A daily headline and social media scan reveal that human resource risks are being escalated to the courts of law and public opinion with alarming frequency. Reports of sexual harassment, workplace bullying, discrimination based on protected grounds, and the optics of cover-up or management incompetence are financially and reputationally damaging for any organization or institution.
At our firm, Veritas Solutions, we not only conduct hundreds of workplace investigations annually, but we provide proactive training, coaching, and culture assessments to help our clients mitigate the serious human resource risks that, when not managed well, can have serious consequences.
What is a human resource risk?
In a previous role leading security and investigations for the largest health authority in Canada, I discovered a remarkable, if not controversial, paradox in the mitigation of security threats. We were expending millions of dollars protecting people and property from external threats, when the majority of serious and high-risk situations came from within.
The most egregious behaviours — from sexual grooming and assault to high-level fraud and theft, to international security breaches, physical and psychological violence, serious harassment and bullying, systems sabotage, right up to murder, and everything in between — were being perpetrated by employees.
The cases hitting the headlines, courts, human rights tribunals, workers’ compensation decisions, and criminal charges or convictions were not related to external threats.
Conducting conceptual research on the issue of human resource risk management, there is very little in the way of definitions, training, or practical tools on how to manage the risks from within.
I founded Veritas Solutions in 2018 to help organizations identify and legally mitigate those risks through highly competent investigations conducted within the expectations of labour and employment law, and through specialized proactive training and culture assessments.
I have also sought to define what a human resource risk is:
“An identification and focus on the specific risks employees of any position may pose to the business or organization by engaging in prohibited misconduct, through their actions or inactions.”
A review of the majority of our cases has also identified systemic, leadership, or other cultural weaknesses that have contributed to or enabled human resource risks to escalate to a place of legal, financial, or reputational damage.
In the case of person-on-person misconduct such as abuse and harassment, the psychological harm and trauma caused by targeted bullying campaigns, psychological manipulation, and physical or sexual abuse is heartbreaking. Our investigators are face-to-face with the aftermath, trauma, and sense of institutional betrayal impacting the psychological well-being of the targets of abusive behaviours.
I have the privilege and pleasure of interacting with hundreds of HR professionals a year in our Workplace Investigations Training certificate course offered in partnership with the CPHR associations across the four western provinces.
That provides me with the opportunity to conduct informal polls on what they are seeing within their industries and organizations. When I ask them how many of their supervisors, managers, leaders — or even themselves — have had training on how to effectively manage employee performance and risk, the answer is woefully low.
In response, we developed a customized course entitled Risk Informed Management Training. Our modules include concepts such as HR Risk Management, Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Safety, Boundaries and Expectations, Courageous Conversations, and more. This has become one of our more popular corporate training offerings.
As someone who has been in a leadership position for over thirty years (having had to learn and grow from my good, bad, and ugly experiences), I am convinced that the leader sets the tone for acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, culture, and inevitably HR risks.
Equipping others, encouraging, and modelling high emotional intelligence, psychological safety, and courageous conversations does not only make for a highly productive team, it also significantly reduces human resource risks from gaining momentum and escalating.
Emotional intelligence
Speak to any leader or HR professional and they will acknowledge that in many workplaces there is a gap between policy and practice. This is where culture is manifested. The narrower the gap, the higher the productivity and wellness of individuals and teams. The wider the gap, the more likely toxic work environments, low productivity, psychological harm, and human resource risks will be.
It is the supervisor, manager, director, and leader — with the right support from effective HR professionals — who have the most impact on narrowing the gap between practice and policy.
If a policy identifies prohibited behaviour (for example, bullying, yelling, name-calling, swearing) and a person in a leadership position behaves contrary to policy, they are modelling the actual expected behaviours of team members. The gap is wide, and others follow suit. The cultural expectations are set.
The three components of emotional intelligence that are critical to highly effective leadership are self-awareness, self-control or regulation, and empathy. We will often see people-leader risks beginning with a remarkable absence of self-awareness. Lack of awareness of how we present, communicate, or show up — and the potential negative impact on our teams — is a risk factor.
Being unable to regulate strong emotions is also a risk. We all get frustrated. Some people leaders may lack self-control in their expression of legitimate frustration by yelling, screaming, swearing, ignoring, isolating, or gossiping.
