Part 2: Preventing harmful behaviour
2.1
To work in a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment, personnel need to be treated with respect. They also need to feel that their organisation values and rewards respectful and inclusive behaviours.
2.2
People can be exposed to a range of harmful behaviours that undermine feelings of safety and inclusion. This can involve physical violence, such as unwanted sexual activity, and other behaviours, such as inappropriate sexual behaviour and bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
2.3
This Part sets out the data we have collected that describes the experiences of personnel working at NZDF, including how safe and respected they feel and whether the environment they work in is conducive to preventing harmful behaviour.
The outcome and impacts we expect to see over time
2.4
The outcome we are assessing in this Part is “NZDF personnel feel they can do their jobs in a safe and respectful environment free from harmful behaviour”.
2.5
We identified three impacts that we expect to see if NZDF is likely to achieve this outcome:
- NZDF personnel feel that their workplace is free of harmful behaviour.
- The dignity and privacy of NZDF personnel are respected in the environments they live and work in.
- Respectful and inclusive behaviours are valued and rewarded in the organisation.
Our assessment of progress
2.6
Our overall assessment is that most personnel feel safe and respected. Personnel we spoke to generally feel that, in recent years, there has been a change in what behaviours are seen as acceptable. Physical environments have also been made safer.
2.7
However, harmful behaviour still occurs in parts of the organisation, especially for women, and there are not yet enough ways to formally recognise and reward respectful and inclusive behaviour.
2.8
Our assessment of this outcome is based on findings from the three impacts described in paragraph 2.5.
Impact area 1: NZDF personnel feel that their workplace is free of harmful behaviour
2.9
For impact area 1, we looked at how prevalent different forms of harmful behaviour are in NZDF and how this affects feelings of safety for personnel.
2.10
In the sections that follow, we set out what we learned from survey respondents and interviewees who had experienced:
- harmful sexual behaviour (including unwanted sexual activity and inappropriate sexual behaviour); and
- bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
Main findings for impact area 1
2.11
Most (93.4%) personnel who responded to our survey felt safe from inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace. However, personnel work in a huge variety of environments. These environments ranged from safe and respectful to those where personnel experienced frequent harassment and abuse that undermined their feelings of safety and inclusion.
2.12
Personnel in interviews highlighted some common factors they felt created an environment where harmful behaviour was less likely to occur or become entrenched. These included:
- leaders who create clear expectations about appropriate behaviour and respond to harmful behaviour when it occurs; and
- leaders who value contributions from personnel and ensure they feel safe to challenge ideas and raise issues.
2.13
Many personnel worked in environments like this. However, some personnel worked in environments where they had experienced harmful behaviours. Results from our survey indicated:
- Unwanted sexual activity: 78 personnel (1.3%) who responded to our survey had experienced unwanted sexual activity in the last 12 months. Women were more likely to experience this behaviour than men (3.1% of women compared to 0.6% of men). Rates were 4.8% for uniformed women and 7.2% for junior uniformed women.
- Inappropriate sexual behaviour: 5.5% of personnel who responded to our survey had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months. Women were more likely to experience this behaviour than men (13.4% for women compared to 2.4% for men), and rates were highest for junior uniformed women (24.6%).
- Bullying, harassment, and discrimination: 12.6% of personnel who responded to our survey had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months. Civilian personnel were more likely to experience these behaviours than uniformed personnel (17.6% for civilian personnel and 10.7% for uniformed personnel). Rates were higher for women than men (19.7% for women and 9.6% for men).
2.14
Gender, rank, and sexual orientation were the biggest determinants of what put personnel at more risk of experiencing harmful behaviour. Women experienced higher rates of all types of harmful behaviour than men. However, a person’s position in NZDF also affected the behaviour they experienced.
2.15
Junior uniformed women experienced consistently higher rates of most harmful behaviour types. The different environments junior NCOs work in compared to junior officers created different risks. Junior women NCOs were more likely to experience unwanted sexual activity (8.7%), and junior women officers were more likely to experience inappropriate sexual behaviour (28.2%).
2.16
Senior uniformed women experienced lower rates of harmful sexual behaviour than junior uniformed women, but senior women officers experienced higher rates of bullying, harassment, and discrimination (24.3%). Even though women were more likely to experience harmful behaviour, men also experienced all forms of harmful behaviour, including unwanted sexual activity.
2.17
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination were the most common harmful behaviours NZDF personnel experienced. Civilian women experienced less harmful sexual behaviour than uniformed women but were more at risk of bullying, harassment, and discrimination (21.7%) than most groups of uniformed women. Some civilian women felt that the organisation took them less seriously than uniformed personnel.
2.18
Results of our work align with what many other researchers have found. Aspects of the environments that military personnel work in – such as maledominated environments, blurred boundaries between work and social life, and hierarchal power structures that concentrate power in the hands of a few – create greater risks for harmful sexual behaviour to occur.38 In our survey more uniformed women reported that they experienced unwanted sexual activity and inappropriate sexual behaviour than civilian women. However, strong leadership with clear behavioural expectations can mitigate these risks.
2.19
Harmful sexual behaviours exist on a continuum. Unwanted sexual activity sits at the most serious end. Although only a small proportion of respondents to our survey experienced unwanted sexual activity, rates for junior uniformed women were five times the rate they were for all personnel.
2.20
Personnel we interviewed told us that knowing of cases happening to others influenced their own perceptions of safety. This meant that when unwanted sexual activity did occur, impacts were felt more widely than just those directly affected.
2.21
Inappropriate sexual behaviour encompasses a range of behaviours that can create harm for those affected by them. Research shows that environments where inappropriate sexual behaviour is common can contribute to higher rates of unwanted sexual activity.39
2.22
Although inappropriate sexual behaviour was experienced frequently in some work environments, the negative impacts were not always well understood. This made it more difficult to identify this behaviour and address it.
2.23
Strong team cohesion norms also appeared to create risks for harmful behaviours occurring. In interviews personnel often talked about feeling that harmful behaviour was acceptable as long as others were not visibly offended by it. This places the responsibility for defining what is acceptable on those affected by harmful behaviour. In some environments, people felt that they must accept harmful behaviour to fit in, and this contributed to normalising that behaviour.
Detailed findings for impact area 1
Harmful sexual behaviour
Most personnel felt reasonably safe from harmful sexual behaviour, but women felt less safe
2.24
We asked survey respondents whether they felt safe from inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in their workplace (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Perception of safety from inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Statement | Sentiment | All | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel safe from inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in my workplace | Strongly agree | 60.9% | 48.0% | 66.1% |
| Agree | 32.5% | 40.3% | 29.8% | |
| Neutral | 4.5% | 7.2% | 3.1% | |
| Disagree | 1.3% | 3.0% | 0.6% | |
| Strongly disagree | 0.7% | 1.5% | 0.3% | |
| Total respondents | 6076 | 1622 | 4332 |
Note: Total of women and men respondents will not add up to total respondents because some survey respondents did not specify gender and some respondents identified as another gender. Percentages might not add to 100% due to rounding.
