The Need for Trust

Seems the need for trust in the organisations that we are part of is pretty essential for sound operations. When it doesn’t exist, then you have nothing but chaos. Actually you have trust, but trust in the fact that what is supposed to work never works. Up is down, left is right, and the only thing true is that there is no truth.  So, what do people look for?

  • trust in the purpose of the organisation
  • trust in the leadership to accomplish the goals of the organisation
  • trust in fair treatment of individuals in the organisation
  • trust in the processes of the organisation

Unfortunately, where there is no trust in the organisation or leadership, the members of the organisation are not able to accomplish anything. Nothing gets done, and nothing can get done, because no one can do anything that is truly measured against any true criteria. Eventually, when nothing gets done for a very long time, anyone or anything affected by the organisation just loses interest and goes away.  Is your organisation boring? Have all the real contributors just walked away? Well, then you have your answer right in front of you…

The Need to be Respected…

Another important marker of toxic organisations is the violation of every person’s need to be respected. Organisations today practice dis-respect at a frightening rate. And the moniker of excuse is usually: “they deserved it”… Does anyone deserve disrespect as a member of an organisation? Not ever, but many intensely insecure people confuse disagreement with disrespect. Many managers today only know how to answer back disagreement with disrespect. Because they neither value nor respect others, that is their only way to deal with conflict.  When it moves from dangerous to toxic is when they enlist others in the task.  The organisational abusers cannot cope with the truth so they put you on trial using the “thousand cut” method. Whereby they feign concern and drag you down by a thousand backhandedly negative comments behind your back.  The usual organisational tell-tale signs are phrases like:

  1. Did you hear what so-and-so said, was that stupid or what?
  2. What is wrong with him/her?
  3. Did you hear what they did? They are just trying to act superior to all of us…
  4. Oh, they always say that…

And when they feel ready to “go for the kill”, they put you on trial in your absence. They bring up an item at a meeting that wasn’t on the agenda, where you aren’t there, and ask all the members of the meeting what they think about this utter stupidity of whoever the target is today. They savage you on a very personal basis, and when confronted about it, they always throw it off on the decision of the group. Not me, it was the group that decided this…

Disrespect is something that you see all over. When a member of an organisation is given a public opportunity to ask a question of a leader of-and-with authority, you often see people making long-winded speeches about how important they are followed by some question designed to make them look like they know what they are doing. This is fundamental disrespect for both the fellow members of the audience and the person to whom the question is addressed. Anyone who engages in this sort of disrespect should be earmarked for removal from the organisation with immediate effect.

Fortunately, the people who live by disrespect always get found out, they always get put where they belong, eventually… However, in the interim you have to find a way to live with them. The best way forward with that:

  1. Stay as clear as possible of known disrespectors
  2. When you see it clearly confront them with the simple phrase: “I’m sorry but I will not accept your disrespect of me on:….”
  3. Whatever you do, don’t get in a debate with them, as they will try to convince you that their disrespect of you was both necessary and appropriate. Guess what, it never was and never will be…
  4. Lastly, remember, they lose a lot of sleep crafting their lies and disrespect, and you don’t…

Blessings all…

The Need to be Accepted

Seems that the need to be accepted is fundamental to our ability to function in organisations. Toxic organisations want you to know that you are not accepted for who you are, and may possibly be accepted for what some people in those organisations think you might be able to do for them.

Guaranteed that you can tell when you are in a terminally toxic organisation when someone comes to you and says: “I heard this in confidence about you, is it true?” when you hear that, start running for the door, because the person saying this actually means:

  1. I know something you don’t know, so I am more important than you
  2. I am going to divert your attention off what is important and make you guess who it is who supposedly (if actually anyone actually did) said this, so I am going to manipulate you as best I can
  3. I am empowered by the organisation to play destructive back-stabbing politics, and I am going to stab you in the back and try to make you think I’m actually just thinking of your best interests
  4. I am a fraud and I need you to know it

So, you can either run for the door, or you can tell them in no uncertain terms:

  1. you will not have another word with them until they tell you who this “in confidence” person is
  2. you will not accept any further back-stabbing

Once you set the ground rules you will sleep much better…

The Need to be Acknowledged…

So, it turns out that one of the most prolific markers for recognising a toxic organisation (one that you need to set boundaries on) is the lack of acknowledgement.  Lack of acknowledgement of:

  • emails
  • letters
  • calls
  • all incoming social media messages on shared platforms

So, when should you acknowledge incoming communications? Well, in today’s “always on” world, the sooner the better. Many of us answer 99% of incoming messages within seconds. But where you can’t, then you can at least message them that you have received the message but are too tied up to answer just now, but will answer within 24 hours. Certainly at the least, in 24 hours. So, when people and organisations don’t even acknowledge that you have asked a question, especially when they repeatedly do it, what does it all mean? Well quite simply:

  1. they have contempt for you as a person or your question, they usually want you to know that neither you nor your question are worth answering
  2. they want you to know that whatever they are doing is quite a bit more important than whatever you are doing or whoever you are
  3. they are disrespecting you, and usually they want you to know that they have no respect for you or your questions
  4. they are dishonouring you as a person
  5. most toxic organisations have now adopted a time-honoured tradition of saying: I didn’t get the email, or I didn’t know anything about it, or some other form sort of semi plausible deniability. But in today’s world it is usually 100% pure rubbish…

One thing we know about toxic organisations is that they soon go, or at least the people in them soon go. Also, it turns out that you cannot prosper in them unless you are willing to adopt their toxicity. So what is there to do? Usually just get out, just walk away. You can’t engage with toxic people. However, if you still need to function within a toxic organisation, how can you responsively set the boundaries with them? After you have sent them 2 or 3 questions that they have not even acknowledged, start out your next communication with:

“I have attempted to contact you with a question (or something else). You have repeatedly not answered my question and have not even acknowledged my communication with you. By doing this you are displaying contempt to both me and my question. You are disrespecting me and dishonouring me personally, and that is not acceptable. Please now do me the courtesy of answering my question…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

Why I voted as I did planning meeting 12.05.16

Development 15/0720 – Brook Green and Tiny Brook

  • Planners Recommendations: refuse, same as 2 previous applications
  • Issues of Contention: none
  • How I voted: for recommendation, unanimous
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0133 – Buckstone Farm, Windlesham

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: fence being lowered to current level, size issues
  • How I voted: for, carried by 14-2
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0202 – The Mall, The Square, Camberley

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention:none
  • How I voted: for, unanimous
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0156 – 12-16 Park Street, Camberley

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: none
  • How I voted: for, 15-1 abstention
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0192 – Unit 1, 12-16 Park Street, Camberley

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: for, unanimous
  • How I voted: for
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0191 – Unit 1, 12-16 Park Street, Camberley

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: none
  • How I voted: for, unanimous
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 15/1123 – 9 Crofters Close, Deepcut

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: no permitted development, Cllr Deach speaking: wants to mitigate the impact to the neighbors. Concerned about noise from the gym, added a condition to this about soundproofing.
  • How I voted: for, unanimous
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 16/0274 – Heatherbank, 11 Church Hill, Camberley

  • Planners Recommendations: grant
  • Issues of Contention: none
  • How I voted: for, unanimous
  • Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this