You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Two points:
(1) The use of the word 'inappropriate' in the fourth paragraph where the author said that the bully's ".... his behaviour wasn’t appropriate..." is incorrectly used. The word 'inappropriate' suggests that offending behaviour, that is bullying is suitable in other circumstances. Such behaviour is unacceptable in ALL circumstances. In the next sentence and the rest of the essay, the author correctly describes bullying as unacceptable or not acceptable.
It is annoying in news articles about unacceptable behaviour being described as 'inappropriate': "...the person inappropriately touched the other person...", "...the language spoken in the workplace was inappropriate..." especially in regards to unwelcome behaviour. In ALL circumstances, it is NEVER acceptable to touch a person or to use bad language. Such behaviour is NOT suitable in other circumstances.
(2) The article demonstrates that despite a worker being popular to listeners but despised by work colleagues it may be time to turf out the offending worker after counselling and warnings. This applies not only to the radio industry. It applies to any other industry. The offender may be the 'money maker' in the firm. It is known that top earners who harass and/or bully other workers or subordinates which is against the law and/or workplace codes have been dismissed. For example it has happened in some law firms to a top performing partner in a major law firm.
Despite the top earner being dismissed for bad behaviour, it may well be counter-productive to the firm if bad behaviour continues to fester to the detriment of workplace morale and the financial bottom line. It is because such bad behaviour is against human decency and workplace codes.
Regards
Anthony of exciting Belfield.
Anthony,
Thanks, good point about the wording. Point taken.
Because I was recounting a past conversation and I did use that word at the time (now I know I should have said something different) I have left the article as it is, but acknowledge your point and will know better next time.
Thanks as always for your insightful comments.
Steve
Hey Steve, a good read and some good tips.
You say: '"HR’s primary role is to protect the company, not always to solve the problem."
I think that's part of the challenge when dealing with bullies.
If HR is not equipped or wanting to deal with the problem, it will keep recurring. Good people won't put up with a poor working environment, they will just leave.
That doesn't help anyone, especially the station since it will likely loose more good talent than it needs to - the same talent the station relies on to grow it's marketshare.
In my experience I've watched senior people in our industry bullying and sh*t-canning their own staff to management and others, at the same time pretending to be a good bloke or a "mate" of the staff they crapped on.
It's sucks for people on the receiving end and it's pretty average watching your work colleagues copping it for no fault of their own, especially when they are not aware their so called colleague is actually shafting them.
It's gotta be called out mate. Simple. Not easy, but simple.
Darren,
Thanks, good point.
I agree, if it is not well handled, good staff will leave.
Regards, Steve