Power imbalance breeds resentment and anger. When an employee feels strongly that there is a power imbalance with his or her supervisor, it does not matter whether that power imbalance is real or perceived.

What matters is knowing what to do to resolve the situation and to prevent it from turning into a destructive personal war.

As a workplace mediator, I often get called in to mediate these situations. A good way to start is by understanding the employee’s feelings. However, after she or he feels heard and understood, it is quite important to shift her/his mind, from the past to the future. Although the problem is in the past, any resolution can only be found in the future. Talking about the future is safe. There is no need to feel
angry; no need to feel resentful.

In mediation an employee might be asked: Imagine that this problem between you and your supervisor has been resolved. How would things be different tomorrow morning? What would you like the supervisor to do for you differently than yesterday? And what are you willing to do differently in exchange? A future-oriented approach allows (actually forces) the employee’s mind to stop dwelling on negative feelings and to start thinking in terms of behavioral changes. The employee also starts looking at the relationship with the supervisor in terms of common responsibility and mutual benefit, rather than as a power struggle.

Getting clear answers to the question “What are you willing to do differently?” always takes considerably more time and effort than the previous question, “What would you like the supervisor to do differently
for you?”
Expressions like “I’ll try to do this” or “I’ll do my best” sound great, but they don’t yield any practical results. Unless the employee is willing and committed to take specific actions on her/his
own — almost disregarding what the supervisor will do differently — nothing much is going to happen.
Catch-22 situations, where the employee and supervisor are each — suspiciously — simply waiting for the other to change first, don’t resolve their conflict. As a matter of fact, they make it worse.

To overcome this problem, mediators typically use some challenging but quite effective role-playing techniques with both employee and supervisor, in separate and joint sessions. This way it is possible to assess how committed they are in working together to resolve their conflict by each changing something in their habitual behavior.

Who would be most effective to intervene in an employee/supervisor conflict? Human resource managers have the training, experience and people skills for resolving conflict. Besides, who can appreciate the importance of a balanced and constructive supervisor/employee relationship, more than a human resource manager?

The problem is a disgruntled employee may consider the human resource manager to be the supervisor’s ally. Consequently, any suggestion made by the human resource manager — no matter how reasonable and fair — may be rejected out of hand. This is why workplace disputes are usually much easier to resolve if they are handled by a third party, such as an external mediator, who is accepted by both employee and supervisor as totally neutral to their conflict.


Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

If you can stay calm, while all around you there is chaos, then you probably haven’t completely understood the seriousness of the situation.

Doing a job RIGHT the first time gets the job done. Doing the job WRONG fourteen times gives you job security.

Artificial intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat.

Plagiarism saves time.

If at first you don’t succeed, try management.

Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether.

TEAMWORK: means never having to take all the blame yourself.

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

We waste time, so you don’t have to.

Hang in there, retirement is only 50 years away!

Never criticize someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes; that way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away AND you have their shoes!

When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break.

Aim Low, Reach your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.

Communicating Vision in Your Workplace

A good vision taps deeply seated emotions. It stirs people, kindles their passion and propels them forward. But visions don’t just appear, and organizations don’t gather around them automatically. This is the job of a leader and it’s one of the most important aspects of leadership.

Equally important, however, is the job of communicating a vision once it’s created. In fact, leaders are taught to stop at nothing in unfolding their vision to the organization. The conventional view is that, regardless of the situation, the vision has to be in front of people. If not, the organization will fail to achieve its goals.

But what about organizations in crisis, which over time have become severely battered by change? Should leaders communicate the vision as they have before? Our research and client experience suggest not.

When an organization is suffering from acute change fatigue, vision can become non-value added noise. If the climate is strained severely enough, more vision is like thunder when the organization needs rain.

In order to understand why, let’s first review how a vision works. Second, let’s examine the case of a severely change-battered organization, noting the effects of communicating vision in that context. Finally, let’s consider three suggestions for communicating from a change-battered context.

How a Vision Works

A vision fills two important functions. One is emotional, the other cognitive.

The primary emotional function of a vision is to motivate. Vision provides the crucial performance motive beyond the survival instinct. It does this by showing people an attractive place to go and reason to go there. It’s a portrayal of the future, an aspiration, a direction painted in bold strokes. Simply knowing the grand intention of an enterprise often motivates people towards it.
A second emotional function of a vision is to provide security. Under conditions of change, vision compensates for the chill winds of uncertainty. By giving employees something to hold on to, it acts as proxy for the comfort of the status quo when you have to leave it. It provides much-needed continuity to an organization when that organization is deliberately disturbed.
The cognitive function of a vision works differently. It provides information and direction in order to allocate resources and set priorities. As a practical matter, a vision increases an organization’s capacity to perform work by creating the coordinated action necessary to produce and deliver goods and services.

For its cognitive function, a vision is the ultimate economy of scale. A clear and compelling vision answers thousands of questions, guides employees in thousands of small decisions, and eliminates the ambiguity that might otherwise create the need for thousands of conversations. It is the mass production of commodity answers. Once communicated and understood, a vision lowers the unit costs of performing these functions. Of course, a vision leaves the detail out, so there are thousands more questions. But it provides the broad alignment that allows an organization to move quickly through basic issues of direction and priority in order to spend time and energy on strategic and tactical implementation. It is a packaged resource that allows people in many cases to direct themselves. It organizes assumptions, values, words, actions, and resources. It informs strategy, systems, and structure.

Without vision, organizations tend to suffer from both emotional and cognitive deficits that are reflected in lower productivity and poor execution.

Vision and Context

In spite of its power, vision remains highly sensitive to context, especially when the context is a change-battered one.

Consider the real case of a large steel fabricator that we shall call Titan Manufacturing. In succession, this organization traveled through labor unrest, reductions in force, the installation of a new enterprise computing system, a severe market downturn, the commissioning of new capital assets, and Chapter Eleven bankruptcy. During these events, senior leaders continued to communicate a vision of becoming the low-cost producer in the industry.

Every time the CEO stood up to regale employees with the vision, morale cratered more. In the context of so much debilitating change, the vision could not perform its cognitive, much less its emotional, function. Because Titan bore the impress of the accumulated traumas, the vision actually weakened organizational resolve. Employees became less receptive to any message from management.

From a communications standpoint, the blanket directive that you can’t over-communicate was backfiring.

Acute Change Fatigue

Most organizations have reeled from the rigors of change. When a major change effort succeeds, employees find their weariness swallowed up in the positive results of the transformation. There is renewal. When the effort fails, the organization is set back.
Organizations are resilient so they usually come to balance again. But what about an organization like Titan that had already attempted transformational change several times? This is a vastly different starting point for leaders whose job it is to summon institutional will in order to meet business goals. This kind of change fatigue goes beyond normal corporate weariness. When an organization runs out of catalytic sources, it can become so severely impaired that serious threats to viability are drowned in a deeper affliction of unrelieved pessimism. Fatigue becomes acute. When an organization travels through a string of false starts, it can simply outrun its emotional resources. It reaches the point of maximum inertia. It becomes almost numb to crisis and draconian measures even though it is nearing business failure.

If psychologists diagnosed organizations the way they do people, Titan-like acute change fatigue would be a nearly terminal disorder, a psychology marked by a deep and intractable apathy and a near stock out of change capacity.

Of course every company experiences some failure in pursuing its most important initiatives, but when this continues over a sustained period of time, the weariness induced in the process deepens. Employees see no new beginning, no reception by happy stakeholders, and no rejuvenating evidence that the future is promising. Ironically, when you’re afflicted with acute change fatigue, you find yourself in the worst state of change readiness when you’re most in need of change.

Vision and Acute Change Fatigue

The case of Titan demonstrates that communicating a vision to a change-battered organization requires a different approach. Whenever an organization attempts major change, it puts leadership credibility and its store of social capital at risk. Organizations with acute change fatigue have already done so and paid the price of compounded failure. In this predicament, leaders can further damage their organizations if they subscribe to the common lore of communications theory that says to keep the vision out front.

At a certain point, vision falters. Rather than reach wellsprings of motivation, it can become de-motivating and dull the senses because it seems ever more out of reach.

The leaders at Titan didn’t see the impact of acute change fatigue on their organization, so they proceeded in communicating as if conditions were normal. Their instinct was to communicate the vision more. Yet the recent failures had seared fatigue into the corporate tissue. Employees responded stoically to an emotional call to arms. They turned off to critical strategic issues concerning future market position, new competition coming on-line, evolving technology, and tightening customer demands. They simply could not bring conviction to a new change imperative as a result of new rounds of messaging. No amount of thunder could water the crops.

In this case, we witnessed vision tone-deaf leaders persist in declamatory deliveries and appeals to emotion, thinking it would bring employees around.

The longer an organization experiences suspended results, the more survival becomes the vision. Survival is the only vision and retrenchment the only strategy with credibility if false starts have inoculated an organization against a higher aspiration. The power of a vision becomes disabled when it’s no longer imaginable. With acute change fatigue, employees once motivated by the magnetic force of vision become successively amused, bewildered, distressed, and finally sedated with such declarations. When leaders at Titan tried harder to communicate the vision, their desperate attempts rendered jaded employees even more frustrated.

