Communication about Bad Apples

Bad Apples can still do damage even after they have left the organization. Cleaning up the damage and rebuilding culture will take consistent and considered effort.  My previous post ‘Bad Apples’ raised the question of authentic communication to the rest of the business – to ensure that culture is not impacted.

At RedBalloon being completely transparent with the team has worked for us. They expect that of the leadership team – it is one of our values. We lead by example at RedBalloon. However transparency does not mean every detail needs to shared – what it means is that all business decisions must be put in context for the whole team. We would always communicate such things in person with a company wide meeting – and the conversation is succinct and factual devoid of emotion or malice it doesn’t ever include anything that could be construed as defamatory. We also provide the forum for questions – either in public or privately.

However, RedBalloon does seek advice on tricky situations… There are people who do this all the time, so I asked Stuart King more about what he suggests business do about letting people know that ‘Bad Apples’ will not be tolerated – and that action will be taken… here is his response.

Q: If we just let people know that someone moved on, how do other staff know that it is because the person wasn’t working in alignment with our values and that it was our decision? Erin Atkinson

A: Research suggests that communicating internally about an employee’s conduct could create the risk of a claim of defamation. However we should be able to communicate honest, concise, factual information about why a person was terminated.

• Employees often know more than the leadership know they know.

In my experience, unless people within an organisation are aware that a decision to act against an employee was made because of inappropriate conduct, the deterrent effect of action is lost. In effect the organisational response is not visible. Be assured that colleagues and perhaps supervisors know of unethical, unlawful or inappropriate conduct that may have occurred. They may have seen it and privately shared observations and thoughts about it with other colleagues.  Office gossip is a vehicle for information about workplace conduct issues and is common in workplaces.  Observations of others are often the least secret. This is often how a workplace culture can be undermined, the published values are considered as being not visibly nor actively supported and employees learn how things are ‘really done’ in their workplace. Yes, people do leave if they perceive inaction by an employer. What is worse however is when colleagues adopt similar behaviors with the view that nothing will be done. Action or inaction impacts directly on values and reputation.

• Someone must stop these activities

Employees who act unethically are too often moved on from organisations in a quiet manner as it is often easier to do that. I have seen evidence of that, and toxic employees simply moved on can cause havoc in their next organisation, and so on it goes until they are stopped or exposed.  Problem being that they hurt people and organisations along the way.

• Transparency in communication doesn’t mean every detail.

So how can an organisation be transparent in response to an employee who does not demonstrate alignment with organisational values? Confidentiality, procedural fairness, principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence all have application in how organisations respond to inappropriate employee conduct.  The process applied in response to unsatisfactory conduct at work can be a trap for new players and always seek professional support and advice before embarking on an investigation. Providing investigative and organisational processes that are legitimate, robust and fair should sustain action which follows.  I also believe that being consistent and sharing a conversation with employees about standards of conduct, about conduct that will not be tolerated or countenanced and about the type of conduct that will bring about a firm response and may result in termination (ie: breach of employment conditions, dishonesty, equal opportunity breaches, occupational violence or bullying etc) is very important.  Don’t leave the conversation until after something has happened.

Prevention is always better than the cure. In short, there should be no surprises for employees so share the rules and back them up with action if they are breached.

Communicating within an organisation the reasons for a person’s departure should be considered and managed carefully. Particularly if another person remains in the organisation may be effected. A claim for defamation can be real, it worries people and carries a risk for organisations.  Most organisations manage that risk by saying nothing, [which is not always the best thing for the culture of the business].

Prior to making an internal communication seek supporting advice.  Communications that are made internally about the termination of an employee should be factual, concise lacking opinion or emotion.  Caution should be exercised, as an employee who is terminated may challenge their termination and is entitled to be protected from defamation prior to the factual and legal reasons for the termination are addressed and resolved.

Even if the business is small – I would always seek support and guidance – somebody to independently view the communication to ensure that it could not be considered defamatory. Also acting quickly is really important. Get people together as soon as possible. Face it before gossip does start to fester. And give people a forum to ask questions and challenge leadership.

It is our ongoing commitment, that will make the difference to the workplace. We never give up stay absolutely committed to having a fabulous place that you want to work in too.