Failures at the Top: Toxic Culture or Leadership Mistakes (Cont.)

INTRODUCTION:

In my previous article, I explored the 'alien culture' I encountered at Company X, where toxic behaviours eroded psychological safety, leaving people hesitant to speak up. Despite raising concerns and receiving misleading responses from my line manager, my efforts to engage HR in addressing the truth were unsuccessful. Over time, the reasons for this resistance became clearer, leaving me with no option but to invoke Company X’s Speak Up Policy.

Speak Up (Duty to Report) Policy: CEO’s endorsement

“Raising concerns, including health & safety violations is part of your duty as an employee. Doing so will strengthen the company. Retaliatory actions against those raising concerns in good faith will not be tolerated”.

Timeline and Events (2010-2011)

?(If the graphic is unclear, please contact me for a PDF version.)

Faced with the choice, remain silent and risk others' safety, or speak up despite potential consequences, the decision was clear. With the CEO’s endorsement, what could go wrong?

These events highlight Company X’s unreasonable and inconsistent handling of critical safety and ethical concerns. Some individuals appeared resistant to the truth, whether due to unwillingness or inflated egos. Was it simply resistance, or was there something more? Further details, including documented facts and my perspectives, are available separately (references 17-24).

A relevant article from Harvard Business Review discusses how ego can derail good leadership. https://hbr.org/2018/11/ego-is-the-enemy-of-good-leadership ?Do you recognise any of these behaviours in your organisation?

January 2010:

I initiated the Speak Up process to address breaches of business principles, safety concerns, and my manager’s dismissive comments. I expected an impartial investigation, but a later Subject Access Request (SAR) revealed otherwise.

March 2010:

The Chief Counsel for Corporate Responsibility issued the Speak Up report, which was inconclusive and subjective. It ignored my safety concerns and my manager's misconduct, concluding instead that Company X had "followed procedures." I questioned how a two-month investigation could result in such a superficial outcome. Attempts to contact the Speak Up investigator failed - they had "left the company." I urged the General Counsel (GC) to present my case to the Group Executive Committee, citing the CEO's endorsement of the Speak Up Policy.

April 2010:

The GC informed me that the 'Speak Up' case was now closed, advising me to file a grievance instead. I found it puzzling that serious safety concerns were reclassified in this way, this represented a missed opportunity to address key issues. A later SAR revealed internal discussions among lawyers debating whether an appeal process was necessary for 'Speak Up' cases, alongside questions about my motives. My motives were simple and consistent, I wanted to make Company X safer. Ironically, on the day of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, I was in the asset manager’s office raising concerns about systemic failures at my location.

May 2010:

The HR Director (one of the grievance investigators) requested my prior recommendations ahead of a corporate safety audit, which I had already discussed with the Speak Up investigator. To my surprise, the VP of HR called me into a meeting, urging me to reassess my approach and stating that 'senior managers were uncomfortable with my actions.' I saw this as a breach of protocol and informed the HR Director, who claimed to be unaware of any connection to the safety audit findings. It became clear that someone wasn’t being truthful, and it wasn’t me. I raised the consequences of ignoring warning signs with the GC, I was advised “put these in a box for now”.

?June 2010:

During a conference call as part of the grievance process, I was assured that statements from other managers would be provided to ensure a "level playing field." A conversation between investigators was recorded during a break, revealing candid views:

·????????? “I can’t believe it! It amazes me what comes out of Speak Up”.

·????????? “You’d think they’d say, we mucked up, you were right, you weren’t treated right, it was wrong, we’re sorry, but they keep blustering on never saying sorry for anything”.

·????????? “When I read Speak Up report I thought bloody hell, we haven’t been great here, why not just say it, we now end up with conflict, I mean how can we say he was treated fair, that’s not great is it, it’s appalling”.

·????????? “I’m sorry I agree with him, how can they possibly say this, we’re going to have a really interesting situation”.

These remarks confirmed my suspicions that the investigation was far from impartial.

