How to start changing an unhealthy work environment by Glenn D. Rolfsen at TEDxOslo

Do you think backbiting is happening at your workplace or place of study?

Glenn Rolfsen's talk is about what contributes to a toxic work environment and what the significant factors are that determine our working life quality. His approach addresses how to achieve a permanent end to slander and bullying among adults in the workplace.

Glenn D. Rolfsen is a psychotherapist working in corporate health service in Oslo.

He has also worked as a teacher to educate gestalt therapists in Norway and several European countries. He is particularly concerned with the psychosocial work environment in enterprises. As corporate counsel and leadership consultant, he works daily to improve working life quality for employees.

Understanding PTSD's Effects on Brain, Body, and Emotions by Janet Seahorn at TEDxCSU

PTSD : The hidden wound, the silent scream



PTSD disrupts the lives of average individuals as well as combat veterans who have served their country. The person experiencing the trauma often then impacts the lives of his/her family, friends, and workplaces. PTSD does not distinguish between race, age or gender and often goes undiagnosed. Even with proper diagnosis, many individuals do not know where to turn to get help. Society needs to understand the aftermath of trauma especially combat trauma and how to prepare for warriors when they return home.

Janet Seahorn, Ph.D has been a teacher, administrator, and consultant for over thirty years. She currently teaches a variety of classes on neuroscience and literacy as an adjunct professor for Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO. Jan has a Ph.D in Human Development and Organizational Systems. Her background includes an in-depth understanding of human development and neuroscience research as well as effective practices in organizational systems and change. She conducts workshops on the neuroscience of learning and memory, the effects of “at-risk” environments (i.e., poverty), brain development, and researched-based instructional practices. Jan has worked with many organizations in the business and educational communities in creating and sustaining healthy, dynamic environments. Dr. Seahorn has researched and studied the effects of trauma on the brain and how excessive or extreme trauma can impact changes in the brain’s neuro network and how that change impacts behaviors in s

A precursor to Bullying.... Rudeness At Work: On the Rise, And Coming With A Big Cost

Just because you’ve developed a thick skin for rude, discourteous behavior, doesn’t mean workplace incivility is not hurting you–and your family.

A new Baylor University study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found that workplace rudeness can follow you home, causing you to unleash “incivil” behavior on your loved ones.

That’s disconcerting news for the 43% of Americans who have experienced incivility at work, according to the report, Civility in America, 2011. To be clear, incivility is different from aggressive bullying, which usually carries the intent to harm someone. With incivility, the intent is ambiguous, and it’s less intense and characterized by demeaning remarks, showing little interest in a worker’s opinion, acting rudely or with poor manners, among other uncivilized behaviors.

The Baylor study found that those who experienced workplace incivility had lower levels of marital satisfaction and greater family/work conflict, particularly for the partner. It also found that stress from incivility was contagious to family members.

Whose to blame?

When asked to name some of the top causes for the growing incivility problems, 65% of workers blame their company’s leaders and 59% also blame employees, while 46% list the lagging economy as a cause. Interestingly, 34% blame younger employees for incivility and only 6% blame older employees. But incivility at work, many agree, is an artifact of life in America. More than 70% of Americans consider political campaigns, pop culture, the media, government and the music industry hubs of incivility, according to the Civility in America Report.

How to tamp down rudeness

In the words of Aretha Franklin, R-E-S-P-E-C-T. The authors of the Civility in America report write:

Johns Hopkins Professor Pier M. Forni, co-founder of the Civility Project, defines the basics of civility as the Three R’s: Respect, Restraint and Responsibility. When Americans were asked to define “civility,” the words “respect” and “treating others as you would want to be treated” predominated.

And rather than shrug off rudeness, name it, because the more you become inured to it, the more normal it becomes.

source

Beauty Discrimination?!! ....Attractive women who attach photo to CV 'less likely to be employed'

• Attractive men, however, more likely to get interview
• 
  

It's long been suspected that some employers are swayed by a pretty face in a job interview.

