Disrupting toxicity: The true story of how a manager got a "bully" to change
It was about caring, not confrontation.
Introduction
I became a coach because workplace bullying damn nearly broke me. For the first few years in my coaching I focused on helping those who had been, or were being, bullied. But, in the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, I came to realize I could keep on fishing bodies out of the water, or I could swim upstream and work to reduce the number of bodies being thrown into the water in the first place. In 2022 I pivoted to also coaching the abrasive leaders1 themselves.
My partners: the intervenors
However, I do not get to do that work without the work of the people we in this field call the intervenors: the managers of the abrasive leaders who care enough to intervene.
Sadly, intervenors are relatively rare. They walk the much harder middle line: daring to see the humanity of those everyone else wants to fire or vilify, and yet not excusing or tolerating unacceptable conduct either.
Focusing on courage misses the point
Intervenors are often called courageous. And they are. But I’ve come to think that focusing on their courage makes it harder for others to emulate them; it demotivates, rather than inspires, others, as they focus on the courage they think they will need to summon, and that feels daunting.
But as you read Margaret’s story, I hope you will see what I see: that what it really takes is caring, not courage.
If we think of Margaret as unique or exceptional, we won’t make much progress on addressing this problem. (Of course she is unique: in the same exact way as I am unique, and you are unique, and 8+ billion others of us are unique too.)
I’ve coached many, many hundreds of people at this point. Every single one of them cares deeply about something or someone. Caring is the normal, common human condition. All Margaret did was tap into that innate reservoir of caring.
Coaching the abrasive leaders and witnessing their change and growth is deeply satisfying and rewarding. But I don’t get to do that without the Margaret’s.
You have an inner “Margaret” too
I truly believe each of us has our own inner Margaret. Sometimes she just takes some encouragement and support—some caring—to find her voice.
If your inner Margaret could do with some support/coaching, please reach out to me. I’d be delighted to talk.
Margaret’s Story
Sue: Tell us the story of how you decided to intervene with Derrick2—what you navigated internally and externally. Let’s start there.
Margaret: Derrick was someone I always found incredibly useful, respectful and thorough. My personal experiences with him were fantastic. I kind of have a “spidey sense,” and there was something that told me Derrick was an emotionally sensitive person, surprisingly so, especially for a man. When I saw him emotionally react to others, I recognized it as a defense mechanism, not malice. I didn’t think he was mean or malicious; rather, I thought he sometimes had childlike emotional responses, and it wasn’t helping him. People were scared of him and didn’t want to work with him. Others called him a bully. Although he was never that way with me.
Sue: What made you decide to say something to him?
Margaret: His previous manager, Catherine, wasn’t good at providing direct, honest feedback. As a manager, I’ve always tried to give respectful but clear feedback. There should be no surprises at review time. And I believe people should get a chance to correct their behavior.
When he came over to my team, I heard both extremes: some people said he was awesome, others said he was awful. And I trusted and respected the people on both sides, which told me I needed to figure out what was really going on.
Sue: What did you find out?
Margaret: Despite being highly intelligent and technically skilled, he didn’t regulate his emotions well. When Derrick was cornered, he tended to go on offense; he could be a jerk. Well, actually, let's be clear, he could be a raging asshole. He would often get personal with people, and his humor often missed the mark, which made him come across as insensitive or rude.
I also noticed that the team dynamics were exacerbating the situation. Derrick is technically brilliant—he gets this stuff better than anyone—but his technical decisions were often met with resistance from others who felt he didn’t understand their products or customers. This led to a cycle of disrespect and defensiveness on both sides. My goal was to give Derrick the tools to manage his reactions better and to foster a more collaborative environment.
Sue: So often people choose not to intervene, not to say something. What pushed you to act?
Margaret: I don’t believe in avoiding conflict. It’s just how I’m wired. And it's a pet peeve of mine when people are passive-aggressive, saying nasty stuff behind someone’s back, but not to them. As a kid, I was always the one defending others from bullies on the playground. I learned that not saying or doing anything doesn't make things easier. Not making a decision is still making a decision—you're just choosing the default. Are you okay with the ramifications of that? Because people will make up stories and say you made a decision, whether you did or not.
I didn't think things would get better if I did nothing. I didn't think it would benefit Derrick or the rest of the team. I believed that doing nothing would lead to Derrick getting fired and others feeling justified in sabotaging him or engaging in destructive behavior.
I wasn't sure if I could change the outcome, but I thought I should try.
