94% OF LEADERS IN CANADA DON’T KNOW WHAT THE F**K IS GOING ON IN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS

This damning assertion was validated with the shocking statistic in this survey that reveals that 94% of C-Suite executives in Canada don’t believe there is a sexual harassment problem in their organizations. While the survey only deals with Canada, based on my research the numbers would not differ much if a similar survey were conducted in the United States.

This statistic makes perfect sense, as illustrated by this Harvard Business Review article by Tasha Eurich, which reveals that self-awareness is a rare quality (10%-15%); and which strongly supports the argument -if people are not self aware, how can they possibly be aware of how others feel and what is going on around them?

I have long held the belief that the biggest barrier to creating psychologically safe workplaces is the attitude of organizational leaders, as I point out in my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, notably here in this excerpt, which shows research results and anecdotal evidence of why this is so.

Since I started, many people have questioned why I accentuate the negative. My response to this is - “in this arena, there is much to be negative about”. Until such time as C-Suite executives start understanding what the f**k is going on in their organizations, I will keep marching on being negative!

Photo credit: flickr.com

HOW STUPID DOES THE GOP THINK WE ARE?

With the freshly released bombshell book by Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House”, our attention has never been so sharply focused on the current shocking administration.

The White House and its cronies keep saying that the meeting on June 26, 2016 with a contingent of Russians was merely to talk about adoptions. This is legalese technical bullshit; and yes, they may be talking about adoptions, but that is a code word for The Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. They were using the adoptions because the Russians used adoptions as a retaliatory move against U.S. sanctions. The Russians wanted to talk about the U.S. sanctions, using this technicality to be able to claim that they did not lie. Bullies are masters of deflection. This is a deflection. And the GOP should call him out on it.

Shortly after the June 26th meeting, I wrote a blog, which discusses Bill Browder’s whose highly acclaimed book, Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice (Simon & Schuster; 2015) and details the corruption and murderous heart of the Putin regime.

The White House and the GOP are being totally disingenuous about this, and certainly are being intellectually dishonest with the American public; and no one is challenging them. By protecting Trump and his family, cronies and others, they are complicit in all of this. And November can’t come soon enough!

Photo credit: flickr.com

MASTER OF DEFLECTION, DIVERSION, DECEIT and MANIPULATION

In my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, written well before the November 2016 election, I describe bullies as masters of deflection, deceit, diversion and manipulation.

The first chapter, ‘DEFINITION OF A BULLY’, is a mere one word: “Trump” - (perhaps the shortest chapter on record)’.  In the extensive research I have done on bullying in the workplace, what we are experiencing everyday with Trump is a real master of deflection, deceit, diversion and manipulation. 

This article from the New York Times by Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch is perhaps the most significant piece of information yet, which validates the diversionary tactics used by Trump and more disturbing the Republicans who have lost their souls to protect their self-interests. 

This will resonate with the many people who are targeted by bullies. They experience how their tormentors deflect, deceive, divert and manipulate so that the victim ends up becoming the villain.

Photo credit: flickr.com

A NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION FOR LEADERS EVERYWHERE - Gaining the Trust of Your People

Since the Weinstein scandal broke, I have fielded many requests from organizational leaders to give them advice on how to ensure that their organizations are not exposed as the result of uncovered improper behaviours. Most are looking to double down on harassment training, which has proven to be a totally ineffective approach to tackling the issue of abuse and harassment for the same reasons that diversity and inclusion programs have failed to move the needle a notch. I assert the reason for this is that emotional intelligence is not being applied.

The concept of emotional intelligence has been around for decades and although most relate to it, leadership has not effectively applied it in their environments, largely because the perceptions are that it is soft. I assert the opposite, and that it has very hard outcomes.

The Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence and the Faas Foundation have embarked on an initiative whose mission is to help create emotionally intelligent leaders, organizations and communities through the transformations of organizational culture, emotional climates and evidence based practices.

Because of the perceptions, most of the executives reject the prerequisite requirement for my engagement, which is to conduct a culture/climate assessment to determine how emotional intelligence the organization is.

So what are the characteristics of an emotionally intelligent group? It is where:

. Unnecessary stress is minimal.

. There is freedom of expression.

. Feelings are factored into decisions.

