February 2003 Volume 84 Number 1 "serving the protectors"
By Trevor Haskell PASA Vice President

Equity and diversity – time for revision

After the 2002 Adelaide International Workplace Bullying Conference earlier this year, I started to ponder the way in which PASA and SAPOL approach the issue.

It is now seven years since I wrote the equity and diversity policy for PASA, and just over two years since the launch of SAPOL’s manual.

After I wrote the policy and handout, a decision had to be made about whether to call it bullying (as Europe and North America had) or to make it less in-your-face and call it Inappropriate Workplace Behaviours. I chose the norm and went for the bullying label. When SAPOL was developing its policy, the same debate was had and some of its original drafts referred to inappropriate workplace behaviour. However, it went to the publisher as bullying.

As a headline, bullying is an easy eye-catcher. But the term carries thoughts of good and bad, which can get in the way of resolving issues for those involved. The term can be quite generic and lack definition.

SAPOL’s policy does not require repetitive behaviour, while most definitions would exclude a one-off inappropriate act. In considering the concept of “a bully”, there is a strong tendency to ignore the structures of the organization and its culture, and how they contribute to bullying behaviour; to see bullying as just a “bad apple” isolated to a particular individual.

I know of a number of cases of alleged workplace bullying that, for me, were absolutely inappropriate behaviour. Formal and semi-formal investigations, however, rarely identify the behaviour as bullying. Indeed, I have seen it referred to as poor management style but not bullying, and even as inappropriate behaviour but the normal style of that manager and then dismissed as not bullying because of its normality.

The term bullying is too blaming, too confronting and leads to legalistic responses within our culture. People feel affronted at being called a bully. The labelling of the person is unhelpful. It becomes hard to understand that the behaviour is inappropriate, not the individual. This is what investigators are also unable to understand. Their investigations often centre on the people not on the behaviour. The person is a superintendent/sergeant/senior constable/woman and so must be okay; he or she is just managing in his or her own way, so it cannot be bullying. He or she is a nice person and not a bastard, therefore it cannot be inappropriate.

Whether the person is nice or a bastard is not the point of bullying. The issue is to extract:

• What behaviour is being carried out?
• What is the appropriateness of that behaviour?
• Is the behaviour repeated or regular?

Nice people can behave inappropriately.

The workers’ compensation files of SAPOL would show many instances of inappropriate workplace behaviours that have been assessed as being unreasonable under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Some people will be cited in a number of claims, but they remain in their positions and without any redress of their behaviour. The acceptance of a workers’ compensation claim does not mean there is a bad person involved, but it does mean the behaviour of an individual was not reasonable and, further, that it created an injury to the person to whom it was directed. A number of cases citing the same person would indicate repeat behaviour and bring the behaviour into most definitions of bullying.

Investigations outside of the worker’s compensation area are investigated by management and, guess what: most of the investigations are about the behaviour of part of the management team in the workplace. The resulting finding might not be seen as entirely without bias.

The Equity and Diversity Manual was written in good faith by people who understand the issue of equity. When I read the manual, I felt it was pretty much around the mark. Two years on and my suspicions are that the procedures, and investigation and mediation processes are flawed within the structure and culture of SAPOL.

I am keen to ensure that PASA keeps up with what is happening in this area. I would like to hear from people who have been involved in E&D processes. I would like to be able to identify what worked and what did not. What were the parts of the process that impacted on the success or otherwise of the process? What did the process do for the person who believes he or she was aggrieved and the respondent? How useful was it to them?

I hope my concerns are not the fact and that the system is working. I am keen to know.

E-mail me on the SAPOL intranet or phone or write to me at Welfare Branch (8204 2153). Otherwise, e-mail or write to me at the Police Association office. Names are not necessary.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001  The Police Association of South Australia sustance