Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER June 13, 2016 INSIGHT 39 Will civility destroy all the fun? On the contrary – it should mean more laughter, solidarity and participation "This is one of those emails that you type to blow off steam and then erase as a 'Boy, I better not say this' moment." So began a spirited message I received from an indvidual who recently participated in one of my workplace incivility training sessions. He continued: "I am giving se- rious thought to writing my own book called e Case for Incivility. I fear that in our eff orts to achieve civility in the workplace, we will remove common sense. Our halls will run silent. Our conversations will be contrite and disturbingly stale. Far worse, people will live in fear that what they say or do will make someone complain about them. Is this the civil workplace you envision?" I was not surprised by this email — my guess is that HR pro- fessionals also may have at times encountered a visceral reaction to the notion of a civil and respectful workplace. Some folks are concerned about the death of fun, spontaneity and camaraderie. ey are worried political cor- rectness will sanitize the work- place and bring all these to their fatal demise, leaving behind ro- botic (and utterly boring) semi- human clones. Or that minor mortal mistakes will turn every- one into what one workshop par- ticipant once called "a walking HR bomb." ose juicy swear words e habitual use of foul language in the workplace is a related is- sue that also tends to elicit strong reactions at certain organiza- tions. I encounter this at organi- zations where such language is commonplace. Here are some of the reasons people may give to explain this habit: •"Our work is stressful — it's a natural outlet." • "We act professionally with our clients but can let loose with one another." • "It's an authentic expression of feelings. ose who don't like it should get thicker skins." • "It's just how we do things around here — it's embedded in our workplace culture." • "I do it only with people whom I know are OK with it." • "After a frustrating interaction with a customer where I was pa- tient and kind, I have to release steam." • "I know which lines not to cross. For example, I would never swear at someone." • "It's always been like this in our industry." • "Management does it too." e real scoop Here's my take: Civility does not and should not mean corridors fall silent. On the contrary — it means there should be more laughter, solidarity and participa- tion by all (rather than just, say, those who possess more social power or are crusty and sarcas- tic such that their colleagues are afraid to ever say anything that could spark their wrath). Surely we can have a fun and lively workplace that is still civil. Humour does not have to be at someone's expense, friendships can thrive without excluding oth- ers, dissenting opinions can be shared without belittling or dis- missing, and frustration can be expressed constructively without resorting to eye-rolling. e civility and respect mes- sage is more about adhering to a set of basic dos and less about don'ts: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Play nice in the sandbox. Show regard. Be con- siderate in words and actions. Be open to feedback. Explore your blind spots to learn how you can do better. Apologize when you screw up. Develop a Tefl on shield. Have a generous spirit and give people the benefi t of the doubt. e civil workplace is not and will never be entirely void of in- civility — after all, how could it be if it is fi lled with living human beings who, like you and me, in- advertently say or do the wrong thing from time to time? Rather, it is an environment in which everyone strives to be a de- cent and conscientious corporate citizen, a space where people do their best to be respectful, take responsibility for their mishaps and are open to feedback, and where they feel comfortable call- ing out others on their behaviour (constructively). Above all, it is a place where ev- eryone strives to be a Real Human Being — someone who steps up, lifts up, speaks up and, yes, shuts up too. As to the use of foul language: Indeed, organizations can vary, customers can be utterly frus- trating, some jobs can be highly stressful and in some industries swearing is practically a rite of passage. And, let's face it, using swear words can feel really good. ey're juicy, colourful and pro- vide a satisfying outlet. Even the best of us will occasionally blurt out the wrong word at the wrong time. But let's call a spade a spade: Using swear words is uncivil. It is considered bad manners in cul- tures and religions worldwide. My recommendation: Cut it out. Chances are that if your cli- ents (customers, patients, stake- holders, funders — you name it) were to see what really goes on behind closed doors, they would lose faith in your brand. And chances are these behav- iours contradict or at least erode each and every one of your orga- nizational values. Extricating profanities from the workplace culture can be exceed- ingly diffi cult — you are working against deep-seated beliefs shared by a critical number of employees and managers. It may take time, gumption and lots of eff ort, but