HR will become ‘spectators to toxic behaviour’ unless empowered to intervene

The reported trend of toxicity circulating throughout some of Australia’s largest organisations has been a major wake-up call for leaders and HR teams throughout the country.

Independent reviews conducted at both Nine and the ABC revealed widespread cultural issues that were characterised by the reviewers as “systemic”. From the investigation of the ABC, workplace racism was pinpointed as a normalised behaviour that had developed into a systemic issue throughout the company.

According to the independent review of Nine, 49 per cent of employees had experienced bullying, discrimination, or harassment, and 24 per cent had experienced sexual harassment.

As much as the findings of these reviews were damning and deplorable, it would be a reach to say they were a surprise, as workplace toxicity has been an embedded phenomenon throughout Australian organisations for years.

Different strategies, however, have been deployed in recent years in an attempt to break this cycle of systemic toxicity, but are organisations taking these strategies seriously?

HR Leader spoke to Karl Treacher, chief executive of The Culture Institute of Australia, regarding organisations with a toxic working environment and how crucial the intertwinement of leadership and HR is to dispel this often-embedded culture.

Treacher first spoke of the leaders’s role in allowing a culture of such toxicity to arise, often prioritising their self-interests over the wellbeing of their team.

“When leaders put their own interests ahead of the collective good (which by definition isn’t leadership), the door is left wide open to many anti-social behaviours and norms. Racism is typically the partner of general harassment in company culture,” Treacher said.

“Somewhere, somehow, the business (and its leaders) have walked past inappropriate behaviour instead of correcting it. In today’s workplaces, there needs to be a well-understood zero tolerance for disrespect of all kinds – especially prejudice and racism.”

Treacher believed that, in large part, a toxic culture can arise when organisational leaders fail to take into account the seriousness of the consequences that can occur by allowing such a culture to permeate throughout a company. Practically, these actions and behaviours that feed into a toxic culture manifesting must be dealt with swiftly.

“In large part, culture and the implications of toxic culture are not taken anywhere near seriously enough. Research indicates that employees in a toxic work environment are at least 40 per cent less engaged than a healthy environment, and this means productivity slumps and performance suffers,” Treacher said.

“In practical terms, if there are known perpetrators (as is the case with Nine), they need to be fired for poor behaviour and misconduct (assuming there is a code of conduct in place). This should be widely publicised across the company as an example of what’s not acceptable.

“In terms of less dramatic actions, organisations need to be conducting an annual culture review that takes into consideration psychosocial hazards of all kinds and ideally overall cultural health. In addition, employees are required to be compliant in harassment and psychosocial hazard laws and responsibilities.”

Along with organisational leaders, HR teams are regularly included in these affairs and the fallout that can come when toxic behaviours occur. So, what role do they play in dispelling a culture that perpetuates toxic behaviours?

“The onus falls squarely on the board and leadership, with HR playing a critical supporting role in implementation and governance. However, it’s important to understand that HR cannot drive cultural change without explicit leadership commitment, investment and modelling of desired behaviours,” Treacher said.

Treacher offered key insights into how organisations can approach causing an effective transformation if they have a toxic work environment.

“Unequivocal leadership accountability – leaders must be willing to make difficult decisions about toxic performers, regardless of their seniority or commercial value,” Treacher said.

“Systematic measurement and monitoring – organisations need regular, independent cultural health assessments that specifically examine psychosocial safety indicators.”

“Clear consequences – as mentioned earlier, there must be visible action taken against toxic behaviours, including termination of offenders when warranted.”

“Leadership capability building – at The Culture Institute, we’ve seen that leaders need specific training and certification in cultural leadership. This isn’t about theoretical knowledge but practical skills in identifying, addressing, and preventing toxic behaviours.”

“Integration with performance systems – cultural leadership should be a core component of performance evaluation and promotion criteria.”

Overall, Treacher believed that HR cannot be shackled by leadership when it comes to the permeating existence of a toxic working environment. Instead, they must be empowered to implement processes and frameworks that can directly address the widespread behaviour.

“The Nine case demonstrates what happens when organisations lack these fundamental elements. HR’s role is to provide the framework and processes, but without empowered intervention authority and leadership backing, they become merely administrative spectators to toxic behaviour … and, in my view, are then complicit,” Treacher said.