Upload
leliem
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Effective ways to improve workplace culture and dynamics following a workplace investigation
Sarah Carrier
Monash University
2
Abstract
This paper aims to summarise recent literature regarding the most effective ways to improve
workplace culture and dynamics following an investigation into workplace behaviour. This research
considers interventions at the individual, team, policy and organisational levels and evaluates their
effectiveness in reducing toxicity in the workplace and decreasing the likelihood of bad behaviours
re-occurring. Worklogic clients (between years of 2014 - 2016) were invited to participate in a short
anonymous online survey in which they described the interventions that they implemented following
a workplace investigation of alleged misconduct. The results suggested that while many
organisations are following basic recommendations in the literature, there are a number of
interventions, such as emotion-awareness focused discussions and team-based activities, which could
vastly improve the workplace environment. Recommendations are provided, based on the literature,
as to the best methods for organisations to cultivate a healthy and positive culture in the team and in
the workplace, after a misconduct investigation.
3
Over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in research worldwide surrounding
the identification, manifestation and impact of poor behaviour in the workplace, particularly
workplace bullying. This research is validated by recent changes to the Fair Work Act (2009) to
incorporate the term ‘workplace bullying’ into legislation, emphasising the relevance of bullying
research and the need to address such behaviours in workplaces across the nation (O’Rourke &
Antioch, 2016).
Earlier studies into the effects of workplace bullying emphasised the impact of such
behaviours on the individuals directly involved. Recently, there has been an increased focus on the
impact of such behaviours on overall workplace culture and dynamics. This is an important area of
research, as poor behaviours in the workplace not only create interpersonal problems but promote the
likelihood of further inappropriate behaviour, breeding toxic workplace environments. Working
backwards, the idea therefore, is that, by improving workplace culture and dynamics, the incidence
of bullying and other such problems may then be reduced, resulting in more constructive workplace
environments, as well as reducing the resources and costs required to manage such problems.
Much of the research conducted on workplace bullying investigates the prevalence of
workplace bullying and the conditions under which it appears. Whilst this is not our primary focus, it
is important to understand the conditions under which bullying manifests, so such conditions can be
alleviated to prevent further misconduct. There are a number of factors implicit in some types of
organisations that can create an unsettling environment for employees. In general, there is a far
greater incidence of workplace bullying in large, public sector organisations compared to smaller,
private sector organisations, with employees in the private sector reporting greater confidence in
their organisation’s ability to manage bullying issues (Hodgins, MacCurtain & Mannix-McNamara,
2014; Salin, 2008b). Larger organisations tended to have more formal written policies and
established human resources departments, so it is noteworthy that such policy factors did not seem to
modulate the prevalence of bullying (Salin, 2008a).
Furthermore, it is important to identify that unhealthy workplace behaviours can manifest in a
number of ways. Bad behaviour can be a result of inappropriate conduct by the parties at an
individual level. It can be a result of poor team management or poor role assignment at a team level.
It can also be organisational – a result of poor structure of the organisation as a whole. Policy matters
can also influence the prevalence of poor behaviour at all these levels. In this proposal, we consider
interventions at each of these tiers that may influence the ways in which unhealthy behaviours are
managed in the workplace (Furnham & Taylor, 2011). The literature reflected the importance of
4
interventions at the individual, team, policy and organisational levels in improving workplace culture
and dynamics. Intervention at all levels are vital for a succinct and enduring approach to preventing
workplace incidences in the future.
Individual interventions
The individual interventions identified as being most successful in improving workplace
culture were interventions that included a focus on parties’ emotions. Recent literature suggests that
consideration of parties’ emotions in dealing with the incident allows parties to feel more in control
of the procedure and improves self-efficacy (Jameson, Bodtker & Linker, 2010). This often
manifests through informal facilitated discussion between the parties, which incorporates
consideration of parties’ thoughts, feelings and expectations. Promoting emotional perspective taking
– so all parties can come to a mutual understanding of other parties’ feelings - can assist in moving
forward and encourages a more conducive environment for managing the problem (Jameson,
Bodtker & Linker, 2010). The converse is that parties’ emotions are not addressed, and underlying
resentment is able to fester. This can then present as reduced job satisfaction and poorer attitude
towards work, which can have effects well beyond the individual level (Hutchinson & Hurley, 2013).
Promoting positive attitudes through open discussion can assist in conflict resolution and help
management to revise the duties and roles of the parties involved in the conflict, so as to prevent
further incidences and a negative impact on workplace culture (Hutchinson & Hurley, 2013).
Management’s approach towards incidences of bullying was also important in predicting
future unhealthy behaviours. Whilst management methods of dealing with bullying are outside the
scope of this paper, it is important to note that the notion of procedural fairness was important in
promoting lower rates of absenteeism, greater job satisfaction, commitment, and work ethic,
resulting in greatly improved workplace dynamics (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). In this regard, it is not
so much the effect of procedural fairness being in place as much as it is the employees being aware
that there are fair procedures in place (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). The overall tone of the bullying
procedures also influenced workplace culture, with several studies suggesting that procedures
focused on mediation and reconciliatory measures rather than strictly punitive measures resulted in
better outcomes for the workplace as a whole (Cicerali & Cicerali, 2016). Reconciliatory measures
noted include discussion with parties involved, consulting health care services and offering
counselling for the individuals involved, procedures that assist in early intervention (Salin, 2008a).
5
Whilst these reconciliatory measures were important in the initial stages of conflict, it was
noted that, as conflict progressed, more punitive measures were important to indicate a strong
commitment to anti-bullying by the organisation and to deter similar behaviours (Salin, 2008a).
Whilst transfer measures, such as physical separation of complainant and respondent and transfer to
a different department were less useful in addressing the true nature of the problem, they were
important where the respondent was in a managerial position or causing significant distress to the
complainant (Salin, 2008a). Punitive measures were deemed necessary where it was important to set
a clear example about inappropriate behaviours and where a respondent’s behaviour is so poor that
reconciliatory methods are not possible and the only option is to demote or terminate the respondent
(Salin, 2008a).
The literature concurs that the poorest means of dealing with workplace bulling is avoidance
– where no measures are taken to deal with the conflict at hand. This ‘laissez-faire’ attitude is
manifested in an abdication of responsibilities and is not only detrimental in solving the present
problems but sets a precedent of inaction and acceptance of poor behaviours which can often escalate
personal conflicts and promote an overall toxic workplace environment (Skogstad, Einarsen,
Torsheim, Aasland & Hetland, 2007). Hence, when interventions are implemented at the individual
level, it is just as important that their implementation is communicated to all employees so as to
promote confidence in their workplace that appropriate measures are in place and that management
are taking an active role in handling the conflict (Skogstad et al., 2007).
Team interventions
The most common team interventions suggested in the literature were training of employees
regarding workplace bullying and general conflict management. Training was stressed to be of
importance because it increased general awareness of appropriate behaviours and empowered
employees to feel more competent in identifying and reporting incidences of inappropriate behaviour
(Salin, 2008a). There is good evidence that appropriate training may combat bullying, provided the
training reflects the experiences of the current workplace, rather than being a generalised training
framework that is non-specific to the organisation (Strandmark & Rahm, 2014; Fox & Stallworth,
2009). In such cases, training materials that are not reflective of the organisation can actually create
an additional outlet for tensions as a result of conflict discussion and can be detrimental to the
organisation (Beirne & Hunter, 2013).
6
Active bystander training is a recent notion that involves promoting employees to notice
inappropriate behaviour and stand up against such behaviour rather than remaining silent and
enabling the behaviour (Van Heugten, 2011). Such training is an important remedy at the team level
– as it makes bullying everybody’s problem and promotes a culture of zero tolerance (D’Cruz &
Noronha, 2011). It is well studied that silent bystanders contribute to the escalation of maladaptive
behaviours, and, conversely, rewarding employees who take a firm stance against bullying creates an
attitude that quickly spreads throughout the organisation and makes bullying less and less acceptable
(Paull, Omari & Standen, 2012).
Other important team interventions include educating employees about the impacts of
bullying, even if they are not directly involved in the conflict (Van Heugten, 2011). Taking this
broader approach to addressing poor behaviours means that the whole organisation can reflect and
improve on workplace dynamics, rather than only the parties involved (Van Heugten, 2011). This
education can extend to coaching of the team to be active in their commitment to safe workplace and
knowing how to recognise premediating bullying behaviours (Saam, 2010).
Using feedback systems, such as attitudes surveys and appraisal discussions, can provide a
broader perspective on the general sentiments of employees and assists in identifying potential
problem areas and patterns that are often markers of future bullying behaviours (Salin, 2008b;
Tavanti, 2011). Such surveys are obviously important for management to identify areas in need of
improvement but also vital for creating a sense of openness and empowerment to the individuals of
the organisations (Tavanti, 2011). Teams that feel comfortable confronting issues of poor behaviour
create a workplace culture that is not stifled, or breeding underlying resentment, and means that
when such issues arise, they can be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Promoting
effective team work through team building activities can also promote this sense of openness and is
important for building trust and accountability; key pillars in preventing the manifestation of toxic
behaviours in the workplace (Beirne & Hunter, 2013).
The literature stresses, however, the importance of continuous follow-ups in team based
interventions rather than one-off activities, in order to ensure similar poor behaviours do not re-occur
(Marsh, 2013). Whilst a one-off activity is important following an investigation, and far more
beneficial than no intervention, continuous follow-ups and ‘checking in’ on the team suggests a real
commitment by the organisation and is far more likely to promote long term positive workplace
culture (Hodgins et al., 2014; D’Cruz et al., 2011). Any team intervention is also important as a
means for increasing collaboration between groups and reduces the alienation of particular parties,
7
ensuring all employees not only feel included but responsible for the behaviours which manifest in
the workplace (Strandmark & Rahn, 2014).
Policy interventions
Stressed in much of the literature is the importance of a clear anti-bullying framework. Whilst
the contents of such framework is not the focus of this paper, it cannot be ignored how often a
comprehensive anti-bullying framework was noted as being a key factor in reducing workplace
bullying incidences (Salin, 2008a). Whilst there are the obvious consequences of such a framework
when bullying has occurred, the framework also works to improve awareness of what constitutes
bullying and what is appropriate conduct in the workplace (Salin, 2008b). Reducing the ‘fuzziness’
surrounding the definition of workplace bullying assists in increasing awareness surrounding
bullying and furthermore gives employees confidence in their organisation to appropriately manage
such conduct (Cicerali & Cicerali, 2016; Salin, 2008b). Such frameworks also empower the
management team and create an environment of trust and support, and an open platform to discuss
issues that come to light (Beirne & Hunter, 2013; Strandmark & Rahm, 2014).
