Quote

,200,000 readers this month/2,100,000 pages read ~ Google Analytics (real #s, not hype).


If you liked this, you might like these:
Psychosis, Stabbing, Secrecy & Death at a Neo-Buddhist University in Arizona
Grounding Anusara 2: a brief ayurvedic follow-up
To My Old Master.
Grounding Anusara 3: intimacy, methods, therapy, and making it open-source
easter elegy for jenna

Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
33241730 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.elephantjournal.com%2F2012%2F05%2Frebuttal-psychosis-stabbing-secrecy-death-at-a-neo-buddhist-university-in-arizona%2FRebuttal%3A+%22Psychosis%2C+Stabbing%2C+Secrecy+%26+Death+at+a+Neo-Buddhist+University+in+Arizona.%222012-05-06+16%3A24%3A12elephantjournal.comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.elephantjournal.com%2F%3Fp%3D332417 to “Rebuttal: “Psychosis, Stabbing, Secrecy & Death at a Neo-Buddhist University in Arizona.””
Psychosis, Stabbing, Secrecy and Death at Buddhist University | elephant journal says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:28
[...] Psychosis, Stabbing, Secrecy & Death at a Neo-Buddhist University in Arizona Update: a rebuttal to the below, by John Stillwell, is offered here. [...]

Reply
matthew says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:42

John: it is important to note that corrections to some of the factual issues in my original piece were edited into the original text and appended at 4am this morning. They are visible here:
[www.elephantjournal.com]-….

I don't know if you had time to review these corrections. I did this as I promised to do in the 5th graph of the original:

"My analysis of these events is in some areas speculative. I am quite sure that I will unintentionally render certain details incorrectly, and I hope that knowledgeable respondents to this post help me with factual errors, which I will correct in the text itself, in real time, as evidence is presented. I intend for this to be an open document, evolving towards greater clarity through the input of many. I will not let factual errors linger online, and will notify readers through social media of the edits I make."

I thank all respondents for their help with accuracy, and wait for an earnest discussion of the 15 requests made to the board.

Reply
ccf says:
May 6, 2012 at 17:16
Mathew, the fact that you corrected some information after the fact that thousands of people read your initial article that had untrue facts and much projection will be what they remember. YOu really should have thought of that first and not rush to have to write an article before proper research and confirmation of facts. Many people will not have or take the time to re-read your article and thus they will be influenced by your flawed piece. I do believe that your rush to have this article published was self-serving and selfish, instead of doing proper research and waiting for more facts to unfold.

There is not a rush to save the retreatants, GMR and the DM board are not uncaring, unloving malice people, they are quite the opposite, whether you agree with his teachings and accept him as a teacher, they all care deeply for everyone in the retreat. I am sure that they are doing everything they can to support everyone of them, by the way they are free to leave if they want, ask for anything they need, and have family/friends even visit !! Its a terrible trajedy that happened and your timing is very very off and selfish.

Yes, as I said before there are issues that I believe really need to be deeply looked at and I am sure that they will be after what has happened. I'm sorry that you felt the need to post such a sensationized article, a more factual, compassionate, questioning one would have been more helpful for everyone.

The community is suffering from this horrible loss and you felt the need to rub salt in the wounds.

He does not say believe what i say and follow me, he says to investigate these ideas through your meditation and have your own experiences and then make your own decisions.

Also, he says that your mom and dad are also very important teachers/lama's and to treat them as such, not to leave them and break off communication (like cults tend to do).

I am not condoning what happened in the least, I am questioning everything right now as many are. But you are not helping by writing false information and writing about things you dont very much about. I hope you can find it in your heart to really re-track alot of your mis information, unless or until you get the facts and re-track your speculation, your projection and attacks and be a more responsible writer. This is coming from a spiritual seeker and not one of GMR devotee's/disciples, but I did spend some time at DM and I did not see or hear the kinds of things that you are talking about. Maybe I didnt get close enough, but I met some of the kindest, loving people there and I know how much they care about everyone in retreat !!!!

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:02
ccf: allow me to remind everyone that I transparently linked to the Open Letter, and that corrections were employed to bring the article closer to the claims of the Open Letter, as well as to clarify smaller issues such as the quality of retreat housing. I did not hide any source material.

And, as promised, I broadcast the corrections through all of my social media pathways.

The way I see it is that the Open Letter, and even many corrective statements from DMU responders have not been corroborated. It's not like the "truth" of the situation is established. My intention was to offer a context within which the truth becomes a little clearer. By opining on the context of the tragic events (solipsism, authoritarianism, magical thinking, ungroundedness) I hoped to contribute to the discussion on how we might look for truth.

The other thing that I can say is that I was responding to the Open Letter, which is the DM Boards' statement of fact, as they endorsed it. Open Letter, open response, open questions.

