Thirty years ago, working with the federal and V.I. governments, I developed the St. Thomas/St. John Youth Multiservice Center. The commitment was to have a center on St. Thomas and one on St. Croix, each providing a range of educational, training, health care and cultural services.

To explain the concept and win community support, I did a presentation on St. Croix. There was an excellent turnout, but just as I was getting under way, a group of “community activists” demanded to know how much my contract was. I told them.

They then made the usual points: they were sick and tired of St. Croix being second and didn’t need outsiders telling them how to deliver youth services. And they didn’t like white people.

I had been through all of this before and was ready to proceed. But I needed some message of support from the rest of the audience. There was none. They sat silent. So I said, “OK” and began to pack up my materials to leave.

“Where are you going?” they demanded. I told them I was leaving based on their remarks and what seemed to be agreement from the larger group. One yelled, “You can’t leave, you have a contract.” I said that I was giving the money back, which I did, and left.

Although the St. Thomas Center never realized its full potential, it delivered valuable services for two decades and almost certainly changed young lives. Needless to say, those who disrupted the meeting on St. Croix did nothing to develop their own initiative. There would not be a St. Croix youth multiservice center.
In the past, this kind of disruptive behavior was largely ignored. It was seen as an annoyance, but not much more. In recent years, it has begun to be taken more seriously. The reason for the shift is that we now understand that the consequences of these behaviors are far more destructive than previously thought. Disruptive behavior, especially in the workplace or in public forums, is now considered a serious problem.

The Joint Commission is the body that accredits all hospitals in the United States, including those in the Virgin Islands. It regularly establishes priorities based on detailed research and its ongoing findings. Several years ago, the commission identified the elimination of disruptive behavior as a high priority for all hospitals. It did this because it found that disruptive behavior caused significant damage to the work environment, morale, productivity and patient care.

Included in its definition of disruptive behavior are “angry outbursts or tirades, name calling and disrespect, throwing objects, bullying, insults or demeaning others, racial ethnic or socioeconomic slurs, disruption of meetings, uncooperative or defiant approaches to problems and refusal to carry out tasks.”

Sound familiar?

Because these behaviors are so destructive, the commission requires every hospital to set a “zero tolerance” standard and to have in place processes for dealing with offenders.

Having worked in many places, I know of none that tolerates – and by tolerating, rewards – disruptive behavior as much as the U.S. Virgin Islands. And, because the consequences are usually things that don’t get done, it is easy to underestimate the damage. Disruptive behavior is the parent of missed opportunity.

Just to take one small example, how many St. Croix young people would have benefited from the presence of a youth multiservice center? There is also a big social price in rewarding disruptive people by tolerating their behavior. They create a culture of intimidation, disruption and bullying that undermines all kinds of positive action. Voices that could make a positive contribution are silenced.

Externally, when these people travel as representatives of the territory, one of the costs is embarrassment and humiliation. Who sent these people? Are they all like that?

The Joint Commission provides a framework for dealing with disruptive behavior in any setting. The starting point is to name the problem and to make it clear that it will no longer be tolerated. Starting now!

Like a lot of things, this is easy to say and hard to do. In particular, it is always difficult to confront bullies, especially if their behavior has been rewarded and tolerated for a long time. After all, failure to confront them is how they became successful bullies.

But here is a spur to action. Look at recent examples of disruptive behavior, especially in public meetings, and ask the question: What happens because of this behavior? It is safe to predict that any group asking this question will be surprised by the damage being done, just as the Joint Commission found. In the Virgin Islands, it is likely that a review of the negative impact and consequences will not be surprising. It will be stunning.

It would also be useful to do a review of the contributions of the most disruptive people to community good. What institutional, programmatic or policy benefits have they been responsible for? We can be pretty certain, that, in contrast to their negative impact, there will be no surprises here. There will be virtually nothing. There never is.

Aug. 21, 2011