Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER November 2, 2015 NEWS 7 "e more diverse an organiza- tion is, the better work they do." In hostile work environments, collaboration is stifled. "Basically, it comes down to trust. In order to have good col- laboration and good teamwork, you've got to have a great founda- tion of trust. And when you've got a hostile work environment, you have no trust. It completely de- stroys it," said Salopek. "When you've got a hostile work environment, you've got fear. So people won't come to- gether, people won't want to come together, people will be afraid to open up and be honest — they'll be afraid to ask questions. And all of those things are really, really important when you collaborate." A hostile work environment is also going to stifle creativity be- cause employees are not going to be forthcoming, she said. People also lose sight of their individual goals and mandates, said Harrison — and that can have huge impacts on the organization as a whole. "If organizations allow or ig- nore dysfunction or fiefdom building… it really affects not only the efficiency, the motivation and engagement of teams but, ulti- mately, it drives a lack of profit- ability," he said. "People's energy and focus tends to be on building fiefdoms, on who's winning, who's losing, building camps and allies versus 'What's the task at hand? What are we all supposed to be focusing on and rallying behind?' So it's shift- ing energy and effort to something that's counterproductive." Diffusing tension Managers and leaders can help minimize friction by building teams that are compatible, said Harrison, adding there are plenty of psychometric assessment tools designed to do just that. "Some organizations look to these types of tools to help them look at the composite of a team, or as they have put together a team with different capabilities, differ- ent experience, different exper- tise, that those dynamics, those preferences are made transparent to the team so that sometimes you can head off any potentially emo- tional exchanges — or at least, people have an appreciation for those (differences) as they step into decision-making, as they step into interactive environments," he said. Leaders might also hold edu- cational sessions around team dynamics or team profiles so em- ployees can develop knowledge and awareness, said Harrison. "And with that knowledge, hopefully people have an appreci- ation for that and embrace diver- sity versus having no transparency and thinking, 'I just don't like Fred' or 'Jane doesn't like me,' when it could be nothing more than a lack of understanding," he said. "Once there's an awareness that people process and interact differently — and it may be differ- ent from my approach — that can diffuse, or at least bring sensitivity, to that dynamic." But there's another challenge at play, which is determinine when the conflict crosses the line. Personality conflict or outright bullying? It can be difficult — especially for managers who have remote teams or don't work closely with employees — is determining whether a conflict is a personal- ity clash or actual bullying. "Personality differences are 'We agree to disagree' versus 'Now I am trying to impose my approach, my feelings, on others,'" said Harrison. "Where I personally think it crosses the line is: How are those interactions happening? Are there outbursts? Are individuals' cred- ibility being challenged? Are there issues of respect?" ere are certain behaviours to watch for that will allow you to differentiate, said Salopek, such as passive aggressive leadership, nar- cissism — when people talk a lot about themselves and don't give credit to their team — destructive gossip and office politics. The biggest issue is when there's no recognition of the ha- rassment or bullying, said Glen Grant, senior consultant and principal at HRfx Consulting in Langley, B.C. "People just get up and leave. So you've got that turnover issue that exists — there's no discus- sion, there's no reason (given), and someone comes in and re- places that person, and likely the harassment or hostile workplace just continues," he said. "e other aspect would be the person who is being harassed may feel obviously threatened and un- comfortable, so their performance is not going to be very (effective) when you're trying to get the team to work together and perform — absenteeism, low performance, avoiding others, avoiding their harasser, that sort of thing. "If you've got a culture that is actually a respectful culture, then you're not going to have this ha- rassing behaviour. So I think that allowing harassment issues in the workplace can often be a reflec- tion of the culture." As long as there's no bullying involved, it is possible for con- flicting ideas and personalities to benefit the organization — and not become a liability, said Harrison. "If others are empowered by the environment to challenge — respectfully — inappropriate behaviour and call it out, there's a lot (of positives) for a team dy- namic and organizational cul- ture," he said. "ere's a safe forum for truly sharing and encouraging people to share their opinions — be- cause people are paid for their knowledge. People are paid for their experience. And the orga- nization is supposedly deriving benefit from that experience and knowledge and expertise… and if you shut that down or you have individuals who shut that down because they're trying to manage their own mandate, the organiza- tion won't win." Respectful culture combats harassment WORKING ALONE < pg. 1

• Cover