Stage 2 – Talking to people – Bullying and Incivility

The first stage is concluded when the senior team thinks it has:

Sufficient understanding of its thinking about bullying and incivility.
Understands its responsibilities for leading the work.
Has a plan to engage people in some difficult conversations as safely as possible.

This second stage is making public the intention to investigate, understand and reduce the effects of bullying and incivility. Key to success is how the invitation to talk is made and how the output of these conversations is understood. Is it evidence of people’s lack of resilience or data to be reflexively interpreted?

Step 1: Inviting people to talk – agreeing the boundaries

The leadership think in terms of holding a dilemma or polarity

The senior team need to recognise the complexity and therefore unpredictability of this stage. To make progress, conversations need to be about specific events. However, all or some of the senior team members may conclude, after listening, that there are grounds to assume the existing rules of conduct have been broken. This conclusion, if acted upon will change the purpose of the conversation. It will cease to be exploratory and become formalised. This is particularly the case if the example is in the present. Formalisation, through invoking disciplinary procedures, should be a last resort. This route will lock people into roles, limit their willingness to talk and reflect the current thinking about how to manage poor behaviours. It signals a way of thinking that the senior team now think (after Stage 1) lacks explanatory and stopping power, given the persistence of these behaviours.

People will recognise the dilemma inherent in being asked to talk about specific events as a way to build useful theory versus holding people accountable in the context of existing rules. Experience suggest if people know that this dilemma is on the surface, they are able to make clear if they feel that what has gone on requires formal action. This does not release the senior team from their obligation to keep checking. People who are being bullied can resist ‘calling it out’ as they can assume, they are to blame.

Getting started

A short document or statement scoping the project and purpose of the conversation can be useful. It is the means to consistently convey the senior leadership’s understanding of the dilemma noted above, the wider purpose of the investigation and what is required to keep both parties safe enough to talk.¹

This is an example of a briefing used in a public service trying to understand why bullying and harassment scores were so high in the staff survey. A staff group who were motivated, clever and deeply connected to the ethos of public service.

The senior leadership communicated the plans for their work via smaller management meetings. Attention was paid to how people accessed the opportunity to talk. A confidential booking system was set up (nothing more than my mobile phone) and a private room, on a quiet corridor, was used for the conversations.

Example: getting started and informed consent

This is what I said at the start of a conversation.

Thank you for agreeing to talk. As I understand it, we are here to talk to deepen the understanding about what can enable and disrupt how people work together, which if we could understand will improve people’s working lives.

To do this it would be useful to talk about the times when things have gone well and less well. We will need to get into the details to see what that can tell us about what triggers the behaviours, particularly the ones that are disruptive.  The research is clear.  To be on the receiving end of bullying and incivility has a significant impact on our willingness to cooperate and to think.

This is a conversation under the Chatham House rule. I will discuss themes, but I will not attribute these to a conversation, and I am assuming you will make your own judgement about what to talk about and that is fine.  I may push – there is a respect and intrusion dilemma here – but you are free to say as much or as little as you like.

I think there is one caveat to the confidentiality agreement which we need to acknowledge. I am assuming that some of what will be said will trigger feelings. Again, you are in charge of what you say.  We have up to an hour, and I will say when we have ten minutes to go. I will be writing notes, which I will keep safe.  I hope that is ok.  The plan is to collate themes and come up with some practical actions based on this different understanding of why these behaviours persist. I have a set of questions, but I am really interested in what you have to say.  Are you ok to begin?

Step 2: The Pandoras box moment – what have we done?

The leadership resist the desire to shut it all down

If an invitation is made that people can take up, they will likely say some uncomfortable things to hear. People may acknowledge what they have been living with and putting up with. People may get angry and upset². This is the moment where learning is possible and is also a moment of maximum uncertainty. This may not be confined to the room.

People who have been silenced, begin to find their voice and are less willing and able to sit in silence. Anger can be directed towards senior leadership. They have not put things right earlier and may have expressed the very behaviours they say they now want to change.

The senior leadership may notice its hope for simple interventions (e.g. we need to write a procedure; we need a code of practice). This may provide short term relief but is a mistake. It may be taken as evidence of a wish to shut the whole project down and get back to ‘normal’.

What emerges at this point are two competing discourses. The accepted organisational narrative about how we are (e.g. essentially, we are good people, doing a difficult job) and that which is emerging from people’s lived experience (e.g. it’s also s**t, its more complicated, I am exhausted, I do not want to get texts at 11pm on a Sunday).

