Hospital worker claims toxic culture of bullying is leaving her colleagues suicidal and suffering panic attacks

• Stevie-Lee Semgreen resigned from Townsville Hospital in June this year 
• She did a year of night shift and claims hospital ignored her complaints  
• Managers and supervisors at the hospital have been accused of bullying
• Several employees suffer panic attacks, intense anger or feeling suicidal  
• The hospital said it provides effective channels for employees to complain
  

Stevie-Lee Semgreen worked on night shift for an entire year at Townsville Hospital until she resigned in June, saying her complaints were ignored by the hospital's management

A WOMAN has resigned from Townsville Hospital, Queensland, Australia claiming a toxic work environment has left several employees suicidal and others with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Managers and supervisors have been accused of bullying and harassing staff over the past three years. Several employees have taken sick and stress leave while others have suffered from panic attacks, severe anger and post-traumatic stress disorders, staff members claim.

They said incidents of verbal abuse had been reported, including inappropriate comments on people’s weight and workers being told they were not wanted on their rounds.

One woman, who chose to remain anonymous, launched an external review of Townsville Hospital after she lodged a complaint saying she felt suicidal

Hospital managers have been accused of bullying over a three-year period leaving several staffers suffering panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorders and suicidal thoughts (stock image)

The Bulletin has been told dozens of complaints had been made to Townsville Hospital’s human resources department and the Australian Workers Union, but workplace issues, including heavy workloads, were being ignored.

However, Townsville Hospital and Health Service acting chief executive Kieran Keyes said the hospital had proven and effective channels for staff members to escalate concerns.

Former employee Stevie-lee Semgreen said she resigned as a result of the ongoing issues in June and has since moved to the Sunshine Coast. Ms Semgreen, who worked for a year on permanent night shift, said her complaints were brushed aside.

“I was told by one woman at AWU that by putting in a complaint, I was putting a target on my own back,” she said. “I had asked a few times if I could take my issues further but hospital’s management told me that I could not.”

AWU Queensland branch secretary Ben Swan said the union had been investigating Ms Semgreen’s complaints before she left the hospital. “The member concerned left Queensland Health and, as a consequence, that part of the investigation ceased,” he said.
“Our organisers do what they can to assist members through these processes.”

But two other employees, who requested anonymity due to fear of repercussions in the workplace, said they lodged complaints months ago that had still not been dealt with.
One woman called for an external review after she was left feeling suicidal.

“I’ve been with Queensland Health for many years and I’ve never witnessed anything like it,” the woman said. “I have had several workers tell me they are dealing with suicidal thoughts in the workplace because the bullying is so bad.”

AWU Queensland branch secretary Ben Swan said they were investigating Ms Semgreen's complaint about staff mistreatment before she resigned (stock image)

The employee said she had lodged complaints to the hospital and the AWU more than 12 months ago and had still heard nothing back. “We are isolated and alienated and not given any support,” she said. “Some of the workers feel they are powerless within their union.”

Another employee said she was still waiting to hear back about complaints that she had lodged six months ago.

Mr Keyes said the health service worked closely with staff and unions to resolve any issues. “The health service works closely and productively with unions who routinely raise workplace issues and act on behalf of their members at formal meetings with the health service,” Mr Keyes said.

AWU northern district secretary Bede Harding said complaints were taken seriously.
“All matters reported with the union by our members at Townsville Hospital have been and continue to be raised and addressed with the hospital’s HR executive team,” he said.
“Matters in relation to the advancement in careers and workload issues are also being addressed by the AWU formally with Townsville Hospital management.”

Source: http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/employee-quits-hospital-claiming-toxic-work-environment-and-bullying/news-story/9523cb59857b09a6c3a8bab21c1edfdd

How Gen Y workers are ruining your workplace

Working with millennials is the worst

GEN Y workers are driving the rise of the work martyr, employees so driven that vacation days go unused in order to impress the boss — or simply to avoid being replaced.

VIDEO LINK : Discussion - Should schools and universities do more to prepare Gen Y for the workforce?

These workers believe complete dedication means little to no downtime, according to a report by Project: Time Off called “The Work Martyr’s Cautionary Tale: How the Millennial Experience Will Define America’s Vacation Culture.” It found 29 percent of the more than 5,600 US employees polled who work more than 35 hours a week fit into the category.
The New York Post reports.

But among millennials, that figure soars to 43 per cent, perhaps running counter to an ageing stereotype of young men and women who are lazy, inefficient or misguided on the job.