2.25
Most (93.4%) of the survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they felt safe from harmful sexual behaviour in their workplace. However:
- women felt less safe, 88.3% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement compared to 95.9% of men;
- civilian women felt safer, 92.0% of civilian women strongly agreed or agreed with the statement compared to 85.2% of uniformed women; and
- junior uniformed women were less likely to feel safe – 80.1% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.
2.26
These survey results align with what we heard in our interviews. Most personnel we spoke to told us they felt safe from harmful sexual behaviour. Many personnel spoke about how harmful sexual behaviour had declined in recent years. However, some personnel, particularly junior women, told us they felt unsafe.
2.27
In our interviews, many women told us they had experienced some form of har ful sexual behaviour (often sexualised comments or jokes). For many women we interviewed, this kind of behaviour was infrequent. They did not feel that it was embedded in their units or teams nor was it part of their everyday lives.
2.28
However, a small number of women we interviewed had experienced frequent and serious harmful sexual behaviour. This included unwanted sexual activity, repeated unwanted sexual attention, touching or physical contact (such as hugs) from superiors, receiving sexually explicit messages or images, or frequent sexualised or derogatory comments about women made by peers or superiors that were not dealt with.
2.29
These behaviours sometimes occurred as part of patterns of behaviour coming from an individual or a unit or team. These behaviours had a significant negative effect on the work life of the women affected and undermined their feelings of safety and inclusion.
2.30
We set out the detailed findings for the prevalence of the unwanted sexual activity and inappropriate sexual behaviour below. We also draw attention to what personnel felt enabled their environments to feel safe and inclusive where relevant.
Unwanted sexual activity
2.31
Unwanted sexual activity is the most serious form of harmful sexual behaviour. It includes a range of behaviours that fall in the category of sexual assault. In our survey, we defined it as including:40
- being touched in a sexual way without consent, including unwanted touching, grabbing, kissing, or fondling;
- forcing or attempting to force someone into any unwanted sexual activity by threatening them, holding them down, or hurting them in some way; and
- being subject to a sexual activity that they did not consent to, including through being drugged, intoxicated, or forced in ways other than physically.
Who does unwanted sexual activity affect?
Most personnel did not experience unwanted sexual activity, but when it did happen it disproportionately affected women
2.32
We asked survey respondents whether they had experienced unwanted sexual activity in the workplace in the last 12 months (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Experience of unwanted sexual activity in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Statement | Service | All | Women | Men | Total respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced unwanted sexual activity | All | 1.3% | 3.1% | 0.6% | 6006 |
| Navy | 1.0% | 2.0% | - | 947 | |
| Army | 1.3% | 5.5% | 0.5% | 1907 | |
| Air Force | 2.2% | 6.3% | 1.1% | 1490 | |
| Civilian | 0.7% | 1.0% | - | 1653 | |
| Total respondents | 6006 | 1604 | 4286 |
Note: If the number of respondents is fewer than five, the percentage is not calculated, and the breakdown is not provided. Total respondents by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents and totals by gender will also not add to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service, some did not specify gender, and some respondents identified as another gender.
2.33
Most (98.7%) survey respondents said that they had not experienced unwanted sexual activity in the last 12 months. A total of 78 (1.3%) respondents reported that they had. Of these respondents:
- 49 were women; and
- 27 were men.
Most personnel who experienced unwanted sexual activity were junior uniformed women
2.34
Uniformed women were more likely to experience unwanted sexual activity. Our survey results also found that:
- although 3.1% of women respondents reported unwanted sexual activity, the rate for uniformed women was higher at 4.8%; and
- rates of unwanted sexual activity were higher for women in the Air Force (6.3%) and the Army (5.5%) than in the Navy (2.0%) or for civilian women (1.0%).
2.35
Junior women reported higher rates of unwanted sexual activity than more senior women. The majority of women reporting unwanted sexual activity were junior NCOs. In our survey:
- 8.7% of junior women NCOs and 3.6% of junior women officers said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity; and
- 1.6% of senior women (NCOs and officers) said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity. In interviews, some senior uniformed women said that they felt their rank and age protected them from this type of behaviour.
The impacts of unwanted sexual activity are wider than just those directly affected
2.36
Although most personnel we interviewed had not experienced unwanted sexual activity in the last 12 months, many, particularly women, knew of someone who had.
2.37
In interviews we heard that knowledge of unwanted sexual activity occurring influenced some respondents’ perceptions of safety in the organisation and their trust in reporting systems. This suggests that although the percentage of personnel reporting unwanted sexual activity is low, a larger number of people are affected by it – both directly and indirectly.
What types of unwanted sexual activity do personnel experience?
Personnel were most likely to experience unwanted touching, grabbing, kissing, or fondling and sometimes experienced these behaviours in high concentrations
2.38
We asked survey respondents who said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity what form this had taken. Just over two-thirds (67.9%) indicated that it had involved touching, grabbing, kissing, or fondling.
2.39
NZDF personnel who had experienced unwanted sexual activity sometimes experienced it more than once. More than half (55.3%) of those who reported experiencing unwanted touching, grabbing, kissing, or fondling had experienced it at least twice in the previous year.
2.40
A small number of respondents said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity that involved physical force or non-physical coercion. Some of these respondents had experienced this kind of unwanted sexual activity more than once in the previous 12 months.
2.41
We also asked those who had experienced unwanted sexual activity whether they had experienced any before February 2021 (prior to the period we asked about in other survey questions). About 60% (60.6%) of those who answered this question had. For women, it was higher, at 71.7%.
What contexts do personnel experience unwanted sexual activity in?
Most unwanted sexual activity reported took place at a camp or base
2.42
Personnel work in a range of locations, including camps or bases, ships or aircraft, training courses, on field exercises, and overseas on deployment.
2.43
We asked survey respondents who reported experiencing unwanted sexual activity in the last 12 months where this had taken place (see Figure 6) and 52 of the 78 personnel who reported experiencing unwanted sexual activity answered this question.
Figure 6
Location of reported unwanted sexual activity in the last 12 months
| Locations | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Base or camp | 71.2% |
| On a training course | 11.5% |
| Off base or camp | 11.5% |
| On a ship at sea or in port or on an aircraft | 9.6% |
| During field exercises | - |
| During an outside New Zealand posting | - |
| Other location | - |
| Total respondents | 52 |
Note: Survey respondents could choose more than one location where unwanted sexual activity had taken place, so percentages will not add to 100%. If the number of respondents is fewer than five, the percentage is not calculated and the breakdown is not provided.
2.44
Most reported unwanted sexual activity had taken place at a camp or base. This could include in barracks, camp or base housing, the mess, another camp or base building, or Defence Headquarters. Although incidents of unwanted sexual activity mostly occurred on bases, they also occurred on training courses, field postings, overseas postings, and off-base.
Alcohol and drugs can exacerbate the risk of unwanted sexual activity occurring
2.45
Research on the effects of alcohol use on the perpetration of unwanted sexual activity is still evolving. However, some evidence suggests that alcohol consumption can indirectly increase the risk of sexual assault occurring.41
2.46
Personnel who had experienced unwanted sexual activity often believed that the responsible person’s alcohol or drug use was a factor. In incidents of reported unwanted sexual activity, over half (56.8%) of survey respondents said that the incident was related to the person or people’s alcohol or drug use. This did not vary significantly by gender. This does not demonstrate a causal link between alcohol use and the increased risk of sexual assault, but it does indicate that they often occur together.
2.47
Unwanted sexual activity is not caused by a victim/survivor’s alcohol or drug use. In some instances, unwanted sexual activity occurs in cases where personnel have been unable to consent because of alcohol or drug use. Nearly 30% (29.0%) of survey respondents who had experienced unwanted sexual activity said that the behaviour had occurred after they had been drugged, intoxicated, or forced in ways other than physically.
Most unwanted sexual activity was carried out by men
2.48
We also asked survey respondents who had experienced unwanted sexual activity about the gender of the person responsible.
2.49
Nearly all of the women who had experienced unwanted sexual activity said that the person responsible was a man. For men who had experienced unwanted sexual activity, the person responsible for the assault was also male in most incidents.
2.50
Unwanted sexual activity was more commonly carried out by someone of the same rank. Nearly half (48.1%) of respondents who said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity said that the behaviour came from a person of the same rank or level as them.
2.51
However, nearly 30% (28.8%) said that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity from someone of a higher rank, and 15.4% said that they had experienced it from one of their subordinates or someone of a lower rank.
2.52
A small number of women we interviewed told us that they had experienced unwanted sexual activity. A few of these women experienced these types of behaviours from men senior to them. In these instances, the women felt that the men who engaged in the harmful behaviour had abused their position of authority.
2.53
In some instances, unwanted sexual activity occurred as part of a continuing or escalating pattern of abuse. Several women we interviewed said that those who had engaged in the harmful behaviour were known for similar behaviour in the past. Their behaviour had not been properly addressed and, in some situations, had increased in severity.
2.54
We heard considerable frustration from personnel who felt that behaviour should have been addressed earlier because it would have likely prevented the harm they had experienced.
Inappropriate sexual behaviour
2.55
In our survey, we defined inappropriate sexual behaviour as behaviour that includes mistreatment based on gender or sexuality, sexually suggestive jokes, comments, or gossip, displaying or sharing sexually explicit messages or images, unwanted sexual advances, and unwanted physical attention.42
2.56
We set out below what survey respondents and interviewees told us about these incidents and we discuss who this behaviour affects, what behaviours they experience, and what contexts they experience it in.
Who does inappropriate sexual behaviour affect?
Most personnel had not experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months, but slightly more than one in seven women had
2.57
We asked survey respondents to indicate whether they had experienced or witnessed any inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace in the last 12 months (see Figure 7).
Figure 7
Experience and witnessing of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Statement | Gender | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian | Total respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour | All | 5.5% | 6.3% | 5.1% | 7.5% | 3.4% | |
| Women | 13.4% | 15.5% | 19.5% | 22.4% | 6.4% | 1611 | |
| Men | 2.4% | 3.1% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 1.0% | 4317 | |
| Witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour | All | 12.2% | 14.6% | 12.1% | 15.5% | 8.0% | |
| Women | 14.6% | 16.7% | 19.9% | 20.6% | 9.1% | 1611 | |
| Men | 11.0% | 13.2% | 10.4% | 13.7% | 7.1% | 4317 | |
| No experience of or witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour | All | 83.8% | 80.6% | 84.1% | 79.3% | 89.3% | |
| Women | 75.7% | 71.1% | 66.1% | 64.5% | 86.0% | 1611 | |
| Men | 87.2% | 84.7% | 87.7% | 84.0% | 92.1% | 4317 | |
| Total respondents | 6042 | 949 | 1928 | 1495 | 1661 |
Note: Respondents could indicate that they both experienced and witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour. Percentages of experienced, witnessed, and not experienced will not add to 100%. Total respondents by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents and totals by gender will also not add to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service, some did not specify gender, and some respondents identified as another gender.
2.58
Most survey respondents (83.8%) said that they had not witnessed or experienced any form of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months.
2.59
The survey results showed that the proportion of civilians who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour was lower than for the services. In addition:
- 89.3% of civilian personnel said that they had not experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months; and
- 79.3% of Air Force personnel, 80.6% of Navy personnel, and 84.1% of Army personnel said that they had not experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months.
2.60
Women experienced higher rates of inappropriate sexual behaviour than men. Junior uniformed women were most affected.
2.61
The survey results showed that in the last 12 months:
- 24.3% of women had experienced or witnessed some form of inappropriate sexual behaviour;
- uniformed women (19.5%) experienced higher rates of inappropriate sexual behaviour than civilian women (6.4%);
- fewer senior uniformed women (15.8% of senior women officers and 10.4% of senior women NCOs) reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour compared to junior uniformed women (24.6%); and
- more junior women officers (28.2%) experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour compared to junior NCOs (22.9%);
- 2.4% of men, or 103 men said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour.
Women witnessed more inappropriate sexual behaviour than men
2.62
Even when women had not experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour directly, they were more likely than men to have witnessed it. Our survey results showed that women witnessed more harmful behaviour than men (14.6% compared to 11%) and that 22.2% of junior uniformed women had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour compared to 14.2% of junior uniformed men.
2.63
We heard the lower rates of inappropriate behaviour witnessed by men might be influenced by a combination of seeing or hearing less of it and having different views of what they consider inappropriate behaviour.
2.64
For example, we heard in our interviews that women were more likely to speak to other women (such as female colleagues or superiors) when they experienced harmful behaviour. It was also evident from interviews that men more commonly described behaviour that could be considered inappropriate as appropriate.
Personnel who identified as bisexual, homosexual, or another sexual identity were more at risk of inappropriate sexual behaviour
2.65
Those who identified as bisexual, homosexual, or another sexual identity experienced higher rates of inappropriate sexual behaviour (16.2%) compared to those who identified as heterosexual (4.8%). We discuss bullying, harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation in paragraph 2.182.
There was wide variation across teams and services in the amount of inappropriate behaviour experienced by women
2.66
Women in the Air Force and the Army were slightly more likely to have experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour than women in the Navy. In our survey:
- nearly a quarter of women in the Air Force (22.4%), almost one-fifth of women in the Army (19.5%), and 15.5% of women in the Navy reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months; and
- two-thirds of women in the Army (66.1%), two-thirds of women in the Air Force (64.5%), and 71.1% of women in the Navy said that they had not witnessed or experienced these behaviours in the last 12 months.
2.67
In interviews, women from all services described experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour. Within a service there were differences between units and teams as to the amount of inappropriate behaviour experienced. The climate within their unit or team seemed to be a major factor in whether they experienced harmful behaviour.
What types of inappropriate sexual behaviours do personnel experience?
The most common behaviours experienced were sexually suggestive jokes or comments
2.68
We asked survey respondents who reported that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour to identify what those behaviours were (see Figure 8).
