At one point in my career, I was forced by political circumstance to deal with a very difficult personality. "Anne" had cut a swath through the company long before my arrival. Terrorizing employees and customers with her judgments, demanding blind allegiance to meaningless, costly procedures that solved one problem, but left others bleeding and unidentified. Most of the company lived in fear of this woman, whether they reported to her or not.
I was in a real leadership bind. In most organizations, an employee like Anne would be coached out of the door. This was not an option, due to her familial relationships with the ownership of this very small company. After realizing Anne offered few resources to my team, and presented many continuing challenges, I set about trying to contain the damage she could inflict.
Anne was reassigned, new positions were created, and over time, she was finally placed where she could do minimal harm to morale, and still provide information to the company owner, which was her primary function. Over time, I cultivated a relationship of sorts with Anne, primarily based on our common interests in gardening, our children, and an deliberate effort on my part not to be offended by the drama she created.
Many important successes occurred, but ultimately, the little company couldn't sustain the combined weight of executive conflict and attrition of top clients. It was purchased by a competitor and dismantled quickly.
After I left the company, I found out Anne had told several of our former colleagues that it was my salary, (and that of others who'd also left following a series of downsizings) that had caused financial hardship for the company, leading to it's sale. She had been given very sensitive information by the former owner, and was presenting his opinions as fact.
At first I was furious. Furious that my private information had been leaked. That years of significant accomplishments by a highly-competent leadership team were invisible to ownership. That people so undeserving were being allowed, it seemed, the "last word" on my performance.
Next, I was hurt. While I thought Anne and I had connected on a personal level, it seemed she had only pretended to respect me and appreciate my team's accomplishments, when clearly, she didn't value them at all.
Finally, and only after some expert advice from the kind of friend who will speak truth, no matter what (and even though his was also one of the salaries leaked), I came to what I think is the right conclusion. Although out of necessity I cultivated a personal connection with her, my relationship with Anne was always "just business" at it's heart; I was paid to deal with her, and she with me. Anne was unsuited to the environment, but forced to participate due to circumstances beyond her control. Her spite and venom were distributed to a wide range of subjects; not specifically at me.
To take a business transaction personally is usually a mistake. In the case of what happened with Anne, it would be corrosive, and keep me tied emotionally to a situation I needed to leave behind. It became easy to forgive this woman, once I reminded myself she lacked the business and social skills to change her situation and that anyone who feels trapped is capable of acting badly.
The first precept of Buddhism is to practice compassion as a means to reduce suffering in the world. From Christ, to King, to Gandhi, we are called to be compassionate. Business leaders typically have a passion for what they do. The risk of that strength is that they take all aspects of the work personally, including what co-workers do in difficult situations.
By seeing someone you are in conflict with as someone who is suffering, and trying to see a reason in what they are doing, even when you are negatively affected by it, you access the strength of compassion. Compassion liberates you from feeling injured, and may give you the emotional leverage to resolve the conflict and forge an effective alliance with your adversary.