‘The workplace is no longer a physical space. It’s a state of mind.’
 - Katie Denis

“What we’ve found is it’s the exact counter to the popular cultural narrative that millennials are spoiled, entitled people,” said Katie Denis, senior director of the Washington-based organisation. “They actually feel like they have to prove their worth and their worth is proven through long hours.”

Graduating into a rough economy combined with an always-connected work environment has created the “perfect storm” for work martyrdom, particularly among the younger crowd, Ms Denis said. “It’s a really tough blend,” she told The Post. “The workplace is no longer a physical space. It’s a state of mind.”

THE WORK MARTYR

The report defined a work martyr as someone who believes it’s difficult to take a vacation because no else can do their work while they’re gone; who shows complete dedication to the company; who avoids being seen as replaceable; and who simply feels guilty for taking time off.

Workers who fit those criteria, according to the report, tend to be more likely to be female (52 per cent) and less likely to be married than their counterparts.

And among millennials, nearly half (48 per cent) believe it’s a good thing to be seen as a work martyr by their boss, significantly higher than the average among all age groups of 39 per cent.

“The reality is many millennials today have grown up with icons — Mark Zuckerberg and others — who have them believing that they, too, can be a billionaire, almost to the point of being unrealistic,” said Lynn Taylor, a workplace expert and author of Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant: How To Manage Childish Boss Behavior and Thrive in Your Job. Ms Taylor continued: “They think if they just put in the hard work that they have a better chance than any other generation to make it.”

She said not taking hard-earned vacation time has become something of a “badge of honour” on the job, yet another way to impress the boss and stand out among colleagues.
“There’s never been a more competitive time in corporate America,” Ms Taylor said. “I mean, I’ve heard it called the ‘v word.’ The irony is that the work-life balance is so critical to both the employee and employer over time.”

A TOXIC CULTURE

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents said they actually “want to be seen as a work martyr” by their boss, according to the survey released last month. But that flips entirely at home, where 86 per cent of people said it’s a bad thing to be seen as such by their family.
Contributing to that huge disparity, Ms Taylor said, are the growing number of loaded phrases deployed by supervisors that encourage work martyrdom, especially among those who already feel undervalued.

For example, when your boss says that he or she hopes you enjoyed your vacation, that may mean more than you think. Same thing goes for when a supervisor warns of a particularly busy time ahead, Taylor said.

“It’s unfortunate that too many companies in corporate America reward work martyrs, whether it’s blatant or subconscious,” Taylor continued. “There’s definitely a built-in reward system for those people.”

The work martyr mindset is actually “poisonous to company cultures,” according to the report, which urges those who fit that definition to reconsider their approach to taking time off.

“There’s a lot of silence in the workplace about vacation,” Denis said. “And the tone is set at the very top. But, generally, when people start to feel that they can’t take time off, that there’s no work-life balance, that’s when they start looking for other opportunities.”

This article first appeared on the New York Post : 'Working with millennials is the worst' and has been reproduced with permission.

Source

75% Of Workers Are Affected By Bullying - Here's What To Do About It

Published: Forbes.com 
by Christine Comaford, 27 August, 2016

Workplace bullying is frighteningly common and takes an enormous toll on our businesses. Research from Dr. Judy Blando (University of Phoenix) has proven that almost 75% of employees surveyed had been affected by workplace bullying, whether as a target or a witness.

75%. That’s huge.

So what exactly is workplace bullying?

“Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is: threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or work-interference, i.e. sabotage, which prevents work from getting done,” from Workplace Bullying Institute.

One of the main differences between schoolyard bullying and workplace bullying is that it tends to be less physically harmful and more psychological and verbal in nature. It’s subtler than schoolyard bullying but is quite distinctive from normal workplace stress.

 

The 13 Most Frustrating Coworker Types And How To Deal With Them

Launch Gallery

14 images

One of the main differences between schoolyard bullying and workplace bullying is that it tends to be less physically harmful and more psychological and verbal in nature. It’s subtler than schoolyard bullying but is quite distinctive from normal workplace stress.

Recommended by Forbes

“Bullying is characterized by:

• Repetition (occurs regularly)
• Duration (is enduring)
• Escalation (increasing aggression)
• Power disparity (the target lacks the power to successfully defend themself)
• Attributed intent” (from Wikipedia)

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), bullying is four times more common than either sexual harassment or racial discrimination on the job.