I have no doubt that the Board cares about the retreatants.

My question is whether their past decisions and justifications qualify them for continued leadership.

Reply
matthew says:
May 6, 2012 at 11:06
Points to consider, after the corrections are accounted for:

The official letter from Roach does not constitute an independent review.

It raises questions best resolved by professional investigation.

I do not have malice, but concern. My personal experience justifies the use of all of the terms you list in graph #5.

As I was up front about my personal involvement and the usage of my experience, I cannot be accused of claiming objectivity. My agenda is framed in my intention paragraph, and by the requests I suggest to the Board.

From Roach's account, the couple were initially given an hour, and then five days, after the intervention of John Brady.

Retreatants are sworn to verbal silence, which I believe can suppress open communication, and can contributes to the general ethos of secrecy that is a powerful player in this dynamic.

You are not directly quoting me in graph 10: I wrote: "It appears that not one single piece of help was offered to the couple from outside of the worldview and power dynamic of the cult. Not one mediating influence was allowed to intervene."

You misquote me plainly in graph 11. I did not write:

“Retreatants are in retreat under direction of an insane woman.”

but:

"I repeat: there are about 35 people at this moment in deep seclusion in the Arizona desert under the influence of a woman who appears to have gone insane, and their guardians—the administration of Diamond Mountain—have shown themselves to be, I believe, unequal to the task of protecting and nurturing them."

I don't claim to be over my issues, but to have grown up, a little bit.

You and I are both burdened by perspective and agenda, John. You make this clear when you directly misquote me in your indignation. In fairness, and to mirror the corrections I have made, please amend your text for greater accuracy.

Finally, hard work and good intentions may not be enough to provide real safety. It's going to take outside help.

Reply
Arly says:
May 7, 2012 at 02:49

Well you are outside. What the heck are you doing to help other than enrage people? You are entitled to your opinion. But if your opinion is so heart-felt, why don't YOU do something about it?

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:03
I am most definitely doing something about it.

Reply
Jon Underwood says:
May 6, 2012 at 13:21
Sorry, this is not convincing. I have no connection with this organisation and it really feels like something is very wrong here. I hope Diamond Mountain have the courage to question themselves properly and transparently. There is no good alternative.

Reply
heynow says:
May 6, 2012 at 14:16
what the heck are you talking about?
maybe you should employ some critical thinking and not accept anything you read on the internet unless you have very good reason to.

Reply
Jon Underwood says:
May 7, 2012 at 03:09
Hi heynow,

Thanks for your response. Just to give some context, I am not an uneducated observer. I have followed this organisation for over 10 years and have a good, first hand knowledge of Buddhist cults and how they operate. Followers of DM must be able to open to the possibility that they're wrong and something there is something extremely serious and problematic here, deeply embedded in the organisation. Then there is a hope.

I wish all those confused and troubled by these events peace and freedom from suffering. Buddha's teachings are a great medicine, but MUST be used in a safe context.

Jon

Reply
yogi tobye says:
May 6, 2012 at 15:45

"It is our aim, of course, not to engage in the extremes of character assassination, nor of suppressing truth—but rather, simply to get at the facts and further uplifted, kind dialogue (rude comments will be deleted) in the interests of furthering enlightened, compassionate, sane society. ~ ed."

This blog seems to be attacking Remski, so what happened there Ed?

Elephant journal is for the most part, an opinionated blog that doesn't stick to the formula of resourceful journalism in a large proportion of cases. So why the rebuttal of Remski's well written blog?

Write the other side of the coin for sure, but if we are respecting opinions and views, why the attack on Remski?

Reply
elephantjournal says:
May 7, 2012 at 01:12
I edited John's post above, lightly, but can not in good faith change what or how he says what he says.

Mr. Remski, who I like and respect, offered a post that is, too, far from journalism—it is, as my intro says, an op-ed. Both posts come from clear points of view, as Matthew himself takes pains to make clear in this opening paragraphs.

It is our job to offer a forum for such intense posts, and rebuttals as they arise, to offer context. The reader, as you have done yourself, can decide for her or hisself what seems credible. If and when we become a journalistic outfit with paid reporters doing original research, we will do our best to decide for the reader what is and isn't fact. As things stand, it is our duty to offer a forum for rebuttals.

Thanks for your enthusiastic support of the difficult balancing act that is an open forum, Tobye.

Reply
UpstateYogi says:
May 6, 2012 at 19:34

Instead of attacking the reporter, perhaps DM should spend some more time explaining how this Lama, spiritual leader to so many, ended up with such a loose grip on reality, in an abusive situation, STABBING her husband and later with him dead.