. There is a maximum amount of transparency. (No open secrets)

. Behavioural norms are clear and understood.

. Improper behaviours and other wrongdoings are checked at the first              whiff of the problem.

. Clear value exchanges are in place.

. The human element takes precedent over technologies in leading.

. The four R’s are constantly applied - The RIGHT people, doing the RIGHT things, the RIGHT way, at the RIGHT time.

Vanessa Druskat and Stephen Wolf, in a Harvard Business Review article on group emotional intelligence, outlined the three conditions for emotional intelligence to have a positive impact - trust amongst members, a sense of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy. What should be added is that without trust amongst members, it is impossible to achieve identity and efficacy.

Based on my experience as a senior executive and consultant, extensive research conducted for my books, articles and blog posts, the number one unnecessary stress factor is the lack of trust and respect employees have in leadership and, by extension, the organizations and institutions.

Rarely a day goes by when there is not a story in the media about abuse of power, inappropriate behaviour, corruption and greed on the part of leadership in every segment of our society worldwide. Whether the sector is business, industry, education, social services, military, police, sport, media, entertainment, not-for-profit, law or religion – none are immune. While this is significant, the question of trust and respect goes far beyond the unethical and illegal.

Leadership is also assessed on whether they deliver on the commitments they make, the extent to which they support the people they are responsible for, are aware of what is really going on in their domain, and take responsibility for situations when things go south or there is a crisis.

On support - in the workplace, the ‘Mind the Workplace’ study, conducted by Mental Health America and the Faas Foundation, shows that only 36 percent of North American workers can rely on their boss for support.

On awareness - a recent C-Suite study in Canada revealed that 94 percent of executives do not believe that sexual harassment is an issue in their organizations. In most of the recent exposures, sexual harassment has been going on for years, and in some cases decades. Leaders in most of the institutions have claimed they were not aware.

On taking responsibility - Wells Fargo is perhaps the most glaring example of leadership not taking responsibility and adding to their lack of credibility, throwing 5,200 junior level employees under the bus. In reviewing the number of instances of wrongdoing, placing the blame on subordinates has been a consistent initial response. Mary Barra stands out for taking responsibility when she, shortly after inheriting the ignition switch scandal, introduced herself at a congressional hearing said, “My name is Mary Barra, and I am the chief executive officer of General Motors ... and I am deeply sorry.” 

In every relationship, there is a value exchange where there are expectations that each party has of one another. When expectations are not met and/or there is no reciprocity, trust and respect erodes. This is something that I learned fairly early in my career.

On being appointed to head National Grocers, the shared services division of Loblaw Companies Ltd., Canada’s largest retail chain, I commenced a quarterly visit to all of our distribution facilities across the country, where we had town hall meetings with every shift.

In the first of these meetings we outlined the expectations we had of the facility; and we asked for feedback on what employees expected from us to deliver on the expectations we had of them. Among the expectations were facility improvements, including cleaner washrooms, lockers and cafeteria - a pretty basic and easy one to deliver on.

A year or so into my tenure, while I was in a city where we had a facility, I thought I would drop in for a quick visit. Shortly after arriving, I went to the washroom and was appalled by the condition it was in - much different than what we saw during our quarterly visits.

Seething, I went to the plant manager’s office and politely asked him to call someone to bring a pail, Lysol, Windex, a mop, sponges and paper towels. Confused, the manager asked why, to which he got my response - “just humour me, ok?” The cleaning supplies arrived; I took off my suit jacket, rolled up my shirtsleeves, and headed to the washroom, followed by an anxious manager and the man who brought the supplies. People working on the floor all observed this, causing a bit of a buzz.

Once in the bathroom, I said to the plant manager, “I’ll start with the toilets, and you do the urinals”; and to the guy who brought the supplies, “you supervise”.  Well, both of them (excuse the pun) did not know whether to shit or go blind, but they were smart enough not to argue.

Once finished, I asked whether it was necessary to do the other washrooms on the premises, to which I received assurances that it was not. On leaving, I indicated that I would be back in a week to have a town hall meeting with all shifts.

As you can imagine, this incident was relayed to all of our facilities by nightfall, without me having to say a single word. 

At the meetings the following week, I apologized on behalf of management that we had not delivered on their expectation of us. I also expressed disappointment that they had not delivered on our expectation of them, which was to call us out on when we were failing, by saying, “We have no problem in calling you out; and for us to be able to trust each other, it’s got to be reciprocal.”

This single incident solidified a strong relationship we enjoyed for almost a decade, where we moved from being a significant laggard against industry performance benchmarks to becoming a leader.

Many people may view this as an insignificant incident; however, it sent a powerful message that trust and respect is not earned by words alone.

Through this I learned that leadership became pretty easy after earning the trust and respect of those for whom I was responsible.

For leaders everywhere I encourage you to have building trust and respect as your New Year’s resolution by factoring feelings into everything you do, first by reflecting on whether people trust you. If they do, and continue to, you will have a Happy New Year!

(Andrew Faas is the author of ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’, and is a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University)

Part 2 - WHY DO WE HAVE BOARDS? WELL IT’S CERTAINLY NOT TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES!!!!

Yesterday I posted Part 1 of this blog. In Part 2, this story by Marina Strauss in the Globe and Mail illustrates the blatant lack of both integrity and competence on the part of boards, which puts shareholder interests before all others. Many blame Lambert for this, and justly so; but the real culprit is the board of directors, who allowed him to ruin the lives of so many.

I have been invited to join a number of boards over the past few years and have turned them down because when I did my due diligence I found that either the board was merely a rubber stamp or they viewed the shareholders as the only stakeholder. Employees must be considered as equal stakeholders if an organization is to thrive.

Andrew Faas (former senior executive with the Weston/Loblaw/Shoppers Group; author of ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’,; and a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University).

SO WHY DO WE HAVE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS????

‘Spider Network’, David Enrich’s evocative book reviewed here, tells the story of Britain’s Libor banking scandal, revealing a financial culture in which success is defined by the outcome of the next trade.

This important book is a must read for every board director. Boards who claim they were not aware of wrongdoings are in essence admitting their incompetence. Last week, Loblaw Companies Ltd. Canada’s largest retailer admitted to bread price fixing, which according to their CEO has been going on without the knowledge of senior management for fourteen years. So if senior management was not aware of this ‘arrangement’, as this fraud was called by the namby pamby Globe and Mail (see my letter to the editor here), it is safe to assume that the directors were not aware either.

So why do we have boards of directors again???

Andrew Faas (former senior executive with the Weston/Loblaw/Shoppers Group; author of ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’,; and a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University).

Photo credit: wikimedia

SHARING MY MOTHER’S LEGACY

In this eulogy, which I gave for my mother, I indicate how blessed my brothers and I were to have had Mom as our moral compass. As a holiday gift to you, I want to share with you what she taught us.

On behalf of my four brothers, thank you for being here today and for the support you and many others have given to Mom on her long journey home. 

Many have expressed their sympathies and condolences, which while we very much appreciate, our emotions are ones of joy and celebration in sharing with her the natural wonder of a full cycle of life, passing on to the next, with the same grit, grace, class and dignity she lived by. 

Wilma’s natural passing is in such stark contrast to those who perished a week ago during the massacre in Texas, which was horribly tragic and unnatural, and our sympathies and condolences go to their families, friends and the community of Sutherland Springs. 

Wilhelmina Herberdena Cornelias Visser Faas lived a remarkable life filled with a combination of jubilations and tragedies. The tragedies started a few days after her birth in 1919 with the passing of her mother, two aunts and an uncle, for whom she is named, from the Spanish Flu epidemic. 

Then losing her first son, Jacob, due to malnutrition in the womb when he was ten months old in 1945 just after the liberation in The Netherlands, which was blockaded during the occupation, with most of its citizens surviving on what they could scrounge. 

And then, 45 years ago, losing the love of her life, our Dad Casper, who died suddenly at age 57 from a massive heart attack. 

Despite the tragedies, the jubilations were many and well deserved, culminating with a beautiful peaceful end. But not without a fight, defying what was humanly possible, surviving over ten days without any nourishment or fluids. Wilma loved life; and in much the same manner in which she lived, Wilma was determined to leave this earth, on her terms, surrounded by her family. 

When Dad passed away, our grief was almost inconsolable. With Mom, the joy of having her pass in her 99th year over-compensates the grief we have. 

Rather than go through a chronology of her incredibly interesting life, I will attempt to capture the essence of her being. 

In short - Wilma was one real piece of work. 

I say this not out of disrespect, because she was a character: 

· a bit of a contrarian 

· articulate 

· brutally direct 

· calculating (some could successfully argue a bit manipulative) 

· charming 

· creative 

· curious 

· dramatic 

· elegant 

· eloquent 

· feisty 

· forceful 

· genteel 

· hilariously funny 

· kind 

· loyal 

· mischievous 

· observant 

· persuasive 

· pragmatic 

· protective of others 

· provocative 

· regal 

· resilient 

· resourceful 

· tough as nails 

Those who know Wilma, and who have watched Downton Abbey, can relate when I suggest that Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, is a dead ringer for Mom, in spirit, attitude and appearance. 

Both Violet and Wilma were unique and complex characters; but more importantly, they were Women of Character. Elia Saab must have had Wilma in mind when he wrote: 

“Elegance is a statement, an attitude. Elegant women are women of character with confidence.” Wilma had confidence in spades, confidence because she had a strong sense of self, and rigorously adhered to her interpretation of the aphorism that “Right makes might” - and was she mighty. 

Wilma vigorously defended and promoted what she felt was right, yet her love of debate helped her shift her positions if someone made the more compelling argument. She was a master at drawing people into debate by intentionally taking an extreme or outrageous position on something to bait people into a vigorous discussion. Because she knew what buttons to push, Wilma from time to time took perverse pleasure in pushing them. 

An example of shifting her position was when I told Mom that Lee and I were getting married, which I did with some trepidation. When I did finally tell her, she gave a polite acceptance; the next day she warmed up to it a bit; then on the fourth day she said, “I have been thinking about it quite a bit.” I thought - I bet you have! 

Then she continued, “You know I come from another generation where even being gay was not accepted. And when I grew up, everybody had a family member or friend who was a puff, (that’s the term they used in The Netherlands), and we just didn’t talk about it. Then the war came and we did not even want to dream about it, for fear that someone may overhear. We saw the mentally disabled, the Jews and the gays being taken away. Then she proclaimed - I am so proud of you - you are exercising a legal right; and if people don’t exercise their rights, they could be at risk of losing them.” How prophetic this insight became. 

Since then we had a number of discussions on the need for people to not be bystanders to history, but to become witnesses, protectors, defenders, resistors and activists. In these discussions, she exposed her fear of dying - remorseful because she felt that she could have done so much more during the occupation; even though during this period, she and my dad were active in the underground resistance. 

Her admonition to us was, “don’t die in remorse like me, because there is always more you can and must do to help others.“ 

I tried to convince her not to feel guilty because what she did was very significant, and that she inspired me to the work I do in the area of bullying, abuse and protecting democracy. She should consider this one of her legacies. This gave her some peace. 

Wilma was first and foremost a Mother, and what a Mother she was. No one could accuse her of being a June Cleaver. Perhaps the fact that she lived in a man’s world raising five boys motivated her not to fall into the traditional motherhood trap - a slave to the conventional role of waiting on, cleaning and cooking for men. 

Mom knew what she liked and what she did not. She was a horrible cook because she hated cooking. Thankfully Dad was a good cook, and taught us how to be; otherwise we would have starved. 

We learned early to never ask Mom to sew a button on a shirt - something she was incapable of doing right because she just didn’t like doing the mundane. This was in contrast to what she did like to do - knit, crochet, and needlepoint. Her creations - gowns, sweaters, and sun catchers are legendary. She even had some of her work featured in the Tuck Shop at The Royal York Hotel. 

We remember so well, as infants, the nightly ritual of her getting us ready for bed, we lined up for her to scrub us down; then helping us into our pajamas, all done with the same rigor one experiences at a boot camp; then gently tucked us in, singing us to sleep, with the voice of an angel. 

Mom opened our home to many, in part because she was an extremely social person, but more because she wanted to expose her boys to different people. 

Diversity and inclusion was in her DNA, and she, through experiences, made sure it was in ours. Everyone has their implicit biases. Mom may have come close to being the exception. 

Regardless of status, colour, religion, disability or ethnicity, Mom invited a wide range of people into our lives, in particular those whom she knew would help us understand that what everyone has in common is that we are all human beings who need each other. 

All of our holiday events were shared with others, most of who did not have others to share them with. 

Our friends became her friends, and became part of our extended family. 

An early example of Mom’s empathy to others was, shortly after we immigrated, her befriending Ruth and Fred Parker, whose son Graham had an accident, which left him mentally impaired. Ruth, Fred and Graham immediately became part of our family, and we theirs. 

Mom insisted that we treat Graham the same way we treat each other, reinforcing her position that everyone goes though challenges in life, and the importance of the basic ethic of reciprocity - doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. 

Mom also taught us not to stereotype; for example, not all Germans during World War II were Nazis; reminding us, were it not for a German soldier, we would not have been conceived. Dad was shot on the first day of the occupation, and became a prisoner of war. The soldier guarding the infirmary allowed Dad to escape, indicating he hoped Dad would do the same if their situations were reversed – another reinforcement of the ethic of reciprocity. 

Mom’s curiosity was infectious. She became a lifelong learner. Even after losing much of her sight, she, through the CNIB audio book program, continued to devour at least three books a week, covering every conceivable topic. I remember just a few years ago she wanted to engage in a discussion about general relativity, after finishing Stephen Hawking’s ‘A Brief History of Time’. All I could add to that discussion was, Huh??? 

Being an active listener, Mom was able to keep up with current events and some juicy gossip. Her hearing impairment late in life was suspect. Just when whispering something we did not want her to hear, she would chime in with a “What you say?” 

Children and young people adored Mom; and she adored them. To all of our cousins, Mom was the favourite aunt, calling her Tanta Mien - spelt MIEN not MEAN, as it is a short form for Wilhelmina. If you have not done so already, I encourage you to view the wonderful collection of photos that Julie put together; and the pictures with infants and young people capture the mutual adoration they had for each other. 

Mom, like she did with us, talked to them as adults, more to solicit a meaningful discussion with them. As a fabulous storyteller, she loved relating her wit and wisdom, coupling a serious message with humour. 

As Wilma was an unconventional Mother, she was an unconventional Grandmother to Matt, Mike, Catherine (finally a girl) and Eric, and Great Grandmother to Brook, Logan and Aldon. The grandchildren loved going to Grama Wilma’s after school for their caffeine fix, which was concurrent with her cocktail hour, which she taught them how to make - a stiff shot of gin with no ice and just a splash of ginger ale. 

Although Mom shied away from mundane domestic activities, through the work she did, taught us the value of hard work. For years she broke records in the number of baskets of tomatoes she picked. 

For a couple of decades, every infant born at the Chatham Kent Health Alliance received a multi-coloured blanket knitted by mom, one of her many ways of giving back. 

Mom sought out other mothers who lost a child, knowing that only a parent who experienced the same thing could relate to this. 

As an early pioneer in palliative care, Mom helped so many in their final days and hours. 

Mom was determined to live an independent life. We recall so well driving her to old age homes (as they were called then), insisting rather than waiting in the car, we join her to visit with the residents, adding great richness to our lives. 

Now this was no doubt noble on her part; but there was also an ulterior motive, as we had to promise never to put her in a home - something we were able to deliver on until just five months ago. 

Just shy of her ninety-ninth year, Mom moved to Fairfield Park in Wallaceburg. Fairfield is rightly recognized as the top such facility in Southwestern Ontario. It is truly a home where Mom received the genuine love, affection and care of everyone who worked there. She and we are so blessed for what they did. 

Mom always saw the humour in life, and her stories could fill a book. Even on the day she died there was humour. While I was on my shift in our 24/7 vigil, a fellow resident, whom I will call Mel, stood at the doorway of her room. I invited him to come in because I thought he wanted to see her. 

It turned out that he really came to check out her room because he wanted to transfer from a shared space. 

The staff were absolutely appalled, and told him in no uncertain terms how inappropriate this was. 

Well, didn’t he come back to ask if he could measure the room. Struggling with the tape measure, I ended up doing it for him. As he left, he asked how long I felt Mom had. 