Who The Bullies Are

Here is what you have to understand, the targets of workplace bullying are not the weakest players—they are often the strongest.
Let’s say that again. The common misconception is that, like schoolyard bullying, the targets of workplace bullying are loners, or “weird” or the people who “don’t fit.” In fact the reverse is true.

People become targets because something about them is threatening to the bully. Often they are more skilled, more technically proficient, have a higher EQ or people just like them better. They are often workplace veterans who mentor new hires.
“WBI research findings and conversations with thousands of targets have confirmed that targets appear to be the veteran and most skilled person in the workgroup” (quote from WBI).

Now the bully tends to be someone who is skilled at manipulating and controlling, but while they see everything as a competition, they do not feel skilled/competent enough to compete on their own merits. Hence they bully as a futile attempt to feel more powerful.

The bully often works hard to create the perception that they are strong by putting down and blaming others. Often the boss of the bully knows the bully is “disliked” but thinks that the organization cannot do without them and makes “allowances.” The bullying is framed as “personality conflict.”

What Bullying Is Costing Your Company

When you, as the leader of an organization allow bullying to occur you create at least five problems:

1. The target of the bullying will experience a loss of confidence and an increase in stress that often shows up in health problems. Their performance will decline. They may need more time off to recover. So you have lower performance by at least one person, the target.

2. By allowing the bullying to continue you are accepting a toxic culture, prevalent Critter State, and reduced performance and morale. The people witnessing the bullying will have to choose to side with the bully, leave, risk retribution by speaking out, or remain passive and try to stay under the bully’s radar. To be non-threatening to the bully they may lower their performance in some way.

3. Eventually the target will have no recourse but to leave. Research has shown that the vast majority of targets eventually leave. You now have lost a good employee and have all the costs of a new hire.

4. Plus you have the almost certain guarantee that the cycle will repeat itself. I find that organizations which condone bullying, which have prevalent Critter State, also have high employee turnover rates, far less revenue per employee, increased absences, and the list goes on and on.

5. You are opening yourself up to potential litigation. While bullying is not, strictly speaking, illegal it may be connected to a form of harassment or discrimination which can be subject to litigation. At the least attention will be taken up in tracking and “proving” a case.
All this from denying bullying—oh, and let’s add the personal guilt of not protecting one’s tribe.



How To Stop Bullying—And Start Boosting Smart State

Workplace bullies can be hard to detect because they work within the rules of the organization. That means that the solutions lie within the organizational structure.

I have been asked to coach several workplace bullies because someone, usually their boss, wanted them to change. The problem with this sort of coaching is that the person themselves doesn’t want to change. The coaching is seen as a punishment rather than as a reward and a path to greater leadership.

The reality is that the leadership team is responsible. Bullying cannot happen without approval (“oh that’s just how xx is!”). It’s up to you to create an environment that is safe and healthy for the entire team—the Smart State. The biggest problem with bullies is usually that someone higher up likes them – “oh xx is great at a party!” - or some other nonsense.
 
The first step is to confront the bully. Use my formal feedback steps to outline the specific behaviors that must change. Agree on objective performance measurements. Make sure that the bully transfers their feeling of threat from their target to the organization. Give them specific ways to manipulate and control their own outcomes—turn their skills into assets if possible. If not possible, they have to go. If you are serious about creating the culture of your dreams, you have to be willing to hire and fire based on your values.

I have found that what works best, culturally, is to focus on creating structures that reward “Smart State” behaviors and discourage/punish bullying behaviors. This starts with ensuring the confidentiality of anyone reporting bullying behavior and ensuring that there are no reprisals.

How To Stop Bullying—And Start Boosting Smart State

Workplace bullies can be hard to detect because they work within the rules of the organization. That means that the solutions lie within the organizational structure.

I have been asked to coach several workplace bullies because someone, usually their boss, wanted them to change. The problem with this sort of coaching is that the person themselves doesn’t want to change. The coaching is seen as a punishment rather than as a reward and a path to greater leadership.

The reality is that the leadership team is responsible. Bullying cannot happen without approval (“oh that’s just how xx is!”). It’s up to you to create an environment that is safe and healthy for the entire team—the Smart State. The biggest problem with bullies is usually that someone higher up likes them – “oh xx is great at a party!” - or some other nonsense.

