By Kieran McCartan, PhD, & David S. Prescott, LICSW
The concept
of culture is important in understanding how people experience and engage with
the world around them. Over the years on this blog, we have talked about
different types of culture and their relationship to sexual abuse. The
conversation is one that never stops because although we want a society that
does not allow and or promote sexual violence, we have not arrived there (although
we are further down the road than where we started from). Culture change is
difficult and takes time; the #Metoo and everyone’s invited movements are recent
examples. However, at a local community level, cultural change should be easier
and more realistic. Community culture change is more contained, and it can be
easier to gain buy-in. Two stories this week from the UK serve as examples of
the difficulty of culture change. These involve the BBC in one and the other,
McDonald’s. In both employment-based communities, the necessary culture change
that is needed to prevent sexually abuse isn’t happening. Instead, what we see
is employer disengagement, denial, inaction, and risky behaviors.
Over the
last two weeks, the BBC has been involved in a story about one of its leading
presenters being allegedly involved in sexually exploitative practices, as reported by The Sun and based upon information from the
victims’ parents. The claim from The Sun was that the presenter had been
involved in an exploitative relationship over three years with a vulnerable
female. It involved paying her monies totaling £35,00 for sexually explicit
photos and imagery of herself. The report claimed that she was vulnerable, was
using the money to pay for heroin, and that the abuse started when she was 17.
In the report the parents claimed that they had approached and reported this to
the BBC, who had done nothing. After the story was published many high-profile
BBC presenters distanced themselves from the events, including on social media. Additionally, the victim came out
and said the story was “rubbish”. Eventually the wife of the person
at the center of this story came out and named her husband, Huw Edwards, as the person at the center of the
story. In this statement she says that her husband suffers from major bouts of
depression and is currently hospitalized.
In short,
it’s a mess. We are aware that media coverage of breaking news can be flawed.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the BBC, like many other organizations, have a
long way to go to prevent abuse in the workplace and by people in positions of
trust.
Over the
course of this story, the BBC has been criticized for not taking the claim
seriously, trying to cover the story up, trying to protect the person at the center
of this, and having a culture where abuse, cover-up, and mystery is commonplace.
The BBC responded and said that it was protecting the human rights of
person at the center of this, that that had suspended them, and a full investigation would take place. Since the release of this report, more allegations against Huw Edwards have come out
from BBC colleagues.
The story
highlights the need for an engaged employer who can respond to claims of abuse,
that has policies and practices in place to respond, and can demonstrate that they
take the claims seriously. One note of consideration about this story is why
the BBC would get involved in a private case as this not between to employees?
As the presenter in question is very senior and the face of a flagship news
program, there are expectations of his behaviors and attitudes that go beyond
the organization. Both the presenter and the organization are in positions of public
trust. There are concerns of moral fiber, questions of trustworthiness, and
issues related to institutional damage. Also, without phone logs we don’t know
when the messages took place or whether it was on company time, with a company
phone, etc.
The second
story also involves the BBC, but this time in an investigatory role. Early this
week, they reported on an investigation into reports of sexual abuse, misogyny,
harassment, and bullying at McDonald’s restaurants in the UK. The report claimed that
many victims of abuse reported them to management and to corporate headquarters
but were dismissed and ignored. This often resulted in the employee leaving. Within
48 hours of the story breaking over 100 more former employees verified and expanded on the claims
in the report, indicating that the culture of abuse was wider and more
significant than originally thought. This case, like the BBC, involves an organization
that likely is not in touch with the realities of abusive behavior in their
workforce, does not listen to people who are victimized, and do not engage with
the problems or the people involved. The CEO of McDonalds’ UK and Ireland admitted this, saying that they as
an organization had let staff (especially young staff) down and would strive to
do better in the future.
It should
be obvious that everyone has the right to work in a workplace free from sexual
harm and misogyny. Everyone has the right to have an employer that is engaged
around these topics, takes reports seriously, and engages with staff
appropriately in response. This, however, hasn’t been the case. We would
suggest the BBC and McDonald’s are not outliers in this area, but that they are
representative of many organizations who need to come to terms with abuse. This
raises the question of what employers are doing to make their workplaces abuse
free and protect their staff from harm. Are they writing policies without
meaningfully implementing them or making earnest attempts to end abuse now?
In an ideal
world, we would have research-informed messaging, support for staff wellbeing,
trauma-informed workplaces, and activities that promote inclusion and equality;
but unfortunately, we are not there yet. Here are some ideas of what employers can
do:
1. Create a culture of equality,
inclusion, and diversity though actions, communication, and environment.
2. Link together corporate policy and
practice, behaviors, attitudes, and actions on the ground.
3. Embrace compassionate leadership and
create a culture that acknowledges and supports staff who have experienced trauma
and difficulties.
4. Train and upskill staff around behavioral
and attitudinal expectations when in work and then hold them accountable to
them.
5. Encourage staff to speak out about
abuse and offence behavior. In addition, create systems that allow this to be
done in a safe and anonymous fashion if needed.
6. Listen to staff when they do speak
out and have HR/wellbeing procedures in place to respond to these issues.
7. Make sure that anyone involved in
abuse or problematic behavior is treated in fair and transparent fashion.
8. Make sure that all messaging and
communications are fair, balanced, and respectful.
9. Post investigates make sure that
staff are supported to return to/reengage with work in protected, proactive fashion.
10. Review policies, practices,
training, and the working environment regularly see if current practices are
fit for purpose.
But the
bigger question is how can employees and society hold employers to account to
make sure that they do this and maintain standards? Do we need an industry
badging system like Athena
Swan (“a framework which is used across the globe to support and
transform gender equality within higher education (HE) and research”)? Our
belief is that there are some aspects of organizational culture that cannot always
be left to organizations to monitor themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment