Judging people on moral grounds when you don't live a particularly moral life

[QuestionsorComments]

This is a situation that's causing a ridiculous amount of upset in a small team of senior professionals. Yes, they really should all grow up, but in the absence of that, I and the only other member to have remained mostly neutral have been discussing "what is to be done".

We work in a very high stress environment working with vulnerable young people and all carry a certain amount of emotional baggage. In front of service users and other staff we are all highly professional. However, in our weekly leadership meetings there is a certain amount of offloading and some inappropriate jokes, banter, gossip. Very much in the room, everyone understands it's our safe space.

One member of the team cannot accept this though and is offended by every off colour joke or non PC term used. And she's right really, but we do all understand the correct way to behave when appropriate.

Anyway, broadly I support her position, but a couple of the other team members find it very hard to accept her lecturing them on moral issues when she's very open that she's been in a relationship with a married man for 10 years+.

They obviously need to behave professionally in a professional situation, but take exception to being told how to behave by someone who behaves badly, even though the situations are not connected. One man in particular finds it very hard because he has been the wronged party in that situation.

It's not really about who's right or wrong, but how we get this team to work together, whilst respecting her right not to be offended and everyone else's need to let off steam.

Any ideas at all?

uncomfortable. He found is funny, I found it creepy and disturbing.

Honestly I usually have a very low tolerance for "inappropriate". Some of it is not things I'd say, but there's nothing there that offends me. It's all stuff comedians could still say.

But this isn't about your tolerance, it's about whether anyone hearing it is unhappy. If they are, then that's the end of it.

Who are you in this scenario? I'm a bit lost on that. A colleague, colleague in a different dept, the boss etc?

So basically you and your colleagues crack racist homophobic sexist inappropriate jokes, remarks and ‘banter’, in the workplace, and you feel this woman has no right to complain because she’s been having an affair with a married man?

Wtf kind of deeply unpleasant unprofessional place is this? I hope it’s not taxpayer funded.

Whoever is in charge there needs to grow a backbone and start doing their job.

@SilverHairedCat

But this isn't about your tolerance, it's about whether anyone hearing it is unhappy. If they are, then that's the end of it.

Who are you in this scenario? I'm a bit lost on that. A colleague, colleague in a different dept, the boss etc?

Yes I realise that but there's nothing said that couldn't still be said on post watershed TV. It's not stuff you'd say in a job interview but it's nothing anyone's going to lose their job for.

We each lead a team in different geographical locations and there's one big boss. I'm one of the team leaders. We don't need to work together much on a day to day basis but we do need to agree on strategy.

And, were supposed to be emotional support for each other, but the wheels have come off there somewhat!

Then as TL you need to shut down the language that's distressing a member of your team.

What kind of words are being used?

Peer supervision is perfectly valid, but also a professional situation. How would your governing body respond to the language and terms used in the meeting? Language matters, and when you work with vulnerable people this is doubly so. How would the people who are supported but your service feel if they heard these words and terms used?

In my experience (and obviously I don't know the exact context of what you do), people who use inappropriate language in professional-only settings but not in front of others are people who actually see no wrong in their words, and only adapt their language in front of others to "toe the line". It often reflects their values

Letting off steam is fine. Letting off steam in a way that's offensive is not fine. Depending on the details it could also lead to a work disciplinary and may be illegal.

Clinical Supervision is a safe space. I've supported very many supervisees over the years and funnily enough have never had anyone being offensive.

OK, so if no one should be made to feel uncomfortable presumably that includes oversharing details of a relationship that causes distress to some team members, who've experienced similar behaviour?

It’s not about one persons discomfort it’s about basic respect for your service users. Frankly if team leaders can’t set the tone amongst themselves id be wondering what’s happening in their teams. It’s not ok to speak in a derogatory way about service users in the name of blowing off steam.

These are people who regularly get sworn at spat at punched and kicked, often have to remove weapons, but they're never allowed to make a slightly derogatory remark about any of it?

What language are they using?

They aren’t allowed to use “non PC” language and off colour jokes, no. I’ve worked with extremely vulnerable, often aggressive and violent people much of my professional life, it’s fine to seek emotional support, fine to talk about the impact on you. Not fine to be derogatory about service users, using “outdated” (which usually means offensive) language.