I am reminded of Tom Cruise’s expletive-laden rant on the set of Mission: Impossible 7, which was captured in a secret recording. This related to non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions on the film set. You can listen to the rant with a quick YouTube search.
When I show the video and facilitate discussion about this scene in our investigations course, there are some interesting comments. Some believe he is justified because he had legitimate frustration. I then ask the learners, rhetorically, how many of them have experienced frustration. Of course everyone has. Then I ask how many have expressed their legitimate frustration at work by screaming, threatening, swearing, or engaging in abusive name-calling. Thankfully, I have not had anyone raise a hand.
It serves to illustrate the component of having low self-regulation as being a risk factor for individuals and organizations alike.
Lastly, I believe — and encourage learners to approach — empathy as being a choice and not a feeling. Empathy is a widely misunderstood concept. Often confused or conflated with sympathy, compassion, affinity, or connection, Daniel Goleman’s EQ model suggests that empathy is a choice.
It is the choice to do our best to understand people’s emotions and thinking. It is getting out of ourselves and putting ourselves in others’ shoes. It is expanding our minds to consider that not everyone is wired the same way we are. It is curiosity in action, even towards egregious behaviours.
High emotional intelligence directly correlates with low individual and corporate risks.
Psychological safety
Much has been written about the value of a psychologically safe workplace and leader. Sadly, like many good theories, I have also seen the term psychologically safe being weaponized or used as an excuse by some for not accepting responsibility for their own behaviour.
A psychologically safe leader is not a pushover. They are not there to please everybody. A psychologically safe leader encourages feedback, candour, accountability for errors, understanding of reasonable skill development and learning, and can give direct and constructive feedback on even the most uncomfortable of conversations.
When debriefing the several-minute Tom Cruise abusive rant with our learners, I ask a simple question: Why did Tom not say this:
“Team, I am frustrated. I am seeing several people not complying with our COVID-19 restrictions (masking and social distancing). This behaviour is placing you, others, and the production of this film at serious risk. If it continues, there will be a negative discipline consequence for those not complying.”
We discuss and debate. I then ask the HR professionals for their views on why some people leaders seem unable to have clear, direct, respectful communications related to policy and workplace culture expectations.
The opinions are varied. I believe that lack of training is one aspect and usually the first answer. In my view, a person’s character, disposition, and ability to courageously address their own and others’ potential shortcomings is the greater influence on poor performance-expectation discussions.
Courageous conversations
Learning how to express clear expectations and personal boundaries in a respectful manner requires courage. Performance and expectation discussions not done well are a human resource, individual, and organizational risk.
Developing the courage to have uncomfortable, candid, and crucial conversations — allowing respect and dignity for all — is a crucial decision and approach for HR professionals and other people leaders alike.
An absence of clear expectations that are consistently communicated, modelled, and reinforced makes for high human resource risks in any work environment.
Communicating clear expectations, aligned with policies and legislation surrounding prohibited conduct, allows workers to, in the words of one cheeky HR professional, “choose their adventure.”
Here are some very simple and direct examples of how a leader can set the tone and expectations within their teams and organizations:
“On our team I have an expectation that we approach and treat everyone with respect, dignity, curiosity, and civility. This means we do not name-call, gossip, yell, bully, isolate, undermine, or otherwise cause interpersonal hostilities.”
The leader then models the expected behaviour, reinforces it through consistent application of reward and consequence, and coaches others in effective and respectful leadership.
Inviting a team to join them on a leadership journey helps to develop others and create a shared vision (and expectations) for a high-functioning and psychologically safe team.
I firmly believe — confirmed both anecdotally and empirically — that human resource risks are a serious concern for any organization. The increase in complaints and public exposure of abusive behaviours in all their forms occurring at work should grab the attention of HR professionals, leaders, and executives alike. The institutional or organizational response to these risks can either mitigate or exacerbate the potential consequences.
As a professional consulting firm in this area, we have a foundational principle when offering guidance or HR risk management advice to our corporate clients:
Do the right thing
It takes high emotional intelligence, a commitment to psychological safety, and courageous and ethical decision-making to ensure the right thing is done and human resource risks are managed, mitigated, and eliminated from the workplace.
The effective HR professional can have significant impact on reducing HR risks by modelling high EQ, psychological safety, and courageous conversations, and by equipping their business partners with the support and tools needed — whether through training, coaching, or encouraging them to approach employee concerns with a risk lens.
