expression. My research says otherwise. Top management still isn’t listening, making all of their mechanisms for reporting misbehavior nothing more than legal shields. Even more disturbing, my research shows they don’t want to hear what they need to hear.

Illustration credit: Dilbert by Scott Adams

Suicide at Uber: Is this Tantamount to Murder or Manslaughter?

Before he went to work for Uber, Joseph Thomas was described as “the smartest guy in the room,” a hard-driving and ambitious engineer with a warm heart who gave up a job at Apple to work for Uber. But according to the San Francisco Chronicle, after he started working at the ride-share company, he began to change.

His family told reporter Carolyn Said that he began to struggle for the first time. He was working long hours under acute stress and frightened he’d lose his job. Then the panic attacks began, along with constant anxiety and lack of mental focus. Visits to a psychiatrist didn’t help, nor did pleas that he quit Uber. His wife reported that his personality changed and he kept insisting that he couldn’t do anything right. Thomas was one of the less than 1 percent of African-American managers at the company and given previous reports of bullying and harassment, it is very likely that racism played a role in his decline.

In August 2016 Joseph Thomas took his own life. He left behind a wife and two young sons who are being denied a worker’s compensation claim because he had only worked for the company for five months. His wife is looking to hold Uber accountable for Joseph’s mental decline. “If you put a hard-driving person on unrealistic tasks, it puts them in failure mode. It makes them burn themselves out; like driving a Lamborghini in first gear,” Thomas’ father told the Chronicle.

I’ve written a lot about suicide brought on by bullying at work, and given the 120,000 annual deaths attributable to workplace stress according to a joint study at Harvard Business School, it’s not a surprise that not enough is being done to address the cause of this terrible epidemic. I devoted an entire section of my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire to preventing this sort of tragedy. The Faas Foundation has been working to address the issue of mental health in the workplace with Mental Health America with the same goal.

It is eminently clear that the toxic workplace culture at Uber is having a horrendous impact on its people. In February I wrote about how a former female employee of Uber was driven out by sexual harassment that human resources did nothing to stop. It’s gotten so bad that two of the company’s original investors penned an open letter to the board about the egregious culture of the place.

If it is found that the toxic environment was the main factor in Thomas’ suicide, Uber must be held accountable for what is tantamount to murder—or at least manslaughter.  

Photo credit: Contract Magazine