On leaving the home, the head nurse on duty asked if there was anything more they could do for us. I responded by saying we could not think of anything other than letting Mel know his new room was available. 

Our Father who art in heaven 

Hallowed be thy name. 

Thy Kingdom come, 

Thy will be done on earth as it is heaven. 

Give us this day our daily bread. 

And forgive us those who trespass against us. 

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. 

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. 

Amen 

Mom sang this prayer almost every day at lunch; and we sang it along with her. I sang it to her shortly before she died and her eyes welled. 

Mom we all love you and we will miss you terribly - even though you were a horrible cook.

HEIL TRUMP!

A fool’s paradise is the best way to label the Rose Garden celebrations of Trump, and other top Republican lawmakers, after miraculously enacting what will undoubtedly be dubbed the worst tax bill in history.

This is like the sickening cabinet meeting a few months ago. The scary thing is they may be truly genuine, but my bet is they are all scared shitless that unless they pay this kind of homage to the Fuhrer, he will seek revenge.

Mike Pence’s performance went even beyond nauseating. In a Cabinet meeting, Pence praised Trump once every 12 seconds for three minutes straight. Clearly he has pledged subservience to a man who is unworthy of respect. But he is not alone!

The self-serving kowtowing to the ‘leader’ shows a desperation exhibited by the leaders of the Republican Party that conjures up the image of rats abandoning a sinking ship. They walk the gangplank of greed on steroids and blind hope, in an effort to save their butts during the next election. Michelle Goldberg’s New York Time’s Op-Ed column spells out how this unflagging and frankly dangerous adulation may simply be a reflection of a pathetic handful of puppets.

Roger Cohen describes, in his New York Times Op-Ed column, the disintegration of American values set against the backdrop of Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem “If”. It’s time for all of us to take a sober look at exactly what tatters of America we have left.

For a chilling look at the similarities between Hitler in 1934 and Trump in 2017, one can look at Wessam Ahmed’s article in Quora for five parallels.

In The Washington Post, Ishaan Tharoor’s analysis of Trump as a leader during his first year holding any public office shows the depths and heights of power mongering, which has become normal in the Oval Office. It is indeed a very scary state of affairs when Trump’s base of support, albeit 32% of voters, would likely stand up and pledge Heil Trump unless a substantive move by the voice of reason appears.

Photo credit: YouTube

MAY HE ROT IN HELL

Cardinal Bernard F. Law is dead. Robert D. McFadden’s New York Times’ obituary describes why there is a special place in hell for this man. He gained great notoriety in 2002 when his stature as Archbishop of Boston and America’s senior Roman Catholic prelate was shattered by revelations that he had protected child molesters for years.

Although, as I wrote in a blog, Law is certainly not alone in this deplorable behaviour within the Catholic Church, he was the first of many dominos to fall. The Pope spoke of committees to safeguard children, tribunals to try bishops and a “zero tolerance” policy for offending priests. It hasn’t quite worked out that way, as evidenced in this elucidating New York Times article by Jason Horowitz and Laurie Goodstein, showing that Pope Francis himself has a blind spot. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church does not have the moral authority to be weighing in on anything.

Amy B Wang unravels in this Washington Post article just how Law’s potentially glowing civil rights legacy fell into tatters. Frankly, giving this guy a Vatican funeral is like giving Donald Trump the Noble Peace Prize.

In my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, I discuss the disjointed culture within which the Catholic Church lives, and why it must change.

Photo credit: pxhere

Bystanders Must Feel Safe When Stepping Forward

Trying to change corporate culture using traditional methods, away from that of toxic and illegal sexual harassment and abuse, has been tried before and failed. But innovative ideas like showing bystanders how to intervene, as well as promoting more women have proved effective.  In her New York Times article, Claire Cain Miller explains this dynamic and offers some solid suggestions. Elizabeth Svoboda suggests seven ways to finally put an end to this behaviour in her Washington Post feature.

I have been trying to advance this approach for years. This will only work if the boss sets the example, first by actively participating, by also being trained and dealing swiftly with any wrongdoing that is identified.

Bystanders must feel absolutely safe and free of retaliation in becoming resistors, protectors and defenders of those targeted. In my book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, I devote a chapter to the bystander and offer advice on what they can do while feeling safe.

Photo credit: Wikimedia