What employers can learn from THAT Royal interview

I was one of the 12 million people in the UK who watched the interview last Monday and it caused some great debates in our household.

After reflecting on the interview and also the views of my twenty something year old kids, which were very different to mine, I felt it may be interesting to focus in this week’s blog on how the issues raised by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex about their alleged treatment before leaving the UK may have played out if this was an employer – employee relationship.

Reports suggest there is a generational divide in Britain with older people more sympathetic to the Royal family and younger generations siding with Harry and Meghan. This mirrors a trend we are seeing in HR in terms of what employees expect from the employment relationship.

As a country our working population is shifting in terms of their values, beliefs and opinions. As the baby boomers (born up to 1965) reach retirement age and Generation X (aged 40-55) take over the more senior positions, attitudes and approaches are changing.

But further, even the more liberal views of Generation X are being challenged by Generation Y employees (aged 22-39), sometimes referred to as ‘millennials’ who are now entering management and more senior positions. This generation is far more sensitive to discrimination issues than their forebears and they are often accused of being the ‘woke’ generation.

It seems logical that this trend will continue as Generation Z, currently aged under 22, enters the workforce. In fact it seems likely to develop further. Cue groans of protest from the baby boomers!

I am part of Generation X and must admit I often agree with commentators who lament the ‘snowflake’ generation and their wokeness but we need to accept that in the same way as our grandparents probably frowned upon our views, these are the values of those who are now becoming the dominant decision makers in our society. We and the baby boomers need to accept that and adapt accordingly.

Although it seems natural to become a little more grumpy as we get older, if you are struggling with this societal change from stoic to emotional I’d recommend you spend 90 minutes reading the excellent ‘who moved my cheese’ by Dr Spencer Johnson, it will be £4 well spent and help you to realise that if the world is changing the only real option is to embrace it and make the most of it. There will be opportunities for those who accept the change and make the best of it.

Alternatively, one of the best ways to cope with change and accept it is to consider the Serenity Prayer. I often quote it to managers who are going through significant change.

Some may wish that Society’s values, views and the way the younger generations act weren’t changing and moved back to the wartime type stoicism and acceptance but this simply isn’t going to happen so we need the Serenity to accept the things we cannot change.

As for the more tangible lessons employers, and especially HR, can take from the Royal interview, for me the main ones are as follows.

Don’t let preconceived ideas influence how you act

This follows on from the above comments about the various generations currently in the workforce and their different values and beliefs.

I am a great admirer of the Queen, the Royal family and the work they do, albeit with a few exceptions such as a certain Prince who has clearly let his family and the country down.

So from a personal point of view I found myself not wanting to believe anything Meghan said in the interview and looking for flaws in her argument. I looked for evidence of how she has hijacked the Harry that we all loved and transformed him into the King of Woke, and joyfully harrumphed when I remembered times where she has done the opposite of what she says she now wants.

However, as a HR professional, not allowing such thoughts to influence your actions is one of the first lessons you have to learn. If you allow your personal views to affect processes, findings and how you act in general that is clearly not fair. Although HR are often the gatekeepers of an organisation’s conscience that doesn’t mean the conscience necessarily should be in your own image.

From the very limited evidence available, it seems that palace officials had a very rigid approach to how the Sussexes should act, based on centuries of tradition. But such an inflexible approach seems to have led to an ineffective outcome that suits (no pun intended) neither party, and also gave Harry and Meghan plausible reasons to act as they have, with justification in many peoples’ eyes.

Although the palace may not have agreed with what the Sussexes were saying and what they wanted from their roles, it seems to me they should have taken Harry and Meghan’s views more seriously and looked harder for ways to resolve any differences and find a compromise.

The same of course goes for the Duke and Duchess, who do seem to have wanted to pick and choose which aspects of Royal life they wished to adopt and which they didn’t, then had a tantrum when they didn’t get everything they wanted.

