logo
How To Reframe Negative Talk In The Workplace

How To Reframe Negative Talk In The Workplace

Forbes23-05-2025

Stephanie Dillon is Chief Ideator at Stephanie Dillon Art.
getty
I've done it. You've probably done it. Whether we whisper it in the back room or broadcast it on a group text, the pattern is always the same: When we hate, we recruit. We gather the evidence. We retell the story. We embellish it just enough for dramatic tension. We say, 'Can you believe she…' And then we wait for the head nod, the 'Oh my God, yes' or the 'She's the worst.' Because outrage is lonelier when you're the only one carrying it.
It took me years and a few painful reckonings to admit this impulse in myself. The truth is that thinking about someone negatively in isolation rarely satisfies us. So we invite others in. Not because we want justice. But because we want backup. Because it's easier to stay angry when someone else is angry with you.
But here's where this gets dangerous: When we recruit others into our dislike, into our vendettas, our office politics or our silent treatments, we're not just hating. We're building a team—a team against someone else. And suddenly, it's not about what happened; it's about the power we now feel together. I've done this in business. I've bristled when someone's success outpaced mine. I've painted someone unkindly to make my version feel more justified. And I've invited others to paint alongside me. Why? Because, in the moment, it felt righteous. It felt bonding. It felt…easier. But really, it was fear. Fear that maybe I wasn't good enough. Fear that someone else's shine meant mine was dimming. Fear that if I didn't unite others behind me, I might be left standing alone with a feeling I couldn't fully explain.
In business, we justify this behavior as 'building culture.' We call it 'protecting the team.' We say, 'I'm just being honest.' But when honesty becomes a smear campaign, when culture becomes cliquey and when vulnerability turns into weaponized gossip, we're no longer leading. We're manipulating. So, how do we stop? How do we break the cycle when hating together feels better than healing alone? Here's what I practice now:
Ask a key question: Is this true—or just true to me? Most hate starts with a feeling, not a fact. Get curious about the gap.
If I need to vent, I write it down—in a note or a journal. Voice memos work, too. Just don't vent in the group chat.
Is it betrayal? Jealousy? Grief? Rejection? Call it what it is. Hate is usually the mask.
You don't have to rewrite the narrative. You can just step out of it.
Even if it's small. Especially if it's hard. The moment I do this, something in me unclenches.
Because everything we co-sign and every "huddle of hate" we join shapes our reputation more than the person we're talking about.
The truth is, none of us are immune to gossip. Not in business. Not in friendship. Not in families. We are wired for tribalism. But we are also wired for growth. For accountability. For radical empathy. So, today, I choose to stop recruiting. I choose to stop winking at cruelty. I choose to deal with my discomfort in the mirror, not through a megaphone. Because while it might feel good to be part of the takedown, it feels even better to be someone who doesn't need one. And that, to me, is the kind of leadership we desperately need more of: not the kind that weaponizes emotion, but the kind that knows the difference between connection and collusion.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report
Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report

Fox News

time16 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report

The attorneys representing the former Letcher County, Kentucky sheriff who stands accused of murdering the county's judge in his chambers have filed a new motion to have their client's indictment dismissed, according to a report. Former sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines' lawyers say the state failed to record a November 2024 meeting between state prosecutors and the Letcher County grand jury that eventually indicted Stines, according to a court filing obtained by KAVE. The filing says the grand jury was "deprived of information known to the Commonwealth [of Kentucky], sought in question by grand jurors, but not disclosed." Stines allegedly shot District Judge Kevin Mullins in Mullins' own chambers in the Letcher County Courthouse on Sept. 19, 2024. The incident, which rocked the tiny rural town, was caught on a surveillance camera. Both Stines and Mullins were well-known pillars of the community for decades. Specifically, the motion filed by attorney duo Jeremy and Kerri Bartley says the grand jury was denied information about an ongoing civil lawsuit, in which Stines is named as a defendant, that could provide context for the shooting. The lawyers also claim that testimony before the grand jury from Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper, the lead investigator in the case, was unfairly prejudicial. Stines' attorneys claim that allegations of sexual abuse plagued the Letcher County Courthouse. Just three days before the shooting, Stines was deposed in a civil case against his former deputy, Ben Fields, who is currently serving prison time for raping a woman inside the courthouse in exchange for removing her ankle monitor while she was on home confinement during criminal proceedings. Jeremy Bartley told Fox News Digital that the sheriff had threatened to keep his mouth shut in the civil case, and that he feared for the safety of his wife and daughter. "On the day that this [shooting] happened, my client had attempted multiple times to contact his wife and daughter, and he firmly believed that they were in danger," Bartley said. "He believed that they were in danger because of what he knew to have happened within the courthouse. And there was pressure, and there were threats made to him to sort of keep him in line, to keep them from saying more than these folks wanted him to say." "I think one of the big things is that my client felt there had been pressure placed on him not to say too much during the deposition, and not to talk about things that happened within the courthouse, particularly in the judge's chambers," Bartley said. Body camera footage from the immediate aftermath of the shooting shows a paranoid Stines afraid for his life while being questioned by police. "Come on, be fair to me now," Stines can be heard saying to Stamper. "I seen the look… Y'all come on now, don't kill me. Don't punish me, you know. Let's be fair. Don't shoot me, nothing like that." "Y'all are gonna kill me, aren't you?" he asked. "Y'all are gonna kill me, I know you are. Let's just get it over with. Let's just go." Bartley is planning an insanity defense. Experts have denounced that defense as "frivolous." Fox News Digital reached out to Bartley and prosecutor Jackie Steele for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store