How to cope with and prevent bad behavior and bullying on email lists
April 28, 2015 2:50 AM Subscribe
My wonderfully snowflaky NPO is maybe just flaky, but seems to be turning nasty. Is some of this bullying? If so, what to do about it? Best resources for or good examples of detoxifying an email list that has turned into a cesspool?
As Gatteno wrote "Language is for self-expression; communication is a miracle." Expression and communication by email even moreso.
The mailing list is closed. It is for officers and volunteers for a professional organization. This group has an old and strong organizational culture that prioritizes autonomy of local or other subgroups. We haven't always done a good job of setting expectations and enforcing our own rules in some cases. There are two camps with an us vs them mentality (local chapters vs distributed special interest groups) but not everyone falls into that trap. Many people are trying to encourage an attitude of we're all in it together.
Enter financial difficulties. Bad politics last year in a disputed election. And, some other stresses. The mailing list is getting nasty.
There are about 150 people on the list. Everyone is supposed to read it since it's the main way to communicate with volunteers. Lately quite a few people have admitted they don't read it because of time and or nastiness.
We have several problems. One is people basically just posting too much and too long. We finally set a message length limit, but that isn't helping much. For example in the past year, these are the top posters and number of messages.
Mr A 182
Mr B 114
Yours truly 94 In my defense, group communications is part of my job.
Mr C 92
Mr D 67
Mr E 59
Mr F 54
Mr G 52
Besides the very obvious gender problem which may be a contributing factor here, A, B, C, and D are long-time members and volunteers but not in national leadership positions. They run smaller subgroups. There may be some sense of entitlement going on since they've been around forever..
Mr D likes to use words like "attack" and "crazy". Insists he is only interested in attacking ideas and has no argument with people. Plenty of non-apology apologies.
Slightly edited and anon snippets to show what is happening:
D to E: your tone sounds almost martyr-like. (I understand you were probably tired when you wrote this.)
D: Apologies if I may have been inartful in how I expressed myself. I didn’t mean to equate you personally or all of the xxxxxx groups collectively with Walmart
D: please don’t take offense as I, a “Group guy”, critically examine and appear to criticize “you Other group people” in the other wing of _our_ organization. I’m not attacking “you others", I’m attacking some (what I believe to be not so good) ideas that have sprung up at some point in _our_ history and that have taken hold within some parts of _our_ organization.
D: Apologies in advance for the length of this email. Also, please note that when I reference someone’s quotation, I intend to attack the idea rather than the person referenced.
And this little exchange
D to E: ... hard to understand how anyone could be for something in the long-term, but opposed to it in the short-term. To me, that’s just crazy.
E to D: I am trying to focus on the "to me" rather than what I feel is the loaded term "crazy" and just respond xxxxxx , though my emotional response is to feel _I'm_ being called crazy.
Personally, I think D's behavior towards E and others is bullying. Besides comments about others' personality or aggressive language. D tends to just keep on posting. Same behavior in our three times a year in-person meetings. Is just bulldozing by taking so many turns and being so long winded bullying?
In person meetings have improved by introduction of a timer (2 minutes per speaker), enforcing Roberts Rules, etc.
A. I've suggested a posting limit (1 msg per 24 hours maybe?) to stop things spinning out of control. Something that really requires multiple messages a day from one person is business to be handled in committee and then presented to the list. This will no doubt result in cries of censorship or what about my freedom of speech!
B. Strong moderator(s) are probably a non-starter. The in-person meetings work better when people "address the chair" not each other as in Roberts Rules. Could something similar work on email? How to implement it?
C. Additional members. At the moment, not all officers/volunteers are subscribed. I think they should all be. Not always, but sometimes people behave better if they have more eyes on them. Is forcing more of our members into this toxic stew going to just drive them away or can they overwhelm the nastiness of really just three or four people?
A reply from a member I trust to these ideas was, "I understand why this might be good but I'd rather try to get people to show each other respect.....but then the question is how?" Exactly! How? One guy actually said to me in person, "I'm such an asshole on email." But, he won't stop! Ban the troll is not an option. Local NPO rules and our own bylaws make it almost impossible.
So...
1. Most definitions of bullying focus on kids. I'd like a really good set of criterion from a neutral source to evaluate whether some messaging on email among adults is bullying, please!
