It is unusual to hear anyone say “I am so lucky, I work in the world’s worst workplace!” Given the choice, the majority of people would prefer a workplace that is healthy, productive and where they can relax and focus on getting the job done.
But toxicity is not unusual in workplaces! And it can be overwhelming, frustrating and challenging particularly when it seems it’s being ignored. The stress can have a significant impact on our health and ability to focus. Is it hopeless? I would say ‘NO’ – it can be fixed but like many other areas of our lives we are not willing to invest in changing until we hit a pain point where things are bad enough that the situation can no longer be ignored. At that point it is more likely that the group is willing to make the changes necessary. And change is possible – we have helped many groups turn things around and create healthier working environments from toxic and difficult situations.
Check out CBC radio’s Ontario Today on Thursday March 22 for Ruth’s interview with Rita Celli on moving from “toxic” to “healthy”.
To listen in the Ottawa Canada area… CBC Ottawa 91.5 FM;
To listen Online: www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday
To call in: 1-888-817-8995
Showing posts with label harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harassment. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Toxic Workplaces
Ask any employees or manager on their way to work if, given their choice, they would choose a toxic, nasty working environment over an enjoyable, supportive one and the response will be overwhelmingly ‘NO’. Yet according to statistics quoted by Dr. Steven Stein at the “Staying on Top of Your Game™” session put on by The Psychology Foundation of Canada in Ottawa this morning, more than 20% of people surveyed in 2009 indicated that they work in a ‘Negative work climate’, that ‘Work overload’ is a problem for 27% of people and 22% feel there is a ‘Lack of recognition’ in their workplace. He also shared that 41% of working Canadians indicated that they experience significant stress at work and 50% of people indicated they are less productive as a result of that stress.
Even without a rigorous statistical analysis framework, these numbers are attention grabbing and bear closer examination as they speak to the impact stress, negative working environments and overload can have on a society. If 1 in 5 employees works in a negative or toxic work environment and fully 4/10 people are under enough stress to affect their productivity at work – what is the $$ cost of this to the Canadian economy?
Toxic working environments are not fun – and they are not productive either. While some employees may be less personally affected, the impact is still there. A mindset that recognizes – ‘if it can happen to them, it could happen to me’ will be resonating in the background. For those who are directly impacted the stress can show up as headaches, ulcers, depression, irritability, inability to concentrate, burnout… the list goes on and on.
When people are caught up in the negativity created by conflict, bullying, intimidation and nastiness, the reaction is not to focus more effectively on the work that needs to be done; it is to focus on personal safety and survival on both a personal and professional level as the risk / benefit analysis we conduct continually leads us into self-protection. As human beings we have choices about how we react.
Some fight back in an attempt to draw a line in the sand and stop the abuse. Others try to become invisible – slipping in and out as unobtrusively as possible to avoid triggering an attack. Or people may withdraw into themselves and spend vast quantities of time mulling over the situation and trying to figure out “Why ME?” Alternatively people may quietly dust off their c.v. and exercise their right to vote with their feet and move on to another job where, hopefully, things will be better. Collectively though these reactions all spell one major problem – the focus is NOT on getting the work done and the impact on the bottom line of any organization will suffer. Productivity drops, social interactions diminish and input and creativity are stifled as risk management takes over.
Ultimately, toxicity costs $$ in terms of both the financial picture and the human toll it takes.
What can you do if you are caught up in this vicious cycle of toxicity? If you are an employee, the following suggestions may help:
1. The first thing to do is recognize what is happening and the impact it is having on you and your family.
2. Put some ‘self-care’ strategies into place to help manage the stress – spend time doing things you enjoy away from work (sports, exercise, friends, hobbies, entertainment). Please note – neither booze nor drugs show up on that list!
3. Document the specific situations that have happened as accurately and objectively as you can – a brief explanation of dates, times, locations, who was present, what was said… keep it short and keep it accurate!
4. Get some help and support -Have a confidential conversation with someone you trust who is familiar with your workplace (Ombuds office, union, your manager or another manager, HR, Labour Relations, mediator, informal conflict management program coordinator, counselor or psychologist, Employee Assistance Program, colleague, security etc.) about your concerns. Ask them for some objective feedback and suggestions in terms of what you can do. Is there any chance that you are over-reacting? Are there any other factors that may be contributing to the situation? Are others having the same experience? What has been done to try to change this in the past? How are others being affected? (Note: This is not an effort to minimize what you are experiencing, just a check to be sure your seeing the picture as clearly as possible).
5. Find the ‘people of influence’ (the go-to people who have credibility with the group preferably at all levels) in your organization and start working with them to constructively engage them in helping to create the change that is needed.
6. Become a leader in terms of modeling the type of behaviour you would like to see in your organization. Recognize and be accountable for anything you have done that has contributed to the situation.
7. Look for ways to constructively make your concerns known either to the individuals who are catalysts for the problems or the group if it is a group issue. You may need outside help to do this effectively.
8. Name it for what it is. But recognize that others may not be able or ready to acknowledge your concerns.
9. Find ways to help others succeed – how can creating the kind of workplace you (and others) want help those who are not on board yet, achieve their goals? Make a business case to them for change because as long as what they are doing is being rewarded, why would they change? And as human beings, we can only change ourselves so why would they try to change if they don’t see a good reason to do it? This is the WIIFM principle (What’s in it for me?) at work.
10. Keep smiling – Nobody can ruin your day without your permission. Rome wasn’t built in a day but it wasn’t built by doing nothing either!
If you are the manager or employer in a situation where there is toxicity, then in addition to the suggestions above, you could:
11. Call a staff meeting and engage people in discussing what type of workplace they want. (we can give you some simple but effective tools to facilitate that conversation - give us a call).
12. Model the type of behaviour you want to see. If you aren’t sure how to do it, take a course, get a mentor, ask for support… but recognize that you are the DJ of the dance in your team.
13. Consult with HR on how to counsel those whose behaviour does not meet your standards on their choices and support them to make changes by holding them accountable and if necessary imposing reasonable consequences.
14. Find ways of framing what you want to see happen in terms of helping them be more successful – if they are engaged in seeing the change as beneficial to them, it is more likely to happen (and to stick!).
15. Recognize those who are constructive contributors to a healthy workplace and stop rewarding in any way, the toxic behaviour.
16. Measure and monitor the change and when you have reached your goals – celebrate!
Even without a rigorous statistical analysis framework, these numbers are attention grabbing and bear closer examination as they speak to the impact stress, negative working environments and overload can have on a society. If 1 in 5 employees works in a negative or toxic work environment and fully 4/10 people are under enough stress to affect their productivity at work – what is the $$ cost of this to the Canadian economy?
Toxic working environments are not fun – and they are not productive either. While some employees may be less personally affected, the impact is still there. A mindset that recognizes – ‘if it can happen to them, it could happen to me’ will be resonating in the background. For those who are directly impacted the stress can show up as headaches, ulcers, depression, irritability, inability to concentrate, burnout… the list goes on and on.
When people are caught up in the negativity created by conflict, bullying, intimidation and nastiness, the reaction is not to focus more effectively on the work that needs to be done; it is to focus on personal safety and survival on both a personal and professional level as the risk / benefit analysis we conduct continually leads us into self-protection. As human beings we have choices about how we react.
Some fight back in an attempt to draw a line in the sand and stop the abuse. Others try to become invisible – slipping in and out as unobtrusively as possible to avoid triggering an attack. Or people may withdraw into themselves and spend vast quantities of time mulling over the situation and trying to figure out “Why ME?” Alternatively people may quietly dust off their c.v. and exercise their right to vote with their feet and move on to another job where, hopefully, things will be better. Collectively though these reactions all spell one major problem – the focus is NOT on getting the work done and the impact on the bottom line of any organization will suffer. Productivity drops, social interactions diminish and input and creativity are stifled as risk management takes over.
Ultimately, toxicity costs $$ in terms of both the financial picture and the human toll it takes.
What can you do if you are caught up in this vicious cycle of toxicity? If you are an employee, the following suggestions may help:
1. The first thing to do is recognize what is happening and the impact it is having on you and your family.
2. Put some ‘self-care’ strategies into place to help manage the stress – spend time doing things you enjoy away from work (sports, exercise, friends, hobbies, entertainment). Please note – neither booze nor drugs show up on that list!
3. Document the specific situations that have happened as accurately and objectively as you can – a brief explanation of dates, times, locations, who was present, what was said… keep it short and keep it accurate!