?July 2010:

At the grievance hearing, no further questions were answered, and the promised manager statements were withheld. The outcome letter concluded:

1.????? Speak Up Process: “No documented process for handling Speak Up investigations exists, but we are satisfied the investigation considered all points.”

2.????? Corporate Safety Audit: No evidence was found to implicating you in the safety audit defect findings.

3.????? Breach of Business Principles: The claim was upheld, but only in relation to internal recruitment mishandling. My safety concerns were ignored.

I confronted the investigator with evidence of a major accident hazard breach. His dismissive response - "I have investigated each one of your concerns and am satisfied they were dealt with adequately" - reflected the prevailing attitude. A SAR later revealed correspondence where the investigator sought to "comfort" the asset manager and apologized for "being a burden." This raised serious questions about his competence and motives.

Friday 13th August 2010

Six weeks after being told my safety concerns were "adequately addressed," a contract worker suffered severe head injuries due to a failure in work control. A neurosurgeon confirmed the worker would never work again. This incident tragically validated my earlier warnings. An investigation report closed with a hypocritical question: "What will you do differently to ensure this never happens again?"

?October 2010

Weeks after the near-fatal accident, the HR Director, who also co-led the grievance investigation, sent me my line manager’s statements. These malicious and defamatory statements, withheld during the hearing and were clearly intended to discredit me. I provided evidence refuting every claim, but received no response. I requested the GC address the matter, leading to more ineffective discussions with HR.

Later in the month the asset manager was re-assigned to another location.

December 2010

I was informed by email that the HR Director would be visiting my location to discuss my concerns. It was evident I was now surplus to requirements, despite earlier offers of another role, conditional upon me dropping the grievance process. A SAR revealed that the HR Director and Director of Safety were visiting in response to another Speak Up submission. An email from the Chief Counsel of Corporate Responsibility suggested the HR Director should contact me, but frame the visit as "coincidental."

By the end of the month, I was reassigned to a new location for six months "until things are sorted out."

?May 2011

Tragically, a fatality occurred at the location to which the asset manager had been reassigned. Contributing factors were linked to competence issues and control of work—echoing the very concerns I had raised. My former line manager was then reassigned to my new location shortly thereafter.

?May - June 2011

I requested a face-to-face meeting with the GC, who declined but agreed to a conference call with the Regional HR Director. In that call, we discussed my concerns, particularly the reassignment of my former manager to my current location. This was followed by a detailed meeting with the Regional HR Director, where I expressed my intent to file a SAR to uncover misconduct.

?July 2011

The Regional HR Director suggested mediation to address the ‘conflict’, which I agreed to.

?October 2011

After lengthy discussions, mediation took place. I was offered three months’ garden leave, or three months’ salary, a note from HR stating my reputation hadn’t been tarnished, and continued employment. When I refused, I was advised, "think of a figure and get a lawyer."

?November 2011

I engaged a legal advisor to support my efforts to expose the wrongdoing. Company X countered with a cash offer in exchange for signing a Compromise Agreement. I refused.

?December 2011

Without any indication of what was to come, I was called to a meeting at Company X’s office. The HR Manager read from a "pre-prepared script," which effectively terminated my employment. I later learned that my former line manager had "retired" from Company X.

?Final Thoughts

The 'alien culture' I encountered at Company X, characterized by deflection, dishonesty and negligence, is encapsulated by a passage from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead: "It’s simple to seek substitutes for competence…but there is no substitute for competence. Second-handers have no concern for facts, ideas, or work. They don’t ask: Is this true? They ask: Is this what others think is true?"

Company X’s mishandling of my concerns not only risked lives, but also undermined the very principles they claimed to uphold. As I reflect on these events, it is clear that organizations must do more than endorse policies - they must live by them.

?TO BE CONTINUED:

Upcoming article and timeline:

2012/2014 - Dismissal appeal, further Compromise Agreement offers, legal complicity, corporate turbulence and regulator shortcomings.