Groupe Conseil SCO provide consulting services and various types of support for the functioning of work teams and the management of workplace conflicts.

Can you describe a case that stands out particularly in your mind?

I worked with a Quebec company in which the manager was a top-flight financier (chartered accounting). He scrutinized his employees' quarterly results and performance, and was disappointed and even irritated to note the demotivation of personnel in a department that reported to him. His "tough" management style (authoritarian and directive) had created a reverse effect. The department bathed in an atmosphere of fear and demotivation. The human resources department had attempted to make him understand the situation, but he was not a very receptive kind of person. As a shareholder and member of the board of directors, he was in a position to defend his opinions and his extraordinary savoir-faire in reaching financial targets. He was convinced that his way of achieving those results was excellent.

My assignment involved helping him look beyond the numbers and understand that employee motivation was just as important as results. One way of focusing his attention on this aspect was to ask him to calculate how much 40, or 50 hours of absenteeism a week from a professional on his team cost. How much did ten days of sick leave cost, etc. That's when he saw the light.

Our work helped him realize that he valued financial performance exclusively, to the detriment of the workplace environment. We had group communication sessions, which led to a big change. Staff felt less intimated in his presence, and subordinates felt more comfortable expressing different points of view. He then had to learn how to delegate and trust his junior executives.

How does a human resources manager manage relations between employees and a boss "hostile" to criticism?

The more the role of human resources is well positioned and understood in the organization, the more the company is aware of this type of problem.

When employees confide in human resources, it's a warning sign that something is not right. At that time, human resources ask themselves what should be done: just to listen attentively, for example, or work on team consolidation or make a coaching effort.

I think that the legislation that came into effect in 2004 on psychological harassment moved things forward quite a bit. The law clearly sets forth the right of employees to work in an environment that is healthy and free of harassment, and employers are obligated to provide their employees with such an environment.The law on psychological harassment has developed greater awareness on these issues. Companies see the importance of managing problematic environments, and even of intervening with managers who abuse their power. For example, investigating a complaint can cost between $10,000 and $15,000. To this must be added the costs of absenteeism, decreased productivity and potential compensation to be paid out if the complaint is found to be legitimate. It is therefore in companies' best interest to invest in prevention! In other words, it has become essential to be proactive.

Whom do managers confide in?

Some managers may feel left to their own devices in difficult environments such as the current economic slump. The support culture is changing, however.

Managers are less hesitant about seeking out help and consulting human resources. On the other hand, more organizations have started to implement support networks and management circles in which managers can talk about the difficult situations they are experiencing.

Are companies fertile ground for breeding conflicts?

The favourable conditions for conflict are due to a combination of factors:

• Everything is fast (e.g. communications) and the structure of companies is very scattered (teams are in different countries, the cultures are different, etc.).
• Moreover, the financial reality is that companies, particularly public ones, are judged on their ability to deliver global results. This leads to the hypervaluation of financial performance.

Aggressive/defensive people do very well in this type of environment. They are recognized when they hit their targets even if they do so in a climate of terror. When a manager has mistreated his or her teams, absenteeism increases, motivation decreases and employees become disengaged.

Upper management's choice to focus on short-term results—a very reactive style of management—leads to a true "short-sighted leadership." This type of management has consequences on the management of human resources, one of which is the astronomical cost borne by companies for disability and absenteeism.

Your experience seems to refute the claim that "work is health"!

Not really. Health at work is feasible and even essential! We are currently very aware of the importance of maintaining organizational health, which obviously goes through employee health. To create this work culture, you need to create a strong partnership between top management and the company's departments, as within human resources departments.

In this way, we will perhaps avoid the "short-sighted" management that has prevailed over the past dozen years, in which the only health criteria was included under the company's financial results. Human resources professionals must and will increasingly have to quantify the benefits of "humane" resource management.

The world of work can only be a source of sickness when the means applied are not sufficient, when resources are no longer aligned and when employees' values no longer match the organizational ones in place. Under these conditions, it is sad to note the distress of certain individuals who struggle to remain aboard a boat whose destination no longer suits.

Post a comment on redaction@latoiledesrecruteurs.com