Figure 8
Types of inappropriate sexual behaviour experienced in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Behaviour | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexually suggestive jokes or comments, including comments about your or someone else's appearance or body | 75.9% | 85.0% | 72.7% | 77.0% | 72.4% |
| Inappropriate discussion or gossip about your sex life, or someone else's sex life | 62.2% | 70.0% | 61.6% | 68.1% | 45.6% |
| Unwanted sexual attention such as calls, suggestive looks, or gestures | 42.9% | 38.3% | 47.5% | 42.5% | 42.1% |
| Being mistreated or excluded because of your gender | 42.2% | 50.0% | 41.2% | 41.4% | 36.8% |
| Comments that you are either not good at a particular job or should be prevented from having a particular job because of your gender | 34.7% | 41.4% | 35.7% | 33.3% | 29.8% |
| Unwelcome physical contact, such as hugs or shoulder rubs or getting too close | 32.8% | 33.9% | 30.6% | 37.5% | 27.6% |
| Displaying or sharing sexually explicit messages or images, or directing others to view sexually explicit materials online | 14.8% | 20.3% | 13.3% | 15.9% | 8.6% |
| Repeated requests from the same person for dates or sexual relationships | 12.5% | 8.6% | 18.4% | 11.6% | 8.6% |
| Being mistreated or excluded because of your sexual orientation | 9.2% | - | 12.2% | 10.8% | - |
| Indecent exposure or inappropriate display of body parts | 8.2% | - | 9.2% | 11.6% | - |
| Taking and posting inappropriate or sexually suggestive photos or videos of any NZDF members without consent | 3.9% | - | - | 4.4% | - |
| Total respondents | 333 | 60 | 99 | 113 | 58 |
Note: Respondents could select more than one behaviour, so percentages will add to more than 100%. Total respondents by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. If the number of respondents is fewer than five, then the percentage is not calculated and the breakdown is not provided. Respondents were also asked if they had been mistreated or excluded because they were trans, if they had been offered workplace benefits for engaging in sexual activity, or if they had been mistreated for not engaging in sexual activity. Because the number of respondents to these questions was fewer than five, the percentages are not provided.
2.69
For those who said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months, the most common behaviours experienced were sexually suggestive jokes or comments and inappropriate discussion or gossip about their sex lives.
2.70
This was similar for those who had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour. We asked survey respondents who reported that they had witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour to identify what those behaviours were (see Figure 9).
Figure 9
Types of inappropriate sexual behaviour witnessed in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Behaviour | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexually suggestive jokes or comments, or discussion of someone's personal life | 83.8% | 88.3% | 80.1% | 86.9% | 80.9% |
| Displaying or sharing sexually explicit messages, photos, or videos | 18.5% | 21.9% | 17.8% | 20.9% | 12.2% |
| Inappropriate physical contact | 23.2% | 27.0% | 23.0% | 22.6% | 20.6% |
| Someone being mistreated or excluded because of their gender | 32.4% | 33.6% | 33.0% | 32.3% | 30.5% |
| Someone being mistreated or excluded because of their sexual orientation | 11.4% | 8.1% | 13.0% | 13.1% | 9.2% |
| Someone being mistreated or excluded because they are trans | 3.3% | - | 3.0% | 3.5% | 5.3% |
| Total respondents | 732 | 137 | 232 | 230 | 132 |
Note: Respondents could select more than one behaviour so percentages will add to more than 100%. If the number of respondents is fewer than five, the percentage has not been calculated and the breakdown is not provided. Totals of respondents by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they were a civilian.
2.71
About 84% (83.8%) of respondents who reported witnessing inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months had heard sexually suggestive jokes or discussion of someone's personal life.
2.72
Both men and women respondents said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour. The types of behaviours men and women experienced were similar except that women reported being mistreated or excluded because of their gender more commonly than men did. We discuss this further in paragraphs 2.90-2.102.
Sexually suggestive jokes or comments were common behaviours but not everyone agreed on the impact they have
2.73
Some respondents to the survey and personnel we interviewed thought that sexually suggestive jokes and comments were common and that they are not always seen as harmful. Some felt constrained in objecting to sexually suggestive jokes or banter.
2.74
Three-quarters (75.9%) of survey respondents who said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour said that this behaviour came in the form of sexually suggestive jokes or comments, including comments about their or someone else's appearance or body (see Figure 8).
2.75
This was also the most talked about type of behaviour in interviews. Personnel talked to us a lot about the "banter" that happened in work environments. In some contexts, people were making jokes and having discussions that were not sexually suggestive, which would not generally be considered harmful.
2.76
However, it also appeared that a lot of what personnel described as "banter" had a sexually suggestive or derogatory element that was potentially harmful. This included comments about women's appearances, jokes about sexual consent and the relationship status and sexual orientation of peers, and sexual innuendo from peers and those more senior.
2.77
Where these comments were occasional and called out, they were often not seen as harmful. However, others talked about working in environments where these behaviours were common and the frustration they caused. We heard that when this behaviour is minimised and seen as normal, including by senior personnel, it can sometimes be difficult to articulate its harmful impact or have complaints about it taken seriously.
2.78
It was common for both men and women to state that these behaviours are not necessarily inappropriate if they are not directed at any one individual or are said in the "right context".
2.79
When personnel talked about the "right context", they often meant in front of people they knew would not get offended. For example, some junior and senior men talked about not saying certain things in front of women who they knew would be offended. Several senior men talked about how, in the company of men of a similar rank, they would make comments that they would not make in front of junior personnel.
2.80
Some men spoke about having women in their teams who act like "one of the boys", which they felt sent a signal that what was being said was not a problem. Some women we spoke to agreed and said that they were not offended and did not see a problem with sexualised comments or jokes. The men making these comments were often their trusted peers. However, other women talked about finding it hard to know what someone's intention was and feeling as if it was not "just a joke".
2.81
It appeared that the ability of personnel to raise concerns about these behaviours in some areas is constrained. We heard from some junior uniformed women about the importance of fitting in with the men in their unit and not being seen as different. Some told us that, when they hear a comment that bothers them, they must be careful about how they raise their concerns. They did not want to be thought of as someone who cannot "take a joke" and risk being isolated as a result.
2.82
From our interviews, it was evident that, although many units and teams have a healthy culture, some teams and units appear to require people to accept a certain level of inappropriate behaviour to fit in.
Inappropriate discussion or gossip about people's personal and sex lives was common but not always understood as harmful
2.83
Inappropriate discussion or gossip about personal lives had a harmful impact on some we spoke to. It included starting rumours or asking intrusive questions about peers' personal relationships and sexual activities.
2.84
In our interviews, those who told us about experiencing gossip were almost exclusively women. It happened to women in units that were both male-dominated and more gender balanced.
2.85
In a few instances, women described incidents where rumours were started about them and male peers in their teams. This was difficult for them because male peers often form the basis of their friendship groups. They felt that they had to be wary about how these friendships will be perceived.
2.86
Most men we interviewed had some awareness of forms of harmful sexual behaviour. However, we rarely heard from men that they were aware of gossip occurring or that they understood the impact of it. In our conversations with women, those who had been subject to gossip often did not describe it as inappropriate sexual behaviour.
2.87
This could indicate that inappropriate discussion or gossip about people's personal lives is not well understood as a form of harmful sexual behaviour.
2.88
In many of the incidents described to us, women said that the person responsible for starting or continuing the gossip about them was someone more senior than them. This caused additional stress because they worried about how it would affect their careers.