Remski linked directly to GM's open letter right up front so everyone is able to read his clear articulation of the events and draw their own conclusions. He also offered to correct any factual errors. His piece was obviously written very carefully because I'm sure he knew he'd be subject to attacks just like this one that attempt to draw attention away from the facts at hand.

There are a lot of people out there/here trying to sort through and understand what all this means. I can't even imagine what the people in retreat are going through.

I'm struggling with the hours/days/years I've spent listening to GM's teachings and the impact it has had on my thinking and life. And I was just on the periphery. The people that have spent the past 10 years of their lives preparing for this silent retreat…then to have this happen with one of their leaders. I think Remski has every right to be concerned about them.

Reply
aguse says:
May 6, 2012 at 22:25

according to Christie's own explanation the injuries were accidental and the sheriff decided not to followup further on the matter. its what can happen when you fool around with sharp objects.

likewise the professional psychologist at the scene did not believe they were dealing with a psychotic person.

all this nonsense about losing touch with reality etcetc is a fantasy that random internet trolls such as yourself decide to spew out, even though you are utterly inadequate to speak on the matter.

you are not there, you dont have a clue what the situation is like. you dont know them. you dont even seem to understand what has already happened. you speaking on the matter is like listening to hot air blow. get a grip on what you are doing.

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:07

I don't think McNally's description of the stabbing is transparent. Her letter gives a very cogent view of her sense of reality, and it is concerning.

An outside psychologist was consulted, but did not meet or treat the couple, unless there is something we don't know yet.

Reply
Ted Lemon says:
May 6, 2012 at 23:36

If the teachings helped you, maybe that should tell you something. If they made you unhappy, maybe that should tell you something. Trying to figure out why something happened to some other practitioner, out in the desert, a thousand miles from you, is futile, because you don't have access to the facts, and aren't likely to get access. I'm in the same boat. The teachings helped me. Lama Christie's as well as Geshe Michael's. I'm heartbroken for Lama Christie. I will miss Ian. I already miss Ian, even though I hadn't seen him since the retreat started and so nothing has changed for me but for the certainty that I will never see his impish smile again. But I'm simply not in a position to draw any conclusions about what transpired between him and Lama Christie. If the people who were there, including psychiatrists and law enforcement are satisfied, that's pretty much as far as I can go with it.

This kind of thing happens in the Dharma world. When something terrible happens, do we discard all those teachings we once held dear, or do we keep on practicing? Sogyal Rinpoche changed my life, and then there was that big controversy. Does the controversy invalidate the fact that my relationship with my parents improved a thousandfold after reading his book? No. Do I know what really happened, and whose fault it is? No. The situation is the same here.

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:09
Psychiatrists haven't been satisfied: neither of them were assessed.

"This kind of thing happens in the Dharma world." My point exactly. Time for the irresponsibility to stop.

Reply
@Suri_k8 says:
May 6, 2012 at 19:56

From reading the open letter , what i think is most disturbing is the fact that the board members were aware that Ian was a dangerous person and they didnt remove him before , not even when there were reports about him mistreating staff members and other retreatants . Ian was clearly a sick person , some psychiatric help could have changed the outcome but his teachers thought he was just being spiritual and poetic ….

Also a person that stabs another for "spiritual" reasons or whatever reason , is clearly disturbed and in need of psychiatric help .

Mr Roach seems to be justifiyng some of the behaviors of both of them with the " it is their spiritual perspective" pretext which shows just how deluded is Mr Roach himself .

Angels in disguise ? Really ?? This man is completely deluded…

"A very good practice to do when someone that we love dies is the following. Every day in the evening, write down in a journal one single memory of them that we have which is beautiful, especially something that might reveal that they were an angel in disguise, meant to help us while we knew them in this world.

In Ian’s case, this is not difficult. For me, I remember one incident when another student came to me and said that he had heard a divine being singing off in the desert behind some trees. He was extremely thrilled that his practice was finally paying off, and ran to meet the Being. And then he found Ian in a small tent, singing to the gods."

Reply
David says:
May 6, 2012 at 22:50
thank you john, for a breath of fresh air amidst a rather tumultous, albeit agenda-less, 'stirring up' of this tragedy.

Reply
elephantjournal says:
May 7, 2012 at 01:13
You and Tobye should talk. Yet again, our attempt to offer a forum for uplifted discussion of difficult issues convinces both sides that we side with one extreme or the other.

Reply
Student of Dharma says:
May 6, 2012 at 23:26
Thank you John for writing this. I felt that if Matthew was "so concerned " for the retreat ants he would actually take that concern into action. Perhaps by actually supporting the retreat instead of spending countless hours on the internet bashing the retreat, the retreants, and the teacher of the Dharma center.

His article was gossip aimed with a personal agenda and an insensitivity not only to Ian who recently passed, but also to 35 people who are , like you said John,, trying to heal themselves, their world and become more virtuos.

