Perhaps the most common form of workplace ostracism is the isolation tactic used by some bullies against their targets. To employ the tactic, bullies induce their allies to systematically avoid interacting with their targets. The bullies demand that their allies withhold information from their targets, preventing them from attending or even knowing about meetings or upcoming deadlines or opportunities. The goal is to harm the targets emotionally, causing them to withdraw socially, or even better, to strike out against the bullies' allies, which then enhances the targets' social isolation. It's a painful experience for all.
But workplace ostracism has many forms. In terms of the enterprise mission, most of these forms are unhelpful. Understanding ostracism and recognizing it in all its forms can enhance social harmony and make the enterprise more productive.
Not all incidents of excluding or ignoring an individual from an activity constitute ostracism. Two attributes distinguish malignant ostracism from benign exclusion or ignoring.
- Expectation of inclusion
- There must be a general expectation that the excluded individual would otherwise be included in the activity. Such an expectation on the part of any individual is not enough. For example, we would not characterize as ostracized any individual who expected to be included, but was not, unless such expectation was reasonable and widespread among the larger group.
- Intentional exclusion
- The exclusion or ignoring of the individual must have occurred as a result of a deliberate and conscious choice to exclude the individual so as to make a statement about the individual's rights, abilities, or worth. An accidental omission from an invitation list to join a task force would not be sufficient evidence of ostracism.
- But intention Understanding ostracism
and recognizing it in all its
forms can enhance social
harmony and make the
enterprise more productiveto exclude is not sufficient to confirm ostracism. The intention must be such as to cause harm to the target. For example, at times, in some over-constrained situations, we cannot devise a schedule that enables everyone to participate in a given event or series of events. We might then intentionally schedule an event knowing that the schedule will cause a certain individual to be excluded. But because we did not intend harm to that individual, the exclusion is not ostracism.
Understanding these two attributes is helpful in noticing what is (and what is not) ostracism and in devising responses to those observations.
- As the excluded individual
- If you perceive or suspect that you're being ostracized, take an inventory of the evidence. What data do you have that supports the idea that you were excluded intentionally, and excluded so as to harm you? Are you certain that the exclusion isn't the result of a simple error? Are you certain that the exclusion was unavoidable? Feeling excluded is painful. You can ease the pain somewhat, or even completely, if you can find convincing evidence that the exclusion was benign.
- As one of the group excluding an individual
- Mistakes happen and scheduling can be difficult. But when someone is excluded by accident or constraint, pain is avoidable. Act preemptively to reduce the risk that the excluded people might feel ostracized. Explain what happened and ask for permission to apologize for the exclusion. And make certain that the slight is not repeated.
- When the exclusion is ostracism, the temptation to lie about it — to falsely deny it — can be overwhelming for the people who ostracized someone. Claiming that the exclusion was a mistake, or that it was unavoidable, when in fact it was neither, risks compounding the offense by implying that the person ostracized is also naïve enough to accept such transparently false excuses. Work out whatever problems led to the incident. It's hard work. But failing to do that work only makes the situation more difficult.
Because human society is so complex and rich, workplace ostracism appears in many forms, and can arise in many ways. Watch for it. Watch even more closely for innocent situations that seem to involve ostracizing someone, but which are nothing of the kind. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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.
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.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Ethical Influence: I
- Influencing others can be difficult. Even more difficult is defining a set of approaches to influencing
that almost all of us consider ethical. Here's a framework that makes a good starting point.
- Ethical Influence: II
- When we influence others as they're making tough decisions, it's easy to enter a gray area. How can
we be certain that our influence isn't manipulation? How can we influence others ethically?
- Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: II
- Communication can be problematic for any team, especially under pressure. But virtual teams face challenges
that are less common in face-to-face teams. Here's Part II of a little catalog with some recommendations.
- How to Deal with Holding Back
- When group members voluntarily restrict their contributions to group efforts, group success is threatened
and high performance becomes impossible. How can we reduce the incidence of holding back?
- Conversation Despots
- Some people insist that conversations reach their personally favored conclusions, no matter what others
want. Here are some of their tactics.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.