But being good-looking might be an impediment to getting to that stage in the first place.

Attractive women who attach a photo to their CV are less likely to get an interview than their plainer rivals or those who do not send in a picture, research reveals today.

'Jealous' women in personnel departments who screen which jobseekers should be invited in are to blame for attractive women not getting interviews, says a new report.

It blames young, single and ‘jealous’ women in personnel departments who screen which jobseekers should be invited in.

But in an example of the ‘double standards’ that the researchers said these staff employed, attractive men who attach a photograph are more likely to get an interview than plain ones.

Staff in personnel departments are overwhelmingly female, typically single and aged 29 on average, the researchers found.

Their report concludes:

• ‘The evidence points to female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace as a primary reason for their penalisation in recruitment.’
• In a warning to pretty job-seeking women, it adds: ‘Attractive females are singled out for punishment.’

A young man waits at a job interview. Attractive men who attach a photograph are more likely to get an interview than plain ones, says research

The research, published by The Royal Economic Society, involved sending more than 5,300 CVs for 2,650 job vacancies. For each job, two applications were sent. One contained a photograph of an attractive man or woman, or a plain-looking man or woman. The other CV was identical, but did not contain a photograph.

Nearly 20 per cent of attractive men got an interview.

• But only 12.8 per cent of attractive women fared as well.

Of plain men, 9.2 per cent got an interview, compared with 13.6 per cent of plain women. Men who did not attach a picture were asked for interview 13.7 per cent of the time, compared with 16.6 per cent of women.

Bradley Ruffle, from the Department of Economics at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, which carried out the study along with the Ariel University Centre in the West Bank, said it was an example of ‘beauty discrimination’.

For the best chance of getting an interview, a woman should send in a CV without a picture, he said.

He blamed ‘the high number of women in human resources staffing positions’. It is their job to look through a mountain of CVs and job applications to decide who should be asked for an interview, and who should not.

When they see an application from a pretty woman, researchers said, many of these staff feel extremely ‘jealous’ of their potential colleague and often reject her instantly.

To check this stereotype, researchers telephoned the companies who were recruiting to find out about the people who screened the candidates. They found that 96 per cent were female, the majority were between the ages of 23 and 34 and nearly 70 per cent were single.

The research was conducted in Israel because it is normal to attach a photograph in the corner of a CV there, unlike in Britain. Professor Cary Cooper, from the Lancaster University Management School, said women in human resources may be trying to help the ‘underdog’.

He said: ‘It could be that they unconsciously think that the less attractive woman is the underdog, and want to give her a chance. ‘They may think to themselves: “These attractive women stand a better chance of getting a job elsewhere. I’ll give the less attractive one an interview.”’

source

STUDY - The Calculated Tactics Revealed In How People Climb To The Top - Brown Tongue, Sucking Up, Bosses Pet, Manipuator

Flattery will get you far

Research by Assistant Professor Ithai Stern suggests that corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when they use subtle forms of flattery and conformity within their organizations.

New research reveals seven types of ingratiation that increase boardroom prospects for top executives

In the corporate world, board appointments are typically perceived as markers of success. However, new research from the Kellogg School suggests boardroom entrance strategies are rarely based on merit alone.

According to the study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior and Board Appointments,” corporate leaders are more likely to win board appointments at other firms when employing subtle, but sophisticated, forms of flattery and opinion conformity within their organizations.

“Past research has demonstrated the effects of corporate leaders taking part in ingratiation and persuasion tactics,” said Ithai Stern, assistant professor of management and organizations and co-author of the study. “However, our study is the first to look at the effectiveness of specific tactics in increasing the likelihood of garnering board appointments at other firms, as well as which types of executives are most likely to effectively engage these tactics.”

As part of the study, Stern and his co-author James Westphal, strategy professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, drew from theory and research on interpersonal attraction, as well as interviews with 42 managers and CEOs of large U.S. industrial and service firms, to identify a set of tactics that are less likely to be interpreted as manipulative or political in intent, and are therefore more likely to bring about social influence.

