A Look at the New DOD Harassment/Bullying Policy

HR Homeroom

Management’s Rights and Anti-bullying Policies

Introduction

At the end of September, Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth announced, "Department policy defining conduct by Service members that constitutes hazing, bullying, and harassment is overly broad, jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization." Further, Hegseth announced that he wanted a review of these policies to deal with any problems that undermine the effectiveness of the department.

I do not know whether the secretary is right or wrong on his preliminary assessment of such departmental policies. I do know that many large organizations do not have workplace bullying policies. Perhaps, the leaders of organizations without anti-bullying policies have concerns like Pete Hegseth's. 

I have studied such policies for 23 years. I know that good policies have provisions to protect management's rights while they enhance workplace civility and morale. So, I took a look at the Department of Defense policies. Here I share my notes on DOD policy for readers to consider their own policies or their lack of such policies.

For this purpose, I looked at DOD INSTRUCTION 1020.03 HARASSMENT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE IN THE ARMED FORCES - Change 3 Effective: January 17, 2025 (at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/102003p.PDF).

Management's Rights

In my roles as a former union steward/officer, a supervisor, and an office director, I knew that management had the right: 1) to decide what work to do and how to do it; 2) to guide employees with criticism and praise; and 3) to assign training in the interests of the organization. To protect management's rights, I think it useful for an anti-bullying policy to say explicitly what "bullying" does NOT include.

The DOD policy (cited above) states: "Bullying does not include properly directed command or organizational activities that serve a proper military or other governmental purpose, or the requisite training activities required to prepare for such activities (e.g., command-authorized physical training)." (Page 25.)

My take: This is good but limited.  I particularly like the focus on “activities that serve a proper military or other governmental purpose.” But many bullying policies give more details.

Another Statement of what Bullying does NOT Include

Pursuant to Public Chapter 997 of Tennessee law, the staff of the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TASIR) developed a "Model Abusive Conduct Prevention Policy" in 2015. Several states use "abusive conduct" instead of "workplace bullying." This model plan deserves attention.

It says abusive conduct does not include:

• Disciplinary procedures in accordance with adopted policies of [Insert Entity Name] 

• Routine coaching and counseling, including feedback about and correction of work performance 

• Reasonable work assignments, including shift, post, and overtime assignments 

• Individual differences in styles of personal expression 

• Passionate, loud expression with no intent to harm others 

• Differences of opinion on work-related concerns 

• The non-abusive exercise of managerial prerogative

My take: Readers may wonder about "the non-abusive exercise of managerial prerogative." Since public humiliation is widely recognized as psychological violence (and equal to physical violence in Jewish law), public humiliation is not "non-abusive." It is abuse. Similarly, assigning remedial training to an expert to humiliate the person is not for the legitimate purposes of the organization. It is bullying/abuse/harassment.

My take: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development anti-bullying policy has a good element that should be included.  It says: “Factual, civil, professional criticism is not bullying.”  HUD did not post the policy online. I know about it, because I helped HUD to develop it and did some training on it. By including "factual," it puts false criticism in the category of bullying (I wish I wrote this excellent provision).

Issues Regarding Definitions in DOD Policy

3.1.  HARASSMENT. 

a.  Harassment may include offensive jokes, epithets, ridicule or mockery, insults or put downs, displays of offensive objects or imagery, stereotyping, intimidating acts, veiled threats of violence, threatening or provoking remarks, racial or other slurs, derogatory remarks about a person’s accent, or displays of racially offensive symbols.  It includes hazing and bullying. (Page 12) 

3.2.  MEANS OF HARASSMENT.  Harassment can be oral, written, or physical.  Harassment can occur in person; through electronic communications, including social media; and through other forms of communication. (Page 12) 

My take: Section 3.2. does not expressly cover non-verbal expressions of contempt, hostility, or threats. Humans and animals use non-verbal threats by sneers and showing teeth. Also, it does not cover purposeful inaction (called omissions in some policies). The inaction might be refusal to meet with or respond to someone on your staff in a timely way. You might be too busy for a day or two, but not for a month. Omissions are covered in the Tennessee model plan.

Glossary in the DOD Policy

Bullying.  A form of harassment that includes acts of aggression by Service members or DoD civilian employees, with a nexus to military service, with the intent of harming a Service member either physically or psychologically, without a proper military or other governmental purpose.  Bullying may involve the singling out of an individual from their coworkers, or unit, for ridicule because they are considered different or weak.  It often involves an imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim.  Bullying can be conducted through the use of electronic devices or communications, and by other means including social media, as well as in person.  Bullying is evaluated by a reasonable person standard and includes, but is not limited to, the following when performed without a proper military or other governmental purpose: 

• Physically striking another person in any manner or threatening to do the same.
• Intimidating, teasing, or taunting another person. 
• Oral or written berating of another person with the purpose of belittling or humiliating.
• Encouraging another person to engage in illegal, harmful, demeaning, or dangerous acts.
• Playing abusive or malicious tricks. 
• Branding, handcuffing, duct taping, tattooing, shaving, greasing, or painting another person.
• Subjecting another person to excessive or abusive use of water.
• Forcing another person to consume food, alcohol, drugs, or any other substance.
• Degrading or damaging another’s property or reputation. 
• Soliciting, coercing, or knowingly permitting another person to solicit or coerce acts of bullying. (Pages 24, 25)

My take: The first sentence of this definition says it covers Service members and civilians who act "with the intent of harming a Service member." This does not protect civilian employees from bullying by Service members!  This looks like an error. Further, “Oral or written berating of another person” does not include gestures or non-verbal communications. Otherwise, this is a disturbing list of abusive conduct to which a reasonable person would not want to be subjected. Prohibition of these aggressions should not make any ranking person think they are walking on “eggshells.” Keep the list.

Why Require Supervisors and Co-workers to Behave with Civility?

As a college student, I had a summer job in construction writing progress reports. I saw the superintendent regularly insult the foreman of the pipefitters crew. One day the super and foreman got into a fistfight in the office. The super yelled, "Stern, call the police." I did not call, because the foreman helped me every day.  After a few minutes, they stopped fighting.  My point is that abusive conduct can lead to physical violence in any workplace. 

Psychological and physical abuse, i.e. bullying and harassment, prompt good people to leave the abusive situation.  I spent time recruiting good staff.  I hate to see talent leave an organization.  I expect it to happen in the military too, if supervisors are free to harass, bully, and haze subordinates.  Personally, I would not do that to people with guns and knives. 

Conclusion 

People treated with RESPECT are more likely to be loyal and productive. An anti-bullying policy should contribute to a civil and respectful workplace AND do that without undermining management's rights.

I offer the wise words of Randi C. Wood, LCSW, DCSW, former Director of the Colorado State Employee Assistance Program (C-SEAP) from 2004: “Bullying is not a management style; it is abuse. It is about anger and aggressiveness.”  (This is from her article in the State Department EAP magazine. It is no longer on the web.)

Share This Article: