Noomii Fire Side Chat Ep 2: How Organizations Handle Toxic Leadership With Noomii VP of Development, Amy Bastow

Stephan:

Hi. My name is Stephan Wiedner and I’m the CEO of noomii.com. And I have a special guest with me today, Amy Bastow. Now full disclosure, this is part of a series that we’re doing on toxic leadership. And Amy’s my colleague. We work together every day. And what Amy brings as a unique perspective to this concept of toxic leadership is that she’s kind of like the orchestra conductor, who is being able to move many and various different coaching engagements forward. Coaching engagements with different organizations, different leaders, many of whom are toxic.

Stephan:

And so she can see what’s happening from multiple, different perspectives. And so I think you bring a really unique and interesting perspective. You talk to other individuals who are either researching toxic behavior, or they are doing the coaching, and you get to sort of orchestrate it all. So Amy, welcome. Thanks for joining me today.

Amy Bastow:

Thank you, Stephan. Happy to be here.

Stephan:

Awesome. So Amy, let’s start by describing the typical individual that you talk to in that very first conversation. So they’re reaching out, what do they say to you?

Amy Bastow:

Okay. So typically the first person who will reach out to us from an organization is someone from human resources. It could also be someone from learning and development or talent or organizational development. Those are the typical titles that I connect with. And they’re reaching out because they usually have an issue. It’s usually about a leader who they’re struggling with, they’ve typically tried a few interventions previously, and they have come to a place where they really need a solution, because it’s now having a visible negative impact on their business.

Stephan:

As a coaching organization, we see lots of different types of engagements, but we’re talking about specifically toxic leadership. So what are some of the ways that A, they describe the individual and then B, what are some of the impacts to the organization that they describe?

Amy Bastow:

Sure. It’s kind of comical, because the description they give me is almost a carbon copy every time. And so it is a highly technical individual, who’s usually a superstar contributor, a superstar individual contributor, that is. Where they’re having trouble is on the leadership side. It’s the people side. So typically, what happens is that they are producing results, they are delivering above and beyond. Yet, their department is voicing concerns. And typically providing complaints to HR around the way they’re being treated and being spoken to by this individual.

Amy Bastow:

Typical things that come up with this leader is to direct. They can come off as arrogant, they know it all. They lack patience, they have publicly humiliated one or more of the staff. And they are also causing a situation where they’re having people quit, even on the spot quit. And so this is like the typical model of someone that we work with. So someone who is highly technically competent, they are meeting all their targets, but they’re really having some issues on the people’s side, and they can be considered abrasive, that’s probably a great description for them.

Stephan:

Abrasive. And people are generally leaving, quitting. So that’s the impact on the organization?

Amy Bastow:

Exactly. I think some major things that we see coming out of that are that people are so intimidated by an individual like this, that it does stifle innovation and creativity because individuals on a team feel less safe to speak up and just speak their mind. So they stop challenging that leader, and they stop voicing any sort of creative ideas that they might have for the fear that they’re going to be called out by this leader.

Stephan:

That makes a lot of sense. Do the organizations recognize that? Do they recognize that their people are not speaking up or contributing as well as they could be?

Amy Bastow:

Oftentimes, they don’t. Oftentimes, the symptom that’s coming up first will be engagement. They’ll have run an engagement survey, and that comes up with very low results. So that’s their first clue that things are not going well. The second would be retention issues, so they start to lose members of the team. It’s

not often that they’re actually making the connection between a lack of creativity and innovation, and how the leader is behaving. I would say that, that comes from a greater understanding of how the leader’s behavior is actually impacting the psychological safety of the team.

Stephan:

Right. As I said, you’re kind of the orchestra conductor, right? Because our job is to turn these people around. That’s ultimately what … I think, if you could say to these organizations, “Hey, if I can wave a magic wand, what result would you want?” What would they say to that question or what have they said to that question, for that matter?

Amy Bastow:

I would say the most common is, “Amy, I’m not looking for a miracle. I’m simply looking for this person to be a respectful, professional who is treating their team in a way that they would want to be treated.” And oftentimes, the organization is not expecting a full miraculous turnaround, they’re just simply expecting this person to act like a professional. So I think that’s always a breath of fresh air for me, because to be honest with you, it’s very difficult to say, a six-month engagement, to take someone from no awareness of the impact that they have on others to this enlightened, and woke individual.

Amy Bastow:

So I greatly appreciate it when organizations have an understanding of this process and the development process and how long it takes, and that they’re able to come to us and say I understand the realities of the situation. And what we’re looking for is for them to just come up to a level of respect. That’s what we’re really looking for.

Stephan:

So is what you’re saying that it’s not possible to get to the … If they’re at one end of the spectrum, is it not possible to get to the other end of the spectrum? Or is it that it just takes longer?

Amy Bastow:

You’re totally right. It is possible, it’s completely possible. I would say that it’s dependent on a few key factors. Number one, the individual who is receiving coaching needs to know what’s at stake. And it’s the responsibility of the organization to clearly communicate this to them. Not beat around the bush,

not assume that they know that, by having this conversation, potential, their job is at risk. No. They really need to spell it out very clearly. The organizations have a responsibility to tell the leader what’s at stake.

Amy Bastow:

And when they do that, they set the coaching up for success, because that means that’s that aha moment of, okay, I need to take this seriously. I’m not just doing this for compliance, I’m doing this, because I’m potentially going to save my job. That’s what’s at stake here. And that’s often what needs to occur. And so in that process is actually, the leader needs to feel like they are willing to move into uncomfortable spaces. The leader needs to be completely committed to the process. And they need to be open to being vulnerable in the process, which is something they may have never been in their career before, have never seen a use for being vulnerable. So this is a huge jump. And because this is a huge behavioral jump, it does take time.

Amy Bastow:

Another thing that I think is really important to consider is that we’re not just looking for the leader to change their behaviors, we’re also looking for the perceptions of the teammates and colleagues around them to change. And what we know from behavioral change is that those two pieces, behavioral change and perceptions don’t change at the same time. So the perceptions of the team will take much longer. So what we’d hope to do through an engagement is get into a place of self-awareness, sustaining patterns of unhealthy behaviors and respectful behaviors, and then set them up for success. Because this is the start of their journey and there’s a lot more work to do on their own as they move through. And that takes time.

Amy Bastow:

And so six months, we’ll set them up on a great course. 12 months is better. And then that’s when you’re going to see the perceptions of the team start to change. And when they start to change, they will also support the positive growth that the leader’s behavioral change.

Stephan:

And obviously, I think what you bring uniquely to the table is, as I said, you’re kind of orchestra conductor, making all of this happen. So this sounds all really good. And yet, how do you make that happen? There’s a lot of pieces involved there. So why don’t we start at the beginning. You mentioned that the organization needs to tell this leader that their job is potentially at risk here. That seems so obvious to me like, is it not true that organizations … Like, are organizations doing that? Are they having that conversation?

Amy Bastow:

Rarely.

Stephan:

That has to be the first step, right? So how do you prepare organizations to do this? So if you’re talking to the HR manager, are they the one to do that? Are they the one to go talk to that leader and give them that firm assertion that you need to improve your behavior or else your job might be on the line here?

Amy Bastow:

It should be their supervisor, the person who has the most contact with that individual and the most authority over them in the organization. So sometimes in an organization where we’re coaching senior executives, it’s actually the CEO who has to have this conversation. In some organizations where it’s matrix differently, it’s actually HR. So it does depend on the organization and how much contact the individuals have in the day to day for that conversation to the actually meaningful.

Stephan:

And how do you prepare someone to have that conversation? Like, how do you structure it? What’s the key ingredients?

Amy Bastow:

So what I typically do is actually introduce the concept to the organization, whoever’s going to be having the conversation. I usually like to have this conversation with HR and the supervisor at the same time, that’s the best case scenario. One, explain to them the psychology behind why you want to have this conversation. Because there is pushback that we do get. And the pushback would be, well, if we say this to them, then they might just shut down and not going to do the coaching and be too afraid. So this is actually what has typically been driving these behaviors.

Amy Bastow:

So organizations can be very consistent in toxic behaviors. When leaders are highly technical and delivering results, the organization will weigh the impact of their behaviors against what the results are producing. And so it eventually gets to a point where they have to say, okay, no, we do need to take action. So that same philosophy of allowing them to actually have these toxic behaviors is what enables them to not have this conversation. So they actually do need to sit down and have a serious conversation. I asked the leaders … Well, I will ask HR and I’ll ask the supervisor exactly what is at stake for this individual? So I need to understand it first.

Amy Bastow:

So will they be demoted? Will they lose their job? Is this a performance plan? What is really at stake? And actually, the most common response I get is, we hadn’t actually thought about that. And so what I then encourage them to do is actually take some time to really think about, if this coaching is not to work, if this individual is not able to change their behaviors, what will be the consequences for them? Please, definitely confirm that in your mind. You need to know. And then once they’ve done that, then they need to take that leader aside, and in a supportive, but firm fashion, they need to explain to them that they would like to provide the opportunity of coaching to them because they are a real asset to the organization, and the organization wants to invest in them.

Amy Bastow:

Why this is coming up is because X, Y, Z. These behaviors are coming up. We’re seeing evidence of it here, here, here. And it’s having these specific impacts on the organization. We need you to know that if you are not able to change these, if you are not able to commit to this process, there will be consequences. The consequences to not participating are X, Y and Z. And that’s the most reasonable and fair way that you can set this up for a leader.

Amy Bastow:

So one, coming in with this is an opportunity. We believe in you. You are valuable to this organization. But you have to commit to growing in these areas, because it is having this impact, and we can’t allow that to happen anymore. So you’re providing reason. You’re providing a rational framework for them to understand the consequences of their own behavior and the consequences of actually not being open to trying to improve those behaviors.

Stephan:

What if the organization is not prepared, Amy, to have that conversation because they don’t want … So for example, if the outcome is of them not changing their behavior is that they have to be removed from the organization, maybe the organization is not prepared to do that because they are such a valuable contributor. Have you ever come across that where they’re like, we really don’t have much leverage here, we have to just kind of put up with it. Have you experienced that?

Amy Bastow:

I’ve come across it a few different times. And the suggestion from the organization is always to demote the person back to a role where they are an individual contributor. And then oftentimes, what they’ll do is they’ll try to move them into another department so that they’re not dealing with the same people that they were working with. Because typically they’ve muddied the waters and it’s pretty hard to come back from that if they’re not willing to try.

Amy Bastow:

So I would say that can be applied, that solution. Obviously, not ideal. I don’t think it’s ideal for most leaders. I think if you ask most, they are not interested in being demoted. They would like to continue in their leadership positions. So that’s not an ideal solution. One of the unfortunate side effects of such a solution can be that the leader will take that position, and then they will look for something else.

Stephan:

Yeah. That’s usually one of the big fears of the organization, I think he said earlier. Is that, because there’s such high contributors, they almost don’t want to rock the boat for fear of losing that person.

Amy Bastow:

You’re 100% right. It’s completely true. And oftentimes, it’s not completely the specific organization’s fault. Oftentimes, this person has exhibited these behaviors throughout their entire career, maybe even parts of their personal life. And they’ve been able to get away with it because they’ve been so talented that people just say, like the common things people would say, that’s just him. He’s just like that. And they make those excuses like, but he’s a genius. That’s typically what you’d hear. And so I remember an organization came to us, and they said, yeah, we have this CTO, and he’s not going to be open for this coaching you want to watch.

Amy Bastow:

This is what he typically does when he comes to a meeting. He’ll be there for about five minutes until he opens up his laptop and just starts typing. He doesn’t pay attention. And then who leaves early. And this individual thinks that coaching is just not for him, he doesn’t believe in it. You know what, he’s such a genius, it’s just him. Like, it’s just him and that’s how he is. So we just deal with the toxicity. And so that has been many organizations, that’s what they do. And then that person will leave that organization and go to another organization, causing similar issues. So you can’t always be blaming the single organization for the behaviors of that, that leader is exhibiting.

Stephan:

So in that case, though, where you explain the CTO, I believe it was, so the organization thought, that’s just the way he is, right? They’re complicit in the behavior and they just think, well, it’s just the way he is or she is. Is it not possible that their assumptions were wrong? That, that person wouldn’t be open to coaching? Like, have you encountered that where they thought, this person is not going to be open to coaching, but in the end, they are?

Amy Bastow:

Yes. And the way that I’ve seen that swing would be when the organization appeals to the leader as a high performance professional. Because oftentimes, these highly talented leaders are extraordinarily driven. We consider them to be, we call it driver. And that person deeply values success and advancement. And when you can frame the coaching in a way that it’s given as an opportunity for high performance individuals, then they’re often interested. They’re thinking, okay, well, I’m special. I deserve this. I’m a high performance professional. And this is going to be just an additional leg up in my career so I could advance further.

Amy Bastow:

To be honest with you, from a certain perspective, it is that. Organizations don’t invest in people who aren’t high performance. They just let them go. So if you have Someone who has tons of behavioral issues and is causing toxicity in an organization, and they’re also not delivering on results, and not seen as a subject matter expert, then they won’t stick around. The organization is only investing in people that they feel are incredibly talented. And they know if they could fix [inaudible 00:20:21] these behaviors, then they stand to be an incredible asset for the organization.

Amy Bastow:

So it really is a privilege, and that’s how we often help organizations to successfully present coaching in a way that they get buy in. Because the leader sees it as I am high performance, I am special, I deserve this, I would love this opportunity, I’m special. A common phrase that we’ll use, and forgive me, I don’t remember where this came from, its high performance athletes have coaches, so too should high performance professionals, and everyone gets that. Because oftentimes, these high performance professionals are often athletes as well. So then they connect to that message.

Stephan:

Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Excuse me. So let’s sort of recap. So the first step is they need to have this conversation, this difficult, challenging conversation with the leader that says, “Look, your job is potentially on the line here.” So that’s part A of the conversation. So now what I’m hearing is, part B is, and you’re a high performance, individual, and we want to support you in your development and in your growth so that you can continue to be a high performing, high contributing member of our organization. So that seems like a really good message to be delivering to make coaching very appealing.

Amy Bastow:

Absolutely. I would say another thing that’s extremely important about the way that we provide coaching is that we are providing an external individual from outside of the organization. This coach is someone who has either equivalent degrees or higher, has either equivalent or higher professional expertise. So it’s someone that this individual is going to believe is on their same level, they’re going to be able to build rapport and trust very easily with this person. And it’s important for the organization and also for us to make sure that that leader knows that this external individual is unbiased and they are on their side.

Amy Bastow:

Yes, the organization is paying for the coaching, but the coach is there to support the development of the leader. They’re 100% for the leader. They’re on their side, they’re on their team. And so having that also helps with them building a sense of trust around the engagement. That it’s not someone internal that has their own agenda, has their own biases towards them. This is not that.

Stephan:

Okay. Good point. I almost forget that that’s a distinct value that we deliver to our clients. It’s sort of like, yeah, that’s obvious to me. But I’m glad you mentioned that. So now let’s assume, let’s fast forward a little bit. The organization talks to the leader, the leader says, maybe 100% willingly, maybe with some apprehension, okay, I’m open to coaching. They connect with the coach, the coaching starts to kick off, then what happens next? How do you facilitate that process next with the organization?