2.89
Several personnel also told us that when peers or superiors engaged in gossip, it caused them to lose trust in those people. We heard that this lack of trust could affect operational effectiveness because it harmed both the individuals involved and the wider operation of the team.
Some women, especially junior women officers, reported being mistreated or excluded based on their gender
2.90
Many of the women we interviewed told us that they were treated equally in their teams, respected, trusted, and given opportunities to advance and succeed. Women with more positive experiences (and junior women in particular) often described an environment where they felt that their contributions were valued.
2.91
They described how patient and supportive 1-ups, who let personnel make mistakes and invested time in coaching, were important features of a positive environment.
2.92
However, some personnel felt mistreated or excluded based on their gender. Our survey results showed that about half (50.2%) of the women who had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour said that they were mistreated or excluded because of their gender (compared to 22% of men).
2.93
Our survey results also showed that 42% of women who had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour said that they received comments that they are not good enough or should be prevented from having a particular job because of their gender. This compares to 17% of men who said that they had received these types of comments.
2.94
In our interviews, some women told us that they had experienced mistreatment and exclusion based on their gender. This included:
- having their competency challenged because they are women and being told they will only succeed because of quotas;
- derogatory comments about women getting pregnant and leaving the organisation; and
- feeling excluded after returning to work from parental leave.
2.95
Some women we spoke with felt that they were working in a "boys club" and were less sure that they could succeed in the organisation. Some similar comments were made in the survey.
2.96
Some women indicated that, even when inappropriate comments were not directed specifically at them, they felt additional pressure to prove themselves. A few women said that they had learnt not to express too much emotion so they would fit in. Some still found their work environment isolating even when they had good relationships with their peers.
2.97
Our survey results indicate that junior women officers experienced higher numbers of incidents involving mistreatment and exclusion because of their gender. Of the 46 junior women officers who said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour, 62.2% said that they had experienced mistreatment and exclusion because of their gender compared to 50.2% of women overall.
2.98
In our interviews, some junior women officers described challenges with being taken seriously by some senior NCO men. These men were of lower rank but had status and influence because they had been in the organisation for a long time.
2.99
The experiences of junior women officers we spoke to differed. Some had experienced frequent and varying forms of harassment from senior personnel, while others felt very well respected and supported. Personnel who had positive experiences often attributed it to working with supportive senior personnel and good mentoring from their 1-ups.
2.100
There were also some differences between the services. We heard from women in the Army who felt mistreated or excluded because of their fitness and physical ability. Some women said that they or other women had struggled to regain their fitness after returning from parental leave. We were told that their male superiors did not understand this or support them, and they felt that they were not valued or included.
2.101
Navy personnel told us that issues were more pronounced in some of the more traditionally male-dominated trades. Several women in these trades told us that they had been criticised and had their competence questioned because they were women (this also occurred in other trades).
2.102
In the Air Force, some women commented more generally on there being a "boys club" that excluded them and experiences of sexist comments from senior men.
A small number of men described mistreatment and exclusion based on their gender
2.103
In our interviews, a small number of men told us that they had experienced mistreatment or exclusion because of their gender. This was generally related to perceptions that women now receive more opportunities than men.
2.104
Those who mentioned this felt that it constitutes a form of discrimination and that men are disciplined more harshly. These are the types of views that some women said contributed to the additional pressures they face.
2.105
On the other hand, some men we spoke to were more aware of the additional pressures placed on women. They had heard or witnessed discussions about quotas and women being questioned about whether they were good enough.
2.106
Some men we spoke to felt that having more women creates a better team dynamic. They also understood that some of the ways units and teams operate would probably need to change to make NZDF a more inclusive workplace for women.
2.107
Conversely, others we spoke to (including some women) felt that focusing on diversity and inclusion risks lowering standards and could hinder capability. Having more women was not perceived as a problem in itself, but it was seen as secondary to increasing capability (rather than a potential contributor to enhancing capability).
Unwanted physical contact and sexual attention had a negative impact on those who experienced it
2.108
In the survey, personnel described experiencing unwelcome physical contact, unwanted sexual attention, and repeated requests for dates or sexual relationships. These behaviours were not as common as sexually suggestive jokes or comments, or discussion and gossip about personal lives, but they had a clear negative impact for those who experienced them.
2.109
For those who said that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months, 42.9% experienced unwanted sexual attention and about a third (32.8%) reported experiencing unwelcome physical contact (see Figure 8). Nearly 10% (8.2%) said that they had experienced indecent exposure, and 12.5% said that they had had repeated requests for dates or sexual relationships.
2.110
In our interviews, we heard from a small number of personnel who had experienced or witnessed these behaviours. Although we largely heard this from women (both uniformed and civilian), we also heard about some instances where these behaviours affected men.
2.111
For women, these behaviours mostly took the form of unwanted physical contact and unwanted sexual attention, including being hugged, having their hair touched, and men sitting too close or being physically imposing. In most instances, this came from more senior personnel, which created stress and discomfort for the women experiencing it.
2.112
Some personnel felt that senior men do not understand the impact that these behaviours could have. Invasion of personal space, for example, made women uncomfortable. However, they felt explaining why this behaviour made them uncomfortable was difficult because others might see this behaviour as harmless.
2.113
Several women noted that often the men who engage in inappropriate behaviour are known to have done this in the past. Several women said they relied on warnings from other women to know which men to avoid and that contributed to a feeling that, to some degree, NZDF accepted this behaviour.
2.114
Several women also talked about receiving unwanted attention virtually – for example, through inappropriate comments on social media or being sent sexually explicit images. We heard that, in some instances, this was part of a pattern to "groom" young women, where men started off with behaviours that progressively became worse if they were not addressed.
Many of those who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour reported that they experienced it at least once a week
2.115
As we mentioned in paragraphs 2.28-2.30, the frequency that personnel experience inappropriate sexual behaviours can affect how harmful they are.
2.116
We asked survey respondents who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour about how frequently it happened (see Figure 10).
Figure 10
Frequency of experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Sexually suggestive jokes or comments, unwanted sexual attention, inappropriate discussions, or gossip Total respondents = 286 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than once a week | About once a week | A few times a month | About once a month | Every few months | About once a year |
| 8.4% | 10.5% | 25.2% | 12.2% | 33.2% | 10.5% |
| Displaying or sharing sexually explicit messages or images, directing others to view sexually explicit materials, or taking or posting inappropriate or sexually suggestive videos or photos of NZDF members without consent Total respondents = 56 |
|||||
| More than once a week | About once a week | A few times a month | About once a month | Every few months | About once a year |
| 8.9% | 16.1% | 23.2% | 12.5% | 21.4% | 17.9% |
| Indecent exposure, unwelcome physical contact, or repeated requests from the same person for dates or sexual relationships Total respondents = 123 |
|||||
| More than once a week | About once a week | A few times a month | About once a month | Every few months | About once a year |
| 5.7% | 9.8% | 21.1% | 9.8% | 24.4% | 29.3% |
| Mistreatment or exclusion because of gender, sexual orientation, or because you are trans, or comments you are not good at a particular job because of your gender Total respondents = 163 |
|||||
| More than once a week | About once a week | A few times a month | About once a month | Every few months | About once a year |
| 9.2% | 9.8% | 18.4% | 17.8% | 34.4% | 10.4% |
Note: Percentages across the frequencies (that is, across the rows) will, subject to rounding, add to 100%. Percentages will not add to 100% for the different behaviours (that is, down the columns) because respondents could experience more than one type of inappropriate sexual behaviour.
