Crisis Leadership: Leading in Times of Great Uncertainty


It has almost become a cliché to say that we are living in unprecedented times because of COVID-19. The global fear that we are all experiencing can be immobilizing. Indeed, this fear is well-founded, with cases worldwide rapidly increasing. To make matters even worse, the number of cases has been widely underreported because of a lack of accurate testing capacity. Entire nations are shut down with stay-at-home orders, in addition to the millions of people who are self-quarantined. The impact on the world economy is devastating: business after business is closing and unemployment is nearing all-time highs. 

Those who are employed are often heard to say how thankful they are to have a job. This is particularly true with those in essential industries like healthcare, construction, law enforcement, infrastructure, and energy. Yet even in these industries, many employees have been laid off or forced to take leave without pay, in hopes that they will have their jobs in the future. Furthermore, even for those employees who still have jobs, many have extreme anxiety, and wonder if they are exposing themselves to the virus by going to work or if they will be the next to get laid off. 

While there were initially reports of individuals, teams, and communities pulling together, the cumulative toll that the virus is taking—combined with so much economic uncertainty—has impacted virtually all workers. As this crisis wears on, leaders are finding that employee productivity is being replaced by less desirable behaviors, such as malaise, anxiety, absenteeism, negativism, shortness of temper, and distraction. Leaders are struggling with how to keep their employees engaged and return to productivity. What can leaders do to re-engage their employees more fully?

We will provide below several suggestions, but mainly, leaders need to understand that the techniques, behaviors, and management tools they have previously used to motivate employees will not work in this unfamiliar state of affairs. In other words, doing more of the same at a higher intensity can actually have the opposite effect: further diminishing productivity. During this pandemic, leaders need to adopt a different set of behaviors to re-engage their staffs, whether working face-to-face or remotely. In most cases, leaders will need to slow down…in order to eventually speed up!

Leaders must think from the perspective of the employees that they serve. What do employees who are anxious, fearful, depressed, distracted, exhausted, emotional, irritated, or uncommunicative need?

First and foremost, all of these employees need understanding and empathy. It is important for them to know that their leader can relate to their feelings and is fully supportive and appreciative of what they are going through. Leaders should ask employees what they need in order to feel more secure and, when possible, fulfill those requests. Simply put, empathy can go a long way toward restoring an employee’s equilibrium and re-engagement.

Second, these employees need their feelings to be recognized as normal and appropriate for the situation, rather than shameful. This is not a time for leaders to use any kind of “carrot or stick” approach to motivation. Leaders need to demonstrate this patience by being vulnerable themselves and by acknowledging the fears and anxieties that they may also have.

Third, these employees need the opportunity to express their feelings in a safe and nonjudgmental venue. Being able to talk openly with other employees to further normalize their feelings can help reduce levels of anxiety and depression. Having daily times for teams to talk in small groups can go a long way to reducing employee apprehension. Encouraging employees to take breaks together, eat lunch together, and meet informally, all while maintaining social distance as appropriate to prevent contagion (or connecting remotely to maintain human contact), demonstrates understanding and support on the part of leadership. 

Fourth, these employees need structure and consistency. Having clarity as to what is expected and providing small, achievable goals will help employees stay engaged. The more specific and achievable the tasks, the better. Accomplishing several small tasks can be more rewarding at times like this than working on issues that are long-term and more conceptual. Creating consistency in the workplace with regard to schedules, expectations, and agendas can reduce anxiety and provides employees with a greater sense of security.

Fifth, these employees need communication—possibly, even over-communication. In a crisis, the leader becomes coach, inspirational communicator, counselor, and hand-holder. Leaders may need to hold even more meetings than usual, whether in person or online. However, such meetings should be brief, focused, outcome-specific, and tactical. At a minimum, leaders must be cognizant of being in touch more regularly with employees and taking time to listen to concerns, no matter how small.

Finally, leaders need to reassure employees that they are important and that the jobs they are performing are valuable to the organization. We all need to know that we are needed and important to the enterprise; this is even more critical in times of uncertainty. 

Because we have never been in a worldwide pandemic before, leaders need to become more versatile and willing to try new behaviors better suited to the crisis. This is a time for leaders to show their own humanity and vulnerability. During a prolonged crisis, increased productivity will happen only when employees feel as safe, as secure, and as understood as possible. This is the leader’s charge.

We wish health and happiness to you during this historic time. Please stay tuned for the next blog post on Survivor’s Guilt.

Toxic Employees—Does Your Team Need a Cleanse?

The president of a company engaged me to help him understand what appeared to be an ongoing conflict between two of his key employees. A year earlier, the president had hired his “dream team”—a group of individuals whom he believed could change the face of the company in the marketplace. Each of these hires had been very successful previously and, on paper, had all the credentials needed to make the company a standout and move it ahead of the competition. But that didn’t happen. What happened instead was that two members of the “dream team” became embroiled in bitter disputes that involved manipulation, back-biting, self-righteousness, over-confidence, intimidation, unrealistic certainty of their position, and more. Neither of the employees in question had behaviors that rose to the level of termination, and both had levels of productivity and quality of work that were exemplary. Their contentious relationship was only a distraction at first, but it began to involve others in choosing sides and creating divisiveness on the team. The president recognized that something had to be done.

Toxic Workers

The conflict the president was witnessing is associated with behaviors of “toxic” employees. Toxic employees are ultimately quite harmful to an organization because their undermining, unethical, or questionable behaviors can spread to other employees. However, the complexity in dealing with toxic employees is that they are often high performers. In fact, according to recent research, compared with the average employee, the toxic employee is often more productive as well as more likely to better follow processes, rules, and procedures, often with rigid adherence. Although these employees’ behaviors may be incredibly disruptive, their ability to be productive—and appear (to management) to be acting in the best interest of the company—keeps them employed. It is only when enough damage has been done and the complaints from other employees reach a fevered pitch that management is forced to take action.

Characteristics of Toxicity

According to the research, the toxic employee is characterized by three major traits:

  1. Over-confidence: Toxic employees appear to have supreme confidence and the sense that there is nothing they can’t accomplish. Over time, not having a sense of limits or boundaries can cause them to engage in behaviors that may verge on misconduct.
  2. Self-regarding: Toxic employees consistently put their interests or functions above those of their colleagues. They demonstrate arrogant behaviors that suggest their approach is the only right one, and that they will prevail at all costs. They will not demonstrate any collaborative or supportive behaviors with their colleagues. In this sense, they exhibit a low level of emotional sensitivity, similar to both narcissists and psychopaths.
  3. Rule-follower: Toxic employees will regularly insist that their adherence to the rules of the organization is the foundation for their differences with others. They may claim that rules should not be broken and will steadfastly follow them whenever it suits their purposes. Interestingly, these same ostensible rule-followers are more likely to be terminated for actually breaking the rules.

Toxic Effects

Because toxic employees are usually productive, many of their behaviors are likely to be overlooked or accepted as the price of having a “diva” on the team. This rationale can also be used to discount the early warning signs reported by their disgruntled coworkers. The clever toxic employee can even make others feel responsible for conflicts that the toxic worker has initiated. They are the kind of people who blame others for having a white carpet if they spill red wine on it!

As if having toxic employees were not bad enough, the situation is often exacerbated by their ability to “recruit” others to follow in their footsteps. Their intimidation, persuasiveness, and convincing sense of being right have the effect of causing others to fall in line. This becomes a vicious cycle, whereby toxic individuals and their followers reinforce detrimental behaviors and compete increasingly with others in the organization! Another downside is that those having close, regular contact with toxic employees have a higher chance of being compromised and terminated themselves, compared with those who work with non-toxic employees.

Antidotes

What is the best solution for managing and dealing with a toxic employee? If you identify a toxic employee in your workplace, your best strategy is to take the high road. The odds of turning a toxic employee into a good employee are low, at best. In fact, a company is better off replacing a toxic employee with an average employee than spending time and energy trying to transform the toxic one. Of course, prevention is the best solution. Note the predictors and traits of toxicity discussed above and do not hire candidates who display these traits. If your team needs a cleanse, as with the president and his two problem employees discussed earlier, a manager should bring the team together to remind them of their shared goals. By re-establishing the vision for the team, managers can bolster the productivity and morale of employees, while also maintaining the effectiveness and credibility of management, thereby decisively counteracting any harmful behaviors.

Do You Have What It Takes to Succeed?

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, and his first start-up, Traf-O-Data, was a big failure. J. K. Rowling was divorced, depressed, and on welfare. Theodor Seuss Geisel had 27 different publishers reject his first book. Albert Einstein was expelled from high school and was refused admittance to Zurich Polytechnic. What these people all have in common is that, at one point in their lives, they were abject failures. Yet without these “failures,” we would not have Microsoft, the Harry Potter series, Dr. Seuss, or the Theory of Relativity.