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:12
My concern, as I've stated repeatedly, is for the Board to show increased competence in the care of its charges. In this way, I suppose I am "supporting the retreat".

I didn't bash the retreat or the retreatants. I criticized what I see as a top-down organizational structure headed by a man whose judgement is questionable.

Reply
Paul says:
May 6, 2012 at 23:31
I have no independent knowledge of these events, and I have no bias in favor of or opposed to DM or Geshe Michael. The extent of my involvement with Geshe Michael is that I have read some of his books and like them, and I attended one teaching given by him and Lama Christie, which was very inspiring. I have no idea what actually happened over the past few months beyond what is reported in all the letters and articles that have come out recently, and my reaction is simply to offer prayers and blessings to everyone involved.

Matthew Remski claims to have grown up a little bit since he left Geshe Michael, and I have no reason to disbelieve that. But his article was not written by a grown-up (nor was it written by an authentic teacher of yoga, which Mr. Remski claims to be), and consequently it is not credible. I am not disagreeing with, or even expressing any opinion about, the facts he offers or his conclusions or his recommendations. From where I sit, I am not qualified to make those judgments. But I am qualified to react to the tone and use of language in Mr. Remski's article, all the way from the title to the last line of the piece. A grown-up (or a real teacher of yoga) who shared Mr. Remski's views would have made the same points with dispassion, discernment and objectivity. Instead, Mr. Remski has contributed to the noise and confusion of avidya. That is regrettable.

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:23
Paul: I don't claim to be an "authentic" teacher of yoga. I just practice and share yoga: what I've learned about self-inquiry, empathy, connection and service from many sources both good and bad, and a lot of experience.

Vairagya is but one value in the vast ocean of yoga's ethics. Passion is another. Everything for its time.

Reply
anon says:
May 7, 2012 at 00:00
matthew's piece revealed a lot of important points at a tragic time when people who have previously been involved with the community are surely regretting not having raised these points themselves.

this "rebuttal" does not strike at the heart of any of the main issues in matthew's piece. anyone with a mind noticed that matthew isn't free of malice for michael and co. (obviated by the amount of comments saying so).

also, anybody who read the piece saw that matthew was forthcoming from the start, that while the facts may need correcting (which he invited people to help him with) the core thrust, and salient points of the article would not need amending.

it is nice that as someone close to michael and co. you have helped matthew correct some of the facts, but that is ALL you have done. the main issues are still very much standing.

this response of yours really doesn't seem to deserve the title "rebuttal".

Reply
aguse says:
May 7, 2012 at 01:14
name one "main issue still very much standing"

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:42
Why the medical doctor in retreat did not report the stabbing to law enforcement.

Why the couple weren't separated and/or committed under Title 36, when they were showing clear signs of mental distress and physical violence towards each other.

We can start there.

Reply
Arly says:
May 7, 2012 at 01:19
I would like to know what the 'salient point' of the writing was. If it was a call for answers, then why not go get the answers from the Cochise County Sheriff's office, the Bowie Justice of the Peace, and the board and caretakers. They are the ones in the area according to all those who have been writing about the events. If that wasn't the salient point, to get answers to questions, then what is?

Questions are fine. Questions can be answered. Shit-throwing isn't usually an effective method of getting answers to questions. Usually people who want answers don't smear the web from hundreds of miles away from the answers. Shit-smearing also isn't an effective method for helping people who might be in jeopardy. Usually people who want to help someone else don't sit in their living rooms while not helping them. When I was a kid, Chicken Little was a popular story. He gets hit on the head with an acorn that has fallen from a tree. And then he runs around yelling 'the sky is falling'. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it's that hysterical running around part just doesn't lend much credence to the cause, you know what I mean? Especially when Chicken Little has to keep amending the plea with corrections.

If the salient point is to help people, why doesn't Matthew get off his chair and go out there and get answers to his burning questions and then do something if he has evidence that something needs to be done? This is America. He has every right to do that. What he doesn't have a right to, however, is slander and libel, which might end up as the salient point if he can't back up anything he has to say because he hasn't taken the opportunity he has to get real answers to substantiate his claims.

He may be right. He may be wrong. But stirring up other people without knowing for certain is rather lame.

Reply
matthew says:
May 7, 2012 at 06:38

Arly: the Board published an Open Letter. I reported it, linked to it, for all to review, corrected my interpretation after feedback, and now am responding to all commenters with clarifications.

I'm hardly inactive.

Questions are indeed fine, and mine cannot be answered by law enforcement or the JP. They can be answered by the Board, and so I have asked them openly, in response to their Open Letter. The Board already weighed in with its version. It raised questions.

Yes, I have asked questions from a critical point-of-view, informed by my opinions and personal experience with the group.

And I have done so "from the outside", which I believe has value, because I believe there are substantial difficulties with the group being able to look at its decisions clearly, given the power dynamics and spiritual hierarchy.

Quote

Are You a Jerk at Work?
By Robert I. Sutton | Winter 2007-08 | 1 comment
Robert I. Sutton explains how to handle bullies in the office—and prevent your own “inner jerk” from getting out.

Decrease Font Size Text Increase Font Size

Comment
Share
Email
Print
PDF (Members)



When I arrived at Stanford University as a 29-year-old researcher, I was an inexperienced, ineffective, and extremely nervous teacher. I got poor teaching evaluations in my first year on the job, and I deserved them. I worked to become more effective in the classroom and was delighted to win the best-teacher award in my department (by student vote) at the graduation ceremony at the end of my third year.

But my delight evaporated when a more senior colleague ran up to me immediately after the ceremony, gave me a big hug, and whispered in my ear in a condescending tone (while sporting a broad smile for public consumption), “Well, Bob, now that you’ve satisfied the babies here on campus, perhaps you can settle down and do some real work.” She secretly and expertly extracted every ounce of joy I had been experiencing.

Damian King
When I encounter a mean-spirited person like this, the first thing I think is, “Wow, what an asshole!”

I bet you do, too. You might call such people bullies, creeps, jerks, weasels, tormentors, tyrants, serial slammers, despots, or unconstrained egomaniacs, but for me at least, “asshole” best captures the fear and loathing that I have for these nasty people. And most of us, unfortunately, have to deal with assholes in our workplaces at one time or another.

Who deserves to be branded an asshole? I like to use two tests before passing judgment. First, after talking to the alleged asshole, do you feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled? In general, do you feel worse about yourself? Second, does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful?

I can assure you that after that interaction with my colleague—which lasted less than a minute—I felt worse about myself. I went from being the happiest I’d ever been about my work performance to worrying that my teaching award would be taken as a sign that I wasn’t serious enough about research (the main standard used for evaluating Stanford professors).

In one recent study, participants made to feel powerful were three times more likely than others to write an E on their forehead so it was forwards to themselves but backwards to others (right), suggesting they were less likely to consider other people’s points of view. In one recent study, participants made to feel powerful were three times more likely than others to write an E on their forehead so it was forwards to themselves but backwards to others (right), suggesting they were less likely to consider other people's points of view. Psychological Science
My colleague’s behavior also passes the second test because when the episode occurred, this person was further up the ladder than I was. I learned a lot about her from the way she treated one of her subordinates—in this case, me.

I believe the best test of a person’s character is how he or she treats those with less power. The brief nasty stares, the teasing and jokes that are really camouflaged public shaming and insults, the exclusion from minor and major gatherings—they’re all exercises of power, and they don’t just hurt for a moment. They have cumulative effects on our mental health and our commitment to our bosses, peers, and organizations.

Georgia State University professor Bennett Tepper’s research on abusive supervision, for example, examined a cross-section of 712 adults in a Midwestern city who worked in the private, nonprofit, and public sectors. He found that many of these employees had bosses who used ridicule, put-downs, the silent treatment, and insults like “Tells me I’m incompetent” and “Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.” These demeaning acts drove people to quit their jobs at higher rates and sapped the effectiveness of those who remained. A six-month follow-up found that employees with abusive supervisors quit their jobs at accelerated rates, and those still trapped in their jobs suffered from less work and life satisfaction, reduced commitment to employers, and heightened depression, anxiety, and burnout. Similar findings have been uncovered in dozens of other studies. They all suggest that assholes can severely undermine an organization’s productivity.


Given the psychological and financial harm done by assholes, you’d think that most organizations would refrain from hiring them, or be quick to expel these creeps once their true selves are exposed. But it’s not so simple. Although I suspect that some people are genetically predisposed to be nasty, years of research has suggested that, under certain circumstances, almost any of us is susceptible to becoming an asshole. This is especially true of people who assume positions of power. Study after study has found that giving people even a little bit of power over others can induce them to abuse that power. It isn’t just a myth: Power can turn any of us into assholes.

Fortunately, there’s also evidence that we can limit the negative influences of power and keep our offices civil, supportive, and even inspiring places to work. I’ve identified several strategies for combating assholes—and preventing ourselves from becoming one of them.

Are assholes born or made?

Yes, some assholes are born that way. But there is also strong evidence that no matter what our “personality” is, we all can turn into assholes under the wrong conditions. This happens frequently and with shocking speed and intensity when people assume powerful positions. A huge body of research—hundreds of studies—shows that when people are put in positions of power, they start talking more, taking what they want for themselves, ignoring what other people say or want, ignoring how less powerful people react to their behavior, acting more rudely, and generally treating any situation or person as a means for satisfying their own needs. What’s more, being put in positions of power often blinds them to the fact that they are acting like jerks.

