High-level government official forced to resign due to bullying and harassment in the workplace.

This week a friend shared a story with me about a high-level government official that was forced to resign when the bullying and harassment she practiced and presided over in the workplace came to light. This happened to a member of the Canadian government, Juliette Payette who, until her resignation was the governor general.

The Washington Post, on Thursday, January 27th, published the story, Canada’s embattled governor general resigns amid bullying, harassment allegations, written by reporter Amanda Coletta. A governor general is the Queen of England’s representative in Canada. The governor general serves as commander in chief of the Canadian armed forces; represents Canada at home and abroad; and grants royal assent to bills so that they become law, according to the Washington Post. The post said the findings in the Quintet report were so “scathing” and “blistering” that for Payette, a former Astronaut, it was untenable for her to have continued in her role. The story my friend sent to me was posted by the CBC online. The article, Payette stepping down as governor general after blistering report on Rideau Hall work environment, was written by Ashley Burke. Unsurprisingly, there was high turnover at Rideau Hall.

Allegations about Payette’s behavior came from 12 anonymous current and former staffers who said that “Payette verbally abused staffers, reduced them to tears, dismissed their work harshly in an effort to humiliate them and was prone to disquieting outbursts.” Independent consulting firm, Quintet Consulting Canada, whose website lists a specialty in HR management consulting, was hired by an office in the Canadian government to conduct an outside “workplace review” of Rideau Hall --- the offices of the Governor General, and they found that the Governor General, Julie Payette, and her Deputy led a “toxic” work environment that included workplace harassment. The Washington Post’s description of the events originally told to the CBC is “that Payette led a workplace that was a ‘house of horrors’ replete with harassment and bullying”. Payette’s “number two” in Rideau Hall who was also a long-time friend was accused of the same behavior.  

So often reports of bullying and harassment made by many, many people in one organization are buried or not taken seriously, including over a period of years. The questions that immediately came to mind when I read about this action taken by the Canadian government were: What led to this review, what was so bad, what was the inciting incident for what the CBC called an unprecedented third-party review? Who hired the independent consulting firm? The CBC reports that the Privy Council Office or PCO launched the review in July “in response to a CBC News report featuring a dozen public servants and former employees confidentially claiming Payette belittled and publicly humiliated the staff”. (The PCO is part of the secretariat and federal cabinet of Canada.) The head of the PCO described the report as “disturbing” and “worrisome”. He also talked about her giving her resignation to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau where they discussed the report.  

Payette acknowledged “tensions” and that everyone has  "a right to a healthy and safe work environment." Payette knows intellectually what she’s supposed to say; she understands intellectually the correct sentiment, regardless of her true understanding of correct behavior. But her actual behavior is proof that she doesn’t understand the meaning of the words, “healthy and safe work environment”. By calling what was referred to as a “house of horrors” as “tensions”, it’s clear that either Payette is incapable of taking responsibility for her actions, or maybe she just doesn’t care. 

She goes on to make the point in a formal statement that “no formal complaints or official grievances were made during her tenure (which started in 2017) which would have immediately triggered a detailed investigation as prescribed by law and the collective agreements in place, I still take these allegations very seriously”. She really had no defense, and, again, just no understanding of how she affected people. No one filed a formal grievance, etc. etc., she said. Well, yes, because they were terrified. They knew what would happen should they be identified in any way. Things would have gone to a house of horrors to who knows what? 

She continues, "We all experience things differently, but we should always strive to do better and be attentive to one another's perceptions." This provides more support for the argument that Payette doesn’t understand why her behavior was unacceptable by suggesting that workplace abuse and bullying is about how the people on the receiving end perceive it.  

Justin Trudeau’s statement said” Every employee in the Government of Canada has the right to work in a safe and healthy environment, and we will always take this very seriously”. The statement continued that “Today’s announcement provides an opportunity for new leadership at Rideau Hall to address the workplace concerns raised by employees during the review”.

In all honesty, the Post story reported that when news of workplace harassment first were launched, the Prime Minister defended Payette as an excellent governor general. There had been questions about whether she had been sufficiently vetted. 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. My question is: Are there human beings organizations are willing to sacrifice at the altar of prestige, a truly maladjusted individual with the right pedigree who is allowed to treat others poorly, with little to no accountability? 

One, of the things I find noteworthy about this story is that a high-level official was forced to step down for mistreatment of employees. But first, there was the initial, and typical, denial by leadership. I suppose you could consider it loyalty, but what message does it send to the people who are experiencing the mistreatment. I think some people reading the articles about how the nice Canadians felt about their treatment at the Governor General’s hands may think, “disquieting outbursts”... Oh, you think that’s bad, let me tell you about… But, why should we have to do that? It’s not about everyone being super pleasant to each other all day long, it’s about people not being afraid to go to work, about people being treated with dignity as the expectation. There is no perfection, but we all know abuse is abuse, it shouldn’t come on a grade, as in, oh that’s not bad. People have bad days, but bad days should be the exception, not the norm and there should be limits to what type of behavior is allowed in any workplace.  

The fallout of not addressing the allegations when they were first brought to light about Payette’s behavior is: 

• The staffers went public; 
• C $150K is what it cost the taxpayer to handle the legal bills surrounding the accusations and for the office to hire a former Supreme Court justice to represent the accused. 

It always costs a lot to protect bad management. Gallup says poor managers drive employee disengagement; and they cause U.S. organizations $450-$550 billion a year! What if organizations plowed money they lose from propping up poor management into doing the following: 

• Maintaining a healthy work environment; 
• Demonstrating to employees that they matter, starting with maintaining a workplace that insisted on respectful communications, that has zero-tolerance for bullying behavior.   

An organization that adopted this philosophy would not need to do marketing to attract employees; the philosophy of employee care would sell itself. Think of the word-of-mouth recommendations and referrals that would come from employees, that is the ultimate in marketing. Moreover, think of the money the organization would save, thereby contributing to the profits!