Don’t be afraid to confront bullies in the workplace

Bullying can be as harmful in the workplace as it is in schools, causing well-understood effects on people, plus a long list of challenges for organisations. More sobering to business leaders are the irrefutable statistics – bullying is costing businesses billions annually.

As explained by Lisa Castle, the vice president of human resources at the University of British Columbia in Canada:

"Its impact is enormous: disengagement; loss of creativity and productivity; sick leave, benefit and turnover costs." For every short-term result that a bully achieves, there is a list of longer-term negative business impacts that far outweigh any temporary benefits.

The good news is that increased public awareness, research, and an expanded appreciation of the costs/effects of bullying have paved the way for efforts to address it.

Further, there are many tools, experts and ideas for formulating an effective action plan. In the highly diverse Middle Eastern workplaces, to effectively address bullying, it is essential to have skills and a common language to talk about difficult things, across differences and in a consistent manner. While managing aggressive behaviour is difficult, it’s worth speaking up and taking action – for you, your workplace culture and the bottom line.

Having a discussion about bullying is never enjoyable but that doesn’t mean it should be avoided. Most organisations are generally unprepared and terrible at managing workplace bullying. There are many contributors:

Business leaders are afraid to confront bullies

While most leaders are aware that workplace harassment is a severe problem, they are often afraid to deal with it. Bullying is a sensitive topic because it requires a difficult discussion – confrontation, conflict and courage as much as it requires tools. Fear often feeds the problem: fear of the actual confrontation, of what else might be uncovered.
Having talked with plenty of executives, it is fair to state that fear of having that discussion is a serious impediment to eliminating the issue. The result is paralysis, and so the bullying continues.

A focus on results

In our hyper-competitive world, there are intense demands for results. Organisations become so focused on short-term results that they ignore how they are achieved. If there is one commonality among bullies, it’s a gift for whipping up results.

Misinterpretation of a ­"competitive workplace"

Organisations confuse healthy competition with a "survival of the fittest" model for workplace behaviour. There have been stories about Amazon, Apple and other global companies where staff members are regularly challenged to outperform their colleagues using over-the -top rewards for the winner.

It is possible to have both workplace respect and healthy competition. Staff members do not need to be abused to perform to their fullest. The truth is that by addressing bullying and empowering staff, leaders improve workplace culture, increase employee engagement and motivate innovation.

A belief that bullying is a ­leadership style

Bullying is the opposite of leadership. In my opinion, executives who use this excuse to support a tormentor are probably afraid to confront the problem. They discount the level of the bullying, rationalise it as a leadership issue or find another excuse to avoid actively engaging. They leave the mess alone, hoping it will sort itself out. That never happens if leaders don’t speak up.

Lack of effective policies

Most organisations have a harassment policy that outlines what is unacceptable workplace behaviour. How­ever, many organisations don’t have an effective complaints process. Without a fair, impartial, confidential and effective complaints and conflict resolution processes, the policy is meaningless.

The above reasons are why organisations fail to respond effectively to cases of bullying.

There are undoubtedly others, too. What is important is that even though the vast majority of leaders acknowledge the problem should be eradicated, very few actually do. The effect on organisational success is significant and totally preventable. With the help of others and a willingness to confront the problem head-on, long-term improvements to the workplace culture and bottom line await.

by: Paul Pelletier a consultant with PDSi, a coaching and leadership development company that has created its own certified programme, HardTalk, to help individuals and teams have the difficult conversations necessary for success
Source

Sydney Woman paid more than $1 million paid out for Workplace Bullying at NSW Government Agency

The interrogation came out of the blue and continued mercilessly, even while she was doubled over sobbing.

The woman, who was 41 at the time of the incident, has been awarded more than $1 million in a negotiated workplace bullying settlement.

See here for video interview with Lawyer
Australia's million dollar workplace bullying payoutThe lawyer of a woman who was the victim of workplace bullying explains the details of the million dollar case.  

The bullying she experienced at a NSW government agency five years ago has rendered her unable to ever work again.

As two bosses hurled accusations at her during a meeting called to provide her with feedback on an internal job application, the woman who could only speak on the condition of anonymity, said she was in shock and disbelief.

Now aged 46, the victim still has no idea what motivated the attack. Photo: Louie Dovis

Now aged 46, she still has no idea what motivated the attack which had come without any warning. A string of psychiatrists have provided evidence that her mental injury has rendered her unable to return to work. "I can never get those five years back. I can't do what I used to do," she said.

"My career was going well. The agency had just paid for me to do a public service management course. I thought I was earmarked for senior management and then this happened."

The woman's lawyer, Lucinda Gunning from Carroll and O'Dea Lawyers in Sydney, said the more than $1 million payout was made up of two components – one for total and permanent disablement, which was paid out by a private insurer, and a workers compensation payment, for past and future earning capacity.

Lucinda Gunning from Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers says the $1m payout is the highest sum she has seen paid for a workplace bullying claim.  Photo: Ryan Stuart

"In my experience, this is the highest sum that I have seen paid for a workplace bullying claim," she said. Like many cases of workplace bullying, the circumstances at first glance appear trivial.

The woman who worked in middle management had made an error in an internal application for another job within her state government agency. She had accidentally duplicated an answer to one question in response to another. She says she accepted the error had effectively invalidated the application.

However, her bosses insisted on meeting to provide feedback despite her saying it was unnecessary because she understood her error.

I can never walk into a room with two people in an interview again because of the way they dealt with me.

When she sat down with a male and female supervisor, they accused her of having an inappropriate relationship in the office and of passing off a colleague's ideas as her own, which she flatly denies.
"I was blindsided by it. I couldn't understand where the allegations were coming from," she says.
"Had they given me some sort of notice or asked me in a less hostile environment, I could explain it. It was just incorrect. But they just kept going and going.

"I was sobbing and doubled over and they were still making allegations about information sharing.
"It just didn't stop. At one point they said we can put you in contact with the counselling service.
"I said I will absolutely need it after this meeting and still they went on. I don't know why I didn't walk out. It went on for ages."
When the meeting was finally over, the public servant went on annual leave. 
When she returned to work, she was forced to work with one of the supervisors who had bullied her in the meeting.
"I asked to be moved out of that department. But they felt the need to humiliate me further by sitting me outside their office and the team I used to manage," she said.
"I wasn't allowed to contribute.
"I couldn't breath in there. I felt so useless.
"It got to the point where I would sit in the bathroom for six hours and no one would notice I was there.
"I didn't do any work because I couldn't."
The woman, who described herself as a resilient person before the experience with bullying, was sent to a mediation session with the female supervisor.
"The woman attacked me again to the point where the mediator told her to stop. It was horrible," she said.
"She said I had given another industry representative information about a meeting for stakeholders. But they had sent out a notice of the meeting. It was ridiculous. There was a clear explanation for how someone I was accused of telling found out about the meeting.
"I was trying to explain it to them, but they wouldn't listen.
"The woman accused me of trying to take credit for someone else's work in my job application. I said I wasn't taking credit, I had delegated the work and I was her boss.
"The tone of the meeting could have been very different. They could have just said: 'Could you just please go through this with me'.
"But they were only interested in attacking me. 
"As a result they changed my life. I did not leave that office the same person I was when I arrived."
By May, 2012, the woman left the organisation feeling "hopeless".
Every time she entered a lift she would look to the ground to see if she could identify the shoes of her supervisors. 
"I was terrified. I couldn't be near them," she said.
The woman's complaints were initially investigated in house in what she describes as an unfair process.
It took five years to finalise her claim during which insurance companies put her and her children under surveillance.
"This is a psychological injury, not a physical one," she said.
"Everything was challenged. I was pushed to the absolute limit. I'm surprised I'm actually still here."
After five years of "hell", the woman said she had hoped to feel better now the pressure is off.
"But I still don't," she said.
"I can never get those five years back. I can't do what I used to do."

Source

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

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

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

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

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

Bullying and Corporate Psychopaths at Work by Clive Boddy at TEDxHanzeUniversity

There are many great TED Talks on bullying in the workplace, here is one by English Professor Clive Boddy, based on his research findings looking at the link between Corporate Psychopaths and bullying, in Australian and the UK workplace.
 

 
Characteristics of Bullies:
Enjoy hurting others, cruel, selfish, parasitic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, callous, disrespectful, abusive, lacking in empathy remorse or guilt, and good at political networking skills.

'Corporate Psychopaths are those people who go into organisational and corporate positions rather than a criminal career.'

'Psychologists have slowly come to realised that those from better socio-economic background, perhaps with a good education and good family backgrounds, have worked out early that it's far easier to get the power, prestige and money that they want from a Corporate career, than from a criminal career.'

'Psychopaths have absolutely no conscious'
 
2008 Study revealed:

AUSTRALIA
* 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 26% of all bullying by Australian mangers (from study sample of 346)
* Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 9x per year
* Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 64x per year

UK
* Found more bullying and more Psychopaths in the UK.* 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 36% of all bullying by Australian mangers
* Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 13x per year
* Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 84x per year
 
Link between Corporate Psychopaths and Bullying

WHY DOES BULLYING OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE?

* Psychopaths bully as it's predatory, they enjoy doing it, they like to hurt people and damage their careers.
* 'Instrumental Bullying' -  to create confusion and chaos around them, enables them to form their own agenda to promote themselves, creating a smoke screen so they can get on with their agenda. This explains why Psychopaths get promoted over others, as they are manipulators.
*Linking at an organisational level eg: Enron, was reported to have a culture of bullying, of staff, agencies, suppliers, to keep them all in check to perpetuate the fraud. The same culture was found in banking institutions during the Global Financial Crisis, don't ask questions or you'll get into trouble' which covers up fraud.


Further reading: The Implications of Corporate Psychopaths for Business And Society: An  Initial Examination And A Call To Arms

Prof Clive Boddy is a Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at Middlesex University in England. For the past seven years, he has studied the evidence and effects of toxic leadership, and in particular the influence of the presence of corporate psychopaths on various workplace outcomes, including on levels of conflict and bullying at work.

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