The result is an excellent illustration of why an organisation should be open to changes and  ideas that may work, especially if the outcome if the idea is refused is likely to be so damaging. A good workplace example of this is flexible working and working from home. A great many companies have railed against both of these in recent years but the pandemic has proved that actually there may be value in a more flexible approach in terms of cost and employee wellbeing.

Tackle grievances early, and don’t let them fester

Issues at Frogmore Cottage clearly worsened over time, leading to a big fallout. This can’t be allowed to happen in a work environment.

Whether or not an individual calls their complaints a grievance, a good employer will recognise if someone is unhappy and try to resolve any issues as early as possible. Motivational theories even as far back as Maslow and Herzberg teach us that if someone is unhappy at work their issues will become more important to them than doing a good job and therefore they will not be motivated or give their best.

When an individual is unhappy at work it does not take long for their glass to become half empty and for them to develop a negative attitude. The evidence overwhelmingly then points to them becoming demotivated, their performance suffers and that leads to other outcomes such as increased absence levels. They may even leave the company and claim Unfair Dismissal.

Line managers should be able to spot the signs of an unhappy employee or one with a grievance and, even if the manager is not overly ‘touchy feely’ they should recognise that this needs to be tackled. Hopefully this can be done informally, whether through the informal grievance process or simply just talking to the individual and trying to help and support them through this difficult time. If in doubt, HR should be able to give sound guidance or even talk to the individual themselves.

Unfortunately on too many occasions the warning signs are missed or ignored, or the issue causing the unhappiness is brushed under the carpet in the hope that it will disappear. Most of the time, in my experience, managers know this is wrong but it is the easy option and they hide behind excuses not to tackle it such as how busy they are with other more important things.

Invariably, ignoring such issues leads to them growing not disappearing. I have no idea what support Harry and Meghan were given but we can be pretty sure that if they had been supported more the outcome would have been better than as described in this week’s interview even if there was still a split, and the same is true in a work situation.

Grievances are nowhere near as difficult to resolve as most managers imagine. They just need to be approached in a proactive, structured and fair manner.

This involves asking questions to identify the real issues, and the facts, then making a judgement about the best way to act taking into account that it is not the manager’s job to decide whether the individual was offended or not, or whether they ‘ought’ to have been offended by the issue. If an individual says they were offended then that should be accepted, what matters then is what can be done about it.

It may be that no action is taken against the perpetrator as it is not deemed serious enough to warrant e.g. a disciplinary hearing and that is fine, but it should not be doubted that the employee was offended. Everyone has a different threshold to such matters that has developed over time based on their life experiences.

Another thing to bear in mind regarding employee grievances is that if it’s a complaint and it’s in writing, it should be treated as if it is a grievance. Even a resignation letter that doesn’t mention the word ‘grievance’ has been found at Tribunal to be a grievance as it explained what the individual was so unhappy about that it caused them to leave. Failure to investigate such claims leaves employers open to losing a Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal, in addition to the negative impacts of unhappy employees feeling they were unfairly treated.

At the risk of repeating myself, bullying and harassment come in many forms and it is up to the victim to judge whether they are offended, not up to the perpetrator to judge whether what they said was offensive. This is an important principle for HR practitioners when investigating grievances.

How to act in a way that avoids grievances and claims for bullying and harassment are included in our most popular course, ‘Dignity and Respect in the Workplace’. If this is something you would like to discuss further please contact us or see our website for further details.

What if a grievance cannot be resolved?

It seems the life the Sussexes wanted to lead was simply incompatible with the requirements of being a working Royal, so it is likely that even if things had been handled differently the end result may have been the same albeit the split would have been less bitter and incendiary.

Where this happens in a working relationship and things are just not going to work out then decisive action needs to be taken, otherwise the issue will fester and become worse. Irrespective of the reason, if an employee’s behaviour is poor then that is not acceptable and should be managed via the disciplinary policy. Even if they are unhappy about how they are being treated that is no excuse for poor behaviour in work.

Clearly there are many occasions where disciplinary action would not be appropriate, in which case the organisation should consider other options to resolve the matter such as mediation, training, or moving one of the individuals to a different site, role or department.