Normally, organizations need the power of vision and a new identity to perform their way out. But if you’re change-battered, your organization may not have enough residual social capital to more forward.

Responding to Acute Change Fatigue

What can you do if your organization is battered with change and your attempts to communicate a vision are earning you sneers or howls of protest?

If your organization is suffering acute change fatigue, your vision may be non-value-added noise. It may be hurting your efforts to recover performance. In this situation, I suggest three things.

First, recognize the condition

Communications alone can’t build momentum. Leaders must acknowledge this and respond from this context. You can’t force the pace until results restore a measure of credibility — credibility in both leadership and the change effort itself, which are now bound together.

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom still places too much emphasis on communication volume, channels, stylistic variables, and visionary content, as if they were a standard prescription. Tweaking these things as a matter of artistic difference doesn’t cut it. It’s more fundamental.

Second, dim the vision

If an organization is suffering from acute change fatigue, survival will assume its place as the de facto. Everyone gets that. Unless the organization can pull through the current crisis, the original vision stays suspended. So for this simple reason—that the original vision is no longer the incumbent vision, I suggest a partial dimming of the lights. Taken out of context, this suggestion might seem not only counter-intuitive but also dangerous, yet a temporary brownout of vision is usually what the organization needs to allow it to focus. It’s more harmful to persist in the old vision when everyone knows it’s at least temporarily irrelevant. A survival message is the vision no matter what leaders say.
In addition to dimming the old vision, leaders should also look at the rest of their messages. Other messages that are based in or related to the old vision may need to be defrocked as well. Specifically, where messages contain visionary elements, grand intentions, and sweeping goals, they may need to be reduced in emotion and promotion.

This doesn’t mean leaders create a void to spawn the rumor mill. Radio silence is just as dangerous. Blackouts force organizations to slip into speculation and even lower productivity. People should never be left to wonder. The focus and energy that normally goes to strategic communication needs to be redirected to issues of tactical and operational execution.

Third, focus on tactics

When crisis makes survival the vision, the leadership imperative is to focus employee effort on measurable execution. In times of acute change fatigue, employees typically expend enormous amounts of time and energy worrying about the situation. If leaders can engage their discretionary efforts, the organization stands a higher chance of making progress and performing its way out. This means top leadership has to lower its communication from strategy to tactics and operations. It has to focus on specific, measurable goals. It should communicate in numbers more than it did before as it emphasizes the importance of concrete measures of performance.

So what happened at Titan? Senior leadership redirected its communication to focus almost exclusively on weekly operating metrics. It honed in on, for instance, the company’s on-time delivery performance, which had suffered badly in previous months. While browning out vision, leadership turned the lights up on actual-versus-targeted performance reporting. It wasn’t necessarily inspiring, but the employees settled down and began coalescing around this emphasis. It channeled their attention and aligned their efforts.

With unprecedented, almost shop-floor level, attention from leadership, the company achieved a rapid step change improvement in on-time performance and several other operating metrics that allowed it to slowly but steadily climb out of its state of fatigue and poor performance.

Broader Implications
The underlying principle is that it becomes increasingly difficult to lead with vision when reality isn’t changing. When an organization is sputtering during any long stretch of anemic results, leaders should think about how receptive people are to the vision. If the organization finds itself in a long hard slog, interspersed with extended periods of undetected progress, it’s time to examine vision communication. Chances are that leadership needs to dim the vision and focus its communication on execution and concrete measures of performance.

Improving Communications with Your Boss

Communicating with your boss is one of the most important things you will ever have to do at work. It may not be listed on your duty statement, but we all know that if we cannot establish good on-going communications with our manager then chances are that our working life will not be as rewarding as it should be. In fact, work could turn out to be a real disappointment.

Whilst good communications require the cooperation of both parties, sometimes it falls upon the employee to initiate an improvement. What follows is a list of practical tips that will help you improve your communication with your boss and hopefully make your work life a lot more enjoyable and productive.
Good communications are frequent.

If you and your boss are not communicating on a regular basis chances are that misunderstandings and mistakes will emerge. It’s in your interest, therefore, to try to set up regular meetings with your boss where important issues and expectations are clarified. These meeting do not have to be long or official. They just have to be regular. This way potential problems can be identified early rather than allowing them to escalate.

Make sure your boss delegates work clearly.
One of the most common sources of communication problems is employees misunderstanding what their bosses expect of them. Often this happens because the boss is too busy to take the time to explain things properly. Next time your boss gives you work be sure he/she provides you with enough detail so you know exactly what’s expected of you. Be sure that you clarify issues such as deadlines, quality of work, money and resources to be used.

