A rookie workplace anti-bullying activist scores a win in Oregon

Oregon legislation adopted in 2023

Recently I heard from Misty Orlando, a workplace anti-bullying activist in Oregon, who shared with me her story of advocacy before her state legislature. Ultimately, thanks to her efforts and those of her fellow activists, last year the State of Oregon enacted a directive to the state’s labor department to develop a “model respectful workplace policy” that can be adopted voluntarily by employers (link here).

Their goal was much more ambitious. They wanted to see the enactment of more full-fledged protections against workplace bullying for all of Oregon’s workers. Instead, Oregon adopted language directing the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to:

• “prepare a model respectful workplace policy that employers may adopt,” taking “into consideration existing respectful workplace policies”; and,
• “create informational materials that identify the harms to employees and employers caused by workplace bullying and make the materials available to employers.”

I greatly enjoyed my conversation with Misty and salute her and fellow activists for their work. This was their first go-round in advocating for workplace anti-bullying laws. Their efforts reinforce what we’ve seen in other states, namely, greater legislative receptivity to proposals concerning employer education and optional policies about workplace bullying, rather than favorably regarding new laws making workplace bullying an unlawful employment practice.

Nevertheless, this represents a step forward, and serves as a testament to effective citizen advocacy.

Let’s safeguard free speech, while learning how to engage in more constructive conversations about difficult topics

Video screenshot: Program speaker Prof. Nadine Strossen is seated immediately to the right of the podium, with DY on the left. Suffolk U. Law Review editor-in-chief Sara Levien is at the podium, opening the program. We are joined by a panel of Suffolk law students.

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure of moderating a program on freedom of speech and expression, featuring Professor Nadine Strossen (Emerita, New York Law School), former President of the American Civil Liberties Union. The program was part of the Donahue Lecture Series sponsored by the Suffolk University Law Review. As a faculty co-advisor to the Law Review, I was delighted to be a part of this event.

In planning the program, Professor Strossen, an internationally recognized authority on free speech, suggested that we cast aside the typical lecture format and create a more interactive conversation. So we started with an interview that I conducted, followed by questions from a panel of Suffolk law students, and concluding with questions and comments from our audience.

The event was a tremendous success. Before an overflow room of attendees, and sparked by Prof. Strossen’s thoughtful, insightful, and engaged remarks and responses, as well as great questions from our student panelists, the program made for a lively 75-minute exchange. You can watch the full event by clicking here.

Prof. Strossen offered passionate defenses of free speech, while carefully dissecting the legal implications of speech and expression in various public sector and private sector settings. You can read a brief summary of some of her major points here. And if you’d like a very informative and accessible primer on speech protections in the U.S., then I happily recommend her 2023 book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford U. Press).

But wait, there’s another big thing to consider!

I have long been in general agreement with Nadine Strossen’s embrace of freedom of speech. And especially during times like this, safeguarding free speech — subject to reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting defamation, fraud, or targeted harassment and abuse — is of paramount importance toward maintaining an open, democratic society.

In addition to protecting the sanctity of free speech, we all should learn and practice how to converse and listen more constructively. Whether one regards speech as a right or privilege, we have an obligation to exercise it responsibly.

By this, I’m not suggesting the adoption of intrusive speech codes. Nor should we jump all over something that isn’t said in just the right way, in just the right tone. Furthermore, there are instances where righteous anger may be a proper, or at least very understandable, response to deeply offensive or hurtful speech.

Rather, I mean coaching ourselves, and encouraging others, to engage in conversations on sensitive and difficult topics with as much respect and empathy as we can muster.

In addition, exercising self-restraint (which I do not necessarily equate with self-censorship) may be appropriate at times. After all, just because we’re allowed to say something a certain way doesn’t mean we should always do so.

Equally important, we should actively listen to what others have to say, and at least try to understand points of view that may seem opposite of our own. With that kind of listening, we see possibilities for genuine exchange, discovery of unexpected common ground, and perhaps even changing one’s understanding of, or position on, an important issue.

By the way, I fully confess that I have not always followed the precepts I am preaching. Everything I’m suggesting here is easier said than done.

Back to our Donahue Lecture

I was so pleased that the Donahue Lecture was an exemplar of engaging and respectful conversation about difficult and important topics. The event also meant a lot to me personally, as many moons ago, Prof. Strossen was my supervising professor in the Civil Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, her first academic appointment before moving on to become a constitutional law professor at the New York Law School. Her warmth, intelligence, and student-centered focus were evident then and now, and I was proud to be able to show off our wonderful students at Suffolk Law.

Prior to the event, several student editors of the Law Review shared with me their understandable concern that someone might try to use this occasion to stage a protest in support of their views on some controversial public issue. After all, we’ve seen news accounts of such disruptions at other universities, at times requiring an event to be discontinued in midstream. But I assured them I was confident that, between the professionalism of our guest speaker, our students, and other attendees, I was not concerned about such a possibility.

This was no statement of false bravado. As I planned how to moderate the event, I did consider potential responses should a situation threaten to get out of hand. But I wasn’t girding myself for anything uncomfortable to arise. I had faith that our event would be an example of healthy and informed dialogue. I was so happy that it more than met my expectations.

A veteran cohort of the workplace anti-bullying movement gathers in Boston

View of the Boston Common and the Park Street Church, from our meeting room at Suffolk U Law School in downtown Boston

From last Wednesday through Saturday, I had the pleasure of bringing together in Boston a remarkable group of friends and colleagues for some in-depth conversations about the past, present, and future of the workplace anti-bullying movement and the work that we’ve been doing as part of it.

This gathering was rather improvised, and the final schedule didn’t come together until right before the out-of-towners arrived in Boston. It was precipitated by a decision to move the Nov. 2023 Work, Stress, and Health Conference (WSH) to an online format, a switch from original plans to host it as an in-person event. This biennial conference — co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Society for Occupational Health Psychology — has long been one of my favorite events. My experiences at WSH in 2015, for example, moved me to write a blog article, “Conferences as community builders” (link here).

To Boston

My biggest disappointment about WSH’s switch to the online format was that I wouldn’t get to spend quality, in-person time with my fellow presenters. The pandemic had prevented many of us from being together for some time. (The last in-person WSH Conference was in November 2019, months before everything changed.) Over the years, during shared meals and chats between sessions, these conferences have allowed us to share ideas and suggest possible collaborations in ways that Zoom events don’t easily provide.

But then I came up with the idea of inviting my fellow panelists to Boston, where we could create our own little workshop. This would include mixing our online participation in the WSH Conference with some reflective, in-person discussions about the work we’ve been doing and hope to do. We could add in meals together and a few social events. I also saw this as an opportunity to invite some local workplace anti-bullying activists to join us for a session.

Our group included:

• Attorney Ellen Pinkos Cobb, author of global surveys of workplace bullying and harassment laws and a recent volume on psychosocial work hazards;
• Dr. Maureen Duffy, preeminent authority on workplace mobbing behaviors and co-author of leading books on mobbing and related behaviors;
• Dr. Gary Namie, director and co-founder, Workplace Bullying Institute;
• Dr. Ruth Namie, co-founder, Workplace Bullying Institute; and,
• Dr. Kathleen Rospenda, U. of Illinois/Chicago psychology professor and pioneering researcher on the health harms of sexual harassment and generalized harassment (i.e., bullying) at work.

Prompted by a suggestion from Kathy Rospenda, we spent big chunks of our four days together discussing the history, present state, and potential future of this work. We were especially attentive to how we, as veterans among this community of researchers, educators, practitioners, and advocates, could maximize our potential contributions during the years to come. By my estimation, our discussions enveloped a collective 135+ years of experience in addressing various aspects of workplace abuse and mistreatment — via academic research and writing, therapy and coaching, organizational consulting, legal and legislative advocacy, and public education.

As the de facto moderator of our workshop, I suggested that we frame our discussions around a SWOT analysis, an evaluative tool that involves analyzing an entity’s (S)trengths, (W)eaknesses, (O)pportunities, and (T)hreats. It turned out to be an excellent way to tease out broad themes, specific details, and unrecognized patterns — some tracing back for over 25 years. Our conversations culminated in identifying concrete areas where each of us can focus our efforts. During the months to come, you’ll be reading about some of these initiatives here.