2.117
More than half of personnel who had experienced these behaviours reported experiencing each behaviour type once a month or less. However, a notable proportion of personnel reported experiencing these behaviours more frequently.
2.118
Our survey results indicate:
- nearly one-fifth (18.9%) of respondents who reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour reported experiencing sexually suggestive jokes or comments or inappropriate gossip about once a week or more; and
- a quarter (25.2%) reported experiencing sexually suggestive jokes or comments or inappropriate gossip a few times a month.
2.119
These proportions were similar for the other behaviour types.
2.120
In our interviews, some women told us that they had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviours frequently. They felt these behaviours were seen as a normal and accepted as part of their work environment. This had a negative impact on them and, in some instances, led them to consider whether they wanted to remain in their jobs.
What contexts do personnel experience inappropriate sexual behaviours in?
Clear expectations and enough oversight protected against harmful behaviours
2.121
Many personnel we spoke to said that they felt that their workplaces are largely free from harmful behaviour. They described some common features that contribute to an environment where harmful behaviour is less likely to occur.
2.122
When leaders responded to harmful behaviour quickly, personnel in the unit or team had more positive perceptions about how this kind of behaviour was addressed. Leaders who responded quickly also contributed to preventing further harm. We also heard about the importance of leaders setting clear expectations about appropriate behaviour. We discuss this in more detail in Part 3.
2.123
We also heard about other environments where there was no shared understanding of what is appropriate behaviour. We heard about instances where personnel were reluctant to say anything about behaviour they were uncomfortable with because it did not feel serious enough or because they feared negative repercussions.
2.124
Although personnel were often aware of the "traffic light" system that is used to classify behaviours, there was no shared understanding about the appropriateness of some behaviours.
2.125
It was evident from our interviews that this created an environment where the person affected by the behaviour felt it was up to them to state whether it was appropriate, which we heard can be a difficult thing to do.
2.126
Having a shared understanding of what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, that leadership frequently reinforced, helped to reduce the burden of speaking up on the person who was affected by the inappropriate behaviour. We heard that it was also helpful if personnel develop the understanding and language together as a team.
Inappropriate sexual behaviour occurred in both work and social contexts
2.127
Personnel we spoke to described experiencing or witnessing inappropriate behaviour in a range of environments, including workplaces, deployments on ships and aircraft, during training and field exercises, bars on camps and bases, barracks, and online.
2.128
We were told that these behaviours happened more commonly in workplaces than they did in social or living settings such as sports games, bars on camps and bases, and barracks (although these did still occur). This might have been influenced by the restriction of activities such as inter-service sports activities and socialising at bars caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. We also heard that NZDF had put effort into reducing harmful behaviour in sports in recent years.
2.129
We heard that, where these behaviours occurred in social situations, alcohol was sometimes a contributing factor. This was particularly the case in situations such as shore leave (when Navy personnel take leave from the ship they are on).
2.130
Some people said inappropriate behaviour can be more difficult to challenge when it occurs in a social setting. Although there might be clear expectations about how to behave at work, this is not always the case in social environments.
2.131
The line between "work life" and "social life" in NZDF is less clear than in many other organisations. In many military environments, personnel live, work, and socialise together. This creates the risk of harmful behaviour occurring in both work and social situations. For example, we heard that there are specific risks on ships where personnel live and work together for long periods because the boundaries between professional and personal relationships can blur.
Inappropriate sexual behaviours were more common in male-dominated units
2.132
Inappropriate behaviours occurred in a range of different work environments. However, women who work in male-dominated units or teams were more likely to report experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour than female-dominated or more mixed units or teams.
2.133
Nearly one-fifth (19.1%) of women who work in male-dominated units reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour in the last 12 months. This compared to 4.0% of women who work in female-dominated units and 9.5% of women who work in units with about 50% women.
2.134
In our interviews, we sometimes heard that more gender-balanced units or units that had more women leaders provided some protection against inappropriate sexual behaviour. An increased number of women creates "power in numbers" that helps to set expectations of what is appropriate and call out behaviour that is inappropriate.
2.135
However, this appeared to depend to a large extent on the attitudes and behaviours of senior personnel in the unit. Even in units with an increasing number of women, harmful behaviour could continue if the leadership still consisted of personnel with derogatory attitudes towards women.
2.136
We heard that, in some more traditionally male-dominated areas, there are men who still have very limited experience working with women and are less aware of what constitutes appropriate behaviour. This can make it a challenge for women who join these units.
2.137
However, in our interviews it was also clear that, despite the higher risks male-dominated units present, women generally felt safe when working in a male-dominated unit or team.
2.138
Women in these units often described having good relationships with their male colleagues. Some told us that their male peers had looked out for or supported them when they experienced harmful behaviour from personnel outside the unit.
2.139
Some women thought that harmful behaviour was more likely to involve personnel outside their unit. However, some of these women also talked about how they had to carefully consider their response to incidents of harmful behaviour (such as inappropriate comments) to avoid the risk of being isolated from others in their unit.
2.140
It was evident that, even where their relationships with male peers are generally positive, there is an extra burden for women that their male peers generally do not experience.
Inappropriate sexual behaviour perpetrated by superiors had serious impacts
2.141
In our interviews, we heard about inappropriate harmful behaviour coming from peers, superiors, and, to a lesser extent, more junior personnel. We observed that harmful behaviour had a serious impact when it came from those in positions of power.
2.142
In both our interviews and survey results, we were told that personnel experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour from someone of higher rank or who had more influence in the organisation. This took many forms, including unwanted attention, sexualised comments, discussions about women not being equipped for their roles, and sending inappropriate messages through text messaging or social media.
2.143
For junior NCOs, this behaviour often came from senior NCOs they worked with. For junior officers, it often came from senior NCOs (who they outranked but who had influence in the organisation) and senior officers.
2.144
When men in more senior positions engaged in harmful behaviour, it was seen to set the tone for what is considered appropriate behaviour in the unit. We heard concern from some that this sent a message to junior men that this behaviour is acceptable.
2.145
Some women talked about this behaviour occurring but said that someone more senior had quickly addressed it. This lessened the negative effects and was seen to contribute to preventing similar behaviour occurring.
2.146
However, we were also told of instances when the behaviour was not checked because the person who committed the harmful behaviour held a senior position. This enabled the behaviour to continue, which, in some instances, negatively affected several women. This created a perception that there was a "boys club" where men in positions of power would protect each other.
Civilian women also experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour, especially in environments with a mix of uniformed and civilian personnel
2.147
In the survey, fewer civilian women reported experiencing inappropriate sexual behaviour than uniformed women (see Figure 7).
2.148
We interviewed some civilian women who had experienced or witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour in a range of environments, including in NZDF office buildings and on various camps and bases. However, it mostly occurred where there was a mix of uniformed and civilian personnel.