Implementing positive policies and a humanistic values system is becoming increasingly
popular, as more literature is revealing the benefits of a healthy workplace (Beale & Hoel, 2011).
Policies implemented at the organisational level which focus on broader ideas of mutual respect and
dignity appear to have more influence than policies that focus solely on bullying (Beale & Hoel,
2011). Reinforcing the importance of empathy, tolerance and respect not only creates an amicable
work environment, but also promotes the development of workplace friendships that are important in
counteracting bullying (Strandmark & Rahm, 2014).
Organisational interventions
The organisational interventions following an investigation are often the most instrumental in
improving workplace culture but also require much more effort and coordination amongst
departments. A study by Hodgins et al. (2014), suggested that organisational morale and climate are
key predictors of incivility in the workplace. Developing organisational values that reflect a healthy
and open workplace culture are shown to foster change of attitudes, values and beliefs amongst
employees in the organisation, which can act as direct deterrents to bullying behaviours (Hodgins et
al., 2014).
8
Unfortunately, in a number of bullying cases, management are often some or most of the
cause of the poor behaviour (Beale & Hoel, 2011). Therefore, it is vital that management training is
conducted, to ensure that managers have the capacity to handle workplace disputes confidently, and
are setting a model example for fellow colleagues (Salin, 2008b). A study by Allison and
Bastiampillai (2016) suggests that managers should be trained in leading anti-bullying programs and
be given key performance indicators in relation to these goals. Recent literature highlights that
younger managers are demonstrating greater awareness of bullying and a larger repertoire of
methods for dealing which such issues. This suggests that managers are being employed with
consideration for their ability to handle dispute (Salin, 2008a). Managers should be trained to be
flexible and behave in a proactive and positive manner in order to reduce the occurrence and
escalation of poor behaviours (Saundry, Jones & Wibberley, 2015; Armstrong & Baron, 2005).
Furthermore, employing emotionally strong individuals for managerial positions has been shown to
alleviate bullying behaviours (Cicerali & Cicerali, 2016). Therefore, improving emotional
intelligence in managers will play a key role in creating a supportive and approachable leadership
team (Hutchinson & Hurley, 2013). Conversely, weak leadership and a lack of assumed
responsibility are key features of a managerial team which often lead to bullying behaviours (Salin,
2008b).
A current trend in literature is the emphasis of health promotion in the workplace as an
organisational approach to improving culture and dynamics. Health promotion in the workplace
involves increasing awareness of the influence of employee interactions on the health of individuals
and the organisation as a whole (Strandmark & Rahm, 2014). Promoting personal development in the
workplace, through organisational strategies such as appraisal systems, training and performance-
based pay, can vastly improve the work ethic. It can also create a more efficient workplace which is
less prone to poor behaviours. Further behaviours that promote health at an organisational level
include investment in employees; providing them with more autonomy and control over their work
demands (Grawitch, Ballard & Erb, 2015). Promoting work life balance by providing external
resources such as child care benefits or gym memberships can often result in a less stressful work life
and overall improved culture (Grawitch et al., 2015). Stress management training was also deemed
vital in creating a workplace less riddled with stress, and hence less affected by the health problems
that result from such chronic stress (Grawitch et al., 2015).
Overall, the common theme in organisational approaches was empowering employees.
Empowered employees have higher job performance, greater job satisfaction and reduced stress
9
levels (Strandmark & Rahm, 2014). Empowered individuals have the ability to engage and
participate with the collective, provide their opinion and challenge unfair behaviours.
The purpose of our research was to compare these interventions for improving workplace
culture with what is currently being implemented in some organisations in which an independent
investigation was conducted following a workplace complaint. The intention was to understand
whether the findings in academic literature were being reflected in Worklogic clients’ approaches
and, if not, which areas could be enhanced to minimise further incidences of poor behaviour in the
workplace.
10
Method
Following a review of the current literature regarding effective ways to improve workplace
culture and dynamics, a qualitative survey was created (via Survey Monkey) which reflected the
most common interventions at the individual, team, policy and organisation levels. The survey
included questions regarding the demographics of the organisations, as well as any concerns that
arose due to an investigation. The survey then covered all four levels of interventions, allowing
participants to comment on whether these interventions were a result of the investigation, what
impact these interventions had at each level, the most effective interventions implemented and any
barriers to intervention. The survey provided comment boxes for additional information where
necessary.
The survey was emailed to Worklogic clients who had engaged Worklogic consultants to
conduct one or more investigations for them in the years 2014 – 2016 inclusive. Where a law firm
was involved, the instructing solicitor was first contacted for permission to email the survey to
clients. Of the 108 clients emailed, 27 completed the survey - a completion rate of 25%. Participants
had two weeks to complete the survey and were sent a reminder email one week prior and one day
prior to closing of the survey. Participants were offered a comprehensive report of survey findings
following the completion of the survey. Responses were anonymous and informed consent was
implied in completion of the survey. No survey questions were marked compulsory.
