Toxicity In The Knowledge Workplace

Using a knowledge representation language to describe and reason about toxic workplace interpersonal relations

in the knowledge intensive workplace.

 This research in systems sciences concerns using knowledge representation and reasoning

languages to model and simulate knowledge in knowledge intensive workplaces. Knowledge intensive workplaces such as universities, high technology firms, law offices, or government workplaces are workplaces, where knowledge or know-how is applied to knowledge products to produce new knowledge.

 In this brief paper the modeling of toxic interpersonal relationships in the workplace is

attempted. There is no illusion to expertise in the psychology of interpersonal relationships or a clinical definition of toxic interpersonal relationships involved. We will review these more common ways of viewing toxic relationships as a way of constructing a small knowledge base problem. The knowledge base will be a workplace modeled in a knowledge representation language and the problem will be toxicity of the workplace in terms of interpersonal relations. The problem will be a conditional for certain actions in the reasoning process.

 My research involves inferences or simulated thought. It will be assumed that toxic workplaces

degrade thought and that inferences are no longer reliable. There will be stress in this workplace beyond normal. Simulations of solutions to the toxic workplace will be attempted and reported on.

 This research may interests workers first and foremost, who face such relations, industrial

psychologists or workplace counselors, and students of management.  Peter Timusk graduate student in systems sciences.

Drawing from the paper:Emotions in Organisation: An Integral perspective by Wendelin Küpers and Jürgen Weibler from the International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008.

 Coordinate structure Example Shelia’s emotions lead her to plan her work day Regulate human perception and understanding of events,  Shelia thinks the picnic will be fun because her work has not been fun for the past

few months. Other people

Shelia likes her coworker because the coworker agrees the boss is toxic. the world in general Shelia feels happy with the weather today and her family and is proud to have

paid the rent again on time. Because she is happy she is looking forward to the future. If she was not happy she would not look forward to the future.

inform us of social surrounding andconcomitant attitudes and expectations andand possible actions.

Generally people at work are not happy yet they must work hard. The workplace seems quiet except for the bosses outbreaks and personal attacks. It is like walking on egg shells around the boss.

Shelia feels under valued because her work is hard and she is not getting positive feedback for this hard work. Only labour regulations are allowing breaks and this seems the only relief in the workday at this workplace.

Shelia is not sure what to expect with her latest research paper. Her supervisor has not even commented on it.

Shelia hopes her paper gets noticed by someone “out there” so she can gain some recognition and at least feel her work is of value. She keeps writing and revising.

Tactic Knowledge -craft person

Explicit Knowledge- work manual- recorded on intranet

Operational Knowledge - keeps the company working- experienced workers have this

Know how-experience workers know how to produce the products

Know who- experienced workers know who to call- a person knows the partner company and the company know the person

Stable- allow good mental health- allow predicable results

Uncertain- causes anxiety- does not allow predication

Affect Levels- high levels like angry outbursts- low levels such as steady work

Sustained or temporary stressors- sustained stress perhaps more predictable- stress that is temporary can be coped with

Knowledge Emotions

From Overcome Toxic Management, by Heather Kimura, Nursing Management, 34,1, Jan. 2003.

Poisons healthy processes

Breaks down planning, organizing, problem solving, clarifying, motivating.

Causes despair, anger, depression,

Leading to poor work performance high absenteeism and increased turn over.

Kimura quoting Kotter, J from The Harvard Business Review on Leadership (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Business school, 1998) at 37-60.

These managers are pleasing to their own supervisors, damaging to employee morale, plan only for the bottom line, are allowed to do this because it looks good on paper.

Employees should be well developed and are an important part of the company not a cost to be minimized.

Managers should challenge their own assumptions.

Staff should be valued to reduce toxic behaviours.

How a knowledge base (KB) might look for a small unit with a toxic manager in a larger company.

A collection of logical statements that define a domain and entailments(inferences or reasoning).

Logical language or knowledge representation language is used to write this specification.

George the chief Sally a senior clerk Wendy a junior clerk Sam a junior clerk

The rest of the company is “out there” outside of our research frame.

George gives feed back in some way and at some time.

Sally organizes work loads for Wendy and Sam.

Wendy and Sam process leave requests for the company.

George gives encouraging feedback

George empowers everyone else

George empowers one other employee named X.

George offers advice and support

George explodes George is critical of

employee X in front of other workers

George gives no feedback

George gives direct orders

If George behaves with this list of behaviours the workplace is not toxic.

If George behaves with this list of behaviours the workplace is toxic.

Wendy processes 10 leave requests a day if work is non toxic

Sam processes 10 leave requests a day if the work is non toxic

If the workplace is toxic a clerk doubts their abilities

If a clerk doubts their abilities they process only 5 leave requests a day.

We will look at some simple logic statements

Definite Knowledge Indefinite Knowledge

p ⋀ q ⇒ r If George gives no

feedback(p) and Wendy doubts her abilities(q) then, Wendy only processes five leave requests a day(r).

p ⋀ q ⇒ r ⋁ s If Wendy only

processes five leave requests a day(p) and George is toxic(q) then either,) George gives feedback(r) or, George gives no feedback(s) .

We could use logic statements to model the workplace to some extent.

Like surveys and other research models we would need expert input on toxic workplaces.

I am still learning these languages and the use of computer programs like Otter to prove theories and do automated reasoning.

I did not try these suggested models in a computer.