Managers and team leaders need to pay more attention to their own supervision and managerial style, as the research findings have shown that employees’ experiences of AS showed a strong effect on job-related gossip (JRG) and non-job-related gossip (NJG). Therefore, managers and team leaders may use existent appraisal systems (e.g. personal development review (PDR), annual reviewing process) to analyse their own supervision and managerial style. If any inappropriate or uncomfortable styles of management were discovered or commented on by the employees, managers and team leaders should be directed towards management and supervision training, so that they are equipped with the latest management skills and, more practically, lead and support their employees and teams in an appropriate and effective manner.

Solutions[edit]

Constantino helps organizations design their own, ad hoc conflict

management systems,[14] Tosi, Rizzo, and Caroll suggested that improving

organizational practices could help resolve conflicts, including

establishing superordinate goals, reducing vagueness, minimizing authority- and domain-

related disputes, improving policies, procedures and rules, re-apportioning existing

resources or adding new, altering communications, movement of personnel, and

changing reward systems.[15] Most large organizations have a human

resources department, whose tasks include providing confidential advice to internal

"customers" in relation to problems at work. This could be seen as less risky than asking

one's manager for help. HR departments may also provide an impartial person who

can mediate disputes and provide an objective point of view. Another tool in the

organization's conflict resolution resources box is the introduction of the Ombudsman

figure, at the organizational level; charged with surveying common causes of conflict and

suggesting structural improvements to address them.

Workplace conflict may include disputes between peers, supervisor-subordinate conflict

or intergroup disputes. When disputes are not dealt with in a timely manner, greater

efforts may be needed to solve them. Party-Directed Mediation (PDM) is a mediation

approach particularly suited for disputes between colleagues or peers, especially those

based on deep-seated interpersonal conflict or multicultural or multiethnic ones. The

mediator listens to each party separately in a pre-caucus or pre-mediation before ever

bringing them into a joint session. Part of the pre-caucus also includes coaching and role

plays. The idea is that the parties learn how to converse directly with their adversary in

the joint session. Some unique challenges arise when disputes involve supervisors and

subordinates. The Negotiated Performance Appraisal (NPA) is a tool for improving

communication between supervisors and subordinates and is particularly useful as an

alternate mediation model because it preserves the hierarchical power of supervisors

while encouraging dialogue and dealing with differences in opinion.[16]

So how can talent managers train workers to stop workplace bullying? The following are things

they should tell their employees to do.

Document the facts:Keep a record of bullying incidents. Note the times, places, circumstances,

witnesses, the bully’s actions and the effects of these actions. Avoid generalizations. For example,

instead of writing, “She was insulting and abusive,” write, “She called me a meathead and told me

I had to ask her permission to go to the bathroom.” Actual quotes are more powerful, harder to

deny and easier for witnesses to corroborate.

Ensure your safety: Speaking up always involves some risk, but don’t ever put physical safety in

danger. At the same time, don’t let fears prevent action. Ask, “What’s likely to happen if I don’t

speak up?” Make a realistic assessment of the worst-case scenarios for speaking up or not.

Depending on the assessment, you may decide to speak directly to the bully, talk to a manager or

HR professional or talk to the bully with a third party present.

Decide what you really want: Ask what long-term success would look like. If the bully stops bad

behavior, would that be enough, or do you need compensation or to see the bully punished? The

question is, “What do you want long term for yourself, for the other person and for the

organization?”

Have the right conversation:The term “bullying” implies a pattern of abuse, not a single

incident. Make sure to talk about the pattern, instead of arguing about individual incidents. The

bully may see only the incidents, not the pattern. And the bully is likely to try to justify his or

herbehavior in each incident. Make sure there are facts related to enoughincidents to make the

pattern clear.

Start with facts. Begin by describing two or three documented incidents. Select incidents that

illustrate the pattern, and use verbatim quotes whenever possible. Avoid hot words, labels or

accusations. For example, don’t describe the person as mean, vindictive or even as a bully.

Instead, stick closely to the facts. The facts have more credibility than opinions, so let them carry

the weight.

Tell your story. Explain how the incidents fit together. These stories are the judgments,

conclusions and explanations you have about the facts. This is the point in the conversation where

you make pattern clear. This is also the point where reasonable people may disagree. You need to

have enough facts to justify your story. At the same time, be open to the idea that others may see a

different story in the same set of facts. Before the conversation, imagine you were an unbiased

outsider or maybe the bully’s friend. How would you evaluate the facts?

Explain the consequences. Describe the effects the bullying behavior is having on your

performance and the performance of others. Again, try to be as specific as possible. Rather than

saying, “People feel they have to walk on eggshells,” say, “People have stopped asking for your

help with customer complaints because they think you don’t listen to their side of the problem.”

Emphasize business, rather than personal effects. You’re not trying to become friends; you just

want a positive, productive workplace. However, if the effects include legal consequences, such as

harassment lawsuits, make sure those are clear.

Get a commitment. Get a specific commitment from the bully. This commitment should include

what the bully will stop or start doing and how you will follow up. Understand that patterns of bad

behavior are difficult to change. The bully will struggle and will slip up from time to time. These

slip-ups will test whether the commitment is real. Talk about the likelihood of slip-ups in advance,

and discuss how to deal with them. For example, a physician who had a history of intimidating

nurses asked them to remind him if he slipped up. He said, “I’d like you to use my first name. Call

me Joe. But, if you see me slipping up, call me Dr. Smith. That will be our signal.”

Finally, be optimistic about changing the bully’s behavior. The interesting truth is that many

bullies don’t know they are bullies. The term “bully” has become so pejorative that few imagine it

could apply to them. And yet, when the pervasiveness of the problem and the many forms it takes

are observed, it’s reasonable to conclude that many people are engaging in bullying behavior.

While the existence of extreme, even criminal, bullies is real, most bullying is probably the result

of short tempers and short deadlines. Realizing that bullies aren’t always intending to be bullies

humanizes them. Anyone could be seen as a bully on a bad day.

ment that you put up, suggests a new study. 

The study shows that a few minor changes in the wording of a job advertisement can increase the size and quality of an applicant's pool. 

A typical job ad focuses on what the employer wants from the applicant for example; academic degrees, specific skills and a strong work ethic. 

But researchers say that ads focusing on what employers can provide job seekers - like work autonomy, career advancement and inclusion in major dec .. 

Read more at:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46298447.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

the Public Service Alliance of Canada tabled a proposal with Treasury Board

negotiators to enshrine the Mental Health Commission’s national standard for

psychological health and safety in the workplace in the contracts of the 100,000

employees it represents.

If accepted, this would be the first time federal contracts would extend to protect

the psychological health of employees.

Although the union wants the commission’s standard part of the collective

agreement, it is also urging the government to work with unions to identify the

toxic factors in the workplace that are behind the public service’s high levels of

depression and anxiety.

It wants to identify working conditions and practices that could lead to

harassment, discrimination, verbal abuse, unfairness, and disrespect. Experts

have found that job pressures, unreasonable deadlines, work overload, and too

little influence over day-to-day work can lead to stress and depression.

Mental health conditions have accounted for nearly half of all disability claims

among unionized federal employees.

“PSAC recognizes the importance of positive workplace psychological health and

safety. We see it as contributing to the overall wellness and productivity of the

federal public service,” said PSAC president Robyn Benson in statement.

The union also tabled demands to increase childcare access, such as providing

free space in government buildings, as part of its drive to promote wellness in the

workplace.

This proposal was sparked by Treasury Board’s changes to its long-standing

childcare policy, which many argue led to the bankruptcy and closure of the

Tupper Tots at the Sir Charles Tupper Building on Riverside Drive.

The popular centre opened in 1994 as part of the government’s Workplace

Daycare Policy that was aimed at providing affordable day care for federal

employees.

The union argues the shift in policy will contribute to a shortage of quality and

regulated day care across the country. It wants joint union-management

committees to discuss where childcare is needed for federal employees from

offices to 24-hour operations at airports and border crossing.

The big issue in this round of bargaining is the sick leave proposal the

government tabled with PSAC in November.

The government’s last offer would give public servants six paid sick days a year

compared to the 15 days a year they now get and can bank from year to year.

After using those six days, employees would face an unpaid seven-day waiting

period before they can apply for sick benefits under the new short-term disability

plan.

PSAC’s proposal for a national standard to be enshrined in its contracts is clearly

part of the union’s response to the government’s sick leave proposal. If

successful, it could set a precedent for rest of the 17 unions representing public

servants.

Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the labour-management National Joint Council, said

both proposals are related to the government’s promise to reduce stress and

promote wellness in the workplace.

He argued the government would be “disingenuous” if it didn’t consider the

standard after insisting the planned short-term disability plan is aimed at

promoting wellness.

”I am happy to hear the PSAC is proposing this. Those are two key components

of a healthy workplace that I think all the unions would support,” said Cochrane.

“It is all part of a bigger wellness program and if the government doesn’t accept,

then their proposals to promote wellness are disingenuous.”

