BOOK: CAREERS - The Path Less Travelled ..... embrace it!

Chaos and happenstance play as much of a part in careers as planning



Things both good and bad happen in our careers that we do not expect and have not planned for.



The idea that we plan our careers by thinking carefully and logically about what best suits us and then simply implementing our strategy is probably the most commonly held view of how our careers work. "Plastics" was the career advice given by a well-meaning family friend to Dustin Hoffman in the film The Graduate. The 1967 movie reflected the societal expectation that all graduates (and school leavers) should have a clear and firm plan for their lives. This expectation is pretty much still in place today, but should it be?



When we start looking closely at careers as real people genuinely experience them and not as some mythologised logical, linear and ever-upward trajectory, a different picture emerges. It turns out that careers are a lot less predictable than we imagine.



Think about your own career - is what you are doing now, what you believed you'd be doing when you were 15 or 21? The career path of most of us better resembles a drunken man's stagger through the world of work than a neat, calculated and straight line.



Careers are riddled with chance events. They are also subject to a complex array of different influences. Career decisions are not the result of cold, rational and logical thought processes, rather they emerge from a melting pot of personal history, circumstance, interests, experiences and more.



The rise of foreign economies has dispossessed many Australian workers. Whether it is using an iPad to order your meal in a restaurant, driving a Chinese car, or sending your dictation to India to be typed, the way we work, and hence our careers, are changing continually.



Here are some facts about careers and their trajectories:



■ At least 70 per cent of us will experience a chance event that significantly alters our career.



■ A US study found that over a period of 25 years about 60 per cent of us will change occupations and will report higher levels of well-being because of it.



■ A 2005 report from Monash University showed that after one year 29.7 per cent of enrolling students had changed courses, universities or had dropped out.



■ Federal government figures suggest 26.2 per cent of apprentices dropped out in 2009-2010.



We may think we make our own decisions about our careers but all of the following factors have been shown to be influential in our choices: where you live, your mother, your father, your siblings, politicians, the media, the web, your health and injuries.



What all this means is that shift happens in our careers continually. Sometimes it is the result of planning but often it is not. It means that "planning a career" is a less viable and useful thing to do. The appropriate reaction to this is not to become fatalistic or despairing but to recognise that our careers are the result of a complex, dynamic system of influences, people and the environment. 



Emerging from the complex interaction of all these different things will be a career pattern that has periods of stability but is subject to unpredictable and sometimes radical change.



The appropriate reaction to the complexity of our lives and careers is to place more emphasis on learning the skills of planning - how to make a plan, how to change a plan, how to copy someone else's plan and how and when to abandon a plan. It means developing the skills and mindset to embrace uncertainty and realising that unplanned events - both good and bad - are inevitable. 



This will help us to be resilient and persistent in the face of bad-chance events and ready to take advantage of any good-chance events that come our way.



Those who react to uncertainty by trying to control and predict everything by risking nothing are likely to be either confounded in their efforts by the forces of change and complexity, or they will limit their careers to such an extent they risk never fulfilling their potential. Successful people live their careers on the edge of chaos, a place where they are sufficiently open to change to engage, learn and transform.



The Chaos Theory of Careers describes the realities of working in the 21st century in a complex, changing and unpredictable world. To be successful in our careers now, we must be more open than ever to new possibilities, continual learning and the need creatively to reinvent or recast ourselves as circumstances permit or demand.



It is no longer necessary or even desirable in a world defined by change to have too firmly decided what we are going to do with our lives, because shift happens. Perhaps we should adopt the approach of Peter Ustinov who said, ironically, on his 75th birthday: "I really must decide what to do with my life."



The Chaos Theory of Careers: A New Perspective on Working in the 21st Century by Robert Pryor and Jim Bright is published by Routledge and is available from Palgrave Macmillan and Amazon.com.

source

Australia to criminalise Workplace Bullying: Workplace bullies may face jail time

Workplace bullying. Picture: Nicki ConnollySource: Herald Sun

BULLIES in workplaces will face jail when the state introduces laws to criminalise bullying.

Commercial law firm Kelly & Co believes it is "only a matter of time" before legislation is introduced in South Australia to deem workplace bullying illegal.

Legislation introduced in the Victorian Parliament on April 5 means workers found guilty of bullying face up to 10 years in jail.

It followed the case of a 19-year-old Melbourne woman who committed suicide after being bullied by co-workers and her boss at a lunch bar.

The employer was fined $220,000 under occupational health and safety legislation, with four co-workers also each fined between $10,000 and $45,000.

Kelly & Co partner and workplace relations lawyer Clare Raimondo said that workplace bullies were on "borrowed time".

"There's a groundswell of support to stamp out workplace bullying in SA," Ms Raimondo said.

A spokesman for Industrial Relations minister Pat Conlon said the Government would follow the progress of the Victorian legislation "with interest".

He said it already had introduced a Bill to Parliament in which the maximum penalty for an offence such as proven recklessness included five years imprisonment.

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

LEGAL - Australia's Victorian State Parliament to Criminalise Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullies in Victoria will face up to 10 years in jail under changes to stalking laws to be introduced to the State Parliament.

Transcript from ABC TV segment - Victoria to criminalise workplace bullying

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 05/04/2011

Reporter: Hamish Fitzsimmons

ALI MOORE: Workplace bullies in Victoria will face up to 10 years in jail under changes to stalking laws.

The criminalisation of bullying was prompted by the death of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock in 2009. Brodie took her life after being relentlessly bullied at the cafe in which she worked.

Both employers and unions have welcomed the laws but say there needs to be education about what actually constitutes bullying.

From Melbourne, Hamish Fitzsimmons reports.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: It was a case which appalled the nation when it came to light.

In 2005 and 2006 Brodie Panlock was physically and verbally abused by three of her coworkers at this cafe.

They even offered her ratsack when they found out she'd attempted suicide, and in the end, she couldn't take the torment any longer.

RAE PANLOCK, MOTHER: What happened to Brodie that was really a very toxic environment that she worked in and it was assault and it was very serious and it can't be tolerated and it's not going to be anymore.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: As a result of the death of Brodie Panlock the Victorian State Government has now introduced some of the toughest anti-bullying laws in the country.

They'll apply to any online, or physical harassment, that harms an individual.

ROBERT CLARK, VICTORIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL: This legislation is intended to send a very clear message that serious bullying is a serious crime that carries a serious jail term.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Those who bullied or aided bullying Brodie Panlock - Nicholas Smallwood, Rhys MacAlpine, Gabriel Toomey and cafe owner Marc da Cruz - were fined over $300,000 under occupational health and safety laws.

Her parents call it a slap on the wrist and say the new laws provide a better deterrent.

DAMIAN PANLOCK, FATHER: If you do it you'll go to jail, if you push it all the way and that's what they did to her, they pushed her.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: The former chief justice of the family court Alastair Nicholson has long campaigned against bullying. He says the laws are encouraging, but fraught with legal difficulties.

ALASTAIR NICHOLSON, NATIONAL CENTRE AGAINST BULLYING: It covers a very wide range of subjects, and the normally accepted version of bullying, is a repeated act of harass and cause harm. You then have to ask the question, is it deliberate? And what does deliberate mean?

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Justice Nicholson says preventing bullying it should start in schools.

ALASTAIR NICHOLSON: If you're going to affect this sort of behaviour, you've got to do it early. If you're going to eliminate bullying or make bullying unacceptable as a form of conduct in the schools, it's going to flow over into later life.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: And employer groups have cautiously welcomed the laws.

CHRIS JAMES, VICTORIAN EMPLOYER'S CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: The Brodie Panlock case was a great tragedy, it was very much at the extreme end of the workplace bullying spectrum it certainly raised consciousness of this issue, it made a lot of employers and employees sit up and take notice of the issue.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Unions say bosses need to take a stand against bullying.

GED KEARNEY, ACTU: We need to see very strong sanctions against employers as well for allowing bullying behaviour in the workplace. We want to see employers make the workplace safe for employees to blow the whistle on that behaviour.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: The Panlock family knows no laws can help their daughter but they do hope other families now won't have to share their grief.

RAE PANLOCK, MOTHER: Nothing's ever going to bring Brodie back but it is nice to know that something positive for people to remember Brodie for and hopefully she'll make it a lot easier for people who have those same problems.

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Hamish Fitzsimmons, Lateline.

source

MONSTER MANAGERS - Profiling Types of Monster Bosses

Monsters are real — as anyone who has ever worked for a nightmare manager can attest. Here we look at the qualities that distinguish a good boss from a bad one, and ways to avoid becoming a monster in the workplace.

Most monsters are frightening but fictional. However, we sometimes encounter a person who seems to have been pulled directly from our nightmares, and this is especially frightening when that person turns out to be our boss. A broad range of traits can make a manager seem monstrous, but that doesn't mean they're unique in their awfulness. In fact, it can be comforting to note that plenty of employees have to deal with nightmare bosses every day.

"These days there are websites where you can post horror stories about your boss, commiserate with other long-suffering subordinates or even e-mail your boss an anonymous letter telling him or her just how ineffectual he or she is," CFO Daily News explains. "Seems there's an epidemic of bad bosses out there."

The workplace can be a surprisingly spooky place. According to a survey from CareerBuilder.com, 18 percent of workers described their workplace as frightening. Based on a poll of 4,000 employees, here are the most common types of monsters — not all of them bad — workers said their bosses resemble:

• Glenda the Good Witch — Someone liked and respected by nearly everyone in the office (20 percent);
• The Wolf Man — A boss who's fine one minute and then terrible the next (11 percent);
• The Invisible Man — People notice that this boss is never around (10 percent);
• Casper the Friendly Ghost — A boss who is eager to help others, but is often misunderstood (9 percent);
• Dracula — This boss simply sucks the life out his employees (6 percent);
• Wicked Witch of the West — Unlike Glenda, this boss is conniving and has an army of underlings performing dirty work (5 percent);
• The Mummy — A slow-moving boss with an ancient management style (4 percent);
• The Grim Reaper — One who is constantly delivering bad news and inspiring fear among the staff (3 percent); and
• Frankenstein — A boss who's green with envy (1 percent).

Although many employees are dissatisfied with work conditions, problems with their bosses generally stem from a handful of specific problems that point to a fundamental disconnect between management and staff. An inability to listen is one of the key factors preventing a boss from engaging with employees.

"On one hand, there is the blabbermouth theory of leadership. In Western cultures, the person who talks the most is viewed as having the highest status. And interrupting people is a way to seize power," Robert Sutton, a professor in Stanford University's department of management science and engineering, told Inc.com. "Certainly talking is more pleasant than listening. But most bosses ought to shut up and listen more."

Listening is crucial not only because it improves relationships with employees, but also because it allows a manager to pick up on workplace details that he or she may not have noticed (or wanted to notice) before.

"One thing most bad managers have in common is they're not consciously aware that they're bad managers," BNET explains. "And if they are aware of it on some level, they're probably not willing to admit it to anyone, least of all themselves. That's because nobody wants to believe they're the problem."

So, as a manager, how can you tell if your employees view you as a bad boss? Sutton, writing at the AMEX OPEN Forum, offers the following signs that your reputation as a manager may be slipping:

• You look out for yourself and everyone else is an afterthought;
• You're hard on your workers because you think they'll screw up without your "guidance";
• You transmit but don't receive, mostly just pretending to listen to others;
• You never say "thanks" or "please" because it's a waste of time;
• You're a stickler for punishment, so your workers know when they make a mistake they'll pay for it;
• You never mess up, or in other words, never admit to messing up;
• You take all the credit, regardless of how much you contributed to the work;
• You don't tolerate dissent, making life hard for anyone who dares to disagree with you;
• You focus on your top performers, making sure they get the best of everything while everyone else is ignored;
• You only care about the big ideas, because the small stuff, like implementation or practical considerations, are beneath you; and
• You don't care what it's like to work for you, and if employees are dissatisfied, too bad.

No one wants to be a bad boss, but these traits can be hard to recognize in oneself. When performance begins to lag, employees become disinterested in their work or the atmosphere in the workplace becomes noticeably uncomfortable, signs point to a problem that management needs to address.

