A bit of history here!  The 30 year period after the end of World War II is called the “golden era” of the public sector in the UK.  It was assigned the role of “model” employer and expected to implement good management practices. The purpose was to set an example to employers in other sectors.

The end of the golden era led to increased financial stringency and the introduction of competition into those public services which had not been privatised.  There was reduced job security (many areas were at that time sub-contracted to private companies) as well as an increase in the number of part-time workers.  The public sector unions were weakened by the reduced membership and the legal constraints imposed on all trade unions.

The organisation I worked for came into existence after the end of the golden era.

Although I had never worked for one before, I believe this to be a toxic organisation. Reasons for a workplace becoming toxic can be economic pressures resulting in insufficient funding, poor management practices coupled with widespread personal agendas, and ongoing conflicts.  This centre is in an area of high unemployment.

After looking at typical characteristics of such organisations, I believe that a number of them can be related to my former employer during my time there.

The main ones are:-

•  Rampant gossip and rumour: about every 2 years a rumour would circulate that the centre would be closed within the year.  After over 23 years it is still open.  There was also a lot of gossip about individuals, particularly managers.

• Authoritarian or bullying leadership: if a high proportion of the leaders are authoritarian or bullying, then those who are promoted are likely to take a bullying approach as well. This can lead to a culture of subservience, fear and resentment.

• Lack of clear communication by leaders: poor communication about the expectations and values of the organisation can lead to a “them and us” culture.

• Leadership double standards: leaders should consider themselves to be bound by the same behavioural standards and expectations as they set for their employees. Indeed, I believe they should see themselves as role models. You will see from some of my previous posts that there appears to be an element of “double standards” in this organisation: see my post Truthfulness?  where I gave some examples of questionable behaviour by some (not all) of the managers.  The 2 managers who were apparently once found in the elevator together often went for “meetings” in my early years of working for the organisation.  The female manager would return to her office with her blouse fastened incorrectly, and clothes and hair rumpled.  Both of these managers were married to other people and the husband of the female worked in the same building at that time.  Both managers not only retained their jobs but were promoted subsequently.  Their ability to juggle work and a relationship in work time (paid for by the taxpayer) seems to have been highly valued!  Contrast this with the man and woman apparently seen in one of the car parks and the 2 women allegedly found together in the basement toilets (I believe that neither incident took place in work time): apparently these people were not managers and none kept his or her job.

• Lack of consistency: constant changes of working methods, direction and expectations were features of my time there.  Although the ability to embrace (positive) change is essential in any organisation, when there is a high level of inconsistency the leadership will be perceived as not very competent by the employees.  To me, this organisation’s focus constantly oscillated between providing good customer service and driving results and outcomes up, which meant that those cases most likely to have a quick result took priority. [Cynically, I used to think whenever there was a complete U turn in the organisation’s focus that whoever had suggested the latest change of direction must have got a promotion out of it, but that was just my opinion.]

• Lack of transparency and honesty: from my post Workplace Bullying: What Happened you will see that I witnessed requests for data protection printouts (SAR) being handled inappropriately.  In my own case there were also managers who were economical with the truth to cover their own backs, eg the bullying manager stated on several occasions that he had not bullied me; my final manager denied contacting my relative and gossiping about the things she told him.  The latter situation had potentially very serious consequences for me.  [There has never been any acknowledgement, explanation or apology about what happened to me and, possibly naively, I see this as extremely disappointing in a public service paid for by the taxpayer.]

• High sickness levels amongst employees: this organisation is well known to local family doctors who appear to do their best to support its employees, particularly because of the high levels of sickness, both physical and psychological.

• High Staff Turnover: this centre is known for its high turnover of employees.  A few years ago a number of civil servants were transferred from a department outside this organisation, many of them resigned after a short time because they were unhappy in the centre.

• Low morale: the organisation appears to be “stats driven” and there are high performance expectations.  Some employees feel they are set up to fail because, as they deal with a diverse range of clients (some taking longer to talk to than others), they cannot always meet their targets.  This is difficult for those employees who take a pride in their work and want to give clients the best service they can.

• Scapegoating: when things go wrong, some of the less effective managers may try to find a scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for mistakes themselves.  I saw this happen when I resigned.

Results of a toxic organisation can be: high sickness levels; high turnover of employees; poor performance; and loss of talented employees.

One way to help an organisation become less toxic and more open can be for subordinates to evaluate their managers periodically.  To give them a grading and make a brief comment on why they have rated them in that way can be very revealing and give the managers something to think about.

My own view is that (as its honesty about such matters can be questionable) the civil service should not “police” itself but an independent organisation, similar to the Care Quality Commission’s role with the NHS, should be given the task of inspecting how departments are run, employees are treated and levels of customer service achieved.

NEXT POST: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT