Ghomeshi Comes to Queen's Park: Harassment, HR and Leading By Example

“I’m not going to go into specifics but just know that I have taken action when allegations have been brought forward,” she said on the noisy factory floor where CRV sport utility vehicles are assembled.

 

“I’ve done that with respect to the confidentiality that has been asked for by the complainants.”

 

Premier Kathleen Wynne is a woman of unquestionable integrity.  She's a strong leader in every sense of the word - she's mission-focused, but understands the importance of morale.  She's empathic, a strong communicator and a natural facilitator.

 

Ask anyone who works (or has worked) with her - Premier Wynne creates strong workplace cultures that empower employees to do well and find fulfilment in their work.  The why behind this is easy - Wynne realizes people aren't office infrastructure; they're the architects for her and her party's success.

 

Such is not the case for all employers, at Queen's Park or otherwise.  All too often, staff are viewed as tools, not individuals.  Workplace culture is not seen as a consideration, any more than you might care about how much dust collects on your computer; you can always get another one.

 

This heavy-handed, boss-centred approach to HR has proven to have a negative impact on bottom lines, on productivity, on innovation; demoralized staff aren't scared into doing better work, they're instead focused on not messing up or redirecting blame. 

 

Which, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy; when tough bosses practice the mantra "we are smart, they are dumb" - they in reference to staff - talent isn't nurtured, it's suppressed.  Those who rise to the top may be good at what they do, but it's the ability to curry favour with the boss that determines career growth.

 

But is a business - especially when it's government - supposed to be structured in a way that places ultimate power in the hands of bosses who, often as not, don't know and don't care about professional HR practices or basic leadership skills?  Do we want workplace cultures where it's the ability to curry favour with bosses that determines success, especially in light of the emerging conversation around bosses that abuse their positions of power in relation to their staff?

 

What are the consequences of poor leadership and a lack of training for employees and employers on morale, productivity, innovation and that other emerging biggie, mental wellness?

 

Deficiencies in “listening, empathizing and involvement” erode a leader’s ability to connect to the very people he or she is expected to manage and lead.

 

The other key reason for leadership failure is “lack of strategic skills.” According to DDI’s Richard Wellins, Ph.D., the fault also likes with the organization because it is not helping its leaders acquire these skills.

 

So it's interesting to hear Premier Wynne discuss harassment and HR concerns within her party.

 

The Liberal Caucus Service Bureau (Leg-funded internal support organization for the Ontario Liberal Party) has a Policy for a Harassment/Violence-Free Workplace that is to be made available to all employers and staff and posted in prominent locations in each workspace.  This document is intended to serve as a framework to prevent the sorts of entitled boss behaviour that can happen in situations where accountabilities aren't clear, training isn't provided and power imbalance is prominent.

 

Some highlights from this policy:

 

Members of the Ontario Liberal Caucus (“Member(s)”) are committed to providing a work environment which is conducive to both positive morale and productivity - a work environment free of harassment and violence to both women and men.  Behaviour, comments, or display of materials that could reasonably be perceived to be offensive, humiliating or demeaning are not acceptable in the workplace. 

 

-- one would assume the whip that is, for historical reasons, displayed on the wall of the Whip's office is an exception to this "display of materials" rule.  In fact, the very notion of a Whip is contrary to the intention of this policy and empowered workforces in general, but the outdated conventions of our centuries-old model Westminster Parliamentary system is a whole other topic.

 

Members, as employers, have an important role to play in promoting awareness and setting standards.  Harassment, in any form, undermines an employee’s work performance and the goals of the office.  All concerns of harassment will be taken seriously and handled in a professional, impartial and confidential manner in accordance with the provisions set out in this Policy. 

 

-- In other words, it's the responsibility of Members to lead by example when it comes to a harassment-free and empowering work culture.  The corporate structure at Queen's Park is a somewhat unique one, where MPP staff are the employees of Members, paid by the Legislature, but are equally answerable to their political party, who has no legal authority over said staff, but again, politics isn't a "normal" working environment.

 

It might seem counter-intuitive to have those with the most power and freedom to exercise it be responsible for self-regulation and empowering of staff to question their authority, but there's an answer to that, too.