it's worth it. e case for a civil workplace is both strong and compelling. True, we have to be careful that the pendulum does not swing into the realm of paralyzing political correctness. But, from what I see, we have a far way to go before there's a real danger of that happening. For now, let's focus on stepping up civility and inclusion so every- one in the work environment can perform at their best because they feel safe and respected. Sharone Bar-David is the Toronto- based author of Trust Your Canary: Every Leader's Guide to Taming Workplace Incivility and presi- dent of Bar-David Consulting, a firm specializing in creating civil work environments. She can be reached at sharone@sharonebarda- vid.com. Sharone Bar-David GUest CoMMentary The case for a civil workplace is strong and compelling. True, we have to be careful the pendulum does not swing into the realm of political correctness. How to deal with an unhappy complainant Question: How should an employer treat a harassment complaint about unwanted comments when it knows the harasser wasn't intending to off end, but thought he was being nice? What if the employer is satisfi ed the harasser got the message, but the complainant isn't happy with the solution? Answer: is is not an unusual situation. On many occasions, complaints of harassment relate less to evil intent than to misguid- ed behaviour. Sometimes, that behaviour is based upon outdated and sexist views that are entirely unacceptable in today's society. While the conduct is inappro- priate and must be stopped, it is often possible to address the situ- ation by providing the off ender with training so he understands why his conduct is unacceptable. To begin with, as readers will al- ready know, any allegation of ha- rassment must be taken seriously and investigated properly. In most cases, this will require, at the very least, that the complainant and "accused" be interviewed. Ultimately, the person tasked with conducting the investigation will have to reach a conclusion as to whether the complaint was substantiated. In some cases, the finding might be there was inappropriate conduct or comments, but the of- fender did so out of ignorance and without intending to cause harm. In those cases, depending upon the nature of the relationship, the nature of the workplace and the comments that have been made, it may be possible to repair the relationship by providing the of- fender with appropriate training and also allowing the parties a chance to discuss the matter and repair their working relationship. Discipline may or may not be warranted, depending upon a number of factors. Ultimately, a complainant is not entitled to determine the dis- cipline that is imposed upon the off ender, if any. She is also not entitled to be provided with the contents or details of the investi- gation report. Rather, she is entitled to know the conclusion that was reached, being whether the complaint was found to have merit or not. e employer does not have to ensure the complainant is "happy" with the solution, though it must en- sure it acts reasonably and in good faith to address the issues and pro- vide a safe working environment. Stuart Rudner is a founding partner of Rudner MacDonald, a Toronto- based employment law fi rm. He is the author of You're Fired: Just Cause for Dismissal in Canada, published by Carswell, a omson Reuters busi- ness. He can be reached at srudner@ rudnermacdonald.com. Stuart Rudner ToUghest HR QUestion "I can imagine a scenario where 'sexualized' dress code is estab- lished for both sexes i.e. a muscle shirt/bike shorts for men and bikini top/mini skirt for women. The workers can choose between the two. I can guess which sex will choose what. Then we get into another problem — a 50-year-old man with a beer belly will not want to wear a muscle shirt and bike shorts. Is that discrimination?" — Senta, commenting on Stuart Rudner's blog "Ending discriminatory dress codes." "If a company has a pool and no lifeguards, the company should be held liable. It assumed the risk by not having lifeguards. That being said, accidents happen, everywhere. No amount of preventative measure will genuinely prevent an accident. People breach rules all the time, and if an employee does so (i.e. stepping on the top step of a ladder), he assumes risk on his own. So, although the workplace provided the ladder, if the employee did not exercise caution, his claim should not be taken seriously. 'You have the right to refuse unsafe work.' Common sense isn't very common anymore. The purity of the law is always taken advantage of by people trying to make money. The law is there to help civilians, not to make money. As for the pool drowning... the company knew there would be patrons swimming, therefore, the lack of staffing may have resulted in a drowning. It's unfortunate, but hotels are often in it for the money, not for comfort, safety and service. There should be efforts in place to aid with situations like these, such as a receptionist watching a camera on the pool — that may have prevented it." — Anonymous, commenting on Jeffrey Smith's blog "The workplace – where does it take place?" Join the conversation. Comment on any blog on www.hrreporter.com. READER COMMENTS

• Cover