The researchers identified seven effective forms of ingratiation most likely to help executives win board seats:

• Framing flattery as advice seeking: Occurs when a person poses a question seeking advice as a way to flatter the subject (i.e. “How were you able to close that deal so successfully?”).
• Arguing prior to conforming: Instead of agreeing immediately, a person will yield before accepting his/her manager’s opinion (i.e. “At first, I didn’t see your point but it makes total sense now. You’ve convinced me.”).
• Complimenting manager to his/her friends: Praising manager to his/her friends or social network with hopes that word gets back to manager.
• Framing flattery as likely to make manager uncomfortable: Positioning a remark as likely to be embarrassing (i.e. “I don’t want to embarrass you but your presentation was really top-notch. Better than most I’ve seen.”).
• Engaging in value conformity prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Expressing values or morals which are held by one’s manager (i.e. “I’m the same way. I believe we should increase minimum wage.”).
• Conforming to opinions expressed by one’s manager to a third party: Covertly learning of manager's opinion(s) from his/her contacts, and then conforming with opinion(s) in conversations with manager.
• Referencing social affiliations held in common with one’s manager prior to flattery or opinion conformity: Mentioning an affiliation, such as a religious organization or political party, shared by both individuals. (i.e. “I watched the Republican National Convention last night. The keynote presented some great points.”).

As part of these findings, the authors also discovered that managers and directors who have a background in politics, law or sales are significantly more likely to engage in sophisticated forms of ingratiation. Similarly, managers and directors who have an upper-class background are more sophisticated in their ingratiatory behavior than individuals with a middle- or working-class background. The authors argue that this proclivity is consistent with social norms in these environments. These findings shed new light on why there are only a few top managers with backgrounds in engineering, accounting or finance, as compared to top managers with backgrounds in politics, law or sales.

“Lawyers, politicians and salespeople routinely take part in flattery and opinion conformity to complete their jobs, similar to those operating in an upper-class social environment,” said Stern. “Ingratiatory behavior is a form of interpersonal communication that is acceptable and expected in both arenas.”

Stern and Westphal note that acts of flattery are successful in yielding board appointments at other firms if the influence target doesn’t recognize these acts as a favor-seeking motive.

“To tap into the corporate elite’s inner circle, a person cannot be too obvious,” Westphal said. “Being too overt with one’s intentions can be interpreted as manipulative or political. The more covert the ingratiation, the more sophisticated the approach and effective the outcome.”

Source
The study, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior, and Board Appointments,” appears in the current issue of Administrative Science Quarterly.

THE ART OF SUCKING UP
This kind of subtle flattery can also help employees climb up the corporate ladder. The more you disguise the sucking up to bosses and managers, the less likely you will be seen as manipulative and scheming. According to one study quoted here, managers were more likely to come down hard on people they see as sucking up to them, who are not being subtle and who are going over the top. But the study notes that when managers are fooled into believing the compliments are sincere, they are more likely to rate that person’s performance highly.
In other words, you have to do it right. It takes practice and skill the fool the other person.

Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Andrew O’Connell says flattery appeals to people on an unconscious level. When people are gushing all over you, you don’t believe it. But on an unconscious level, he says, you want to believe it. So the trick is getting the person on an unconscious level. “Persuade a customer or colleague on a conscious level, and he or she will retain that conviction only until a better counterargument comes along … Persuade a person on a gut level, and the feeling will last and last. And last.”

Workplace bullying behaviours

Bullying in the workplace is not one phenomenon; it covers a host of situations and contexts.

Workplace bullying is generally placed on a continuum of inappropriate behaviours that straddles psychopathic behaviour, mobbing, harassment, rudeness, social undermining, generalised workplace abuse, mistreatment and intimidation, emotional abuse, psychological harassment, petty tyranny and peer rejection.

