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!

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.

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.

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.

What is Your Leadership RQ? - Conflict Management for Leaders

Has unexpected conflict ever created serious problems in your organization?
Do 20% of your employees consume 80% of your time?
Have you ever walked away from a situation unhappy with the way you handled it? Or laid awake at night trying to figure out the best way to handle a situation?

Leadership is one of the most used words in the workplace vocabulary these days. But what does it mean? Is it where our name sits on the Org Chart? Is it the job classification category that we hold or the number of direct reports we have? Is it our vision for the organization and our capacity to take the organization in that direction? Is it the personal skills and attributes that we bring to the role that we have? Can one be a leader without the fancy office, the position title and the big salary? What influence does ‘who’ we are have on how we lead?

If we take a group of individuals and bring them together, give them a mandate and a job to do, provide some resources, develop policies and procedures and put someone in charge we have created an organization. But not every organization meets its mandate or achieves what it set out to do. What makes the difference between a group that efficiently gets the job done and one that limps along achieving mediocre results at best (and typically making excuses for the ongoing failure to produce results).

The level and style of leadership in the organization is often the tipping point between success and failure to achieve results. There are many factors that influence what is going on in an organization but few things have the potential to derail the group’s capacity to function normally like a good conflict. And unresolved or poorly resolved conflict can rapidly escalate a minor problem into a negative dynamic that can create unparalleled levels of dysfunctionality, stress, tension and disruption.

The style of leadership in managing interpersonal and organizational conflicts is a major factor influencing the way employees react when they find themselves facing problems. Every human being has a default pattern that defines our instinctive reactions in conflict situations. Most of us are unaware what that pattern is, where it came from and whether it is supporting our success or impeding it. As leaders, our level of influence in our organizations is significant. Thus our own personal Conflict Blueprint is a key factor in defining our leadership style, particularly in those times when our leadership is most important – in situations of crisis and conflict.

Ruth Sirman is a professional mediator and trainer who teaches the same skills she has used since 1996 to help groups resolve conflicts in government, corporations, communities, churches and schools. For more information, check out her website at www.canmediate.com.