The Human Factor: Playing Havoc with Policies and Procedures

“You can have the best HR policies and practices in the world but they still won’t deliver equitable outcomes for Australia ’s diverse workforce unless you address the people aspects.” Fiona Krautil, Director, EOWA

In conjunction with Susan Halliday, ex-Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, EOWA has developed a series of hands-on tools – Employment Matter Solutions –which address the intervening human factor in policies and procedures.

“Working with Susan Halliday was a great opportunity to access her incredible knowledge in the area of discrimination and potential discriminatory situations,” said EOWA’s Lisa Annese, co-creator of the Solutions. “I’m excited that we are able to present these Solutions in a practical, module-based format and would urge all HR practitioners to take advantage of this unique tool.”

These Solutions are designed to be used either by individual EO practitioners or to be run as Employment Matter training sessions within your organisation. Each module explores the ways human factors can compromise and negate an organisation’s objective polices and merit-based processes, impacting negatively on women at work. Working with real-life sample workplaces, the Employment Matter Solutions work through the issues in module form and comprise:

• a short case study

• things that could go wrong in the sample workplace

• a key question that allows the trainer to unpack a negative human factor

• an examination of the impact and a review of how to neutralise it, and

• strategies to pre-empt and prevent it in the future.

Relating it back to the organisation’s own workplace, the module concludes by helping to identify processes and policies for the individual’s workplace which could be introduced or enhanced to prevent the human factors from having a potentially negative impact on women in the workplace.

In this issue we feature the Employment Matter Solution on Work Organisation.

Work Organisation

Let’s take a look at a case study company Provite Agricultural Health Products, where Julia Johnson worked in a professional role in a manufacturing environment, on a permanent part-time basis. Of her four days per week, one day was worked from home as was agreed on Julia’s return from adoption leave three years ago.

A science graduate with experience in marketing and logistics, Julia had access to four shared support staff in the head office and was responsible for 12 regional contacts scattered throughout NSW, VIC, TAS and NZ with whom she dealt regularly.

Her full-time peer, Carl Minatto, held an identical role covering WA, SA, NT and QLD. Carl shared the same support staff and had responsibility for 15 regional contacts. Between them they forecast annual agricultural product demand, often managing peaks and troughs in unexpected weather patterns.

Regular communication with their regional contacts, keeping them stocked, on-track commercially and up-dated on new product lines were key job requirements. Understanding what their direct competitors were doing was also an important part of the job.

Issue One: Family Friendly at a Price

Provite was pleased with the recognition associated with the success of Julia’s family-friendly working arrangements when these were profiled in a management magazine. Julia reported that she had suggested the arrangement and after a three-month trial period, the company formalised it. Julia took calls at home and responded to emails if urgent on the day she was not employed, and she was happy to alter her days in emergency situations. Her manager Martin Drummond said that feedback from Julia’s 12 regional contacts was positive, and that the arrangement appeared to suit everyone.

Julia and Carl filled in for each other when needed, but when Martin was away on leave, Carl was put in the “acting role” receiving a temporary wage increase. This had happened three times over the past two years. Julia had never been offered the acting position, but had on each occasion been asked by Martin to keep an eye on Carl while he was in it.

“I hadn’t worried too much about [the situation], but I must admit I felt irritated recently when I was filling out the company’s new succession plan documentation,” says Julie. “Unlike Carl, I can’t stipulate that I’ve formally acted as the Manager of the area.”

Currently acting as the Manager, Carl was speaking with three new graduates as part of an induction process. One graduate asked Carl about casual Friday, noting that it was Friday and not everyone seemed to be “into the opportunity”. Carl was overheard by support staff to say “It’s fine for the girls, but I think you’ll find the boys on this floor balance the ‘opportunity’ as you call it, with how serious they are about their careers.”

What Could Be Going Wrong?

>   Individuals who opt for part-time or flexible work arrangements are seen, and treated as people who are less serious about career progression – for the part-timers it’s just a job.

>  Company policy allows for family friendly work arrangements, but no management training to counteract negative gender bias and stereotypes that come into play when women choose to exercise these options.

>  Acting roles that can develop staff are not rotated equitably.

>  An inappropriate and divisive management request for one staff member to keep an eye on a peer, who is being paid to act-up.

>  An outlook on jobs, (shared with new graduates by a more senior person) that appears to contrast the serious nature of men’s careers to the less serious nature of women’s work.

Key Question: Do women who opt for family-friendly work arrangements experience less favourable treatment?

Many people assume that if an organisation offers alternative and flexible family-friendly ways of organising work, that it has fulfilled its EO responsibilities. While this may be the aim and true at the outset, the organisation also has the longer-term responsibility to ensure that women don’t experience direct or indirect sex discrimination because they utilise alternative work arrangements.

How does the human factor intervene in Julia’s case?
Find out how to neutralise or pre-empt it from our Employment Matter Solutions.