Amy Bastow:

Sure. So what we like to do is we like to open up the coaching with a kickoff call. So we have a call where we have the sponsor, the direct supervisor, the leader receiving coaching, the coach, and then typically I facilitate these calls. And they’re just a great time for us to all connect, get to know all the parties involved who are supporting the success of this engagement, and then also really clearly outline the goals and key objectives. And look at how we’re going to measure the success of this engagement. How do we show that we’ve actually made progress? And sometimes, well, in the best instances, we can actually align that with specific business outcomes.

Amy Bastow:

And that’s what we typically will challenge organizations to do coming into that meeting, is to think about specific business outcomes that if the leader is to improve on these behaviors, it will impact them in a positive way. And that’s a great way for us to look at the ROI of coaching. And so that’s also a call where we talk about confidentiality. Confidentiality is extremely important. It is the trust that coaching is built on. And then we launched the coaching engagement. So typically what we do is we like to suggest that there is a psychometric that happens. So that can be an MBTI, it could be a Hogan, a DISC, an EQI.

Amy Bastow:

It’s typically of the preference from the organizations. Organizations have their own set of preferences to what assessments they like to use. And we also like to have the coaches chime in on that as well, because they’re a subject matter expert, and we want them after everything that they know about this individual to make a diagnostic recommendation for that assessment. Another thing that we love to do is to run a 360 or we launch what we call a stakeholder centered coaching process. I would say, for behavioral coaching, there’s no better method if the organization is open to it, which to be honest, not all are. But when they are, it is the most effective method.

Amy Bastow:

And that is where we actually have the leader and their supervisors, sponsor, work together to identify stakeholders in the organization, typically five to eight. Those are people who are impacted by the goals they’re looking to achieve on a day to day basis. They have a stake in this coaching. And so it’s not just the leader receiving coaching from the coach. No. It’s actually the stakeholders who are on a day to day basis are supporting the behavioral change with this leader. And it’s by then providing feedback. There is also a mini survey that’s involved in this process. And it’s a great way for us to then measure the success of the engagement at the end.

Stephan:

Now, assuming that the coaching then kicks off after the kickoff meeting and starts to take off, what kind of issues have you faced and have come up from there from anybody involved in that process? Whether it’s the coachee or the sponsor, what kind of things come up or have come up for you?

Amy Bastow:

Sure. That’s a great question. Just first comes to mind with the stakeholders that in our process, especially with an abrasive leader, they can be very intimidating. And so if a stakeholder is selected, they may not feel comfortable being a stakeholder. And they may want to opt out of the process, but they might feel very uncomfortable opting out as well. So that would be one of the complications that can occur. I would say another thing is, if the leader is not committed to the process, and that happens when they cancel sessions, or they don’t schedule sessions, there’s long breaks between the coaching. And also, the coach cannot be as …

Amy Bastow:

Potentially, the coach is not being as proactive as they should be in scheduling those sessions. And so I see that this is one of our roles to make sure that we’re seeing regular sessions happen. So we do have a process manager here at Noomii who does track sessions, regularly checked in with the coach to make sure that the leader is doing their coaching sessions on a regular basis. It’s really important to keep up the momentum in the coaching.

Stephan:

And then if they’re not, what do you do?

Amy Bastow:

Well, if they’re not, then we talk to the coach. And we also reach out to the organization and want to keep them in the loop in terms of what’s happening, and typically involves a conversation between HR and the individual to see what’s up, what’s going on. Why are they dissipating? Are they not finding value? Now, another thing that we’ve also incorporated in our process, which organizations really love, is a post-survey. So currently, it’s every three sessions, we send a leader a survey, and the survey is a coaching satisfaction survey. And so it will ask them questions like, does your coach have the expertise to help you achieve your goals? Does your coach or do you feel adequately challenged by your coach?