 

Under the Liberal policy, it's not the party's HR person (paid through the Legislature) that is responsible for addressing harassment issues, but the party Whip, who is another elected official and therefore a peer to Members..  As such, it's to the Whip (or designate), a party-determined role, who is responsible for ensuring MPPs and staff are familiar with the contents of the policy and administering it when issues of harassment arise:

 

1) Responsibilities of the Whip 
The Whip is responsible for informing the Members and employees of the Policy and its contents.  Where employees bring forward concerns of harassment against Members, the Whip will take immediate and appropriate action as follows: 

a) respond promptly to all enquiries regarding harassment concerns involving Members; 
b) advise the Member that a concern of harassment has been brought forward against him or her; 
c) provide assistance, clarification and guidance with respect to situations involving harassment; 
d) work with all parties involved to try to resolve the situation fairly, and in a manner that preserves the dignity of the parties concerned; 
e) resolve situations of harassment through dispute resolution methods, in a non-adversarial, rehabilitative manner, and take the necessary steps to achieve a resolution.  If the Whip determines that an investigation is necessary, the investigation will be handled promptly in an impartial and confidential manner with due respect for the rights of the parties concerned

 

One would assume there is an internal training session for all Members and new staff that makes the contents and intent of this policy clear so that there is no confusion about responsibilities and processes that lead to resolution.

 

Key to this process, as we are learning through #ghomeshi, are the great obstacles employees can face in bringing forward allegations of harassment.  In politics, Members are all-powerful; they are the elected voice of the people, after all.  If they answer to anyone, it's the Premier and designated party officials who, naturally, are tasked with winning elections, not fostering strong workplace cultures.  It's just the nature of the beast.

 

It can be career suicide to bring forward allegations against an abusive boss, whether the abuse is sexual harassment, aggressive behaviour, passive-aggressive behaviour, etc.  Much as we have seen through #ghomeshi, under circumstances like this staff will often "suck it up", complain about bad bosses with other staff and suffer silently with the consequences of poor leadership. 

 

Or, they will raise concerns and be marginalized or discover that they have "burned bridges" by trying to defend themselves, and end up unemployed and shut out. 

 

This sort of toxic environment can lead to accrued depression and anxiety, kill workplace morale and ultimately result in poor functionality, which leads to unhappy constituents, poor decisions made, etc.  There's a reason why occupational mental health is becoming a thing these days.

 

To avoid unjust consequences to what would essentially be whistleblowers, the Liberals have included a NO REPRISAL clause in their policy:

 

a) Employees who bring forward harassment concerns shall not be subjected to any form of reprisal. 
b) For the purposes fop this policy, retaliation against an individual i) for making a complaint under this policy (whether on behalf of oneself or another individual); or ii) for having participated or co-operated in any investigation under this policy; or iii) for having been associated with a person who has made a complaint under this policy or participated in these procedures, will be treated as harassment

 

So, there would be no tolerance for cultures of fear within the liberal family at Queen's Park.  No person of authority would ever say something like "He's never going to change, you're a malleable person, let's talk about how you can make this a less toxic work environment for you" to staff who bring forward concerns about abusive employers.

 

Staff would never be re-victimized for bringing forward concerns; that would go directly against the beliefs of the party and the content of their policy.  Moving forward together, after all, doesn't involve dumping those who raise valid concerns by the wayside, or publicly shaming them, etc.

 

As harassment without definitions is largely in the eye of the beholder, it helps to provide some clarification on what, exactly, constitutes harassment in this context.  Again, the Liberal's harassment policy provides a framework to help Members and staff alike, when they're trained on the contents of the policy, to know what to look for:

 

To assist in ensuring that our workplace is harassment-free, the following are examples of harassment.  Please note that this is not a complete list and that each situation will have to be considered individually. 

- Jokes causing embarrassment or offence, told or carried out after the joker has been advised that they are embarrassing or offensive or that they are by nature clearly embarrassing or offensive

Example: Telling sexually explicit jokes or suggestive stories may be offensive to some and not to others.  They can have the effect of making someone feel uncomfortable and interfere with their ability to participate in work-related group activities. 

- The display of offensive material

Example: Posters placed on the office bulletin board depicting members of a particular racial minority group in a derogatory manner.  Even though an employee belonging to that racial minority group complains, the Manager says there is nothing he/she can do 

- Verbal and physical abuse or threats

Example: a supervisor constantly asks a subordinate out and is continually rebuffed.  The supervisor subsequently begins to criticize the subordinate’s work in front of co-workers and eventually threatens to fire the employee. 

