Workplace relationships: Police leaders must ‘resist the slide into hypersensitivity’

In the 1980s there were 20 employment rights under which an employee could make a tribunal claim; now there are more than 60. This year an employment tribunal ruled that veganism should be treated with the same sensitivity as a religious belief.

More staff are alert to the potential for discrimination, what’s appropriate and what’s not, and are more willing to share their experiences through social media. When it comes to working in crisis conditions – under constant high pressure and with threats to physical safety – police management need to be even more aware of the dangers of hypersensitivity among teams.

It’s become a situation where one thoughtless comment, a well-intentioned joke, could be used as grounds for legal action. A culture where all levels of staff can become frozen by the need to be faultlessly ‘correct’ in everything said. Meaning a situation where the free flow of relationships and communications feel monitored, becoming stilted and limited to bare essentials.

Police leaders and HR need to resist the slide into ‘hypersensitivity’ if they’re not to end up being caught in a tangle of personal issues.

Proactive in providing best practice

Employment tribunals have begun to recognise the problem formally. A recent case, for example, saw an employee at a legal firm making a number of complaints of harassment.

The legal firm had offered her a role at their head office in Switzerland which she had turned down for ‘personal reasons’. Bosses asked her why she had turned the position down: “You are not married, you don’t have children and you do not have a boyfriend”, and went on to talk about “tolerance” of a lesbian staff member in the Swiss office.

Subsequently when she looked for a promotion she was turned down because it was argued she was “not performing at the same level as the group’s senior legal counsel”. The employee complained that she had been subject to sex discrimination, sexual harassment or harassment related to sexual orientation by perception, along with age discrimination and age-related harassment.

The complaints were dismissed. The comments were “unfortunate and awkward” but, it was argued, shouldn’t be seen as constituting discrimination. The verdict is generally accepted as being another example of how employers can defend themselves against claims of discrimination, but is not yet considered to be a legal precedent. Meanwhile, does this mean police staff can get away with occasional slips, with ‘careless talk’?

Police employers need to demonstrate they are meeting their side of the deal, that they are trying to create a balance between being open in dealing with difficult situations, while at the same time having empathy for employees.

HR provision across forces has to be ready to prove it is being proactive and provides best practice. That means moving beyond education on discrimination and cultural awareness. Additionally, it involves actively confronting sexism at work to create a more equitable and inclusive environment for all employees.

Conversational integrity

Understanding that there are sensitivities doesn’t mean an ability to talk about them and deal with individual people and cases in professional ways. There is a need to equip line managers in particular – but also staff in general – with the skills to deal with difficult conversations.

This means making sure people have the self-awareness and confidence to take part in sensitive and awkward conversations without becoming bullish, defensive or skirting around the core issues.

It’s what we call ‘Conversational Integrity’, the package of skills that leads to confidence and ability, including ‘situational awareness’, the essential practice of ‘curiosity’, ‘reflective listening’, ‘empathy’, and ‘self-awareness’ – so not just listening outwardly but inwardly, how your own ‘inner state’ is impacting on the flow of the conversation.

HR policies should also include clarification for staff on what would constitute a ‘malicious’ or ‘vexatious’ complaint. Managers themselves need to be aware of what constitutes a ‘grievance’ and know how to record them.

This is a difficult area, because what is ‘bullying’ anyway? There is no legal definition, and there will always be a thin line between assertive management needed to deal with poor performance, and an inappropriate and ugly use of power.

What constitutes unacceptable behaviour can be very clear: physical intimidation, threats, sexual harassment. But these are relatively rare. The most common causes of bullying in the minds of employees, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, are subjective and open to interpretation.

These include ‘subtle undermining behaviour’ (which could just be seen as oversensitivity); ‘excessive and unjustified criticism’ (which might also be an inability to accept or admit poor performance); and ‘inappropriate use of fair procedures’.

Creating a ‘clear air’ culture

Employees who work in a ‘toxic’ environment of poor management – where there are unreasonable demands, a lack of autonomy and recognition, and low levels of ‘psychological safety’ – are three times more likely to suffer from depression.

The research, published in the British Medical Journal, also suggests there are higher risks of death from heart disease and stroke. But are toxic cultures really all down to bad management?

Managers have to make the tough decisions. Introducing change can be necessary and it is managers who are in the front line when it comes to pushing through sometimes difficult realities. There can be very reasonable explanations for why managers make extra demands.

None of these things mean a working culture is toxic. Grievances and conflict aren’t unhealthy in themselves – they’re often the natural result of bringing diverse groups of people together into teams, and also a signal that people care about their contribution and their role at work.

Niggling concerns and clashes between managers and line reports only become a real problem when there’s no conversation. Or at least no open conversation, just resentment eventually spilling over into argument and relationship breakdown.

Then comes the formal enquiry and disciplinary processes and yet more stress for those involved – as well as those affected by the ripples of bad feeling around what’s been happening.

The angst has to go somewhere. It’s not surprising that psychological blockages in dealing with misunderstandings, miscommunications and clashes in personality, lead to serious physical ill-health.

But, of course, there has to be management and not just a dump of problems. The best employers look to the bigger picture of their workplace culture and what the benefits are of openness, encouraging diversity of opinion and experience, of people who feel it’s ‘safe’ to speak out, to both be challenging and admit mistakes.

A ‘clear air’ culture leads to more trust, honesty, innovation, support for diversity – and a better working environment for everyone.

Picture © Hirurg / iStockphoto