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?

Go on then, tell me a joke that isn't in some way derogatory or at the expense of someone else.

I can think of many times I’ve described my own behaviour as stupid or mad in a work context (as in I know X struggles with Y, it was madness for me to try Z, probably should have expected them to spit/shout/throw), I’d also use humour to debrief in the same way, directed at my expectations or actions not those of the service user. Because I know that whatever difficulties they might cause for me, their lives are invariably much harder than mine and that hardship often directs their behaviours, mental health, etc.

@QuestionsorComments

Go on then, tell me a joke that isn't in some way derogatory or at the expense of someone else.

If you take out the fizz from soda water, it's still water.

@QuestionsorComments

You'd never describe the chair thrower as mad, or stupid? That's what we're talking about not racist or sexist language.

If you're still so sure that those are acceptable terms for a professional meeting, why not bring it up at your own supervision for clarification?

Can't the ranters or complainers congregate 10 mins early to let off steam.

@QuestionsorComments

We all work across different sites so this weekly meeting is really the only time we're all together to get issues off chests.

Irrelevant.

A meeting is a professional environment and off-colour / non-PC banter is inappropriate.

What she does in her private life is neither here nor there.

@QuestionsorComments

She's not the "newer" colleague, I am FWIW and I have given examples.

I am the one of two people who've managed to stay neutral because I don't use the language, but understand others' reasons for doing so.

I also understand why the others object to being judged by someone doing what she's doing. I take the position that I suspect she's being manipulated by him to some extent (it is actually a very long very sad story) but people who have been victims of adulterous partners find it harder to take that view.

I also think some of her stress reaction to these situations is as a result of her very stressful personal life, so you can say it's nothing to do with colleagues, but it does affect us.

You think you've stayed neutral? Your posts strongly suggest otherwise.

@anothersmahedmug

I think if I was on the receiving end of a chair throwing incident i might use some choice language and consider myself a victim

To be fair is was too busy trying to talk them down and give them options. I did take 5 mins with a cup of coffee and a chocolate biscuit to calm down 😂😂. But hey ho. The joy of nursing...

She's right to speak up, too many people like the OP and her mate sit on the fence.

You think you've stayed neutral? Your posts strongly suggest otherwise.

OK well I'm still one of the few she's prepared to speak to. Honestly meetings have got ridiculous, to the point where she'll say things like "Questions will you explain to Team Leader..."

To be fair is was too busy trying to talk them down and give them options. I did take 5 mins with a cup of coffee and a chocolate biscuit to calm down 😂😂. But hey ho. The joy of nursing...

It's not in the moment whilst facing the service user we're talking about, but the debrief, in private, afterwards

If you're still so sure that those are acceptable terms for a professional meeting, why not bring it up at your own supervision for clarification?

This is my supervision and the Team Leader does think it's OK.

@MummyWoodentop

Can't the ranters or complainers congregate 10 mins early to let off steam.

Yes, that's what this is

Are these meetings chaired? Is the Chair on board with the tone, use of humour etc? If it’s got so bad that she’s using one team leader as an intermediary with another you really need someone external to come in and agree boundaries with the group, including use of language, what’s appropriate use of humour/banter and limits on how much personal life stuff is shared.

There's a difference between a hot debrief and a programmed decompression session, and what is acceptable in each is different too.

And yes, it sounds like people are ganging up on one person here, and that's really, really shitty

@Jellycatspyjamas

Go on then, tell me a joke that isn't in some way derogatory or at the expense of someone else.

I can think of many times I’ve described my own behaviour as stupid or mad in a work context (as in I know X struggles with Y, it was madness for me to try Z, probably should have expected them to spit/shout/throw), I’d also use humour to debrief in the same way, directed at my expectations or actions not those of the service user. Because I know that whatever difficulties they might cause for me, their lives are invariably much harder than mine and that hardship often directs their behaviours, mental health, etc.

According to this colleague we're not allowed to call anyone mad, even ourselves because that's offensive to those with genuine MH difficulties

You're talking about ableist terms, so equivalent to racist or sexist comments.

And you're also in a position of power over the vulnerable people concerned. It's not the same as a comedian making a joke about themselves.

That isn't what supervision should be.

Lines are being crossed.

Have you missed the succession of police officers who have been dismissed for using their equivalent space to behave in the way you describe? They used all the same defences you have offered.

