I admit to being one of these character types for several years but I won't tell you which one. I have provided enough clues in my previous 10 things articles, and one in particular, that you should be able to figure out which one.
Identifying these toxic character types is step one. But what then? Serious people problems will almost always require disciplinary and/or corrective action or even termination. It is better to prune a branch than lose the whole tree - but before making such an extreme decision consider that everyone deserves a second chance.
It is a tough call whether or not you should inform your manager of behavior that is destructive and if so, when you should do it.
As always, I will pop in occasionally to answer any questions or if I have something intelligent to add.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Yeah, now I remember you. You were the obnoxious, manipulative, picked-last kid I used to play with the Doom multiplayer : )
I would also add two more "species" of toxic individuals:
11. Righteous cowards
Individuals with inflated sense of so-called morality who always preach about doing "the right thing" and criticize others' actions or decisions. However, when it comes to making actual decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions those people would rather hide behind other's back and delegate the responsibility. Sometimes I have a feeling that those individuals evolve from "teacher's pets" types.
12. Asocials
They little bit different from lone wolves. They don't have problems with talking about their work or sharing it with others. However, they do not feel comfortable being in a group. Simply because they don't know how to fit in and meet social demands of a work environment.
I dealt with both types of people, and, frankly, avoid the righteous cowards as much as possible. They can be quite smart and productive, but at the end the disadvantages of working with them far outweighs the advantages.
I would also add two more "species" of toxic individuals:
11. Righteous cowards
Individuals with inflated sense of so-called morality who always preach about doing "the right thing" and criticize others' actions or decisions. However, when it comes to making actual decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions those people would rather hide behind other's back and delegate the responsibility. Sometimes I have a feeling that those individuals evolve from "teacher's pets" types.
12. Asocials
They little bit different from lone wolves. They don't have problems with talking about their work or sharing it with others. However, they do not feel comfortable being in a group. Simply because they don't know how to fit in and meet social demands of a work environment.
I dealt with both types of people, and, frankly, avoid the righteous cowards as much as possible. They can be quite smart and productive, but at the end the disadvantages of working with them far outweighs the advantages.
Just because they have to work to get along with others doesn't.mean they can't get along with others. I've worked with them before; I am one, myself.
If the Asocial is productive and not disruptive, and makes a positive contribution to the project, but doesn't quite fit in, what's the problem? it seems to me the person who thinks it's toxic has the problem.
If the Asocial is productive and not disruptive, and makes a positive contribution to the project, but doesn't quite fit in, what's the problem? it seems to me the person who thinks it's toxic has the problem.
being asocial is really not a problem if colleagues don't care about each other and sustaining warm and cosy atmosphere in the office is not big deal.
As praetor mentioned previously, I like standing around Xerox machine with a cup of coffee and looking "suspiciously busy" talking to others (also with coffee cups). Not only those short breaks give a brief moment of relaxation, but also help you deal with work problems. You need to do something, however, you just don't know the solution or which one is the best. So you are standing there complaining and discussing about it with your colleagues, and all of a sudden "creativity apple" falls on one of the heads surrounding Xerox. Wooalaa, solution for the problem is found, and you are running around shouting "eureka" (not naked by the way)! This is the value of informal social activities in the workplace.
In addition, being asocial is definitely a problem if it comes to a project which requires extensive teamwork or dealing with stakeholders.
As praetor mentioned previously, I like standing around Xerox machine with a cup of coffee and looking "suspiciously busy" talking to others (also with coffee cups). Not only those short breaks give a brief moment of relaxation, but also help you deal with work problems. You need to do something, however, you just don't know the solution or which one is the best. So you are standing there complaining and discussing about it with your colleagues, and all of a sudden "creativity apple" falls on one of the heads surrounding Xerox. Wooalaa, solution for the problem is found, and you are running around shouting "eureka" (not naked by the way)! This is the value of informal social activities in the workplace.
In addition, being asocial is definitely a problem if it comes to a project which requires extensive teamwork or dealing with stakeholders.
Personally, I get annoyed at "suspiciously busy" clusters. While I may get interested in some "collective boredom" sessions (when everyone's standing around waiting for something), I can also get irritated by having to plaster a mask of politeness on when I've no civil way to get away from a stupid subject, or a babbler, or a silly giggler, or a brkoen record...
Yeah, I can run with the team. But working in a team doesn't make me your bowling buddy, or go to your party, or want to hear about your kid's recital/game/spelling contest. Some of us are perfectly content to withhold speech unless we can improve on silence and dragging us around with people who can't leave silence alone is NOT going to improve our productivity. After all, Archimedes' "Eureka" came in a bathtub.
