The BBC has today published its “Respect at work report” making for what the Director General calls “some uncomfortable reading.”

Trust and respect are two of the BBC values and yet the report finds instances of bullying a real concern, with many managers seen as “untouchable” in the organisation.

There are a number of recommendations from HR as a result of the report. Top of our list would be the actions that take a preventative approach

• The reworking of their bullying and harassment policies is to include specific example of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour 
• Teams will be encouraged to discuss the values and what they mean in practice
• Reference to the values will be made more prominent by ensuring they are part of “people discussion/decisions”

But why has it taken a string of sexual harassment cases and a survey like this to reach these conclusions and implement these actions??

Great as these actions are (and they really are good), this should be the sort of thing that all organisations are doing to proactively build a culture of respect and prevent bullying claims ever arising.

Ask yourselves honestly... what would implementing actions like these cost you, in terms of time and money? Really very little.

Compare that to the average cost of dealing with a bullying case... Acas puts it at a conservative £30,000.  That is not to mention the reputational damage and the stress for all involved.

Let’s learn from this report – take some positive actions to build a culture of respect in your teams. Implementing even one of recommendations above will make a positive difference. 

Social media and the workplace hit the headlines again.

Although the big story has been Paris Brown losing her job within days  of taking up her new post, of far more concern than a 15/16 year olds misjudged comments, is the fact that the Met have revealed that they have investigated 75 police staff over misuse of social media since 2009. This has been closely followed by an incident of a police officer being disciplined for tweeting distasteful comments about Thatcher’s death this week.

It all shows how easy it is for lines to be blurred when using social media. Work and home lives are becoming far more intertwined; when and where is it OK to voice personal opinions for example? Is a personal blog different to a company blog? And what might be acceptable in one organisation may not be in another.

A large proportion of employees don’t even know their company has a policy on internet use... and often if they do know a policy exists they have never read it or don’t really understand what it means to them.

A couple of points to consider...

• Ensure your policy is specific rather than couched in general blanket terms... eg instead of asking people not to disclose confidential information, offer some examples of what confidential information might be. Do guidelines on making comments about the company or fellow employees extend to personal tweeting/blogging/facebook?
• Get teams and departments talking the policy through, so that they can clarify and discuss how it might affect their particular role
• Ensure your managers are confident in implementing the policy... if they are not sure where the lines are, they will not be able to step in and deal with any possible breach

Having a policy on social media use is only the first step; giving employees a chance to question, discuss and understand it is the far more powerful step and will minimise the sort of time consuming investigations, which the Met have had to instigate.

For more guidelines, see our other blogs on managing social media in the workplace and our workshops on managing appropriate behaviour at work

If any of us were ever in doubt about the importance of addressing behaviour at work, the series of high profile examples of inappropriate behaviour appearing almost daily in the press from across the worlds of sport, entertainment and politics should give the answer loud and clear.

Inappropriate behaviour affects morale, self esteem and performance and can cause untold reputational damage – as the BBC and Lib Dems in particular are discovering.

The problem for many organisations – as we have blogged about so often before – is lack of clarity.

The inappropriate behaviour that “isn’t really inappropriate, because it happened at the evening “do” of a conference and that’s not really work, is it?” The inappropriate behaviour that “is just a bit of harmless flirting and nothing was meant by it”, the inappropriate behaviour that “only the happened because of a few too many drinks on a team night out and what’s wrong with letting your hair down a bit?”

These questions show how grey some of these areas are...

So, how to get some clarity?

• Have a policy and talk to your people about it... Here’s a test – get your team together and ask them what they think is inappropriate behaviour – you will be amazed what comes out.
• Ensure your managers are confident in discussing these issues with their teams – (managers at every level – don’t let your board absent themselves from these debates)

Behaviour that is respectful and cooperative leads to happy productive teams.

Behaviour that is disrespectful and inappropriate leads to unhappy, underperforming teams

Addressing this area is not some “fluffy, HR initiative”; it makes solid – indeed vital -  business sense.

Have a look at some forward thinking organisations who have addressed behavioural issues and the difference it has made

There has been much “airtime” given to unconscious bias over the last year.

The subconscious biases and prejudices we all have are a way of explaining why in this world of increased awareness around discrimination, underpinned by solid legislation in the form of the Equalities Act, we still only have 2 female CEOs in the FTSE 100 and the ethnic minority employment rate (60%) is still significantly lower than the white employment rate (76%) (report from National employment panel)

Understanding unconscious bias shows us that we all have prejudices buried within us – we all demonstrate preferences for one set of characteristics over another, depending on our past experiences and influences. It is human nature.

The danger lies in how it affects our decision-making and interaction at work.  If bias creeps into recruitment decisions or how we see requests for flexible working, for example, we may be treating people unfairly and losing talent at the same time.

So the more awareness there is around this topic, the better. But awareness is only the first step. What organisations must also do is to equip managers to make changes to their own behaviour and have the confidence to intervene when others’ behaviour or actions show signs of bias.

The recent People Management survey on bias (November 2012) cited research from the ENEI (Employers network for equality and inclusion) that managers admitted to feeling anxious about “saying the wrong thing” to people different to them.

