When money and connections impact decision making
So life has been absolutely crazy, and as a result I have missed a couple of months’ worth of blog posts! I wish I could blame my absence on something hugely exciting, but the truth is that working and running around after my two boys this summer has been all encompassing. With the new school year fast approaching, I’ve had chance to get back into some semblance of a routine, and with that I’ve finally been able to sit down and write again!
Unfortunately this last week saw both my husband and I taken out by some sort of nasty 24 hour bug. While this was a vastly unpleasant experience, I was thankful for three things:
1. That somehow our two boys escaped it (a miracle in itself as I’m still breastfeeding our youngest)
2. That we didn’t get the bug simultaneously, thereby enabling the one well parent to look after the aforementioned well (and full of energy) boys
3. That, while wallowing in bed and praying for death, I was able to watch another Netflix show called “Partner Track” which has prompted this blog post
For those of you who haven’t watched this show, it follows a Senior Associate within a large New York law firm, working hard to be promoted to Partner. Throughout the episodes the main protagonist, and her friends/colleagues, are put in positions whereby they have to choose between their beliefs and principles, or making decisions that will benefit their career. Now, I love a good ethical dilemma, and the most interesting quandary for me came as a result of an incredibly racist speech that was made during a work event by another of the Senior Associates, also on track to be promoted to Partner. Events unfold as follows:
· A complaint is made about the speech
· The matter is investigated by HR
· HR present their investigation to the board along with a recommended sanction
· The board decide that, because the Senior Associate in question brings in an inordinate amount of money, they don’t want to issue the recommended sanction because it will preclude them from being promoted. Instead they give the guy a “slap on the wrist”
· This prompts another Senior Associate (and the subject of the racist speech) to tender their resignation with immediate effect. The firm had pre-empted this and offered a settlement agreement, which was promptly turned down and the employee in question left in a blaze of furious social media posts
Well….I watched this absolutely enthralled. While the HR process followed was a little different from the process that would be followed in the UK (including the fact that a sanction given to one employee would not be shared with other employees), there were an uncomfortable amount of similarities with situations that HR practitioners have to deal with every day. Let’s face it – we’ve all seen this kind of decision making a lot in politics of late, where well connected and well resourced individuals seem to get away with all kinds of unethical practices and behaviour simply because of who they are.
This got me thinking – do we truly still live in a society where people are beyond reproach? Culturally, is this still prevalent and contributing to the shockingly low percentage of women and BAME leaders with a seat at the table able to influence things and instigate change?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a realist, and I can appreciate that choosing the right path isn’t always the easiest. For example – let’s imagine you own a company where your top sales person is responsible for 70% of the income. Now imagine that this sales person is also a toxic individual who bullies their colleagues, uses racist and sexist language, and parades around the office starting and finishing at whatever time they please. The behaviours mentioned above would likely constitute gross misconduct offences in any reasonable workplace, where acting in such a way (if proven) may result in a sanction up to and including dismissal. Dismissing this person, however, would result in the loss of the majority of the business’s income and would also likely culminate in redundancies for the rest of the workforce if a replacement can’t be found who could make the same kind of impact. Furthermore, if dismissed this person could also go and work for a competitor taking all of that business with them. When faced with the reality of a situation such as this – is a business owner going to make that tough call and take a stance?
Throughout my career I’ve witnessed managers make decisions that I don’t agree with. I’ve seen people protected in spite of poor behaviour or decision making, purely because replacing them would be difficult, or worse – because they don’t have the appetite to challenge them. Whenever I have witnessed this, it’s always been disheartening and I’ve always been vocal about my views. There are instances where I’ve been listened to and my advice has been acted on, even if begrudgingly, and instances where it hasn’t been. I’m thankful that I’ve never had to compromise my principles for the sake of my career. I’d like to think that I never would, but the world isn’t a place of “black and white” or “good and bad”, and HR is a career where you’re forever balancing risk and untangling sticky situations.
In an ideal world, at the first sign of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, a manager would have a quiet word with the employee in question to set expectations and unpick the circumstances surrounding the behaviour. The ACAS guide “Challenging conversations and how to manage them”, refers to a “now or never” moment – this is key. If you don’t tackle the behaviour early on and in the right way, it sets a precedent that the undesirable behaviour displayed is acceptable. The longer this goes on, the harder it then is to tackle. Add into the mix good connections and an influx of cash to boot, and the result is an individual who appears to be beyond reproach.
Nipping things in the bud would absolutely be my advice, but if it’s gone beyond that (and particularly if the employee in question adds value to the organisation in other ways) you’re faced with a choice:
1. Continue to ignore the behaviour and face the consequences – in the Netflix show, continue to benefit from the financial rewards generated by the Senior Associate (who does get promoted by the way….) but alienate others and create a culture of exclusion and, in that case, racism. This would also potentially lead to tribunal claims in the future (the employee who resigns could have filed for constructive dismissal and discrimination, for example). Or;
2. Tackle the behaviour and face the consequences – in the Netflix show that would have been the loss of significant revenue, but the delivery of a clear message that racism is not tolerated and an inclusive and safe work environment are more important than monetary gains.
I know my thoughts but I’d love to know yours…..