2. I've looked at codes of conduct such as Scala and Django.
3. There is a strong, ingrained culture of "you guys on the board of directors can't tell our part of the org what to do!" If we try to institute rules, how can we do it well so they will be accepted? Ideally, I'd like the mailing list members to write the rules themselves, but at this point it will likely just be another fight.
Have any of you successfully changed the culture of a large group like this where some members have been involved 20 + years? I've been trying, but it is slow going. And, the old saw about academic politics being so nasty because the stakes are so small applies doubly to academic professional *ahem* societies as the stakes get even tinier.
On the plus side, I really like most of the people on this list as individuals and as a group. And, I think everybody else mostly feels the same way. We get stuff done. People are mostly nicer and more cooperative in person, but the email, it's painful sometimes. And, I think it makes getting new people involved more difficult.
Thank you!
As Gatteno wrote "Language is for self-expression; communication is a miracle." Expression and communication by email even moreso.
The mailing list is closed. It is for officers and volunteers for a professional organization. This group has an old and strong organizational culture that prioritizes autonomy of local or other subgroups. We haven't always done a good job of setting expectations and enforcing our own rules in some cases. There are two camps with an us vs them mentality (local chapters vs distributed special interest groups) but not everyone falls into that trap. Many people are trying to encourage an attitude of we're all in it together.
Enter financial difficulties. Bad politics last year in a disputed election. And, some other stresses. The mailing list is getting nasty.
There are about 150 people on the list. Everyone is supposed to read it since it's the main way to communicate with volunteers. Lately quite a few people have admitted they don't read it because of time and or nastiness.
We have several problems. One is people basically just posting too much and too long. We finally set a message length limit, but that isn't helping much. For example in the past year, these are the top posters and number of messages.
Mr A 182
Mr B 114
Yours truly 94 In my defense, group communications is part of my job.
Mr C 92
Mr D 67
Mr E 59
Mr F 54
Mr G 52
Besides the very obvious gender problem which may be a contributing factor here, A, B, C, and D are long-time members and volunteers but not in national leadership positions. They run smaller subgroups. There may be some sense of entitlement going on since they've been around forever..
Mr D likes to use words like "attack" and "crazy". Insists he is only interested in attacking ideas and has no argument with people. Plenty of non-apology apologies.
Slightly edited and anon snippets to show what is happening:
D to E: your tone sounds almost martyr-like. (I understand you were probably tired when you wrote this.)
D: Apologies if I may have been inartful in how I expressed myself. I didn’t mean to equate you personally or all of the xxxxxx groups collectively with Walmart
D: please don’t take offense as I, a “Group guy”, critically examine and appear to criticize “you Other group people” in the other wing of _our_ organization. I’m not attacking “you others", I’m attacking some (what I believe to be not so good) ideas that have sprung up at some point in _our_ history and that have taken hold within some parts of _our_ organization.
D: Apologies in advance for the length of this email. Also, please note that when I reference someone’s quotation, I intend to attack the idea rather than the person referenced.
And this little exchange
D to E: ... hard to understand how anyone could be for something in the long-term, but opposed to it in the short-term. To me, that’s just crazy.
E to D: I am trying to focus on the "to me" rather than what I feel is the loaded term "crazy" and just respond xxxxxx , though my emotional response is to feel _I'm_ being called crazy.
Personally, I think D's behavior towards E and others is bullying. Besides comments about others' personality or aggressive language. D tends to just keep on posting. Same behavior in our three times a year in-person meetings. Is just bulldozing by taking so many turns and being so long winded bullying?
In person meetings have improved by introduction of a timer (2 minutes per speaker), enforcing Roberts Rules, etc.
A. I've suggested a posting limit (1 msg per 24 hours maybe?) to stop things spinning out of control. Something that really requires multiple messages a day from one person is business to be handled in committee and then presented to the list. This will no doubt result in cries of censorship or what about my freedom of speech!
B. Strong moderator(s) are probably a non-starter. The in-person meetings work better when people "address the chair" not each other as in Roberts Rules. Could something similar work on email? How to implement it?
C. Additional members. At the moment, not all officers/volunteers are subscribed. I think they should all be. Not always, but sometimes people behave better if they have more eyes on them. Is forcing more of our members into this toxic stew going to just drive them away or can they overwhelm the nastiness of really just three or four people?
A reply from a member I trust to these ideas was, "I understand why this might be good but I'd rather try to get people to show each other respect.....but then the question is how?" Exactly! How? One guy actually said to me in person, "I'm such an asshole on email." But, he won't stop! Ban the troll is not an option. Local NPO rules and our own bylaws make it almost impossible.
So...
1. Most definitions of bullying focus on kids. I'd like a really good set of criterion from a neutral source to evaluate whether some messaging on email among adults is bullying, please!
2. I've looked at codes of conduct such as Scala and Django.
3. There is a strong, ingrained culture of "you guys on the board of directors can't tell our part of the org what to do!" If we try to institute rules, how can we do it well so they will be accepted? Ideally, I'd like the mailing list members to write the rules themselves, but at this point it will likely just be another fight.
Have any of you successfully changed the culture of a large group like this where some members have been involved 20 + years? I've been trying, but it is slow going. And, the old saw about academic politics being so nasty because the stakes are so small applies doubly to academic professional *ahem* societies as the stakes get even tinier.
On the plus side, I really like most of the people on this list as individuals and as a group. And, I think everybody else mostly feels the same way. We get stuff done. People are mostly nicer and more cooperative in person, but the email, it's painful sometimes. And, I think it makes getting new people involved more difficult.
Thank you!
Would it be possible to set up two lists? One would be an announcement only list, to which only officers could post, so that volunteers and members know information that is necessary (e.g., Thursday's meeting will be at 7:30 in the community center basement). The other could be a discussion list, and it would be opt-in, so that the Misters who want to have strategy or politics or whatever conversations online can do so, and those for whom those conversations are annoying or unnecessary don't have to weed through them to find out the information they need.
posted by decathecting at 5:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by decathecting at 5:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
To answer your questions more specifically, here is an article on workplace bullying that sets out what behavior is or is not bullying, and why you want to put a stop to it. Here is an article on bullying in non-profits, and how to handle it. I read through the Scala and Django codes of conduct, and they seem like they might not address the types of issues you are seeing sufficiently. You might get, "hey, dude, sorry! That's just how I am! I'm an asshole in email!" I do like the section that has specific examples of how not to write (and what to write instead), but that's more "best practices" and less "code of conduct." I wonder if a stricter sounding set of rules for online behavior would take some of the wishy-washiness out of the equation. Maybe something more like these official sounding rules of conduct.
You actually probably already have rules of conduct, in that most online communication software comes with default clickware agreements that users agree to when signing up. Check to see what yours says, because you may already be covered.
If not, and you are moving on to (3) on your list above, you have a few options. If your position can realistically be construed as one of authority, you can pick a good and fairly uncontroversial code of conduct and hand it down as policy. If not, you can try to build support behind the scenes, get enough people on board, and then have a vote on two or three equally acceptable options. Or you can ask for a committee of members to come up with a policy to address concerns. The more you open the issue up to group feedback, the more likely it is that you will spend the next 12 months managing arguments about whether you need a policy, what kind of policy you need, and whether there should be a comma or a semi-colon in section 24.3 subsection A. You probably know your audience best and have a feel for what would and would not work for them.
On preview, yes! A separate announcements list is an awesome solution to "too many emails, some of which are mean." That is a solution I have seen work well. I have also seen a dual Listserv work when separated by topic, like "Technical" vs "Social".
posted by instamatic at 5:39 AM on April 28, 2015
You actually probably already have rules of conduct, in that most online communication software comes with default clickware agreements that users agree to when signing up. Check to see what yours says, because you may already be covered.
If not, and you are moving on to (3) on your list above, you have a few options. If your position can realistically be construed as one of authority, you can pick a good and fairly uncontroversial code of conduct and hand it down as policy. If not, you can try to build support behind the scenes, get enough people on board, and then have a vote on two or three equally acceptable options. Or you can ask for a committee of members to come up with a policy to address concerns. The more you open the issue up to group feedback, the more likely it is that you will spend the next 12 months managing arguments about whether you need a policy, what kind of policy you need, and whether there should be a comma or a semi-colon in section 24.3 subsection A. You probably know your audience best and have a feel for what would and would not work for them.
On preview, yes! A separate announcements list is an awesome solution to "too many emails, some of which are mean." That is a solution I have seen work well. I have also seen a dual Listserv work when separated by topic, like "Technical" vs "Social".
posted by instamatic at 5:39 AM on April 28, 2015
1. Most definitions of bullying focus on kids. I'd like a really good set of criterion from a neutral source to evaluate whether some messaging on email among adults is bullying, please!