Yeah, I can run with the team. But working in a team doesn't make me your bowling buddy, or go to your party, or want to hear about your kid's recital/game/spelling contest. Some of us are perfectly content to withhold speech unless we can improve on silence and dragging us around with people who can't leave silence alone is NOT going to improve our productivity. After all, Archimedes' "Eureka" came in a bathtub.
I do well in meetings to create ideas, and I am fine with 'informal meetings' of short duration and limited number of people. I even enjoy going to lunch once a week with my workgroup. However, I prefer to do my work alone and do not do well in cube farms. Thankfully I work in our configuration area away from just about everyone else, with file cabinet separating me from the others. Asocial, probably, but still productive and carrying my share and helpful to the rest of the group and my customers.
I think you are describing some of the negative aspects of being an introvert. What about the positive aspects, such as being far more capable leaders? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/11/29/introverts.leadership/index.html
but all of the aforementioned. I think no one fits the EXACT description of any of them. Communication can always chip away at any of these traits.
You are saying that you are not entirely asocial. If you were then things would be different. Just because you don't entirely fit in doesn't mean that you are asocial. However, there are asocial traits that will poison everything. One thing's for sure is that at some time or another you have to cooperate with someone, be it your supervisor or a colleague, and if you can't do that then people will be bouncing out the door. Just because some doesn't have the same social or work style as their coworkers doesn't make them asocial.
You weren't the guy who got picked last at sport.....
I'll take another one, and guess you are proud of that as well...
I'll take another one, and guess you are proud of that as well...
I bumped into one of my old nemesis's a few years back. He managed to seriously improve his character in the intervening years by becoming a smackhead.
Sometimes micro managing is deserved as in people not knowing what they are doing and their output observed. When it is a management trait where the manager trusts nothing anyone does and continually nitpicks and belittles his juniors it is a poor trait. Rather transform and develop your staff by delegating properly and managing them.
I use to love the guy who picked me second to last I would do anything for him. He was such a nice boy, everybody said so, otherwise him and his sychophants would bully them....
I'm being ostracised due to lack of ball skills....
Course, at least I've got some....
Course, at least I've got some....
Skill at balling up the job?
Skill at going balls up?
I agree with you, it's not what you do with them...
Skill at going balls up?
I agree with you, it's not what you do with them...
...for you -- as you say -- to add "something intelligent", Alan, you need to reason from deeper intelligence.
I see what you have done here as shallow -- a shallow pool of intelligence, that is.
You pander. This is a marked departure from your usual.
I am alarmed.
I see what you have done here as shallow -- a shallow pool of intelligence, that is.
You pander. This is a marked departure from your usual.
I am alarmed.
Have you considered the possibility that this article is just supposed to be...fun?
This is the exact same stuff you talk to your co-workers about on smoke breaks, lunch, or standing around the Xerox machine trying to look busy.
You need to catch-up on reading Dilbert if the purpose of the article totally escapes you.
This is the exact same stuff you talk to your co-workers about on smoke breaks, lunch, or standing around the Xerox machine trying to look busy.
You need to catch-up on reading Dilbert if the purpose of the article totally escapes you.
footballing sychophants to vote me down as well.
Couldn't agrree more, shallow self serving and about as intelligent an article the one my dog left for me after yesterday's slap up meal.
Couldn't agrree more, shallow self serving and about as intelligent an article the one my dog left for me after yesterday's slap up meal.
Snipers - who criticize all suggestions put forward by the team, but are unable to offer any alternatives.
I agree it is a big challenge trying to rehabilitate or remove these types from your team, particular if they are your manager!
I agree it is a big challenge trying to rehabilitate or remove these types from your team, particular if they are your manager!
I gave a different answer (nitpickers), and snipers and nitpickers are related. The difference is one of environment mostly. A sniper will think of a problem with a project, and choose to ask questions or address the issue during a departmental meeting, having you squarely in his sights. Or he could bring it up when you, your boss and he are chatting around a water-cooler. Basically you have no time to react - he catches you by surprise. And the sniper may bring up major issues (a kill shot).
A nitpicker tends to tell others, behind your back, but spreading small problem with a project. None of his issues are terribly important, but the issues still have to be addressed, slowing down progress. It is easier to avoid direct contact with the nitpicker, but he can still go behind your back and point out issues to anyone who will listen.
A nitpicker tends to tell others, behind your back, but spreading small problem with a project. None of his issues are terribly important, but the issues still have to be addressed, slowing down progress. It is easier to avoid direct contact with the nitpicker, but he can still go behind your back and point out issues to anyone who will listen.