The first step is to confront the bully. Use my formal feedback steps to outline the specific behaviors that must change. Agree on objective performance measurements. Make sure that the bully transfers their feeling of threat from their target to the organization. Give them specific ways to manipulate and control their own outcomes—turn their skills into assets if possible. If not possible, they have to go. If you are serious about creating the culture of your dreams, you have to be willing to hire and fire based on your values.

I have found that what works best, culturally, is to focus on creating structures that reward “Smart State” behaviors and discourage/punish bullying behaviors. This starts with ensuring the confidentiality of anyone reporting bullying behavior and ensuring that there are no reprisals.

Recommended by Forbes

Organizational structures which put the focus on problem solving and which create clear and fair performance markers work to reduce bullying.

For example:

• reward ideas and innovations
• reward people for bringing safety or other problems to leaders’ attention
• use structures, like Kanban boards, which isolate bottlenecks as work flow issues only, and therefore reduce finger-pointing and blame
• implement an intranet system where team members can give each other high fives and recognize contribution

• make sure any performance measuring systems that you are using are fair and objective, and reward what you are actually interested in achieving (e.g. one client was rewarding employees for quantity but not measuring quality and our assessment found that their “high performers” were actually the ones creating problems).

Remember, stopping bullying begins with you. To what are you really committed?

For more on bullying in the workplace and how to put an end to it for good, see my previous post: How To Stop Workplace Bullies In Their Tracks

Christine Comaford is the author of SmartTribes: How Teams Become Brilliant Together.


Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2016/08/27/the-enormous-toll-workplace-bullying-takes-on-your-bottom-line/#eec89f3386ee

KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice

Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?

I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.

Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?

The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?

 Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg

Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.

If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.

The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.

But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.

Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.

Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."

"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.

As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.

In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.

In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.

She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.

As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.

Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.

So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.

Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.

There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.

So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html

COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...

• Truffles McLobsterJul 16 2016 at 12:46am
  Yep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
  • sangelaJul 16 2016 at 10:53am
    You're joking, yes?
• PaybackSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 2:40am
  Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
• MichaelBringelly,Jul 16 2016 at 4:12am
  Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
  Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics..
• DuralsumoDural,Jul 16 2016 at 7:36am
  Too right she is!
• NullacritterJul 16 2016 at 7:48am
  Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
  Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen.
• Black snakeWest Woombye,Jul 16 2016 at 8:02am
  I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
• topenderJul 16 2016 at 8:08am
  Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
• The KiwiJul 16 2016 at 8:16am
  You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
• rob1966Sydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:30am
  Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
  It's the worlds worst nightmare!
  Start digging your fallout shelter ...
• Mike FCheltenham, NSW,Jul 16 2016 at 8:32am
  But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
  ...Mike F
• wellsieJul 16 2016 at 8:50am
  Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
• James RSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:52am
  Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
• Rainer the cabbieLost at the interchange,Jul 16 2016 at 8:56am
  I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
  Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well.
• Dr KiwiJul 16 2016 at 9:08am
  Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
  That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job.
• ebtSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 9:15am
  I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
  To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.

STUDY : Drift away from performance reviews backfires

Performance reviews are universally unpopular with employees and managers because they can be confronting, awkward and overly bureaucratic.

But new research and leading Australian academics suggest that ditching them entirely may be misguided.

Video : Are performance reviews useful?

Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell and Business Development Manager of Clients and Sectors, Chele Dore talk about the use of performance reviews.

Deloitte, Adobe and Accenture are among big companies who have dumped performance reviews.

A new study now suggests that in getting rid of performance appraisals, some companies may have also stopped having valuable conversations with their staff, who are becoming less engaged as a result.

Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell and colleague Chele Dore. Photo: Christopher Pearce

Aaron McEwan, from best practice company CEB, said its survey of 9500 employees and 300 heads of human resources managers found employees, particularly high performers, had become disengaged without performance reviews.

The study of staff and managers at global companies, including those operating in Australia, found the move away from performance ratings had resulted in a 28 per cent drop in the productivity of high performers. Recognition and feedback were found to be important in encouraging high performance.

While managers who no longer conducted performance reviews were under less pressure, they also found they were not as closely connected to their staff after abandoning the annual performance appraisal. 

The study found perceptions of the quality of conversations with managers fell by 14 per cent after reviews were abandoned. Employee performance was generally 10 per cent lower in organisations without performance reviews.