"You can tell if you're making mistakes as a leader because things go wrong — not just one catastrophic computer snafu but repeated errors," CNN.com explains. "Bad bosses turn away from these realities. They don't discuss problems; they just hunker down and hope the issue will go away. It won't. Untreated, a minor concern becomes a major issue becomes a catastrophe."

So what qualities define a good boss? According a recent survey from staffing firm Adecco, the types of leadership employees most desired were "visionary" (23 percent) and "democratic," (23 percent) meaning that workers want managers who set out clear, achievable goals and accomplish them with close collaboration and feedback from their employees. Moreover, 88 percent of employees said a good boss jumps right in to important projects and helps the team get the job done.

"Ultimately, the secret to being a 'best boss' isn't all that mysterious — employees respect bosses who work as hard as they do," Adecco explains. "They value constructive criticism regarding their work and they appreciate having a friendly relationship with their boss, but they don't feel the need to be 'friends' outside of work (or even online) with them. Employees want a boss who encourages a healthy work-life balance, while also practicing what they preach in leading by example."

source

Defining Workplace Violence ... what leads to Trauma and PTSD

Work trauma is the adverse effects and impact on the employee's physical and/or emotional wellness, health and safety as a result of physical and/or emotional violence experienced in the workplace.

These symptoms typically include, but are not limited to, external wounds and injuries and/or symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), excessive stress and/or stress-related illnesses. (Steinman, 2003)

Corporate Aggression refers to all situations where the majority of employees or any minority group feel subjected to unilateral conscious, calculated or planned negative actions, attitudes, rules and/or policies imposed by the employer to serve the employer's interests, in a situation where these employees feel that they are collectively unable to defend themselves and/or approach and/or reason with the source of aggression and/or effect any changes. (Steinman, 2002)

1. Definition of the term “Workplace Violence”

Workplace violence is defined as single or cumulative incidents where employee(s) are physically assaulted or attacked, are emotionally abused, pressurised, harassed or threatened (overtly, covertly, directly, indirectly) in work-related circumstances with the likelihood of impacting on their right to dignity, physical or emotional safety, well-being, work performance and social development.[1]Includes: Any physical violence such as an assault or attack and psychological or emotional violence such as threats, abuse, bullying/mobbing, sexual harassment and racial harassment.

GLOSSARY: Violence appears as physical violence or as psychological violence or structural violence in different forms, which may often overlap. Terms related to violence are defined in the following GLOSSARY

1.1 Physical Violence: The use of physical force against another person or group that results in physical, sexual or psychological harm.
Includes beating, kicking, slapping, stabbing, shooting, pushing, biting, pinching, strangling, among others.[2]

1.1.1 Assault/Attack: Intentional behaviour that harms another person or group physically, including sexual assault (i.e. rape).

1.2 Psychological Violence: Intentional use of power, including threat of physical force, against another person or group, that can result in harm to family life, livelihood, physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. [3]Includes verbal abuse, bullying/mobbing, harassment, intimidation and threats.

1.2.1 Abuse: Behaviour that humiliates, degrades or otherwise indicates a lack of respect for the dignity and worth of an individual.[4]

1.2.2 Bullying/Mobbing: Repeated and overtime offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel or malicious attempts to humiliate, disrespect or undermine an individual or groups of employees and includes, but is not limited to psychological pressure, harassment, intimidation, threats, conspiracies, manipulation, extortion, coercion and hostile behaviour which could impact on the worth, dignity and well-being of the individual or groups.[5].

1.2.3 Harassment: Any conduct based on age, disability, HIV status, domestic circumstances, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, race, colour, language, religion, political, trade union or other opinion or belief, national or social origin, association with a minority, property, birth or other status that is unreciprocated or unwanted and which affects the dignity of men and women at work.[6]

1.2.4 Sexual Harassment: Any unwanted, unreciprocated and unwelcome behaviour of a sexual nature that is offensive to the person involved, and causes that person to be threatened, humiliated, degraded or embarrassed.[7]

1.2.5 Racial harassment: Any implicit or explicit threatening conduct that is based on race, colour, language, national origin, religion, association with a minority, birth or other status that is unreciprocated or unwanted and which affects the dignity of women and men at work.[8]