One of my Stanford colleagues, Deborah Gruenfeld, has spent years studying and cataloging the effects of putting people in positions where they can lord power over others. She’s found that even tiny and trivial power advantages can rapidly change how people think and act, and usually for the worse. In one experiment, student groups of three discussed a long list of contentious social issues, things like abortion and pollution. One member was randomly assigned to the more powerful position of evaluating the recommendations made by the other two. After 30 minutes, the experimenter brought in a plate of five cookies. The more powerful students were more likely to take a second cookie, chew with their mouths open, and get crumbs on their faces and the table.

This study might sound silly, but it scares me because it shows how having just a slight power edge causes regular people to grab the goodies for themselves and act like rude pigs. I was on the receiving end of such boorish behavior a few years ago. It was at a lunch with the CEO of a profitable company who had just been ranked as one of the top corporate leaders by a famous business magazine. He treated our little group of four or five professors (all 50-plus-year-old professionals) as if we were naïve and rather stupid children. Although, in theory, he was our guest, he told us where to sit and when we could talk. He interrupted several of us in mid-sentence to tell us he had heard enough or didn’t care about what we were saying. He even criticized the food we ordered, saying things like “That will make you fat.” He generally conveyed that he was our master and commander and that our job was to focus our efforts on satisfying his every whim.

The most striking part was that he seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he was bullying us and that we were offended. This is consistent with research showing power makes it harder for people to see the world from the perspectives of others. In one recent study, Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University and his colleagues divided participants into two groups: Members of one group were made to feel powerful by recalling and writing about an incident where they had power over others; the other group was asked to write about an incident in which someone had power over them. Then all the participants were told to draw the letter E on their forehead. If a person drew the E so it seemed backwards to himself but legible to the rest of the world, this indicated that he had considered how others would see the letter. If the E seemed correct to himself but backwards to everyone else, this suggested a failure to take other people’s perspectives into account.

Sure enough, Galinsky and his colleagues found that people who had been primed to feel powerful were nearly three times as likely to draw the E so it seemed legible to themselves but backwards to others. In other words, power made them much less likely to see the world through other people’s eyes.

Fight the power

These findings may seem discouraging, but they don’t mean we’re condemned to working with assholes. I’ve spent much of the last few years thinking about how to sustain a humane workplace and how employees can deal with nasty bosses and peers. Based on research and stories that I hear, I’ve developed a few tips for victims of workplace assholes.

My first tip is in a class by itself: Escape if you can. The best thing to do if you are stuck under the thumb of an asshole (or a bunch of them) is to get out as fast as possible. Not only are you at great emotional risk; you’re also at risk of emulating the behavior of the jerks around you, catching it like a disease—what I call “asshole poisoning.”

Indeed, experiments by psychologists Leigh Thompson and Cameron Anderson have shown that even when compassionate people join a group with a leader who is “high-energy, aggressive, mean, the classic bully type,” they are “temporarily transformed into carbon copies of the alpha dog.”

Despite the risk of asshole poisoning, escape isn’t always possible. As one woman wrote me in response to this advice, “I have to feed my family and pay my mortgage, and there aren’t a lot of jobs that pay well enough to do that around here.”

In those cases where a victim can’t escape (at least for now), I suggest starting with polite confrontation. Some people really don’t mean to be jerks. They might be surprised if you gently let them know that they are leaving you feeling belittled and demeaned. Other jerks are demeaning on purpose, but may stop if you stand up to them in a civil but firm manner. For example, an office worker wrote me that her boss was “a major jerk,” but she found that he left her alone after she gave him “a hard stare” and told him his behavior was “absolutely unacceptable and I simply won’t tolerate it.”

Next, if a bully keeps spewing venom at you, limit your contact with the creep as much as possible. Try to avoid any meetings you can with him or her and try to talk by phone rather than in person. Keep conversations short; be polite, but don’t provide a lot of personal information during meetings of any kind, including email exchanges. If the bully says or writes something nasty, try to avoid snapping back as that can fuel a vicious cycle of asshole poisoning. Also, recent research suggests that stand-up meetings are just as effective as sit-down meetings, but are shorter. So if you have to meet with jerks, try to meet in places without chairs and avoid sitting down whenever possible. This will limit your exposure to their abuse.

I also recommend keeping an “asshole diary,” in which you carefully document what the jerk does and when it happens. A government employee wrote me a detailed email about how she used a diary to get rid of a nasty, racist co-worker:

I documented the many harmful things she did with dates and times. … I encouraged her other victims to do so too and these written and signed statements were presented to our supervisors. Our supervisors knew this worker was an asshole but didn’t really seem to be doing anything to stop her harmful behaviors until they received these statements. The jerk went on a mysterious leave that no supervisor was permitted to discuss, and she never returned.