4. Get some help and support -Have a confidential conversation with someone you trust who is familiar with your workplace (Ombuds office, union, your manager or another manager, HR, Labour Relations, mediator, informal conflict management program coordinator, counselor or psychologist, Employee Assistance Program, colleague, security etc.) about your concerns. Ask them for some objective feedback and suggestions in terms of what you can do. Is there any chance that you are over-reacting? Are there any other factors that may be contributing to the situation? Are others having the same experience? What has been done to try to change this in the past? How are others being affected? (Note: This is not an effort to minimize what you are experiencing, just a check to be sure your seeing the picture as clearly as possible).
5. Find the ‘people of influence’ (the go-to people who have credibility with the group preferably at all levels) in your organization and start working with them to constructively engage them in helping to create the change that is needed.
6. Become a leader in terms of modeling the type of behaviour you would like to see in your organization. Recognize and be accountable for anything you have done that has contributed to the situation.
7. Look for ways to constructively make your concerns known either to the individuals who are catalysts for the problems or the group if it is a group issue. You may need outside help to do this effectively.
8. Name it for what it is. But recognize that others may not be able or ready to acknowledge your concerns.
9. Find ways to help others succeed – how can creating the kind of workplace you (and others) want help those who are not on board yet, achieve their goals? Make a business case to them for change because as long as what they are doing is being rewarded, why would they change? And as human beings, we can only change ourselves so why would they try to change if they don’t see a good reason to do it? This is the WIIFM principle (What’s in it for me?) at work.
10. Keep smiling – Nobody can ruin your day without your permission. Rome wasn’t built in a day but it wasn’t built by doing nothing either!
If you are the manager or employer in a situation where there is toxicity, then in addition to the suggestions above, you could:
11. Call a staff meeting and engage people in discussing what type of workplace they want. (we can give you some simple but effective tools to facilitate that conversation - give us a call).
12. Model the type of behaviour you want to see. If you aren’t sure how to do it, take a course, get a mentor, ask for support… but recognize that you are the DJ of the dance in your team.
13. Consult with HR on how to counsel those whose behaviour does not meet your standards on their choices and support them to make changes by holding them accountable and if necessary imposing reasonable consequences.
14. Find ways of framing what you want to see happen in terms of helping them be more successful – if they are engaged in seeing the change as beneficial to them, it is more likely to happen (and to stick!).
15. Recognize those who are constructive contributors to a healthy workplace and stop rewarding in any way, the toxic behaviour.
16. Measure and monitor the change and when you have reached your goals – celebrate!
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.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
What Is the Level of Toxicity In Your Organization or Workplace?
Where Are You On The Conflict Curve?
If you have a pond and on Day 1 in the pond there is 1 lily pad in the pond.
Every day the number of lily pads in the pond doubles.
On Day 30 the pond is completely full of lily pads.
When is the pond half full?
When it comes to conflict, workplaces, groups and organizations react much like ponds and lily pads. In the early stages it seems that everything is going well and things are fine. The impact of conflicts rarely shows up as a linear progression - it more closely approximates an exponential Time Delay curve. The impact of this is that in the early stages it is difficult to see what is happening as the changes will be subtle and imperceptible. By the time things deteriorate to where the problems become visible, the organization is often on the brink of crisis and the working environment has become toxic. High turnover rates, complaints, grievances, disgruntled employees and reduced productivity are typical. At this point remediation of the situation is often difficult, costly (in both human and $$ terms) and time consuming. It can be tough to get employees engaged in making changes as fear of repercussions, cynicism and skepticism are normal.
In answer to the question above -Because the number of lily pads in the pond doubles every day, the pond is half full on Day 29… Recognition and acknowledgment of the severity problems often happens between Day 25 and Day 29 as it gets harder to deny and avoid the problems at this stage. However, by this point the organization is in serious crisis. So it is important to know where your organization is at on the curve.The earlier the problems are recognized the easier (and cheaper) it is to deal with them.
Timing is as important as strategy in addressing conflict situations. It is critical to choose the strategy that will best fit the situation at this point in time. A good strategy used at the wrong time can actually make the situation worse.