1.2.6 Threat: Any implicit or explicit promised use of physical force or power (i.e. psychological force, blackmail or stalking), resulting in fear of physical, sexual, psychological harm or other negative consequences to the targeted individuals or groups.[9]

1.3 Structural Violence
The intentional use of power and/or organisational systems and structures or laws against an individual or entity (employer, management, shareholders, employee, group of employees, client, government, unions) to carry out a covert or unethical agenda, enforce change or indulge in unfair practices to the disadvantage of the affected individual or entity.
Includes but not limited to the disrespectful handling of changes in the organisation, unrealistic redistribution of workload, intimidation, policies, procedures, regulations, manipulation, coercion to act in a certain way and so on, exercised by an individual or entity. [10]

source

---

[1]Steinman, S: 2002-2007.
[2] Adapted from the World Health Organisation’s definition of violence.
[3] Adapted from the World Health Organisation’s definition of violence.
[4] Alberta Association of Registered Nurses
[5] Steinman, S: 2006
[6] Human Rights Act, UK
[7] ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI Joint Programme on Workplace Violence, 2001
[8]Adapted from Human Rights Act, UK
[9] ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI Joint Programme on Workplace Violence, 2001
[10] Susan Steinman, Workplace Dignity Institute, 2006

HOSPITAL WORKPLACE BULLYING- Dr Anne Sneddon Steps Down Over Bullying Where 9 Doctors resigned within 1 year

Head of Canberra Hospital Obstetrics & Gynaecology leaves behind Workplace Bullying environment for new job interstate

The Canberra Times has a stub on the Canberra Hospital obstetrics and gynaecology clinical chief Anne Sneddon walking away.

Sneddons departure comes after a difficult two years for the obstetrics and gynaecology unit, including the resignations of several other staff and investigations into bullying and harassment allegations.

Katy Gallagher was on the beast this morning saying Dr Sneddon was just taking a long break and there’s no problem. But can we believe anything she says now?

The Canberra Times has been told that Dr Sneddon quit the hospital recently to take up a position interstate.

The unit has been the subject of two external reviews after allegations of workplace bullying and harassment were made and several staff resigned.

The first review examined maternity services across the ACT and found Canberra Hospital staff had unsustainable workloads and some were victims of inappropriate behaviour.

The second inquiry specifically focussed on the bullying and harassment allegations but the findings are being kept confidential.

Health Minister Katy Gallagher says Dr Anne Sneddon is taking 12 months leave to pursue other career options.

She says it has been a turbulent 12 months at the unit.

"I really can't answer why Dr Sneddon has chosen now other than to say I think for everyone who has worked in the unit it has been a difficult 12 months," she said.

"We are on the road to making some major improvements, but Dr Sneddon has chosen to pursue some other opportunities elsewhere for a period of time."

Ms Gallagher says she hopes Dr Sneddon eventually returns to ACT Health.

"She is a very significant obstetrician and gynaecologist, nationally renowned. She does a lot of work in the third world, training and teaching midwives how to deliver babies," she said.

"She is an amazing doctor and I hope she comes back."

The ACT Opposition has renewed calls for the findings of the confidential review to be released.

Health spokesman Jeremy Hanson says there needs to be an open inquiry into the how the unit operates.

"This is nothing to do with a particular resignation. What I'm concerned about is the systemic issues, what actually occurred, why the complaints that were made were ignored, and has this been dealt with satisfactorily," he said.

source

THE BACKGROUND TO THE CANBERRA HOSPITAL WORKPLACE BULLYING

DOCTORS QUIT OVER 'HOSPITAL BULLYING'

The maternity unit at the Canberra Hospital could be on the verge of a staffing crisis, with nine doctors resigned in the past 12 months.

Six obstetricians have blamed a hostile working environment, with some complaining of bullying at management level, according to an industry representative.

Four junior doctors have also terminated their training at the hospital early over the past year, with more departures on the horizon.

The ACT representative for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Andrew Foote, said the doctors had approached him with concerns about the workplace culture and perceived bullying. He said some had complained of having difficulty getting days off work, while others had been humiliated by the way problems with patient management had been dealt with.

Dr Foote said at least one doctor had reported she had made a formal complaint to senior management and had been dissuaded from taking the matter further.

''The concern at a college level is that these are senior doctors at the highest level who have left the system,'' Dr Foote said.

