Preventing & Responding to Workplace Bullying - Section 8

Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying

In February 2014 WorkSafe New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a best practice guideline about how to prevent and respond to workplace bullying.  The guidelines are extensive, and include the following sections:

1. Defining workplace bullying
2. Providing advice to employees
3. Preventing bullying in your workplace
4. Measuring bullying
5. Advice for employers about what to do
6. Roles and responsibilities
7. Tools
8. 8.   Three case studies

 For a full copy of the Guideline, refer to the WorkSafe NZ website: http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/tools-resources/bullying-prevention-tools

In our monthly newsletter we have discussed each section of the Guideline in some detail.  This month we will review section eight – 3 case studies.  They are all good examples of the types of issues we frequently assist employers to resolve.  For this reason we have included the case studies in full:

Case Study 1:  Bullying and Lack of Leadership Leads to Resignation

When Denise began her new role, she understood that she would be an apprentice to her manager, John. Soon after she was employed, John’s manager Simon restructured the unit and John was made redundant. Soon after this Grant was appointed into a new role, and became Denise’s manager. Denise had a small team of professionals reporting to her.  Initially everything ran smoothly. The relationship between Denise and her new manager Grant seemed to go well. About eight months later an event occurred which caused Denise great concern. One day Grant accused her of making an error in a report.  Denise accepted that she’d made the error and offered to discuss and rectify it. Grant refused to resolve the issue by talking about it and a short time later Denise found a warning letter about the incident on her desk. This came as a surprise because she hadn’t been told verbally that the error was grounds for a formal warning. Denise was upset by the action, so left for the day to go home and be supported by her husband. 

This was the first in a series of incidents in which Grant berated Denise for perceived performance issues. She was accused of not performing for several reasons. Grant implied that her lack of initiative in asking for work constituted non-performance, despite Denise’s argument that her role was clearly set out and she had no space for additional work.  He often called her into his office and spoke to her accusingly, asking for explanations about what she’d been doing and why certain things weren’t yet completed. He directly questioned her ability to manage her staff, particularly regarding her management style and techniques. Denise felt that Grant was watching all of her interactions with her staff, and was always ready to criticise. Grant would often call her into his office to comment on an interaction he’d observed between Denise and a member of her staff, asking, for example, why she’d spoken to the person in a certain way. Eventually Grant would not allow her to talk to her own staff members.  While these incidents occurred over several weeks, Denise tried to discuss the issues to resolve them, but Grant refused to meet with her.

Denise began to feel that she wasn’t doing her job properly, although there’d been no problems for several months, including before Grant’s appointment as her manager. As Grant’s accusations continued, Denise felt less and less capable of doing her job. She began to feel guarded in everything she did – both her individual work and her interactions with others. Eventually she felt a loss of confidence and self-esteem, and her own self-doubt seemed to lead to errors in her work.

Denise knew that her experiences, and particularly her reactions, were affecting those around her. The team’s morale, communication and ability to work together began to decrease. While she instigated meetings with her team to talk about the issues they were experiencing, she believed that their knowledge of the issues between her and Grant was taking a toll on the team.  In particular, her coping style of getting on with her work and keeping her head down contributed to the team’s decreased communication as staff members followed her lead.

Denise was also aware that Grant was having discussions with a member of her team she was having problems with, and she felt that Grant was taking the employee’s comments at face value rather than discussing them with Denise.  Throughout the situation, Denise turned to her family, friends and her previous manager John, and received emotional support and advice on how to manage the situation. She didn’t discuss the situation with her senior manager Simon, because she believed he was a close ally of Grant’s and would not treat her issues seriously. In fact, as things progressed, Simon also began treating Denise badly – going behind her back to get her staff members to complete jobs for him, and accusing her of errors in her work. In one instance, after accusing Denise of making an error in a report, Denise reviewed the report and found that there was in fact no error. On returning to Simon to point this out, she was dismissed by him with no apology or acknowledgement that he had been wrong. 

After about three months of experiencing these actions, Denise was called to a disciplinary meeting with Grant. She contacted Human Resources to ask how she could prepare for the meeting, but they said they didn’t know, weren’t in a position to help, and that their only role was to sit in on the meeting. She felt that Human Resources didn’t want to know her. On receiving advice from a friend, Denise contacted an employment lawyer who came to the disciplinary meeting with her. At the meeting Grant mentioned a series of issues he had with her performance, but gave her no opportunity to resolve them. 