The wide range of terms is partly due to the high level of subjectivity associated with this field of study.

There are many definitions and descriptions of workplace bullying. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work described workplace bullying as repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards an employee, or group of employees, that creates a risk to health and safety.
Comcare described it as harassment that covers a broad range of behaviours across a wide spectrum, and can occur wherever people work together. It too, said the behavior was repeated and posed a risk to health and safety.

The term ‘workplace bullying’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘mobbing’ and ‘harassment’. The World Health Organisation described mobbing as aggressive and threatening workplace behaviours of one or more members of a group (the mobber) towards an individual (the target or the victim) though occasionally mobbing can be practiced on groups.

The main difference between workplace harassment and bullying is in the specificity of behaviors. Bullying is seen as a ‘generic harassment’ directed at individual factors such as personal traits, work position or level of competence in the job. Harassment appears to be directed at some personal characteristic of the victim, such as sex, race, disability, age or religion.

Workplace bullying covers a broad range of behaviours (some authors described around 50 workplace bullying behaviours) and most people observed or were subjected to one or more of the following:

Verbal abuse, unjustified criticism, belittling, humiliation; insults; gossip; malicious rumours; isolation; victimisation; personality targeting; teasing; practical jokes; exclusion from conversations and social gatherings; impossible deadlines, work overloading; inconsistent compliance with rules; unnecessary pressure; under-work or creating a feeling of uselessness; interference with personal effects; meaningless or demeaning tasks; unexplained job changes; withholding work-related information or resources; denial of award conditions; exclusion from meetings; and physical threats.

Various researchers have attempted to group workplace bullying behaviours.
Some authors identified five types of bullying behaviours:

1. threat to professional status
2. threat to personal standing
3. isolation
4. Overwork; and
5. destabilisation.

Others defined the following seven groups of workplace bullying behaviours:

1. verbal/active/direct behaviours (eg name calling)
2. verbal/active/indirect (eg unfair treatment, false accusations and rumours)
3. verbal/passive/direct (eg being ignored, silent treatment)
4. verbal/passive/indirect (eg memos/phone calls ignored, little or no feedback)
5. physical/active/direct (eg glaring at, physical assault)
6. physical/active/indirect (eg theft or destruction of property, deliberately overloading with work); and
7. physical/passive/indirect (eg unreasonable deadlines, lack of resources).
source

COMMENTARY - Relational Aggressor - Bully Behaviour

Relational Aggressor:

The New Bully On The Block

By Ken Cox

The following discussion of relational aggression proposes to illustrate a type of bullying behavior that pervades all of our relationships.

You and I, by reason of our common humanity, have had more than a casual experience with the bully and victim relationship. All of us have given audience to this cruel drama and many have played the victim's role. A very few of us have come to the victim's rescue and at least one of us, unenviably, has played the bully's part.

According to traditional definitions, we ascribe the word bully to anyone who uses a position of relative power to direct negative intent against another person. Relative power can take the form of physical, financial, social and other circumstantial advantages.

When we first think of aggression, the smirking masculine icon of physical advantage most often comes to the surface. Our memories provide us with obvious and indelibly dramatic prototypes from early schoolyard experiences. Operating out of those memories, we tend to see the relationship between bully and victim as physical, driven by the fear of physical injury and dependent on physical advantage.

Ironically, the most powerful advantage comes not from the bully but from the victim: the pro-social constraint of the victim, the universal yearning for relationship, provides all the advantage the bully ever needs.

This does not absolve the bully. The susceptibility of the victim may have its enticements, but the behavior belongs solely to the bully.

Once a potential victim exhibits social constraint, or responsibility, the bully knows he or she can safely maneuver the situation to the very brink of disgrace. Counting on the integrity of the victim's constraints to keep them both from tumbling over, the bully stands on the crumbling edges of socially acceptable behavior and demands that the victim either jump or submit.