If all else fails, try to practice indifference. Management gurus and executives are constantly ranting about the importance of commitment, passion, and giving all you have to a job. That is good advice when your bosses and peers treat you with dignity. But if you work with people who treat you like dirt, they have not earned your passion and commitment. Don’t let their vicious words and deeds touch your soul: Learn to be comfortably numb until the day comes when you find a workplace that deserves your full commitment. Until then, direct your passion elsewhere, like your family, your hobbies, or perhaps a volunteer organization.

Assholes are us

I want to stress again that being an asshole isn’t just something that only happens to others and can’t possibly happen to wonderful people like you and me. All of us are at risk. As I like to say, assholes are us.

But I have identified some strategies for handling the jerk within. One way to do that, as I’ve mentioned, is to stay away from assholes as much as possible and thus avoid asshole poisoning. But, especially if you take a position of power, there are several additional things you can do to stop yourself from turning into an asshole.

One is to eliminate as many unnecessary power differences between yourself and others. For instance, when Frank Blake became CEO of Home Depot last year, he eliminated the executive dining room, cut his own pay, and, according to The New York Times, distributed an image called the Inverted Pyramid, which places customers and employees above the chief executive.

Pay is an especially vivid sign of power differences and many studies suggest that when the difference between the highest- and lowest-paid people in a company or team is reduced, a host of good things happen, including improved financial performance, better product quality, enhanced research productivity, and for baseball teams, a better won-lost record.

In the United States and other Western countries, we are always pressing to create bigger differences among winners, also-rans, and losers. To be sure, some people are more important to an organization than others because they are more difficult to replace or have more essential skills. Status differences will always be with us. But Frank Blake and other, like-minded leaders build organizations with fewer assholes and spark better performance by embracing what I call the “power-performance paradox.” They realize that their company has and should have a pecking order, but they do everything they can to downplay and reduce status and power differences among members.

Another step you can take to avoid becoming an asshole is to get some friends and colleagues who will tell you when you are acting like one. Better yet, hold others responsible for telling you when you’re being an asshole—make it safe for them to do so. And when they tell you, listen to them. Remember, power will blind you to all the ways you are acting like a jerk and hurting other people. If people tell you that you’re acting like an asshole and your reaction is that they’re wrong, odds are that you’re fooling yourself.

I’ve learned that competition breeds assholes, so it’s essential to try not to foster an overly competitive workplace. Many organizations constantly rate and rank people, giving the spoils to a few stars and treating the rest as second- and third-class citizens. The unfortunate result is that people who ought to be friends become enemies—ruthless jerks who run wild as they scramble to push themselves up the ladder and push their rivals down. They act on the dangerous and widespread assumption that professional life requires cutthroat competition. In truth, it is nearly always a blend of cooperation and competition, and organizations that forbid extreme internal competition not only are more civilized but perform better as well, despite societal myths to the contrary.

Research on “framing” by social psychologists suggests a few tricks you can use to avoid being overly competitive. The assumptions and language we use—the lenses through which we see the world—can have big effects on how we treat others. Even seemingly small differences in language that we hear and use can determine whether we cooperate or compete. Stanford researcher Lee Ross and his colleagues have run experiments in which they had pairs of students play a game. If the students cooperated, they’d share a reward equally, but if they competed, one player would take the lion’s share of the goodies.

Ross and his colleagues told some players that the game was called the “Community Game” (conjuring up images of shared fate and collaboration); they told others they’d be playing the “Wall Street Game” (conjuring up images of a dog-eat-dog world). People who played the Community Game were dramatically more cooperative and honest about their intentions than those who believed they were playing the Wall Street Game. These findings were later replicated with U.S. Air Force Academy Cadets. Related experiments show that when people are first exposed to words like enemy, battle, inconsiderate, vicious, lawyer, and capitalist, they are far less likely to cooperate than when first exposed to words like helped, fair, warm, mutual, and share.

The implication is that if you want to quell your inner jerk, use ideas and language that frame life in ways that will make you focus on cooperation. For instance, make a conscious effort to use the word “we” rather than “I” and “me.” Tape-record and listen to yourself and colleagues at a couple of meetings; if they are nearly all about “me, myself, and I” and “us versus them,” it might be time to start changing the way you talk.

Taken together, these steps can help you enforce a No Asshole rule. If you manage your organization so that you address the disturbing influences of power and manage yourself to avoid catching and spreading asshole poisoning, you can fuel a virtuous cycle and help sustain a civilized workplace.


Comment Share Email Print


About The Author
Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D., is a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University’s School of Engineering. He is the author of The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t (Warner Business Books, 2007), from which this essay is adapted. His blog is www.bobsutton.net.