Is it stuff like using the word brainstorming?

Clinical Supervision is a safe space. I've supported very many supervisees over the years and funnily enough have never had anyone being offensive.

Absolutely this.

@QuestionsorComments

These are people who regularly get sworn at spat at punched and kicked, often have to remove weapons, but they're never allowed to make a slightly derogatory remark about any of it?

No one should be hurt at work. Similarly, staff have a professional responsibility to the people they support and therefore to use their words appropriately. Debrief sessions and clinical supervision give staff a chance to talk about their feelings, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to continually use language that's not appropriate, respectful, or helpful. That a colleague has raised it and been ignored suggests that the culture among the staff isn't those things

It's things like saying someone "went nuts" when you should say they were in crisis.

It's things like saying someone "went nuts" when you should say they were in crisis.

That's what I was imagining.

The employing body would absolutely recognise the need for these "peer supervision" sessions, which is the technical term for it in our field.

I'm struggling to imagine any kind of employer or professional body operating in a field that supports vulnerable young people that would not only defend, but promote and legitimise with an official title ("peer supervision sessions") their employees specifically and routinely dedicating a portion of a weekly team meeting to telling inappropriate jokes, banter, gossip or off colour jokes or non PC terms about their vulnerable service users. This does not ring true at all.

Your colleague is correct. This is not professional or appropriate. If you (as a team) are doing a job that causes you emotional distress then your employer should be addressing this and providing you with a professional outlet. If this isn't happening, you need to ask for it.

As a completely separate issue, if her stories about her personal life are affecting other colleagues then this needs to be dealt with. Perhaps the affected colleague could approach HR or this woman's line manager.

I'm not sure I agree. If you join a company and you aren't keen on their ethos, their attitude, their chit chat, what do you do? What if they don't talk at all, (I once joined an accountancy firm where no one interacted at all!), they all swear and you don't? She's not a good fit is she? Has she been there a long time? Has she complained? Officially?
Maybe they should just hold another casual / unofficial meeting with all leadership apart from her?

None of you sound all that impressive or professional TBH. There are probably team members who dislike both the bigotry and the relationship-oversharing. Maybe what you need is a policy of confining discussion at your workplace meetings to work issues. Then both the bigots and the open-about-relationships people could go and offload to sympathetic colleagues on their own time.

@QuestionsorComments

It's things like saying someone "went nuts" when you should say they were in crisis.

So it sounds like you know what language is appropriate, what language isn't, and why.

Which means that you know that words really matter in this context. Which means that you know that one key part of making sure vulnerable people are safe with professionals is that the professionals avoid the "them and us" view of the people they work with, because that dehumanises them and means staff commonly impose different standards on them because they're "service users".

Staff I've supervised in the past used the term "kicking off". It's a term I challenge every single time I hear it. Apart from anything, what does "went nuts" actually tell you about the behaviour? Because in my experience, it leaves it up to each person to infer their own meaning from it and that's not helpful

This isn't just about words; it's about values and culture.

These sessions aren't about the service user though, they're about supporting a staff member who's just been kicked or spat at.

@QuestionsorComments
Going against the grain here , but in my opinion YANBU.
My best friend works in a local council with vulnerable service users, very low pay, long hours.
She does it because she wants to help people.
She regularly gets called a cent, bitch, useless slag, she's been stalked at her home and her details plastered on the Internet.
She doesn't go out of her way to use offensive language, but sometimes a colleague and her take half an hour to rant about some of the more extreme cases. I believe without this offloading, some of these colleagues wouldn't cope. This is a field that is incredibly short staffed, like nursing or teaching.

It's bad enough we pay them so little , make them do so much in long hours. I think being able to talk about it without having to think over every word offsets the craziness just a bit.

@QuestionsorComments

These sessions aren't about the service user though, they're about supporting a staff member who's just been kicked or spat at.

In a professional meeting, and on a regular basis not necessarily in a hot debrief.

I actually disagree with the title of the post on the whole; this person isn't judging anyone's morals she's holding them to a professional standard