Let’s return to the sensitive issue of speaking a foreign language on the job, during break, in the presence of colleagues who don’t speak that language. I refer here to conversations where someone who is sharing a space with those speaking the other language has no sense of what coworkers are talking about with one another. I’m not referring to situations such as colleagues pleasantly chatting in, say, Spanish, in an otherwise empty lunchroom, or where a person is conversing on the phone in Polish with their elderly mom. I’m also not referring here to the occasional greeting or very quick exchange, which come naturally to those of us of the same background whenever we interact with one another, before we realize that there’s someone around who does not understand and might feel excluded. And I am not referring to workplaces where english is not a requirement of the job and where most people speak little or no English.

As someone who is an immigrant myself, and who is never completely comfortable in English (to this day I take all notes in my mother tongue), I understand firsthand the challenges of sticking to English with members of my culture, and am personally and acutely aware of the multi-dimensionality of this issue. So please bear with me as we embark on a longer-than-usual blog entry this once. After all, it’s a complex matter, even emotional for some. It’s situated on the intersecting point of hot-button issues such as human rights, civility, inclusion and an employer’s duty to provide a healthy work environment – to name a few.

Last time we left off saying that many employers use incomplete lenses when they examine this matter, which leads them to unsatisfactory results. These lenses can be described as falling within two clusters:

Cluster 1: Should we – and can we – limit foreign languages in the workplace?
Cluster 2: If we decide to place limitations, how should we go about doing so?

So, lets look at ‘Cluster 1’. Here are some prevalent lenses that employers use to answer the “should we, can we”:

• Speaking a second language is part of free expression – we cannot limit it without running the risk of a human rights complaint.
• ‘Diversity’ means that everyone should be able to express their cultural heritage in the workplace, and language is an important part of that.
• When English-speakers use their language at break, they are in that moment ‘language privileged’ in that they can truly relax in the comfort of their mother tongue. Second-language speakers should be able to enjoy the same privilege.
• An employer cannot intervene in what people do on their time, even if on the employer’s premises.
• Taking a stance against speaking a foreign language amounts to policing, which infringes on people’s human rights.

The above lenses frame the issue predominantly as a ‘human rights’ or a ‘diversity’ matter. And yes, our dilemma here does touch on these two issues. However, to conclude that people have an absolute right to speak their language at work ignores the fact that many of the human rights that we celebrate in a democratic society are limited (if not totally non-existent) in the workplace. This is because no right is absolute – all rights are continuously weighed against other rights which may trump them in certain contexts.

And what about the ‘diversity’ lens? well, a truly diverse environment is one where there’s some give-and-take so that everyone can feel included and safe, whether they are members of a privileged group or not.

Here’s what’s missing: absent are the lenses of Inclusion, Civility, Community and Performance. In the matter of speaking a foreign language at work, I believe that these lenses trump the ‘right’ to speak a foreign language in the presence of colleagues who do not speak that language.

The Inclusion lens means that human interactions in the workplace are inclusive.

The Civility lens means that people in the workplace abide by the most basic rules of common courtesy and ‘playing nicely in the sandbox’, which, frankly, are tenets of any culture worldwide.

The Community lens enables people to function in an environment where everyone works toward common goals and the common good.

And the Performance lens enables employers to create the conditions where everyone can perform at their best because their performance is not hampered by skewed team dynamics or excessive stress hormones triggered in their body. (The effect of ostracism on the brain and on people’s well-being has a meaningful effect on people’s ability to perform on the job.)

For those who wish to speak that second-language, shifting to English does not amount to what is often referred to as ‘undue hardship’*. On the other hand, if they do speak that other language, this practice marginalizes those who do not speak that language.

Over time, as I had learned all-too-often from the many situations that have come to my attention through Bar-David Consulting’s organizational clients and through workshop participants, exclusionary language practices create friction amongst team members along cultural and heritage lines — they jeopardize the delicate balance that is inherent in maintaining a diverse workplace and calcify the boundaries between diverse groups. Under the umbrellas of ‘diversity’ and ‘human rights’, these practices erode civility, community, and performance.

An organization is fully within its rights to place inclusion, civility, community and performance as overarching values and to embed these lenses into its practices. When an organization takes a well-thought-out stance that is applied across the board and is genuinely intended to enable everyone to feel part of the work environment whether on shift or on break, it is not in violation of anyone’s human rights, nor does it meander into counter-diversity terrain. This is all the more true when the implementation of these lenses is done in inclusionary ways that involve as many employees as possible in meaningful dialogue (and buy-in) related to this issue.

Don’t hesitate to get in touch for any need or exploration with which we might assist you.

* Except for in the case of a workplace where English is not required for the job and demanding its use would indeed create hardship for new immigrants

Looking back with 20-20 honesty, which of the following three no-no’s were you guilty of when you first became a leader?