The leadership is faced with an ethical question. Can it bear for these different versions of the organisation to surface; or will it shut it down by imposing its version of events?

Notes

^[1] What we are talking about is developing what Edmonson calls, Psychological Safety (2019).
‘The belief that the work environment is safe for interpersonal risk taking. The concept refers to the feeling of being able to speak up with relevant ideas, questions and concerns. Psychological safety is present when colleagues trust and respect each other and feel able – even obligated to be candid’ (p.8)
Edmonson, A (2019) The fearless organization. Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation and growth. New Jersey, Wiley.

^[2] Reaching for these sorts of words can be alarming for the speaker and listeners. Swearing has the effect of expressing the depth of experience (and can aid the listener to hear what is being said as authentic) and reducing social pain. So, if a person has been excluded through bullying or consistent incivility, swearing can let people know something is wrong.

The first stage is concluded when the senior team thinks it has:

Sufficient understanding of its thinking about bullying and incivility.
Understands its responsibilities for leading the work.
Has a plan to engage people in some difficult conversations as safely as possible.

Step 1: Inviting people to talk – agreeing the boundaries

The leadership think in terms of holding a dilemma or polarity

The senior team need to recognize the complexity and therefore unpredictability of this stage. To make progress, conversations need to be about specific events. However, one may conclude after listening that there are grounds to assume the existing rules of conduct have been broken. This conclusion, if acted upon will change the purpose of the conversation. It will cease to be exploratory and become formalised. This is particularly the case if the example is in the present. Formalisation, through invoking the disciplinary procedure, is a last resort. This route will lock people into roles, limit their willingness to talk and reflect the current thinking about how to manage poor behaviours. It signals a way of thinking that the senior team now think (after Stage 1) lacks explanatory and stopping power, given the persistence of these behaviours.

People will recognise the dilemma inherent in being asked to talk about specific events as a way to build useful theory versus holding people accountable in the context of existing rules. Experience suggest if people know that this dilemma is on the surface, they are able to make clear if they feel that what has gone on requires formal action. This does not release the interviewer from their obligation to keep checking. People who are being bullied can resist ‘calling it out’ as they can assume, they are to blame.

Getting started

Example: getting started and informed consent

This is what I said at the start of a conversation.

Thank you for agreeing to talk. As I understand it, we are here to talk to deepen the understanding about what can enable and disrupt how people work together, which if we could understand will improve people’s working lives.

To do this it would be useful to talk about the times when things have gone well and less well. We will need to get into the details to see what that can tell us about what triggers the behaviours, particularly the ones that are disruptive.  The research is clear.  To be on the receiving end of bullying and incivility has a significant impact on our willingness to cooperate and to think.

This is a conversation under the Chatham House rule. I will discuss themes, but I will not attribute these to a conversation, and I am assuming you will make your own judgement about what to talk about and that is fine.  I may push – there is a respect and intrusion dilemma here – but you are free to say as much or as little as you like.

I think there is one caveat to the confidentiality agreement which we need to acknowledge. I am assuming that some of what will be said will trigger feelings. Again, you are in charge of what you say.  We have up to an hour, and I will say when we have ten minutes to go. I will be writing notes, which I will keep safe.  I hope that is ok.  The plan is to collate themes and come up with some practical actions based on this different understanding of why these behaviours persist. I have a set of questions, but I am really interested in what you have to say.  Are you ok to begin?

Step 2: The Pandoras box moment – what have we done?

The leadership resist the desire to shut it all down

If an invitation is made that people can take up, they will likely say some uncomfortable things to hear. People may acknowledge what they have been living with and putting up with. People may get angry and upset⁴. This is the moment where learning is possible and a moment of maximum uncertainty. This may not be confined to the room.

What emerges at this point are two competing discourses. The accepted organizational narrative about how we are (e.g. essentially, we are good people, doing a difficult job) and that which is emerging from people’s lived experience (e.g. it’s also s**t, its more complicated, I am exhausted, I do not want to get texts at 11pm on a Sunday).

The leadership is faced with an ethical question. Can it bear for these different versions of the organization to surface; or will it shut it down by imposing its version of events?

Notes

Get in touch

Trying to find a way to deal with unprofessional behaviours can feel daunting. If you would like to chat to me about how I or my colleagues could help, you can contact me here.