As the survey responses were qualitative in nature, data was analysed via Microsoft Excel
and visual inspection. Results were collated.
11
Results
The organisations surveyed were spread over a number of industries, including community
and social services, federal, state and local government, health care, corporate, tertiary education,
media, and manufacturing.
Figure 1. Pie chart illustrating industries surveyed.
59% of organisations were in the public sector, 22% in the private/for profit sector and 19%
in the non-profit sector. All organisations surveyed had over 100 employees, with 30% having 101-
500 employees, 18% having 501-1,000 employees and 52% of organisations having over 1,000
employees.
Figure 2. Bar graph of individuals employed at organisations surveyed.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
1 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 100 101 - 500 501 - 1,000 1,001 +
Number of individuals employed
1 - 10
11 - 25
26 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1,000
1,001 +
Industries surveyed Law firm
Corporate
Federal government
State government
Local government
Finance and insurance
Healthcare
Essential and emergency services
Secondary education
Tertiary education
Community and social services
Other
12
96% of these organisations reported having a designated HR department and, with that, an
agreed set of values. Of that 96%, 85% reported that the agreed set of values had been effectively
communicated to staff, through processes such as induction training, reminder training, CEO
messages and employee communications.
All the organisations surveyed reported having policies and procedures in place regarding the
following:
- Bullying
- Confidentiality and proper use of information
- Privacy
- Grievance procedure
- Occupational health and safety
Over 70% of organisations reported having policies and procedures in place regarding the
following:
- Conflict of interest
- Performance management
- Computer use and IT
- Sexual harassment
- Recruitment and selection
- Flexible work/carers
- Discrimination
- Complaints and handling procedures
- Social media
- Procurement
- Fraud
- Whistle-blower procedure
- Employee wellbeing
- Diversity
Notably, less than 55% of organisations reported having policies covering:
- occupational violence
- inclusion
- promotion
13
Table 1
The Forms of Workplace Conduct Covered in Organisations’ Policies and Procedures.
Workplace conduct covered in policies and procedures Response %
Bullying 100.0%
Occupational health and safety 100.0%
Privacy 100.0%
Confidentiality and proper use of information 100.0%
Grievance procedure 100.0%
Conflict of interest 96.3%
Performance management 96.3%
Sexual harassment 92.6%
Discrimination (including racism, sexism, disability...) 92.6%
Flexible work / carers 92.6%
Recruitment and selection 92.6%
Computer use and IT 92.6%
Social media 88.9%
Complaints handling procedure 88.9%
Procurement 85.2%
Fraud 85.2%
Whistleblower procedure 81.5%
Employee wellbeing 77.8%
Diversity 70.4%
Occupational violence 51.9%
Inclusion 51.9%
Promotion 48.1%
Regarding effective communication to employees of these policies, 37% of organisations
reported effectively communicating all the policies in place, 56% reported effectively
communicating some of the policies, and 7% reported a lack of effective communication of policies.
Policies that were reported to receive the most staff attention included:
- Bullying
- Discrimination
- Flexible work
- Employee wellbeing
- Sexual harassment
- Occupational health and safety
- Social media
14
Organisations reported a number of concerns which arose following the investigation conducted
by Worklogic. These were divided into individual party concerns, team concerns and organisation-
wide concerns.
The highest reported concerns relating to individual parties included:
- Personality conflict (78%)
- Poor interpersonal/communication skills of respondent (72%) and complainant (61%)
- Poor supervisory/management skills of respondent (50%)
Other common concerns regarding individual parties included a refusal by the complainant to
accept changed expectations, perceived excessive workload, poor performance of the complainant
and respondent and personal ethics of complainant and respondent.
The highest reported concern relating to the team was:
- Perceived poor team culture (81%)
Other common concerns included lack of accountability for performance by team members and
lack of clarity of roles and tasks. Organisations also expressed concerns related to the third party
(supervisor or manager), with some suggesting that the third party had poor management skills, was
unable to deal with the escalating conflict, and failed to follow organisation’s policies and
procedures in decision-making.
The highest reported concerns relating to the organisation overall included:
- Perceived poor messages and modelling from middle managers (60%)
- Perception that past complaints were not adequately dealt with (53%)
Other common concerns included the organisation’s decisions not complying with stated values,
poor messages and modelling from executive leadership, the performance management process not
being applied by supervisors and managers, and culture issues. Cultural issues include a lack of
support for feedback, innovation and improvement and the presence of toxic elements in the
workplace. Interestingly, no organisation reported that their human resources were not sufficiently
trusted or empowered.
In public and private sectors, there were, on average, more individual concerns reported than
team or organisational (although this difference was not significant). In the non-profit sector,
organisational concerns were the most frequent.
15
Following the specific Worklogic investigation conducted, 21% of organisations reported the
complainant in the matter resigning and 16% reported the respondent resigning.
Individual interventions
88% of the individual interventions that were reported to be implemented following the
investigation were undertaken as a direct result of the complaint and/or investigation. The most
common individual interventions included:
- Access to counselling services offered to the affected persons (70%)
- Meeting with the respondent (59%) and complainant (41%) to communicate future
behavioural expectations, policy requirements and consequences of non-compliance
- Classification or revision of parties’ roles and duties (47%)
- Meeting with affected persons to provide feedback on investigation findings (41%)
Other common individual interventions implemented include ongoing coaching offered to parties
for monitoring progress and providing support, informal facilitated discussion between parties,
mediation between parties and changes in parties’ reporting lines.