"The basis on which most organisations removed rankings was a belief that the rankings got in the way of quality conversations," Mr McEwan said. "There was an assumption that if you removed the ratings what would happen is that engagement would go up because you have removed something that employees don't particularly like.
"What we found statistically overall, was the organisations that removed their ratings ended up with 10 per cent lower performance. Your high performers were least satisfied at the end of the day."

Professor of Human Resource Management Carol Kulik, from the University of South Australia business school, said surveys had shown performance appraisals were universally unpopular.

"We know that performance appraisal out of all HR activities it's one of the ones that gets the worst evaluation from both employees and managers," she said.

"Surveys show that 95 per cent of managers think their performance management systems suck and 75 per cent of employees say they don't get good performance feedback.
"So nobody thinks it is done very well." 

John Shields, professor of Human Resource Management and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney business school, said companies that had simply abandoned performance reviews instead of finding a way to improve them, had "thrown out the baby with the bathwater".

"No one has been able to offer what I regard as a viable or sustainable alternative," he said.
"Now that doesn't mean I am a supporter of the annual ritual of performance appraisals. I am not saying that we should insist on top-down, bureaucratic forensically-defined appraisal systems because they can be organisational death as well.
"It is a matter of degree."

Performance management measured against clearly described performance standards and expectations relevant to an individual role could be helpful and was also a requirement under Australian employment law.

Andrea Bell, human resources director for the law firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, said performance reviews were important, particularly for high performers. "For us the focus is on performance conversations," she said. "I think the conversations that we are focused on having ... are about helping people understand their strengths, look for development areas, get clear about what the coming year or future performance should look like."

Freehills removed school report card style ratings from performance reviews about 13 years ago because they got in the way of a productive conversation. "That improved engagement and improved performance," she said.  "If you are not going to have ratings you have to be really careful that you are having high quality conversations and that's where we put our effort."
Source

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

Why would we want to inflict Rudd on the UN?

OPINION
The Drum
By Daryl McCann 
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am

Everyone knows how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd's leadership style was, so why would senior Coalition members consider backing his bid to become Secretary General of the United Nations? Daryl McCann writes.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 must rate as one of the lowest points in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. On that day a leadership spill in the Australian Labor Party resulted in caucus recalling Kevin Rudd to the prime ministership by a margin of 57-45. Few on the Labor side of politics could offer any reason for doing so other than political expediency ahead of the 2013 federal election - the national interest did not enter into their calculation.

Photo: Kevin Rudd is said to be hoping to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations. (Chip East : Reuters)
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.

Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.

On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.

So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.

"Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism."

The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.

Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.

Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.

Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.

Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.

Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.

Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.

Daryl McCann writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408

How I survived workplace bullying by Sherry Benson-Podolchuk at TEDxWinnipeg

What happens when you’re on the bullying end or an organization meant to protect people? Who do you go to for help?



Sherry Benson-Podolchuk is a retired Canadian Police RCMP officer of 20 years. She has a degree in conflict resolution studies, which alongside of her personal experience with bullying in the workplace, has helped her to learn how to empower people to speak up and be educated on how to do so in the most effective way. She aims to find the link between leadership, self-esteem, bullying and the importance of attitude to instill hope.

Is Your Workplace Full Of Corporate Bullies?

Published: FORBES.COM , 5 January 2016 @ 05:03PM
Writer: Dan Pontefract

I remember a period in my life as a 10 year-old when one of the neighborhood boys was being a bully. He was four years older than me—roughly 20 pounds heavier and four inches taller—and for a few months seemed to amuse himself by picking on me any chance he could get. If there was a road hockey game being played on the street with the neighborhood children, he’d purposely check me hard into the ground chuckling to himself afterward. The game was supposed to be contact free.  Wayne Gretzky he wasn’t.

One day during a game of hide and seek, he snuck up behind me and shoved dirty, wet leaves in my face. Shenanigans continued like this until one day I snapped. While playing with him and a few other kids in our backyard, unprovoked, I calmly walked up to him and said, “You’ve had this coming for a while now” and proceeded to punch him square in the nose. I was channeling the pent up frustration and anger of the previous weeks into an almighty wallop. It was the first, and to this day, the last time I ever hit anyone. It felt good, too.

Similar experiences to my encounter with the neighborhood bully seem to be cropping up in today’s workplace. According to Dr. Carroll M. Brodsky in The Harassed Worker, workplace bullying refers to “repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate or get a reaction from another. It is treatment which persistently provokes, pressures, frightens, intimidates or otherwise discomforts another person.” It sounds a lot like my former neighbor.