Two days after the meeting, a second formal warning letter was left on Denise’s desk.  Denise decided to leave the organisation and negotiated a settlement. She was paid three months’ salary and left immediately.  During the negotiations the Human Resources manager, who had previously been on leave, contacted Denise to ensure that this was what she wanted. The Human Resources manager made it clear that she did not agree with the process or the warnings given, and that it was inconsistent with similar incidents that had occurred across the organisation.  Her senior manager, Simon, who had not once intervened in the situation, told her on her last day how professional she had been throughout the situation. 

In retrospect, Denise believes it is clear that she was operating in a culture that she was not suited to (‘a man’s world’), and that she simply didn’t fit in and wasn’t wanted there. Women were not thought of highly, particularly in management roles, and she believes the personal attacks on her performance were aimed at removing her from the organisation.

Case Study 2:  High Human and Corporate Cost of an Untimely Investigation Process

This second case study summarises events in a company across a year.  Colin met with a CEO and alleged wrongdoing by Ryan. The CEO treated the complaint seriously and said he’d oversee an investigation.

Ryan was given a written summary of four allegations and asked to respond within a week. He responded but when meeting with the CEO, found that legal advice had recommended an ‘independent’ investigation.

The independent investigator began the process from scratch.  Colin filed a new claim with 24 allegations rather than four and, across one month, was interviewed by the investigator and confirmed the notes that were taken. He then went on stress leave.  The investigator then met with people referred to in the notes to get supporting evidence.  These people were also asked to confirm the notes. Another month passed. 

Four months after the original complaint the CEO was given a set of summaries. They were now as thick as a phone book.  A similar process then occurred when Ryan responded. Four separate half-day interviews were needed, over one month, to address the allegations. It took another month or so to interview Ryan’s witnesses and have them confirm the notes.  The investigator then gave Ryan’s material to Colin for comment.  After documenting Colin’s comment, there were now three sets of material, each the size of a phone book, and nine months had passed since the initial complaint.

Colin had been off work on stress leave, and his witnesses had been relocated as they felt uncomfortable having contact with Ryan.  Ryan believed the outcome so far showed that the CEO thought he was ‘guilty’. He was also turned down for a new position. 

When the investigator filed his report it was long, lacked detail, and wasn’t comprehensive.  Both Colin and Ryan found a large number of errors and flawed conclusions. But the CEO accepted the report and dismissed Ryan, who then filed a claim for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage.  Witnesses for both parties were by now at odds with each other and the organisation.  Several made complaints about the way they’d been treated and at least one resigned.

One year later: The issue completely divided the workplace, three employees had resigned and two grievance claims had been lodged.  Costs to the organisation were estimated at several hundred thousand dollars.

Case Study 3:  Bullying Not Identified as a Hazard

Clare was a student working at a residential care facility. She often worked with John, a co-worker whose behaviour with clients worried her. Clare witnessed several passive-aggressive acts by John toward a client. He also spoke to Clare in an insulting way.  Clare wanted to discuss this with someone, but the only system she knew of for dealing with this kind of problem was to speak to the manager. She also knew the manager and John were friends outside work.  When approached, the manager downplayed the matter and told her to tell John how she felt. Without any support offered, Clare tried to address the matter with John directly.  But his response was negative and the behaviour continued.

Over time, both verbal and written attempts at dealing with the problem (which she had documented on each occasion) had failed to remedy the matter. Clare became unwell.  Her study was being impaired and her doctor placed her on medication and advised she take time off work. She was away from the workplace for several months.  When Clare returned she witnessed a further bullying event toward a client and contacted MBIE.

The inspector she spoke to was an occupational health nurse who agreed to contact the chief executive (CE) of the organisation. She also agreed she would contact the Health and Disability Commission on behalf of the client.

The CE was appropriately concerned. The inspector asked the organisation to investigate the report, and made them aware that Clare’s illness and absence was work-related.  The CE agreed to forward the organisation’s health and safety system documents to the inspector. The system showed that bullying hadn’t been identified as a hazard, and that there were no pathways for helping a worker address such issues. 

The organisation was told of the failings in their system and began to establish lines of communication immediately in consultation with the inspector and workers in the organisation’s various work sites. Through conversations with other employees, the investigation confirmed that the bullying behaviour was persistent and had been witnessed and experienced by other employees and clients.  The perpetrator and the manager were removed from their positions. The workplace, through collaborative meetings and agreed protocols, gradually became a safe rehabilitation environment.

Once Clare had completed her studies successfully, she got work in another city.