Canadian HR Reporter

January 26, 2015

Canadian HR Reporter is the national journal of human resource management. It features the latest workplace news, HR best practices, employment law commentary and tools and tips for employers to get the most out of their workforce.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/446801

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 26 of 27

Canadian HR RepoRteR January 26, 2015 INsIGht 27 Guerilla warfare on the job A look at workplace incivility, mini-aggression and the art of getting even your workplace is a guerilla warfare arena. when people are on the receiv- ing end of workplace incivility, they resort to retaliatory mini-aggression, getting-even manoeuvres or outright combat. The war often begins with the most prosaic of human interac- tions: Acknowledging someone's presence with a hello. You may have heard the following, per- haps many times: "Why should I say hello to Donna if she doesn't bother saying hello to me?" When someone treats us in an uncivil way, we feel justifi ed and compelled to apply the old eye- for-an-eye principal: If you wrong me, I'll return in kind. And so we proceed to hold back on our own greeting altogether or, alterna- tively, deliver a salutation to that other (rude, evil, inconsiderate) person using a sarcastic, chastis- ing tone. While our words convey a pleasantry, our tone says, "Let me teach you those manners that your parents obviously forgot to impart to you." e art of getting even Getting even is intended to bal- ance an imaginary ledger we carry in our minds. When someone's uncivil behaviour upsets us, we assess the severity of the off ence and react proportionately. So when a colleague skips a greet- ing, we exact a punishment that is proportionate to the off ence by withholding our own hello. If the fi rst person continues to be a greeting off ender, we supplement the original punishment with ad- ditional measures. In addition to withholding the hello, in true guerilla fashion we might add a bit of gossip into the mix or a bit of work-related sabo- tage. In other words, a chronic off ence will require an elevated getting-even response that will satisfy our sense we are adequate- ly balancing those invisible justice ledgers. We might go about it in a visible way or we might go to great lengths to ensure we will not get into trouble as a result of our (of- ten very creative) manoeuvres. Paradoxically, when we exact justice via these ledger-calibrat- ing activities, we are utterly blind to the fact our own behaviour is itself a form of mini-aggression that constitutes workplace inci- vility. e ignoring tactics, subtle (or not so subtle) sabotage, gossip and dismissive body language all amount to classic workplace in- civility that, in turn, triggers a vi- cious cycle of retaliatory actions by the original off ender. Tefl on versus Velcro e guerilla-style tactics refl ect one of two paths our minds select upon encountering incivility — there's Tefl on and there's Velcro. Here's how Velcro manifests: When we experience incivility, we are unable to shake it off . e ex- perience permeates our thoughts, feelings and behaviour. We take it to heart, we get upset, we blame and judge the person who was uncivil. We obsess about it. We begin recalling other overlooked instances that bothered us since the day we began working togeth- er. We spend time talking about the events to others, both at work and at home. We get angry at the other person or angry at ourselves for having allowed ourselves to be so vulnerable. We feel anxious and upset. We relive childhood mem- ories where we were marginalized or left out. We want to get even. In short, there is nothing pleasant about visiting Velcro-land. A Teflon attitude is an alto- gether diff erent matter. Here, we essentially let another person's uncivil behaviour slide right off us as if we were shielded by a layer of Tefl on, leaving us unaff ected by the event. Say, for example, Frank cri- tiques your work in front of oth- ers. Because you have an excellent relationship with Frank and an overall positive affi liation against which you subconsciously evalu- ate the current situation, you may not register the behaviour as problematic to begin with. Or, if you do think of the behaviour as inappropriate, you brush it off by telling yourself this comment doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, or that Frank in- tended no harm, or you have more important things to deal with. In other words, with the Tefl on shield you possess a thicker skin to begin with or, alternatively, you take cognitive action to reframe the situation in ways that help you avoid blame, hurt or a sense of vic- timization — you simply move on. To clarify: Tefl on doesn't mean you don't address things with the other person. You certainly might but you'll be able to do so without laying blame or coming across as an angry victim. e Tefl on shield frees you to respond to situations using logic rather than raw, primal emotion. Much of the time, most of us are relatively Tefl on-ish. We are focused on other things or give people the benefi t of the doubt. But for some uncivil interactions, Velcro kicks in with full force. And when it does, none of it is positive or constructive and, more often than not, those getting-even dynamics will get activated. e challenge and the solution From an organizational perspec- tive, this type of warfare on the job is bad news: Productivity and performance decline in direct proportion to the level of getting- even activities, while managers and HR folks lose time dealing with dysfunctional team dynam- ics and complaints. Even worse, problems can easily creep into the interface with customers. e challenge is that even the best-constructed policy cannot eradicate this deep need to even the ledger and the behaviours it elicits. However, what you can do is create an organizational culture that encourages people to com- municate openly and safely when incivility issues emerge. You can train staff on eff ectively dealing with it and equip manag- ers with tools that increase their competence for dealing with is- sues before they affect perfor- mance. And, fi nally, you can and should hold people accountable for uncivil behaviour, regardless of who started it. Incivility breeds hostility. Hos- tility fosters destructive guerilla behaviour. e solution is proac- tive prevention. Sharone Bar-David is the Toronto- based president of Bar-David Con- sulting, a fi rm off ering solutions for creating civil work environments and coaching abrasive leaders. She can be reached at info@sharonebardavid. com. sharone Bar-david GUEST COMMENTARY Is that worker being honest about the extent of his injuries? Employers may have grounds to challenge veracity of compensation claims Question: how should an employer han- dle a situation where it suspects that an injured worker who is off work and re- ceiving workers' compensation benefi ts is not being honest about the extent of his injury? Answer: Employees who make workers' compensation claims are expected to be honest and forth- right in their dealings with their employer and with the applicable workers' compensation tribunal. In some situations, however, an employer may feel it has grounds to challenge the veracity of an employee's workers' compensa- tion claim. For example, the employer may feel the employee's injury was not suff ered at work (or at all), the em- ployee is exaggerating the extent of the injury or the employee is secretly working on the side while claiming compensation benefi ts. In most jurisdictions, when a workers' compensation claim is fi led, an employer is given the opportunity to express any con- cerns or objections about the claim. In British Columbia, for example, when an employee suf- fers or claims to have suff ered a workplace injury, the employer is required to fi le with WorkSafeBC a Form 7 "Employer's Report Of Injury Or Occupational Disease." Among other things, this form asks the employer to describe the circumstances of the injury and indicate whether or not the em- ployer objects to the claim. ere is also a space where the employer can provide an explanation for any objections. When a claim is filed, the workers' compensation tribunal will need to determine whether or not to allow the claim. If the claim is allowed, there will also be a variety of other decisions made on the claim, such as the rate at which benefi ts will be paid and the duration of benefi ts. Such decisions must be made based on the available evidence, the appli- cable statutes and regulations and any relevant policies and proce- dures of the tribunal. If the employer disagrees with the decision — for example, where the employer has good reason to believe the employee has not been forthright in the information she has provided to the tribunal — the employer may appeal the claim or request that it be reviewed, in accordance with the mechanisms set out in the applicable statute. In British Co- lumbia, for example, an employer may request within 90 days of a decision on a claim to have the decision reviewed internally by WorkSafeBC's review division. If the employer disagrees with the division's decision, an appeal can be fi led within 30 days with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, an independent tribu- nal that represents the fi nal level of appeal for most issues. Aside from the review and ap- peal process, an employer may have other options if it feels an employee is being dishonest about her workers' compensation claim. In B.C., for example, WorkSafeBC operates a Fraud Tip Line that en- ables employers, employees and members of the public to report suspected fraud relating to claims made under the province's Work- ers Compensation Act. Such reports can be filed by phone, email, fax or regular mail, or by completing an online "fraud al- legation" form. Similar reporting schemes exist in other jurisdictions. In Saskatchewan, for example, an employer can report suspected fraud or abuse anonymously — by phone, fax, mail or email. In Ontario, a person who sus- pects a worker is being dishonest with the province's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) can report the matter via a toll-free action line or by email. If suspected fraud is reported, the WSIB will create a call record that will then be referred to the regu- latory services division for review and to determine what appropri- ate action is needed. Colin G.M. Gibson is a partner at Harris and Company in Vancouver. He can be reached at (604) 891-2212 or cgibson@harrisco.com. Colin gibson tOUGHEST HR QUESTION what you can do is create an organizational culture that encourages people to communicate openly and safely when incivility issues emerge. If the employer disagrees with the decision, it may appeal the claim or request a review.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian HR Reporter - January 26, 2015