These interventions were generally reported to address the specific matters of the dispute, to
improve team culture and dynamics and to reduce the risk of future misconduct, but had little
reported effect on organisational-wide culture and dynamics.
16
Figure 3. The effectiveness of individual interventions in addressing individual, team, organisational
and risk issues.
The most effective individual interventions reported by organisations included ongoing
check-in meetings with parties, open and frank discussion between managers and employees,
clarification of roles and responsibilities and restructuring where required.
Most organisations reported no barriers to implementing effective individual interventions
(75%). Some organisations reported a lack of human resources, insufficient time or skills to
implement the intervention, a lack of commitment to change and the intervention regarded as a low
priority at the time.
Team interventions
90% of the team interventions which were implemented following the investigation undertaken
as a direct result of the complaint and/or investigation. The most common team interventions
included:
- Restructure, including change in or clarification of roles (44%)
- Coaching (44%) and training (44%) offered to supervisor or manager
- Training offered to whole team (33%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Me
etin
g w
ith a
ffecte
d p
ers
on
s to
pro
vid
e feedback
Me
etin
g w
ith r
esp
ondent to
com
munic
ate
exp
ecta
tio
ns
Me
etin
g w
ith c
om
pla
inant to
com
munic
ate
exp
ecta
tio
ns
One-o
ff s
kill
s tra
inin
g o
ffere
d to
part
ies
Ongoin
g c
onstr
uctive c
oachin
goffere
d to p
art
ies
One-o
ff p
olic
y tra
inin
g for
responde
nt
Access to c
ounselli
ng s
erv
ices
offere
d to a
ffecte
d p
ers
ons
Info
rma
l fa
cili
tate
d d
iscussio
nbetw
een p
art
ies
Me
dia
tio
n b
etw
een p
art
ies
Cla
rificatio
n o
r re
vis
ion o
f part
ies'
role
s/d
utie
s
Revis
ion o
f part
ies’ w
ork
dutie
s
Revis
ion o
f part
ies’ w
ork
load
Change in
part
ies’ re
port
ing lin
es
Relo
ca
tio
n o
f one p
art
y to d
iffe
rent
depart
me
nt
Fo
rma
l w
arn
ing issu
ed to r
esponden
t
Te
rmin
atio
n o
f re
spo
ndent
Oth
er
Other
Re
sp
on
se
co
un
t
Individual issues
Team issues
Organisationalissues
Reduced risk offuture misconduct
17
Other common team interventions reported were revision of workload for certain people in the
team and increased number or changed format of regular team meetings. No organisations reported
introducing regular team-building activities, although 11% of organisations reported conducting a
one-off team building activity.
These interventions were generally reported to address the specific matters of the dispute,
improve team culture and dynamics and reduce the risk of future misconduct. Restructuring of roles
and coaching of manager or supervisor was also reported to improve organisation wide culture and
dynamics, although other team interventions had little effect on organisational-wide culture and
dynamics.
Figure 4. The effectiveness of team interventions in addressing individual, team, organisational and
risk issues.
The most effective team interventions reported were changes in structures and reporting lines,
the termination of respondent or complainant, coaching of managers and supervisors and team
building activities.
67% of organisations reported there being no barriers to implementing team interventions.
Numerous organisations reported a lack of human resources, insufficient time, lack of financial
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tra
inin
g o
ffere
d to
supe
rvis
or/
man
age
r
Co
achin
g o
ffere
d to
supe
rvis
or/
man
age
r
Perf
orm
ance m
ana
gem
ent
for
supe
rvis
or/
man
age
r
Re
str
uctu
re: chan
ge in o
rcla
rification
of
role
s
Re
vis
ion
of w
ork
load
for
cert
ain
pe
ople
Perf
orm
ance m
ana
gem
ent
for
oth
er
pe
ople
One
-off te
am
-bu
ildin
g a
ctivity
Re
gula
r te
am
-bu
ildin
g a
ctivitie
s
Incre
ase
d n
um
ber/
ch
ang
ed
form
at o
f te
am
mee
tin
gs
Ch
ang
e in p
urp
ose/fo
cu
s o
fte
am
mee
tin
gs
Tra
inin
g o
ffere
d to w
hole
te
am
Oth
er
o
Response c
ount Individual issues
Team issues
Organisational issues
Reduced risk offuture misconduct
18
resources, lack of commitment to change and the intervention being regarded as low priority as being
barriers to implementation of team interventions.
Policy interventions
Only 16% of policy interventions were reported to be implemented as a direct result of the
complaint or investigation. Most policy interventions were reported as being implemented
independent of the investigation. The following were the most common policy interventions:
- Bullying (88%)
- Complaints handling procedure (63%)
- Whistle-blower procedure (50%)
- Grievance procedure (50%)
Other common policy interventions included sexual harassment, discrimination, flexible
work/carers, performance management, conflict of interest, occupational health and safety, fraud and
social media. Occupational violence and promotion policies were not implemented by any
organisations surveyed.
These interventions were generally reported to address the specific matters of the dispute and
reduce the risk of future misconduct, but few policy interventions were reported as improving team
or organisation-wide culture and dynamics of the workplace. Grievance procedures were the only
intervention reported to improve team culture and dynamics, and performance management was the
only intervention reported to improve organisation-wide culture and dynamics.