Quote

"The people who start things mustn't stay too long,...because if you do stay too long, you will kill it by your own oppression."

Bernard Mayes to be honored as lifeline to suicidalSam Whiting

San Francisco Chronicle April 28, 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first suicide hotline in the United States consisted of one man with one phone in one room in San Francisco.

The man was Bernard Mayes, and he'd placed cardboard ads on Muni buses: "Thinking of ending it all? Call Bruce, PR1-0450, San Francisco Suicide Prevention." Then Mayes, working under a pseudonym, curled up on the one couch wondering whether the phone would ring.

It did ring once that first night. By the end of the week, there were 10 callers, and that phone hasn't stopped ringing for 50 years now.

The one line in a basement room is now five lines in a downtown high-rise. Two hundred calls a month have become 200 calls a day to (415) 781-0500, handled by 100 volunteers and 10 paid staff. They all undergo weeks of intensive training to do what Mayes himself learned to do on that first call, with no training whatsoever: listen.

"I did feel that what was really needed was a compassionate ear, someone to talk to," recalls Mayes, 82, on a recent morning in his Bernal Heights row home. "It occurred to me that we had to have some kind of service which would offer unconditional listening, and that I would be this anonymous ear."

This simple idea has been emulated in 500 cities in all 50 states. The 50th anniversary of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, or SFSP, will be celebrated in a May 1 gala at the St. Regis San Francisco. Former Mayor Willie Brown is the master of ceremonies, and the keynote speaker is Brian Copeland, on a night off from "The Waiting Period," his acclaimed one-man show at the Marsh about buying a gun to do himself in.

There will be drama and dark comedy in their speeches, and even more if Mayes opens up in his own remarks, because there is way more to his story than a man with an ear.

He was also a man with a voice. Broadcasting from San Francisco, he was known across Great Britain for the radio reports he'd deliver in elegant English diction over BBC radio. His sign-off was "This is Bernard Mayes in San Francisco," which also became the name of his 1985 book of oddities with headlines such as "Mistresses Anonymous," "Rent-A-Wife," and "Doomsday Club."

Mayes had a Londoner's handle on San Francisco quirkiness, but that is not what brought him here. He was also an ordained Episcopal priest who had read that San Francisco was a magnet for the suicidal, second only to walled-in West Berlin. Mayes decided that his calling was to set up an all-night phone-in service for a flock that had nowhere else to turn.

Helpful landlord
That was a tough concept to sell to landlords in 1961, and Mayes got turned away all over town before finding the right fit with an apartment manager at 965 Geary St. in the Tenderloin.

"I said, 'I'm looking for a room where I'm going to start a service where we talk to people who might be considering suicide,' " he recalls as his sales pitch. " 'I'm a priest, and I'm going to talk to them.' " He was waiting for the rejection when the manager rolled up his sleeves. "He said, 'You mean like this?' and he extended his arms and there were slash marks across both wrists."

Mayes got the space at half price. The location of San Francisco Suicide Prevention has been kept secret through six moves, and there has never been a sign on the door.

After 10 years of staying up all night 1 night in 4, Mayes left the hotline in 1971.

"The people who start things mustn't stay too long," he says, "because if you do stay too long, you will kill it by your own oppression."
But SFSP, which now has an annual operating budget of $800,000, wasn't the last thing he'd start. He was recruited as the founding station manager of KQED-FM, which began in 1969. A year later, he became the founding board chairman of National Public Radio.

Founded gay group
In 1991, he started the on-campus gay organization at the University of Virginia, where he'd joined the faculty. He rose to the position of chairman of the department of communication studies and capped his career when the UVa Press published his autobiography, "Escaping God's Closet: The Revelations of a Queer Priest," in 2001.

One revelation is that Mayes is not a crusader against suicide and never was.

"You want to kill yourself, kill yourself. You have every right to do so," he says. But he is for helping people, and one thing about callers to a hotline, they want help.

"We don't go around asking people if they are suicidal, see," he says. "They call us. ... It almost worked by magic."

Oral histories and recent statistics indicate that over the past 50 years, the suicide rate in San Francisco has dropped from 33 per 100,000 residents to 12.5 per 100,000. But Mayes doesn't claim credit. Because the hotline has always been anonymous, he can't state for certain that it has saved even one life.

"All we can say is the suicide rate has been cut in half."
[/b]

Quote

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aGS7VyV_3s8J:[www.sfgate.com]

Quote
corboy
Here is a question for warren or other readers who are informed:

What exactly are 'kriyas'?

Is this another term for kundalini?

And are either of these equivalent to what is termed rlung disorder in Tibetan medicine?

Tendzin Palmo describes how she had herself assessed in dharamsala before beginning a 3 year meditation retreat.

'Lung appears to be some sort of condition that can be triggered by overdoing an ardous routine.