The Drama-Free Workplace

Patti Perez

October 2019

Authenticity often comes into play:

• In an organization’s commitment to “maintaining a harassment-free environment” (note…better to promise a healthy and inclusive culture)

• In an organization that prides itself on its commitment to diversity and inclusion• In organizations that cites ethics and ethical decision-making as part of their

mission

A key way the issue of fairness arises in organizations involves the LITIGATION AVOIDANCE PARADOX

Testing the theory:

• Disciplinary or termination issues• References• Policy to report every single slight

Characteristics of a Safety Culture

• They have a “we’re all in” mentality.• They reinvent corporate attitudes about reports of possible hazards.• Their investigations don’t focus on blame; they learn from mistakes.• They are not just about lip service.• They don’t take their eye off the ball.

Deep Commitment to Employee Safety and Well-Being

• Proactive Hazard Identification and Control• Reports Are Welcomed and Encouraged

SAFETY – INJURY

PREVENTION

“The main goal of injury and illness prevention programs is to prevent workplace injuries…”

“We consider injury and illness prevention equally important as operations…”

“An injury and illness prevention program is a proactive process to help employers find and fix hazards before workers are hurt.”

HARASSMENT PREVENTION

“Sexual harassment is offensive, violates our policies, is unlawful, and may subject our company to liability…”

“Harassers may also be individually liable.“

“Employees who engage in sexual harassment or allow it to continue, will be penalized for such misconduct.”

“Our company is committed to achieving and promoting compliance with the laws, rules and regulations…”

Forward-Looking Accountability

• Backward-looking accountability is needed, but looking forward is also vital

• In safety, the bulk of the work in investigations is about looking forward: ➢ Identifying learning lessons➢ Making necessary changes➢ Developing systems to build safe habits

This is all aimed at preventing recurrence, rather than only focusing on how to punish the person who made the mistake.

INTRODUCTION OF CASE STUDY

The Main Players – Discussion Questions

1. What are the psychological and cultural realities that might prevent Sarah and Farah from complaining about or reporting Adam’s behavior?

2. What is the most effective way they can address their concerns so that it leads to an investigation and resolution, rather than retaliation and further distrust?

3. What is the best way to make Adam understand the impact of his behavior?

4. Are there realities that come into play when speaking about legislative employees and/or members?

Sarah and Farah• Communication is a key element • Silence usually because of fear (of retaliation, futility or of saying the wrong thing)• Drama-free leaders create a space for psychological safety so that targets are encouraged to speak

out AND so perpetrators are able to hear concerns and alter their behavior to avoid escalation• Teach ways to respond – especially in the moment• But the reality is that power differentials usually makes it unrealistic to expect the target to speak up

directly to the perpetrator, so the next best option is to report the concerns• The key for targets when reporting is to be precise and to frame the issue in the most persuasive

way possible• To that end, I propose a three-part method for reporting

• What happened (facts rather than charged words like “harassment”)• How does it affect you?• What can be done to stop the behavior?

Adam• With Adam, one key is to identify his language of motivation to maximize the chance that talking

with him will result in better understanding and behavior change

The Bystanders – Discussion Questions

1. How might you help the various bystanders participate more fully and openly in this process?

2. Since a bystander is either someone who personally witnesses examples of unprofessional behavior or hears about it, what could the following actors have done differently:• Mohamed and Daniel• Farah’s boss

3. What are the psychological factors that bystanders weigh when deciding whether to intervene? Which apply here?

4. What are the different ways a bystander can/should intervene? Which apply here?

5. Are there unique issues to take into account related to legislative employees?

Bystanders

• Research and experience tell us that there are three primary factors witnesses take into consideration when deciding to go from passive bystander to active upstander• Connection to the target• Perception of wrongdoing• Trust in the organization

• Like targets, bystanders often report that they do not want to speak up because of fear of getting involved, fear of retaliation, and because they simply don’t know what to say

• As is true with the target, leaders can help by developing tools for bystanders to intervene. Some practical intervention methods include:• Intervening in the moment: The bystander can say something directly to the

perpetrator, interrupt the behavior, or remove the target from the situation• Intervening afterwards: The bystander can go to the perpetrator afterwards to offer

her/his observations. The bystander can also contact the target to express support. The bystander also has the option of reporting the behavior

HR Investigation – Discussion Questions

1. What role does HR play in ensuring there is a culture of safety and openness so that employees and bystanders feel safe intervening to stop misconduct before it escalates?

2. Describe how HR should go about investigating these concerns.3. What traits should a workplace investigator have in order to conduct fair,

timely and thorough investigations related to reports of misconduct?4. How are the concerns raised related to organizational

values/mission/purpose related to ethics and expected conduct from leaders?

5. Are there special circumstances for HR Departments that work with legislative bodies?

HR Role• Creating an environment of truth-telling and creating a sense of fairness • Combine process with good judgment and common sense (focus on gathering facts, finding root

causes, and proposing effective solutions)• In terms of investigations, some of the critical traits workplace investigators should have include:

• Genuine curiosity and open-mindedness• The desire to listen, learn and approach investigations with a problem-solving mentality• The ability to make all parties involved feel comfortable sharing information (which is often

sensitive or even embarrassing)• An excellent investigator doesn’t check humanity and compassion at the door, but rather uses

emotional intelligence to do her/his work.• An investigator must have courage since the work involves having difficult conversations and

often making difficult recommendations• Consider a two-track system for investigations. One focusing on restorative justice, another for

formal investigations (involving concerns of serious misconduct that, if true, would lead to some form of discipline)

• Watch out for unconscious bias in investigations:• Confirmation bias• Affinity bias

Organizational Response - Discussion Questions

1. After HR (or a comparable department) looks into the concerns and finds that Adam has engaged in some level of unprofessional, demeaning or abusive conduct, what next?

2. What are ways that are both realistic and effective to make sure that Adam gets the message and that the organization sends a strong message to all leaders of what is acceptable conduct at work?

3. What other solutions (forward-looking, aimed at improving the workplace, not just aimed at addressing Adam’s behavior) might the organization implement to keep this type of problem from recurring?

4. What are some of the unique components to organizational responses when the organization is a state legislature?

Organizational Response

• The myth of false allegations (especially post-#MeToo)• Assuming some level of misconduct is found, key is to:

• Apply backward-looking accountability (see below) AND• Second, look at the situation from a forward-looking perspective

• My backward-looking accountability (discipline)• First look at the behavior, not the person. Rate the behavior consistently.• Create possible disciplinary measures based on the category the conduct falls under. For

example, mild conduct (between 1-3) might warrant a counseling session, training, a written warning, while severe conduct (a 9 or 10) should result in termination

• Rate the wrongdoer on a “salvageability scale” – make sure to ask questions like, “what did you learn from these events,” and “what would you do differently knowing what you know now”

• Realities related to legislative members might make the implementation of some of these solutions more problematic.

Thank YOU!

Calls to Action:• Follow me on LinkedIn

• Go to Amazon to write a book review