Running good meetings.
It’s important that your meetings are run in a way in which everyone gets a fair say and that people are encouraged to disagree in an open and constructive way. If your boss, or other individuals, are dominating meetings and/or intimidating people you may wish, when the time is appropriate, to raise this issue in the spirit of improved communications. If you do this, be sure you avoid making negative or inflammatory remarks. For example, instead of saying: “I don’t think you’re doing a good job running our meetings,” you could say, “I think I know of way in which we can get more out of our meetings”.

Avoid letting problems fester inside of you.
It’s generally much healthier to bring problems out in the open where they can be acknowledged and worked on. Good communicators are open about their work related issues. The key is to avoid saying things in a way that might unnecessarily provoke people. Using “I” statements can be very helpful here. For example, instead of saying: “I can’t stand the way you talk to me,” you can say, “Every time you raise your voice at me, I feel threatened. Then I can’t do my work properly. Can we talk about getting to a solution?”

Be very aware of your body language. Research shows that we communicate much more via our body language than we think. It’s self-defeating to use positive verbal language if your body language is negative. Negative body language usually comes from feeling bad. So, try to stay positive. There may be times when you think that will be hard to do but it’s exactly during those difficult times that you need to use your powers of discipline to maintain a positive disposition. Remember that your boss will immediately pick up your negativity via your body language. Good communicators possess the discipline to overcome their immediate emotions for the longer term good.

How to not to be liked at your workplace

The following agenda if followed meticulously is guaranteed to bomb blast your career into smithereens.

Hate those Monday morning blues, the chartered bus, traffic, office coffee, the boss and the depressing work pressures? That is simply great. Focus on your hate. Delete all good thoughts about your work, colleagues and bosses. Get a huge negative attitude. It will create enough bad vibrations to make people avoid you.

No body will ask you to be part of a team that is trying to reach some stupid company goal. Maybe your boss will even ask you what your personal agenda is in the company?

Which is good . Then you can tell your boss how you are superior to your colleagues. Most people do not like pompous assholes. Even if you are excellent at you job no one will like to work with someone like you.Because they prefer likeable people, who possess good people skills.

So let us work on destroying those people skills.

This is hard work.

Communication is the most important factor which needs to be destroyed.

Keep all telephones and emails ignored and keep people out of your room by telling them how busy you are.

Next, stop listening. When some one talks to you try recalling the murder serial you saw last night or work on your next sentence. Avoid listening.

Listening will cause only trouble. It forces you to not only to listen but to understand what is not being said ,like the emotions of the speaker. You have to listen not only with your ears but your mind.

And if you do that, not only will you get tired, you will be making the mistake to building a relationship with the person who is talking to you. Worse, if you pay attention it will convey that you respect and care for the other person. Possibly that other person may even begin to like you.

This is how it can be avoided.

To kill interaction never ask any questions.Especially questions that that improve your understanding and comprehension about what a person is trying to convey. Questions like – Is this how you felt ? What made you reach this decision? How did you handle the reaction you got from him? How did you react? What do you want? How do you want it done?

If you find yourself still not being ignored then there are other things that can be done.Gossip is an excellent way to create bad vibes. Pick on people who work hard or those who are popular. Crack jokes on their dress or behaviour.Also jokes that target religion are good because they hurt.Mass mail jokes on your bosses. Flirt with the pretty secretary and use the office as a means to improving your dating circles. Try to seduce your boss if possible.

Follow these guidelines and not only will you get thrown out of your job in record time you will also get a wonderful reputation of being an obnoxious person.And if you get lucky the word will spread around and no one will give you a job offer – ever.

Is’nt that what you want?

Please read the box .This gives a list of qualities that mark a good worker . You should steer clear away from it if you want to create a negative aura about yourself.

Characteristics of a good worker

A good worker is good at his /her job. This means that even if they change the organizations they work for they are able to consistently maintain their quality of work as well as their efficiency.

They maintain their level of efficiency because learning is part of their nature. Not only do they observe and absorb they also make an effort to learn, to upgrade skills and remove their handicaps and shortcomings. They do not make excuses for not being good at what they do.

They are dependable. They do not bunk work and tent to meet their deadlines. Bosses and colleagues trust and depend on them.

Good workers are efficient because they are finding new ways to innovate. To find new levels of improvement and better methods to improve their quality of work.

They are not clock watchers. They do not make a show of working late to please the boss either but their focus is on efficiency and doing their job well. Dead lines are met even at the cost of a burn out.

Good workers are not average, they stand out as better than others. They like their jobs, ( even if sometimes they do not like their bosses or even their organisation )They are focused on doing a job well .