Most of us are familiar with the textbook or HR policy definitions of retaliation. Overt, loud moments of retaliation absolutely do happen, like when someone is fired after speaking up or formally sharing a concern. However, in our work with teams, we often witness much more subtle forms of retaliation that occur frequently and are commonly dismissed or ignored. Subtle, often silent, retaliation destroys careers, erodes the targeted individual’s sense of worth, and damages the team’s effectiveness.
We have yet to meet any leaders who would describe themselves as retaliatory, but we regularly see retaliation occurring on teams. When the leader only sees retaliation through the lens of overt and audacious actions, they’re overlooking its more subtle manifestations, whose consequences are just as serious. If leaders are unable to recognize these behaviors in themselves and others, they risk causing both short- and long-term harm to individuals, teams, and the organizations they serve. To create cultures where psychological safety is the norm, innovation thrives, and team effectiveness is high, we must tune into the retaliation that happens in the shadows.
The Reality of Retaliation
In the United States, employee retaliation was cited in 55.8% of claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in FY20 — and that’s just what gets reported. Reporting retaliation can come with significant risk to individuals’ financial stability, future career advancement, and reputation. And the amount of time and emotional energy required to report it serves as a deterrent for many people.
Some of the most common acts of retaliation involve actions managers don’t take. This quiet — sometimes covert — retaliation is incredibly harmful because it can continue undiscovered, unnamed, or unreported for years. And it doesn’t just impact the targeted individual, but can decrease the level of trust, creativity, and productivity in team members who witness it and perpetuate a culture of abuse. In her article “Time’s up for Toxic Workplaces,” Villanova professor Manuela Priesemuth shares how a culture of abuse and retaliation can “spread throughout the organization, creating entire climates of abuse. Because employees look to and learn from managers, they come to understand that this type of interpersonal mistreatment is acceptable behavior in the company.”
Here are five specific examples of covert retaliation we’ve observed in our work coaching leaders and the teams they serve:
-
Withholding coaching, feedback, or professional development opportunities
-
Withholding resources for a project or division
-
Intentionally giving a challenging assignment with little support or giving a challenging assignment that’s destined to fail
-
Discouraging others from listening to or valuing a team member’s voice, expertise, or contributions
-
Excluding a team member from essential meetings or withholding information that’s essential to their job function
Mark*, who was known to be retaliatory, served as the CEO of a large retail company for over a decade before retiring. As we worked with the remaining leadership team under the new CEO, it quickly became clear that Mark’s departure alone wasn’t enough to quell employees’ fears. Even though Mark was no longer there, an observable level of fear continued in the company. We heard from several leaders that any disagreement with Mark would mean the end of your growth within the company. “He had a look he would get when he was disappointed with someone for speaking up,” we heard from several leaders. “He would draw a line through your name instead of under it. Everyone knew and it was basically game over. You’re stuck.” For Mark, retaliation took the covert forms of social undermining and exclusion. The impacts on the organization were significant: Innovation stalled, the culture suffered, and the business stagnated.
Julia is the CFO of a midsize technology company. When she received notification of a hostile work environment complaint from within her department, she shared that she was aware of the issues because they had been occurring for years but had avoided addressing them. Julia had always been vocal about not wanting people on her team to discuss any problems with HR. “Why can’t people just put their heads down and get their work done? And why is it my job to deal with their childish behavior?” she asked her peers. Julia proceeded to strip the complaining team member of her access to information and documentation that were essential to performing her job. Julia also stopped responding to her emails in a timely fashion and hoped the lack of correspondence would lead to delays in projects being completed on time to further make the team member look bad in front of her peers. When questioned about these actions, Julia responded, “It can’t be retaliation because I didn’t fire them.” We often see leaders engaging in quiet acts of retaliation that carry big impacts, but they don’t see them as retaliation because they narrowly define retaliation as terminating the employee.
Ron had served as the charge nurse in a hospital emergency room for 15 years and was favored for a substantial promotion within the year. While the formal leaders within the hospital appreciated Ron’s strict, traditional style of management, the other ER staff had a very different experience. “If you do something that bothers him — maybe express a concern or point out that certain supplies are low — you can expect that everything you say or do in the future will be scrutinized. He can’t take any feedback, even about straightforward things like the inventory of masks or gloves,” we heard from one shift leader. In this particular situation, the negative impact on the culture and the logjam created by the ongoing negative scrutiny impacted not only the department, but also jeopardized public safety.