With a looming election, the negotiations are entering a critical stage. Of late,

Treasury Board President Tony Clement has avoided commenting on

negotiations or on proposals being tabled.

Last spring, Clement he said he was committed to reducing rising mental health

claims and was considering adopting the national standard. He noted, however,

that his planned sick leave and disability overhaul is key to getting “public

servants to be healthy and in a position to fully contribute to the best of their

abilities.”

The Conservative government has been under tremendous pressure to adopt the

standard. Its own executives represented by Association of Professional

Executives in the Public Service of Canada (APEX) urged its adoption.

The executive group urged then-Privy Council clerk Wayne Wouters to adopt the

standard as part of his Blueprint 2020 reforms to modernize the public service.

Similarly, mental health advocates have long argued that the government, as

Canada’s largest employer, should be a role model and adopt the standard. Its

mental health claims are among the highest in the country.

New California employment laws affect mandatory training for supervisors

By Joan Farrell, JD, Senior Legal Editor

Effective January 1, 2015, California employers that are required to provide sexual harassment training (often referred to as AB 1825 training) must add prevention of "abusive conduct" to the training for supervisory employees. The new law, AB 2053, makes prevention of "abusive conduct" a required component of the sexual harassment training employers are currently required to provide under California law.

For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report "Critical HR Recordkeeping." This exclusive special report covers hiring records, employment relationships, termination records, litigation issues, electronic information issues, tips for better recordkeeping, and a list of legal requirements.   Download Now

The definition of the term "abusive conduct" reads like a classic definition of "bullying." Under the new law, "abusive conduct" is defined as conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.

Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act does not constitute abusive conduct, unless it’s especially severe and egregious.

It’s important to note that the new law does not create a private right of action for abusive conduct—that is, an employee can’t file a charge or bring a lawsuit claiming

abusive conduct. The new law only requires supervisory employees to be provided training on the prevention of abusive conduct in the workplace.

Neither the new law nor proposed amendments to the implementing regulations give any indication of how much of the already required training should be devoted to the newly required component on abusive conduct. The proposed regulatory amendments do suggest that the training should include "a discussion of the detrimental consequences of this conduct on employers" and should "specifically discuss" the elements of abusive conduct.

Under existing law, employers with 50 or more employees or independent contractors, the state (including political/civil subdivisions), and cities must provide supervisors with 2 hours of harassment prevention training every 2 years. Newly hired or promoted supervisors must receive training within 6 months of assuming supervisory responsibilities and every 2 years thereafter.

Unpaid interns and volunteers protected from discrimination and harassment

Another new law, which is also effective January 1, 2015, makes it unlawful for any person, including employers, to discriminate against in the selection, termination, or training of unpaid interns on the basis of any of the protected characteristics that apply to job applicants or employees (i.e., race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status). The new law, AB 1443, protects both unpaid interns and volunteers from unlawful harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic.

To comply with the new laws, employers will need updated harassment prevention training that includes the "abusive conduct" component and makes it clear that harassment against unpaid interns and volunteers is prohibited. Policies against workplace discrimination and harassment should also be updated to include the new legal requirements.

Employers that don’t have a policy governing professional behavior in the workplace should consider putting one in place. In addition to aiding in the prevention of abusive conduct in the workplace, a policy that outlines the employer’s expectations for appropriate workplace conduct and explains the consequences for a violation also allows the employer to take disciplinary action against an employee whose inappropriate behavior in the workplace does not rise to the level of unlawful harassment.

Resources related to workplace bullying, sexual harassment training

Policy prohibiting abusive conduct and bullying California Sexual Harassment topic analysis Sample Policy: Standards of Conduct

Recent case: Donald, a sales rep at an Arkansas retail store, quit after

enduring what he believed was sexual harassment from his new boss, who

had an abrasive personality.

On one occasion, the manager took a towel from Donald, rubbed it against

his crotch and gave it back to Donald. Another time, he squeezed Donald’s

nipples and announced, “That was sexual harassment.”

When Donald and other employees complained to higher-ups, the manager

was reprimanded and the behavior stopped. Soon after, Donald left the

company. Then he sued, alleging same-sex harassment.  

The court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the company responded

immediately when notified of the boss’s actions. Plus, the court said that while

the behavior may have been “obnoxious,” it wasn’t same-sex harassment. It

was simply poor behavior. (Rickard v. Swedish Match North America, No. 13-

3729, 8th Cir., 2014)

Final note: Even if you avoid same-sex harassment liability by pointing out

that the boss is rude to everyone, vulgar and profane actions by managers

could still trigger liability under state laws for assault, battery and intentional

infliction of emotional distress.