This assumes that social, professional or familial circumstances force the victim into relationship with the bully. Otherwise, the victim would simply disengage. It also assumes the victim's world view and social skill level do not provide alternatives beyond submission or escalation.

Social scientists and psychologists have recently invented a new classification of bullying that reflects the above perspective on aggression. They call it relational aggression. Interpretations of current research attach the label of relational aggressor almost exclusively to women. However, I believe the label applies as well to men.

Socially and culturally, we vastly underestimate the type of aggressive behavior characterized as relational aggression because it has a more elusive and indirect outcome than the easily observed physical aggression normally associated with the behavior of men.

Relational aggression takes form as verbal threats and abuse. Relational bullies exercise their negative intent by directing hurtful statements to their victims and, of greater significance, talking about their victims to others.

This type of aggression uses the threat of social isolation to hurt the victim. The bully's advantage resides in the value the victim places on belonging to a family, school, workplace or other group.

As we shall see later, bullies have no corresponding fear of social isolation. They do not value relationships and therefore perceive themselves as having nothing to lose: interdependent relationships signify weakness.

Relationships only expose one to the possibility of loss. Consumed by self-reliance and the need for control, relational aggressors project the source of their inadequacies and fears on to others.

Some have termed this projection as "hostile attributional bias" or paranoia. Accordingly, relational aggressors see provocation and, thereby, justification where it does not exist. Typically, they take inappropriate revenge for imagined offense and externally impose on others the solutions to problems arising from within.

Surprisingly, bullies see themselves in a positive light, probably because they have so little awareness of what others think of them. No one wants to suffer a bully's wrath by telling them the truth, and so the bully's confidence survives simply because they lack the feedback to perceive themselves correctly in social situations.

In fact, blindness to the feelings of others permeates the behavioral style and outlook of bullies. Lacking social awareness, they certainly don't see the impact of their own behavior on themselves and others. They abuse their spouses and children, creating a miserable family life and still another generation of bullies. In the end, bullies bring at least as much unhappiness upon themselves as upon their victims.

You may well ask, if relational aggression causes so much pain, why do bullies persist in it?

"It's a great strategy for getting what you want," says Illinois's Gary Ladd. "People have a need to control their environment, and perhaps some enter life with differences in that need, as occurs with other traits."

"The great psychological benefit to bullying," says Ladd, "is that bullies feel powerful, in control. They've picked a little microcosm in which to exert control. They think their behavior works because they only see the short term outcome."

Dr. Richard E. Tremblay believes the the first two years of childhood sets a mold for behavior. "Aggression is normal at that age. It builds up from nine months and reaches its highest frequency at age two, and then (hopefully) you learn that it hurts to be aggressed...(because)...adults intervene and indicate that it is the wrong behavior. Language skills increase, and aggression decreases. However, if you don't get it by age two, then you become aggressive."

Aggression seems to mimic adult behavior. Some studies indicate that children learn relational aggression from observing the mother punish or manipulate the father with aloofness and verbal abuse. I think with time we will discover the father can set the same example of abuse as the mother, and for both sons and daughters.

To psychobiologist Gary W. Kraemer, the early caregiver-infant attachment process, "the dance of mother and child," actually configures the developing nervous system and establishes the paradigm for all social behavior. The relationship between mother and infant sets the pattern, and perhaps even the desire or lack of desire for later relationships.

However, if an innate developmental need for relationship exists in infancy, and remains unmet, that unmet need in itself could create inappropriate behavior. Aloofness and other apparently counterproductive behavior such as "doing something in order to get attention", and the words "I won't let you ignore me" come to mind.

According to Kraemer, relational aggressors exhibit both aggressive and reclusive behavior without apparent cause. "They can't anticipate what is going to happen next in social interactions. Something will set them off and once in antagonistic relationships, they have a hard time stopping." They just don't get the give and take of relationships, possibly because their need to for control takes such overwhelming precedence.

