HR lessons from Sydney Swans’ statements

While the investigations continue into a potential connection between several Sydney Swans players and an alleged sexual assault, the AFL club’s response has raised questions around true accountability and what an appropriate public response looks like.

Further to criticism faced by the Sydney Swans regarding their response to the incident, HR Leader reached out to workplace lawyers and specialists to examine what the club’s crisis team got wrong and how managers can better tackle sensitive situations.

According to Kate Walawski, employment and safety law partner at Dentons, the phrasing that the players “found themselves in this situation” should “embarrass everyone who signed off on it”.

The language, she suggested, is of “people protecting an institution, not people confronting harm”.

“It is not a statement about an alleged victim. It is not a statement about accountability,” she said.

For Ilona Charles, CEO and co-founder of HR consultancy Shilo People, hindsight suggests the biggest mistake was the direction the conversation took.

She said: “Early statements were focused on what the incident meant for the Swans’ finals campaign, when supporters, employees, the general public and key stakeholders were looking for an acknowledgement and recognition of the alleged victim, the potential impact on her and the flow-on consequences for everyone else.”

Similarly, national violence prevention leader and educator Tarang Chawla said the club incorrectly treated the incident as a “reputational problem to be managed rather than an assessment of institutional culture”.

“The club was right not to prejudge an active police investigation, but the early language about players ‘finding themselves in this situation’ garnered criticism because it stripped away agency and centred the players and the club over the seriousness of what was alleged,” he said.

Chawla noted that representatives can demonstrate transparency and accountability without establishing or suggesting criminal guilt.

Charles also acknowledged that the club moved faster than numerous sporting organisations have in the past, including the AFL. While the initial response was “clunky, thoughtless and understandably drew criticism”, she said the club in later days appeared to listen, reflect and take a more decisive position, especially with the move to sanction the players.

The sanctions were reportedly handed down due to a breach of the club’s standards.

According to Charles, however, the bigger issue is the seemingly endless, repeated misconduct in the sporting sector.

Such incidents, she said, “raise questions about culture, behavioural standards and what is considered acceptable within an organisation. Sporting organisations should not wait for the courts to define culture.”

“Their role is to clearly articulate expectations around respect, accountability and conduct,” she said.

Walawski said HR needs to be aware that it sits “at exactly the point where culture, conduct and consequence meet”.

She said: “When something serious happens, the instinct in many organisations is to protect the institution first: manage the message, soften the language, wait for the news cycle to move on. That instinct is precisely what needs to be dismantled, and HR is one of the few functions positioned to dismantle it.”

In this way, Charles said leaders should recognise that “culture is tested in moments of crisis”.

While initial reactions may consider reputation management, the PR machine, legal consideration and business continuity, empathy must come first, both privately and publicly. Responses, she said, are very telling about a leader’s priorities; and if they don’t mesh with the public, trust can be lost quickly.

Chawla said: “Crisis communication cannot compensate for weak governance.”

“Organisations often ask me how to ensure they are creating safe working cultures, and I will tell them: the obligation is not something you work out after someone allegedly crosses a boundary. Allegations of gendered harm need to have pre-agreed protocols: who supports the person making the complaint, who behavioural standards apply regardless of the criminal process, and how this will be communicated.”

Chawla also identified decisiveness as a valuable trait for leaders, especially in times of pressure.

“Even while facts are being ascertained, people still judge whether stated values and actual decisions align. This is usually what people inside the organisation watch more closely, and it is what people externally judge any organisation on, whether they’re a football club or an ASX-listed company,” he said.

Walawski said: “If your organisation’s instinct in a crisis is to protect the brand first and the person second, that instinct will show up in every policy, every investigation and every process.”

“Fix the instinct, not just the wording.”

The Sydney Swans released a fourth statement on the evening of 19 August on behalf of sanctioned players Riley Bice, Nick Blakey, Isaac Heeney, James Jordon and Chad Warner that read: “We are deeply sorry to everyone involved. We know that our behaviour has fallen well short of the standards expected of us and the values of our club.

“We know we have let down our partners and families, members, supporters, teammates, the AFLW team, corporate partners and everyone at the Club and in the wider community.

“We accept the club sanction and apologise for the impact this has had on those involved.

“Our focus will not be on rebuilding trust with the Club and the community.”

While the investigation is ongoing, and no players have been formally charged, Mumbrella reported on 19 August that Australian Red Cross Lifeblood has stepped back from its campaign with the club; it’s the second company to take action after Telstra allegedly paused its brand deals with all players.

More to come.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.