American View: How do you mitigate the risk of a colleague who believes they’re infallible?

Human Resources20 May 2025

My mate Eduardo phoned me up Sunday afternoon to tell me that he’d heard some “great news” about one of our former colleagues. “Oooh!” I exclaimed in mock excitement. “Is the [BLEEP] finally dead?!”

Eduardo laughed and explained that no, our shared irritant – we’ll call him “Bob” – was regrettably still very much alive. “He’s leaving the company, though,” Eduardo crowed. “He’ll be working in another city soon, so that’s good.”

I had to agree. Bob leaving the office vocationally wasn’t as satisfying as Bob leaving it mortally, but after years of exasperation with the man it was a fine first step. Bob’s legacy in our old outfit is about as bleak as one can get without being an appointed member of the current American government. While upper management has loved and supported Bob for decades, the man was universally despised by the working and managerial classes. It was a running joke that if Bob’s corpse was ever found in the car park the police wouldn’t find any skid marks to suggest there’d been an attempt to brake.

Along those lines, a common joke in the company breakroom what that the only birthday or Christmas gift that anyone in the office wanted was news of Bob’s murder. Didn’t matter how it happened, folks claimed, so long as the [BLEEP] was shuffled off this mortal coil. It was claimed that there would never be any witnesses no matter how many people were celebrating in the cubicle farm afterwards.

Now, to be clear for the lawyers reading along, no one ever attempted to kill Bob (as far as I know). Heck, nobody ever took the jokes about offing Bob seriously. Bob was despised, sure, but not enough for anyone to trade their dreary office job for Death Row. Right or wrong, Texans enjoy violent themes and sentiment in their jokes. Folks from civilized places might find that odd.

Even our traditional footwear is considered unnecessarily violent, both to our own knees and to others’ shins.

Anyway … For the record our Bob is an arrogant, condescending, smarmy, bigoted, preening, git. He consistently treats people badly unless they can “do things” for him [wink wink, nudge nudge]. Everyone that isn’t Bob’s enabler is mere filth to be ignored. Bob’s reputation as a jerk was cemented long before I first worked with him. Hopefully I’ve made it clear that Bob is a jerk. Always was. Surely always will be. I’d like him to finally experience an epiphany and change his ways, but I’d sooner expect a whale to fly than for Bob to stop treating other people like garbage.

The reason I’m bringing up Bob isn’t a scheme to sell more copies of In Bob We Trust. ^[1] Rather, I want to make a point about the effects of perception on behaviour. Specifically, what a person believes about their own professional reputation, true or false, can change how they act. I’m sharing Bob’s reputation here because the disconnect between one’s self-image and one’s understanding of their own reputation is important in understanding their behaviour. I’m convinced this is a vulnerability that’s “baked in” to the human condition, making it useful for predicting and understanding potentially disruptive conduct.

The tool I’m applying to Bob is the “looking-glass self” theory. A sociologist named Charles Horton Cooley came up with this idea in – brace yourself! – 1902. Put simply, his theory posits that a person’s self-image is affected by their interpretations and conclusions – that is, their beliefs – of how others perceive them.

As an example, imagine joining a Zoom call with your new co-workers. As you introduce yourself and explain your role in the organisation, you pay attention to how the other attendees on the call react to your presentation. If they nod, smile, or laugh you would probably interpret that as a positive response and believe that these strangers respect you. If, however, your audience frowns, rolls their eyes, adopts defensive body language, or outright ignores you, then you’d probably interpret that as a sign of their disdain. In both examples, you don’t actually know what the other people feel about you; you’re projecting your own understanding of their reactions and assuming that these strangers must believe what you would believe if you were the one acting this way.

“She seems nice. No one would ever guess she’s really into arson!”

If we accept that the “looking-glass self” theory is a useful tool for inferring others’ assessment of your relative acceptance in the group, and that you want to be accepted by the group, then a reasonable person would note the negative feedback and adjust their behaviour to increase the likelihood of more favourable responses. For example, if you tell an off-colour joke and everyone laughs, you’ll be more likely to make more such jokes in the future to pursue positive feedback. If you get glared at, you’ll change the tone of your jokes or stop making jokes altogether. Most of us attempt to “read” others’ reactions and tweak our conduct accordingly because we want to be accepted.

That’s where a fellow like Bob breaks the model. Not because he’s an insufferable bigot – which he totally is – but because Bob has power! Assuming Bob has normal perception skill, you might expect him to notice when people react negatively to his abusive and condescending comments. You might also expect him to keep his bigoted ideas to himself to get along with his co-workers. This doesn’t happen for two reasons:

First, Bob doesn’t care what others think of him. He’s a religious zealot who considers everyone who isn’t a member of his faith to be subhuman filth. Therefore, the heathens’ opinion on any subject don’t matter and can be ignored. How convenient!

More importantly for our purposes is that Bob’s peers and subordinates don’t act normally around him. Because of the man’s well-known abusive nature and discriminatory beliefs, it’s routine for people who know Bob to mask their emotional reactions around him. As far as Bob is concerned, he never perceives revulsion in others’ facial expressions, body language, or speech. His comments are either accepted with a polite chuckle or are stonily ignored. Therefore, from Bob’s vantage point, there are no negative indications to process and, therefore, no reasons for him to change. In short, Bob comes to work believing that he’s his god’s perfect creations and no one ever communicates to him that he’s not. As Mel Brooks famously quipped, “It’s good to be the king.”

The person in the office who thinks they’re special is highly likely to wilfully violate behaviour standards just to prove to themselves that they’re special.

This is a recurring security vulnerability since effective human risk management depends on users wanting to “fit in” with their office culture. When a user breaks a required protocol or does something risky, a healthy security culture rebukes the offender for their misdeed so the offender will change their behaviour to be accepted by the group. The problem is a fellow like Bob will neither receive the required rebuke nor perceive that his actions are considered unacceptable. Bob mistakenly believes that he can do as he likes! This undermines the socialization process. It’s only a matter of time before a guy like Bob commits an unpardonable offense. Even then, he might be forgiven his transgression because he can honestly claim that noone ever told him that what he was doing was wrong. Even when shown the company’s policies, Bob can point to the lack of response as tacit endorsement of his actions.

This, I believe, is why direct and immediate feedback are crucial to curtailing bad behaviour. Someone needs to tell the Bobs of their organisation that they’re out of line and need to get right. The confrontation doesn’t need to be harsh, but it needs to happen. When your Bob gets out of line, cut them off! Correct them the first time, rebuke them the second, and censure them on the third instance. Make it clear for everyone that such conduct is unacceptable and that even a powerful person like Bob is held to the same standard. It’s not personal; it’s just security. You will comply, Bob; there is no second option.

I appreciate that such willingness to confront a powerful and vindictive person takes moral courage. If you feel you can’t confront your own Bob, then talk with your boss or your security department about getting a “hired gun” to sort Bob for you. It’s important: the sooner you confront and correct your Bob, the better it’ll be for everyone in the organisation. Maybe your Bob will even reconsider how others perceive them and change their ways for the better!

Or not … If direct feedback doesn’t inspire then to reform, you can always invite them to check out the killer view from the roof ...

^[1] Seriously, if it interests you, just use your free monthly Audible credits to get it. It’s fine.