If none of these options work then there is always the rare and relatively unknown sixth (of six) fair reason to dismiss an employee, ‘some other substantial reason’. If a working relationship is incompatible and all other options have been explored but failed then as a last resort dismissal with notice of one or both of the parties involved may be an option even without any prior disciplinary warnings on file or the issue being considered as gross misconduct. Clearly the employer should take advice before going down this path but it is a possible ultimate way of resolving the issue.

It seems the queen may have done the Royal equivalent of dismissal through ‘some other substantial reason’ with the Sussexes! Although the outcome could have been worse.

It is increasingly important to take mental health seriously

I grew up in the ‘pull yourself together’ era, along with a lot of managers I have worked with who are either baby boomers or part of Generation X, but after witnessing countless cases where an employee’s mental health has deteriorated and led to them being off work for months or even years, and their life literally falling apart, experience has taught me that it is imperative for employers to be proactive, sympathetic and take the mental health of their employees seriously.

In my opinion Piers Morgan was wrong to say he didn’t believe the Duchess had been suicidal. How could he possibly know? My view is that he trivialised a serious issue. He may think it, but should not have said it on national TV.

There have been various comparisons between the Duchess of Sussex and Princess Diana, with some arguing that the two are very different and that Princess Diana’s situation was worse as she suffered the Royal family lack of support issues whilst being trapped in a catastrophic and loveless marriage whereas Meghan clearly has a loving and excellent marriage with Harry.

However, making such comparisons misses the point. It is not a competition to see who is the most depressed and most suicidal. If anyone says they are suicidal it should be taken incredibly seriously and all support possible offered.     

Clearly we will never know just how bad Meghan’s mental illness was and nor should we as it is a private matter. It should be enough for us to know that is how she felt, and all involved should ensure that they never dismiss such concerns again. Even if people are crying wolf or attention seeking, there will come a time with this or a different person when it is genuine, and the support offered may just save that individual’s life.

It is rare for anyone to be so open about having suicidal thoughts. Both as employers and as decent human beings we should all be mindful of how people with such problems hide their issues to the wider population and often even those close to them. How many times have you read of a tragic suicide where the family say they had no idea the individual felt like that?

Meghan intimated that she went to HR for help but they would not act as she was not an employee. If that is true then HR should hang their heads in shame. Such an approach is anathema to how HR should act.

Irrespective of an individual’s employment status, if they have mental health issues that leads to them feeling suicidal then HR should do everything they can to help, not hide behind a policy with a ‘computer says no’ type attitude. Any HR practitioner that does not have that approach is in the wrong job!

As an employer, especially if you work in HR, unless you are a trained psychologist any personal judgement should be put to one side and anyone who raises issues of stress, anxiety, depression or other forms of mental health problems should be supported.

But ‘support’ does not need to run to three months of sick pay and allowing poor performance and a drop in standards without tackling them. It is about recognising that there is an issue and involving experts who can help, whether that is Occupational Health, working closely with counsellors or the individual’s GP, or a charity such as ‘Mind’.

As an employer you may have an Employee Assistance Programme – a confidential helpline where employees can talk to counsellors and, if needed, agree to hold a number of face to face appointments. It is surprisingly cheap to arrange this service. Often your insurers will offer an EAP free of charge. At 186hr we have worked with several companies that offer EAPs so if this is something you’d like to arrange please contact us and we will give you their contact details.

Don’t burn your bridges

For whatever reason the Duke and Duchess decided to inflict maximum possible damage on the Royal family in their interview and tried to settle scores in a very public way on national television.

Thankfully this option is not open to many although it is common for aggrieved people to want maximum retribution. However, it is rarely a good thing to make a complaint public as the Sussexes did and similarly, an emotional and hurtful outburst at work will likely never be forgotten by those it is aimed at and also others who will in future be wary of receiving the same treatment and therefore not trust the individual. So as employers we should look out for this and try and talk individuals down from that precipice and explain that a more measured approach is likely to be best for all concerned.