In these instances we should be helping managers to develop the confidence to open up conversations, ask good open questions that stop them making assumptions and be able to genuinely engage with their team, no matter who they are.

Raise awareness, for sure, but take that next step. Concentrate on developing skills such as listening, questioning, giving feedback in a sensitive way and demonstrating empathy – and that’s where you will start to see real change.

Click here for more information on how we can help you reduce the effects of bias in your organisation

 

There was a discussion on radio 2 on the Jeremy Vine show recently about the amount of people viewing porn from their PCs at work. One of the women in the discussion suggested she would turn a blind eye if the worker was a good performer in every other way.

We don’t think it’s acceptable in any circumstances to view porn at work, but it does raise a question that frequently comes up in running management courses; “If my top performer is not quite displaying the behaviour I would want, isn’t it Ok, because they get results and do good job overall?”

Often managers are afraid to tackle these kinds of behavioural issues, for fear that their key performers will leave.

But what happens if you turn a blind eye? What message does this send out to the rest of the team? And what does it say about you as a manager?

It is easy to underestimate the demotivating effect poor behaviour can have on others. We worked with a sales team where the highest biller outperformed the rest of the team by some way. But they were doing this through some sharp practices and very selfish ways of working.  It was years before a manager was brave enough to tackle the situation. The sales person in question did leave the company, but the team didn’t fall apart and the revenue, while it dipped in the short term, didn’t disappear. In fact, the remaining team not only made up the shortfall, but actually generated much more, as their motivation and productivity increased.

Behaviour is part of overall performance at work and should be treated as such. Managers should have the confidence to tackle inappropriate behaviour, no matter how good the rest of someone’s performance. It will pay dividends in the long run.

Click here for more guidance on managing inappropriate behaviour at work …

When we talk to managers about agreeing a code of conduct on behaviour in their teams, the reply is often “isn’t it just common sense? Doesn’t everyone know how to behave at work?”

The answer is that unfortunately no matter how obvious you think the definition of appropriate behaviour is, people do have differing interpretations.

David Brailsford, coach of Team Sky – the British cycling team - has just introduced a Code of Conduct for the team. Rocked by the Lance Armstrong saga, he has identified that it is not enough to leave standards of behaviour and conduct to chance. And quite rightly, he is not just going to draw the code up himself and impose it on the team. He will be discussing standards with each team member and incorporating their input, in order that it is a shared understanding across the team.  We would also advocate that if there have been problems of misconduct in the team in the past, which have sparked the need for clearer guidance, it is important to focus on the future and how people should behave going forwards, rather than dwell on what has already gone. See this as a chance to start with a clean slate, if you like.

There are two key points we can take from Team Sky’s approach…

• If you don’t currently have a code of conduct around appropriate behaviour at work, but see the value of drawing one up, use team meetings to identify and agree the standards with everyone – you will have far more buy in that way
• If you do have a code of conduct or policy in this area, check if people really understand it. Do they see how it relates to their day to day work? Holding a team discussion or one to one meetings with everyone and asking for their examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour can be a really effective way to clarify understanding. Giving them a chance to ask questions will help that clarity too and mean they are far more likely to display the behaviours discussed. 

With the season of office parties and client entertainment almost upon us, it is an ideal time to review your Behaviour at Work policies and ensure people really understand what they mean in practice. Investing a bit of time talking to people now can save a whole lot of headaches later.

For more ideas and guidance on Managing Appropriate workplace behaviour see our workshops and for sessions to facilitate team discussions see Your Team Health check.

 

The CIPD is calling for reform in banks. CEO, Peter Cheese comments "Today's leaders need to be self aware, have a strong moral compass, and understand that their behaviour is key to whether an organisation's values are worth more than a passing reference in the annual report or on the company intranet”.

How we echo those thoughts!

But how many times do we hear Managers and Leaders talk about “Integrity” and how they are “consistent”, “honest” and “principled?”  The words continue to roll off their tongues, into various company documents and onto their CVs!  But does their day-to-day (hour-to-hour) behaviour match these aspirations? That is the acid test.

Those who demonstrate integrity and lead from the front are those who will build trust and respect and loyalty with their teams.  For some, this comes easily, but most managers need to think about their behaviour, if they are going to be able to honestly say they are always demonstrating consistency, honesty and integrity. And perhaps more importantly, be prepared to ask their team members how they would describe them…

I wonder how often managers do stop and challenge themselves to identify examples of when they have met their claims?  Are you brave enough to do this? 

Alaina Love, a consultant writing for Bloomberg Business Week says leaders should ask themselves “3 integrity questions”…

1. Do I exhibit clarity of intent?
2. Do I operate with purity of motive?
3. Do I demonstrate integrity of action?

For further thoughts on trust and integrity have a look at our other blogs Where are your ethics? and How to build trust with your teams

In many aspects of our lives, but particularly in work we hear a lot about people “knowing their rights.” Overall, this is a good thing as it reflects an increased awareness of how we should be treated and how we should treat others. 