So what do you do when a manager is a combination of no. 8 and n_egii's no. 11...?
I worked with a guy like this and it's miserable.
The types who try to keep EVERYONE happy all the time, no matter how conflicting his promises are toward the end goal. Projects get over-due because requirements are constantly changing to make people feel "fuzzy inside". When approached about delays, the peace maker may also try to use his skills by saying "yes, we discussed this and I understand your concerns" and justify it by stating his altruistic intentions to improve the morale and well being of the organization, not realizing it has caused more meetings than necessary, over-due projects and alot of very, very, very confused people.
The peace maker is a likely candidate to fail a drug test and jam out to dated hippy songs in his VW.
I'm all for morale and organizational well-being, but you just can't please everyone all the time.
The types who try to keep EVERYONE happy all the time, no matter how conflicting his promises are toward the end goal. Projects get over-due because requirements are constantly changing to make people feel "fuzzy inside". When approached about delays, the peace maker may also try to use his skills by saying "yes, we discussed this and I understand your concerns" and justify it by stating his altruistic intentions to improve the morale and well being of the organization, not realizing it has caused more meetings than necessary, over-due projects and alot of very, very, very confused people.
The peace maker is a likely candidate to fail a drug test and jam out to dated hippy songs in his VW.
I'm all for morale and organizational well-being, but you just can't please everyone all the time.
I worked in a group headed by one of those peacemakers. There is a real hidden cost to that, and it is that the conflict avoidance produces the exact opposite of what s/h wants. For example, we had some unreasonable and counterproductive folks in a group I was head of, setting up a large convention type gathering. There were a few people who either drug their feet, or were really intent on having their own way. When I would attempt to focus these folks, the Peacemaker would step in, wanting to avoid conflict, and since I was the "reasonable one" I was expected to cave on every demand so we wouldn't have conflict. So we ended up catering to folks who had more attitude than ability, with predictable bad results. I ended up moving on, and a profit making endeavor was eventually downsized and turned into a bit of an albatross.
wow,its me. 
im trying not to make everyone happy now.
now i just throw'em the facts and give conclusion why some things cannot and will not be manifested.
im trying not to make everyone happy now.
now i just throw'em the facts and give conclusion why some things cannot and will not be manifested.
I'd like to add the "smiling underminer" (a.k.a. the insecure control freak) You know, the person who has been at the job for many years, doesn't do anything, smiles in your face but takes every opportunity to undermine your efforts and denegrate your attempts to do a good job.
When one has time - presumably because they are not really doing what the company hired them to do, some of those people evolve into the Nitpicker. Nitpicking is the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail , and then criticising them. When you are not working on your own projects, it is much easier to look at someone else's project and point out all the trivial problems in the project. The Nitpicker will sometimes report to others the small errors they found, and the person or people working on the project will need to address those trivial issues, affecting their productivity, which is what the Nitpicker really wants.
I worked at a government agency for a few years, and I saw quite a few Nitpickers, as well as many of the others you have described. Since you could not really fire anyone, the office collected weird personality types.
I worked at a government agency for a few years, and I saw quite a few Nitpickers, as well as many of the others you have described. Since you could not really fire anyone, the office collected weird personality types.
Definitely one of the worst types, much worse than anti-social types who are often their own worst enemy. Nitpickers are not good at software engineering, and don't really get it, they are in the wrong job.
Yikes! The Nitpicker sounds dangerous! There is some innate characteristic of analytical types to pick out an error from the sea of facts. I catch myself doing it all of the time. I will read an article and any error stands out like a sore thumb. Perhaps it is a matter of degree but I don't consider myself a picker of nits.
Definitely if the work assigned is done there should be more work to do other than nitpick on someone else, or else there must be research that can be done to help your job or else it's time to go home for the day.
Especially a manager I had in the past who had a world-class "Dead Weight". The guy was lazy as hell, did an average of only about one hour of work per day while the rest of us were busting our humps. A couple of other people on the team (including me) had meetings with the manager to discuss the problem with him, and he insisted that the Dead Weight was actually hard-working. Whether the manager was willfully ignorant or just blind, I don't know, but it sure was frustrating. I've been gone from that place for quite some time now, but I still think to myself, almost every day, what a relief it is to be out of there.
Hello Parrish.
I am certainly no expert at solving people problems but if there is any one mistake I think is made most often is not confronting the problem head-on when it arises. Dead Weights hang around for years and eventually one manager makes the "tough decision" to dump the anchor overboard.