''[One of the doctors] didn't leave town, which I think is particularly damning he just moved to the northside.''

Six doctors had also written to ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher, offering to apply for two vacancies only if the workplace environment could be improved.

Dr Foote said there was now a shortage of obstetricians, with only half the number needed to properly treat the number of patients going through the system.

''I think they [the hospital] are adopting the approach of 'There's nothing wrong, mate'.''

OPPOSITION CALLS FOR BULLYING REPORT RELEASE

The ACT Opposition says the government is acting cowardly by refusing to release a report into claims of bullying at Canberra Hospital.

Nine obstetricians have resigned from the hospital since the the start of last year, amid allegations of doctor shortages, harassment and bullying.

ACT Health says it has finished its inquiry, but is bound by the Public Interest Disclosure Act not to release the findings.

MALPRACTICE COVER UP? Problems at Canberra Hospital denied

The ACT government has defended an exodus of obstetricians from Canberra Hospital amid claims of a senior doctor shortage and workplace bullying.

The hospital has lost nine obstetricians over the past 13 months and has been rocked by allegations senior staff pushed for a late-term abortion for a baby later born healthy, the ABC reports.

The Royal College of Obstetricians says doctors have reported a culture of poor management and bullying as well as lack of senior medical staff at the hospital.

They'd since "voted with their feet", the college's Andrew Foote said.

The hospital and ACT Health have also been accused of trying to hide medical blunders. The most explosive claims centres around the case of an expecting mother in 2008. Just five weeks into her pregnancy, Fiona Vanderhook was told by a trainee doctor that she had lost her baby and should terminate using a drug called misoprostol.

Ms Vanderhook took misoprostol but it failed and later tests showed the baby was still alive, the ABC reported. Scans then revealed the foetus had developed fluid on the brain — most likely caused by Ms Vanderhook taking the termination drug.

Later six separate specialists told Ms Vanderhook her baby appeared to be developing normally and had every chance of being born healthy. But senior staff at Canberra Hospital continued to push for the baby to be terminated, even as late as 31 weeks into the pregnancy.

source

7 Deadly Sins of BAD MANAGERS - What Managers & Supervisors Must Avoid in the Workplace

Every supervisor has his or her flaws, some more egregious than others. Here we look at a few of the most pervasive mistakes that bosses make, plus how to avoid them.

No boss is perfect, but some are less perfect than others. While it is impossible to satisfy every employee's needs throughout their career, certain types of managerial behavior are almost guaranteed to rub workers the wrong way. Whether it's seizing undeserved credit, imposing unrealistic workloads or simply failing to listen to employees' concerns, a pattern of bad management can lead to significant declines in performance and may even cost a supervisor his or her career. This makes it vital to promptly correct such mistakes or, better yet, avoid them in the first place.

"Few things incite a frothing, wild-eyed rage like asking people to talk about bad bosses. People aren't just annoyed by poor leadership — they sputter and snarl as they describe their superiors, lusting for the chance to hit that bad boss with a perfect, withering insult," CNN.com explains. "It's a little scary, then, to realize that we're all likely to occupy a leadership role, from motherhood to mogulhood, at some point in our lives. When we blow it, our imperfections will be magnified by our authority."

A surprising number of managers display archetypal forms of bad behavior. According to a Florida State University survey last month, many employees believe their superiors embody one of the seven deadly sins:

• Wrath — 26 percent said their boss has trouble managing anger;
• Greed — 27 percent said their boss pursues undeserved rewards;
• Sloth — 41 percent said their boss lazily pushes work onto others;
• Pride — 31 percent said their boss craves undeserved admiration;
• Lust — 33 percent said their boss needs to have his or her ego stroked every day;
• Envy — 19 percent said their boss is jealous of others' successes; and
• Gluttony — 23 percent said their boss hoards resources that could be useful to others at work.

"Employees with leaders who committed these 'sins' contributed less effort (40 percent less), felt overloaded as a result of forced responsibility for their supervisor's work (33 percent more), were less likely to make creative suggestions (66 percent less) and received fewer resources to effectively do their job (60 percent less) than those without this negative type of leadership," Christian Ponder, a research associate at Florida State's College of Business who worked on the survey, said.