19
Figure 5. The effectiveness of policy interventions in addressing individual, team, organisational and
risk issues.
A small number of policy interventions were developed following the investigation, including
conflict of interest, fraud, social media, and confidentiality and proper use of information. Most
interventions were simply revised following the investigation. 53% of the interventions were
communicated to employees following intervention development or revision.
The most effective policy interventions reported were reminding staff of respectful workplace
behaviours and what constitutes bullying, presentations given by human resources, and improved
grievance procedures.
Most organisations reported no barriers to implementing these policy interventions (64%).
Barriers that were mentioned include lack of commitment to change, the intervention not considered
a priority, insufficient time, a lack of human resources and relationships with unions and
representatives.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6B
ully
ing
Occu
patio
na
l vio
len
ce
Se
xu
al h
ara
ssm
en
t
Dis
crim
ina
tion
Fle
xib
le w
ork
/ca
rers
Co
nflic
t o
f in
tere
st
OH
S
Em
plo
ye
e w
ellb
ein
g
Inclu
sio
n
Div
ers
ity
Re
cru
itm
ent
an
d s
ele
ction
Pro
mo
tio
n
Pe
rform
an
ce m
an
age
men
t
Pro
cu
rem
ent
Fra
ud
Co
mp
ute
r u
se
and
IT
So
cia
l m
ed
ia
Pri
va
cy
Co
nfid
enta
ility
Com
pla
ints
han
dlin
g p
roce
dure
Gri
eva
nce
pro
ced
ure
Wh
istle
blo
we
r pro
ced
ure
I
Re
sp
on
se
co
un
t
Individual issues
Team issues
Organisational issues
Reduced risk of futuremisconduct
20
Organisation-wide interventions
75% of organisation-wide interventions which were implemented following the investigation
were a direct result of the complaint or investigation. The most common organisation-wide
intervention was:
- Introduced compulsory leadership training for executive managers (29%)
Other reported organisation-wide implementations included development of organisational
values, communication of organisational values to all staff, increased/improved training to all staff in
relation to expectations of appropriate behaviour, introduced/improved performance management
process, introduced compulsory management training for middle managers, implementation of a
culture review, and change in structure and reporting lines.
These interventions were generally reported to address the specific matters of the dispute,
improve team and organisation-wide culture and dynamics and reduce the risk of future misconduct.
Figure 6. The effectiveness of organisational interventions in addressing individual, team,
organisational and risk issues.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Develo
pm
ent of
org
anis
atio
nal valu
es
Am
endm
ent of org
anis
ationa
l valu
es
Com
munic
atio
n o
f org
anis
atio
nal valu
es
Incre
ased/im
pro
ve
d tra
inin
g to a
ll sta
ff -
appro
pria
te b
ehavio
urs
Incre
ased/im
pro
ve
d tra
inin
g to a
ll sta
ff -
oth
er
expecta
tio
ns
Intr
od
uction o
f re
gula
r em
plo
yee a
ttitud
esurv
eys
Intr
od
uction o
f gene
ral w
ellb
ein
gin
itia
tives
Intr
od
uction o
f E
mplo
ye
e A
ssis
tance
Pro
gra
m/c
ounselli
ng
Imple
me
nte
d a
cultura
l re
vie
w
Intr
od
uced/im
pro
ved/e
mpow
ere
d the H
Rfu
nction
Intr
od
uced/im
pro
ved a
perf
orm
ance
ma
nagem
ent pro
ce
ss
Intr
od
uced c
om
puls
ory
le
aders
hip
tra
inin
gfo
r executive m
anage
rs
Intr
od
uced c
om
puls
ory
ma
nagem
ent
train
ing for
mid
dle
managers O
ther
i
Resp
on
se
co
un
t
Individual issues
Team issues
Organisational issues
Reduced risk of futuremisconduct
21
The most effective organisation-wide interventions reported were implementation of a culture
review and awareness training at employee induction. Interestingly, a culture review reported
resulted in the termination of several employees, which notably improved the workplace culture.
Most organisations reported no barriers preventing the implementation of organisation-wide
interventions (78%). Some reported barriers included insufficient time, lack of commitment to
change, lack of human resources and lack of financial resources (predominantly a strain on financial
resources).
22
Discussion
Overall, the results revealed that the investigations conducted by Worklogic more often than
not resulted in the implementation of interventions at the individual, team and organisational level.
Interventions at the policy level were revised but very few organisations implemented new policy
interventions, which may suggest a level of inflexibility to make changes at this level. In general, the
types of interventions tended to reflect the literature, although traditional interventions (such as
counselling, meetings, training) were more popular than more contemporary intervention (such as
health promotion and empowerment). In light of this, less than a quarter of the organisations reported
the respondent or complainant resigning following the investigation, reflecting the use of alternative
interventions to resolve the issue.
