A Cautionary Tale

I was called in to facilitate a discussion between six team members from a settlement agency in a small open plan office. On a daily basis, they relied on each other for information, and to ensure timely settlements took place.

As with any workplace, there were a number of characters who would be unlikely to have much to do with each other outside work. Over the course of about two years, what started as a minor issue escalated to a full-blown investigation into bullying allegations. The heightened state of friction and tension in the office was causing significant performance issues, both individually and across the whole business. Balls were being dropped, and financial penalties were being applied due to non-delivery. The business was not dealing particularly well with the issue, and there was even the possibility of a massive escalation of the original complaint.

There were two issues that had once been minor, and had been allowed to escalate to the stage where they threatened work effectiveness, performance, peoples’ health, and the very company itself. The first was a personality clash that was exaggerated by the open plan office environment and sloppy personal and organisational management. Two people would spend large amounts of time talking about social situations and their personal lives. The kinds of conversations we all have over coffee, a meal or after work. The fact that it was during work time and in an open workspace had another colleague attempting to join the conversation. The others didn’t want to include her in the conversation. So far this is a minor issue.

Over time she felt increasingly excluded and marginalised from the conversations. She tried harder to join them. The other two increasingly shunned her and eventually escalated their behaviour to the point that a bullying and harassment complaint was made and the subsequent investigation found that they had not treated their colleague appropriately. Going forward there was considerable and difficult work required to repair the fractured relationships to the point that they could work effectively together again. Success would now require significant commitment, effort and willing participation from all parties.

In parallel, the person who eventually made the bullying complaint had several genuine performance issues with her work. Her manager had not dealt with these, and they too had escalated until the situation was untenable.

But the time I was involved, it was pretty much impossible for the manager to deal with any of the performance issues, without them being seen as an extension of the bullying the woman was experiencing. It seemed unlikely that the various players could find a space to move on from the issues. Their demeanour and attitudes suggested they would just continue to escalate their part in the drama.

Both issues could have been easily dealt with when they were hotspots or small tears. Like many in the face of tension, friction or conflict, the manager and others had avoided the issue for so long it had become largely unsalvageable.

The manager (and others) could have taken action to clarify expectations, set the bar, and catch it early. They could have:

  • Addressed the issue of excessive social chat in the open plan work environment, especially when the conversations were not intended to be shared with everyone. Simply leaving these conversations for a morning coffee break or lunch would have made the issue disappear before it got traction.

  • Addressed the performance issues as soon as they were noticed - initially by asking if the person needed support or clarification of their role, and ultimately through formal performance management if needed.

  • Had a whole team conversation about expectations and behaviour in the open plan environment which would have enabled the team to set and monitor their own benchmarks for healthy ways of working together and getting the job done, as in the next case study.

How quickly will we evolve?

The recent formalising of Psychosocial Hazards in Australian Work Health and Safety legislation is a fantastic evolution. We have been aware of the risks to people’s well being (Both mental and physical) from Psychosocial Hazards for a long time, and it’s taken a while for it to be seen as a hazard that needs to be actively managed.

Early in the industrial age accidents and fatalities were an accepted and expected outcome in work environments. The attitude was largely “You know the risks, so the responsibility is on you. By the way, it might not end well”. Over time safety and risk became the subject of increased awareness and responsibility for employers, transitioning through cultures dominated by compliance/policy/procedure and ultimately growing to deep safety cultures. The exemplars of this are zero blame cultures where safety is prioritised over production. Everyone is empowered to call a halt if something seems unsafe, and there are continual conversations about how it can be made more safe.

We are just emerging from the equivalent of “you know the risks” in PsychoSocial Hazards. You can track it in laguage like:

  • Stress is part of the job, suck it up

  • Go to the hardware and buy a bucket of harden up

  • Your emotions have no place at work

  • Everyone is busy, deal with it

  • Yes he’s a bully, but he’s also a great performer we’ll all just have to put up with it

These are fading, but they haven’t gone away. We now have a regulatory environment. How quickly can we evolve to cultures of deep responsibility where we are encouraged to call out unsafe practice, hold each other to account, educate rather than blame? We have a road map in the physical WHS space that has been a roughly 200 year evolution. Let's not take that long on psychosocial hazards. The clock has been ticking for a while.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be exploring some of the hazards named in the excellent Worksafe “CODE OF PRACTICE - Psychosocial hazards in the workplace” and especially how these contribute to a high performance culture as well as one free from harm. Just like physical safety, it makes sense regardless of what metric you measure.

Outwit, Outlast, Outplay

The tagline from TV’s “Survivor” reality show is a near perfect recipe for removing psychological safety. The show is notorious for alliances and manipulations as people attempt to win.

Alliances claim to be loyal to each other, but more often than not there are multiple layers of manipulative play going on with everyone ultimately vying for the final place.

People do these things often on the show:

  • Take credit when things are going well

  • Blame others when things aren’t going well

  • Talk about people when they are not there, and speculate about their loyalty and actions

  • Throw people under the bus whenever it is expedient

  • Seed uncertainty and mistrust in conversations and actions.

If you want a psychologically safe workplace where people have each other's backs and are willing to share resources, ideas and concerns, do the opposite.

Rio Report: Risks and Challenges

Rio Tinto made a bold move publicly releasing the Broderick report into their workplace culture. The report highlighted bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in many global operations. Many felt unable to report or act. Rio have a hard road ahead, and an opportunity to reshape themselves into a genuinely world class culture. The proof will be in the action taken over coming weeks and years. One leader I admire at Rio said “The price of a great culture is eternal vigilance”. 

It’s easy to throw opinions around about Rio, but I reckon the report presents a number of challenges and risks to us all.

Organisational Challenge - If you opened your organisation to a similar review,  would the report be positive? How visible are the issues? How are they being addressed? Is there a culture of tacit acceptance and ‘open secrets’? How do you actively promote a higher standard?

Leadership Challenge - How and where do you address issues like those reported? Broderick found a ‘leadership lottery’ where people’s experience of Rio and negative behaviour varied greatly depending on their leader. How do you stack up personally? Do you actively create a solid culture and call out abusive behaviour? If, like me, you provide support to leaders, how are you addressing these issues? We need more open conversation and support for action. 

The Risk - The report rightly highlights Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault as critical issues to be addressed. They absolutely must be. But… if  psychological safety is seen as only the absence of those behaviours, we do a disservice to the people in our organisations. In physical safety,  serious incidents, accidents and fatalities absolutely need critical and urgent attention, and  a well rounded approach also looks at much smaller indications of safer/less safe. We could look at banter taken too far, gossip, disengagement, rudeness, unkindness, among others. 

Let’s work the complete spectrum and create workplaces not only free of bullying, assault and harassment, but ones that are a genuine delight to work in.

It’s the right thing to do.