Researchers published an influential paper titled “Metaphors of Workplace Bullying: Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves” where they surfaced further ammunition to our already loaded gun of workplace bullying as a cause to employee disengagement. In it the authors note:

"Based on qualitative data gathered from focus groups, narrative interviews, and target drawings, the analysis describes how bullying can feel like a battle, water torture, nightmare, or noxious substance. Abused workers frame bullies as narcissistic dictators, two-faced actors, and devil figures. Employees targeted with workplace bullying liken themselves to vulnerable children, slaves, prisoners, animals, and heartbroken lovers."

This sounds even worse than my former neighbor.

In the January-February 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review, authors Christine Porath and Christine Pearson published data on the topic of workplace bullying or as they elegantly define it: “workplace incivility.” Through research and the collection of data points—after polling thousands of employees concerning the manner in which they are treated at work—Porath and Pearson found 98% of employees at some point in their working life were a victim of uncivil behavior while on the job. More distressing is that over a thirteen-year period between 1998 and 2011, the percentage of workers who reported being treated rudely at least once a week while at work rose from 25% to 50%. It’s not quite like my childhood bullying example, but a lack of civility in your place of work is the modern-day adult equivalent.

What happens to workers who are impacted by bullies and incivility in the workplace? Much like the bottom-line consequences of a disengaged organization—where disengaged and not engaged employees hamper profitability and customer satisfaction—there are performance and productivity related issues.

As a leader, you no doubt see the financial implications to such a predicament. Those factors uncovered by researchers include:

•   47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work
•   80% lost work time worrying about the incident
•   66% said their performance declined
•   78% said their commitment to the organization declined
•   25% admitted to taking their frustration out on customers

What’s the bottom line?

Workplace bullies are not only causing employees to be disengaged, they are creating performance and productivity related issues that are likely causing harm to one’s career development. What occurs when an employee feels threatened at work? It accentuates the negative aspects of the organization and does nothing to help the employee see the positives of the role or situation. As a leader, you might want to observe and pay attention to the bullies in your organization. Those bullies may be part of the reason employees are disillusioned with their prospects of finding meaning or purpose in their place of work.

That stated, leaders are capable (and culpable) of bullying as well. To me, bullying is simply another term for “command and control” when that method of leadership is employed by the leader. Leaders who believe it’s their managerial right to flash the “I have a more senior title than you” card to ensure a decision goes in their favor or who aim to demonstrate to a larger audience that they are “the boss” are, in fact, another version of corporate incivility.

For example, a few years ago, two different members of a team separately approached me one week, asking for help. Their boss had decided to publicly berate both of them at different points during an all-hands team meeting. There were roughly 50 people in the meeting. The individuals were humiliated. One cried uncontrollably to me over the phone as he/she wondered aloud why the verbal lashing was necessary in the first place. In fact, this particular person felt as though the negative feedback was completely unfounded. The other wanted to take vengeance with some form of a smear campaign.

In this case, and many more, a formal complaint sent into the HR department (or the Workplace Discrimination Officer, if there is such a bureau in one’s place of work) is the first course of action, and one I suggested. Leaders who ridicule or admonish employees in open meetings—whether on a conference call or face-to-face—are no different than my old neighbor. They’re a disgrace, and should be reported. (I don’t advise the knuckle sandwich approach of my youth to combat your corporate bully problem.)

Leaders who poach internal employees from another team—without being proactive and discussing the opportunity or situation in advance—are another type of corporate bully. It’s a form of peer-to-peer bullying, as often the individual thinks he/she can use pure, unadulterated force to get what they want to build their own team.

Leaders who make impossible demands on deadlines, who set up their staff for inevitable failure, and who take credit for the positive results an individual or team created without said leader’s involvement, are also facsimiles of corporate bullies.

Leaders who cancel a meeting at the last minute, never to reschedule again, are inflicting another form of hierarchical bullying. We might call this calendar bullying.

If any of the examples mentioned ring a bell, perhaps it is time to come face to face with the possibility you (or your leader) may possess characteristics of workplace incivility, if not bullying outright. Unfortunately, this is leading to the potential for workplace dissatisfaction. It most certainly is not paving a way towards a purposeful and engaged mindset for many employees at work.

Workplace incivility and corporate bullies can be a problem. If you are in such a scenario, it just may be time to turn inaction into action.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2016/01/05/is-your-workplace-full-of-corporate-bullies/#2fffe8e77aa1