How Leaders Should Self-Assess Their Impact
Leaders often see themselves as the gatekeepers of what is right in their department or organization. In each of the situations we just described, the leaders believed that’s what they were doing. The danger lies not in failing to see the disconnect between your intention and your impact. The ripple effect of a leader’s retaliation is immense. When leaders lack the tools needed to deepen the self-awareness of their actions and their impact, the consequences can be dire for all stakeholders.
We tend to judge ourselves by our good intentions and others by their impact. One of our guiding leadership principles is: You don’t determine your impact; other people do. So how can you better assess the impact of your actions and understand the root cause of your behavior? Start with these three practices:
Conduct a courageous audit.
Examine your own behavior and dig deep into the motives behind your actions. We highly recommend the practice of a “courageous audit” grounded in the work of Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey. The Immunity to Change model is particularly effective in this situation because it challenges us to think about how our actions (or lack thereof) are getting in the way of creating a psychologically safe work environment. Think about the situations with team members that have frustrated you the most and look for ways you behaved that were unproductive or potentially retaliatory. Challenge yourself to curiously ask and courageously answer: What am I doing or not doing that’s getting in the way of a safe culture?
Becoming aware of counterproductive behaviors is the first step to changing them. We hear regularly from leaders that reflecting on themselves in this way feels too vulnerable in front of colleagues, so working with an experienced coach is an effective way to enhance your self-awareness around your thoughts and actions in the workplace.
Identify your shadow intentions.
Shadow intentions are when we act (consciously or unconsciously) from a place of ego and self-protection. Push back on your own stated desire to “be helpful” or to “protect your department.” In what ways have your thoughts or actions been intended to hurt a team member through covert or passive methods? When have you been driven by self-protection in a way that has gone unchecked? When might you have allowed your first, stress-driven reaction to negatively affect the impact you’re making on others?
Elizabeth was part of a growing IT company and by all accounts a vital member of the leadership team. She was also passed over for promotion numerous times when mergers occurred and “room had to be made for the incoming leaders.” While she wanted to continue to prove her worth and lead her team well, she needed support to actively untangle from her shadow intentions of wanting the new leaders to fail so she could be rewarded for her excellence and ongoing commitment. By working to loosen the grip her shadow intentions had on her, she was able to bring more of her focus back to her own division and better supporting innovation.
Explore your in-group/out-group.
Assess your thoughts and assumptions about those around you. Who gets to be honest with you, even disagree with you? Whose opinions do you value? Why? Whom do you struggle with? What commonalities exist between the people in your in-group versus your out-group?
Identifying your own patterns is the pivotal first step of working toward a team where everyone is included and can contribute fully. Dan, the CEO of a midsize firm, wanted to think differently about several leadership changes that were occurring due to retirements. He wanted to bring the new executives in and build a cohesive team with the remaining members. In an audit of his own in- and out-groups, he discovered that two leaders of the executive team were in his out-group. Both had started during the pandemic, and Dan hadn’t had the one-on-one time with them he usually invests in new executives on his team. Dan decided to start building connections with them more intentionally by scheduling individual lunches once a month and initiating a 15-minute one-on-one with each of them once a week.
There are many strategies help leaders in connect with their out-group, but the most important point thing to keep in mind is that the person with the most power must initiate the connection.
. . .
Quiet forms of retaliation are incredibly common and can be contagious in the workplace. The organizations we serve that accept this form of retaliation as a standard practice have difficulty hiring and retaining great people. Retaliation — in all its forms — not only harms current team members, but a culture that tolerates retaliation results in harm to the mission and the organization’s ability to deliver to its customers and stakeholders. Organizations are defined by what they celebrate and what they tolerate. Leaders who engage in or tolerate retaliation can create lasting scars on individuals and organizations alike. The humans we serve deserve better.
“Harvard Business Review is a general management magazine published by Harvard Business Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harvard University. HBR is published six times a year and is headquartered in Brighton, Massachusetts.”
Please visit the firm link to site
