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?

@Babiesandboardgames Yes the sessions absolutely are necessary and even then often aren't enough to prevent burnout, but with the current tensions are causing more problems than they solve.

The thing is if you've just been attacked, the adrenaline means you are not necessarily thinking about what you say so I understand somewhat.

I caught a burglar in the act & the obscenities I used to them & the policeman were very out of character!

‘Off colour’ and ‘non pc’ ?

That could cost you your job. If you’re a professional it could have you up before whatever professional standards body you belong to.

@QuestionsorComments

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.

I think we need direct quotes to have a real opinion. What kind of comedian? Frankie Boyle for example- some of what he says could be very inappropriate in a work setting.

Why don’t you “let off steam” outside work? It’s what most adults do. Go to the pub/gym/see a counsellor.

I would hate to deal with other people’s idea of “banter” in a work situation. Banter is always a euphemism for language that’s likely to cause offence.

Your workplace sounds very unprofessional.

There is zero equivalence. I think that’s all you can do to point that out to your unprofessional colleagues. They must know this but are so blinkered by pride at someone pointing out to them that they are finding a reason to attack her. It just makes them even more unprofessional and I think a friend would tell them. There is no 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Having an affair doesn’t affect your ability to do your job. Displaying scornful attitudes to vulnerable service users may well do.

@QuestionsorComments

I agree , sometimes these sessions if in a group setting can get quite vicious, and some people like to use offensive language to scare / impress/shock people, or they could be so stressed they don't think about their language. My old workplace was like this and it was extremely uncomfortable, so I know it's a tough one.

For me it's a tough one between a few inappropriate remarks and really nasty language . But the OW and her conduct aren't relevant to this situation imo

Are there not professional guidelines about how supervision should be used?

I've had supervision on a 1-1 basis. That might be more appropriate here where the group dynamics are clearly not working out.

Francie Boyle is very rarely on TV these days for precisely that reason. I gave an example, going nuts or maybe bonkers when normally we'd say they were in crisis or use the clinical terms for their behaviour.

I'm a teacher. In a department meeting, we would use language, talking informally, that we wouldn't use on a report.

e.g. 'She's not as dim as you might think.' Or, 'This one can be sneaky. Winds someone else up and sits back and enjoys watching them get into trouble. And her mother's a nightmare. Little darling can do no wrong.'

No one would use racist, homophobic or sexist language. But we would talk frankly to get our insights across and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

I absolutely agree that the OW situation is irrelevant, but it is colouring people's opinion of her and therefore their response to her "moralising".

FWIW she can be really quite peronal in her attacks against behaviour she objects to. She may be right but her approach is often no better than theirs. It's frankly a horrible situation to be in the middle of.

@Thymeout

I'm a teacher. In a department meeting, we would use language, talking informally, that we wouldn't use on a report.

e.g. 'She's not as dim as you might think.' Or, 'This one can be sneaky. Winds someone else up and sits back and enjoys watching them get into trouble. And her mother's a nightmare. Little darling can do no wrong.'

No one would use racist, homophobic or sexist language. But we would talk frankly to get our insights across and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

Yes, exactly that.

We're not teachers but yes. People would take offense at the words used and we wouldn't write them down, but we could find a way to say exactly the same thing using more professional language. It doesn't change what anyone thinks.

@Ionlydomassiveones

People saying they aren’t being professional are wrong. They are professional. But after doing the challenging/dangerous/stressful job they should be should be able to decompress in a vernacular that feels easier amongst friends during collegiate support. How else do people get it off their chest in a way that feels authentic to them? This is the essence of supervision.

I think the question of her morality is irrelevant. I think the question of her being a jobsworth is the problem. If people think that this time is crucial I would move to make it an informal meeting outside of work. And don’t invite her.

Yes, this is what is starting to happen by default.....then she complains she doesn't feel part of the team.

If you aren't in the business I don't think people can truly understand how this "black humour" is important to allow you to do the job but again not everyone needs it. To be truthful you're all saying it behind closed doors and it isn't something anyone would act on. She on the other hand is acting with low morals as thats her life. I would call her out on it. We can all say we think this that and rant and rave but that's the different between saying it and doing it.

@QuestionsorComments

It's not that no one calls them out, they use them for effect because we all know they shouldn't and wouldn't in any other situation.

But my question wasn't about that, it's about how you get a group of people with no respect for one another (both sides with valid reasons) to work well together.

FWIW I'm not in charge and the person who is is in the thick of this.