We all feel like being completely honest sometimes and letting rip with both barrels (sorry to mix metaphors) about idiots we have to work with and it may feel good for a few minutes but pretty much always does more harm than good.

Afterall, you never know when you may need help from the person you disagree with, or people close to them, with a future issue. So diplomacy and a measured, calm and non-offensive approach should always be adopted.

This doesn’t mean issues should not be tackled, they absolutely, and always, should, and sometimes in a clear, robust and straight-talking manner. But such conversations should be handled privately, supportively and constructively in a way that will hopefully lead to a better relationship in future without leaving hurt and bad feeling in your wake.

Comments about race

From the Royal interview it is impossible to know what was said, by whom and in what context, and the Queen’s dignified response makes clear we never will.

As is often the case with human nature, most people seem to have interpreted an incredibly vague explanation from Meghan and formed an opinion about whether the alleged comment was racist or harmless. They have also judged either the Sussexes or the Royal family to have behaved unacceptably.

Interestingly, in line with my above comments, it seems that in general baby boomers and Generation X feel there is little in the comments and Generations Y and Z view it as clear evidence of racism in the Royal family.

It is easy to advise people to simply steer clear of comments about race but that doesn’t solve the problem, it’s good to talk about our differences in this wonderful multicultural British society, and educate each other about cultures, traditions and to debate different viewpoints.

Misplaced comments and banter can clearly lead to offence being taken and allegations of racism, harassment and bullying. Avoiding such issues is the main focus of 186hr’s half day ‘Dignity and Respect in the Workplace’ course. We also run a ‘Diversity Awareness’ course to help improve the knowledge of an organisation’s employees. Please contact us or see our website for further details.

Where allegations of racism or anything else have been raised, the organisation needs to quickly and thoroughly investigate. They need to find out the detail so they can address the specific concerns based on evidence and what was actually said or done.

As a HR professional it was frustrating that hand grenades were thrown in the interview but there was no detail to check on which to form an opinion or judgement. In a work situation we cannot accept allegations, especially seriously ones like these, simply on face value as we are having to regarding Meghan’s comments. There would need to be a thorough investigation.

Even previously good relationships can turn sour.

People are very protective of their family, friends, partners, and especially children and, as clearly shown by the Duchess of Sussex, will be willing to fall out with pretty much anyone if it means protecting their children or other family members.

There are two points here with regards to HR practices. First of all we should be mindful when individuals are concerned about how certain issues affect their children and wider family and act accordingly but also, being a ‘family friendly’ employer is already hugely important to employees and this is only going to increase.

So if as an employer you have the opportunity to offer family friendly practices such as flexible working, childcare vouchers, purchasing extra holidays etc these should be seriously considered

Finally, Check your timing

I have no doubt that the interview, including broadcasting dates, will have been agreed before Prince Philip was admitted to hospital and I am certain the TV company would have been reluctant to move the programme due to his illness so I think the Sussexes were unfortunate in that regard as it probably couldn’t have been moved even if they had wanted it to be.

However, irrespective of what was or was not in their control it did give an impression of callousness to allow the interview to be shown on TV when it was, and to not at the very least make a statement explaining that they tried to move the interview and regret any upset it may cause him, the queen and other members of the family at this time.

Of course, cynic that I am, you wonder whether the TV company viewed the timing as unfortunate or something likely to lead to even higher viewing figures. As so many have commented already – usually it is only the interviewer and the TV company that benefits from these blockbuster interviews. Those involved usually all end up as the losers.

The same applies to the employer – employee relationship. Where there are any big changes to be made the employer should always think about and be mindful of who is likely to lose from the wording, timing etc and act accordingly.

For this reason, when announcing redundancies, arranging disciplinaries etc I always advise managers to check the individual’s birthday and work anniversary. As I have said many times in my articles, it is always possible to carry out even the most difficult actions in a fair and dignified manner. Announcing their redundancy on their 40^th birthday or 10^th anniversary of their employment isn’t a good start!

Various different HR issues were covered in today’s article. If you would like to discuss them, or any other HR matters further please do not hesitate to contact us.