I am certainly no expert at solving people problems but if there is any one mistake I think is made most often is not confronting the problem head-on when it arises. Dead Weights hang around for years and eventually one manager makes the "tough decision" to dump the anchor overboard.
Isn't that always the end result? Anyone decent recognises the problem, tries to do something about it, and when they realise the problem is never going to be addressed they find a better place to work.
This is the true toxicity of these people. The problem employees stay, new hires that aren't good enough to get a job elsewhere or aren't smart/assertive enough to recognise the problem and do something about it also stay. Congratulations - one or two toxic people have suddenly created an entire company or unit full of useless people.
This is the true toxicity of these people. The problem employees stay, new hires that aren't good enough to get a job elsewhere or aren't smart/assertive enough to recognise the problem and do something about it also stay. Congratulations - one or two toxic people have suddenly created an entire company or unit full of useless people.
I think you've nailed it. It doesn't always happen this way, but often enough that decent people, like you say, want out before the toxic people get their way.
You neglected the most damaging scenario of all - when the supervisor/manager IS the toxic character. Been there, done that... Had a work situation where the individuals "management style" consisted entirely of bellowing, bullying, intimidating, and blatantly playing favorites, made all the more "effective" by the fact the guy was 6'+ and over 250 lbs. A lot of people were genuinely afraid of this jackass, including some of his superiors; he loved it and used it to his maximum advantage. I left, not because his tactics worked on me but because I was tired of his B.S. and the failure of higher-ups who were well aware of the situation and did nothing about it. The company's since been taken over by HP and, last I heard, he was still there and still doing the same act.
I've been on the flip-side of that scenario.
I had a Jr. Systems Admin who worked directly under me who was built like a brick shithouse. He was just massive, but a fantastic admin. I'm like 5'8 and 120 lbs - typical nerd build, and I'm this guy's boss.
People were very intimidated by him. Not because he was an ass - he was actually a super nice guy. Except he was very short in his communication and really quite shy, which gave the impression he was an ass. His huge stature just added to that impression. "But, I need this now" "It can't be done now" *walk off*. It wasn't him being rude, but in his mind he was just stating a fact. End of story.
As his superior, I had to play that card very, very carefully. It was useful when my team genuinely had more pressing things to do (him included), but at the same time, I didn't want to ostracize him either and give people false beliefs about him that would cause him to feel uncomfortable with his work environment. If that makes sense.
It sounds like this dude's direct supervisor is the one on a massive power trip and enjoys the fact that his report has that level of intimidation. If I were the man's boss, I would set him aside and say "Dude, you need to chill out. This isn't good for the team, the company or your reputation and it will end".
Those type of characters are almost always puppets with bad management who are the toxic characters.
I had a Jr. Systems Admin who worked directly under me who was built like a brick shithouse. He was just massive, but a fantastic admin. I'm like 5'8 and 120 lbs - typical nerd build, and I'm this guy's boss.
People were very intimidated by him. Not because he was an ass - he was actually a super nice guy. Except he was very short in his communication and really quite shy, which gave the impression he was an ass. His huge stature just added to that impression. "But, I need this now" "It can't be done now" *walk off*. It wasn't him being rude, but in his mind he was just stating a fact. End of story.
As his superior, I had to play that card very, very carefully. It was useful when my team genuinely had more pressing things to do (him included), but at the same time, I didn't want to ostracize him either and give people false beliefs about him that would cause him to feel uncomfortable with his work environment. If that makes sense.
It sounds like this dude's direct supervisor is the one on a massive power trip and enjoys the fact that his report has that level of intimidation. If I were the man's boss, I would set him aside and say "Dude, you need to chill out. This isn't good for the team, the company or your reputation and it will end".
Those type of characters are almost always puppets with bad management who are the toxic characters.
Completely true and on point, but then there's the manager exactly like this and not big but add gossip to the list while hanging out in their favorite cubicles/offices. If you don't think like them or hob nob in their DUMB convo; you're labeled and shunned even though this manager doesn't know diddly about managing anything...let alone an important IT project or team of professionals.
The Grump is the one who is always grumbling about the latest updates, how Microsoft (or any other technology) sucks, how poorly designed the software is, and how he's always having to "make do" with the sub-standard hardware and software the company buys. Everyone around him tries to play the game, either kowtowing to elicit a smile, or trying to go mano-a-mano in the Complain Game in an effort to one-up him. He's the person the company needs for his technical skills, but no one wants to be around him unless it's to have their own negative perceptions reinforced.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