But it is easy to forget the other side of the coin.  This is understanding our responsibilities.  In order to be fair in our dealings with other people, we do need to understand our rights, but also fulfil our responsibilities. 

Do we really know what they are when we step through the office door? 

As an employee, our rights are...
 To be paid
 That our employer exercises reasonable care of us
 To have access to a grievance procedure
 To have mutual trust and confidence

To balance these, our responsibilities are...
 Duty of obedience; to accept a manager has the right to ask us to do something providing it is reasonable, safe and lawful 
 Duty to adapt; to accept changes are needed in workplaces
 Duty to exercise care; of ourselves, our colleagues and our employer’s property
 Duty of fidelity or good faith; that our actions are in the best interests of our employer at all times 

We are all operating in an uncertain climate at the moment, where there is often a lot of mistrust between employees and their employers, so being reminded of these rights and responsibilities from time to time can be a very useful way of ensuring we are building strong working relationships, which are based on trust.

One of our clients saw the benefits of this approach and last month we ran a highly interactive session for thirty team members on this very subject. The participants welcomed the opportunity to discuss openly the balance between having rights and understanding their responsibilities. One team member commented that it was useful to remember that there is a dual responsibility when you work for someone and the challenge is for both parties to live up to them. 

As Bill Maher, the American comedian said “We have a bill of rights. It is about time we had a bill of responsibilities”...

With Valentine’s Day just round the corner, how do you manage the thorny problem of relationships at work?

Romance at work is widespread – many of us spend a good third of our time at work, so it is not surprising that relationships often develop here.

And it is not all bad! Happy people are more motivated and more productive. Having a partner at work can mean couples have someone who can share the stresses and understand the strains.

But there are potential dangers. Most companies recognise it is unworkable, not to mention draconian, to try and ban interoffice relationships. 

Better to focus on the risks that might arise, such as unwanted romantic attention, relationships between line manager and team member, managing the fallout from a broken relationship, considering how to manage confidentiality concerns. 

Some companies have a specific Relationships policy, which will give guidance around what is appropriate and inappropriate for family relationships, as well as romantic ones. For example, ensuring managers are not involved in the recruitment of a close family member.  This sort of policy can offer clarity on romantic relationships, such as whether the company tolerates relationships between line manager and employee, without it being solely focussed on romantic situations.

A Conflict of interest policy could broach similar issues, without it being seen as an attempt to “ban” relationships.

Relationship breakdowns are one of the trickiest areas to manage, particularly if one of the couple brings a claim of harassment, because of their ex partner’s behaviour at work. In this situation, the employer could be partly liable and needs to take steps to make it clear this is not acceptable behaviour. Your harassment policy will be vital here.

Most of all ensure your managers have confidence to deal with difficult situations arising from inter office relationships. If a couple’s behaviour is leading to problems - which could be anything from flirtatious behaviour making people uncomfortable to the relationship causing distraction and loss of focus for the people involved – then the manager needs to deal with it.

As always, it is these grey areas which often cause managers most angst. Having some guidelines written into a “Behaviour at work” policy and getting managers discussing these situations and how to handle them can go a long way to ensuring they are dealt with before they get out of control.

If you are interested in exploring the whole subject of Managing Appropriate Behaviour at work, come along to our free seminar run in conjunction with Penningtons Solicitors on the 21st Feb. It will be a chance to ask questions on any aspect of behaviour at work and network with like minded professionals.

Look forward to seeing you there!

And have a happy, conflict-free Valentine’s Day!

There is currently a heated debate raging in the HR community about whether organisations should have a Social media policy. Neil Morrison Group HR director at Random house sparked the debate by insisting that using a social media policy demonstrated a lack of trust in employees. Many have responded that it is about giving people clarity rather than being patronising.

We would agree with that view. Generally people in a work environment want boundaries – they want to know what is expected of them and where the lines are. This extends to many areas of behaviour at work, not just use of social media. Having a policy provides that guidance.

One comment made was that what you call the policy doesn’t matter; you just need to be sensible. We wholeheartedly agree with being sensible – we have been advocating a common sense approach in these blogs for a while – but actually we do think the language you use and what you call the policy makes a difference

Even using the word Policy may distance the people it is meant to relate to – “Guidelines” has less of a dogmatic ring to it. If the content is written in plain language with examples that relate to day to day activities, it will sound less legalese. It’s about ensuring it does what it says on the tin. For example, if you call a policy about appropriate behaviour “Dignity at work” (which many organisations do) does that tell people it is about appropriate behaviour or suggest it is more about equal opportunities policies?

Working a great deal with organisations in this area we were interested to see what terms our clients used – so we have been asking them. We suspected that while we call support in this area Managing Appropriate Workplace Behaviour, managers would use other terms and the results have been very interesting. Many will use the words that reflect the situation as they see it eg dealing with office banter, managing difficult people, conflict in teams. That has been a very helpful insight for us in terms of marketing our support in these areas. But it also underlines that getting the language and terms right when you communicate with your audience is key.

So we don’t agree with Neil Morrison – companies should have policies, but they should think about how to word them and how to communicate them so that they are meaningful.