Defining this one member's behavior as "bullying" may not help-- especially not if you are using the label to try to get him to modify his behavior. He's going to say that the term is not appropriate to describe behavior among adults with equal power and he's going to shrug it off.
Every listserv I've been on has someone like this; short of banning them you just have to work out how to contain them. I'm on the list of a national organization right now with one person who posts too much and who uses very aggressive language. This has been going on with this individual for years. I don't know what, if any, discussions have taken place behind the scenes. Periodically an administrator posts a "reminder" about list rules. These reminders are posted more when there are prolonged arguments taking place. And that's it.
If people are posting a lot of crap, I think the best thing is to try and get them for label their subjects appropriately and change headers when necessary. By working on that level, I think you can get the average person more aware of how much they are posting and what purpose it is serving. I also like the idea of having a separate list for announcements only.
posted by BibiRose at 5:52 AM on April 28, 2015
Is forcing more of our members into this toxic stew going to just drive them away or can they overwhelm the nastiness of really just three or four people?
I would bet that overwhelming the nastiness by adding more people to the list is not going to happen. I believe that peer pressure is a fairly weak force in an online environment. (It's stronger on metafilter because it has enforcement muscle behind it, imo.)
posted by puddledork at 8:06 AM on April 28, 2015
I would bet that overwhelming the nastiness by adding more people to the list is not going to happen. I believe that peer pressure is a fairly weak force in an online environment. (It's stronger on metafilter because it has enforcement muscle behind it, imo.)
posted by puddledork at 8:06 AM on April 28, 2015
I feel for you: this is a tough (and very common) problem. It's very normal on lists for a small number of people to dominate discussion, for people to be less kind on-list than they are in-person, and for unpleasant people to drive away others.
An announce-only list will let people stay in the loop on what's important without needing to endure a bunch of chat they're not interested in. But it won't do anything to address the overall problem. Posting limits will help a little, but not much, and they bring their own problems of enforcement and fighting about the limits.
Essentially any effort aimed at muzzling or mitigating the unpleasant people will have limited effect. Because TBH many like the attention, don't mind disharmony/fighting, and have lots of time and energy for it. Fighting about fighting will further drive away people who are more harmony-centric. Also, you cannot reform the fighty people. They are what they are. So don't bother with that. Don't name-call/label ("bullying"); it doesn't help and just gives people something to fight about. And try to assume good faith: sometimes, for example when people are writing in a second language or are from a culture that's more direct that yours, they will come across as fighty when it's not their intent. Never assume someone's being an asshole on purpose: it can't help.
For the reasons I gave above, it is very hard to reduce negative interactions once they've started. You may have some success, however, in increasing positive interactions, and thereby tipping the overall balance towards being more enjoyable.
How to do that: Encourage people to post success stories and celebratory news. When they do, praise and celebrate. If people bitch about how +1ing (and similar) is a waste of the list's time, push back/reframe. Encourage occasional "fun" threads that in some way celebrate the group's identity and shared values. Encourage sharing of relevant articles and other low-emotion low-stakes threads. This will give constructive people a way to engage without risking being flamed.
Don't get caught in the free speech / censorship debates. You can sidestep that by talking about what you'd (collectively) like the list to be like. Do you want it to be friendly, fun, affirming, generative, useful, collegial, awesome? Say that. Raise the bar from "not a cesspool" to fantastic. (And don't penalize bad stuff because that will trigger the censorship wars. Just note it as not great and move on.)
"We don't do that here" is very powerful language that I first read here, I think, from jessamyn. If you can't say that (because it's not true) try something aspirational like "I think we can do better" or "personally I would love this to be a place where everyone feels welcome." Talk about what you do want, rather than getting mired in debating the details of what you don't want. It might be worth starting a thread to that effect ("in a perfect world, what would we like this list to be like, and how can we make it happen"). If you do that, though, don't get derailed into having a negative conversation about banning/mitigating assholes. The goal is not to reach pragmatic next steps: the goal would be simply to reach some level of agreement that enjoyable, supportive, and useful are what's wanted, so that later you can reference that agreement to defend praise and celebration.