I can understand your perspectives and frustrations op, I can see others perspectives that person with the affair is not morally correct, but then they are also in the wrong for their behaviour, the team should behave and use appropriate language, terms ect, as it's more professional and sets a good standard of behaviour.

Her affair is none of your business. Team members using 'banter' to excuse homophobic, sexist, racist behaviour in a work meeting however is. How unprofessional is it to even attempt to think this is ok?

HNRTT entirely but if it has become personal and toxic then one solution may be to allow the off loading but explicitly prohibit the unnecessary 'non-PC humour' that is causing the colleagues' concerns and which may/will lead to substantiated grievances that in writing will look terrible. This can be 'sold' to the non-PC bunch as protecting them from inevitable escalation and disciplinary action. Equally, the person who has over-shared about her infidelity/relationship outside work might need to be told to avoid further sharing given this is causing distress to the 'other side'. There is no need to share such information and unlike allowing a heterosexual worker to talk about their relationship but not allowing a LGBT colleague to do the same which would be wrongful discrimination, this infidelity shouldn't touch on any disadvantaged group nor characteristic.

In effect, everyone needs to row back, focus on communicating the issues without deliberately causing distress. If they won't then they might end up in a situation where they don't get to offload in a safe space.

Good luck.

I think the problem is that you have to adhere to the banter standards of the most easily 'offended, most PC' person present as everyone has different thresholds. It is a hard baseline to find and may differ from day to day.

I can see where others around the table are coming from if the person shouting the loudest about it has less than high standards in her personal life.

Personally, I am of the (probably unpopular, opinion) that for example, a government minister such as BJ, or anyone, of any party, who cheats on his nearest and dearest should not hold office. If he/she can't be trusted to put the needs/wants of those he professes to love first, how can the electorate have any faith that he will do the same for them? I think how you behave in your private life is an indicator of integrity or a lack thereof.

I think a cards on the table get together at a neutral off work site is perhaps the way forward.

Or alternatively, those around the table cannot ever offload in anything but a PC manner going forward and personal lives should be kept firmly off-limits for discussion.

@Kshhuxnxk I was in the police, and a good many old colleagues have been sacked following such "black humour" being recorded and used against them for gross misconduct.

Times have changed. A lot. Professionalism is expected at all times.

Yanbu. As long as they aren’t hurling racist / misogynistic language around, and from what you say they can’t be, then it’s great that they are given a safe space at work to decompress.

Suggest someone senior have a quiet word with your annoying colleague along the lines of “X is a safe space, that is the entire purpose of those sessions,, and a safe space means no judgements/criticisms being made so please don’t vocalise any as it is lowering morale.”

Your collegue sounds awful and a total unethical hypocrite, the bigger problem you have is that she doesn’t fit into the team. I would despise anyone in a relationship with a married man and I don’t blame your colleagues for feeling that way. Long term the reality is that either she goes (move elsewhere in organisation?) or I suspect the team will disintegrate around her.

I’m not sure how describing someone as a “nightmare” or describing a child as “sneaky” is sharing any insight whatsoever, it tells you nothing of their behaviour and everything about the judgement made about the individual.

I’ve worked in very challenging settings, sometimes humour can be very dark indeed but judgement laden language is unprofessional in a professional meeting. Peer supervision should have clear boundaries, and should be such that people can freely take part which isn’t happening if someone is struggling with the tone of the discussion. Rather than “x went nuts” I’d think that talking about the actual behaviour and it’s impact on the individual would help debrief whatever has happened. A regular peer supervision as part of a formal meeting isn’t a “hot” debrief or part of a critical incident response where people speak from instinct and are adrenaline driven - in those situations you take it as it comes - I’d expect once the dust has settled people to be more measured and reflective. Otherwise it just sounds like talking about people in a pretty unpleasant way.

@Flowertailbird

Her affair is none of your business. Team members using 'banter' to excuse homophobic, sexist, racist behaviour in a work meeting however is. How unprofessional is it to even attempt to think this is ok?

That's not what's happening though.

I think you're being very careful not to give much detail as to exactly what language these colleagues are using, which makes it rather difficult to give an opinion on who is BU.

If the language used is ableist, then it is absolutely inappropriate and you all know it. Nobody should be using derogatory language about service users and it is perfectly possibly to "offload" and express stress and frustration without descending to unprofessional behaviour.

Your newer colleague's private life has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you come across as whining "well you're not lily-white either" by bringing it into the conversation. Which further bolsters my suspicion that you know damn well these "non-PC" banter sessions are wrong.