- Degrading or derogatory remarks

Example: A developmentally disabled employee is called names such as “dummy” by co-workers.  

 

Not an exhaustive list, but a helpful starting point and again this policy, which is to be provided to all MPPs and staff and posted in prominent locations, gives some guidance on what constitutes harassment and where to go for furtuer clarification in less-clear circumstances.

 

I would assume that party HR is fully aware of this process and actively re-directs concerns raised to the party Whip/Whip's designate, who will be fully trained on how to mediate with empathy and an eye towards resolution for all parties.

 

Hopefully, they will borrow from the approach recently taken by federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau:

 

"It's 2014.  We have a duty to protect and encourage people to come forward.  The action must be fair, but decisive.  It must be sensitive to all affected parties but, recognizing how difficult it is to do so, it must give the benefit of the doubt to those who come forward," he said.

 

That is a huge shift in the culture of Parliament.  The benefit of the doubt has always been stacked in the favour of the accused.
 

Kathleen Wynne is the best kind of leader - one who recognizes that the people she leads are the architects of her vision, not infrastructure for her success.  She is a skilled facilitator who genuinely cares about people and their well-being.  She understands the importance of morale, empowering workplace culture and respecting the dignity of the people on the front lines.

 

A big part of why people don't trust politicians and feel their policy decisions aren't in the public's interest is because of our perception of internal political culture as corrupt, self-serving, feudal in nature.  Abuse of the public purse, abuse of position and abuse of human resources go hand-in-hand.

 

As #ghomeshi is forcing us to discuss such uncomfortable matters publicly, we're admitting publicly that this isn't something unique to politics - in all sectors, labour is done in a top-down, hierarchical way that empowers the aggressive, cunning and sales-oriented folk who also tend to be the ones most likely to abuse power in aggressive, cunning and team-harassing ways.

 

I think it would be great for the Liberals to provide a bit of inside-the-sausage Open Government of labour for the public on how they conduct their internal HR practices, especially as it comes to harassment/sensitivity training for MPPs and staff. 

 

It would set the right tone in a proactive fashion, provide some best-practices for others to learn from and make it clear that unlike some other employers out there, they have nothing to hide.

 

'Cause if there's one thing Premier Wynne excels at, it's leading by example.  We desperately need more of that kind of example right now.

Do You Remember? The Importance of Time and Recognizing Mistakes

Another nurse said three words to me that are the three words that most emergency physicians I know dread.  Others in medicine dread them as well, but there's something particular about emergency medicine because we see patients so fleetingly.

The three words are do you remember?

Do you remember that patient you sent home, she asked matter of factly?  She's back, and she's near death.

True story.

I was having a chat with this senior political adviser guy one time when he breaks out this story about an interview he'd done with a reporter.

This guy, he's built businesses, advised leaders at all three levels of government - he's one of those go-to types with high-brow networks the likes of which most people will can't even fathom.

Back to the interview.  It wasn't going well, the guy told me; for whatever reason, the reporter, a woman in her 30s, seemed to have a dislike for him.  He couldn't place it.  It wasn't until after the interview was over that he found out what was up.

"You don't remember me, do you?" the reporter asked.

"Um, no, why, should I?" the guy queried back.

"I worked for you for years.  Then you fired me."

The moral of the story, according to the consultant, was that he's always happy to see people who'd worked for him succeed doing whatever else.  That was his takeaway.  I asked him how the story turned out; he rolled his eyes and, essentially, said that reporters will write what they want to write regardless.

That story stuck with me.  It reminded me of the countless, hard-working staff I know that engage tirelessly in political work during and between elections.  It reminds me of the countless "faceless bureaucrats" who toil away, considered little more than cogs in the wheel by many of those who work above them.

There are reports about how this faceless, black-hole culture is a massive problem impeding efficacy in our public sector.  The same holds true for countless private sector corporations, too.  I once did a time-audit of a consultancy that makes ridiculous amounts of money, but has ridiculously poor internal organization.  

It turned out that, by improperly aligning internal work schedules and a boss culture that felt meeting times were flexible for them (but not their staff), tens of thousands of billable hours were being lost.  A high price to pay for being too busy (or too important) for your staff.