While the most common faults seem to be obvious, it can be surprisingly difficult to recognize bad managerial qualities in oneself. Cultivating a sense of discernment to better spot negative employee reactions is an important skill that can distinguish a good boss from a mediocre one.

"The most crucial test of a boss is self-awareness. The best bosses are in tune with how the little things they say and do impact people, and they are adept at adjusting to bolster both performance and dignity," Bob Sutton, a professor in Stanford University's department of management science and engineering, notes at AMEX OPEN Forum. "Several studies, including one by the College Board, suggest that the more incompetent a boss is, the more out of touch he or she is likely to be."

There are several signals in the workplace that can point to bad tendencies in a manager. BNET lists some of the common signs of a managerial problem, including:

• Your team is underperforming. Bad management trickles down and eventually affects the rest of the organization, causing your workers' performance to deteriorate.
• Your own boss is putting on the pressure. When a senior manager notices a subordinate manager is having trouble, he or she might start paying a lot more attention to that person. If your supervisor turns on the heat, it may be a sign that something is wrong with your management style.
• Your allies start to drift away. When your work friends or supporters start distancing themselves from you, it's a strong signal that things are not going well for you at the company and others know it.
• Your employees are miserable. A group of consistently unhappy employees usually means a bad manager is in their lives. Pay attention to how your workers are doing to get a clear gauge of your own performance.

While there's no single measure that can turn someone into a good boss, recognizing negative behaviors and working to mend them can be a crucial step in rebuilding employees' confidence in your abilities and providing a better work environment for your colleagues.

"Who you are shows up most clearly in the relationships you form with others, especially those for whom you're responsible," Harvard Business Review explains. "It's easy to get those crucial relationships wrong. Effective managers possess the self-awareness and self-management required to get them right."

This means that spotting when you're engaged in one of the "deadly sins" of bad management and paying close attention to your workers' needs, your own boss's expectations and the way others treat you within the company are necessary stages in becoming a better manager.

source

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace - A Canadian Perspective

Sexual harassment: A thing of the past. No longer a problem. Why worry about it? Took the course, heard the message, bought the T-shirt. In the States, multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits hardly get notice anymore. A couple years ago, in five short paragraphs, in the less-than-prominent "Careers" section of the Vancouver Sun, here was a headline: "Dial Corp. Settles Sex Harassment Suit."

The article was so obscure and tiny, you'd think the soap-making corporation had merely received a slap on the wrist. In fact, the article noted that Dial paid $10 million dollars over allegations of sexual harassment.

Here in Canada, as most of us know, huge sexual harassment payouts don't happen. But on a per capita basis, Canada must have as many sexual harassment issues as the States, which means the issue of sexual harassment harms employee morale and retention, and an organization's bottom line. In Canada, as in the United States, sexual harassment is bad for business.

Is it difficult to imagine sexual harassment cases still taking place in Canadian workplaces in 2009? I continue to marvel at the fact that all kinds of sexual harassment cases continue to roll out on a daily basis. And I’m forced to admit that, since most people don't report sexual and other forms of harassment, it's much more prevalent than we imagine.

But is sexual harassment just about sex? In 1989, then-Chief Justice Brian Dixon of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, said “sexual harassment in the workplace may be broadly defined asunwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment. It is…an abuse of power… [that] attacks the dignity and self-respect of the victim both as an employee and as a human being." (emphasis added)

(Here is a training video for managers and supervisors to use in the workplace called: How do you define harassment, bullying and other inappropriate types of behaviour.)

Today, the italicized part of that decision serves to define sexual harassment in Canada. To prove sexual harassment, a person needs to show he or she endured unwelcome sexual attention and that it had detrimental or negative consequences. While the consequences can be the classic, “You show me some sexual attention and I'll let you keep your job,” they don't have to go that far.

