
Gregory B. Jaczko, the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). On May 21, 2012, he announced his resignation pending the confirmation of a successor. His resignation comes at the end of a tumultuous tenure, marked by bitter disputes between the Chairman and the other four commissioners, who have repeatedly accused the Chairman of using bullying tactics. Much of the discord centers around regulatory issues pertaining to safety, especially issues related to possible lessons learned from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Jaczko has been advocating for stronger safety regulation, and the other four commissioners have generally opposed this position and worked to delay action on Jaczko's proposals. All this is carefully detailed in "Regulatory Meltdown: How Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners Conspired to Delay and Weaken Nuclear Reactor Safety in the Wake of Fukushima", a report prepared by the staff of Congressman Edward Markey, a Democrat representing the seventh district of Massachusetts.
The situation provides an excellent example of the complexities of dealing with bullying. As explained in Markey's report, the divisions among the commissioners trace to political influence by the nuclear industry on the four commissioners who oppose Jaczko's positions. The tactics they have used in opposing the Chairman might well be considered bullying themselves. They include deception, ridicule, and blatantly false allegations of bullying.
When preparing a case to support a charge of bullying by a chair of a meeting, be aware that the charge of bullying can be lodged against the accuser as well, and such counter-charges are probably inevitable. It is essential that targets preparing such cases take great care not to create vulnerability by providing any evidence at all that they have engaged in conspiratorial bullying themselves. Photo courtesy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Usually, when we say that chairs "own" meetings, or when a chair describes a meeting as "my meeting," we understand that the chair is responsible for the meeting's processes, including making decisions, inviting attendees, setting agendas, and much more. Certainly, chairing a meeting is a hefty responsibility.
But in most cases, contributing insight and contributing to decisions are important responsibilities of attendees. When the chair doesn't feel that attendees have these responsibilities, trouble looms. Some chairs behave as bullies, injecting personal views so forcefully into meeting processes that they actually degrade the quality of the meeting's outcomes. Here's Part I of a collection of indicators of this kind of trouble.
- Experiencing opposition as a challenge to the chair's position
- Although this (usually) erroneous interpretation of opposition doesn't in itself constitute bullying, the bully chair uses it to justify personal behavior that he or she would otherwise regard as bullying. In effect, the bully chair adopts the view that challengers have made the chair's outrageous behavior necessary.
- Log these incidents in detail. Each one in itself might seem inconsequential, but a clear pattern can provide strong evidence for a charge of bullying.
- Ridiculing or retaliating against those who express alternative views
- Ridiculing or retaliating against meeting attendees who disagree with the chair is clear evidence of bullying. Both actions are primarily intended to cause harm, rather than to persuade anyone of the merits of the chair's position.
- Log these incidents, especially if one or two people are repeatedly targeted. Since attendee witnesses who aren't themselves targets have the greatest credibility and thus the greatest potential for effectively ending the bullying, they also have the greatest responsibility for capturing this information and presenting it to responsible authorities.
- Killing messengers from time to time
- Those who present unfavorable but factual news are sometimes metaphorically "killed" by the bully chair. They're attacked even though the information they're providing is demonstrably factual. In this way, the bully chair can eliminate from the discussion any data that presents difficulties for the chair's views. See "Never, Ever, Kill the Messenger," Point Lookout for November 7, 2001, for more.
- The indirect consequences of killing messengers are perhaps more destructive than the Ridiculing or retaliating against
meeting attendees who disagree
with the chair is clear
evidence of bullyingattacks themselves. Those who witness the killing of messengers often conclude that presenting facts that the chair views as unfavorable can be a career-dangerous act. Many will withhold such information in the future, which elevates the risk that the meeting might adopt mistaken courses of action. These incidents, too, should be logged, because killing messengers is a performance issue for any meeting chair, bully or not.
These last two indicators exemplify overt bullying by the chair, motivated by the chair's experiencing opposition as a challenge to authority. In the next two installments, we'll examine more sophisticated bullying tactics. First issue in this series
Next issue in this series
Top
Next Issue
Is a workplace bully targeting you? Do you know what to do to end the bullying? Workplace bullying is so widespread that a 2014 survey indicated that 27% of American workers have experienced bullying firsthand, that 21% have witnessed it, and that 72% are aware that bullying happens. Yet, there are few laws to protect workers from bullies, and bullying is not a crime in most jurisdictions. 101 Tips for Targets of Workplace Bullies is filled with the insights targets of bullying need to find a way to survive, and then to finally end the bullying. Also available at Apple's iTunes store! Just . Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and
found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Workplace Bullying:
Deniable Intimidation
- Some people achieve or maintain power by intimidating others in deniable ways. Too often, when intimidators
succeed, their success rests in part on our unwillingness to resist, or on our lack of skill. By understanding
their tactics, and by preparing responses, we can deter intimidators.
Responding to Threats: II
- When an exchange between individuals, or between an individual and a group, goes wrong, threats often
are either the cause or part of the results. If we know how to deal with threats — and how to
avoid and prevent them — we can help keep communications creative and constructive.
Overtalking: I
- Overtalking is the practice of using one's own talking to prevent others from talking. It can lead to
hurt feelings and toxic conflict. Why does it happen and what can we do about it?
Strategies of Verbal Abusers
- Verbal abuse at work has special properties, because it takes place in an environment in which verbal
abuse is supposedly proscribed. Yet verbal abuse does happen at work. Here are three strategies abusers
rely on to avoid disciplinary action.
Covert Verbal Abuse at Work
- Verbal abuse at work uses written or spoken language to disparage, disadvantage, or harm others. Perpetrators
favor tactics they can subsequently deny having used. Even more favored are abusive tactics that are
so subtle that others don't notice them.
See also Workplace Bullying for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming July 16: Responding to Unwelcome Events
- Unwelcome events have two kinds of effects on decision-makers. One set of effects appears as we respond to events that have actually occurred. Another set manifests itself as we prepare for unwelcome events that haven't yet occurred, but which might occur. Making a wrong decision in either case can be costly. Available here and by RSS on July 16.
And on July 23: Microdelegation
- Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
