The fourth of the frequent mistakes managers make is confusing between “intent” and “impact”.

Impact refers to the ways in which a person (or persons) is negatively affected by the actions of another individual or group (The Source). Intent describes The Source’s motive and intentions when initiating the action’s that offended or hurt the impacted person.

It is quite common for someone in the workplace to cause offence or humiliation to another person without ever intending any harm. We make a comment that somehow is taken the wrong way or we crack a joke that is perceived by someone as offensive. Or perhaps we compliment someone on something (“hey, you’ve lost tons of weight!”) and they experience our actions as degrading.

When the victim goes to management with an informal or formal harassment complaint, the manager will often make the mistake of confusing intent and impact: he may minimize the weight he places on the impact of the events on the victim simply because the source harboured no mal-intent. His thinking may go along the following lines: It’s just a misunderstanding. George meant no harm and Monique misunderstood his intent. Therefore all I need to do is explain this to her and make her feel better. Talking to George about the instance might make him feel really bad. That would be counter-productive and besides, it may make me look like I’m over-reacting to a harmless situation.

When a person comes forth to complain that they suffered negative impact (and assuming their complaint is reasonable), it is the manager’s responsibility to take corrective action. The very fact that something caused a harassment-type impact is the single most important determinant requiring an organizational response.

The nature and severity of the corrective action will be determined by the intent.

Making the common mistake of confusing between these two distinct concepts will lead the managers to refrain from taking appropriate action to address problem situations. The result can be an escalation in the level of the complaint or a detrimental effect on the victim and the work environment.

For further discussion of this issue, I invite you review the two-part Harassment: Intent vs. Impact entry at : Harassment: Intent vs. Impact (1) and Harassment: Intent vs. Impact (2)

Here’s the full list of mistakes:

• Harassment Mistake #1: Failing to Be Proactive
• Harassment Mistake #2: Bad Modeling
• Harassment Mistake #3: Afraid to Take a Stand
• Harassment Mistake #4: Confusing Intent and Impact
• Harassment Mistake #5: Taking the Wrong Action
• Harassment Mistake #6: Mishandling Complaints
• Harassment Mistake #7: Going It Alone

If your team or organization needs help or just to stay in touch, contact us anytime.

The third of the seven most common managers’ harassment-related mistakes is a manager’s reluctance to take a clear anti-harassment stance when such a position is needed. Recently a very senior person at an organization where I did some harassment-related work confided in me: “sometimes the guys talk amongst themselves and they use such rough language that even I cringe”.

So what is the problem here? Simply put, this leader made the mistake of being afraid to act. While experiencing a physical reaction to the behaviours in question, he did not take a stance (in public or in private) that would clarify for all involved that this type of language was unacceptable in this place of work. As a result, these phenomena persist, exposing the organization to the risk of its brand perception being damaged if the behaviours are observed by customers as well as to potential harassment complaints.

It is very common, especially in mid-management circles, for managers to feel reluctant to take a stance. Various fears and problematic internal voices seem to readily kick in and paralyze the leader. Some of these fears include: fear of being perceived as overly politically correct, of taking a situation too seriously or lacking a sense of humour, concerns about trying to change a culture that is too deeply embedded or a primal anxiety about not being liked.

Yes, these fears are human. They are understandable. Still, people who choose to be in leadership are inherently charged with rising above their fear in order to create and sustain a harassment-free environment. To be afraid to act is a mistake; in fact it may verge on abdicating your management responsibility. To overcome this fear is to grow. It is to become a mature leader.

Here’s the full list of mistakes:

• Harassment Mistake #1: Failing to Be Proactive
• Harassment Mistake #2: Bad Modeling
• Harassment Mistake #3: Afraid to Take a Stand
• Harassment Mistake #4: Confusing Intent and Impact
• Harassment Mistake #5: Taking the Wrong Action
• Harassment Mistake #6: Mishandling Complaints
• Harassment Mistake #7: Going It Alone

If your team or organization needs help or just to stay in touch, contact us anytime.

The previous blog discussed the first of 7 common mistakes made by managers in the harassment arena, failing to be proactive. Let us examine now the second mistake: setting a bad example.

Whatever you do as a leader, whether you are aware of it or not, sets a tone and model for others. This is particularly true in the area of maintaining a respectful workplace. Managers who practice disrespect or lack in professionalism send a clear meta-message: they are conveying a sense that in their work environment certain behaviours are tolerated and condoned.

If you are in a leadership position, you may be reading this you may be saying to yourself:  I’m not one of those who make this particular mistake. Well, before you swiftly come to this conclusion, ask yourself the following questions (and, please, try to answer honestly):

• Have you laughed at a joke but somewhere in your gut felt uncomfortable about it?
• Have you talked about a colleague critically in the presence of others?
• Have you made an “off colour” joke lately?
• Have you walked by people without acknowledging them?
• Have you made a gender-focused condescending “spouse comment”, even if only behind closed doors?
• Have you reprimanded someone with a display of real anger?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above, you may want to change some of these behaviours.
Managers often make this mistake and they allow themselves to model behaviours which, at the very least, could contribute to the creation of a poisoned work environment or, in worse cases, set a tone of a free-for-all work environment.