On Friday, we were joined by five individuals who are playing leadership roles in addressing workplace bullying in their respective domains here in the Bay State:

• Susan Rohrbach (Co-Coordinator, MA Healthy Workplace Advocates);
• Brittany Tuttle (Steering Committee, MA Healthy Workplace Advocates);
• Rich Couture (President, American Federation of Government Employees, Council 215);
• Jessica Lapointe (President, American Federation of Government Employees Council 220); and,
• Steven Lawrence (Professor, Benjamin Franklin Cummings Institute of Technology).

We were delighted to welcome these local leaders to our conversation. Whether supporting the Healthy Workplace Bill before the Massachusetts legislature, tackling workplace mistreatment on behalf of union locals, or advocating for greater awareness about bullying at work within their own organizations, they inspired us with their commitment and energy.

As mentioned above, we members of this veteran cohort have been doing this work for many years. It is noteworthy, however, that never before had any of us sat down with a group of long-time colleagues to assess progress made and to plan tasks awaiting us. We shared insights, observations, hypotheses, and more than a few stories. In addition to sharpening and refreshing our focus, this gathering meant much to us personally. It had a therapeutic effect. For readers who are part of smaller groups or communities united around common concerns or causes, perhaps this will inspire you to plan similar gatherings.

***

Our conversations during this workshop inevitably brought us back to the early days of this movement. On that note, Ruth and Gary Namie share honors for their leadership roles in bringing the term and concept of workplace bullying into the U.S. employee relations nomenclature. In 2022, I interviewed Gary and Ruth about their origin stories, as part of the Workplace Bullying Institute’s podcast series, which you may access here.

 

From genocide to bullying, may remembrance inspire our commitment

The social media image that most commanded my attention on Friday morning was a photo of Otto Frank, father of Anne Frank, taken in May 1960, on the day that the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam was first opened to the public. Otto Frank was the only member of his immediate family to survive the Nazi concentration camps. Daughters Anne and Margot, and wife Edith, all perished before they could be liberated.

Staring at that photograph, I tried to imagine what was going through Mr. Frank’s mind. But I understood that I could never truly comprehend his experience and the journey that brought him back to the place where he, his family, and four other Jewish residents spent some two years in hiding before they were discovered and eventually transported to Auschwitz.

Remembrance

And yet, even if we do not share direct memories of the Holocaust, maintaining a collective sense of remembrance, buoyed by historical literacy, is central to our understanding of how humans can engage in seemingly unthinkable atrocities. Indeed, I believe that the Nazi genocide is a key starting place for grasping our capacity for cruelty. As I wrote eight years ago:

We need to understand the Holocaust because there is no more documented, memorialized, and analyzed chapter of widespread, deliberate, orchestrated human atrocity in our history. If we want to grasp how human beings in a “modern” era can inflict horrific cruelties on others  — systematically and interpersonally — then the Holocaust is at the core of our understanding.

Despite the ample historical record, we may be losing our collective memory of the Holocaust, at least in the U.S. In 2018, Julie Zauzmer reported for the Washington Post:

Two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.

Twenty-two percent of millennials in the poll said they haven’t heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they’ve heard of it — twice the percentage of U.S. adults as a whole who said the same.

. . . Asked to identify what Auschwitz is, 41 percent of respondents and 66 percent of millennials could not come up with a correct response identifying it as a concentration camp or extermination camp.

From genocide to bullying

Years ago, as I began my deeper dives into the dynamics of bullying and mobbing at work, I looked to the nature of genocidal behavior for understanding the eliminationist instincts that appear to be present in attempts to force someone out of a workplace and even wreck their careers. I took these steps somewhat gingerly, because I wasn’t sure of the appropriateness of comparing genocides to even the worst kinds of workplace mistreatment. You might sense these tentative steps in what I wrote back in 2011:

Do the individual and collective behaviors of the Holocaust help us to understand severe, targeted, personally destructive workplace bullying?

The question has been discussed within the workplace anti-bullying movement and requires respectful contemplation. I am well aware of the casual overuse of references to Hitler and the Nazis in our popular culture, especially in today’s overheated political discourse. Moreover, I acknowledge the dangers of comparing anything to the Holocaust, an outrage so profound that it is nearly impossible to fathom but for the abundant factual record.

Nevertheless, I have steeped myself in the experiences and literature of workplace bullying, and I have read many works about the Holocaust. Although the two forms of mistreatment are hardly equivalent — even the worst forms of workplace bullying are a world away from genocide — there are real connections between them.

I credit two important individuals for helping to validate my hesitantly shared belief that genocide and bullying exist together on a spectrum, connected by common human toxicities and failings.

First, Barbara Coloroso is an internationally recognized authority on school bullying whose work has also extended into the realm of human rights generally. In her book Extraordinary Evil: A Short Walk to Genocide (2007), she recounted how she used a talk at the University of Rwanda to explain “how it was a short walk from schoolyard bullying to criminal bullying (hate crime) to genocide,” invoking the roles of aggressor, bullying target, and bystander.

Second, Dr. Edith Eger is a noted trauma therapist, author, and Auschwitz survivor. At a conference in 2017, I had the bracing task of immediately following her eloquent keynote speech with my presentation about workplace bullying and mobbing. Looking periodically at Dr. Edie (as she is known) as she sat in the front row, I shared with everyone my unease about comparing the Holocaust to work abuse, especially in the presence of someone who had survived the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. Thankfully, when I finished my talk, Dr. Edie applauded enthusiastically and gave me a warm nod of approval. I was both relieved and honored by her response.

Commitment

In the realm of employment relations, we often use the terms workplace bullying and workplace incivility as a matched pair, with some differentiating them only slightly by severity and intention. However, I’ve come to regard workplace bullying, mobbing, and related behaviors as being closer in essential character to the even more virulent behaviors that target people for abuse or extinction en masse. The degree and extent of harm may vary greatly, but the driving psychological and social forces bear many likenesses.

Indeed, over the years, the worst accounts of workplace mistreatment that I’ve known of have had nothing to do with incompetent management or everyday incivilities. Rather, they’ve typically shared a malicious intention to diminish, undermine, and harm someone, to drive them out of the organization, and perhaps even to destroy their ability to earn a living. In each of these instances, an eliminationist instinct has been very present, usually enabled and protected by institutional cultures.

Ultimately, all behaviors on this spectrum of cruelty and toxic abuse of power demand our responses. Thus, remembrance should inspire our ongoing commitment to understand and address these behaviors, wherever they may appear. 

For my part, I’ll continue my research, writing, and advocacy on workplace bullying and related topics. That work is a lifelong commitment. In addition, the contemplations offered above, some of which draw upon previous writings posted to this blog, represent some early thinking steps towards a more ambitious project that examines the varied manifestations of cruelty and abuse and assesses how law and public policy have responded to them. My objective is to contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of the differences and commonalities among these forms of severe mistreatment and what we can do about them.

On creative destruction, radical disruption, and other extreme makeovers

Usually not the answer (image courtesy of clipart-library.com)

During the past few weeks, I’ve been giving some thought to two radical ideas that are floating around out in our public discourse.

One is coming from the far right: An organizing effort to hold a new Constitutional Convention, presumably to radically remake the U.S. Constitution. In the extreme right-wing fantasy mode, this would include removing federal authority to regulate things like environmental safety, health care, workers’ and civil rights, and various social and economic safety net provisions. As Carl Hulse reports for the New York Times:

Representative Jodey Arrington, a conservative Texas Republican, believes it is well past time for something the nation has not experienced for more than two centuries: a debate over rewriting the Constitution.

“I think the states are due a convention,” said Mr. Arrington, who in July introduced legislation to direct the archivist of the United States to tally applications for a convention from state legislatures and compel Congress to schedule a gathering when enough states have petitioned for one. “It is time to rally the states and rein in Washington responsibly.”

To Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society, a liberal judicial group, that is a terrible idea. Mr. Feingold sees the prospect of a constitutional convention as an exceptionally dangerous threat from the right and suggests it is closer to reality than most people realize as Republicans push to retake control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

The second idea I’ve been pondering is coming from the far left: It’s a call, well, to abolish work. I’m not talking about instituting a 4-day work week, or beefing up unemployment benefits, or tackling stuff like bullying and harassment. These folks literally want to end work, while assuming that all of life’s necessities will somehow be provided for. Nicole Froio advances the idea for Yes! magazine:

What if we abolished the institution of work?

If we were not required to work to pay for basic rights, such as food, shelter, and water, could we embrace radical solutions to change the current state of our society?

…Online, the rejection of the idea of work itself is a growing trend across social media platforms. . . . One TikToker’s message—“Fuck this, I don’t want to work for the rest of my life :(”—received thousands of likes and comments in agreement. On Twitter, where the constant barrage of negative news is constantly dissected and commented on, posters point out how capitalism keeps marching on despite the unconscionable tragedies we’ve all had to digest in the past two and a half years….On Reddit, the “antiwork” community (the r/antiwork subreddit) has 2 million subscribers who can easily access an online library about the abolition of work and exchange experiences with each other about the jobs they don’t want to do. The motto of this subreddit, whose members call themselves “idlers,” is “Unemployment for all, not just the rich!”

Personally, I’m much more concerned about a radical Constitutional Convention fueled by conspiracy-loving extremists than the highly unlikely prospect of everyone suddenly deciding to stop working. On the former, I believe we are in a precarious time as a working democracy. On the latter, while fully recognizing that our world of work needs fixing (my main focus for decades), I have not encountered any viable proposal that replaces working for pay.

In any event, the common threads between these ideas and others at the margins are the superficially attractive notions of “creative destruction,” “blowing things up,” “radical disruption,” and “starting all over” — all so we can get it just right this time.

Such thinking can be enormously appealing when the status quo seems deeply flawed. I’ve felt that way about certain matters myself.

But hold on a minute. What makes us think that we can do a clean sweep and nail the remake simply because, hey, we’re here?

There are many problems with the let’s-blow-it-up mentality.

First, calls for extreme makeovers are often driven by extreme points of view that aren’t deeply shared by the wide swath of people. Quick, dramatic fixes have great superficial attraction, especially when compared to the toil of digging into the nuances of complicated problems. They may sound especially attractive to those who aren’t thinking critically and who assume that only good can result from these efforts.

Second, when inflexible and/or extreme views prompt radical change, they often ignore or overlook the realities of unanticipated bad consequences. When anyone assumes a superior level of knowledge that justifies turning everything upside down and starting all over again, it’s usually wise to slow down and start asking questions.

Finally, extreme proposals for change tend to neglect collateral damage, by disregarding or minimizing the costs to those whose lives and circumstances are upended in the process. This encourages a sort of casual “othering” that easily dismisses the interests of those who are not in our core circles.

Given a choice, I usually prefer evolution to revolution, guided by courage, kindness, foresight, and wisdom. I have been an advocate for change for as long as I can remember, and that journey has taught me — sometimes by reckoning with my own erroneous assumptions — that most serious public challenges are multifaceted in nature and require thoughtful responses based on an understanding of systems and human imperfections.

I realize that I’m talking in somewhat abstract terms here. But if this prompts you to ask questions of, and require details from, the next person who bellows that it’s time for an extreme makeover that starts from scratch, then I will consider this short writing to be a successful one.

On making a difference through writing

On this day of remembrance here in the U.S., I thought I’d pull together a collection of past articles related to the theme of writing, especially those forms designed to make a difference in this world — which, when you think about it, is the larger contribution of just about all good writing. And, of course, the earliest piece starts with coffee.

Using scholarship to make a difference (2020) (link here) — “When I first became a law professor, I was skeptical about the potential of legal scholarship to influence law reform. My intention was to do scholarship in sufficient volume and quality to earn tenure, and then to pursue writing and activist projects that didn’t involve lots of citations and footnotes.”

The privileges of creating a “body of work” (2019) (link here) — “Four years ago, I wrote about Pamela Slim‘s Body of Work: Finding the Thread That Ties Your Story Together (2013), which invites us to examine — in the author’s words — ‘the personal legacy you leave at the end of your life, including all the tangible and intangible things you have created’…”

On the social responsibilities of writers (2019) (link here) — “I’d like to take a Sunday dive into the nature of writing to fuel positive individual and social change. This may be especially relevant to readers who write about fostering psychologically healthier workplaces that are free from bullying, mobbing, and abuse.”

Even Shakespeare had a writing circle (2017) (link here) — “It was an interesting exhibition, and here’s what specially caught my eye: Shakespeare was part of a writing circle — Elizabethan style!”