We began this discussion with the obvious form of physical aggression traditionally evidenced by male schoolyard bullying and have built upon it by comparing it with relational aggression. Because awareness of relational aggression comes out of studies of female bullying it has led to an interesting and perhaps misleading conclusion regarding gender and behavior.

According to Dr. Nicki R. Crick, "Women are just as capable of being mean as men are. If you go back to the textbook definition of aggression, it's the intent to hurt or do harm," notes Crick. "We've identified a form of aggression unique to females, what we call relational aggression, hurting others by propagating rumors, forming intrigues and socially isolating the victim. If you want to hurt someone and you want it to be effective, shouldn't it involve something they really value?"

Relational bullies typically do not form deep friendships. When they do, they usually choose a very nonaggressive peer. "We think that intimacy is for them a medium of control, for gathering intelligence and achieving an end," says Crick. "Friendship with a relational bully can be a passage to psychopathology."

"If you have not observed such behaviors, it's because they are subtle and sophisticated, and far less visible than the bullying of males. While these behaviors may be harmful to society, relational bullies don't wind up in the criminal justice system," Crick concludes.

This brings us to the idea of complicit aggression. For example, you may not bully others nor suffer others to bully you, but perhaps you participate in aggression as an observer and use the passiveness of your role to rationalize your complicity.

"I no longer think of bullying as something that happens just between two people," says Toronto's Debra Pepler. "Peers are so often involved that it's really in some sense an interaction that unfolds in a context rather than in isolation."

Because this aspect of aggression involves little more than listening to rumors, the individual listener's portion of the responsibility seems to disappear. Nonetheless, someone has received an injury. Relationships have changed and a person's reputation has lost value because of words. Every single listener has amplified and perpetuated the injury.

Dr. Antonius Cillessen calls this effect on group dynamics "the hidden purpose" of relational aggression. He finds that peer groups fan the flames of aggression by conferring reputations that keep victims frozen in their roles.

"Once peers have negative expectations, no matter what victims do, even if they change their behavior, their peers filter observations of them through their negative expectations. As peers see them, they can't do anything right."

It all begins and ends with words. Bullies use words to create fear of loss and fear of injury. Bullies use words to persuade and coerce. Bullies use words to ally with some and isolate others. Bullies use words to hurt people.

When bullies go further than words we call it war, rape, assault and battery, domestic violence, child abuse and other names. We no longer call it bullying and we know how to deal with it.

Which brings us to a familiar childhood ditty, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Does anyone believe that? As long as the bully directs the names, threats and lies at someone else, we act as if we do. We blame the victim.

In the words of Dan Olweus, "It is a basic democratic right to feel safe and to be spared the oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation implied in bullying."

What can you do to stop relational aggression?

• You can begin by not making or listening to comments about another person's character.
• You can improve the quality of your family life, workplace and world by discussing the behavior you want to see changed with the person who can change it.
• You can increase your general awareness of relational aggression by contacting the International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522. Ask them about E-Prime.
• You and I can set an example for others. Yes, old habits die hard and it will take a lot of physical and moral courage to bring about the end of relational aggression, but a worthy goal calls for a worthy effort.

LEGAL - Sexual harassment preventative strategies: Compliance obligations do not end on induction

Key Points:

To a large extent, a compliance program's robustness depends on the quality of content and delivery of relevant policies and procedures, staff training and follow up on compliance behaviour and benchmarking.

What are "reasonable steps"?

In the Australian environment there is no prescriptive formula or prescribed steps which an employer must take to discharge its obligations to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Anti-discrimination laws simply provide that for an employer to escape vicarious liability for sexual harassment, an employer must have taken all reasonable steps or precautions to have prevented the harassment from occurring.