Sue: Any other thoughts on why others hadn’t done that over the years?
Margaret: Derrick had always been protected by Sebastian, the president of our division. Sebastian liked Derrick, but Sebastian himself is a problem. He thought Derrick’s bad behavior was funny, which I think is reprehensible. So other managers didn’t want to touch Derrick because of Sebastian’s protection.
Then also, it is hard to tell someone they’re being a colossal dick, especially when you know there’s a high probability they’re going to get very defensive. I think people were afraid of Derrick’s defensiveness. But I also knew he cared what people thought of him, sometimes too much even, and that showed me there was an opportunity to give him tools to improve.
Sue: Did you worry about how Sebastian might react?
Margaret: I’m not afraid of anyone in corporate America. That’s a strength and a weakness. I’ve accepted it about myself. I didn’t care what Sebastian or anyone else thought—I cared about Derrick and the team. That’s just how I am.
Sue: You said that some people thought you should fire him, that you were being too lenient. How did that affect you?
Margaret: I was aware that no matter what I did, people would create their own narratives. But I had more information than they did, and I wasn’t afraid of the consequences. I didn't have a lot of angst over it because I've confronted this kind of stuff—people judging you no matter what you do or don’t do—for a long time. I did what I thought was best, and that was it.
Derrick’s an incredibly valuable asset to the organization, we needed his expertise. And, frankly, I truly liked him personally, even though he could be a real asshat sometimes. As I said, I just saw his emotional overreactions as defensiveness, not meanness or malice.
I decided it was worth giving him an opportunity to understand how his behavior impacted others, and to address it or make changes. I thought to myself, “For a guy who’s so smart and so valuable, I’m not sure he’s ever really had someone sit down and be hardcore with him.”
Sue: How did you approach that conversation?
Margaret: I decided to be straight up with him. I told him, “I’m hearing squawking, and while I haven’t personally seen this behavior from you, I regard the complaints as valid because of the number of them and who they were coming from. I’m telling you this because I think you trust me and know that I’ve got your back. We can’t just brush this off or chalk it up to people being overly sensitive. You need to make some changes or it’s likely going to cost you your career, and I didn’t think that’s deserved. Are you willing to work with me on this?”
I told him “I’m not expecting you to become perfect. However, I do think these can be tools you can employ to make your life better here and in other places, if you want that to be the case.”
Sue: And what was his reaction?
Margaret: He was hurt, but not defensive. I gave him a choice—work with a different kind of coach who was really going to push him, and give him the tools, or face the consequences. I was as blunt, with care, as I could be. It wasn’t easy. I knew it was hurtful. But I also knew I wasn’t doing him any favors by protecting him from the truth.
He listened, and I could tell that he genuinely cared about how people saw him. That’s one of the reasons I knew he could change—he didn’t want to be seen as a bully, but he just didn’t have the tools to manage his emotions. That’s why I decided to bring in a coach who specializes in this kind of situation.
Sue: That’s a rare combination—being blunt but caring. That’s radical candor.
Margaret: Yes. It hurt my heart to see how hurt he was, but I told him to think about it and get back to me. I was clear that it was his choice to accept the coaching offer or not and that I’d support him either way. The next day, he said he was willing to do it, partly because he knew I truly supported him. Coaching can’t just be between the coach and the person; their manager has to be involved too; their manager has to be as invested in the outcome as anyone else. He was sad, and upset and angry, understandably so, but he was willing to try because I had his back, because he knew I wasn’t just handing him off as a “problem child” for someone else to deal with.
Sue: You mentioned wanting to bring in “a different kind of coach”. He’d worked with a coach before?
Margaret: Yes. Catherine, his previous manager got him coaching due to a similar HR issue. However, she was passive about it, treating it as a check the box thing. She didn’t address his behavior directly with him or follow up on his progress or participate actively in the process. As she also knew Sebastian was going to make sure Derrick wasn’t fired, she didn’t push Derrick on his behaviour. Actually, she would resort to anger herself, so I’m not sure she even saw anything wrong with his behaviour or her approach; while I thought it was going to get Derrick fired. Which I didn’t want to happen. The coaching Derrick got before helped with his frustrations, but it didn’t change his behavior. Indeed, he had never even acknowledged it was a problem before.
Sue: You said the manager has to be involved if you want the coaching to work. Are you saying his previous manager outsourced her management responsibilities to the coach?
