Culture and Engagement

I have rewritten this post a few times because the more I read and discuss with experts, the more I realise how many differing views there are on the subject on culture and engagement! Given this, below is a top level collection of thoughts on the subject and some models I found interesting.

Engagement

Generally I have found alignment in my research on the concept of engagement.

Sometimes referred to as an individual construct, engagement can also be referenced in relation to a group or team. Engagement focuses on how motivated and energised staff are in relation to their work and goals. Employees are more likely to be engaged when their values and behaviours are in alignment with their organisations. 

A common way to test engagement is though the 'Say, Stay and Strive' concept. Aon Hewitt uses this model. Effectively it looks at employee actions that are indicators of engagement. Aon Hewitt's model as you can see looks beyond this to identify the drivers which generate those behaviours.

Culture

Culture is where there seems to be a much greater divergence in opinion and models. Currently, my take on the matter is aligned with some work from Denison noting that that culture is an organisational construct. In other words, an emergent property that is created from the from all the individuals in a group working together.

An example of some of the differing concepts on culture is below:

Ryder Group sees culture as the intersection of how people think (rational), feel (emotional) and act (behaviour) in an organisation. The former two elements creating a 'climate' that drives behaviour. 

As a similar but alternative view Aon Hewitt defines culture as an intersection of beliefs about strategy and business models, behaviours and personal interactions, and finally how decisions are made.

One of the more interesting distinctions i've found is that some models strive to achieve a high performance culture that aligns with certain characteristics (Human Synergystics) while others don't prefer any specific culture over another but rather see them as functional or dysfunctional depending on their alignment with company strategy and employees (Aon Hewitt / Culture Amp). Personally at this stage i'm drawn towards the latter however I wouldn't be surprised if my thoughts continue to change as I work more on the subject. 

Gardening Leave

There was a great write up by Ashurst recently on Gardening leave.

Focusing on the case of Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi (No 2) [2015] VSC 694, this explores a case which I imagine would be common across many organisations. Here a Sales Manager leaves for a competitor and is placed on gardening leave during his notice period. The employer attempts to enforce their contractual provisions when the Sales Manager begins employment with the competitor within the notice period.

Here i'll point out a few items of Ashurst's analysis I found particularly interesting.

Impact of the employer asking the employee to return their material benefits

Justice Bell J accepted the employee's argument that by removing the company car, iPhone and iPod the employer had repudiated the contract by unilaterally reducing the employee's remuneration. It's important to remember that employees are still entitled to all of the benefits of their employment contracts while on gardening leave and this may mean access to tools and perks normally associated with performing their roles.

Businesses need to also be aware that there is a "quid pro quo" in gardening leave. For the business to receive the person's loyalty and fidelity, the employee must remain "on the books" as an employee and, critically, must continue to receive all contractual entitlements, such as a company car or technology. 

The right to place employees on gardening leave

The Fair Work Act 2009 is silent on the issue of gardening leave, or more specifically the ability for an employer to direct an employee not to perform work. Given this an employee's contract needs to be worded appropriately to provide these options. If a contract doesn't allow for such an action an employee could also argue that the employer has repudiated the contract.

Dealing with confidential information 

Again, this case acts as a clear example demonstrating the importance of contacts filling in gaps of law. While generally there are protections for employers dealing with misuse of confidential information, these protections probably stop short of the prescription most employers would like.

In the Actrol case, the employer had no redress against the employee in relation to the emails because the employee had not breached any contractual term or any policy by sending information outside the employer's IT system to his personal email address. The fact that he had a legitimate business purpose for doing so, and had not otherwise used or misused the emails was sufficient. It did not matter that it was not management's preference that documents be transferred as the employee transferred them.

Abandonment, small business employers and a very poorly worded text message

A recent Human Capital email in my inbox reminded me of a case earlier last year where a small business employer dismissed an employee for sending a text message to her manager calling him a "complete dick".

Colourful texts aside, I find Louise Nesbitt v Dragon Mountain Gold Limited [2015] interesting because it touches on both serious misconduct for small business employers and abandonment of employment.

Dragon Mountain is about as small as a small business can get, consisting of two employees. Mr Gardiner, Chairman and Managing Director and Ms Nesbitt Office Administrator/Bookkeeper.

On 12 January 2014, Ms Nesbitt sent a text message intended for her daughter's boyfriend to Mr Gardiner stating "Remember.... Rob [Mr Gardener] is a complete dick... we already know this so please try your best not to tell him that regardless of how much you might feel the need."

Realising her mistake almost immediately, Ms Nesbitt sent two subsequent messages of apology and did not attend for work the following day. Ms Nesbitt also did not complete a task required for the board meeting on 14 January 2014.

Having not returned to the employers office between 13 to 17 January 2014, her employment was terminated on 17 January 2014 sating the Board considered the matter on the 12th and made a finding of gross misconduct.

Abandonment of employment:

Commissioner Cloghan found that while he did not accept Ms Nesbitt's argument that she performed work from home, he never the less found Ms Nesbitt did not abandon her employment.

Effectively this was because on a number of occasions Ms Nesbitt held points of contact with the employer. Such as when she:

• attempted to resolve the matter with the non-executive directors, 
• stated she was unable to prepare board packs 
• and left documents at the office door. 

Abandonment of employment comes into play when an employer is effectively getting radio silence from an employee after attempting to contact them by all reasonable means (Some Awards also have additional rules). Here the employer clearly knew where Ms Nesbitt was and she was in contact with them so abandonment was not an issue. 

Gross misconduct:

Being a small business employer, Dragon Mountain was subject to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

Here Commissioner Cloghan considers a few things. The context of the relationship between Ms Nesbitt and her employer, the wording of the text itself and her actions and words used following the text.

Below are a few select excerpts from Commissioner Cloghan showing his reasoning:

To call a person a “dick” is a derogatory term to describe them as an idiot or fool. The word “complete” is used to convey the message that the person is, without exception, an idiot or fool - they are nothing less than a “dick”.

The principal reason for Ms Nesbitt’s dismissal was the text message describing Mr Gardner, the Employer’s Chairman and Managing Director, as a “complete dick”. However, the evidence provided in the hearing indicates that this remark appears to have been the culmination of a “testing” relationship with Mr Gardner.

Ms Nesbitt poses the rhetorical question of how the Directors of the Employer describe an “accidental, out of context text message as gross misconduct.” Accidental or not, what matters is the content of the text message. In view of the deteriorating working relationship, I consider the Employer had reasonable grounds to believe, that Ms Nesbitt considered Mr Gardner a fool or idiot.

Ms Nesbitt assumes that having called her boss a fool or idiot she is able to reformulate its consequences by considering it acceptable to apologise (by text), provide implausible reasons for calling Mr Gardner “a complete dick” and go to third parties and seek that they not speak to her boss, before they discuss the text message with her. I mention these matters, because the Employer was aware of them and they should be considered, in whether Mr Gardner’s believed the conduct was sufficient to justify immediate dismissal.

This case shows the importance of the employment relationship and how that importance is arguably heightened in smaller teams, in this case two people. Ms Nesbitt's choice of words was carefully analysed by the Commissioner including her actions following the text in forming a view of the relationship. This obviously works both ways and careful wording of letters and following of procedures is just as important for employers. 

For another opinion, CCIQ has a write up here.