Amy Bastow:

So these are the sorts of questions you would ask. That’s really important because as an engagement progresses, an engagement can go from one focus and then actually shift to another focus. And when it shifts to another focus because things are rapidly changing within a business, then unfortunately, sometimes that coach doesn’t have the expertise to build trust with that leader in that way. So we need to be monitoring the success of how those leaders are being tracked, so that the leader continues to feel engaged and involved in the process, dedicated to the success of the process.

Stephan:

And have there ever been cases where you end up speaking directly to the coachee to assess or help them with any anxiety they might have about the coaching?

Amy Bastow:

Of course. Ideally, I love to get on the phone with the coachee, the leader, when we are actually launching the engagement. So when we’re looking to find those coaches, I feel that it’s extraordinarily valuable for me to get on the phone and speak with them. It does a few different things. One, it takes it from this, kind of like a case on paper that I’ve just seen, this very flat sort of human being, and allows me to see the complexities of who they are, and to see them as a human being. It connects me to want to really drive the success of that engagement.

Amy Bastow:

Also, it allows me to get a sense of the type of coach that will work really well with them. And so when the opportunity presents itself, it’s really valuable. And I always encourage organizations to have the leader speak with us first before finding them coaches. That also establishes a relationship between Noomii and the leader as this unbiased third party here dedicated to their success. So if there’s something going on with the coach, if there’s something going on that they’re just not feeling good about, then they feel that it’s okay to come to us and ask for our support in terms of how to navigate that situation.

Stephan:

Is that because the coach isn’t supposed to be an unbiased third-party as well

Amy Bastow:

So the coach is an unbiased third-party, but they’re also connected to that individual. And so if the individual is feeling unsure about the coach after they’ve been coaching with them for some time, they’re unlikely to voice their actual concerns to the coach. Because they have a sense of relationship for them and they would need to confront the coach. It’s just unlikely. And so they’re much more likely to feel comfortable to come to us and say, you know what, it’s been great. I think, though, that my coaching is now moving in another direction. I think I need more support in this area. How can we figure that out? How can we navigate this?

Stephan:

And does that mean replacing the coach? Or does that mean talking to the coach and saying, hey, can you do something differently? Or maybe both? Is it case by case?

Amy Bastow:

It’s definitely case by case. First and foremost, we definitely would want to go to the coach and have a conversation to really understand from their perspective what’s happening. We’d also want to talk to the supervisor in the organization to get their perspective. So we want to make sure that we have like a full range of perspective so we understand what’s the best next move. To be honest, sometimes it is replacing the coach. Sometimes that’s just the next best move. And sometimes it’s not. But definitely, we are completely open to that if it means that the engagement will be more successful because we are completely dedicated to the success of our clients.

Stephan:

So now let’s talk about the success and the results. What do the people in the organization report back to you? So whether it’s the HR manager or the supervisors of those leaders, what do you hear back? What do they say?

Amy Bastow:

Well, I just want to be really transparent and honest, that not every engagement with a toxic leader is a home run. I would say that most are. There are some outliers. But speaking for the majority of organizations that we work with, I would say that the feedback we get is, this person is thinking in a different way. They are now showing up respectively. They are participating actively in discussions. They are allowing others to speak. They have been promoted. I think that’s the best case scenario. This person is now promoted, or this person … This is actually an exact quote. “This individual went from a real concern to a true asset in this organization.”

Amy Bastow:

I find that there’s nothing more impactful than hearing those stories. One story that I found was absolutely incredible. We had an individual who was on the verge of actually going on a performance plan, which means that they’re likely to be let go from the organization. And within six months of coaching, they were awarded manager of the year from their organization. So it’s those sorts of stories that really drive our dedication to what we’re doing, because we see the impact of the organization. And we also understand that impact on that individual leader is one thing, but there’s also a direct impact on each and every member of their team.