Margaret: Yes, exactly, and I wasn’t going to do that. I wanted to partner with the coach, not abrogate my responsibilities as Derrick’s manager.
Sue: Did you think about coaching him yourself?
Margaret: No. I could—and did—have candid conversations with him, even before he worked for me. He’d come to me with hurt feelings about feedback. He trusted me, and I had agreed to tell him when I saw behaviors that weren’t useful. But I quickly realized I didn’t have the same perspective as others. It was too comfortable between us, and too easy for me to miss things. Also, with Derrick being in his 50s, these behaviors had been going on for a long time. I thought he needed a specialized coach. I got to the coaching decision pretty quickly because I knew it needed to be done properly.
Sue: And that’s where I came in.
Margaret: Exactly. I knew I wasn’t equipped to coach Derrick on my own—he needed a professional, an expert in this area. Our organization offers coaching to executives, but in my experience some of the coaches are great, some are not. A lot of the time coaching here feels like ticking a box. It’s seen as a benefit. It’s not outcome focused. And of course, I’d seen other managers handing off their responsibility to a coach. And it’s not the coach’s job to do the manager’s job of hard conversations.
Sue: Did you face any resistance in getting Derrick a coach who wasn’t part of the regular coaching pool?
Margaret: No. I just told my HR business partner and my boss that this was what I was going to do. I didn’t make it a discussion. It was my choice, as a senior vice president.
The strongest pushback came from a couple of other people lower down on my team who thought the only appropriate response was to fire Derrick. They talked behind my back, criticizing me for not firing him. But I didn’t sweat it. I had more information than they did, and I’m not the kind of leader who thinks I need everyone’s approval. My job is to gather all the data, make an informed decision, and move forward. I know I’m not going to be popular with everyone, and I’m okay with that. Do I lose sleep over it? No. Do I sometimes feel sad? Sure, I’m human. Was I sad that they spent time complaining about Derrick and me? A little, but I figured they’d either get over it or not. I didn’t ignore their concerns; I made some other changes to ensure they felt comfortable. But ultimately, they don’t get to dictate how I do my job.
So, yes, I got some heat, but I didn’t really let it bother me.
Sue: I’m hearing a remarkable level of self-confidence and resolve from you.
Margaret: Yeah, some of that is wiring, but a lot of it comes from experience. I’ve done a lot of work on myself.
Sue: Last question—why choose me as the coach?
Margaret: Derrick had worked with other coaches before, but I chose to work with you because you're a specialist. While I didn’t think Derrick intended to be a bully, I did believe that when he was in a bad place, his behavior came off that way. I needed someone who could address that directly with him. Derrick’s incredibly smart, and I wanted someone who wouldn’t shy away from having tough conversations, even if it meant facing his anger.
A lot of coaches—and managers—want to be liked, but I didn’t want that. I wanted someone who would stand up to him. I needed a subject matter expert, someone direct, with relevant experience, and you fit the bill. So, yes, I was looking for a coach with the internal strength to stand up to someone like Derrick. That’s not easy to find. A lot of people struggle with it, but it’s one of your strengths.
Sue: Thank you! It’s a strength and a curse, speaking truth to power, but it’s what I do. What’s your biggest takeaway from this experience?
Margaret: You have to be willing to step in when something’s wrong, even when it’s uncomfortable. Avoiding conflict doesn’t make it go away—it just lets things fester. Leadership is about more than making decisions. It’s about caring enough about people to make the right decisions, even when they’re hard.
Derrick: The before and after
Before Coaching
He openly ridicules people.
He is a bully. He resorts to personal insults.
He lacks self-control.
It’s his way or the highway.
He doesn’t listen.
You can’t give him feedback.
After Coaching
He is particularly effective as a mentor.
His greatest strength is his willingness to listen.
He’s in tune with other people.
He’s calm, cool and collected.
He takes time with people. He values their input.
He connects with people on a personal level.
Want to know more?
A free webinar series for those who manage, work with, or work for abrasive leaders…and who want to know how to stop them from being so abrasive.
“Bully” is in quotations because to call someone a bully is neither helpful nor correct. We want to keep the focus on behaviour, not make assumptions about character. It would be more accurate to say that they are “leaders who are experienced as abrasive”. But that quickly becomes a mouthful to keep on saying! So, “abrasive leader” for short, but not “bully”.
While of course names have been changed, these are the actual words Margaret used when sharing her story with me. Our interview has been lightly edited for clarity and succinctness.