In my previous post I talked about the governor-general of Canada resigned her post when accusations of abusive behavior towards her staff came to light. The allegations came from current and former staffers who said that she led an environment that was toxic and she and her deputy bullied staff. Background information on this story is in my previous post from January 25th.
In a letter to the
editor on January 26th a male reader wrote that in his 50 years of practicing
employment law he never saw a male leader lose a job for treating staff badly.
I understand the point he makes, and that he underscores; treating people badly
is always unacceptable, but penalties are applied unevenly. The writer does
have a great point. It reminds me of a common belief that men who are
considered heels in the workplace are hard-driving, and women who are heels are
considered – well, they would be called a sexist word that I don’t use, but to
limit the options that could come to the readers’ imaginations – they would be
considered a word that rhymes with the word dish.
I do recognize that
women get penalized for certain behaviors in a way that men don’t. My belief
is that a heel is a heel whether in male or female form. Treating people with
kindness shouldn’t be relegated to a judgment of gender either. I have also
learned from research about organizational behaviors that men also get
penalized in certain environments for not being abrasive enough.
On January 27th The
Globe And Mail published an online article written by Robert Fife and Kristy
Kirkup, titled, Review into Julie Payette’s
tenure as governor-general details allegations of aggressive conduct, public
humiliations.
(https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-review-into-payettes-tenure-as-governor-general-details-allegations-of/) Under Canada’s equivalent to U.S.’s Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) The Globe and Mail obtained the report prepared by
Quintet, the company that investigated the allegations regarding Payette’s
behavior.
The report included
reports of “yelling, screaming, and aggressive conduct, demeaning comments, and
public humiliations”. In reference to the comments by the former lawyer who
said such behavior doesn’t lead to men getting fired, it’s a shame on us as a
society that that behavior is tolerated anywhere. Ultimately, the only time
that behavior is considered unacceptable is if it comes from a woman, however,
from a man it’s normal. This is just so unfortunate.
The Globe And Mail
reported that the review team conducted 92 interviews, including current and
former employees. The terms used by participants described the work environment during Payette’s tenure included the following: Hostile; negative;
toxic; poisoned; climate or reign of fear or terror; walking on eggshells.
Other descriptions said
the conditions included: “Disrespect, a non-inclusive workplace, employees were
stressed and worn out.” Additionally, during Payette’s tenure many employees,
including some who had worked for the office of Rideau Hall, left, permanently,
temporarily or took sick leave, 13 of whom said they did so because of the work
environment. Staff turnover was at “record levels” – 16 people left in less than
6 months. Quintet said the stories were so consistent regarding the negative
environment that it was a “serious problem” that “required immediate
attention”.
As I said in the
previous podcast, and my blog post, Payette said the following in a detailed
statement: "We all experience things differently, but we should always
strive to do better and be attentive to one another's perceptions."
It would seem that
Payette doesn’t understand why her behavior was unacceptable by suggesting that
she thinks workplace abuse and bullying is about the perception of the people
on the receiving end.
One of the complaints
lobbed against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who appointed Payette to the
post, is that Payette didn’t undergo a thorough background check, according to
sources. The sources said that no one reached out to speak with previous
colleagues who would have known her in the capacity of manager. I did read in
another article where one fellow astronaut spoke about her as a great colleague
as an astronaut and of her professionalism when they worked together. That
doesn’t surprise me, I have seen too often people who treat “underlings” with
disrespect who treat differently those they consider their equal in rank.
Trudeau, for his part
said that the vetting of Payette was rigorous. Yet, another article talks about
how he disbanded a non-partisan committee of which the duties included
recommending nominees hired into the governor-general position. Trudeau was wowed
by Payette’s star power. She had dazzling credentials: A Former Chief Astronaut
of the Canadian Space Agency, she had an Engineering degree, attended McGill
University, speaks six languages, performed with the Montreal Symphony
Orchestra.
If they had vetted just
a bit more, they would have learned that in 2016 she “left as head of the Montreal Science Center” when employees complained of verbal abuse. Now Trudeau
has to explain how that wasn’t discovered before. The other explanation is that
may have been known information, but information that was ignored. There were
similar complaints, The Globe And Mail said, from when she served on the
Canadian Olympic Committee.
One of the morals of
this story is that policies should be applied equally. If an organization has
determined a hiring policy, for example, then it should apply to everyone. When
I worked in one previous Human Resources role, I was the person who ensured
that hiring managers completed all steps of a background check (credentials and
references). I angered at least one vice president by insisting that
I could not authorize a hire on behalf of the organization until the background
check was completed according to policy.
In addition to
self-preservation – meaning that I knew who would be blamed should there be an
issue post-hire, it would be me -- it is so much more expensive and difficult
to oust someone who has started a job should it be discovered that they had falsified their credentials. I have heard about those stories in the news media (including about college presidents who didn’t have an undergraduate degree and who lied about
that in the hiring process, but the appropriate checks weren’t completed). I
didn’t want our organization to be one of those featured in the papers because
of a lack of due diligence … because of special treatment of a highly placed
hire.
While the Prime Minister
says that the background process was followed, “sources” said that an
application-based process was not. As the former “background check police” what
I hear is she was so important and so high level that an exception was made to
the normal processes. As I asked last time: Are
there human beings organizations are willing to sacrifice at the altar of
prestige, an individual with the right pedigree who is allowed
to treat others poorly, with little to no accountability?
Quintet’s report cost taxpayers close to C-$400K dollars. As I
said last time, It costs a lot to protect bad management.
The lessons are many, but here are my
takeaways:
· The people hired to do the job of vetting should have been allowed to do a thorough job.
· If you have a policy,
it should be applied fairly and equally; if you make exceptions, just be
transparent and be sure you can defend the exception
· Your rank-and-file
workers keep the organization running, and who you choose to lead and motivate
them matters; hiring someone who denigrates and doesn’t care about your
employees is more expensive in the long run.
PLEASE NOTE: Please stop by and listen to my podcast, Workplace Fairness and Dignity at http://buzzsprout.com/1603621.
No comments:
Post a Comment