The most common individual interventions, including counselling, meeting with parties,
revising work duties and providing investigation feedback, aligned with past research on effective
individual interventions. These methods reflect a less formal approach to intervention that is
conducive to understanding the sentiments of both parties involved. Counselling is an important
intervention to address the personal issues of the parties involved and addresses both the emotions of
the individuals as well as other influential factors such as stress and low job satisfaction. Meeting
with both parties emphasises a degree of procedural fairness and a lack of alienation, and the
ongoing nature of such meetings reflects the importance of continued support rather than one-off
intervention. Revision of work duties appropriately reflects consideration of the individuals’ abilities
and workload and feeds into stress management. Formal approaches to interventions, such as issuing
formal warnings and relocation or termination of parties were far less common and potentially reflect
the increased flexibility of management to manage conflict through other means. The most effective
interventions suggested by participants were those which promoted open discussion amongst parties
involved and clarification of duties, which seemingly aligns with the literature’s preference for
workplaces with an open platform for communication.
Individual interventions tended to have an effect at the individual and team level, however, it
appeared that these interventions had little impact on improving the culture of the organisation. This
may suggest that the availability of such interventions in the organisation is not widely known or
publicised in the company. In addition, the size of the organisation may reflect the insignificance of
individual interventions at the organisational level.
Most organisations found few barriers to implementing individual interventions, which
suggests interventions at this level for the most part are achievable. A lack of human resources was a
23
potential barrier which may suggest that in organisations where a human resources department is
absent, managers may be ill-equipped or poorly trained to manage conflict at this personal level.
One-off training was more widely implemented than ongoing training, which is of slight concern,
considering the importance stressed by the literature as to the need for continuous interventions at all
levels.
The most frequent interventions seen at the team level were restructuring or clarification of
roles, and coaching and training offered to both managers and the whole team. This strongly aligns
with the literature that suggests team training is vital for reducing incidences of bullying and
increasing awareness on what is and is not acceptable. It was reassuring to see that training for
managers was also widely reported, as managers tend to be the pivotal player in promoting change in
the organisation. Notably, performance management, a key formal intervention in correcting an
individual’s conduct in the workplace, was rarely reported. This could indicate that the organisation
did not view the alleged misconduct (whether proven or not), and/or the complainant’s conduct, as
warranting corrective action in the ‘performance’ sense. Furthermore, one-off team building
activities were reported (although not frequently), yet ongoing or repeated team building was not
reported in any of the organisations. This is of some concern, as improving team dynamics is key in
developing strong work relationships and a cohesive team environment – both direct deterrents of
bullying behaviours. Particularly, the lack of regular team activities suggests a potential lack of
commitment to improving workplace culture at a team level. Despite this, the organisations that did
engage in team building activities suggested that they were amongst the most effective, illustrating
the central role of improving team cohesion in the workplace. Other effective interventions were
changes in structures and reporting lines and interestingly, the termination of the respondent or
complainant. This seemed to be of greater impact at the team level rather than the individual level,
suggesting that a party may be more likely to have their employment terminated if their behaviour is
influencing the team.
The team interventions tended to have an impact at the individual and team levels but lacked
a substantial impact at the organisational level. Coaching of managers and restructuring team roles
did seem to improve organisational culture which reflects the integral role managers have at all
levels of interventions.
Whilst many organisations had no issue implementing team interventions, several reported
insufficient time or a lack of human resources as barriers to intervention. A lack of commitment and
financial resources were also mentioned, suggesting that interventions at a team level require a
24
greater commitment from the organisation and often come at a greater cost. Considering the
importance of team activities and team relationships in the functioning of a healthy environment, it
would be worthwhile for the organisations to weigh up the cost and time of such interventions
against their proven effectiveness.
Very few of the policy interventions reported to be implemented were done as a direct result
of the investigation. This may be due to a lack of flexibility in introducing such policies or a
disregard of such policies’ importance. Many policies were revised, however, following intervention,
which suggests that perhaps important policies were already in place and hence did not require
implementation. Interestingly, of those interventions that were implemented or revised, nearly half
were not communicated to staff following the intervention. This is of some concern, as policies
regarding poor workplace behaviours will have limited effect on the organisation if they are not
known to all.
Nearly all organisations reported having bullying procedures in place, which is positive,
considering the overwhelming support for such policies in the literature. Other policies reported were
relatively standard in nature, and included complaints handling procedures, whistle-blower
procedures and grievance procedures. Unfortunately, there were very few policies related to
employee empowerment, such as inclusion, employee wellbeing, diversity, recruitment and
selection, promotion, and privacy. Recent literature proposes the importance of a humanistic values
system in the workplace and stresses the value of mutual respect and support for employees. It is
possible, however, that these measures are in place but are not considered official ‘policies’ of the
organisation and hence have not been reported here. The most effective policy interventions were
reminding staff of appropriate workplace behaviours and what constitutes bullying – which further
exemplifies the importance of communicating policies to staff. Presentations by human resource
departments were also reported to be effective interventions, highlighting the central role of HR in
improving organisational culture.
Policy interventions were important in improving dynamics at the individual level and in
reducing the risk of future misconduct. However, they were reported to have little effect on
improving the team or organisational culture and dynamics, which is most likely as a result of the
lack of health-related policies reported to have been implemented.
The majority of organisations reported no barriers to implementing/revising the policy
interventions. Some barriers reported including a lack of priority and commitment to change, which
is reflected in the inflexibility of many organisations towards policy change. Interestingly,
25
relationships with the union/representatives were reported to be a barrier in implementing policy
change and is a consideration worth noting as this may be an under-reported occurrence.
