iscover
When the results of an independent review into the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) were published last year, showing a widespread culture of distrust and harmful behaviour, the AAD committed to making a change. A recent internal survey, leaked to ABC News, suggests that change has been slow.
The AAD, created in 1948, is responsible for Australia’s scientific experts on the continent and surrounding Southern Ocean. While the AAD is headquartered just south of Hobart, in Kingston, Tasmania, the division maintains three permanently staffed stations in Antarctica and another on Macquarie Island in the subantarctic.
The staff are responsible for pursuing Australia’s Antarctic objectives – a mission apparently important enough to attract $804.4 million in funding allocations to cover the decade from February 2022.
“To achieve these aims, the AAD has one genuine asset: people,” said a recent report from Russel Performance Co. The report, made public last year, shared the results of an independent review into workplace culture at the AAD’s Antarctic stations.
Among the triggers for the review, reported The Guardian, were allegations of “widespread sexism and sexual harassment”. The report, whose results reportedly left Minister for the Environment Tanya Plibersek “gobsmacked”, reminds that no workplace – regardless of how extraordinary its geography, function, or composition – is invulnerable to toxicity.
Despite the “several positive aspects” of the culture at the AAD, such as the deep commitment of its workers to their work, the strong sense of teamwork, and the ongoing efforts to improve diversity, the drawbacks column features the following:
- An “us versus them” culture.
- Harmful behaviour, including intentional exclusion, gender discrimination, bullying, and sexual harassment.
- Risk factors, including a hierarchical and male-dominated culture.
- Reports of psychological hazards.
- Lack of understanding when it comes to responding to sexual harassment.
- Little trust among employees in the efficacy of reporting systems, and more.
The survey results were similarly distressing. For example, 43 per cent of respondents did not consider it safe to raise problems and challenging issues at the AAD, while 70 per cent did not think there was trust between leadership and staff. A further 47 per cent indicated they had witnessed workplace bullying, while 34 per cent had experienced it. Underreporting was a further issue raised among respondents.
According to ABC News, the subsequent follow-up survey – the first of the AAD’s quarterly “pulse checks” revealed that systemic workplace issues have hampered progress.
“Trust has been shattered and is not rebuilt by pretty words, but by actions,” one head office team member reportedly said. “With a lack of trust, many of the actions currently being implemented to address cultural change at head office can be perceived as tinkering around the edges and box-ticking.”
Another expeditioner claimed the AAD had been failing to deliver on its promise of diversity, remaining “the least diverse, most monocultural organisation I’ve ever worked for”.
So-called “values washing”, where leaders make a habit of committing to positive change in name only, failing to deliver on their promises, is a common source of frustration and disengagement among employees.
The recent internal survey discovered a lack of engagement and low morale among staff, including those in leadership positions. According to Artemis Partners, the agency that conducted the review, this may be due to a confluence of factors, including “lack of visibility of the SES leadership, negative publicity, resourcing constraints and limited diversity and inclusion”.
Junior staff tended to report more positive feelings about the AAD’s progress on cultural reforms. In contrast, some reported that senior executives should be more visible when it comes to cultural leadership, and at least one respondent cited communication problems from senior management as a source of “undue stress and anxiety with some in the AAD”.
The AAD said it plans to continue on the work of cultural reform.
RELATED TERMS
Your organization's culture determines its personality and character. The combination of your formal and informal procedures, attitudes, and beliefs results in the experience that both your workers and consumers have. Company culture is fundamentally the way things are done at work.
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, discrimination occurs when one individual or group of people is regarded less favourably than another because of their origins or certain personality traits. When a regulation or policy is unfairly applied to everyone yet disadvantages some persons due to a shared personal trait, that is also discrimination.
Harassment is defined as persistent behaviour or acts that intimidate, threaten, or uncomfortably affect other employees at work. Because of anti-discrimination laws and the Fair Work Act of 2009, harassment in Australia is prohibited on the basis of protected characteristics.
Nick Wilson
Nick Wilson is a journalist with HR Leader. With a background in environmental law and communications consultancy, Nick has a passion for language and fact-driven storytelling.