So ultimately, the ideal is to employ strategies that will help an organization get to and maintain a position on the Time Curve somewhere between Days 1-15 over the long term. But it is not enough to just get to that stage; the critical factor here is the willingness to recognize that conflict is not bad and should not be ignored – after all nothing ever changes without conflict in some form and the willingness to invest in resolutions that have the capacity to address things thoroughly. Ultimately an organization that is willing to invest in achieving this goal and is able to maintain that position will be in good shape to weather the storms of conflict when they hit and will have the flexibility and robustness to survive in the world of business
The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Think of an organization or group to which you belong and objectively assess the situation (or at least as objectively as you can) by asking yourself:
1. Where ‘Day’ are we on the Time Delay Curve?
2. If I asked others in the organization what ‘Day’ they see us at – what would they say?
3. What factors are contributing to the discrepancy (if there is one) between where I believe we are at and where they believe we are at?
4. What strategies have we used to address the situation so far?
5. How did it work?
6. Do we need help?
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
If you have a pond and on Day 1 in the pond there is 1 lily pad in the pond.
Every day the number of lily pads in the pond doubles.
On Day 30 the pond is completely full of lily pads.
When is the pond half full?
When it comes to conflict, workplaces, groups and organizations react much like ponds and lily pads. In the early stages it seems that everything is going well and things are fine. The impact of conflicts rarely shows up as a linear progression - it more closely approximates an exponential Time Delay curve. The impact of this is that in the early stages it is difficult to see what is happening as the changes will be subtle and imperceptible. By the time things deteriorate to where the problems become visible, the organization is often on the brink of crisis and the working environment has become toxic. High turnover rates, complaints, grievances, disgruntled employees and reduced productivity are typical. At this point remediation of the situation is often difficult, costly (in both human and $$ terms) and time consuming. It can be tough to get employees engaged in making changes as fear of repercussions, cynicism and skepticism are normal.
In answer to the question above -Because the number of lily pads in the pond doubles every day, the pond is half full on Day 29… Recognition and acknowledgment of the severity problems often happens between Day 25 and Day 29 as it gets harder to deny and avoid the problems at this stage. However, by this point the organization is in serious crisis. So it is important to know where your organization is at on the curve.The earlier the problems are recognized the easier (and cheaper) it is to deal with them.
Timing is as important as strategy in addressing conflict situations. It is critical to choose the strategy that will best fit the situation at this point in time. A good strategy used at the wrong time can actually make the situation worse.
So ultimately, the ideal is to employ strategies that will help an organization get to and maintain a position on the Time Curve somewhere between Days 1-15 over the long term. But it is not enough to just get to that stage; the critical factor here is the willingness to recognize that conflict is not bad and should not be ignored – after all nothing ever changes without conflict in some form and the willingness to invest in resolutions that have the capacity to address things thoroughly. Ultimately an organization that is willing to invest in achieving this goal and is able to maintain that position will be in good shape to weather the storms of conflict when they hit and will have the flexibility and robustness to survive in the world of business
The Conflict Resolution Workout!!
Think of an organization or group to which you belong and objectively assess the situation (or at least as objectively as you can) by asking yourself:
1. Where ‘Day’ are we on the Time Delay Curve?
2. If I asked others in the organization what ‘Day’ they see us at – what would they say?
3. What factors are contributing to the discrepancy (if there is one) between where I believe we are at and where they believe we are at?
4. What strategies have we used to address the situation so far?
5. How did it work?
6. Do we need help?
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
Thursday, 29 July 2010
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.
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.
Friday, 14 May 2010
Bill 168 - Another Tool to Stop Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Violence
Bill 168 is coming into force on June 15, 2010 in Ontario. What difference will it make? How will it affect you if you are an employer in Ontario, Canada? What impact will it have if you are an employee?
Bill 168 is following a trend for workplaces in Canada. There is increasing recognition that conflict, harassment and workplace violence are bad for business. Unhappy, stressed, tense and fearful employees are not as productive as they could be as they are busy trying to cope with whatever is causing them problems.
As a mediator who has worked in the field of harassment, discrimination and conflict management since 1996 I have watched an interesting transition in priorities in Canadian workplaces. Employers are much more aware these days of the underlying costs of conflict, harassment and workplace violence in their workplaces. The dollar costs of conducting investigations into formal complaints can be staggering. In my experience employers can expect to pay anywhere from $50,000.00 to $300,000.00 and up to deal with harassment and workplace violence situations. These figures are prohibitive for any employer but particularly so for small businesses.