Finally, the most common organisational intervention implemented was the introduction of
compulsory leadership training for executive managers. Other common interventions included
development and communication of organisational values, improved training about appropriate
behaviours, better performance management processes, change in structure and reporting lines and
cultural reviews. The implementation of leadership training well aligns with the literature which
suggests good leadership can create a healthy workplace environment and poor leadership can
actually promote bullying behaviours. Furthermore, the development of better management
processes and changes in organisation structure further reflect the key role management plays in
improving the culture of a workplace, and in particular, the significance of having emotionally aware
individuals in management positions. The most effective organisational interventions were reported
to be culture reviews and awareness training which suggests the importance of an organisational
approach in issues that may stem from individual conflict. Interestingly, the culture review resulted
in the termination of several employees, which was reported to drastically improve workplace
culture. This is primary evidence of the importance of such organisational interventions in revealing
issues in the workplace that otherwise may not have come to light.
Organisational interventions were reported to improve all levels of the workplace and also
reduce the risk of future misconduct, highlighting the integral role of organisational level
intervention in workplace bullying matters.
Most organisations reported no barriers to the implementation of organisational interventions.
Some mentioned barriers included costs, insufficient time, lack of commitment to change and lack of
human resources, although these were minor issues, and the cost of such interventions was deemed
appropriate for improvement in workplace culture that resulted.
Overall, it is clear that whilst many organisations are headed in the right direction and are
taking various actions to tackle poor behaviours in the workplace, greater flexibility would be
substantial in improving the culture and dynamics of organisations following an investigation.
Furthermore, greater emphasis on team interventions and on empowering individuals in the
organisation, would assist in improved job satisfaction and work ethic (resulting in lower rates of
bullying). It would also empower individuals to stand up against bullying behaviours and promote a
more open and positive workplace culture, which is fundamental for a healthy workplace
environment.
26
References
Allison, S., & Bastiampillai, T. (2016). Workplace bullying in Australia: Recruiting ethical leaders is
an important public health measure. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
50, 1104-1105. doi: 10.1177/0004867416670523
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Managing performance: performance management in action.
Wimbledon: CIPD publishing.
Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and
organisational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.286
Beale, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: Exploring
questions of prevention, control and context. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 5-18. doi:
10.1177/0950017010389228
Beirne, M., & Hunter, P. (2013). Workplace bullying and the challenge of pre-emptive management.
Personnel Review, 42, 595-612. doi: 10.1108/PR-07-2012-0105
Cicerali, L. K., & Cicerali, E. E. (2016). A qualitative study on how Swedish organisations deal with
workplace bullying. Nordic Psychology, 68, 87-99. doi: 10.1080/19012276.2015.1071198
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerial HRM and
bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33, 269-288.
doi: 10.1108/01425451111121777
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organisational approaches
to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: ADR and training. Counselling Psychology
Journal, 61, 220-241. doi: 10.1037/a0016637
Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2011). Bad Apples: Identify, prevent and manage negative behaviour at
work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27
Grawitch, M. J., Ballard, D. W., & Erb, K. R. (2015). To be or not to be (stressed): The critical role
of a psychologically healthy workplace in effective stress management. Stress and Health,
31, 264-273. doi: 10.1002/smi.2619
Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S. & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Workplace bullying and incivility: A
systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
7, 54-72. doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-08-2013-0030
Hutchinson, M., & Hurley, J. (2013). Exploring leadership capability and emotional intelligence as
moderators of workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 553-562. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01372.x
Jameson, J. K., Bodtker, A. M., & Linker, T. (2010). Facilitating conflict transformation: Mediator
strategies for eliciting emotional communication in a workplace conflict. Negotiation
Journal, 26, 25-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00252.x
Marsh, T. (2013). Businesses urged to kick bad habits. The Safety and Health Practitioner, 31, 28.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A318915561&v=2.1
&u=monash&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
O’Rourke, A., & Antioch, S. K. (2016). Workplace bullying laws in Australia: Placebo or panacea?
Common Law World Review, 45, 3-26. doi: 10.1177/1473779515625009
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the
roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50,
351-366. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x
Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multi-level approach. European Journal
of Work and Organisation Psychology, 19, 51-75. doi: 10.1080/13594320802651403
Salin, D. (2008a). Organisational responses to workplace harassment. Personnel Review, 38, 26-44.
doi: 10.1108/00483480910920697
28
Salin, D. (2008b). The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource
management: Measures adopted and underlying organisational factors. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 24, 221-231. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2008.04.004
Saundry, R., Jones, C., & Wibberley, G. (2015). The challenges of managing informally. Employee
Relations, 37, 428-441. doi: 10.1108/HRMID-10-2015-0157
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness
of laissez-faire leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 80-92.
doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Strandmark, M., & Rahm, G. (2014). Development, implementation and evaluation of a process to
prevent and combat workplace bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42, 66-73.
doi: 10.1177/1403494814549494
Tavanti, M. (2011). Managing toxic leaders: Dysfunctional patterns in organisational leadership and
how to deal with them. Human Resources Management, 6, 127-135. doi:
10.4135/9781446286357
Van Heugten, K. (2011). Theorising active bystanders as change agents in workplace bullying of
social workers. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 92, 219-224. doi:
10.1606/1044-3894.4090