How to make procedural fairness and natural justice work for you when you're dealing with anonymous workplace cyberbullying
Research into the concept of perceived
organisational support (POS), or employees' perceptions as to "the extent to which the organization values their contributions and ...well-being" indicated a mediating effect between high POS levels and lowered staff resignations, workplace harassment and bullying. One of the strongest antecedents of POS is procedural fairness.
How does natural justice apply to me at work?
Natural justice imposesa code of fair procedure, and regards every Australian citizens' right to an unbiased and fair
hearing (audi alteram partem). It imposes a legal requirement on potentially adverse
government decision-making processes and can therefore apply to decisions regarding matters such as the cancellation of a licence or benefit, employee dismissal, disciplinary sanctions, or the publication of a report that damages a person’s
reputation.
Procedural fairness is
often viewed as a crucial element reflective of an organisation's corporate values of mutual respect and ethical behaviour, and supports the decision making process for potentially adverse employment
matters such as workplace bullying investigations and breaches of the code of conduct etc.
Procedural
fairness relates to (1). distributive justice
- fairness of outcomes, (2). procedural justice - fairness of processes, and (3) interactional
justice - fairness in interpersonal dealings. It is perhaps no
surprise to anyone that employees’ perceptions of organisational justice
influences work behaviours (reflected through work attitudes,
performance and job satisfaction).
Can procedural fairness, or natural justice, assist employees dealing with workplace cyberbullying matters, particularly anonymous online bullying?
Image courtesy of
Dear diary, how I defended myself against a workplace cyberbully by using the principles of natural justice
Samm accepted the promotion
of senior project manager in a high profile organisation, which prompted the incumbent acting manager to leave for a job in another agency. Within the first month,
internet postings appeared accusing Samm of landing the job by sleeping with her
new boss, including explicit photos showing the back of a woman’s head with a hairstyle
similar to Samm’s. Other posts, together with anonymous emails, started appearing on a
daily basis, ostensibly from Samm’s former colleagues alleging Samm’s sexual
proclivities and linking them to past work performance ratings. An anonymous
website emerged, together with the allegations, photos, posts and emails. Samm felt powerless and defenceless, yet decided not to respond, judging this would only
inflame matters.
However, Samm’s reticence
resulted in an unforeseen outcome. Her new boss, colleagues and staff believed
her lack of response indicated managerial weakness and implied the allegations were credible. Consequently, Samm was cold-shouldered. Samm’s
professional reputation was being hacked by an ICT savvy group.
Sam decided to defend
herself so that her side of the story was heard (natural justice).
Firstly, Samm recorded the
posts, emails and website commentary including dates and times and reported the
abuse to the police under the Crimes Act, regarding internet
stalking, or publishing of material, to
or about a person by post, telephone, fax, text message, email or other
electronic communication. Police resources can track down anonymous
cyberbullies. She then asked the agency’s ICT area to block the emails, and
asked them to help her with her online privacy settings. Samm followed this up by reporting the
abuse (together with the recorded material) to her agency’s HR area and asked if
they could investigate the matter as the behaviour violated the
organisation’s code of ethics and State WHS legislation. Lastly, Samm contacted the
Internet service providers and asked them to trace and remove the abusive
content as it violated the providers’ anti-abuse policies.
Finally, Samm asked her
new boss to arrange a corporate meeting so she could set the record straight
with her co-workers. Her boss was happy to comply as the cyberbullying was
tarnishing his reputation as well as the organisation’s reputation.
At that meeting Samm asked people to imagine that they’d accepted a job for which an incumbent employee
had been considered, and to imagine that on their arrival their reputation was trashed by anonymous online postings, emails and website commentary where the only recourse was to sit tight or
escalate the flaming. “How can I convince you I’m telling you the truth? All I
can say is that these cyberbullying posts and emails are baseless lies.” Sam talked about the
actions she had undertaken to defend herself, with help from the police, Internet providers, and the agency's ICT area. Samm’s
honesty, authenticity and courage created a circuit breaker and helped co-workers to think objectively about the situation. Many apologised to Samm for making assumptions and recognised that this type of workplace cyberbullying could potentially happen to them.
Dr Lawrence has a BA SSc and a PhD in organisational social psychology and works with individuals and organisations as a consultant, speaker and trainer. She uses her social science expertise to enhance interactions between organisations and the people who lead and work in them by fostering new insights for diagnosing organisational problems, and build new capabilities and culture.
No comments :
Post a Comment