Money isn't the only thing that gets lost when managers don't take their teams seriously.

One service I offer (currently through Wakata Inc, if you're interested) is internal/external organizational management; making sure that work flow, responsibility, communication, transition and knowledge transfer are all properly designed for efficiency and maximum value add.  My area of particular interest are smaller organizations that otherwise wouldn't have the resource capacity to get organized themselves (being too busy).

What find, consistently, is that where staff turnover is taken for granted (often leading to a focus on lower-wage labour and less training), important institutional memory gets lost without its loss even being recognized.  New staff will develop their own filing systems, ignoring old ones they don't understand, only to abandon their work when they get rotated out and someone else gets rotated in.

When managers take a "someone has to bell the cat" attitude - essentially, putting leadership responsibility on low-wage staff without giving them official mandates as such - they will repeatedly get upset at new staff unable to meet the unclear expectations set by the person in charge.  It becomes clear to these managers what the problem is - a lessening quality of staff.  If it weren't for inept staff, their lives and works would be so much easier.

And the problem only deepens.

I've seen a lot of small Not-For-Profits that do important work fold because they simply didn't have the resources or managerial capacity to get past the moment or, quite frankly, because the people at the top couldn't get over themselves.  These services disappear and don't get replaced, meaning more and more people of the people who relied on these services - battered women, new Canadians, youth with mental illness, etc. - go without.

Meanwhile, more cracks are showing in the services being offered by the public sector.  More blame is being placed on "entitled" front-line staff or the odd Minister or Administrator who double-dips or under-produces, but the focus is always on the individual - get rid of them, put greater restrictions on their replacements and carry on.

This brings us back to Brian Goldman's example.  A busy doctor - too busy and mentally over-saturated to keep track of every single patient made an avoidable mistake and a patient died.  Could he have done something?  Could he have saved her life, if he hadn't rushed her out the door?  What of the second patient - what if Goldman had taken the time to talk with that patient a little more, come to understand the nature of his ailment a bit better?

Goldman is a doctor in a culture that is all about churn - working through a massive patient flow as quickly as possible, seeing as many people as possible.  He has no control over that culture.

My friend the senior consultant guy is not a doctor; what he does is high-level, has no impact on the direct lives of individuals, right?  He's a businessman making money, period.

The people he works with are policy makers - their job isn't to get into the weeds, either; they're too busy for that.  Their job is to make efficient, cost-effective policy at the high-level and punt implementation responsibility down the chain.  When something goes wrong, well, blame is one of those things that rolls downhill.

I know countless people like my friend who are "too busy" to engage with their teams - they expect their staff to come to them, full of piss and vinegar, or go out and find them on the golf links.  

They are the bosses.

These are the people who define the cultures of our emergency rooms, our service centres and, where it comes to managers, our work cultures.

When the people in charge don't recognize the value of taking the time to know their teams, to respect their teams as individuals rather than assets, they are weakening the strength of their own institutions. 

If you can't make the time to remember your team, can you expect them to take the time to fill in blanks for you after they're gone?  Will you be able to recognize growing structural rifts within your own organization?  What about that one client that is back at you with a request, or a complaint, that you know nothing about?

Perhaps there's a lesson in this worth remembering.

Sanitation Engineers: The Value of Training

 

Disinfecting a patient room involves more than "dipping a rag in a bucket," Zoutman added.  Bacterial spores require hospital-grade level disinfectants.  It can take 90 minutes to two hours to do a thorough and complete clean if a patient with an infectious disease has occupied the room.

 

But Zoutman isn't convinced more money is the answer.  "We need to look at how we're cleaning, and what we're doing, before we just say we need to hire more people or pour more money into it."

 

Smart man, this Zoutman.  Money isn't a solution; it is, in some cases, a facilitator for a solution, but money by itself does nothing.  We're too quick to spend (and too quick to cut) without actually making an effort and investing the time to find where the problem lies.

 

First and foremost - how are hospital cleaners treated?  How much training do they get?  Do they have HR support to turn to if they have pressing issues, especially if the wages aren't fantastic, or are they expected to leave personal problems at home and thoroughly clean room after room in monotonous yet rapid fashion?

 

I don't know.  I haven't done any research on this front.

 

That's what we pay policy people for, isn't it?