WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT SURVEY PREPARED FOR THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY 28 MAY 2018 EMBARGO: NOT FOR RELEASE UNTIL 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY 30 MAY 2018 CONTENTS The task at hand 03 Research method 04 Key insights 05 General stress and wellbeing 09 Sexual harassment 14 Bullying 31 Respondent comments 46 Appendix: sample profile 49 THE TASK AT HAND The New Zealand Law Society commissioned Colmar Brunton to undertake a national survey of lawyers to assess the current workplace environment for legal practice. The survey explores safety of lawyers in the workplace with a specific focus on bullying and sexual harassment. THREE KEY OBJECTIVES: 1 To provide a measure of general workplace wellbeing in the legal workplace 2 To establish the prevalence and characteristics of sexual harassment in the legal workplace 3 To establish the prevalence and characteristics of bullying in the legal workplace. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 3 An online survey of lawyers was conducted from 5 April to 1 May, 2018. The New Zealand Law Society emailed 13,662 lawyers an invitation to complete the survey. The email contained a secure link to a survey managed by Colmar Brunton. Two reminder emails were sent to maximise the response rate. Confidentiality of responses was maintained at all times – neither the New Zealand Law Society or Colmar Brunton are able to identify individuals who have completed the survey. RESEARCH METHOD The survey took an average of 15 minutes to complete. Questionnaire development involved the review of similar surveys undertaken1. 3,516 lawyers completed the survey – a response rate of 26%. The maximum margin of error on a total sample size of 3,516 (at the 95% confidence level and assuming simple random sampling) is +/-1.7%. Following the completion of fieldwork, data were weighted to ensure survey findings reflect New Zealand Law Society member population characteristics for gender2 and location. 1Two surveys were drawn on in particular: The AMS survey on bullying in the NZ senior medical workforce (Health Dialogue issue 14, November 2017) and the Australian Human Rights Commission research (Working without Fear: results of the sexual harassment national telephone survey 2012) 2The unweighted gender profile of survey respondents is male (38.3%), female (61.3%), and gender diverse (0.4%). The weighted gender profile is male (49.7%), female (49.9%, and gender diverse (0.4%). The weight for ‘gender diverse’ was determined by survey responses. COLMAR BRU NTON KEY INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS GENERAL WORKPLACE WELLBEING Most lawyers get a great deal of satisfaction from working in law, but workplace pressures are also evident. Around eight in ten (79%) lawyers get a ‘great deal of satisfaction’ from their job, and enjoy the respect they deserve from colleagues and managers (including partners and directors). However, workplace stress is also common – 60% find their job very stressful and 44% feel they work under unrealistic time pressures. Nearly three in ten (29%) feel major changes are needed to the culture of their workplace. Both area of practice and demographic characteristics are discriminating factors in workplace wellbeing. Some aspects of Asian and Maori lawyers’ workplace wellbeing are less favourable and may warrant further exploration. THE PREVALENCE OF HARASSMENT IN THE LEGAL WORKING ENVIRONMENT Nearly one in five lawyers have been sexually harassed on the basis of the Human Rights Commission definition. The prevalence of sexual harassment in a legal environment on the basis of the Human Rights Commission definition is: • 18% of lawyers (31% of women and 5% of men) have been sexually harassed during their working life (to date) • 10% of lawyers (17% of women and 3% of men) have been sexually harassed in the last 5 years • 28% of lawyers have witnessed sexual harassment in a legal environment during their working life (to date). The prevalence of sexual harassment in a legal environment on the basis of a behavioural definition (consisting of at least one of 15 behaviours measured) is: • 27% of lawyers (40% of women and 14% of men) in the last 5 years. One in five lawyers have been bullied in a legal environment in the last six months. The prevalence of bullying in a legal environment on the basis of Employment New Zealand’s definition is: • 52% of lawyers have ever experienced bullying (to some degree) • 21% of lawyers have experienced bullying in the last six months (to some degree) • 6% of lawyers have frequently (from several times a month to daily) experienced bullying in the last six months. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 6 KEY INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF HARASSMENT Experiences of sexual harassment and bullying are diverse In the last five years, 33% of female lawyers have experienced crude/offensive behaviour (e.g. sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made them feel offended), 30% unwanted sexual attention (e.g. intrusive questions about their private life or physical appearance that they found offensive), 12% inappropriate physical contact/sexual assault, and 5% sexual coercion. In the last six months, 24% of all lawyers have frequently experienced work-related bullying, 15% have frequently experienced person-related bullying, and 4% have frequently experienced physically intimidating bullying. Targets of sexual harassment and bullying suffer both emotional harm and job-related consequences. Although sexual harassment and bullying behaviours affect a diverse range of lawyers, the survey findings suggest specific groups are more vulnerable. Harassment most commonly affects lawyers’ emotional or mental wellbeing including anxiety and depression (experienced by 61% of the 51% of lawyers who have been bullied, and 43% of the 18% of lawyers who have been sexually harassed). Impacts of job and/or career prospects are also common (cited by 42% of bullying targets and 32% of sexual harassment targets). Prevalence of both forms of harassment is higher among women, younger lawyers, and to a lesser extent law firm employees (although the differences are much more pronounced with sexual harassment). The type of law practised is a factor in prevalence levels, with both sexual harassment and bullying behaviours more common among lawyers working in criminal law. Bullying is also more common in family law. Ethnicity plays a role in bullying, with prevalence levels higher among Maori, Pacific, and Asian lawyers. Of note, around a quarter of Pacific targets of bullying, and a third of Asian targets of bullying, perceive the bullying to be motivated by race and culture. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 7 KEY INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF HARASSMENT (cont.) Sexual harassment is not confined to women as targets, and the perpetrators of bullying is not confined to men. In the last 5 years, 14% of men experienced one of the 15 sexual harassment behaviours measured. Nearly half (49%) of bullying cases involve women as a perpetrator (either on their own or with others). Survey findings point to a need to break down the barriers to reporting Strong associations between harassment and workplace factors suggest broader pressures need addressing Reporting of sexual harassment and bullying behaviours is low. For both of these, less than one in eight of those targeted reported the harassment or made a complaint. Likewise, only a third or less sought support or advice. Rates of bullying behaviours, in particular, are markedly higher when poor work environments exist, e.g. poor workplace cultures, poor work-life balance, unrealistic time pressures, poor employer/employee relationships etc. Fear of the consequences including the impact on career prospects, and distrust in the process or reporting outcome, are key barriers to reporting. This suggests any strategies to improve access to workplace reporting mechanisms must look to protect targets against the negative consequences that may be experienced. The direction of the cause and effect relationship between bullying behaviour and these other factors is not known. Whilst poor workplace environments are likely to encourage bullying behaviours, the existence of bullying behaviours is also likely to contribute to a person’s negative perceptions of their workplace environment and own wellbeing. Nevertheless, the strong associations suggest that reducing unsafe behaviours in the workplace may require strong leadership, changes in organisational culture, and broader workforce pressures to be addressed. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 8 COLMAR BRU NTON GENERAL WORKPLACE WELLBEING: The legal profession gives the large majority of lawyers (79%) a great deal of job satisfaction. Lawyers are equally likely to enjoy respect at work from colleagues/managers (79%). However, more than a third of lawyers (34%) are dissatisfied with their work-life balance and six in ten (60%) find their job very stressful. Nearly three in ten (29%) feel that major changes are needed to their workplace culture. Strongly agree JOB SATISFACTION My job gives me a great deal of satisfaction Agree Disagree Strongly disagree 23 Unsure Nett agree Nett disagree 3 3 79 18 4 68 31 7 65 34 32 4 79 15 14 73 11 69 12 2 60 38 6 2 44 53 3 3 3 71 24 23 29 66 Not relevant 56 15 WORK/LIFE BALANCE I regularly work extended hours (e.g. Early mornings or late evenings) I am satisfied with the balance between my work and other aspects of my life (such as family or leisure) 26 13 27 My manager (including partners and directors) cares about my wellbeing 26 My employer is willing to listen to my work-related problems 10 My stress is appropriately managed, either by me or with support of my employer 10 WORKPLACE CULTURE Major changes are needed to the culture of my workplace 9 12 47 9 48 14 I work under unrealistic time pressures 27 52 22 I find my job very stressful 27 52 WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS I receive the respect at work I deserve from colleagues and managers (including partners and directors) WORKPLACE STRESS 42 10 46 22 32 36 34 48 60 20 Base: All respondents (3,516) Q1 First, we’d like to ask you about stress and wellbeing in your workplace. Note, in this survey ‘workplace’ can include a courtroom, a prison, or anywhere a lawyer is required to go to carry out their job. How much do you agree or disagree that… 21 45 21 16 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 10 SUBGROUP VARIATIONS – JOB SATISFACTION AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE JOB SATISFACTION WORK-LIFE BALANCE Higher job satisfaction: Perceptions of work-life balance do not vary greatly by age (although working extended hours clearly drops off at age 70). Women are less satisfied with their work-life balance than men (69% vs 60%) despite being slightly less likely to say they regularly work extended hours (66% vs 69% of men). • • • • Men (81%) Older lawyers (86% of those aged 50+) Sole barristers (85%), Directors (87%), Partners (90%) Criminal (84%), Central and local government (85%). Lower job satisfaction: • • • • Women (77%) Younger lawyers (71% of those aged under 30) Employed barristers (66%), employed in law firm (73%) Intellectual property (71%), Tax law (65%). Work-life balance issues are most prevalent among: • • Law firms with over 20 partners/directors: only 54% satisfied with work-life balance (vs 65% on average) and 84% regularly work extended hours (vs 68% on average) Lawyers working in: − Immigration (53% satisfied with work-life balance) − Criminal law (58% satisfied with work-life balance and 74% regularly work extended hours) − Civil litigation (74% regularly work extended hours) − Auckland lawyers (62% satisfied with work-life balance and 74% regularly work extended hours) Lawyers working in central or local government specialties are more satisfied with their work-life balance (71%). COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 11 SUBGROUP VARIATIONS – WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS Older lawyers felt the three measures were less relevant to their circumstances. Analysis based only on those who indicated the measures were relevant shows that: • • • • • Women are somewhat slightly less positive about their workplace relationships – of note, only 79% of women say they enjoy respect from colleagues and managers (compared to 88% of men) Asian lawyers report less favourable workplace relationships, in particular: − Indian lawyers were less likely to enjoy the respect from others (70% vs 84% on average) and to feel that their manager cares about their wellbeing (68% vs 87% on average). Chinese lawyers were also less likely to feel the latter (75%). − Asian lawyers were less likely to say their manager is willing to listen to their work-related problems (79% vs 85% on average). Lawyers working in criminal law were less positive about all three measures of workplace relationships. Lawyers working in tax law were less likely to enjoy respect from others (73% vs 84% on average) Lawyers working in immigration were less likely to feel their manager cares about their wellbeing (70% vs 87% on average). COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 12 SUBGROUP VARIATIONS – WORKPLACE STRESS AND WORKPLACE CULTURE WORKPLACE STRESS WORKPLACE CULTURE Lawyers who are more likely than average (60%) to find their job very stressful are: • 25-29 year olds (67%) • Māori (67%) • Sole barrister practices (70%) and partners (65%) • Criminal law (69%) • Family law (68%) • Lawyers in firms with 1 to 3 or 4 to 9 partners (65% respectively) The belief that major changes are needed to a lawyer’s workplace culture declines markedly with age: 40% of lawyers under 30 years feel major changes are needed compared to only 31% of 30-49 year olds, and 21% of those aged 50 years). Directors, sole barristers, lawyers in criminal law and construction, and Māori lawyers are more likely than average to feel they work unrealistic time pressures. • • Young lawyers, sole barristers, and lawyers in criminal law or immigration are less likely than average to feel their stress is appropriately managed. Other groups who are more likely than average (29%) to feel major changes are needed are: Indian (43%) and Chinese (41%) lawyers Lawyers working in immigration law (44%), tax law (44%) and criminal law (41%). Women also have poorer perceptions than men of workplace stress issues (on all three measures). In particular they are less likely to feel that their stress is appropriately managed (66% vs 75% of men). COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 13 COLMAR BRU NTON MEASURING SEXUAL HARASSMENT Two measures of prevalence of sexual harassment are used in this report. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DEFINITION “Sexual harassment is any unwelcome or offensive sexual behaviour that is repeated, or is serious enough to have a harmful effect, or which contains an implied or overt promise of preferential treatment or an implied or overt threat of detrimental treatment. Sexual harassment can involve spoken or written material, images, digital material or a physical act.” (Human Rights Commission website, 2018) BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION* Respondents were asked about their personal experience regarding 15 behaviours. These have been grouped at the analysis stage into types of sexual harassment, as follows: UNWANTED SEXUAL ATTENTION: CRUDE/OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR SEXUAL ASSAULT • Unwelcome touching, hugging, cornering or kissing • • Inappropriate physical contact • • Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault Inappropriate staring or leering that made you feel intimidated • Repeated or inappropriate invitations to go out on dates Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made you feel offended • Sexually explicit pictures, posters or gifts that made you feel offended • • • Intrusive questions about your private life or physical appearance that you found offensive Repeated or inappropriate advances on email, text, social networking websites or internet chat rooms by a work colleague Sexual gestures, indecent exposure or inappropriate display of the body • Sexually explicit emails, texts or social media messages • Inappropriate commentary, images or film of you distributed by your work colleague(s) on some form of social media without your consent SEXUAL COERCION • Requests or pressure for sex, or other sexual acts • Implied or actual threats of differential treatment if sexual activity not offered OTHER • Other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature *A respondent’s response to this question was changed to ‘none of the above’ if the respondent indicated they had experienced one (or more) of the behaviours but then in subsequent questions said they didn’t consider the incident to be ‘harassment’. This affected 136 respondents. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 15 PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT – HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DEFINITION: Nearly one in five (18%) lawyers report having been sexually harassed in a legal environment at some time in their working life. Prevalence is higher among women (31% vs 5% of men). One in ten (10%) female lawyers recall five or more incidents. LIFETIME PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN LEGAL ENVIRONMENT (BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DEFINITION) PREVALENCE OVER DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS All Male NUMBER OF TIMES EXPERIENCED SEXUAL HARASSMENT Female (%) All Male Female (%) 31 18% 31% 18 17 10 OF ALL LAWYERS OF WOMEN 5% 15 13 8 5 3 2 Ever Last 5 years Last 3 years 3 1 5 Last year OF MEN 4 2 5 Once 10 8 2 2-5 times 5 1 5+ times 1 2 Can't recall number of times Base: All respondents (3,516), Men (1,347), women (2,155) LIFETIME PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS HIGHER AMONG THESE WOMEN: • 40-59 year olds (36%) • NZ European women (33% vs 24% of non NZ European) • Women in these current workplace types: • Sole practice (barrister/solicitor) (43%) • Barrister sole (49%) • Barrister chamber (42%) • Women currently in director and sole barrister roles (48% and 49%) • Women in law profession for 11 years or more (37%) • Women in banking & finance (42%) • Women in criminal law (45%) Q2 Have you ever personally encountered sexual harassment in a legal environment? This could include a legal workplace or a legal work related event or occasion. Responses in this chart relate to the response category ‘Yes, I have been sexually harassed in a legal environment’ Q3 How many times have you personally experienced sexual harassment in a legal environment? Q5a When did you last experience (sexual harassment/the type of harassment you indicated you experienced in the previous questions)? Little variation exists in lifetime prevalence of sexual harassment among men, except that prevalence is significantly higher among 30-39 year old men (9% vs 5% of all men) COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 16 NATURE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT: The nature of sexual harassment varies widely. While non-physical forms of sexual harassment are most common, two thirds (66%) of lawyers who have personally experienced sexual harassment (as defined by the Human Rights Commission) described experiencing some form of unwanted physical contact. The 18% of lawyers (31% of women and 5% of men) who have been sexually harassed describe the harassment as… (%) (%) 92 85 93 Unwanted sexual attention (nett) Inappropriate staring or leering that made you feel intimidated 32 Intrusive questions about your private life or physical appearance that you found offensive Unwelcome touching, hugging, cornering or kissing Repeated or inappropriate invitations to go out on dates 15 61 66 61 49 63 58 57 58 Sexually explicit pictures, posters or gifts that made you feel offended Inappropriate commentary, images or film of you distributed by your work colleague(s) on some form of social media without your consent Sexual coercion (nett) Requests or pressure for sex, or other sexual acts Implied or actual threats of differential treatment if sexual activity not offered 56 Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made you feel offended Sexually explicit emails, texts or social media messages Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault* 27 29 Crude/offensive behaviour (nett) Sexual gestures, indecent exposure or inappropriate display of the body Inappropriate physical contact* 17 16 17 Repeated or inappropriate advances on email, text, social networking websites or internet chat rooms by a work colleague 50 57 62 56 56 62 56 Sexual assault (nett) 82 86 77 81 22 18 23 18 16 19 12 11 12 7 9 7 Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment (Human Rights Commission definition) – all respondents (739), males (69), females (670) Q4 How would you describe this harassment? List provided. Other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature 6 4 6 25 23 25 20 16 20 12 11 12 32 39 41 *66% of lawyers described some form of sexual harassment of a physical nature Total Male Female COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 17 PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE LAST 5 YEARS: One in ten (10%) lawyers (and 17% of female lawyers) have experienced sexual harassment in the last 5 years on the basis of the Human Rights Commission definition. This rises to more than a quarter (27%) of all lawyers (and 40% of female lawyers) using the behavioural definition. Prevalence tends to be higher among younger women and younger men. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DEFINITION BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION (%) (%) 40 27 10 Total Among women, sexual harassment in the last 5 years (using the HRC definition) is higher than average (17%) among: Among men, sexual harassment in the last 5 years (using the HRC definition) is higher than average (3%) among: 17 14 3 Men Women • 25-29 year olds (26%) and 30-39 year olds (20%) • Lawyers who’ve been in the profession for 3-10 years (24%) • Lawyers in criminal law (30%), tax (23%), immigration (22%) and civil litigation (21%) • 25-39 year olds (6%) • Those who’ve been in the profession 3-5 years (8%) Total Men Among women, harassment in the last 5 years (using the behavioural definition) is higher than average (40%) among: Among men, harassment in the last 5 years (using the behavioural definition) is higher than average (14%) among: Base: All lawyers (3,516), male lawyers (1,347), female lawyers (2,155) Q2 Have you ever personally encountered sexual harassment in a legal environment? This could include a legal workplace or a legal work related event or occasion. Responses in this chart relate to the response category ‘Yes, I have been sexually harassed in a legal environment’ Q4 If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): How would you describe this harassment? If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): In the last five years, have you personally experienced this in a legal environment? Q5a When did you last experience (sexual harassment/the type of harassment you indicated you experienced in the previous questions)? Women • Those aged under 30 years (55%) • Lawyers who’ve been in the profession 3-5 years (58%) or 6-10 years (48%) • Lawyers in criminal law (55%), immigration (48%) and civil litigation (44%) • Employees in a law firm (44%) • Those age under 40 years (23%) • Māori (29%) (Pacific is also high at 25% but not statistically significant) • Employees in a law firm (18%) COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 18 PREVALENCE OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN LAST 5 YEARS BY GENDER: Proportions of around one in five lawyers have experienced crude/offensive behaviour (22%) and unwanted sexual attention (19%) in the last 5 years. Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that were offensive is the most common specific behaviour experienced (especially among women at 32%). Prevalence of specific types of sexual harassment in the last 5 years… (%) (%) Crude/offensive behaviour (nett) 11 Sexual gestures, indecent exposure or inappropriate display of the body Sexually explicit pictures, posters or gifts that made you feel offended Inappropriate commentary, images or film of you distributed by your work colleague(s) on some form of social media without your consent Intrusive questions about your private life or physical appearance that you found offensive Inappropriate staring or leering that made you feel intimidated Unwelcome touching, hugging, cornering or kissing Repeated or inappropriate invitations to go out on dates Repeated or inappropriate advances on email, text, social networking websites or internet chat rooms by a work colleague 33 Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault Sexual coercion (nett) Requests or pressure for sex, or other sexual acts Implied or actual threats of differential treatment if sexual activity not offered 19 8 30 Other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature 13 4 21 Any of the above 4 4 8 12 8 1 1 3 1 5 2 1 4 1 2 6 2 12 9 14 27 40 11 3 4 Inappropriate physical contact 32 4 3 6 4 2 6 3 2 4 2 1 2 Unwanted sexual attention (nett) Sexual assault (nett) 20 9 Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made you feel offended Sexually explicit emails, texts or social media messages 22 18 8 13 4 1 6 3 1 5 Base: All lawyers (3,516), male lawyers (1,347), female lawyers (2,155) Q4 If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): How would you describe this harassment? If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): In the last five years, have you personally experienced this in a legal environment? Q5a When did you last experience (sexual harassment/the type of harassment you indicated you experienced in the previous questions)? Q17 Are you (male/female/gender diverse)? Total Male Female COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 19 PREVALENCE OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN LAST 5 YEARS BY EXPERIENCE: Lawyers who said they had been sexually harassed in the last 5 years (based on the HRC definition) most commonly experienced crude and offensive behaviour (87%) and unwanted sexual attention (93%), ahead of sexual coercion (26%) and sexual assault (8%). Nearly one in five (19%) lawyers who said they had not been sexually harassed in the last 5 years (based on the HRC definition) reported experiencing at least one of the behaviours over the same time period. Prevalence of specific types of sexual harassment in the last 5 years… (%) (%) Crude/offensive behaviour (nett) Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made you feel offended Sexually explicit emails, texts or social media messages Sexual gestures, indecent exposure or inappropriate display of the body Repeated or inappropriate advances on email, text, social networking websites or internet chat rooms by a work colleague Sexually explicit pictures, posters or gifts that made you feel offended Inappropriate commentary, images or film of you distributed by your work colleague(s) on some form of social media without your consent Unwanted sexual attention (nett) Intrusive questions about your private life or physical appearance that you found offensive Inappropriate staring or leering that made you feel intimidated Unwelcome touching, hugging, cornering or kissing Repeated or inappropriate invitations to go out on dates 22 15 20 13 4 24 2 4 26 2 3 22 1 3 13 1 2 9 1 19 11 13 7 11 5 8 3 4 27 1 Sexual coercion (nett) 87 Requests or pressure for sex, or other sexual acts 83 Implied or actual threats of differential treatment if sexual activity not offered Sexual assault (nett) Inappropriate physical contact Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault 3 26 2 21 1 11 8 58 3 8 3 1 58 7 6 Other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature 42 2 27 Any of the behaviours 19 100 93 68 66 59 Total Personally experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (using HRC definition) Not personally experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (using HRC definition) Base: All lawyers (3,516), lawyers who recall personally experiencing sexual harassment according to Human Rights Commission definition in last 5 years (401), lawyers who have not personally experienced sexual harassment according to Human Rights Commission definition in last 5 years (3,111). Q4 If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): How would you describe this harassment? If personally experienced sexual harassment (in response to Human Rights Commission definition): In the last five years, have you personally experienced this in a legal environment? Q5a When did you last experience (sexual harassment/the type of harassment you indicated you experienced in the previous questions)? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 20 DURATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT: The harassment was a one-off event for more than 40%, and lasted for more than six months for around three in ten. Additional analysis shows that duration is not significantly impacted by gender of the target. Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) (%) Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) 51 41 16 5 It was a one off 5 Less than a month 7 5 1 to 3 months 7 4 4 to 6 months 7 11 4 7 to 12 months 8 1-2 years Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q5b How long did the harassment go on for? 7 3 3-4 years 6 10 4 5 years or more Don’t recall COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 21 WHERE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OCCURS: Whilst sexual harassment is most commonly experienced in the workplace, work-related events are also a fairly common location for harassment. More than a third (35%) of lawyers who have been sexually harassed (HRC definition) say that type of behaviour was common in their workplace at the time. WHERE HARASSMENT EXPERIENCED (%) HOW COMMON BEHAVIOUR WAS IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE TIME HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DEFINITION Unsure 71 Very rare 3 8 16 2 Unsure 40 Don’t recall HRC Definition Behavioural Definition 22 Women = 43% Men = 32% 38 Occurred sometimes Occurred sometimes 5 4 3 Rare Common 39 2 15 23 Rare Common 35 51 Very rare 2 2 In or at a work related event (e.g. social event, conference) Other BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION 71 At work / in the workplace (including at court or a prison) While looking for work (%) Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q6 Next are a few more questions about the harassment. If you’ve experienced this more than once in a legal environment, please think about the most recent experience. Where did you experience the harassment? Men more likely to say ‘very rare’ or ‘rare’ (41% vs 31% of women). Women more likely to say ‘common’ (28% vs 18% of men). Base: Experienced sexual harassment in the workplace – Human Rights Commission definition (525), last five years under behavioural definition (773). Q7 Thinking about your workplace at that time, would you say that this type of behaviour was… COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 22 DEGREE OF OFFENCE: A third (33%) of those who have been sexually harassed (HRC definition) were ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ offended, a third were quite offended (33%) and nearly a third were only ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’ offended. The degree of offence is greater among those who reported sexual harassment using the HRC definition than those who have been sexually harassed on the basis of the behavioural definition. (%) Higher among women (35% vs 15% of men) 33% Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) 3 4 27 33 17 16 Higher among women (23% vs 12% of men) 20% Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) Unsure 3 6 Not offended at all 43 A little offended 29 Quite offended 11 Very offended Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q8 Overall, how offended did the harassment make you feel? 8 Extremely offended COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 23 PERSONAL EFFECT OF HARASSMENT: Around four in ten (39%) lawyers who have been sexually harassed (HRC definition) say the experience affected their emotional or mental wellbeing, and 32% say it affected their job or career prospects. Experienced Personally sexual experienced harassment in sexual last 5 years harassment (HRC (behavioural definition) definition) Affected emotional or mental wellbeing (nett) Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) 39% 27% Changed my behaviour/outlook Experienced anxiety 28% 19% - More guarded, lost respect for others, avoid certain people and situations, less productive and passionate about my work 3% 3% Experienced depression 10% 7% Felt angry/annoyed/bitter 3% 2% Other 9% 7% There were no consequences for you 29% 45% 32% 20% Prefer not to answer 5% 7% You felt it affected your career prospects 17% 10% Unsure 7% 6% You resigned from your job 19% 10% You were 'labelled a trouble maker' 11% 8% 10% 7% Affected job/ career prospects (nett) Further bullying behaviour - Ostracised, victimised, ignored, labelled as prude, pushy etc Categories that are similar have been grouped together and presented as a ‘nett score’ (see category labels). A nett score gives the % of respondents that gave at least one of the more detailed reasons (listed below the nett score). Response categories of 1% or less are not shown in the chart but are included in the nett categories where relevant. Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q11g How has your experience of the harassment affected you? If you are not comfortable answering this question, please select ‘prefer not to answer’. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 24 RELATIONSHIP OF HARASSER AND TARGET: Most targets were an employee lawyer in a law firm. The harasser is most likely to be the target’s manager, supervisor, partner, or director. Women are more likely than men to be harassed by someone in a more senior position. HARASSER’S RELATIONSHIP TO TARGET (%) 52 Manager / supervisor / partner / director 39 26 27 Co-worker (more senior) 12 17 Other co-worker 14 12 Client 11 11 Others associated with your workplace 6 4 Judge Court staff Women = 29% Men = 21% Men = 24% Women = 10% 11 14 Partner 6 6 Barrister sole 6 6 7 8 1 3 Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) Other Women = 62% Men = 47% Women = 59% Men = 50% 11 9 Law clerk / intern Men = 26% Women = 14% (%) 60 56 Employee lawyer in law firm Employee in-house lawyer 1 1 Other Unsure Women = 28% Men = 16% TARGET’S ROLE AT TIME OF HARASSMENT 2 4 In-house lawyer in charge of staff 2 2 Director 1 1 Employed barrister 2 2 Men = 20% Women = 3% Men = 15% Women = 3% Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q9a What was the harasser’s relationship to you? Q10 What was your role at the time of the harassment? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 25 GENDER OF HARASSER: Whilst the harasser is nearly always a man when a woman is the target, the converse is not true. For sexual harassment on the basis of the HRC definition, the harasser is most likely to be a woman when the target is a man (74%). With the behavioural definition, the harasser is slightly more likely to be a man than a woman (58% and 42% respectively). HRC DEFINITION (%) BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION (%) Example of how to interpret chart: For 74% of men who have been sexually harassed (on the basis of the HRC definition) the harasser was a woman. 98 97 88 86 74 58 42 26 14 12 3 2 All Male target Female target GENDER OF HARASSER: All Male Male target Female target Female Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q9b Was the harasser male or female? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 26 SUPPORT AND ADVICE: Only around a quarter (27%) of lawyers who have been sexually harassed (HRC definition) sought support or advice. This is less likely to have occurred with the behavioural definition. A work colleague and friends/family are the most common sources of support and advice. SOURCE OF SUPPORT, ASSISTANCE OR ADVICE (%) 70 68 Another lawyer at work 27% SOUGHT SUPPORT OR ADVICE (HRC DEFINITION) 57 60 Friends or family 24 23 22 20 A lawyer outside of work (personal contact) Another colleague (non-lawyer) at work 11 11 Private counselling / psychologist Counselling service offered through the workplace A lawyer or legal service in another firm (no personal contact) Higher among women than men (19% vs 11%). New Zealand Law Society A lawyer from the Friends panel 17% SOUGHT SUPPORT OR ADVICE (BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION) Police Human Rights Commission Internet 5 5 4 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 5 Other Unsure Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Q11a Did you seek any support or advice about this harassment that happened to you? Base: sought support or advice – HRC definition (198), behavioural definition (190) Q11b Who did you seek support assistance or advice from? 1 2 Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 27 REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT: Formal reporting of sexual harassment is low, with only 12% of lawyers sexually harassed* having formally reported or made a complaint about the harassment. When reporting does occur, the harassment is usually reported to a senior individual, or Human Resources manager, at the target’s place of work. *HRC definition WHO THE HARASSMENT WAS REPORTED TO (%) 68 73 Manager / supervisor / partner / director at work 12% FORMALLY REPORTED OR MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE HARASSMENT (HRC DEFINITION) 37 Human Resources manager at work 27 8 9 Co-worker 5 An outside lawyer or legal advice service New Zealand Law Society 7% FORMALLY REPORTED OR MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE HARASSMENT Police 8 5 2 4 8 Other (BEHAVIOURAL DEFINITION) Unsure Base: Personally experienced sexual harassment under Human Rights Commission definition (735), experienced sexual harassment in last five years under behavioural definition (1,078). Base: Formally reported harassment or made a complaint – HRC definition (86), behavioural definition (81) Q11c Did you formally report or make a complaint about the harassment to anyone? Q11d Who did you formally report the harassment to? Personally experienced sexual harassment (HRC definition) 1 11 Experienced sexual harassment in last 5 years (behavioural definition) 1 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 28 REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING SUPPORT OR MAKING A COMPLAINT: Whilst some lawyers dealt with the harassment themselves, or felt that support or reporting the harassment was not required, fear of the consequences and a distrust in the process or outcomes are common barriers to taking action. Personally Experienced experienced sexual sexual harassment in harassment last 5 years (HRC (behavioural definition) definition) Fear of consequences (nett) 65% 43% 49% 31% 38% 25% I did not want to get the offender(s) into trouble 19% 12% I was too scared, frightened, or worried 15% 7% I did not want to involve the Police 4% 2% The person I would normally report the issue to is the perpetrator 10% 7% It was someone high up/important 2% 1% I was concerned about the impact that reporting the issue would have on my career I was concerned that reporting the issue would make the situation worse Distrust in process and/or outcome (nett) I felt it would make no difference I did not think the incident would be kept confidential I felt I would not be believed or supported I did not feel the Law Society could resolve the matter 57% 40% 30% 25% 15% 41% 31% 21% 15% 10% Personally Experienced experienced sexual sexual harassment in harassment last 5 years (HRC (behavioural definition) definition) I did not think it was serious enough 41% 50% I dealt with it myself 38% 36% I felt embarrassed or ashamed 25% 12% The behaviour stopped and had not recurred/I left the job 20% 17% I did not know who to go to or how to report the issue 17% 10% Behaviour normalised/others knew about it/culture of the time 3% 2% Other Prefer not to say 13% 1% 11% 2% Response categories of 1% or less are not shown in the table but are included in the nett categories where relevant. Base: Consists of 1) respondents who either did not seek support, advice, report, or make a complaint and 2) respondents sought support and advice but did report or make a complaint Q11f If didn’t seek support or report the incident: Why did you not seek support or advice, or report or make a complaint? If sought support, but didn’t report the incident: Why did you not report or make a complaint? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 29 LIFETIME PREVALENCE OF BYSTANDERS IN THE WORKPLACE: More than a quarter (28%) of lawyers have witnessed sexual harassment in a legal workplace, with this being somewhat more common among women who have worked in the law profession for a long time. Lifetime prevalence of witnessing sexual harassment in a legal environment (based on Human Rights Commission definition) 28% 32% 23% OF ALL LAWYERS OF WOMEN LIFETIME PREVALENCE OF WITNESSING SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT IS HIGHER AMONG: • • • • • • • NZ European women (33%) Women in law for 20 years or longer (37%) Women sole barristers (43%) Women in banking & finance (40%) Women in construction (43%) Women in civil litigation (37%) Men aged 30-39 years (34%) OF MEN Base: Q2 Have you ever personally encountered sexual harassment in a legal environment? This could include a legal workplace or a legal work related event or occasion. Responses on this page relate to the response category ‘Yes, I have witnessed sexual harassment in a legal environment’ COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 30 COLMAR BRU NTON MEASURING BULLYING Two measures of the prevalence of bullying are used. NEGATIVE ACTS QUESTIONNAIRE (NAQ-r)* EMPLOYMENT NEW ZEALAND DEFINITION OF BULLYING Prevalence of workplace bullying was measured with the Negative Acts Questionnaire (revised) (NAQ-r), developed by Einarsen, Hoel et al. (2009). This is a widely used tool to assess the prevalence of bullying in the workplace. The first part of the NAQ-r asks respondents to score how often they have experienced 22 types of behaviours* over the past 6 months (never=1, seldom=2, sometimes=3, often=4, always=5). Overall scores were computed for each individual with a possible range of 22 (never experienced any behaviours) to 110 (experiencing all behaviours on a daily basis). The NAQ-r comprises three interrelated subscales of bullying – work-related (W), personrelated (P), and physically intimidating bullying (F) – which enables an analysis of the prevalence of the different types of negative behaviours. Following administration of the questions on types of negative behaviour, Employment New Zealand’s definition of workplace bullying was shown to survey respondents: Bullying prevalence from the NAQ-r was established according to Leymann’s criteria as experiencing at least one negative act on a daily or weekly basis over a 6-month period (Leymann 1990). For both witnessed and self-reported responses, bullying was identified if any of the affirmative responses (ie, seldom, sometimes, often, and always) were endorsed. “Workplace bullying is repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers that can be physical, verbal or relational/social (excluding someone or spreading rumours).” On the basis of this definition, respondents were asked whether they had witnessed bullying of other staff or colleagues and whether they had been subjected to bullying over the past 6 months. Responses were on a 5-point scale (no; yes, very rarely; yes, now and then; yes, several times per week; and yes, almost daily). The NAQ-r survey questions, and description of approach, were taken from the ASMS Health Dialogue (Issue 14, November 2017) report which details the results of a survey on bullying in the NZ senior medical workforce. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 32 PREVALENCE OF WORKPLACE BULLYING (EMPLOYMENT NZ DEFINITION) Using the Employment NZ definition, 52% of lawyers have been bullied at some time in their working life. Around one in five (21%) have been bullied in the last six months. Six percent of all lawyers have been frequently bullied in the last six months. EXPERIENCE OF WORKPLACE BULLYING (AS DEFINED BY EMPLOYMENT NZ) (%) 52 21 Ever 6 Frequently 15 Rarely / occasionally Last 6 months THESE SUBGROUPS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN AVERAGE TO HAVE EXPERIENCED BULLYING BEHAVIOUR IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS… Experience of bullying in last 6 months more common among: Frequent experience of bullying in last 6 months more common among: AVERAGE 21% 6% Women 26% 7% Aged under 30 25% 8% Pacific 35% Similar to average Māori 34% Similar to average Sole barristers practice 29% 11% Barristers' chambers 29% Similar to average Employed in a law firm 24% 8% Employed in law profession for less than 5 years 25% 8% Work in Criminal law 37% 9% Work in Family law 28% 8% Similar to average 15% Live in Northland Base: All respondents (3,516) Q13a Workplace bullying is repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers that can be physical, verbal or relational/social (excluding someone or spreading rumours) (Employment NZ) On the basis of the above definition of bullying, during the course of your work over the past 6 months, do you think you have been subjected to bullying? Q13b On the basis of the same definition of bullying, during the course of your work in the legal profession, do you think you have ever been subjected to bullying? Q13c When did you last experience bullying? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 33 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PREVALENCE OF BULLYING AND WORKPLACE STRESS AND WELLBEING There are strong associations between the prevalence of bullying and the workplace environment measures. LAWYERS WITH THESE VIEWPOINTS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN AVERAGE TO HAVE EXPERIENCED BULLYING BEHAVIOUR IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS… Experience of bullying in last 6 months more common among: Frequent experience of bullying in last 6 months more common among: AVERAGE 21% 6% Don’t feel they receive respect they deserve from colleagues and managers 60% 23% Manager does not care about their wellbeing 58% 22% Employer is unwilling to listen to work-related problems 57% 22% Believe major changes are needed to the culture of their workplace 44% 14% Overall dissatisfaction with job 35% 14% Dissatisfied with work-life balance 32% 10% Work under unrealistic time pressures 30% 9% Feel job is very stressful 27% 8% Feel their stress is appropriate managed by them or manager 14% 3% Example of how to interpret this table: 30% of lawyers who feel they work under unrealistic time pressures have been bullied in the last 6 months. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 34 WORK-RELATED BULLYING BEHAVIOURS EXPERIENCED IN LAST 6 MONTHS In the last 6 months, around one in ten lawyers have frequently been exposed to an unmanageable workload (11%) and ordered to do work below their level of competence (10%). (%) Always Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 3 8 Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 2 9 Someone withholding information which affects your performance 1 7 Being given tasks or unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines 1 7 Having your opinions and views ignored Excessive monitoring of your work Pressure not to access or claim something which by right you are entitled (e.g. Sick leave, annual leave, domestic leave, travel expenses) Base: All respondents (3,516) Q12a/b Thinking back over the past six months, how often have you experienced this during the course of your work? Sometimes 18 21 16 16 7 13 6 Seldom 21 49 48 23 50 22 54 26 52 14 8 Never 21 20 1 5 13 Often 75 82 Nett any Nett often or always 51 11 52 10 50 8 46 8 48 6 25 4 18 4 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 35 PERSON-RELATED BULLYING BEHAVIOURS EXPERIENCED IN LAST 6 MONTHS Whilst around four in ten (43%) have been ignored or excluded in the last 6 months, this happens frequently for just 7%. (%) Always Being ignored or excluded 1 6 Often 15 Nett any Nett often or always 43 7 28 5 35 4 71 29 4 Sometimes Seldom 20 57 Being ignored or facing hostile reaction when you approach 14 10 Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work 13 11 Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks 13 10 Spreading of gossip and/or rumours about you 13 8 17 70 30 4 Persistent unreasonable or unfair criticism of your work and effort 13 9 16 71 29 4 Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 13 8 72 28 4 Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (ie. habits and background), your attitudes, or your private life 13 8 26 4 21 2 Having unfair allegations made against you Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job Being the subject of excessive teasing or sarcasm Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get on with Base: All respondents (3,516) Q12a/b Thinking back over the past six months, how often have you experienced this during the course of your work? 01 4 02 7 72 20 65 16 16 14 12 7 12 5 13 Never 74 12 79 8 85 15 2 11 84 16 2 10 1 90 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 36 PHYSICALLY INTIMIDATING BULLYING BEHAVIOURS EXPERIENCED IN LAST 6 MONTHS Three in ten (30%) lawyers have been shouted at or been the target of spontaneous anger or rage in the last six months. This has occurred frequently for just 4%. (%) Always Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage) 13 Intimidating behaviour such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way 01 5 Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse Base: All respondents (3,516) Q12a/b Thinking back over the past six months, how often have you experienced this during the course of your work? 01 3 11 Often Sometimes Seldom 15 70 10 84 96 Never Nett any Nett often or always 30 4 16 1 4 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 37 PREVALENCE OF WORKPLACE BULLYING (NAQ-R DEFINITIONS) Just over a quarter (27%) of lawyers have experienced at least one of the NAQ-r behaviours frequently in the last six months. Work-related bullying is more common than person-related and physically intimidating bullying in the workplace. EXPERIENCE OF BEHAVIOURS THAT CHARACTERISE WORKPLACE BULLYING 84% Experienced in last 6 months Frequent experience of at least 1 type of bullying behaviour in last 6 months Frequently (often/always) 27 (%) 79% 66% 34% 24 15 Infrequent experience of at least 1 type of bullying behaviour in last 6 months Sometimes / Seldom 57 55 4 51 30 Overall bullying behaviour Work-related bullying Person-related bullying Physically intimidating bullying Base: All respondents (3,516) Q12a Now we have some questions about other types of behaviours in the legal workplace. Thinking back over the past six months, how often have you experienced this during the course of your work? Q12b And also over the past six months, how often have you experienced this during the course of your work? Scale = never, seldom, sometimes, often, always. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 38 SUBGROUP ANALYSIS USING NAQ-r SCORES Gender, age, and ethnicity all play a role in the prevalence of bullying. Lawyers working in criminal law and family law are also more exposed to workplace bullying. NEGATIVE ACTS QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES (NAQ – r) Overall workplace bullying Work-related bullying (W) 33.7 (Possible low of 22 and high of 110) 12.5 (Possible low of 7 and high of 35) Person-related bullying (P) 17.4 (Low of 12 and high of 60) Physically intimidating bullying (F) 3.8 (Possible low of 3 and high of 15) HIGHER THAN AVERAGE OVERALL NAQ-r SCORES AMONG: • Women (across all 3 areas: W=13.5, P=18.3, F=4.0) • Aged under 30 (across all 3 areas: W=14.3, P=18.8, F=4.1) − Work-related bullying also more common among those aged 30-39 (W=13.0) • Māori (across all 3 areas: W=14.2, P=20.0, F=4.5) • Asian( across all 3 areas: W=13.4, 19.8, F=4.3) • Pacific (for person-related and physically intimidating bullying (P=20.7, F=4.6) • Employed in law profession for less than 5 years (across all 3 areas: W=14.2, P=19.0, F=4.0) − Work-related bullying also more common among those in industry for 6-10 years (W=13.2) • Work in criminal law (across all 3 years: W=13.2, P=19.2, F=4.6) − Physically intimidating bullying also more common among those who work in family law or Māori/Treaty of Waitangi law (F=4.2) • Employed in a law firm (across all 3 areas: W=12.6, P=17.5, F=3.8) − Work-related bullying also more common among employed barristers and in-house employees (W=13.2) − Physically intimidating bullying also more common among sole barristers (F=4.3) COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 39 PERPETRATORS OF BULLYING BEHAVOUR: The bullying behaviours were more commonly perpetrated by a specific person (56%) and usually by someone in a senior role in the law practice (65%). Judges are a perpetrator of bullying for around four in ten (44%) criminal law lawyers who have been bullied. While men are more likely to be perpetrators, nearly half (49%) of bullying cases involve women (either as the sole perpetrator or with others). IN THE MAIN, THE BEHAVIOUR WAS CARRIED OUT BY… GENDER OF PERPETRATORS (INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP) EMPLOYMENT ROLE OF PERPETRATOR (%) (%) (%) By one specific person 56 Manager / supervisor / partner / director Equally male and female 17% By more than one person By one or more specific group of people 52% 14 Female 31% Unsure Co-worker (more senior) Male 26 3 Base: Experienced bullying on basis of Employment NZ definition (1,897) Q14 In the main, was this behaviour being carried out by one specific person, by more than one person, or by specific group(s) of people? Q15a And was (this person/were the people)… Q15b (Was this person/were the people) carrying out this bullying behaviour mostly… 65 20 Other co-worker 15 Judge 15 Others associated with your workplace 7 Client 6 Other 5 Court staff Unsure Judges are a perpetrator of bullying for 44% of lawyers working in criminal law who have been bullied, and 50% of barristers (sole) who have been bullied. 3 1 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 40 PERSONAL EFFECT OF BULLYING: Around six in ten (61%) lawyers who have been bullied on the basis of the Employment NZ definition say the experience affected their emotional or mental wellbeing, and 42% say they resigned from their job or it affected their career prospects. (%) Affected emotional or mental wellbeing (nett) 61 Loss in confidence 48 Experienced anxiety 45 Experienced depression 20 Affected career prospects (nett) 42 I resigned from my job 24 I felt it affected my career prospects 22 I was labelled a trouble maker Unpleasant working environment/I want to quit 11 2 No negative consequences (nett) 19 There were no consequences for me Made me stronger/ more resilient 16 2 I felt ostracised, victimised, or ignored by colleagues 16 Other 4 Unsure 3 Prefer not to answer 4 Base: Experienced bullying on basis of Employment NZ definition (1,897) Q16b How has your experience of bullying or harassment affected you? If you are not comfortable answering this question, please select ‘prefer not to answer’. COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 41 SUPPORT AND ADVICE: Of the one third who sought support or advice, most sought this from friends or family or another lawyer at their workplace. SOURCE OF SUPPORT, ASSISTANCE OR ADVICE 33% SOUGHT SUPPORT OR ADVICE ABOUT THE HARASSMENT Base: Experienced bullying behaviour on basis of Employment NZ definition (1,897) Q15d Did you seek any support or advice about the bullying or harassing? Friends or family Another lawyer at work A lawyer outside of work (personal contact) Another colleague (non-lawyer) at work Private counselling / psychologist Counselling service offered through the workplace A lawyer or legal service in another firm (no personal contact) Internet A lawyer from the Friends panel New Zealand Law Society Help or support agency (e.g. Safe to Talk or Rape Crisis) Human Rights Commission Police Other Unsure Base: Sought support or advice (675) Q15e Who did you seek support assistance or advice from? (%) 63 61 28 27 13 10 9 4 4 3 1 10 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 42 REPORTING BULLYING BEHAVIOUR: Only around one in ten (11%) formally reported the incident or made a complaint. Incidents are mainly reported to a senior person at the lawyer’s workplace or the HR manager. WHO THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO (%) Manager / supervisor / partner / director at work 11% FORMALLY REPORTED OR MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE HARASSMENT Human Resources manager at work 30 An outside lawyer or legal advice service 9 Co-worker 8 New Zealand Law Society Other Base: Experienced bullying behaviour on basis of Employment NZ definition (1,897) Q15f Did you formally report or make a complaint about the bullying or harassment to anyone? 69 *Less than 1% reported the incident to the Police Base: Formally reported or made a complaint (219) Q15g Who did you formally report the incident to? 5 11 COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 43 PERCEIVED MOTIVATION OF BULLYING BEHAVIOUR Age (33%) and gender (18%) are the most common perceived drivers of bullying behaviour. Among Asian and Pacific targets of bullying, race and culture is considered to be a key motivation for the behaviour (35% and 23% respectively). (%) (%) Demographics/personal characteristics of person bullied (nett) Perpetrator's insecurities/stress/ incompetencies/insecurities (nett) 44 Age or experience 33 Gender 18 Race/culture 5 Family status 4 Sexual orientation 2 Jealousy/ trying to compete/ disapproval of my way of doing things (nett) Under 30 years = 49% Female = 28% Male = 4% Asian = 35% Pacific = 23% 8 Stress/pressure 3 Insecurity/fear/lack of confidence 3 Ego/a need for power and control (nett) 6 Power/control/authority 4 Ego/self importance/arrogance/entitlement 2 Workplace politics and pressures (nett) 4 2 Jealousy/envy 3 Workplace politics/hierarchy Competition 2 Other Perpetrator's personality, mental health issues, personal cirumstances (nett) Personality/nature/habits/temper 7 8 Not sure 7 30 4 Response categories of 1% or less are not shown on the chart but are included in the nett categories where relevant. Base: Experienced bullying on basis of Employment NZ definition (1,897) Q15c Do you feel the bullying or harassing behaviour (excluding sexual harassment) was motivated by… COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 44 REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING SUPPORT OR MAKING A COMPLAINT Fear of the consequences (57%) and distrust in the process or outcome (50%) are common barriers to seeking support and/or making a formal complaint. Fear of consequences (nett) 57% I was concerned about the impact that reporting the issue would have on my career 44% I was concerned that reporting the issue would make the situation worse 40% I felt I would not be believed or supported 21% I was too scared, frightened, or worried 12% I did not want to get the offender(s) into trouble 4% Distrust in process and/or outcome (nett) 50% I felt it would make no difference 40% I did not think the incident would be kept confidential 20% I did not feel the Law Society could resolve the matter 11% I dealt with it myself 40% I did not think it was serious enough 23% The behaviour stopped and has not recurred/left the company 11% Felt embarrassed or ashamed 10% I did not know who to go to or how to report the issue 10% Behaviour normalised/others knew about it/culture of the time 4% Other 3% Prefer not to say 3% Response categories of 1% or less are not shown in the table but are included in the nett categories where relevant. Base: Consists of 1) respondents who either did not seek support, advice, report, or make a complaint and 2) respondents sought support and advice but did report or make a complaint Q16a If didn’t seek support or report the incident: Why did you not seek support or advice, or report or make a complaint? If sought support, but didn’t