Some people seem destined to succeed in their chosen endeavors, in spite of any failures they encounter along the way. Others seem to experience difficulty bouncing back from defeat or disappointment, and they have only intermittent success or no success at all. What is the difference? Is it intelligence? Interpersonal skills? Charisma? Or is it just luck? There is research about the relationship between emotional intelligence and success, personal characteristics and success, and intelligence and success. However, the research in those areas does not explain how the view or perception of one’s success is what leads ultimately successful individuals to be persistent in the face of failure.

The most important ingredient to being successful on a sustained basis is how we interpret our success. This interpretation, or our explanatory style, is the way we explain our success or failure to ourselves—it is directly related to how likely we are to experience success or failure in the future. Are you a complainer and subject to focusing on a black cloud in every silver lining? Are you prone to having a consistently negative and pessimistic view of life, needing “a check-up from the neck-up,” as motivational speaker Zig Ziglar used to say. Or are you someone who regularly sees the glass as half full and therefore failure as a passing event and a learning opportunity on the way to success? Optimism, pessimism, resilience—or the lack thereof—are all rooted in how we talk to ourselves about our successes and failures. Our interpretations make all the difference in whether we have any control of our lives and our outcomes.

In fact, there is a clear difference between people who consistently complain about their plight and those who do not. Those who have a sustained level of success actually think differently from those whose success is fleeting or non-existent. The way you think about yourself is foundational. These three characteristics are critical to experiencing success on a regular basis:

  1. Personal Control: Successful people believe that their success is a result of internal qualities over which they have some control, such as attitude, effort, preparation, experience, or skill set. People with lower levels of success feel like success is more dependent on external circumstances over which their control is minimal. As a result, when a typically low-performing individual does experience success, they attribute it more to luck or coincidence. A typically successful person experiencing the same success will recognize the link between the outcome and personal characteristics, such as their effort, preparation, skill set, attitude, and determination.
  2. Generalizability: Successful people believe that success is not an accident of time, location, or circumstance. Instead, they believe they will continue to have similar successes at other times and in other settings. Successful people believe that if they are successful in one situation, they are capable of being successful in other situations. That does not mean they avoid risk or failure. Quite the opposite—they are not afraid of risk or failure because they are determined to persevere until successful. Both Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill were not successful until late in life, after they had both experienced many public failures. In spite of those earlier failures, both of them changed history dramatically.
  3. Stability: Stability is the degree to which you think that the capabilities you have are reliable over time, because they are an internal part of you. Successful people know that they can rely on their capabilities when learning new tasks and facing unfamiliar challenges or situations, while unsuccessful people experiencing success do not have the confidence that it can be attributed to a stable trait they possess. They are more likely to say they had a “good day,” “dumb luck,” or “a one-time thing,” not likely to happen again. These people are more likely to live life like a lottery ticket purchaser, with the expectation that the odds are strongly against them winning or being successful.

The roots of victimization are feelings that, no matter what one does, the outcome will be not be good. Individuals who have a “victim” mentality go through life believing the “cards are stacked against them,” and have little motivation to make a difference in their lives or their work. Risk is to be avoided at all costs. Failure and lack of effort begins to define them. On the other hand, people who are consistently successful in life believe that success is a product of personal choices that we all have in response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

There is a clear link between the outcomes of our lives and the attitude, effort, persistence, and abilities we apply to various circumstances. When failures do happen, they are considered passing events that do not define us. Zig Ziglar cautioned us to “remember that failure is an event, not a person.” Taking on new risks and challenges can be seen as adventures to explore that offer new and exciting things to be learned. What defines us is a realistic appraisal of our abilities and attitudes, including a confidence that can be applied to any new situation. How we view our success or failure will either move us forward or back. How will you choose to interpret your successes and failures?

Beware the Charming Psychopath

New Book!

Read the Santa Fe Deception, a Scott Hunter Mystery, as an example of psychopath behavior. Available on Amazon.

Learn about workplace improvements through Myron’s webinars.


Once again, Bob told our manager that he would be willing to take on the largest and highest-profile project in the business. Pleased with the eagerness of our coworker to volunteer, our manager smiled and gave him a thumbs-up at his initiative. But the rest of us on Bob’s team shuddered inside. When our coworker committed to the project, he was essentially committing the rest of us, because he was not about to lift a finger to get the project to completion. We knew that working with Bob meant we would be cajoled, conned, manipulated, shamed, and otherwise maneuvered into doing tasks none of us had signed up for. We also knew that, upon successful completion of the project, Bob would take all the credit.