Many freshly minted leaders fall into unhelpful patterns that will boomerang over time. They don’t realize that maintaining a respectful and civil work environment is crucial to their team’s performance (and in fact also to the very way they are perceived as leaders). Here are three sink-or-swim no-no’s:

1. Don’t succumb to New Supervisor Confusion Disease.  Your unmitigated allegiance is now to the organization. Don’t get confused by the belief that you can maintain your old friendships as if nothing had changed. If you are ‘friends’ with some of your employees and visibly show it, that will inevitably create the impression of favouritism and exclusion. When people feel excluded, their body secretes stress hormones, their concentration is compromised and the pain centre in the brain’s Anterior Cingulate Cortex gets activates. None of this is good news for anyone involved (including yourself).  Remember that in your new role, it is your responsibility and privilege to create a civil work environment where everyone can perform at their best, free of anything that compromises their dignity.
2. Forget about the popularity contest. When you take on a leadership role, it’s no longer about being liked, it’s about being respected. As a leader you must take actions that will decrease your popularity in the short term, but over the long term will earn your workers’ respect. This is especially true if you were promoted from within the team, because you will need to deal head-on with many of the problematic behaviours that you had observed while you were an ordinary teammate. Bottom line, being liked is nice-to-have, but being respected is the must-have. If you want to be popular, get that need met elsewhere.
3. Clear the decks or else. Many newly appointed leaders walk into a team culture that has sanctioned uncivil and even low-level harassment behaviours. Cliques, gossip, eye-rolling, belittling others’ opinions, sarcasm, foul language and off-colour jokes are some examples. You’ll need to take action on these immediately (even if it means embarking on those unpleasant performance management processes). If you don’t tackle the issues immediately, you will get inducted into that negative culture and it will be exceedingly difficult to make changes or manage performance later on. Clear the decks immediately, or be prepared to learn on your own skin that what you permit, you promote.

If you have juicy stories about respect-related mistakes you’ve made as a new leader, please do share them with me – they might find their way somehow to being useful to others via this blog (one never knows).

Here’s a simple but painful truth: abrasive leadership persists only because organizations allow it to.

If you have an abrasive leader in your midst, you already know that this person’s harsh interpersonal conduct triggers distress in people and the work environment. And yet, this abrasive leader is likely unaware of the damage that he or she cause and the risks that the behaviour poses — these matters are situated in his or her blind spot. And as long as things remain safely lodged in that blind spot, the person’s behaviour cannot and will not change.

But the abrasive leader is not the only one suffering from Blind Spot Disease. Your organization might be equally guilty of turning a blind eye and committing other ‘sins‘, as well as making persistent mistakes in managing this leader. All these, in turn, enable and entrench the behaviour.

If you’re feeling increasingly discouraged as you read this, please don’t. There’s some good news too.  Once an abrasive leader becomes aware of the effect that his or her behaviour actually has, change is more likely to happen. And once your organization resolves to take a firm stand on the matter, the chances of that change actually happening are exponentially higher.

Take a look: in your own organization, how well do you fair in having in place systems to prevent abrasive behaviour in the first place, or deal with it once it occurs? If you’re not sure, I invite you to assess your organization’s capacity to prevent and address leaders’ harsh interpersonal conduct by checking out our (free) Abrasive Leaders Organizational Actions Checklist. Hopefully, once you complete the tool and take time to reflect on the results, you will emerge confident that as an organization, you are well equipped to deal with any problem behaviour that may emerge. If not, and if you have a specific leader whose interpersonal conduct is of concern, you might want to assess the risks it poses. To do so, visit our Abrasive Leader Risk Assessment tool (also free) – you may find it enlightening.

Whatever you find, if there’s any feedback or insights your like to share (or if your organization needs assistance and would like to explore whether our REAL™ Solutions for Abrasive Leaders could be helpful), please don’t hesitate to stay in touch.

As a manager, you may have encouraged staff to think of the workplace as a family. But have you ever stopped to consider the downside of this idea?

In the previous blog I took a stab at the notion of ‘we’re like a family here’ — I shared the observation that in workplaces where incivility is rampant, staff often use the ‘family’ notion as a fig leaf that enables people to treat each other in incivil ways. A reader from Ottawa immediately wrote to me, saying: “I always felt uneasiness at hearing that ‘we’re like a family here’ coming from management.  I like to know that there are boundaries where I work and that there should be respect and a level of professionalism”.

This reader’s comment highlights an important point: from a leadership perspective, I suggest practicing extra care when you encourage your people to think of the workplace as a family. Fostering close bonds amongst employees is both laudable and useful. In fact, it is one of the best ways to boost employee engagement and retain your best people, especially in organizations where there are resilience-eroding demands on employees or financial remuneration is low.

However, touting the family notion will lead you into risky terrain in a hurry. It can inadvertently erode your people’s sense of safety. Employees need to know that management understands what healthy boundaries mean and that their leaders will protect them from any behaviour that diminishes their sense of dignity.

So next time you sing the workplace-as-family hymn, think twice about crafting the notes with great clarity, such that will ensure that your people will be able to join the tune with perfect harmony.

Don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions or to ask about our services.