2.149
In these situations, the civilian women were often working in male-dominated environments where they felt more personnel had negative views about women. Therefore, the types of environments civilian women worked in appeared to affect their experiences of inappropriate sexual behaviour.
It was felt that harmful behaviour from some civilian men can be difficult to address
2.150
NZDF employs a large number of civilian personnel who work in headquarters and on camps and bases. In our interviews, we heard about instances of inappropriate sexual behaviour from civilian men in camps and bases.
2.151
These civilian men were sometimes ex-uniformed men who had returned to NZDF after time elsewhere. Some personnel we interviewed felt that some of these men had outdated views that did not reflect NZDF's values. We heard about instances where these men expressed derogatory views towards women and behaved inappropriately towards them. We heard that the specialist positions they held in the organisation could sometimes make this behaviour hard to address (see paragraph 4.102).
Inappropriate sexual behaviour sometimes occurred during initial training but was often acted on quickly
2.152
Initial training presents risks for harmful behaviour occurring because of the power difference between instructors and recruits.43 In our interviews, we heard about incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour occurring during initial training.
2.153
This included harmful behaviour between recruits and by instructors involving recruits. The harmful behaviour that we heard instructors were involved in included sexualised comments and unwanted physical contact. We heard that it was particularly hard to raise concerns about this behaviour because of the power that instructors have over recruits.
2.154
In most but not all situations, we heard that these types of behaviours were acted on quickly when they came to the attention of more senior personnel and that command set clear expectations with instructors about what behaviour was appropriate. This sent a message that inappropriate behaviour is not tolerated.
The isolation of personnel in some areas appeared to create risks
2.155
Working in environments that are more physically or socially isolated can increase the risk of harmful behaviour occurring.
2.156
We observed that some women who had experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour worked in environments where they were the only woman or worked mostly with those more senior or junior in rank.
2.157
Isolation of a unit or team from the command structure can also create a risk that harmful behaviour persists because it is less visible to superiors. In our interviews, people told us about instances where units developed patterns of harmful behaviour that remained undetected for some time because their command chains were physically located on another camp or base.
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination
2.158
In our survey, we defined workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination as repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a person or people in the workplace. This includes repeated or unwanted behaviours that are likely to lead to physical or psychological harm. It can include undermining a person's credibility, performance, or confidence, excluding or humiliating a person, and verbally or physically threatening a person.
2.159
There are many different forms of harassment, including sexual harassment, racial harassment, and harassment based on sexual orientation.
2.160
Results from our survey and interviews showed that most personnel described their working environments as free from bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Environments where there were clear expectations set by leaders, and where personnel felt valued for their contributions and opinions, were seen as safe, respectful, and inclusive.
2.161
However, bullying, harassment, and discrimination did occur. Civilian personnel and women were disproportionately affected.
2.162
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination occurred in civilian teams at headquarters, in mixed civilian and military teams on camps or bases, and in military units.
2.163
Examples of bullying, harassment, and discrimination that we were told about included:
- superiors in military and civilian environments subjecting personnel to constant belittling treatment, exclusion, or excessive criticism of their work;
- singling out or excluding personnel who did not fit team norms or could not do particular tasks to a perceived sufficient level in military units (such as fitness-related tasks);
- bullying by instructors during initial training; and
- subjecting personnel to harassment and discrimination because of their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
2.164
In the following paragraphs, we describe what people told us about these incidents of bullying, harassment, and discrimination. We discuss who is affected by this behaviour, the behaviours they experienced, and the contexts they experienced it in.
Most personnel feel reasonably safe from bullying, harassment, and discrimination, but women feel less safe
2.165
We asked survey respondents whether they felt safe from bullying, harassment, and discrimination in their workplace (see Figure 11).
Figure 11
Perception of safety from bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Statement | Sentiment | All | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel safe from bullying, harassment, and discrimination in my workplace | Strongly agree | 44.6% | 33.1% | 49.3% |
| Agree | 37.0% | 38.5% | 36.7% | |
| Neutral | 9.5% | 14.4% | 7.6% | |
| Disagree | 6.0% | 9.7% | 4.5% | |
| Strongly disagree | 2.9% | 4.5% | 2.0% | |
| Total respondents | 6064 | 1615 | 4327 |
Note: Totals of women and men respondents will not add up to total respondents because some survey respondents did not specify gender and some respondents identified as another gender. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.
2.166
Although the perception of safety was not as high as for inappropriate sexual behaviour, 81.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they felt safe from bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace. However, our survey results also indicated that:
- women felt less safe, with only 71.6% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement compared to 86.0% of men; and
- civilian women were less likely to feel safe from this behaviour, with only 67.9% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement.
Who does bullying, harassment, and discrimination affect?
Women are disproportionately affected by bullying, harassment, and discrimination, especially civilian women and senior women officers
2.167
We asked survey respondents whether they had experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the workplace during the last 12 months (see Figure 12).
Figure 12
Experience and witnessing of bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Statement | Gender | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced bullying, harassment, or discriminatory behaviour | All | 12.6% | 11.7% | 10.6% | 10.0% | 17.6% |
| Men | 9.6% | 9.4% | 8.6% | 7.4% | 13.7% | |
| Women | 19.7% | 16.8% | 19.8% | 17.8% | 21.7% | |
| Witnessed bullying, harassment, or discriminatory behaviour | All | 16.0% | 20.3% | 14.1% | 16.2% | 15.5% |
| Men | 14.3% | 18.2% | 12.7% | 14.1% | 14.2% | |
| Women | 20.1% | 26.1% | 21.2% | 23.6% | 16.1% | |
| Did not experience or witness bullying, harassment, or discrimination | All | 74.6% | 71.8% | 77.8% | 76.5% | 71.0% |
| Men | 78.6% | 75.9% | 80.6% | 80.1% | 75.5% | |
| Women | 64.6% | 60.8% | 63.9% | 64.1% | 66.5% | |
| Total respondents | 5983 | 951 | 1903 | 1480 | 1638 |
Note: Respondents could experience and witness bullying, harassment, and discrimination so percentages of experienced, witnessed, and not experienced will not add to 100%. Total respondents by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents and totals by gender will also not add to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service, some did not specify gender, and some respondents identified as another gender.
2.168
Three-quarters (74.6%) of survey respondents said that they had not experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, or discrimination in the last 12 months. About 13% (12.6%) of survey respondents said that they had experienced bullying, harassment, or discrimination.
2.169
In our survey:
- almost a fifth of women (19.7%) reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination;
- a high proportion of senior women officers (24.3%) experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months – this was three times more than senior men officers (7.3%), and the rates were the highest for senior women army officers;
- junior women officers almost were twice as likely to experience bullying, harassment, and discrimination as junior men officers (21.3% compared to 11.3%) – these rates were higher than for junior women NCOs (17.9%); and
- although men reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination to a lesser extent than women, 9.6% of men still reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months.
2.170
The bullying, harassment, and discrimination that women experienced was often gender-based. For example, in our interviews, we heard about women being subject to assumptions that they will not perform as well as men in their roles, being belittled and picked on by superiors because they were women, being passed over for promotion courses and deployments, and experiencing sexualised or discriminatory comments from peers and superiors in the workplace.