Managers and supervisors can learn more about sexual harassment, and how to prevent it in the workplace, by downloading:

.mp3 audio file “Chapter Three – Harassment Headaches” of Stephen Hammond’s book Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

Paperback of Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

.pdf of Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

A person who endures provocative pictures on the wall, or sexual jokes told in the lunchroom is often a person being subjected to sexual harassment. This is often referred to as a tainted, poisoned or hostile work environment. Hence, sexual harassment isn’t just about sex

Since the courts have ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, treating women negatively while treating men positively can constitute sexual harassment. In other words, if snide or rude comments are made to women but not to men, and they negatively impact the women's workplace comfort level, this is sexual harassment. The reverse is also true if men are the predominant targets.

My advice is to think of sexual harassment as more than the textbook case of a lecherous male boss. Non-sexual negative comments towards one particular gender, or a man harassing a man, or a woman harassing a woman all qualify. That said, it should come as no surprise that most sexual harassment still involves a man sexually harassing a woman. And you’d be surprised where sexual harassment can occur….such as even outside of work.

If an employee does something outside of work that has a negative impact back in the workplace, the employer may well find himself or herself dealing with a sexual harassment problem. Otherwise, imagine the loopholes, especially given today’s technology. Ed would just have to wait until after work to send lewd e-mails, faxes, and voice mail messages to his co-worker Tricia’s home. Or leave sexually explicit messages under her car’s windshield wipers.

Back at work, of course, Ed acts like a perfect gentleman. But if Tricia is disturbed by his actions, and we apply the definition of sexual harassment, what have we got? An employee receiving sexual attention she doesn't want, with negative consequences: a tainted work environment. Tricia is on edge all the workday wondering what Ed will pull next.

(Here is a link to a training video you can purchase and download called: Reducing discrimination of women at work.)

I investigated just such a case for a client. One night after their shift in the company parking lot, an employee asked a female colleague if she'd like a ride home. Having no reason to suspect anything except courtesy from a fellow worker, she accepted the ride. As soon as she noticed he was going in the wrong direction, she asked to be taken home or at least dropped off. He told her he just needed to pick up something from his apartment, then he'd take her home. As soon as he parked the car in his underground garage, she leapt out and escaped. She made her way back to the workplace, completely distraught.

Since she never made it to his apartment, we'll never know what his final motives were. The company hired me to investigate; in the meantime, the male employee was placed on an unpaid leave of absence. His union, protecting his interests, argued that since all of this had happened outside the workplace, it wasn’t a workplace harassment case.

The union stressed that the woman should have referred it to the police. But I knew the law said otherwise. I suggested termination of employment for the young man, because even if he’d been placed on a different shift from the woman who filed the complaint, I knew she’d never feel comfortable with the notion that she might cross paths with him again on work premises.

The company severed his employment, but stipulated that if he underwent counseling and was able to show he was no longer a threat to women in the firm, he could have his job back. He declined to pursue this option, his union's grievance was dropped, and his termination of employment was upheld.

Most sexual harassment cases off workplace property are not as severe, and do not end up with a person being fired. In my experience, most involve booze, parties or an infatuation. As comedian Phyllis Diller has said, "What I don't like about office Christmas parties is looking for a job the next day." Perhaps we should encourage employees to take that to heart. When companies hire me to train employees about sexual harassment issues, they often ask me to dwell a little on booze and company outings, thanks to unfortunate incidents in their past.

Not that employees shouldn’t socialize after hours. When problems do occur, most off-premises conflicts do not involve sexual harassment. Personality conflicts or other problems that don't fit the definition of sexual harassment do not have to be settled with a harassment policy or procedure. You might have a problem on your hands, but it won't be sexual harassment

Infatuations are particularly tricky to identify and deal with. As often as not, the person needs counseling of some kind. The role of a supervisor is simply to let the spurned employee know he needs to keep his feelings in check, while ensuring that the object of his desires feels completely comfortable bringing any problem to your attention. You can minimize the chances of off-premises issues becoming a bigger problem by letting employees know even their actions off the worksite can become a workplace concern.

Here are some training resources that Managers and Supervisors can use in the workplace relating to Sexual harassment:

Video: Dealing effectively with sexual harassment in an industrial or male-dominated environment

Video: Sexual harassment and the court’s ever-expanding interpretations

Video: Reducing discrimination of women at work

.mp3 audio file “Chapter Three – Harassment Headaches” of Stephen Hammond’s book Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

Paperback of Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

.pdf of Managing Human Rights at work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters

source