Nastiness is on the rise in the public service

Public service executives face incivility and harassment, which can harm mental health and productivity. Kathryn May explains.

Nastiness is on the rise in Canada’s public service, and the federal government should consider a “civility ” policy to help stop harassment, disrespect and interpersonal conflicts on the job, says the association representing federal executives.

Civility has emerged as a big issue with the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada, whose own inhouse studies flagged how a growing number of employees and executives are targets of “uncivil words and actions,” said APEX chief executive officer Lisanne Lacroix.

Lacroix said incivility can poison a workplace and is related to the growing number of mental-health claims over the past decade, which can take public servants off the job for prolonged periods.

APEX has commissioned studies of the health and work of executives. It is also working on a compendium of “best practices” for the joint union-management task force that’s studying what’s making the public service an unhealthy workplace. APEX has a seat on that task force; its first report is expected in September

“Our health and work survey showed incivility is on the rise and engagement has dropped, too, so we have to look at these issues and see what can be done and how to reverse the trend,” Lacroix said.

APEX urged former Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters to make mandatory the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s national psychological standard for a healthy workplace for all departments.

His successor, Janice Charette, has since made mental health one of her priorities.

The task force is using the national standard to review the public service’s workplace practices and policies. Civility and respect are among the 13 factors that define what the mental-health commission calls a “psychologically healthy workplace.”

APEX also runs a confidential counselling service for executives, and last year’s report showed harassment and bad relationships with superiors were among the leading reasons executives sought help. It urged then that the Treasury Board consider a civility policy — along with a guide on how to deal with uncivil behaviour — as a companion to its harassment-prevention policy.

At the same time, APEX commissioned its own white paper on the science and research into civility. to help give executives some ideas on how to make the workplace “more respectful.”

The paper, written by leadership consultant Craig Dowden, concludes the public service is not alone. He says studies indicate incivility has doubled in North America over the past decade, with half of all employees saying they were treated rudely at least once a week at work.

That trend is mirrored in the 2014 public service employees’ survey, which found 20 per of public servants said they were harassed and 63 per cent said people in positions of authority were the culprits. Among executives, 11 per cent said they were harassed and 63 per cent laid the blame on those with authority over them, with 26 per cent fingering people who worked for them.

Similarly, APEX’s health survey of executives found 22 per cent are “verbally abused” by superiors over the course of a year. About 10 per cent characterized the workplace as disrespectful, citing discourteous behaviour such as not sharing credit, breaking promises, getting angry, telling lies, blaming and making negative comments.

The health report noted the proportion of executives who reported harassment and incivility was consistent across the ranks, from Ex 1 to Ex 5.

Such responses from executives are worrisome, since they are the highest-paid public servants and are in charge of leading the modernization of the public service. Although the 2014 public service survey flagged uncivil behaviour, it also found most employees — including the vast majority of executives — felt their departments and colleagues were “respectful.”

Dowden describes incivility as rude, insensitive and disrespectful behaviour or comments that can make a workplace toxic.

Last year’s public service survey was the first to distinguish types of harassment. The most common types reported were offensive remarks, unfair treatment and being excluded or ignored. Sexual harassment, a comment or gesture, was reported by nine per cent of those who felt harassed, and two per cent said they faced “physical violence.”

Research suggests incivility in the workplace is caused by various factors — all of which the public service faces in spades. They include pressures associated with downsizing; constant budget restraint; the push to re-engineer; the drive to boost productivity; and top-down autocratic management.

Dowden said what makes incivility so insidious is that it is “seemingly inconsequential” and becomes “normalized” and accepted as part of the workplace culture. Indeed, the public service executives who report harassment say they didn’t complain because they didn’t think it would make a difference, they feared reprisals or they were unsure if incidents warranted a complaint.

The problem is compounded by a lack of trust in senior leadership. The public service survey showed only 47 per cent of employees felt essential information flowed effectively from senior leaders to the front line. Fewer than half felt management would do anything to address the problem.

Dowden said research shows the most common incivility complaints are cellphones always on; talking behind someone’s back; doubting someone’s judgment; paying scant attention to opinions; and taking credit for other people’s work.

Others include: not taking responsibility and blaming someone else; checking email or texting during meetings; using email rather than facing someone when delivering a difficult message; never saying please or thank you; not listening; and talking down to someone.

These slights may seem rather feeble or low-intensity, but Dowden said research shows they can have major impacts on individuals, their work teams and the organization. Research shows 94 per cent of those treated uncivilly want to retaliate or “get even” with the offender, and 88 per cent see the organization as equally responsible and want to get even with it.

“What is so powerful is that if someone is disrespected, they can’t differentiate between the person who disrespected (them) from the department employing them. They are seen as the same entity,” Dowden said.

In some research, two-thirds of employees say their performance declines because of incivility, but what is startling is that 48 per cent who witnessed incivility say they were also more likely to put less effort into their own work.

A big casualty is productivity. Those on the receiving end of incivility typically want to avoid the offender and may spend less time at work. They waste time complaining, and they worry about the incident and how to dodge the offender.

Experiments suggest that those on the receiving end or who witness rudeness are less likely to help colleagues, suggesting “rudeness begets rudeness and can set up a vicious cycle,” said Dowden. On the other hand, teams that work civilly together have more energy, motivation, “vitality” and job satisfaction.

Research suggests that a tense supervisory relationship has physical consequences, as well. An uncivil boss can increase blood pressure, which can lead to heart disease, stroke or kidney failure. A study published in Occupation and Environmental Medicine found those who spend years with a toxic boss are 30 per cent more likely to develop heart disease regardless of workload, education, social class, income or supervisory status.

A study of those who were targets of incivility found one-quarter admitted they took out their frustrations on customers. Dowden said they tend to be less committed, engaged and satisfied with the job and become a “flight risk.” The highly conscientious — usually the high performers who want to do a good job — are affected the most.

Electronic communication is a big problem because it doesn’t come with the body or voice cues to judge the tone of messages. Messages are misread and people are more uninhibited, saying things they would never dream of saying in person. Evidence suggests electronic incivility is as damaging as a face-toface interaction, Dowden said.

He said workplaces should have discussions about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and interview employees to see why they’re leaving.

It’s unclear whether drafting a new “civility policy” will work in a public service that is already swamped with policies and codes of behaviour, and is actively trying to reduce the number of them.

Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology and health at Lancaster University Management School, said incivility is bullying. It takes a toll on culture and partly explains why absenteeism and productivity are big problems in the public service.

He said studies show the bullied typically take five to seven days more of sick leave annually than employees who aren’t bullied. Those who witness colleagues being bullied are also absent more often — taking an additional three days off compared with others.

Typically, women are bullied more than men, and the harassing bosses are usually men. Workers who are bullied or witness bullying are more likely to suffer mental illness — primarily depression and anxiety.

Cooper has argued for a “safe” and trusted system that would investigate complaints. If founded, the culprits would be moved, retrained or lose their jobs.