The RUOK Hypocrisy

This blog started as cautionary tale of how an overly bureaucratic and uber-PC recruitment process can negatively impact an organisation’s culture and the performance of its employees. However the impact has also had a profound impact on the victim’s mental health – in direct contravention of the organisation’s stated values.

This is a shameful tale of a significant Victorian City Council and how the sheer bloody-mindedness and bureaucracy of an HR process can destroy trust and morale within an organisation.

A Park Ranger was appointed in 2022 on an 11 month fixed term contract. The contract was extended in November 2023 and would come to an end at the end of March 2024. Because the contract was extended once it was not able to be extended again under new (but badly flawed) Federal Fair Work legislation. In order to keep the Park Ranger the only option the City had was to offer him a permanent contract.

The Ranger was a very high performer, his performance appraisals were excellent and signed off as such by the highest levels of the Council’s Parks’ department. The Ranger was verbally assured by his Manager numerous times from January through March that the council did not want to lose him and that he would be offered a role. Because of this he did not look for other work. By March no contract was forthcoming and he started to agitate further. The week before his contract was due to expire he was informed that although there were currently open positions and temporarily vacant roles, his role was in fact coming to an end, adding that if they could extend him again, they would. He was rightly devastated given the constant assurances he had received. His colleagues were also shocked. If it could happen to him, it could happen to them too.

A few days after his last day, two new permanent Park Rangers’ positions became available at the and the Ranger’s former Manager told him to apply, which he duly did. A panel interview was held a week later and they were unable to make a decision, so a new panel was convened and another round of interviews was held the following week. Apart from the Ranger there were a number of internal candidates as well, (the Ranger’s fellow team members also on final fixed term contracts). They all talked about the process among themselves as they were all colleagues and friends. All stated it was a humiliating and demeaning process that saw each of them effectively begging for their roles. One described it as being like the Hunger Games. It became clear that past performance in the roles accounted for nothing.

In fact the Ranger in question was asked in the interview why he thought he was good fit for the role. He answered “because I’ve been doing it for 18 months and have the highest performance ratings available.” He then gave the panel a copy of his last appraisal.

The Ranger was then called back for a third panel interview, with panel members drawn from other departments on the basis the previous panels could not form a consensus. These members were drawn from other council departments and had no day to day interaction with Ranger team.

Eventually, two weeks later the Park Ranger was called back by HR and told he had been unsuccessful. She was unable to provide a rationale explanation for the decision and in fact tried to garner sympathy from the unsuccessful candidate for what a difficult decision she had had to make – as though she were the victim, rather than he. It was unprofessional, tone deaf and frankly, callous.

So what has this process achieved;

1. The Ranger is out of a job and has missed out on months of other opportunities, both internal and external, because he did not apply for them based on the assurances of his former Manager. The process has had a significant adverse affect on his mental health.
2. There is now zero trust within the Ranger team for the Manager or the HR department. They now know, without question, that the Manager’s words cannot be trusted. If it can happen to their well-liked and high-performing colleague, it can happen to them as well. It has also impacted the mental health of others on the team, particularly those on fixed-term contracts as the lack of job security, even if they perform at a high level, is very stressful.​
3. The unsuccessful candidate was a very high performer who went above and beyond to fulfill his tasks. The Ranger team now know that accounts for nothing, and many have openly stated that they will now only do the bare minimum as high-performance and/or dedication is no longer rewarded, or in fact, even recognised.
4. Further, the Ranger in question was well known across numerous council departments. His image had been used across multiple internal and external advertising formats. As questions were asked; What happened to him? His former team members spread the message about how the Ranger had been treated by HR and similar reactions of mistrust in HR and the lack of respect for performance has now spread across the council like a virus.

To add further insult, a few months later the Council advertised another two Park Ranger vacancies. The former Ranger duly applied and the Ranger Team Manager expressed a desire to interview him, but was soundly over-ruled by the HR team stating it was “because of what the Ranger had told them about the process in his final exit interview”. In other words, rather than acknowledge what he said was true, HR has tried to bury the mess – and ignore the damage they have done to both the organisation's culture and the mental health of the Ranger and his colleagues.

In 25 years working in HR, only in the public sector would this nonsense arise. In the Private Sector the Ranger would have simply been offered a permanent role. Good people are too hard to find and hold onto to treat like this.

The Council’s values include references to integrity, courage, accountability, respect and excellence. Clearly respect for individuals was lacking. As was recognition of past excellence in the recruitment process. All it has left is a demoralised, demotivated, highly-stressed and untrusting work force.

Which brings us back to RUOK. The Council’s HR Team talks a big game on mental health but their own processes and bureaucracy demonstrate a complete lack of regard for the mental health of the City’s employees, and an unwillingness to acknowledge and learn from its mistakes. These are public tax dollars at work.
​
RUOK is a great initiative. But slapping a few posters up in tea-rooms and making public motherhood statements is NOT enough. It needs to be backed with real actions that include treating all employees with respect and reviewing all processes (including recruitment) to ensure employees are not treated as the Ranger above was.