Organizations need rules. Rules can set the tone of relationships, protect people’s dignity, and communicate essential organizational values to workers, leaders and the public. These rules, and the norms underlying them, keep evolving and changing; harmful behaviours that were once deemed socially acceptable are, thankfully, no longer tolerated in most organizations. Abuses like workplace bullying, discrimination, and harassment are increasingly treated as serious problems with serious consequences. With the strengthening of our rules, it would seem we’re moving in the direction of more caring and equitable relationships. But are we?
Here’s the problem in a nutshell: the same organizational values – like fairness, respect, and equity – that we are trying to promote with our rules, are too often not reflected in our approach to dealing with the situation when the rules are broken. And that makes it very difficult for these values to meaningfully take hold in organizational culture.
The Failure of Conventional Responses
Conventional responses to allegations of workplace harm and misconduct go something like this: Robbi is accused of doing something harmful to Jess. Jess makes a complaint to HR, in which they’re required to fill out a form and give a verbal statement. An investigation is initiated, during which several interviews (including with coworkers) take place to determine the veracity of the complaint. After giving their statement, Jess is in the dark as to the status of the process but keeps wondering whether the organization is going to take it seriously. Meanwhile, Robbi works hard to avoid the worst-case scenario: that they’ll be found responsible for the violation and get punished for it. Finally, the investigation is complete.
Through Door #1: The allegations are substantiated. Robbi is given sanctions including a suspension without pay, feeling perhaps isolated, worried, indignant, defiant or ashamed. Jess receives little information about the outcome. Though receiving some vindication, they emerge from the process feeling emotionally exhausted, powerless and not sure where they stand with their co-worker, Robbi, who will soon return to work. Meanwhile, bystanders know little beside the fact that there’s tension in the air. Most likely, someone quits or is shuffled out.
Through Door #2: The allegations are unsubstantiated. Robbi is perhaps relieved but could also be indignant and even unsure how Jess will now be accountable for what felt like an unfair experience, while Jess feels invalidated, angry, disappointed and vulnerable. Maybe they resume the working relationship in a renewed quagmire of tension, with everyone around them impacted by the awkwardness (not to mention that many of them were interviewed in the investigation and have some idea, but not a full picture, of what happened). As in Door #1, most likely someone quits or is shuffled out.
Through either of these two doors lies terrain that is, in fact, eerily similar. Fractured relationships; defensiveness; avoidance of responsibility; isolation; shame; powerlessness; stress; burnout. And beyond the human costs are the organizational burdens: since the response does little to address the causes and impacts of behaviours, it’s likely the patterns will continue, resulting in lost productivity and the eventuality of costly re-hiring and re-training due to worker turnover.
But what if there was a Door # 3?
Door #3: A Restorative Approach
Behind Door #3, the following scene unfolds: Jess, who is hurt and deeply uncomfortable by Robbi’s behaviour, has received training on how to initiate and work through difficult conversations directly with co-workers. In this circumstance though, they feel some outside support is needed. They approach HR and are given the opportunity to describe their experience to empathic and supportive listeners. With Jess’ consent, a trained facilitator from the HR team sits down with Robbi to inquire what happened. Sensing an opportunity for a positive path forward that does not rely on punitive measures, Robbi acknowledges that their behaviour was inappropriate and shares a willingness to address the situation with Jess. Jess and Robbi agree to a confidential, facilitated meeting to discuss the incident, supported by a couple of their closest co-workers who witnessed what happened. The meeting is about more than just the facts. It’s about perceptions, questions, impacts, needs, and emotions. During the meeting, all involved reach a plan for how the situation can be addressed and prevented for the future. While Jess and Robbi aren’t best friends after the meeting, they can encounter each other in the workplace with respect, understanding and ease. Once the provision of Jess and Robbi’s agreement are met, the matter is considered by HR to be concluded.
Door #3 is not a one-size-fits-all process, but a humanizing approach rooted in values of dignity, curiosity, accountability, learning and repair. This approach will unfold differently in each case, according to the needs and safeguards required in the situation.
First Steps in the Journey
Of course, many organizations and institutions have protections and barriers in place which, at present, prevent Door #3 from being a viable option. It is common to cite legal risk, union objections, confidentiality concerns or other liabilities. But what we know is that for organizations who truly wish to find another way, there is always a way to open Door #3.
Some may say a restorative approach is not serious enough. We assert we can be serious without causing more harm and anguish during the response and accountability process. We can decide and commit to an approach that will uphold everyone’s dignity while saying that harmful behaviours are not ok and must be addressed. We can commit to an approach that provides meaningful supports to those who are hurting, and to those causing harm. And we can commit to an approach that pays attention to the possibility of reintegration and connection when things have gone wrong between those who work together.
We see a consistent pattern among organizations: the adversarial approach is causing more harm, and they wish they could do things differently, as per Door #3. But that change will only come with conviction and desire. Leadership must want it, and all the structures that support that leadership (e.g. HR, Quality Control offices) must also be at the very least open, but hopefully committed, to exploring another way of dealing with harm and complaints.
How, then, do we begin? Particularly in complex organizations, it can be overwhelming to imagine shifting a culture that has long upheld an adversarial and possibly punitive response. Mapping out what a restorative approach would look like in an organization, and what the barriers are to getting there is a great start. Understanding who needs to be connected, integrated and involved in moving that vision forward is another important step. And including diverse voices in the process all along the way ensures that the desired shift can be well informed, widely embraced, and stick for the long term. Through Door #3 is a creative and courageous path, and it is one worth walking.