At first glance, an outsider would wonder why we did not have the chutzpah to stand up to Bob, walk away, tell our manager, or choose to take any number of other actions that would circumvent the inevitable problems ahead. In hindsight, we would have those same thoughts. How is it that a coworker, and an equal on the organizational chart, can get away with doing so little work and still get so much credit?

Psychopaths in the Workplace

Employees with personality traits like Bob’s are known as “high-functioning psychopaths.” Although Bob’s behavior is characterized by traits of psychopathy, they are not to the degree of individuals who are institutionalized perpetrators of crime and punishment. Instead, high-functioning psychopaths are driven individuals whose success is often at the expense of others and who display the following types of behaviors:

  • Consistent and persistent manipulation of others, especially those who get in their way.
  • Masterful deception (exaggerating or outright lying) to get their way.
  • Crafty deflections (distractions or half-truths) when confronted about their behavior.

With regard to accountability, charming psychopaths can be so slippery that pinning them down is like “nailing jello to a wall.” You often sense that something is wrong, but you just can’t put your finger on what it is. The truth is that employees like Bob can be extremely charming and personable at the same time they are being ruthless and vindictive. Charming psychopaths are particularly good at managing up, and those higher in the ranks of the organization somehow miss seeing the underlying—and undermining—behaviors.

Psychopathic Behavior

Unlike many personality disorders that are rooted in anxiety, the psychopath has difficulty feeling at all. They crave power and control over people. The hallmark of the psychopath is an inability to experience remorse or empathy. Often, they themselves have no feelings at all. In this regard, the only relationships the psychopath is able to sustain are those that narcissistically serve his/her own interests. These relationships involve a truly sadomasochistic dynamic, in which the recipient of the psychopath’s behavior tolerates the abuse and manipulation that the psychopath dishes out. However, even these relationships tend to be short-lived.

In contrast to the anxiety normal humans feel under pressure, psychopaths become fearless and more focused on their target or goal. The psychopath has an uncanny ability to read people and exploit their vulnerabilities. Hence, in the workplace, the psychopath is able to identify the most vulnerable of coworkers and exploit them to his/her end. They are guiltless, callous, self-centered, and can be superficially charming. Because of their unbridled confidence, they can be very attractive, initially, with their charm and stories of success. They can have the very characteristics that can appeal to executives in management, who can confuse their superficial charm as charismatic leadership. In fact, it is not unusual to see high-functioning psychopaths in the highest levels of an organization. Their focus and ability to get things done, even nefariously, can serve them well.

How Corporate Psychopaths Work

In our example of Bob volunteering himself and, by default, his coworkers to take on a very important, high-profile project, we see Bob’s craft at work at a high level. Although Bob may attend an initial meeting aimed at organizing the project, do not expect him to leave that meeting with any meaningful responsibilities, if any at all. As a master of deflection, he may say things like, “Mary would be great to handle those details,” or “Those issues fall right into John’s skillset.” In these unwanted, unsolicited, and unauthorized delegations of duty are implied compliments to his coworkers, making them difficult to oppose, especially publicly. Initially, Bob’s employees were taken off-guard by his charm until later, when it was too late and they realized they had been duped. When requested to take on any responsibilities himself, Bob will have any number of reasonable-sounding excuses to decline. However, he will want to be at the progress meetings with the manager and may even facilitate those meetings to make certain he appears to be in charge and receives the credit.

Behind the scenes, Bob is constantly “stirring the pot” and creating dissension among team members, knowing that his lack of involvement will be overlooked in the midst of the dramas and conflicts he instigates. By creating confusion, Bob provides himself assurance that, if the project should fail, he has the team’s dysfunction to blame.

Three Ways to Deal

How do you deal with this kind of personality in the workplace? Keep in mind that the chances of psychopaths changing their behavior is nil! Corporate psychopaths have an entrenched personality style that allows them to incredibly adept at maneuvering and counter-maneuvering for self-serving purposes. So when you encounter high-functioning psychopaths, keep these tips in mind.

1. Distance Yourself

You do not want to be another body left in their destructive wake. As soon as you are able to identify any high-functioning psychopath (the sooner the better), work to distance yourself. You do not want to be on the same team or affiliated with them on any project. Decline opportunities to work together as politely as possible. If the psychopath is your manager, very quickly find another part of the organization in which to work—or another job!

