Cautionary tales

While most Service leavers report positively on finding new employment, just occasionally we come across some horror stories. The laws of libel mean it would be unwise of us to identify the guilty parties, and the individuals who suffered as a result may not wish to do so for good legal reasons, but their experiences may be worth sharing so that readers are warned about some of the pitfalls. Quest is making no judgement about the merits of the various cases presented – merely stating that they happened.

In the first example, a bright, recently qualified female graduate (she had paid to go to university after leaving the Services) encountered workplace harassment. Caroline applied for a number of jobs and was interviewed by a reputable firm for a position as a junior project manager. She accepted the position and was then asked if she minded acting for a few weeks as the managing director’s personal assistant because a sudden vacancy had arisen and she had experience of this type of work.

Being a can-do person, she accepted and thought that it would provide a rapid introduction to many areas of the organisation that would stand her in good stead when she started her proper job. She began to get concerned when she was introduced round the office as the boss’s PA. Her new workmates therefore placed her as a secretary and, as such, occupying a lowly position in the pecking order. She did not complain, thinking that this was a temporary blip that would soon be corrected.

After some weeks, then months, of filing, making tea, typing letters and clearing out the archives, Caroline voiced her concerns politely but firmly. She was met with a rebuff from her boss and the personnel specialists, being told that she thought she was too good for the job and that her people skills were not good enough for her to be trusted to handle a client. She was also told that her current boss was moving and that she would have a fresh start soon. She decided to stick it for another few months in the hope that things would improve.

They didn’t. Her new boss, a woman, told her that she had been advised to say nothing to her that might be used in any future legal proceedings, and she continued to be isolated by her managers. Petty, catty remarks were aimed in her direction and a meeting with the personnel department led to a partial admission of responsibility for her predicament, but no action. In despair she eventually confronted her boss who immediately sent her on leave to consider her position. By now Caroline had lost her resilience, self-confidence and optimism. She resigned and is now consulting a lawyer.

Case two involved an individual employed to drive change in an organisation. David was briefed that the board and the chief executive accepted that practices were outdated and needed modernisation, and that he had their full backing. As an aside he was also told that one or two staff members were especially sensitive about their positions and that he should exercise care and tact with them.

Not surprisingly, he approached his task with enthusiasm. Interviews with staff members seemed to go well as he established current tasks and future possibilities. He listened as much as he could and took care not to become embroiled in discussions about the future. Even so, the accounts manager refused to give him any assistance and met his requests for information with the response that she was too busy to provide it, eventually complaining to the chief executive. The upshot was a strange meeting at which both were asked to ‘get on better with each other’, whatever that meant.

Nevertheless, the change plan was developed and approved by both the chief executive and the chairman of the board. David was pleased and continued to work on the organisation’s future structure. Three days later he was told that his plan had been rejected as unworkable and that the chairman and chief executive had both decided that his employment should be terminated. No proper explanation was given and, to this day, David has not been told what event or person drove that decision. He later discovered that the chief executive had presented the change plan as his own work and had tried to carry it out – with very mixed results.

Another instance involves a warrant officer who purchased a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity only to discover that it was a real turkey. Looking back, William appreciates that he could perhaps have researched the business more thoroughly before investing his own money, but he took people at face value as he had done throughout his military career. Sadly, legal action taken by his erstwhile employers has made it impossible for him to warn other Service leavers about the organisation involved.

Then there was the individual (an ex-junior NCO) who simply didn’t understand that civilian standards of behaviour, language, politeness and manner are different to military norms. Despite being asked to moderate his crude jokes, ladies in the workplace objected when he refused to change his attitude. Despite being very effective at his job Steve had to go – before his employers ended up at the wrong end of a very expensive employment tribunal.

Finally, a sergeant was accepted for police training. He had sailed through the resettlement preparation for his acceptance interviews and passed them with ease. He was fit, intelligent, sharp and very competent, yet he was removed from training because he appeared to be very narrow-minded about people and cultures that did not share his values. A few off-colour remarks in mixed company, a propensity to have a few drinks and let his hair down, and a sharpness with people who felt intimidated by his manner ensured that Chris handed in his second uniform within a few months and had to find other work.

These accounts, and they are only a handful of the ones we have heard, may appear on first reading to have very little in common. After all, there is a huge difference between being the bully or inflicting filthy ‘humour’ on other workmates, and being the innocent party who is badly treated by others. But there are two problems with this analysis: the first is one of individual perspective; the other concerns personal responsibility.

To look at perspective first of all: was Caroline really harassed at work or was it her incompetence and attitude that was the problem? Could she relate to clients, or was she one of those individuals better off in a behind-the-scenes role? Did David go at his change exercise like a bull-in-a-china-shop and upset individuals needlessly, and did the chief executive in fact lay down the broad outline of the change he envisaged; or was his work stolen? Was it William’s fault or that of his employer that his expectations were so rudely exploded? Was Steve adequately warned and counselled about his behaviour, and was it as bad as his colleagues maintained? And could Chris have learned to moderate his attitude with people who were not in his mould?

These are difficult questions and we are not going to attempt to answer them. They are the stuff of employment tribunals and solicitors’ fees, which is why many lower-level claims are settled between the two parties involved. However, there is one very important lesson that we can all learn from these examples. It is that it may well not matter what someone means by a remark, a joke, a sharp response or even a look; what is important is how these things are taken by the recipient and by any onlookers. Therefore, individuals must learn that they will be judged by their fellow workers, bosses and subordinates on their acts rather than their intentions.

It is no use maintaining, perhaps correctly, that you believe in equal opportunities if you then make jokes or remarks about the colour of a person’s skin or the size of any part of their anatomy. You might or might not be prepared to die for the right of gay people to enjoy the same privileges as straight ones, but words like ‘nance’, ‘queer’, or worse, will be taken as intolerance. You may think they are light-hearted remarks but, to the recipient, they may appear deadly serious. If you doubt this, think about the last time you took great offence at something that was said to you. Now see if it was possible that the remark was not meant as harshly as you took it. That perspective difference is all we are talking about.

Personal responsibility is perhaps a more difficult area for some Service leavers. Generally speaking, they will have lived in a common culture, where everybody understands the unspoken rules and most people follow them – maybe not perfectly or absolutely, but the vast majority of the time. On the whole, the chain-of-command supports its people. You can trust your mates to come to your assistance, you don’t need to check your mess bill for fraud, and you will generally believe that people are telling you the truth. They may be mistaken or making errors of judgement and the results can be catastrophic, but it is cock-up rather than conspiracy.

When you leave, you are on your own to a much greater extent – and for very good reason. The employer has to put the business first and you may be sacrificed as a result. You are expected to stand up for your own rights and not to depend on someone higher up to do it for you. You will no longer belong to a wider military family, so relationships are more businesslike and less personal. People may even exaggerate things or bend the truth to get you to do what they want. Your future depends on you – if not totally, then to a much greater extent than ever before. No one is going to post you to your next appointment, unless you are one of the very few people whose skills are much in demand and your employer wants to keep you.

Indeed, you may only be able to discover your true worth when you threaten to leave an organisation, and that is a risky way to find out because the response may well be ‘goodbye’. You have to be responsible for your own career and its development; and you have to be responsible for obeying the law. You are also responsible for knowing your rights and responsibilities, and for making sure that you act accordingly. This is not such a tall order as it may sound, and the vast majority of Service leavers face few problems, but you should be aware of other people’s perceptions and your own responsibility for yourself, just in case you run into a situation in which this may be important.