I have been consulting
now for almost nine years. The nature of my practice is a reactive
one. Clients call me when there is a problem. Maybe a complaint
has been filed and they need me to deal with it, or maybe the
complaint was already dealt with and the settlement demanded that
they provide some training. In some cases, they call me to resolve
issues that have been festering for years. “Come, oh magic
alchemist”, they beckon, “Come and wave your magic wand and
resolve this problem for us”.
I do what I can.
However, in many cases, I feel like I am sticking a band aid on a
gangrenous wound. I have worked with employers in a myriad of
different industries on a whole host of different complaints:
issues of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and inter-personal
conflict. I write Respectful Workplace Policies and provide
training on a variety of related issues. I am very good at what I
do. However, in many instances I do not have the power to fix what
is ailing these companies. It is fundamentally all about the same
thing – it is an issue of a dysfunctional workplace culture.
Behaviour does not
occur in a vacuum. Behaviour, like bacteria, needs the right
conditions and the right environment to develop, to shape and
grow. In every workplace, that environment is the organizational
culture. A respectful workplace culture will encourage, support
and promote respectful behaviour. On the other hand, a
disrespectful workplace culture will encourage, support and
promote disrespectful behaviour.
Back in 1982 a
deliberate choice was made to promote a respectful culture and to
embrace mutual respect as a core value for us as Canadians with
the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of
Rights and Freedoms is the foundation of law in Canada. It is a
visionary legal document that enshrines the values of tolerance,
fairness, justice and mutual respect. The Charter is intended to
define and promote the type of culture we want to have in Canada.
Human rights laws
in Canada flow from Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Section 15 is concerned with the issue of
discrimination, which is defined as fundamentally disrespectful
behaviour. Human rights law applies to the sphere of employment.
This creates a requirement for employers to be concerned with the
issue of behaviour in the workplace and whether it is respectful
or disrespectful.
Workplace culture,
respectful behaviour and organizational power are intricately
interwoven. I am not the only one to recognize this relationship.
In 1987, the Supreme Court came down with the Robichaud decision
and effectively changed the landscape of working life in Canada.
That was the decision that created a statutory obligation for
businesses to create respectful workplaces for their employees.
Here is a Hot Tip
for you. Statutory obligation means an obligation that you can’t
get out of. It’s not ‘a nice to have if you feel like it’
type of commitment. It means you are required to meet this
obligation, and you are on the hook if an employee decides that
you are not. One of the main reasons for statutory obligation is
the power inequality that exists in most workplaces. The employer
has power and the employee does not. Human Rights law is designed
to help to equalize that power equation.
This means that a
disrespectful workplace culture must be transformed into a
respectful one. It all sounds good …in theory. The employee, who
has no power, complains. The law supports and empowers the
employee and has the power to make the employer fix the problem
and create a respectful workplace culture.
In practice,
however, it doesn’t always work out that way. The power of the
courts can be easily thwarted if those in positions of power in an
organization decide to preserve their existing culture and resist
any cultural change.
A good example of
this is the case of Michael McKinnon. Michael started working as a
correctional officer in Toronto’s Metro East Detention Centre in
1977. Michael is aboriginal, but his ethnicity is not obvious. He
looks like a white man. After he started working in the Toronto
area jail, he found himself working in an environment that was
overtly racist. There were lots of inappropriate comments made
about aboriginals. Michael told his employer that he was
aboriginal and that he found the comments offensive.
That did nothing to
stop the comments. In fact, exactly the opposite occurred. Michael
now found himself on the receiving end of a constant barrage of
racist behaviour. He was asked if he was having a pow wow. His
co-workers donned feather Indian headdresses and initiated war
cries when he entered the room. He was referred to as the f__ing
Indian, Wagon Burner, Geronimo, Tomahawk, Crazy horse and other
such names. His wife, a white woman also working in the detention
centre, was referred to as Squaw McKinnon. He was publicly
humiliated in front of inmates and had his more favorable
assignments taken away from him.
Michael put up with
the behaviour for a number of years before he filed a complaint.
In 1998, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found that the he had
been discriminated against. His employer was ordered to stop the
discrimination and to create a respectful environment for Michael.
However, instead of getting better, things got worse. Both Michael
and his wife suffered retaliation as a result of his first
complaint. He filed a second complaint in 1999 and another one in
2002. The courts were clear that both Michael and his wife were
working in a poisoned work environment. The employer was ordered
to stop the discrimination and create a respectful working
environment for Michael. Each time a specific list of remedies was
ordered by the Tribunal. Each time the employer chose not to
implement them.
After the third
complaint, both Michael and his wife were placed on paid leave
while the Ministry was ordered to address the poisoned,
disrespectful work culture. Rather than admit any liability, or
even acknowledge the type of workplace culture which the
complaints had clearly substantiated, the Ministry of Correctional
Services (Michael’s employer), chose to ignore the orders and
filed appeals to get the decisions reversed. The Ministry made the
choice to keep both Michael and his wife out of the workplace and
pay them full wages for eight years, rather than acknowledge that
the workplace culture in the correctional system was inherently
disrespectful.
On January 30,
2007, eighteen years after his original complaint, another
decision came down supporting Michael’s claim of discrimination.
The Ministry was harshly criticized for “shameful” conduct.
The tribunal found that the Ministry had buried Michael’s
complaints, or investigated them incompetently, and that it had
financially and morally supported employees guilty of harassing
and bullying him. Rather than acknowledging the racist, toxic and
dangerous atmosphere that existed at the prison, the Ministry
embarked upon a purposeful course of action intended to convey the
message that “McKinnon” was the problem.
Why did those in
positions of power at the Ministry of Corrections make the choices
that they did? Were they all a bunch of ignorant racists? Did they
really hate either Michael, his wife, or aboriginals that much? I
don’t think so. I don’t even think that race was the crucial
issue here.