Just because you work a difficult job and need the supervision space to manage that doesn't give you the right to denigrate vulnerable people you're tasked with caring for.

It's troubling that collectively you've lost sight of that. Her personal life is irrelevant to her discomfort with an abusive practice being normalised in her workplace.

@QuestionsorComments

If you're still so sure that those are acceptable terms for a professional meeting, why not bring it up at your own supervision for clarification?

This is my supervision and the Team Leader does think it's OK.

At the start of the thread it was informal banter before a meeting.

Now it's your supervision session.

I think you need a different supervision model.

If you work with vulnerable service users with challenging behaviour, it's even more despicable that you can't detress/bond as a team without using ableist slurs about those people.

You're as bad as the people using the disgusting language, OP. You're here making excuses for them, trying to pass it off as necessary or "dark humour" and undermining the only professional who has the integrity to stand up against it by gossipping about her private life.

If you can't, as professionals, foster a supportive culture for one another without using bigoted language that makes other colleagues feel uncomfortable, then you shouldn't be working with vulnerable people in the first place.

According to this colleague we're not allowed to call anyone mad, even ourselves because that's offensive to those with genuine MH difficulties

You work with service users. Of course that is grossly inappropriate.

You cannot talk about people that way unless it is also how you think about them. Which means it influences how you behave towards them, whether in overt or subtle ways.

Would you really try and argue that somebody comfortable being openly racist with colleagues, would not be influenced by that attitude in their behaviour with SUs? That you could box it up and ignore it?

Your team has spent too long in a dysfunctional echo chamber if any of you believe this is ok.

One minute it's an informal banter session before a professional meeting; next it's your supervision... which is it? If it's not documented and signed, it's not supervision. If it is, then it's not really a place for informal banter and ableist language

You're really bending over backwards to defend these comments which suggest you're not neutral about them at all.

Your team has spent too long in a dysfunctional echo chamber if any of you believe this is ok

Well said!

@draramallama

According to this colleague we're not allowed to call anyone mad, even ourselves because that's offensive to those with genuine MH difficulties

You work with service users. Of course that is grossly inappropriate.

You cannot talk about people that way unless it is also how you think about them. Which means it influences how you behave towards them, whether in overt or subtle ways.

Would you really try and argue that somebody comfortable being openly racist with colleagues, would not be influenced by that attitude in their behaviour with SUs? That you could box it up and ignore it?

Your team has spent too long in a dysfunctional echo chamber if any of you believe this is ok.

OK, but I was responding to the PP suggesting it was perfectly possible to joke in this way at your own expense.

@mpsw

Your team has spent too long in a dysfunctional echo chamber if any of you believe this is ok

Well said!

This could well be true and I do remember sitting open mouthed at the first one, actually .

This thread has been a helpful reset, thank you

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.

So you are one of the team leaders then.?

Because then you say

I'm not the team leader. The team leader is actually one of the people who struggles with her behaviour having been on the other side of it.

I do think you all sound quite unprofessional. Using terminology that would offend those who it's referring to is just not on, especially when they are coming to you for help or are vulnerable in some way.

Do the others talk about their private lives and their partners in these "meetings".

I understand that some of the other team leaders think it excuses their poor behaviour because a woman has had an affair, but it doesn't, both are wrong.

Restructure the nature of the "chat". Have a very frank discussion about the friction in the team that simply can't continue as it is causing issues for everyone involved. This is a meeting to help support each other and it's proving not fit for purpose.
3 Simple rules or something like that
In these meeting

keep your private life private

No derogatory or offensive terms used, refer to them with respect as you would if they were present

Be kind and support each other as a team

Or whatever you need to happen

@QuestionsorComments

If you're still so sure that those are acceptable terms for a professional meeting, why not bring it up at your own supervision for clarification?

This is my supervision and the Team Leader does think it's OK.

Then your issue is dquarely on the TEam leader shoulders.

Both because they are the Lead. And because kts not OK to end up in a situation where one person in the team is refusing to speak to them.

If the Team Leader cant manage to solve the issue, then it should go higher up because there are clearly more happening than what you are describing.
In particular, if the issue is the use of the words 'mad, OCD etc..' then some clear guidleines should be set by your company.
Same should happen about the meeting and supervision as well as when you are in supervision and when you are not.
The 30 mins before the meeting for example need to be ore structure with clear boundaries (both on time, people involved and vocabulary used)