Amy Bastow:

And so when you have a leader who went from being arrogant, volatile, angry, could be considered a bully, to someone who has this new perspective on, I’m not here to manage people, I’m here to develop people, I understand that by being respectful and kind and listening to people, that I will have allies on my side who will help me achieve that goal that’s so important to me, then those members of the team then feel heard, they feel respected.

Amy Bastow:

And they typically get more interesting projects to work on, because that leader starts to let go some of the things they’ve been holding on to and start to trust their team more. So they’re developing people around them, they’re building succession plans, but they’re also improving the wellness of their organization. And then obviously, there’s a huge trickle down effect from that, people go home happy. So it’s really impactful.

Stephan:

Well, and it also leads to more coaching, doesn’t it, many times?

Amy Bastow:

It does. I would say that it would be very atypical for us to work with an organization and not continue to work with that organization. We typically … I have to edit this part, Stephan. I’m sorry. I would say it’s very uncommon. It’s very uncommon that if we were to launch an engagement with an organization, a single engagement, that we wouldn’t get more. It’s always the case that, okay, we’ve seen a lot of success, well, could you work with so and so now? And can you work with them now? And then you get people putting up their hands, well, I saw that so and so coaching. I would also like coaching, too. I mean, that’s the best case scenario, and we can spread awareness of coaching in organizations.

Stephan:

Yeah. But in a way that the organization, this is what I was hearing, with that organization, it’s so obvious to them that there’s a positive ROI there.

Amy Bastow:

Exactly. We don’t want to just provide coaching for the sake of coaching, we want the organization to see a direct impact. And it shouldn’t just be in the behavior, it should be that that behavior then causes a business outcome that is positive.

Stephan:

So to recap, what you’ve said here with the things we’ve discussed, just a few of them, obviously, there’s a lot of detail here. But really important is that very first initial conversation with the leader to let them know what the consequences are of behavior change, or rather, not of changing their behavior. And also treating it as a real positive. Demonstrating that you’re willing to invest in them because they are a high performer. And then also, once you get that engagement going, it’s really critical that all the parties are involved.

Stephan:

So you’ve got the supervisor, you’ve got the sponsor, the coachee, the coach, get everyone on a call together to kick it off. Get really clear about what the expectations are, how success will be measured, and to maintain that communication throughout the engagement so everybody knows how progress is occurring. And then of course, at the end, I guess, high-fiving and celebrating that success. Any final thoughts, Amy, for anybody who is currently dealing with a toxic or abrasive leader within their organization?

Amy Bastow:

I would say that don’t wait too long before reaching out for a coach. I have often found that organizations wait until the last moment to reach out to a coach when there’s so much damage done and it’s so hard to go backwards. It’s so hard to repair. So if you look at, I mean, it’s pretty simple math, look at how much it’s going to cost to replace that person. Because whether they are terminated from the organization or demoted, there will need to be a replacement, which means training time, recruiting, all these sorts of things. And then look at the cost of coaching, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the investment you make in replacing someone. And that organizations really need to invest in their people.

Amy Bastow:

I think probably the most important thing that I’ve learned through our time working with abrasive leaders, would be that they’re often not aware of the impact they have on others. So it is a responsibility of their organization to make sure that they have the opportunity to understand what that impact is. And it is not a simple conversation one time between HR and the leader. It takes time for that understanding to take root in the leader and for them to actually be open to really internalizing the impact they have on people.

Amy Bastow:

With the exception of probably one in my entire career, these are good people. They don’t have oftentimes an understanding of the impact they’re having. Or it’s just literally not something that comes into the way that they think. It’s not their communication model, and so they’re rubbing up against others in a different way because they’re typically drivers. And so organizations need to really think of them as people and that this is more complex than just a toxic leader. And that if they are open to learning and being open to being vulnerable, then they can actually make great transformations. I know because I’ve seen it over and over.

Stephan:

Fantastic. Thank you, Amy. It’s been a great and great contribution to our series on toxic leadership. And have a great day.

Amy Bastow:

Thank you so much, Stephan. Pleasure.