To understand what
was going on at the Metro East Detention Centre we need to think
about the type of culture that would exist in a prison. We need to
think about the core values that would be the foundation of such a
culture. We need to think about power and how it would be used
there. Finally, we need to think about the fear that would be
raised when the values of such a culture would be so fundamentally
challenged.
A prison, like many
other organizations, is based on a militaristic command and
control model. It is based on the win/lose paradigm, the “us”
versus “them” philosophy which has been followed by men in
war, corporate life, and sports for generations. It is about
power: who has it, and who doesn’t. In this culture, bullying
becomes an accepted practice at all levels. It is condoned and
rewarded, as is conformity. It is about strength, competition and
winning. You are expected to be tough, and to give as good as you
get. You are either “with us” or “against us”. You are
either one of “us”, or you are not. And when you’re not …
then anything, and any tactic, is fair game.
I have seen this
type of cultural belief system numerous times in my consulting
practice, working with fire-fighters and other organizations that
were historically male dominated. In these organizations, people
don’t complain about name-calling, harassment and jokes. “It’s
what we do and how it is here. If you can’t take that then you
shouldn’t be working here. Sure we tell off colour jokes, and
call each other nicknames. We all do it, you’ve gotta have a
thick hide if you are going to work here.” The underlying
message is clear; this is our culture and this is what we do here.
These are our shared values and beliefs. You accept these beliefs
or you don’t work here.
Michael’s
complaint called into question the entire value system on which
the workplace culture was based. If the Ministry was to admit that
they had been harassing him, the floodgates would open and the
flood waters would come pouring through, washing away everything
that was the underpinning of the culture of the Toronto East
Detention Centre. The outcome was simply too threatening to
contemplate.
Michael McKinnon
looked like a white man. They thought he was one of them. And if
he wasn’t one of them, it wasn’t a big deal, as long as he was
prepared to play by the rules. When Michael made it clear that he
wasn’t, he in effect declared war. And war was what he got. It
became “us” versus “them”, winner take all, beat him down,
and take no prisoners. Rather than look at the behaviour that
Michael was complaining about, which was the real problem, the
Ministry chose to discount the behaviour and focus on Michael
himself as the problem. It became a “blame the victim”
approach which I have encountered numerous times in my consulting
practice.
I don’t for a
second believe that the Ministry of Correctional services sat down
and made a decision to adopt this fundamentally disrespectful and
toxic workplace culture and it’s underlying values. It was a
culture that grew on its own. Had Michael McKinnon not blown the
whistle, it would have continued to flourish regardless of the
fact that we have a Charter of Rights and Human Rights laws.
It is important in
life to see things as they are. We need to be realistic. While the
case of Michael McKinnon is an extreme example, we must recognize
the fundamental legacy of that command and control culture
in all North American businesses. In some cases, as in the case of
the Metro East Correctional Centre, it is the dominant and
pervasive culture. In other cases, it exists as a sub-culture as a
result of bullying behaviour by individuals who abuse positional
or personal power.
The law in Canada
demands that employers create a Respectful Workplace. In other
words, this means a workplace that is free from discrimination and
harassment. In Quebec, the law has recently gone even further to
legislate a workplace which is also free from psychological
harassment - what I refer to as workplace bullying.
In most cases, the
employer’s response to all of this legislative change has been
more re-active than pro-active. Companies generally become
concerned with compliance when complaints arise. And when a
complaint does come up, it is often viewed as an isolated incident
with a particular individual, rather than as what it is - the tip
of the iceberg. The iceberg, bobbing unseen beneath the surface,
is the workplace culture which created the right conditions for
the complaint to develop and grow.
Until recently,
this reactive posture may have been enough. When there are more
people than jobs, the employer’s power is enhanced. People stay
despite an unhealthy work environment. However, when there are
more jobs than people, the balance of power starts to shift.
People have a choice as to where they want to work. And they know
it. No longer do employees feel the need to remain in a job and
put up with a work environment which makes them feel excluded or
disrespected.
In the reality of
today’s tight job market, a market which is predicted to get
much tighter, the balance of power is going to continue to shift.
It is only logical that, given a choice, people will choose to
work where they feel comfortable, appreciated and included. Most
people will not choose to join or stay in a work environment where
they feel disrespected or excluded, and/or where they are involved
in or witnessing ongoing conflicts and abusive behaviour. Money
alone is not enough. Study after study has proven that money is
not the main factor that keeps employees in a job. People stay
because of workplace culture and workplace relationships.
Organizations that
want to survive and prosper in the new millennium need to
recognize the dramatic effect that their workplace culture is
having on their bottom line. Employers who want to be profitable
in business are going to have to make some deliberate and
strategic choices about their workplace culture. From my
perspective there is only one choice to make – take a good hard
look at what is going on in your workplace, be prepared to deal
with what you find and create an inclusive, respectful and
profitable workplace culture.
rica
will be Course Leader at
Federated
Press's
Diversity
in the Workplace Conference,
Learn
How To Better Utilize and Integrate Your Organization's Greatest
Asset
-
Its People!
June
18-19, 2007 in Vancouver.
For
more details, visit:
http://www.federatedpress.com/pdf/DWV0706-E.pdf:
If
you are interested in attending this conference, please quote
Erica's email address and you will receive a 15% discount.
Erica Pinsky Inc. works with organizations to manage the complex
issues of discrimination, harassment, bullying and conflict in the
workplace. Erica is a powerful presenter, passionate about
promoting respectful workplace cultures where employees feel
engaged, comfortable and focused on their jobs. Whether she is
doing public speaking, providing workshops and training,
investigations, mediations or in one-on-one intervention, Erica
will bring results.