When managers model disrespectful or even bullying behaviours, two highly undesirable consequences will likely occur: first, other people will feel free to behave in similar ways, the work environment will deteriorate and people will not be able to perform at their best. Second, more serious cases of harassment will not be brought reported since people will not trust that management will handle them fairly. This of course can lead to more serious problems for both the organization and the manager.

The best way to avoid this mistake is to make sure that at all times (even behind closed doors and even in the presence of trusted colleagues) one is modeling the highest standards of behaviours.

Here’s the full list of mistakes:

• Harassment Mistake #1: Failing to Be Proactive
• Harassment Mistake #2: Bad Modeling
• Harassment Mistake #3: Afraid to Take a Stand
• Harassment Mistake #4: Confusing Intent and Impact
• Harassment Mistake #5: Taking the Wrong Action
• Harassment Mistake #6: Mishandling Complaints
• Harassment Mistake #7: Going It Alone

If your team or organization needs help or just to stay in touch, contact us anytime.

Harassment in all its forms both blatant and subtle can, in many cases, be prevented if leaders are diligent in dealing with it. Unfortunately this is not always the case.  These lapses can be costly for the organization in terms of productivity, customer service, retention, morale and absenteeism.

My experience has highlighted that managers tend to make predictable mistakes in this arena. Over the next several weeks I will highlight the top seven most common mistakes that leaders inadvertently make.

The first and most common mistake occurs when a manager thinks that his/her duty to take action kicks in only when someone has come forth with a complaint or when the harassment is blatant and clearly damaging. They therefore do not take action in situations that seem victimless or in situations where no complaint has been brought to their attention.

Classic examples in this regard occur in instances where inappropriate jokes or racial/minority inferences are made, or where coarse language is used. The tendency here is for a manager to think along the lines of:  well, no one around here is of that minority so no one is offended, or,  this is how guys talk amongst themselves , or  this is how it’s always been around here, it’s too difficult to change it.

Most managers end up procrastinating or ignoring situations for too long. And the price, as mentioned earlier, can be heavy.

Has this happened to YOU? Have you refrained from taking action proactively or been in an organization where the leadership took a passive approach to these matters? What have you done about it? What can you differently as early as today?

Here’s the full list of mistakes:

• Harassment Mistake #1: Failing to Be Proactive
• Harassment Mistake #2: Bad Modeling
• Harassment Mistake #3: Afraid to Take a Stand
• Harassment Mistake #4: Confusing Intent and Impact
• Harassment Mistake #5: Taking the Wrong Action
• Harassment Mistake #6: Mishandling Complaints
• Harassment Mistake #7: Going It Alone

If your team or organization needs help or just to stay in touch, contact us anytime.

In the previous blog entry I promised to address the following question: as a manager, how do you appropriately address in public a behaviour which is disrespectful and possibly harassing? (The premise was that when it comes to behaviours that impact on a person’s dignity or create a poisoned work environment, what’s done in public is corrected in public).
Generally, the objectives of any intervention in public should be: a) send a clear `this is not alright’ message to both the `source’ and to the observers; b) maintain everyone’s sense of dignity and c) reduce the probability that the behaviour will repeat itself by anyone is future
To achieve these objectives, the quick and laser-like response is best.
If the problem behaviour is relatively mild, a simple comment will suffice: “George, this kind of joking is not congruent with our culture”, or: “Mary, let’s not engage in these kinds of comments; they’re not appropriate and can be hurtful”.
If the situation is more severe, a more rigorous response is called for. In this case, I recommend considering invoking the word `harassment’ or a specific mention of the Harassment Policy itself. For example: “George, this type of talk degrades people and is unacceptable here. In fact, what you’ve just said is covered under the company’s harassment policy”, or: “Mary, as an organization we expect everyone to treat each other with respect. Comments that label specific groups of people create a poisoned environment and should not be made here under any circumstances”.
In any of these interventions, keep your tone very business-like and to the point. Don’t debate the facts. Don’t sound apologetic nor humorous; both these approaches will take away from the power of your message.
Reading the above, you may have realized that following these recommendations is not as simple to implement as it may sound. There will be many internal voices inside your head telling you to take no action or to delay action or to act in private. Remember that if you listen to these voices, you are actively contributing to a poisoned work environment.

A true story relayed to me recently: an employee was berated by another department’s supervisor for being late on completing a task. The event took place in the office corridor where other people could clearly overhear the exchange.
The victim’s manager happened to pass by. She told the berating supervisor that this matter will be sorted out in private and diffused the situation. Later, in private, she told that supervisor never to speak again in this manner to the employee in question.
Consider: did this manager deal with the situation correctly?
Well, only partially.
Managers are taught that correcting behaviour must take place in private; this has become second nature to most (good) leaders. But when it comes to behaviours which threaten a person’s sense of psychological integrity or to any other behaviour which significantly poisons the work environment (offensive jokes, for example), the rule governing corrective action is the exact opposite: what is done in public needs to be corrected in public.
Why correct in public what’s done in public? Because if you don’t, you are essentially condoning the behaviour. By not taking action, you are actively creating a culture that allows these things to happen. Those observing will leave the arena knowing that no protection is available in this type of situation. Furthermore, in a situation such as above, where the observing group is comprised of a random configuration, it is important to respond on the spot (as difficult as this may seem): you will never have another chance to address this same unique configuration of people again.
And since it’s not easy to take action under these circumstances, look for the next blog entry for a discussion of how exactly to respond under these conditions.