The 1980 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Bonnie Robichaud case in 1980 determined that employers in Canada had a legal liability to provide a workplace free of harassment for their employees irrespective of whether they were aware of the situation or not. The shock wave this caused in the employment world triggered the development of conflict management and harassment policies in many organizations to bring them into compliance with the new era. This recognition of the cost of harassment was focused primarily on sexual harassment. The field has evolved greatly since 1980 to where policies in 2010 typically cover a range of actions and behaviour that are considered inappropriate. Sexual and personal harassment as well as abuse of authority provisions provide employees with a much broader level of protection than what was offered in the 80’s.
Bill 168 offers protections to the employees of Ontario that have not been written into legislation in the past. This puts a responsibility on employers and managers to educate themselves not only on the provisions of the legislation but also on how to work within it on a day to day operational basis. How can you ensure that your workplace is compliant not only with the letter of the law but also with the spirit of the law? The letter of the law is clearly spelled out on the Ministry of Labour website (www.mol.on.ca). It is much more of a challenge to create an organizational culture based on safety, respect, tolerance and understanding particularly in our increasingly diverse workplaces.
It is critical that managers, supervisors and employees are offered support by their employers to ensure that they have both the substantive knowledge of the requirements and the skills in conflict management and leadership that will support them to work with the employer to create the healthy workplaces that Bill 168 is trying to create.
Toxic workplaces cost money. In our experience they are less productive, have higher turnover rates, higher frequencies of absenteeism, grievances, complaints and disengaged employees. This is a recipe for putting a business or organization into trouble. It’s like having an abscessed tooth – the discomfort and pain makes it tough to focus on anything else. If the disproportionate amounts of energy, time and focus expended on trying to survive a toxic environment were redirected to getting the job done, the productivity levels would be stunning.
Managers and supervisors have a critical leadership role to play in creating these healthy workplaces. What steps can help?
1. Clear expectations regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour,
2. Rewarding the desired behaviour and logical and reasonable consequences for transgressors,
3. Effective informal conflict management systems that help to prevent situations from escalating
4. Accountability from the employer and management with respect to learning the real nature of their workplaces (not what they ‘think’ is happening)
5. A willingness to talk about subjects that in the past have been considered less important than concrete task focused conversations – human interactions, organizational culture and workplace atmosphere
6. A solid commitment (with the teeth to back it up) that employees have the right to bring problems to the attention of management without fear of retribution either from peers or from management.
The fear of repercussions is one of the most critical issues that is raised time and time again in the organizations with which we work. When we come into an organization to do a Workplace Assessment as part of a Partnered Workplace Renewal Process™ employees are typically fearful and reluctant to engage and in some cases afraid even to talk to us. Why? Because they have no trust in management or their co-workers that their participation will not lead to some type of formal or informal payback and that what they tell us will somehow be found out by their employer or manager.
Until this is addressed in a credible and concrete fashion, very few will take the risk and those that do are typically those who see themselves on the way out the door anyhow – either due to retirement or because they have dusted off their c.v. and are exercising their right to vote with their feet and move on.
This fear of repercussions can also create a climate of silence. Not every employee who is subjected to harassment or workplace violence files a complaint – many are too afraid to do so. But much like children being bullied at schools the warning signs are there for those perceptive enough to see them. When this is an issue it is often impossible for the situation to be addressed by those inside the organization and outside help is needed. Employees need to have recourse to help they can trust and who is perceived to be at arms length from management and the employer.
Even then it can be difficult to build credibility with employees as the fear factor can be significant. On the other hand there is typically a strong desire to see things change that is warring with the fear of repercussions for getting involved in trying to make things better. The way to build credibility is different in every situation but there are some common steps that can help.
1. Be open and transparent about what you can do – and what you can’t do and live up to what you promise.
2. Don’t make promises you either can’t or won’t keep – broken promises are a fast ticket to cynicism and skepticism.
3. Make a business case to senior management for ensuring and protecting employees’ ability to participate without repercussions either from supervisors or managers or from co-workers.
4. Enlist a credible and very senior person within the organization to act as a recourse person should repercussions happen (or the employee feels that there are repercussions happening).