2. Watch Your Back

Workplace psychopaths can be ruthless and have no trouble bending the truth or outright lying. Which is why confronting them comes with great risk. Remember, they are at their best at times when normal people are anxious and fearful. Confronting them will not lead to any changes in their behavior; and once confronted, they will actively set out to destroy you to coworkers, your manager, or anyone else who will listen to them.

3. Depersonalize

The greatest weapon that a psychopath has is to manipulate you in a way that makes you doubt the way you think about yourself, rendering you more vulnerable to his/her maneuvering. Remember that psychopaths’ behavior is about them, not about you, and do not take their compliments to heart any more than you take their condemnation to heart. You are no better or worse than when you first met them, and you are hopefully more aware. Do not lose a sense of who you are in working with them.

The bottom line is two-fold: first, you cannot change the behavior of high-functioning psychopaths; and second, you do not want to change your own behavior in response to theirs. Be aware, be on guard, and be yourself.

New Book!

Read the Santa Fe Deception, a Scott Hunter Mystery, as an example of psychopath behavior. Available on Amazon.

Hard Conversations? Just Do It!

Recently, a client called me to ask for my counsel regarding an upcoming performance discussion with one of his subordinates. He told me about the individual’s declining performance, including several instances of the employee failing to deliver on agreed-upon projects. The employee was contrite and apologetic, but his performance had not improved. In addition, the employee had experienced some personal problems over the past year, for which my client had made several allowances. It was clear that my client had delayed the discussion for some time and could delay no more. The time had come for a direct and unambiguous performance discussion.

My client expressed significant apprehension about having the discussion and asked my advice on how to handle the meeting.  Violations of company policy or ethical standards are easier to address because they are cut and dried. However, discussions about performance issues are not always as clear-cut. Such issues tend to be more about the behaviors of employees, which are more difficult to discuss because they may cause employees to feel defensive, embarrassed, or nervous.

My experience is that when leaders have faced difficult personnel decisions, they never say, “I wish I would have waited longer before taking action.” Quite the contrary! They always say, “I wish I would have taken action sooner.” The effects of waiting to take some kind of corrective action include loss of time and productivity. More important, leaders who are slow to address performance issues risk demonstrating a lack of credibility and confidence to subordinates and colleagues.

Why do managers consistently delay the timing and directness of difficult performance conversations? The major reason they procrastinate is a lack of self-confidence. They are uncomfortable having potentially tense and contentious discussions in which they do not feel in control of the outcome. In addition, I see leaders delay having these discussions because they want so much to be liked and admired that they would rather be taken advantage of than risk hurting someone’s feelings. The greatest error leaders can make is to lose sight that such conversations need to be unemotional reviews of the facts of the individual’s performance, not emotional displays of feelings.

There are three things managers need to keep in mind before having difficult performance discussions with their employees:

1: Data. Come to the meeting prepared with clear data about the individual’s performance. To have a productive performance discussion, it is critical for managers to have provided clear expectations for work behavior and responsibilities (including quality, quantity, and timeliness of efforts), as well as to have documented instances when expected behaviors or deliverables were not met.

2: Focus. Have a clear agenda about what you are going to discuss, and stick to it. Because the meeting will be based on facts and not opinions, the tone of the meeting should be professional and any degree of emotion should be minimal. The manager can always respond to difficult retorts by the subordinate by staying calm and guiding the discussion back to the facts at hand.

3: Plan. Prior to the meeting, decide with clarity what changes are required, what the expected outcomes should be, and by when you expect to see improvements. In meetings of such importance, it is unfair and unprofessional to make it up as you go. If the manager does not have a plan, including the consequences for failing to meet expectations, the outcome of the meeting will be sub-optimal. A less-than-good outcome is not beneficial for either the individual or the organization.

The key to having difficult performance discussions is preparation, along with a commitment to keeping the conversations factual, focused, and outcome-oriented. My client took this advice to heart and went into the meeting prepared with the facts, an agenda that he followed, and an outcome in mind. He kept the meeting factual and non-emotional; and though the discussion was not an easy one, the client and his subordinate left the meeting with a clear and unambiguous plan. Furthermore, it was agreed that if the subordinate followed the plan, he would be successful, but that if he wasn’t able to follow the plan, he would be either reassigned or terminated. As is often the case, my client’s post-meeting evaluation was, “I should have had this meeting a long time ago!”

The next time you are faced with having a difficult conversation, make sure to plan ahead, have data to support your positions, keep the discussion focused, and go into the meeting with an idea of the desired outcome. Being prepared will make these interactions more productive, and you will waste less time and energy worrying beforehand.