bullying or harassment complaint.
You can put all four essay together by clicking here.]
The next strategic decision is whether to attempt conciliation or move directly to a formal complaint. (Organisational policies differ in their processes and I recommend professional advice.)
To address the question we must return to the tactical. Assuming there's a case to answer, respondents fall into one of three categories:
-
Those who, it appears, are unaware of the effects of their conduct. For these cases, conciliation should be considered mandatory. The idea is to change the behaviour without causing unnecessary damage to the working relationship.
-
Those whose behaviours you suspect are calculated — but the available evidence doesn't definitively sustain the suspicion. It's a mistake to move directly to a formal complaint in the hope that the necessary evidence will magically appear or that a respondent will admit it in a reply.
-
And, finally, the respondent whose record of behaviour is demonstrably both inappropriate and intentional. I STILL favour conciliation if there's any hope for a change in the behaviour. The matter can always move on to a more formal complaint.
I understand a reluctance to sit down with a person suspected of intentionally inflicting harm. It's neither fair nor right, but there's no way for this to be easy. ▪
in terms that she understands,
you don’t know your subject well enough.
—Matthew Frederick (architect and urban planner)