Author Jenna Blum: “I didn’t become a writer to not say what I believe in” (link here) — “On Saturday, Jenna was the featured speaker for a program hosted by the Boston chapter of the Women’s National Book Association, speaking on the ‘crucial role of women’s literary voices in literature in the current political climate, and the fusing of art, writing, and activism.'”

How do you take and keep notes? (2017) (link here) — “At annual board meetings and workshops of the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies network in New York City, I’ve taken delight in watching peace educator Janet Gerson‘s use of hardcover sketchbooks to take and preserve her notes, as well as to host her artistic forays and distractions.”

Three great authors on writing to make a difference (2015) (link here) — “For fresh, inspiring outlooks on the uses of writing and scholarship to make a difference, I often listen to voices outside of mainstream academe. Here I happily gather together three individuals, Ronald Gross, Mary Pipher, and John Ohliger, whose names I have invoked previously on this blog.”

Embracing creative dreams at midlife (2010, rev. 2018) (link here) — “Hilda’s desire to write novels was evident in college, but getting married, raising a family in Valparaiso, and becoming a high school English teacher would come first. However, she never let go of the idea of a writing life, and over the years she would exchange ideas, essays, and chapter drafts with friends and family members.”

Intellectual activism and social change (2013) (link here) — “For some time I’ve been studying a topic that I’ve labeled ‘intellectual activism,’ the practice of using scholarly research and writing to inform, shape, and influence social change initiatives.”

Mary Pipher on Writing to Change the World (2012) (link here) — “For all in this broad category, Mary Pipher’s Writing to Change the World (2006) is instructive and inspirational. Pipher is a bestselling author and therapist. Her book reflects upon the uses of writing to make a positive difference.”

Collegiate reflections: Working on the campus newspaper (2012) (link here) — “The Torch was the most important extracurricular experience of my college career. The topics of my articles and columns were limited largely to campus issues, but even this was heady business for me. There was something powerful and scary about writing pieces for publication with my byline appended.”

Coffee and work (2011) (link here) — “Coffee seems to be especially associated with writers. Crookes invokes J.K. Rowling, Marina Fiorato, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, and Malcolm Gladwell as examples of writers drawn to cafes and coffee shops to do their work.”

Storytelling to change the world: Skip the PowerPoint?

From the Harvard Business Review

Writer and communication coach Carmine Gallo, writing on “What the Best Presenters Do Differently” for the Harvard Business Review (link here), reminds us of the importance of storytelling in trying to reach an audience:

Our minds are wired for story. We think in narrative and enjoy consuming content in story form.

Understanding the difference between presenting and storytelling is critical to a leader’s ability to engage an audience and move them to action. Unfortunately, presentation software often gets in the way. Slides should be designed to complement a story, not to replace the storyteller.

Gallo offers five core pieces of advice, and I’d recommend the full article for anyone who wants to dive into the detail. For this post, however, I want to emphasize Gallo’s first point: “Presenters open PowerPoint. Storytellers craft a narrative.” He adds:

If you want to engage your audience, you have to tell a story. But for most people who prepare presentations, storytelling is not top of mind.

Most “presenters” do what sounds logical: They begin by opening the slideware. But most presentation programs aren’t storytelling tools. They’re digital delivery mechanisms. PowerPoint’s default template asks for a title and text.

A bulleted list is not a story. A story is a connected series of events told through words and/or pictures. A story has a theme, attention-grabbing moments, heroes and villains, and a satisfying conclusion. Nicely designed slides cannot compensate for a poorly structured story.

OK, I’m biased. I’m a frequent public speaker, and I tend to get very positive feedback on talks before groups, both in-person and online. I think this has something to do with my not using PowerPoint.

Even when I’m not telling a story per se, I’m trying to educate and persuade an audience, typically about workplace bullying, dignity at work, or workers and workplaces generally. If an audience doesn’t know me, then I also have to establish my credibility and personal appeal, in addition to offering my content. Which brings me to…

…Aristotle’s On Rhetoric

In his work On Rhetoric, Aristotle — one of the greatest of the Ancient Greek philosophers — outlined three major properties of speech for purposes of persuasion:

• Logos, or the core logic of the speaker’s argument;
• Ethos, or the speaker’s essential credibility; and,
• Pathos, or the speaker’s emotional appeal.

Of these three properties, logos can be translated into PowerPoint content, but ethos and pathos come from the speaker. The latter are harder to convey when the lights are dimmed and folks are gazing at slides flashing by on a screen. After all, one’s credibility and personal appeal come from developing a rapport with an audience.

In a typical 10-20 minute presentation, that means making a personal connection quickly. It’s still vitally important even if you have the stage for, say, 30-60 minutes.

Looking at those classic Greek philosophers, would Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, or Homer have used PowerPoint had such wiz-bang technology been available back in their day? Maybe, but if so, they would’ve done so sparingly, I think. In Homer’s case, I think he would’ve stuck to the tried-and-true oral tradition.

I understand the usefulness of PowerPoint and similar platforms for presenting content. They can be very useful for certain types of teaching, as well. But if a speaker wants to persuade rather than merely inform, then I believe the Aristotelian properties of logos, ethos, and pathos counsel in favor of pulling up the screen and looking at one’s audience in the eye.

***

Related posts

• Stories can drive change, but workplace bullying stories often defy quick summaries (2016) (link here)
• Storytelling for social change (2015) (link here)

Sharing insights about workplace bullying and mobbing in SafeHarbor, Part I

During the past few months, I’ve become a regular visitor and contributor to SafeHarbor (link here), the online site created last year by Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, to serve as “a community dedicated to the people affected by workplace bullying and those devoted to helping them.” Especially for those who are experiencing or recovering from bullying or mobbing at work, I give this site my fulsome recommendation.

SafeHarbor has quickly grown into a respectful and supportive patch of the internet, with several hundred people becoming members. I have been impressed and downright touched by the depth of humanity demonstrated over and again by SafeHarbor participants. 

I’m going to say more about SafeHarbor in subsequent blog posts. For now, I’m also going to start sharing some of the pieces that I’ve posted for folks there, based on the tenor and subject matter of conversations that are occurring. Here’s the first round:

• Viktor Frankl on finding meaning in the face of great adversity (2016) (link here)
• Helping targets of workplace bullying: The need for an integrated counseling approach (2010, rev. 2021) (link here)
• When a promotion leads to a body snatching (2015) (link here)
• Professional schools as incubators for workplace bullying (2012; rev. 2019) (link here)
• Ruminating, problem solving, and coping in the midst of work abuse (2018) (link here)
• Workplace bullying: Acknowledging grief (2017) (link here)
• Captain Ahab of “Moby-Dick”: Workplace trauma sufferer, bullying boss, or both? (2020) (link here)
• Triple jeopardy: Workplace bullying at midlife (2013) (link here)
• Applying Psychological First Aid to workplace bullying and mobbing (2019) (link here)
• Lessons from “Spotlight” for combating interpersonal abuse (2017  ) (link here)
• On following evil orders at work (2019) (link here)
• “Should I stay or should I go?” Career insights from Seth Godin and The Clash (2011) (link here)

If you’re recovering from bullying or mobbing at work, consider SafeHarbor

Those who have experienced workplace bullying or mobbing often find themselves in search of helpful, authoritative guidance and support for responding to, and recovering from, their situations. Now, the Workplace Bullying Institute and its co-founder, Dr. Gary Namie, have launched SafeHarbor (link here), “a community dedicated to the people affected by workplace bullying and those devoted to helping them.” Initial membership is free-of-charge, and those who join may take part in facilitated discussions and groups, as well as interact on a one-to-one basis.

From the SafeHarbor website, these are the offerings:

• • Valuable, ongoing content and discussions related to workplace bullying

  • Mindfully curated role-focused groups

  • One-on-one introduction to members with overlapping interests

  • Regular online meetings with Gary on topics that matter to you and your work

  • Direct messaging with fellow members

  • Affordable Courses for Survivors, Mental Health and Legal Professionals, Union Reps, Advocates, and Stakeholders

Finding the right helping modalities in response to work abuse is a very individualized matter. SafeHarbor could well be a life-changing point of contact for those who have been targeted. To date, some 270 people have become part of this important and exciting initiative.

Recent related posts

On peer support groups for those who have experienced workplace bullying and mobbing (2019; rev. 2021) (link here) — “With all this in mind, I decided to gather together some resources and suggestions that may be useful to those who are participating in peer support groups for targets, especially those who are organizing and facilitating them.”

“How can I make a living doing workplace anti-bullying work?” (2019) (link here) — “Over the past few months, I’ve had several conversations and exchanges with folks about options for making a living doing workplace anti-bullying work. My upshot? One should look to incorporate workplace bullying and mobbing projects and initiatives into an existing work portfolio, in a compatible vocation. Otherwise, it is more realistic to be doing anti-bullying work as a meaningful part-time avocation.”

A short list of recommended books for targets of workplace bullying and mobbing (2019) (link here) — “When someone is experiencing workplace bullying or mobbing, understanding what’s happening and assessing options are vitally important towards finding a way to a better place. . . . However, the volume of resources may seem overwhelming, so I thought I’d offer a very selective list of four affordable books that I repeatedly recommend to others.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Devoted and skilled advocate for equal rights and equal opportunity

The passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a deeply sad and momentous occasion. As an Associate Justice of the Court, Justice Ginsburg was a steady and passionate voice for equal rights and equal opportunity. Given the moniker the “Notorious RBG,” she became a hero and pop culture icon to so many women, especially, who rightly looked to her as a role model.

Justice Ginsburg’s important contributions to American jurisprudence will be studied by lawyers, judges, law professors, and law students for many years. After all, the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the voting patterns and written opinions of individual Justices, attract considerable attention. Every American law student takes a required course in Constitutional Law, where Supreme Court cases interpreting the U.S. Constitution form the main focus of study. In my Employment Discrimination course, we devote primary attention to Supreme Court decisions interpreting major federal employment discrimination laws.

Ginsburg’s death leaves a significant void on the Court and has triggered what will be an ugly and divisive political battle over the confirmation of her successor. If Donald Trump and Senate leader Mitch McConnell succeed in filling this vacancy, it is likely that the ideological balance of the Court will be tipped in a way that threatens reversals in women’s rights, workers’ rights, and civil rights generally for a generation.

Attorney Ginsburg

But I shall leave that for a later commentary. Rather, as we reflect upon Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s signature contributions, I’d like to focus on her legacy as a public interest lawyer. Even had she never sat for a day on America’s highest court, her work as a pioneering advocate for needed changes in the law would have left a great record of accomplishment. As Moira Donegan writes for the Guardian (link here):

Strategic, contemplative and disciplined, but with a passion for the feminist cause that is rarely admitted into the halls of power, Ginsburg established an impressive legal legacy long before she became a judge. Over the course of a two-decade career as a lawyer before her appointment to the DC circuit court of appeals, she successfully argued cases that expanded civil rights law and 14th amendment protections to women, undoing a dense network of laws that had codified sex discrimination in all areas of American life.

***

Ginsburg is the rare supreme court justice whose most significant work was done before she joined the court….Ginsburg personally argued six gender discrimination cases before the then all-male supreme court, winning five. She built on her victories one by one, establishing precedents that made future victories easier to win.

***

First was Reed v Reed (1971), a monumental victory that struck down an Idaho law favoring men over women in estate battles. That case extended the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to women, barring laws that discriminated by sex. Ginsburg followed this case with victories in Frontiero v Richardson (1973), barring gender discrimination in compensation of military members, and Weinberger v Wiesenfeld (1975), striking down gender discrimination in state benefits. Her tactics were savvy; she framed gender discrimination in ways that made the practice seem unreasonable even to hardened misogynists.

Indeed, perhaps Attorney Ginsburg’s body of work best informs everyday lawyers and law students who wish to use their training to advocate for desired changes in the law. While serving as a law professor at the Columbia and Rutgers law schools in the 1970s, she forged an association with the American Civil Liberties Union that would fuel her advocacy work. This included co-founding the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project and serving as its General Counsel. The period covered much of her most significant civil rights litigation work.

It is a testament to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s character, determination, and ability that she has left multiple legacies. Among these, her work on the Supreme Court will be the defining one to many. But I hope that lawyers and law students, particularly, won’t forget her vital contributions as a legal advocate.