report the incident: Why did you not report or make a complaint? COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 45 COLMAR BRU NTON RESPONDENTS’ FINAL COMMENTS Respondents were asked for any comments they’d like to make about anything raised in the survey. Below is a summary of the types of comments made. Characteristics of perpetrators (nett) 9% Mentions specific events, perpetrators or workplaces 4% Judges’ behaviour needs to be looked at as well Survey related comments (nett) 8% 2% Positive comments about the survey/initiative (thank you/glad you're doing this/looking into this etc) 3% Private practice/larger firms are worse while small firms/government departments aren't as bad 1% Negative comments on the survey/questions 3% Bullying by clients needs to be addressed as well 1% Time period should be more than the last six months 1% Women can be perpetrators too 1% 1% Survey is overdue and only happening because of the media 1% Racism is an issue which needs to be looked into as well Bullying or harassment by opposing counsel and across practices 1% Harassment is widespread and a cultural shift needed (nett) 7% Harassment has been dealt with poorly (nett) 8% 4% Responses have been unsatisfactory/ no accountability 3% This sort of behaviour is commonplace and comes from power imbalance, cultural issue or old boys club mentality The harassment/bullying occurred at previous workplaces 3% A massive culture shift is needed/ we need to get rid of perpetrators 2% Complaints process is awful/ I was discouraged from reporting 2% Excessive workloads, stress, pressure, with low pay 2% Need better management and partnership structures 1% High stress and tight deadlines are a result of client or court demands 1% The offender does this to everyone/ it's widely known they do this 1% Harassment is not a big issue/legal workplaces no worse than others (nett) 6% Concern about consequences of complaining (impact on career/social stigma in office etc) 2% Have had no experiences of harassment or bullying myself 3% Characteristics of those being harassed (nett) 8% This is an overreaction and tars everyone with the same brush 1% Offenders are senior, high earners or the people to complain to so get they away with it 3% I don't think it's that bad/ Media is exaggerating the issue 1% Sexism is an issue/ work environment for women is bad/ women are targeted, overlooked or discriminated against 3% It happens at all workplaces, not just law 1% Bullying or harassment is often directed at juniors, paralegals, law clerks, support staff 2% 1% Incident occurred when I was younger and less experienced 2% I wasn't upset, was a joke and I was able to deal with it myself It's just the industry we work in/ hard work is expected/ people misconstrue it as bullying Base: All respondents (3,516) Source: Q25 ‘Finally, are there any comments you’d like to make about anything raised in the survey?’ 1% COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 47 RESPONDENTS’ FINAL COMMENTS Respondents were asked for any comments they’d like to make about anything raised in the survey. Below is a summary of the types of comments made. Negative impacts of harassment (nett) 5% I quit job/ I changed role, office or career as a result of bullying/harassment 2% Resulted in mental health issues 2% We're losing good lawyers, young people and women from the profession 2% I feel upset, angry, humiliated, unsafe and/or trapped 1% I nearly or have left the profession/my job 1% I'm well supported at current employer/ incidents are dealt with satisfactorily (nett) 4% Have witnessed bullying rather than experienced it (nett) 4% I witnessed the offence/not enough questions about witnessing bullying or harassment 3% I'm aware of harassment from other people/other offices have it worse 2% We need changes and support (nett) 3% We need an independent authority or confidential channel to investigate, regulate, or report occurrences 1% We need more support systems in place 1% I hope something is done about this 1% Other options 3% No Comment 74% Base: All respondents (3,516) Source: Q25 ‘Finally, are there any comments you’d like to make about anything raised in the survey?’ COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 48 APPENDIX: SAMPLE PROFILE GENDER Male Female Gender diverse 50% 50% * AGE Under 25 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 years or over Prefer not to say age 5% 16% 25% 24% 17% 11% 2% * 1% ETHNICITY New Zealand European Māori Samoan Cook Island Māori Tongan Niuean Fijian Other Pacific group Any Pacific (nett) Chinese Indian Pakistani Sri Lankan Other Asian group Any Asian (nett) Other European group Another ethnic group Prefer not to say ethnic group 86% 6% 1% * * * * * 2% 2% 2% * * 2% 6% 5% 2% 3% * = % between 0.0 and 0.5 (WEIGHTED DATA) CURRENT WORKPLACE TYPE Law firm – over 20 partners / directors Law firm – 10 to 19 partners / directors Law firm – 4 to 9 partners / directors Law firm – 1 to 3 partners / directors Sole practice (barrister and solicitor) 1 lawyer only in workplace Barrister sole Barristers’ Chambers Government department or agency In-house private entity Local government Academic institution Not for profit Other type of workplace 18% 6% 16% 19% 5% * 5% 5% 12% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% CURRENT ROLE Employee in law firm Employee in-house Partner Director In-house lawyer in charge of staff Barrister sole Employed barrister None of the above roles 41% 16% 16% 6% 5% 9% 2% 4% LENGTH OF TIME IN LAW PROFESSION Less than a year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20 years or longer 3% 9% 15% 15% 23% 35% MAIN LEGAL PRACTICE AREAS (UP TO 3) ACC Administrative Banking & Finance Civil Litigation Company/Commercial Competition Construction Criminal Employment Family Governance Government/local government Health Immigration Insurance Intellectual property Māori/Treaty of Waitangi Media Property Resource management Tax Trusts and estates Unsure of practice areas 1% 4% 5% 25% 27% 2% 4% 14% 12% 14% 4% 11% 2% 2% 5% 4% 2% 1% 25% 5% 3% 17% 1% GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION Auckland Northland Bay of Plenty Canterbury - Westland Gisborne Hawkes Bay Manawatu Marlborough Nelson Otago Southland Taranaki Waikato Wellington Whanganui Other region 44% 2% 4% 11% * 1% 1% * 2% 3% 1% 1% 5% 22% * 1% COLMAR BRUNTON 2018 49 I M P O R TA N T I N F O R M AT I O N Research Association NZ Code of Practice Colmar Brunton practitioners are members of the Research Association NZ and are obliged to comply with the Research Association NZ Code of Practice. A copy of the Code is available from the Executive Secretary or the Complaints Officer of the Society. Confidentiality Reports and other records relevant to a Market Research project and provided by the Researcher shall normally be for use solely by the Client and the Client’s consultants or advisers. Research Information Article 25 of the Research Association NZ Code states: a. The research technique and methods used in a Marketing Research project do not become the property of the Client, who has no exclusive right to their use. b. Marketing research proposals, discussion papers and quotations, unless these have been paid for by the client, remain the property of the Researcher. c. They must not be disclosed by the Client to any third party, other than to a consultant working for a Client on that project. In particular, they must not be used by the Client to influence proposals or cost quotations from other researchers. Publication of a Research Project Article 31 of the Research Association NZ Code states: Where a client publishes any of the findings of a research project the client has a responsibility to ensure these are not misleading. The Researcher must be consulted and agree in advance to the form and content for publication. Where this does not happen the Researcher is entitled to: a. Refuse permission for their name to be quoted in connection with the published findings b. Publish the appropriate details of the project c. Correct any misleading aspects of the published presentation of the findings Electronic Copies Electronic copies of reports, presentations, proposals and other documents must not be altered or amended if that document is still identified as a Colmar Brunton document. The authorised original of all electronic copies and hard copies derived from these are to be retained by Colmar Brunton. Colmar Brunton ™ New Zealand is certified to International Standard ISO 20252 (2012). This project will be/has been completed in compliance with this International Standard. This presentation is subject to the detailed terms and conditions of Colmar Brunton, a copy of which is available on request or online here.