Is it Bullying? Is it Harassment? Or Is It Effective Management Designed To Get A Difficult Job Done?

Typically the response to these questions will be totally dependent on who you ask, their perspective and personal experience of the situation. Certainly in the situation that is currently on the CBC news about the RCMP leadership conflicts there are very different stories circulating about what is going on and who’s responsible for creating the problem(s).

So has Mr. Elliott created or contributed to a negative and toxic atmosphere in the RCMP?
That is not a simple question that can be answered Yes or No – there are too many other factors that come into play that must not be ignored if the objective is to create sustainable and long-term improvements in how the organization functions.

Or is he getting the job he was hired to do done?
- And in the process rattling a few chains by stirring up hornets nest in the Old Boy’s Club that is the establishment status quo? Again, not a question with a simple answer. Jumping to either conclusion too quickly and without serious research and analysis to determine objectively what is happening risks reaching erroneous conclusions based on assumptions and not facts. The potential to escalate the situation and make it even worse than it is now cannot be overstated.

As mediators who specialize in conducting Workplace Assessments and group interventions in large complex conflicts in dysfunctional situations, we recognize the challenges in trying to sort out what is rhetoric, what is rumour and what is the actual reality of what happens on a day to day operational basis.

Any credible and effective Workplace Assessment and Renewal Process needs to explore the infrastructure of the organization (policies, procedures, decision making structures and accountability, design and structure etc), its organizational culture and the individual and group dynamics that characterize the day to day operational reality. The patterns that show up are good indicators of areas that need further analysis and research. In other words – see a pattern? Dig there…

While the patterns related to the infrastructure of the organization are important, an even greater emphasis needs to be places on the human patterns that exist. How do people get along? What types of interactions does the organization reward? What is the leadership style? How do people describe the situation and their role in it? Are they able to see their role in the situation or do they see themselves as the misused and abused victim? Are there personal or hidden agendas that are influencing what people are saying or doing – and that may not be readily obvious?

Part of the challenge is that each of us has a vision of ourselves and who we are. We may see ourselves as competent, intelligent, honest, a capable communicator, someone who gets tough jobs done, a person with integrity or whatever our vision of ourselves may be. The problem is that others don’t necessarily share the same view. Others may see us in a very different light. For example:
- I see myself as helpful and supportive. You see me as pushy and in your face.
- I see myself as quiet and reserved. You see me as cold and withdrawn.
- I see myself as efficient and effective. You see me as uncaring and abusive.
- I see myself as friendly and outgoing. You see me as rude and obnoxious.

If I go through life believing that the rest of the world shares my vision of myself there will likely be problems. And as I make choices about how to deal with situations, I need to be aware of the how those choices may be seen by others.

Typically leaders are ‘take charge’ people. That’s how they end up in leadership positions. They tend to be dominant personalities who are solution focused and in many cases seem almost ‘driven’ to get the job done. In challenging situations, crises or tight time lines the situation is often intensified by the pressure to achieve despite the odds and so our leader will stride in, take control and in many cases bulldoze right over those around them.

When the need to get the job done predominates and takes over, the value in engaging others, building relationships or creating a team environment can get totally lost. Essentially it drops off the radar screen altogether as it is often perceived to be a waste of time and energy when there are more important things to get done – namely fixing the problem.

When asked, those in leadership positions will justify the choices they have made by the end results they were trying to achieve – ‘the end justifies the means’ rationale. And they are often totally oblivious to the collateral damage left in their wake. It is typically a case of ‘the axe forgets and the log remembers”.

This can create huge credibility issues for a leader as people disengage, withdraw their support and transfer their loyalty and allegiance to others they believe to be better suited to a leadership role. Or they may go into protective mode where the primary focus is self-protection, risk avoidance and trying to stay out of the line of fire.

In organizations when these dynamics are at play, the wariness, fear of repercussions, disillusionment and sense of needing to protect oneself can create a culture of passive-aggression leading to covert sabotage and resistance or when it hits the pain point where the situation is no longer tolerable, it may lead to mutiny.

How can anything positive come from a nasty situation such as this?

It is actually easier to deal with things at this level than when people are apathetic and indifferent. When the pain point is reached there is a great deal of motivation to deal with the situation and that motivation can be leveraged to create the necessary changes to improve the situation. Mutiny gets attention at all levels and that attention at the level of senior management or employers generally results in a decision that action is needed to address the situation. Resources are allocated, people are motivated to do something and providing a constructive and credible process for change is offered, the potential for a positive outcome is good.

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organizational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.

Wrongful Dismissal and Blame-storming – Its Impacts on Organizational Culture

By Ruth Sirman, CanMediate International

According to the CBC News today the PSLRB ruled today that Douglas Tipple’s employment with PWGSC was unfairly terminated by the federal government and that he did not deserve the slurs against his reputation, the loss of his position and the campaign to discredit him. While the impact for Mr. Tipple is significant as noted by the adjudicator Mr Quigley, it is also critical to look at the impact on this type of situation has on the organization as a whole.

People in organizations are rarely oblivious to the undercurrents present in their workplace. In other words, they know what’s going on and in the same way that children sense what is happening in families even when parents believe that they have managed to hide the tensions, employees are very adept at reading the energy and atmosphere in their workplaces. And they recognize toxicity, dysfunction and lack of credibility within organizations and their leadership.

Human beings have a very well developed sense of what is right and wrong, and while there may be times when they choose to ignore this, the type of situation that happened at PWGSC is typically one where that sense of fairness will be alive and well.
There is much talk these days about the need to create ‘healthy workplaces’. And certainly research supports the fact that employees are more productive when they are happy and feel safe.

However as human beings we seem to have an amazing capacity to create negative and dysfunctional working environments – and often leaders seem oblivious to the ripple effect and impact their choices have throughout their organizations.

In any organization whenever someone is ‘let go’ in a questionable way or where employees sense a level of cover-up or lack of fairness, it can trigger a chain reaction of feelings such as “if it could happen once (to them), then it could happen again - to me!” and “if this is going on what else is going on?” ultimately leaving employees with a sense that this is not a ‘safe’ place to work – and the guard goes up.

If I as an employee perceive that this is not a safe place to be and in particular not a safe place to make mistakes (or fail), then I will take steps to protect myself. Consequently a culture of wariness and risk aversion typically sets in and pervades the atmosphere of the workplace leading to people literally or at least figuratively looking over their shoulder and making choices that are perceived to be safer and less likely to bring me to the notice of the decision makers.

What does that mean for the organization?
When the organizational culture becomes wary, risk averse and self-protective, the impact on the organizations ability to thrive is huge. The most successful organizations out there who can thrive in continually changing economic and political climates are those which are flexible, robust and dynamic. They have organizational cultures that are built on creativity, accountability (NOT blame) and solid relationships that support the ability to adapt through solid, dynamic, creative responses to the challenges confronting them.

When the culture if perceived to be based on blame-storming (ie finger-pointing and scape-goating) the first things that get lost are openness and creativity. If I feel the need to protect myself, I will choose carefully what ideas I put out to the group, what decisions I make and what level of responsibility I am willing to assume. Protection becomes more important than contribution – and the organization suffers.

The Canadian Federal Public Service is currently struggling with many of these issues. There are a great many hard working, dedicated and top-notch employees in the Public Service who work long hours to provide great service to Canadians. And as Canadians we want our Public Service to be accountable for the way our tax dollars are spent. However the difference between accountability and blame seems to be generally misunderstood.

Blame is me telling you that you made a mistake. Accountability is when I step up and take responsibility for my actions and acknowledge that I made a mistake. There is a huge difference between the two. Both typically have consequences – in blame they are generally punitive in nature. In accountability they are more typically fair and reasonable.

However accountability will not happen without a perceived level of safety and fairness – and that must include any consequences that happen as a result of someone being accountable. As young children we learned that if we are ‘to blame’ for something the punishment that follows is likely going to hurt in some way. So typically we stopped owning up to what we did… and learned to lie, deflect, deny, and avoid whenever possible.

We have now created this same type of environment within much of our Public Service.
The reactionary, rules-based culture of blame-storming, deflection and denial that has been created as a response to the sponsorship Scandal and other similar nasty situations makes it almost impossible to get any work done. As former CDS Rick Hillier said in his book “A Soldier First” when he was describing the challenges in trying to fight a war under PWGSC procurement rules: “The process has become the product” – which to me means that there is a culture in PWGSC that is more concerned about what things look like than it is concerned about getting the job done.

And we will continue to see denial, deflection and finger-pointing so long as we tolerate a toxic and dysfunctional organizational culture within our Public Service that rewards this type of behaviour rather than one in which openness, transparency and fairness are the norm.

Can it be changed? Absolutely - but as Albert Einstein said "You can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it". There would need to be a willingness on the part of leadership in the government and the public services to find a better way.

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.