Various case authorities have however examined what is required to discharge the onus to take all reasonable steps or precautions. In this regard, courts have examined what are reasonable steps or precautions on a case by case basis. From this, some common themes have emerged:

• Employers should have a clearly articulated policy on sexual harassment which identifies what is appropriate and what is not appropriate conduct.
• Importantly, the policy must be actively enforced rather than being a mere "paper policy". Accordingly, there should be a grievance procedure by which staff with concerns can raise issues and when raised these should be addressed appropriately.
• In addition to any policies and procedures, employers should provide appropriate training to its staff to make clear the expectations and consequence of any failure to comply with those expectations.

The case authorities also suggest that what lengths a larger employer might have to go to, to satisfy having taken ‘reasonable steps’ is not the same as that for a smaller employer.

For example, in a decision of Federal Magistrate Driver of the Federal Magistrates Court in Johanson v Blackledge [2001] FMCA 6 it was held that the size of the employer is relevant to determining whether the particular steps taken by an employer are reasonable in the circumstances. In this respect Driver FM stated:

"(I)t would be unrealistic to expect all employers, regardless of size, to adhere to a common standard of preventative measures. This defence has been interpreted in Australia as requiring the employer or principal to take some steps, the precise nature of which will be different according to the circumstances of the employer".

In another decision of the Federal Court, Justice Wilcox, in Gilroy v Angelov [2000] FCA 1775 stated that while the law does not distinguish between small and large employers, small employers should at least adopt a process of preparing a "brief document pointing out the nature of sexual harassment, the sanctions that attach to it and the course that ought to be followed by any employee who feels sexually harassed" and that it be provided to staff on commencement of employment and routinely.

Justice Wilcox also suggested that larger employers have a higher onus to discharge observing that they have the benefit of "skilled human resources personnel and formal training procedures".

Is greater precision needed?

In light of the case authorities, when can an employer be comfortably satisfied that it has met its obligations to prevent sexual harassment and, therefore, discharged the onus to take "reasonable steps". Certainly, just having a policy will not be enough – especially if the content of the policy is deficient. Neither will once-off training which takes place at induction but is never delivered again. Ultimately, the test in all practical terms is to what extent an employer’s program delivers on compliance behaviour. This comes down to getting the content right, ensuring that the delivery of the message is provided with requisite seriousness, monitoring ongoing compliance and reinforcing expectations routinely.

Interestingly, in the United States, and in particular, in the state of California, there has been sufficient interest to regulate how compliance training is in fact developed, delivered and benchmarked. In an unusual development, expected new regulations will set out strict requirements regarding the nature and content of such training.

California's expected regulations will apply to businesses with 50 or more employees which carry on business in California. These businesses will be required to train all supervisors who are resident in California in accordance with the following guidelines:

• Training must be interactive - employees must be asked questions to assess their understanding of content learned, and they must be able to ask questions and receive replies within 48 hours. This training can be internet or computer based.
• Trainers must be experienced lawyers, HR professionals or university instructors. In the case of internet training, trainers must both develop the content of the training program, and promptly respond to any questions from employees.
• Training must take at least two hours to complete.
• Training compliance records must be retained for at least two years
• Each supervisor must receive training every two years, and new supervisors must be trained within six months of becoming a supervisor.

Training must also examine the following content:

• defining sexual harassment and other types of harassment
• assessing the effect of harassment on victims
• analysing sexual harassment prevention strategies, avenues for investigating complaints and remedies, using practical examples.

The future?

While Australia is still some way off the Californian model, the developments in the United States does pose some interesting questions for the Australian legal framework and how compliance training is approached here at home.

Nowadays, most large employers at least have a policy dealing with sexual harassment (if not anti-discrimination and appropriate workplace conduct). Most large employers also provide for staff training on such policies.

In the absence of a prescribed "suite" of steps which an employer must take to satisfy that it has taken "reasonable steps or precautions", however, employers should audit their diversity compliance programs to ensure that they provide the best make-up to prevent and resist vicarious liability for legal claims. To a large extent, whether a compliance program is adequately robust will depend on the quality of content and delivery of relevant policies and procedures, staff training (to general staff, managers and senior management) and follow up on compliance behaviour and benchmarking.

source