But overall, be aware that mailing lists are tools of limited usefulness. Really all you can do on a mailing list is give information and fight about stuff. That's what they're good at. If you want to discuss-and-decide, or plan projects, or create space for casual social bonding, there are other better tools for that. Loomio, Asana, Slack, IRC spring to mind.
posted by Susan PG at 10:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
An announce-only list will let people stay in the loop on what's important without needing to endure a bunch of chat they're not interested in. But it won't do anything to address the overall problem. Posting limits will help a little, but not much, and they bring their own problems of enforcement and fighting about the limits.
Essentially any effort aimed at muzzling or mitigating the unpleasant people will have limited effect. Because TBH many like the attention, don't mind disharmony/fighting, and have lots of time and energy for it. Fighting about fighting will further drive away people who are more harmony-centric. Also, you cannot reform the fighty people. They are what they are. So don't bother with that. Don't name-call/label ("bullying"); it doesn't help and just gives people something to fight about. And try to assume good faith: sometimes, for example when people are writing in a second language or are from a culture that's more direct that yours, they will come across as fighty when it's not their intent. Never assume someone's being an asshole on purpose: it can't help.
For the reasons I gave above, it is very hard to reduce negative interactions once they've started. You may have some success, however, in increasing positive interactions, and thereby tipping the overall balance towards being more enjoyable.
How to do that: Encourage people to post success stories and celebratory news. When they do, praise and celebrate. If people bitch about how +1ing (and similar) is a waste of the list's time, push back/reframe. Encourage occasional "fun" threads that in some way celebrate the group's identity and shared values. Encourage sharing of relevant articles and other low-emotion low-stakes threads. This will give constructive people a way to engage without risking being flamed.
Don't get caught in the free speech / censorship debates. You can sidestep that by talking about what you'd (collectively) like the list to be like. Do you want it to be friendly, fun, affirming, generative, useful, collegial, awesome? Say that. Raise the bar from "not a cesspool" to fantastic. (And don't penalize bad stuff because that will trigger the censorship wars. Just note it as not great and move on.)
"We don't do that here" is very powerful language that I first read here, I think, from jessamyn. If you can't say that (because it's not true) try something aspirational like "I think we can do better" or "personally I would love this to be a place where everyone feels welcome." Talk about what you do want, rather than getting mired in debating the details of what you don't want. It might be worth starting a thread to that effect ("in a perfect world, what would we like this list to be like, and how can we make it happen"). If you do that, though, don't get derailed into having a negative conversation about banning/mitigating assholes. The goal is not to reach pragmatic next steps: the goal would be simply to reach some level of agreement that enjoyable, supportive, and useful are what's wanted, so that later you can reference that agreement to defend praise and celebration.
But overall, be aware that mailing lists are tools of limited usefulness. Really all you can do on a mailing list is give information and fight about stuff. That's what they're good at. If you want to discuss-and-decide, or plan projects, or create space for casual social bonding, there are other better tools for that. Loomio, Asana, Slack, IRC spring to mind.
posted by Susan PG at 10:35 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
« Older Bonjour, Mefi! Paris tips for two NY travelers... | But I don't want to give you anything Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I guess the first question I'd ask is "who is in charge of the Listserv?" I can't quite tell from your post if you are in charge, or if you are trying to "manage up" without actual authority. (It's just a different approach, depending upon which is true.)
I've been a part of several Listservs that have had the potential to get out of hand, and they have solved it with strong moderation.
One set the list up so that messages had to be approved/moderated before being sent. In the software controls it's easy to set one, some, or all users so that their messages are held for approval before being sent. You can also temporarily "mute" people so that they cannot send messages during a specific time period. (This requires a moderator or gatekeeper, and may not be ideal for you.)
One has rules about what not to post and a general community consensus about proper behavior and a moderator who only occasionally has to get involved by reminding people how to interact.
Another has a very strict set of rules about what is acceptable to post, and several list managers who send out semi-frequent reminders about the rules and shuts down conversations when they become "more heat than light."
I don't really think you can solve this problem without some kind of authority and moderation. If it were me, I'd get someone to address Mr. D personally. His boss, if he has one. If he is a volunteer and not staff, how badly do you need him? Is his toxic interaction style worth what he's costing your organization in goodwill from others? Because based on your snippets, this seems like a personal style of expression that he will not find easy/necessary to change. I don't think rules about bullying will change his attitude, so you might as well address the problem (him) head on.
posted by instamatic at 3:37 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]