 | | Lisa Hughes
Senior Research Associate
Leadership and Human Resources Research |
Employment in the public service has gone through many incarnations. For Traditionalists, government employment guaranteed a secure, tenured position that cradled the workforce well into retirement. For Boomers, it represented much the same promise, despite the cutbacks incurred through the 1990s.
This façade was tarnished somewhat in recent years, however, under increasing layoffs, job cuts, and pension reform. And with news this past week of harassment rife in the federal public service, the once rosy picture of government employment has perhaps taken on a whole new dimension for current and future employees.
Although in the spotlight at present, the public sector does not by any means face such allegations alone. Research suggests that three-quarters of those surveyed have witnessed workplace harassment at some point in their careers, and close to half of those surveyed have themselves been victims of harassment while on the job. Data has long shown that harassment often precedes physical violence, highlighting the importance of early detection and effective management.
Workplace harassment has been defined as a “course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known, or ought reasonably to be known to be, unwelcome.” This may include “hostile or unwanted conduct” and/or “verbal comments, actions or gestures” that affect an employee’s “dignity” or “psychological integrity.” Four Canadian provinces — Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and most recently Ontario — now legally distinguish workplace harassment, and a private member’s bill proposing amendments to deal with psychological harassment under the Canada Labour Code is currently at the first reading stage before Parliament.
For employers the costs associated with harassment include not only the human costs of victimization, but the financial fallouts that result from lost productivity and health costs associated with helping employees recover. This is in addition to the adverse reputational effects that our federal government is currently experiencing as a result of recent media reports of workplace harassment. There are also operational implications for employers, some of which are, in many regions, reinforced by legislation. These include:
- periodic assessment of the risks associated with psychologically harmful workplace behaviors
- heightened awareness of the early warning signs and the actions necessary to curb escalation
- the provision of professional assistance service options
- clear communication of behavioural expectations
- action plans for prevention, effective intervention, leadership, and response
For both employers and employees alike, an increasing awareness of the working environments in which the risk of harassment is greater, is paramount, because both victims and perpetrators are oftentimes otherwise highly performing individuals. Research shows that high-risk working conditions include environments characterized by the following:
- interpersonal conflicts or incompatible relationships between two or more individuals
- frequent labour-management disputes
- the perception of mistreatment among individuals
- abusive supervisory leadership behaviours
Such working conditions are not only acknowledged – as media reports pertaining to the federal public service show – but are oftentimes condoned by organizations. The rise in employee assistance plan (EAP) referrals, third party mediations and interventions, and the increasing use of counseling services in recent years all bear testament to this workplace reality.
Has harassment cost you, as an employee, team member, manager, or employer? The now tarnished sheen coating the federal public service shows the corrosive power and high costs workplace harassment imposes on us all.