We took a break last week - it was a vacation week, and my birthday - but we’re back at it this week with a new Sunday Story. This isn’t so much one single story, as it is a story we’ve all seen countless times summed up in a simple phrase: Awful but Lawful behaviour.
It’s at the core of a lot of conflict - someone will engage in behaviour that is having a clear negative impact on others, but since it doesn’t violate a rule (or because processes for complaints are complex, unclear, or inaccessible) there’s nothing that can be done by the leaders of that environment.
This happens all the time, but here are some examples:
1) Statements that do not violate a policy, but are hurtful to a member of the team or community. For example, coworkers and colleagues often engage in gentle ribbing, but some people take that ribbing too far or allow it to cut too deeply; we may laugh it off in the moment but over time, this ribbing will build resentment which primes us for conflict.
2) A pattern of behaviour of refusing to find solutions on minor conflicts, for example an individual who wears scented body spray in a workplace that doesn’t have scent-free policies, and refuses to change their practice when a colleague asks them to. This often means there has to be some kind of formal process on the accommodation side of things (many Human Rights laws require an employer to reasonably accommodate a diagnosable thing like a scent-based allergy), but that process is focused on the person needing the accommodation, and not the person wearing the scent; had that person compromised an easier solution could have been found, but in this example they were within the “rules” of that workplace and thus this behaviour of not compromising may be considered awful - but it’s lawful.
3) Micro-aggressions - there’s a lot of discourse around this word so I will define it right up front: Indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group. This can certainly include a real bias playing out in subtle ways, like a hiring practice that excludes certain races, non-Western names, or identity groups - where there is a strong suggestion that there’s something afoot but there’s enough plausible deniability or a lack of clear evidence to make any sort of accountability stick. Awful, but lawful, and this is the worst one because in many cases this kind of issue can be nefarious in how it impacts our actions. As a species, we are constantly flooded with messages about how things “should” be - from what is masculine and feminine to what types of work are for what types of people and more. These messages shape our expectations of the world around us, and can result in these unquestioned assumptions and biases coming out in our actions - like when in a group of male engineers with one woman, the woman is assumed by a delivery agent to be the administrative assistant (The linked article is an example, but there are countless that I’ve heard personally from my peers as well).
There are many examples of “Awful but Lawful” behaviour, but no doubt you want to know what to do about it. If you want the easy (and shameless) answer, sign up for our course! We teach you exactly how to manage workplace conflicts, ranging from the awful but lawful all the way up to full-on fireable issues. Our method teaches you a human-first approach that focuses on repairing harms and resolving conflict so that you can de-escalate and reduce the impact of conflict in your context.
If you want a slightly more robust answer right here in this blog, here’s the high-level overview of what you should do to address awful but lawful behaviour:
1) Strong Formal accountability structures. You need accountability structures that allow you to address behaviour as soon as it’s an issue. In many cases, this is both a really robust performance management system AND a really robust way of addressing complaints that, critically, includes support for alternative dispute resolutions. Alternative Dispute Resolutions are a category of approaches to resolving conflict that are often more palatable to people who have experienced harm - things like mediation, restorative justice, conflict coaching, and other approaches integrated into your accountability structure means teammates can seek support and help for awful but lawful behaviour before it escalates, allowing you to nip it in the bud.
2) Conflict Leadership Training. It doesn’t matter how good your formal structures are; your management and leadership staff need to be really well trained on how to navigate it; it’s always easier to get easier and harder to get harder, so it’s important for managers to start from a place of accountability, and the right training will allow them to do that.
3) Informal Accountability Structures: This is where the above two come together - by having an organization with really strong formal structures, and really good training on how to to navigate those structures, you will have a leg-up in creating a team that is exceptionally good at resolving conflicts and awful but lawful behaviour themselves. Good conflict systems, regularly used by those in charge, results in a team of people who are very conflict aware. Those people will use the skills of resolution - like communication, setting boundaries, etc. - every day, resulting in a much more immediate response to prevent and address awful but lawful behaviour.
By embracing the above three solutions, you can help lead through the disruptive force of awful but lawful behaviour and make a more conflict-aware team environment.
Thanks for reading - we’ll see you next Sunday!
Comments