5. Take complaints seriously and take action to address concerns raised.
6. Ensure that supervisors and managers understand the ‘No repercussions’ policy and adhere to it.
7. Work with the group to discuss the changes that are needed to create a respectful and safe workplace. Engage participation by being open, transparent and accountable – particularly if you are at a senior level within the organization.
8. Create an accountability framework that is focused on constructive mechanisms to address issues rather than a blame focused punitive approach to problems.
9. Model the behaviour you want to see others use. Set expectations for respectful interactions and reward the behaviour you want to see.
10. Ensure that the operational reality and the articulated values of the organization are congruent, aligned and actually being implemented. In order for this to happen staff at all levels need to understand and buy into the organizational values being espoused by the employer and senior management groups.
11. Believe in the value of a healthy and safe working environment rather than complying with the legislation solely because it is the law.
Bill 168 is a piece of legislation that has the potential to help protect workers in Ontario. However it is also likely to be seen by some as an unnecessary burden that is just one more example of legislators trying to run people's lives. In our experience organizations that invest in creating healthy working environments as a core organizational value fundamental to the organizational culture are more productive, more able to adapt to changing economic environments and more successful overall. They make more money for shareholders and owners in the case of businesses. As a result, they tend to create more stable jobs for for their employees and naive as it sounds - everyone wins.
The Conflict Resolution Workout
We invite you to objectively assess the state of your organization or workplace:
1. On a 0-10 scale what rating would you give it if 0 = Toxic and 10 = Healthy?
2. Using that same 0-10 scale, how would you rate relationships between managers and employees? Between employees? Between the union(s) and management? Between other groups within your specific organization?
3. What level of resistance is there to making positive changes to the organizational culture? Where is that resistance coming from? What might be behind it?
4. What is one action that you could take tomorrow that would make your workplace a better place to work?
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.
Bill 168 is following a trend for workplaces in Canada. There is increasing recognition that conflict, harassment and workplace violence are bad for business. Unhappy, stressed, tense and fearful employees are not as productive as they could be as they are busy trying to cope with whatever is causing them problems.
As a mediator who has worked in the field of harassment, discrimination and conflict management since 1996 I have watched an interesting transition in priorities in Canadian workplaces. Employers are much more aware these days of the underlying costs of conflict, harassment and workplace violence in their workplaces. The dollar costs of conducting investigations into formal complaints can be staggering. In my experience employers can expect to pay anywhere from $50,000.00 to $300,000.00 and up to deal with harassment and workplace violence situations. These figures are prohibitive for any employer but particularly so for small businesses.
The 1980 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Bonnie Robichaud case in 1980 determined that employers in Canada had a legal liability to provide a workplace free of harassment for their employees irrespective of whether they were aware of the situation or not. The shock wave this caused in the employment world triggered the development of conflict management and harassment policies in many organizations to bring them into compliance with the new era. This recognition of the cost of harassment was focused primarily on sexual harassment. The field has evolved greatly since 1980 to where policies in 2010 typically cover a range of actions and behaviour that are considered inappropriate. Sexual and personal harassment as well as abuse of authority provisions provide employees with a much broader level of protection than what was offered in the 80’s.
Bill 168 offers protections to the employees of Ontario that have not been written into legislation in the past. This puts a responsibility on employers and managers to educate themselves not only on the provisions of the legislation but also on how to work within it on a day to day operational basis. How can you ensure that your workplace is compliant not only with the letter of the law but also with the spirit of the law? The letter of the law is clearly spelled out on the Ministry of Labour website (www.mol.on.ca). It is much more of a challenge to create an organizational culture based on safety, respect, tolerance and understanding particularly in our increasingly diverse workplaces.
It is critical that managers, supervisors and employees are offered support by their employers to ensure that they have both the substantive knowledge of the requirements and the skills in conflict management and leadership that will support them to work with the employer to create the healthy workplaces that Bill 168 is trying to create.
Toxic workplaces cost money. In our experience they are less productive, have higher turnover rates, higher frequencies of absenteeism, grievances, complaints and disengaged employees. This is a recipe for putting a business or organization into trouble. It’s like having an abscessed tooth – the discomfort and pain makes it tough to focus on anything else. If the disproportionate amounts of energy, time and focus expended on trying to survive a toxic environment were redirected to getting the job done, the productivity levels would be stunning.
Managers and supervisors have a critical leadership role to play in creating these healthy workplaces. What steps can help?
1. Clear expectations regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour,
2. Rewarding the desired behaviour and logical and reasonable consequences for transgressors,
3. Effective informal conflict management systems that help to prevent situations from escalating
4. Accountability from the employer and management with respect to learning the real nature of their workplaces (not what they ‘think’ is happening)
5. A willingness to talk about subjects that in the past have been considered less important than concrete task focused conversations – human interactions, organizational culture and workplace atmosphere
6. A solid commitment (with the teeth to back it up) that employees have the right to bring problems to the attention of management without fear of retribution either from peers or from management.
The fear of repercussions is one of the most critical issues that is raised time and time again in the organizations with which we work. When we come into an organization to do a Workplace Assessment as part of a Partnered Workplace Renewal Process™ employees are typically fearful and reluctant to engage and in some cases afraid even to talk to us. Why? Because they have no trust in management or their co-workers that their participation will not lead to some type of formal or informal payback and that what they tell us will somehow be found out by their employer or manager.
Until this is addressed in a credible and concrete fashion, very few will take the risk and those that do are typically those who see themselves on the way out the door anyhow – either due to retirement or because they have dusted off their c.v. and are exercising their right to vote with their feet and move on.
This fear of repercussions can also create a climate of silence. Not every employee who is subjected to harassment or workplace violence files a complaint – many are too afraid to do so. But much like children being bullied at schools the warning signs are there for those perceptive enough to see them. When this is an issue it is often impossible for the situation to be addressed by those inside the organization and outside help is needed. Employees need to have recourse to help they can trust and who is perceived to be at arms length from management and the employer.
Even then it can be difficult to build credibility with employees as the fear factor can be significant. On the other hand there is typically a strong desire to see things change that is warring with the fear of repercussions for getting involved in trying to make things better. The way to build credibility is different in every situation but there are some common steps that can help.
1. Be open and transparent about what you can do – and what you can’t do and live up to what you promise.
2. Don’t make promises you either can’t or won’t keep – broken promises are a fast ticket to cynicism and skepticism.
3. Make a business case to senior management for ensuring and protecting employees’ ability to participate without repercussions either from supervisors or managers or from co-workers.
4. Enlist a credible and very senior person within the organization to act as a recourse person should repercussions happen (or the employee feels that there are repercussions happening).
5. Take complaints seriously and take action to address concerns raised.
6. Ensure that supervisors and managers understand the ‘No repercussions’ policy and adhere to it.
7. Work with the group to discuss the changes that are needed to create a respectful and safe workplace. Engage participation by being open, transparent and accountable – particularly if you are at a senior level within the organization.
8. Create an accountability framework that is focused on constructive mechanisms to address issues rather than a blame focused punitive approach to problems.
9. Model the behaviour you want to see others use. Set expectations for respectful interactions and reward the behaviour you want to see.
10. Ensure that the operational reality and the articulated values of the organization are congruent, aligned and actually being implemented. In order for this to happen staff at all levels need to understand and buy into the organizational values being espoused by the employer and senior management groups.
11. Believe in the value of a healthy and safe working environment rather than complying with the legislation solely because it is the law.
Bill 168 is a piece of legislation that has the potential to help protect workers in Ontario. However it is also likely to be seen by some as an unnecessary burden that is just one more example of legislators trying to run people's lives. In our experience organizations that invest in creating healthy working environments as a core organizational value fundamental to the organizational culture are more productive, more able to adapt to changing economic environments and more successful overall. They make more money for shareholders and owners in the case of businesses. As a result, they tend to create more stable jobs for for their employees and naive as it sounds - everyone wins.
The Conflict Resolution Workout
We invite you to objectively assess the state of your organization or workplace:
1. On a 0-10 scale what rating would you give it if 0 = Toxic and 10 = Healthy?
2. Using that same 0-10 scale, how would you rate relationships between managers and employees? Between employees? Between the union(s) and management? Between other groups within your specific organization?
3. What level of resistance is there to making positive changes to the organizational culture? Where is that resistance coming from? What might be behind it?
4. What is one action that you could take tomorrow that would make your workplace a better place to work?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
