“Work Family” is a Toxic Concept.
Image courtesy of Joe Pugliese/Harpo Productions/Reuters
Written by HRuprise founder, Rebecca Weaver.
Like most of my HR colleagues, I was saddened but not surprised to learn about Meghan Markle’s fruitless complaint to Buckingham Palace HR. If you haven’t yet seen her interview with Oprah (watch it!), here’s the gist: Meghan was suffering harassment at the hands of the British press and it was taking a toll on her mental health. So she went to HR for help. She is, after all, a member of the royal family, which is, after all, not just a family but also a business.
But HR denied her complaint. Why? Because Meghan was not a “paid member of the institution.” Never mind that she is one of the most famous members of the royal family and a HUGE value add to the brand. HR refused her on a technicality. She was basically told to do her familial duty and suck it up.
Meghan’s predicament might seem exceptional on the surface - she is, after all, a world-famous princess - but it is also a prime example of how the concept of “work family” can be used by employers of all stripes to evade workplace accountability.
For example, a waiter recently recounted to me her experience working in a renowned restaurant. The pay was high, the management was fair, the staff had a healthy rapport, and the food was so good it sold itself. The owner often referred to the team as a “restaurant family,” and a lot of the staff enthusiastically agreed with that description.
There was just one big problem: the general manager was a creep.
He touched female staff unnecessarily, made sexual innuendos and shared inappropriate pictures. He singled out staff members for their attractiveness and analyzed their looks while they were trying to work. He began an unethical relationship with a hostess 20 years his junior. Most of the staff members knew he was a creep. But the owner, the head of this “restaurant family,” had no idea.
This went on for a year before someone finally told the owner what was going on.
The owner was crushed. He immediately launched an investigation, and the GM was fired within a day. The owner was dismayed that no one had reported the GM sooner. In such a supportive “work family,” why did the staff put up with harassment for so long?
The answer is in the question: because the GM was “family” too.
In real families, abuse is notoriously difficult to root out. The combination of economic, legal, emotional and generational ties can make extrication from abusive relationships almost impossible for some. It’s no wonder that invoking “family” in the workplace puts many employees’ teeth on edge. It’s physical and visceral: I frequently see people recoil at the phrase, "We're a family here.” For many, the notion of “family” triggers negative, or at the very least complicated, associations. And as survivors of abuse well know, you can't fire a family member the same way you fire an employee.
In a “work family,” as in a real family, a harasser’s abuse may not seem “bad enough” to warrant rocking the family boat. Targets of the abuse may worry that reporting it will cause disproportionate hardship for the business, or even for the harasser himself - as in the case of the acclaimed Black chef who was recently accused by 15 women of harassment, many of whom hesitated to report him because they didn’t want to “tear him down.” Perhaps most importantly, a harasser’s close “family” relationship with the leadership may make his targets doubt that they will be believed if they do speak up.
The truth is, workplaces that tout themselves as “family” often use the term to consciously or unconsciously enable toxic behaviors and make it difficult for employees to set healthy boundaries.
How can you spot a workplace that relies on a “family” ethos to evade accountability? Here are a few red flags:
A boss invokes “teamwork” to pressure an employee to take on tasks outside her regular duties, with no extra pay offered. “We had to let Jill go and we’re assigning her accounts to you. This is only until we find her replacement (which may or may not happen), so there’s no extra pay. Thanks for taking one for the team.”
Companies that emphasize “mission” to evade conversations about pay raises or promotions. “We’re focusing all our resources on ending childhood hunger right now. That’s more important than our own salaries. I myself haven’t had a raise in three years.”
Managers who use “family” to avoid implementing standard reporting procedures and consequences for misconduct. “Just come talk to one of us about it. Our doors are open. You can trust us. Let’s not make the process more formal than it needs to be.”
Any organization that uses “bureaucracy” as a scare tactic to argue against unionization. “A union will divide the community we’ve built and insert unnecessary red tape right in the middle of our staff-manager relationship. Wouldn’t you rather be able to just come talk to me directly when something is on your mind?”
Instead of “family” as a metaphor for our work communities, I personally prefer the concept of a high-performing sports team. Like family, it invokes a spirit of commitment and camaraderie. But a top-notch professional sports team does not guarantee unconditional acceptance and lifelong membership. Rather it’s designed for each member to bring their excellence to a specific role that contributes to the team’s overall success. Crucially, this metaphor frames trust as a core value, without weaponizing it to protect bad actors.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry is offering a master class in how to dismantle the “work family” myth. As one of the most privileged people on the planet, he is using his high profile and royal status to point out the toxicities in his own “family business.” I can’t overemphasize the significance of a white male leader in a multibillion-dollar institution speaking out in support of a Black woman who’s suffering harassment at the institution’s hands.
Harry’s example should get us all thinking about our relationship to privilege, and inspire us to find ways to use whatever privilege we have to support those who are targets of workplace harassment. In Harry’s case, he called out the abuse publicly, implemented a zero-tolerance harassment policy with clear (and enforced) consequences, and continues to model inclusivity, personal accountability and healthy boundaries for the rest of “The Firm.”
This is difficult work. It can sever relationships and threaten power structures that literally date back to the British Empire. But if Prince Harry can do it with the entire world watching, then we can do it too - and we should expect nothing less from our own company leaders.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: REBECCA WEAVER
Rebecca Weaver is the Founder and CEO of HRuprise, a marketplace that connects people with HR coaches to help them grow, develop, and navigate their toughest workplace challenges. LEARN MORE
