Forming a Protective Square around a Known Bully is Institutional Betrayal

The time has come to “form a square around the prittster,” said UK prime minister Boris Johnson to his party MPs on Friday upon revelations that Home Secretary Priti Patel had violated the ministerial code through workplace bullying.

At the end of Anti-Bullying Week last week, the prime minister showed the UK civil service, the British public and indeed the world, how seriously he took bullying.

Independent advisor on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan investigated the bullying and concluded in his report:

“My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally." 

He explained briefly “The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals.”

At this juncture, I want to correct a common misperception. You don’t have to show intention when it comes to workplace bullying and other forms of harassment. After all, most perpetrators will say in their defence… I didn’t intend to harass her, or him. 

The key lies in the impact of the conduct: on the person who was harassed or on the workplace environment. If the conduct causes a hostile and toxic culture, it is harassment and something must be done.

I won’t go into what Priti Patel did, as that is well covered elsewhere. In this piece, I examine how the leadership responded upon being informed that she had indeed committed acts of bullying against the ministerial code.

When an institution fails to protect the people who rely on it to protect them, that is Institutional Betrayal.

Institutional betrayal refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g. sexual assault) committed within the context of the institution. 

Professor Jennifer Freyd, University of Oregon

1. Delay, Pressure and Interference 

Boris Johnson was given Sir Alex’s report in April. In that time, he tried to get Sir Alex to change the report or tone it down. 

This may feel eerily familiar to people in compliance or HR functions who carry out investigations into a senior member of staff. Behind the scenes, the person under investigation, will do their utmost to get the decision makers on their side, even waylay the investigation - throw curve balls, or pressure the investigation team.

A person of influence might drop hints disguised as being kind: “don’t you think you’re being a bit harsh?” to covert threats, “your performance appraisal is coming up… so how’s that investigation coming along?”

When the investigation report lands on the No 1 desk… the next round of pressure starts. “Hmmm, this is rather strongly worded, don’t you think?”

With a request to change the words. "Instead of ‘confirm that they bullied,” how about “could be construed as inadvertently bullying…”?". 

Sometimes the bully may have spoken to No 1. We don’t know if this happened in the Patel-Johnson case, but it is common for senior bullies to go straight to No 1 and put forward their side of the case. A CEO once asked me for advice when this happened. I told him that it compromised him as the avenue of appeal should HR decide to terminate the person, and advised, "do not respond to the e-mail. Forward it to HR". I've had board members come to me, perplexed, upon receiving letters where alleged harassers justify their actions. In each case, I've said, "it's an invitation to intervene and that compromises you".

Quite a number of bosses, with the intention of wanting to do the right thing and be fair, contact the person overseeing the investigation. Or get their people to contact the investigators. This very act in itself, puts pressure on the investigation. If it's an internal investigation and the investigators are employees within the organisation, they may be reluctant to find against the bully.

The No 1 may be aware of the investigation and still has to communicate with the alleged bully on work matters. They should refuse any discussion with the alleged bully about their case. If the bully does raise it, the correct response is to make it clear that this matter cannot be discussed.

Interference at the highest levels into investigations and decisions on penalties undermines the organisation's process and policies. The EHRC (UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission) gave several examples of how leadership of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn interfered and sought to change disciplinary sanctions following investigations into anti-semitism within the party. See EHRC’s report here. 

2. Forming the Square

The Times reported that in a private WhatsApp group, Boris Johnson instructed Conservative MPs to protect Priti Patel by forming a protective ring around her… or rather, a square.

Mr Johnson told Conservative MPs in a private WhatsApp group that the time had come to “form a square around the prittster”.

When a leader of an organisation who has the power to determine the career prospects of its management issues such a decree, what do you think will happen?

On Friday, my twitter feed was flooded with gushing praise for Priti Patel. 

To their credit, there were quite a number who remained silent. But you don’t hear silent voices do you? You hear the noise of support. 

What message does that send people who were bullied in the organisation?

What message does that send people who witnessed bullying and therefore felt stress and fear?

What message does that send to people who “get things done” through yelling and making people feel afraid?

You know the answer. If the workplace was already toxic, it’s just become unbearable. For those who had hoped for brighter days, a sense of hopelessness and despair sets in. 

When a fear culture prevails, people no longer give their best. There’s a term called “presenteeism” - meaning people are physically at work, but they are unable to focus due to the stress and fear. Productivity falls. What many employers fail to realise is that with a fear culture, wrongdoing like sexual harassment, corruption and unsafe practices can sprout and grow unchallenged. People are afraid to speak up. Volkswagen’s Dieselgate is a prime example of how a fear culture led to fraud on a grand scale.

Here's a video on the Costs to the Employer as part of my course, Defeat Harassment at Work.

3.  Grooming

How often have we heard the bosses say, “but he couldn’t have sexually harassed, he’s been so respectful to me,” or, “she couldn’t have yelled, she is the sweetest person I know”? Bullies and harassers know how to groom people in authority so that when they are called out, no one believes the victim.

As a senior executive myself, I had received complaints about people who I had assumed were nice and kind because that was my personal experience with me. Of course they were nice to me. I was general counsel! But the evidence that came forward showed a different story. I could not allow my personal experience cloud the lived experience of victims. 

If I were to say, “oh but he’s been so respectful to me,” I would have undermined and dismissed the pain that the bully’s victims have felt and lived for weeks if not months or years. That is cruel and if the victims are relying on me to protect them, a betrayal.

4. Normalisation 

In his findings on Priti Patel, Sir Alex said:

“I believe Civil Servants – particularly Senior Civil Servants – should be expected to handle robust criticism but should not have to face behaviour that goes beyond that. The Home Secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action orientated and can be direct. The Home Secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID three years ago. The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals. “

A number of MPs have jumped upon this antiquated leadership style that you have to be tough and yell at people to get things done. Well, we no longer live in the Victorian age (it was wrong even then) and this is not the military. Barking out orders and yelling obscenities while striking fear into employees is anything but good leadership. 

When we excuse bad leadership behaviour on, “the employees are under-performers”, “he is under immense pressure”, and “how else will she get things done?”, we are normalising toxic behaviour. 

Screaming, yelling, throwing files, storming out of meetings, slamming down the phone, snide remarks, excluding people, giving them the cold shoulder… all this is bullying behaviour and yet is often accepted in workplaces around the world.

As the bully storms out and employees look at each other in shock, there will always be that one person who shrugs their shoulders and says, “that’s how he is,” or “that’s what this company is like.”

And everyone else just nods, resigned to the fact, yes, that’s how this is.

Collectively we have normalised bullying and collectively, we have implicitly agreed that we will remain miserable and just put up with it.

WHY DO WE LET THIS HAPPEN?!

We need stop lying to ourselves.

No. Workplaces don't have to be tough. We don't need to train interns and junior executives in a gruelling manner. We don't have to shout at people to get things done. If you've worked in the corporate world, and you've reached managerial level, you've probably learnt the more progressive leadership styles. If you are a senior executive, you will have learnt emotional intelligence and are expected to apply it when you work with your team. If you step out of line and yell, it's likely you will be counselled, or the more palatable, go for "coaching".

Can Bullies Change?

I know this because I was counselled and coached by brave bosses who were determined that I should shed my bullying traits that I had carried from the legal profession when I joined the oil and gas industry. I learnt how to stop barking orders to coaching and empowering my team. The bullying leader can change, but they've got to recognise that they did wrong in the first place and want to change. It takes a lot more work and a great deal of patience. I shared my lesson in humility with emotional intelligence coach Michael Banks in his Leadership Luminaries podcast here.

Forming a Square Harms Everyone, including the Bully

Forming a protective square around a known bully is Institutional Betrayal. It betrays the bullies' victims. It betrays every person in management who is trying so hard to create a healthy working culture. It betrays all people working there because they know that if they were to speak up against bullying and other wrongdoing, they will not be supported.

The protective square also harms the bully.

"In addition, no feedback was given to the Home Secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed"

Sir Alex Allan's report

Imagine having worked 20, 30 years and no one gives you feedback that your behaviour tantamounts to bullying. I was fortunate in that I was told, but power dynamics made it possible. I was told my someone senior to me, who had no fear that I would retaliate and make life difficult for them.

A career politician who is surrounded by yes-men and has no one senior to gently pull them over and course correct, might not get this tough feedback. When one is a minister, you can hardly expect ministry officials and employees to tell you that your behaviour is a problem - especially if you're the shouty kind. They would put up with a great deal rather than tell you to your face.

When organisations, whether through HR or their management, protect their problematic leaders, paying off victims through settlements and NDAs, they are kicking the can down the road. In this world of #MeToo and social media, you can no longer shield your bullying leaders. They will get caught out, and with it, the Institutional Betrayal.

Institutional Courage

Boris Johnson and his government need to stop protecting the bully and instead focus on the people they should be caring for - in this case, it's the civil service, and at a broader level, the workplaces and schools, where we know bullying is a problem.

"Institutional Courage is an institution’s commitment to seek the truth and engage in moral action, despite unpleasantness, risk, and short-term cost. It is a pledge to protect and care for those who depend on the institution. It is a compass oriented to the common good of individuals, the institution, and the world. It is a force that transforms institutions into more accountable, equitable, healthy places for everyone"

Professor Jennifer Freyd

Animah Kosai is CEO of Speak Up At Work and co-founder of the Speak Up Academy which supports change-makers in creating and sustaining healthy workplace cultures. Join Carita Nyberg and Michael Banks this Monday, November 30th to discover how toxic leaders can transform... yes it's possible! Register here.

If you want to learn more about workplace bullying and how to address it, check out my course - Defeat Harassment at Work.

#workplacebullying