Talking Taboo: Making the Most of Polarizing Discussions at Work (for Raymond Rhine) by Alexander Alonso

Author:Alexander Alonso
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Human resources
Publisher: SHRM
Published: 2022-04-02T00:00:00+00:00

The Lingering Effects of a Leader’s Inflammatory Comments

Summary

During a meeting with his project team, a manager makes inflammatory political comments; they are especially hurtful to one team member, who expresses disgust and leaves. Despite HR’s ongoing efforts, negative effects on the organization and individuals stemming from this significant incident persist. The outcome is inconclusive and therefore poor.

A five-member team gathered for a meeting in our company’s conference room to discuss their work on a major project for a client. The team manager, to whom they all reported, brought up recent political events in a neighboring country. He spoke disparagingly about the citizens of that country as “corrupt to the core,” saying the international community should “let them kill one another.” The manager was fully aware that a key team member, an engineer, had roots in that country, including a close relative who was killed there by foreign-backed forces.

The manager’s words were so unthinkable that initially no one could say a word. After a few minutes, the engineer uttered an expletive and left the room. The whole exchange took minutes, but its effects are still unresolved, months later.

HR’s immediate priority was to stop a very dangerous situation. I’ve seen similar situations result in physical fights, and I seriously feared that possibility here. I ended the meeting.

I talked to the manager who made the disparaging comments; he was very defensive. Then I had private conversations with the team members. They all said they were baffled by the manager’s remarks and thought he was way out of line, but they did nothing at the time. From their overall reactions and body language, I concluded that their inaction was because they felt a threat to their job security from the manager.

The team was unable to do any work because the key person, the engineer, was absent. I considered several options for what to do (or not do) next: not interfering further; expressing my opinion; or having a follow-up discussion with the manager, the team, or both.

Not interfering further might have allowed violence to erupt. Expressing my opinion would diminish the perception of my impartiality—an impartial HR department gains more trust. As for having a follow-up discussion with the manager, he said he would refuse to participate unless his direct supervisor was present; I determined that including the team there would be inappropriate.

After looking at the parties’ dynamics, I launched an HR investigation, escalating it to the division level and involving management and the legal department.

Several issues had to be addressed. An unsolicited political comment was made during work by a manager in a position of power over others, who, at the time, were unable to choose whether or not to participate in a political discussion. The manager had a history of disagreements with the employee who left the room, toward whom he had obviously acted vengefully. The manager’s comment was unacceptable, and his inhumane views were intended to be deeply hurtful.

The incident is still being investigated, but numerous organizational and personal consequences have already

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.