2.171
In some environments, it was observed that although bullying, harassment, and discrimination affected multiple personnel in the unit or team, women were the most targeted.
2.172
In our survey, women were more likely than men to say they were ignored, excluded, or undervalued. Of those who reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination, 76.7% of women reported having their views ignored or undervalued compared to 67.7% of men. Conversely, men were more likely to experience verbal or physical bullying (45.5% for men compared to 36.3% for women).
2.173
These results suggest that, in some environments, women (particularly women in positions of authority) experience discriminatory attitudes. Although rank protects senior women officers from sexual harm, the risk of experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination increases.
2.174
The opposite is true for men officers, whose risk of experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination diminishes as their rank increases.
Civilian personnel experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination at greater rates than uniformed personnel
2.175
Although uniformed personnel are more at risk of experiencing harmful sexual behaviour, civilian personnel are more at risk of experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
2.176
The percentage of uniformed personnel who reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination was 10.7%. For civilian personnel, it was 17.6%.
2.177
Civilian women experienced higher rates of bullying, harassment, and discrimination than uniformed women (21.7% compared to 16.8% in the Navy, 19.8% in the Army, and 17.8% in the Air Force). Some of the civilian women we spoke with who had experienced these behaviours described it as gender-based.
2.178
Even if the behaviour affected both men and women, civilian women told us they experienced some element of sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination. Examples included women receiving inappropriate comments on their clothing or being shouted down and undermined in meetings when men were not subject to the same treatment.
2.179
Civilian women told us they experienced bullying in both mixed civilian and military environments and largely civilian environments. The bullying in civilian environments had a less overtly gendered element and came from both male and female managers.
2.180
The extent that civilian women felt that their status in a military organisation was a factor in their experience differed. Some felt that it had little impact, whereas others felt that they are taken less seriously or looked down on because they are civilian personnel. We interviewed civilian men who described experiencing the same dynamic, although less commonly.
2.181
We heard that leadership matters in this respect. Leaders of joint civilian and military teams can create a more inclusive environment when they emphasise the value of the different perspectives that both civilian and military personnel bring.
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability also occurred
2.182
Of the survey respondents who identified as bisexual, homosexual, or another sexual identity, 17.0% said that they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination. This was compared to 11.6% for personnel who identified as heterosexual. In our interviews, we heard instances of personnel being harassed because of their sexual orientation. This ranged from one-off comments and jokes to repeated harassment and threats of physical violence.
2.183
The survey results showed some differences in experiences of bullying, harassment, and discrimination for different ethnic groups. Rates were similar for those who identified as Māori, Pacific Peoples, or European. However, rates were higher for some other ethnic groups, especially for women in those ethnic groups (numbers are too small to report by each group).
2.184
Survey responses and interviews described numerous instances of bullying or harassment based on ethnicity. Some personnel described feeling discriminated against, harassed, excluded, or isolated because of their ethnicity. We heard that, in some areas, it was common for personnel to make derogatory jokes or comments about particular ethnic groups. Personnel did not always see these behaviours as harmful.
2.185
Those who identified as disabled also reported experiencing a high rate of bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Of the 67 respondents who identified as disabled, 32.9% reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
What types of bullying, harassment, and discrimination do personnel experience?
Being ignored, excluded, or undervalued were the most common behaviours personnel experienced
2.186
We asked those personnel who reported experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination (see Figure 13) about the types of behaviours that they had experienced.
Figure 13
Types of bullying, harassment, and discrimination experienced in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Behaviour | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion and humiliation | Being ignored or excluded | 61.7% | 62.7% | 61.1% | 52.7% | 66.4% |
| Being humiliated, insulted, or teased | 50.1% | 53.6% | 55.8% | 51.0% | 44.2% | |
| Spreading of gossip and rumours about you | 44.3% | 55.6% | 53.3% | 38.4% | 37.0% | |
| Undermined credibility, performance or confidence | Constant and unreasonable criticism of your work | 49.3% | 53.2% | 48.7% | 40.5% | 52.7% |
| Repeatedly having your views ignored or undervalued | 71.7% | 68.5% | 70.0% | 65.5% | 77.8% | |
| Being given impossible tasks that set you up to fail | 30.7% | 29.7% | 33.7% | 23.0% | 33.3% | |
| Verbal or physical bullying | Verbal abuse (such as shouting) | 27.8% | 34.5% | 25.9% | 24.5% | 27.8% |
| Threats of violence or physical abuse, or actual abuse | 6.6% | 8.0% | 10.8% | 5.4% | 4.2% | |
| Physical violence such as someone pushing or shoving you | 2.7% | - | 6.1% | - | - | |
| Invasion of privacy | 22.7% | 23.9% | 30.1% | 20.3% | 18.3% | |
| Total respondents | 753 | 111 | 202 | 148 | 287 |
Note: Respondents could choose more than one behaviour, so percentages will not add to 100%. If the number of respondents is fewer than five, the percentage is not calculated, and the breakdown is not provided. Totals by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian.
2.187
Being excluded or humiliated were the most common types of behaviours experienced. Of the 12.6% of personnel reporting that they had been subject to bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months, 83.9% said that they had experienced behaviours in the category of exclusion and humiliation (see Figure 13).
2.188
Having credibility, performance, or confidence undermined was the next most common type of bullying behaviour experienced, with 79.3% of personnel reporting behaviours in this category.
2.189
Verbal and physical bullying were the least common types of bullying, harassment, and discrimination experienced. However, more than a quarter (27.8%) of respondents who had experienced bullying reported that they had experienced verbal abuse such as shouting.
2.190
These patterns were also reflected in the behaviours personnel witnessed (see Figure 14).
Figure 14
Types of bullying, harassment, and discrimination witnessed in the workplace in the last 12 months
| Behaviour | All | Navy | Army | Air Force | Civilian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People being ignored or excluded | 77.6% | 81.6% | 80.0% | 74.6% | 74.4% |
| Verbal abuse, including humiliation and ridicule | 64.0% | 68.6% | 63.8% | 65.1% | 59.0% |
| Physical threats or gestures | 15.3% | 19.0% | 23.2% | 9.4% | 8.7% |
| Physical violence, such as someone shoving or pushing | 8.9% | 9.0% | 14.2% | 6.9% | 4.8% |
| Total respondents | 958 | 193 | 268 | 240 | 253 |
Note: Respondents could choose more than one behaviour, so percentages will not add to 100%. Totals by service and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian.
2.191
Of the 16.0% of respondents who said that they had witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the last 12 months, more than three-quarters (77.6%) said that they had witnessed personnel being ignored or excluded.
2.192
In interviews and survey comments, personnel described experiencing bullying in a range of forms and contexts. Many of the comments from survey respondents described bullying in the form of belittling, mocking, excluding, threatening, or intimidating others, or spreading gossip or rumours about them.
2.193
We heard that these experiences can undermine the overall cohesiveness of teams and units, with individuals feeling that they have been singled out and deliberately targeted for unfair treatment.
Hazing and initiations do not seem to be as common or harmful as in the past
2.194
In militaries, hazing and initiations can be a form of bullying. In our survey, the definition of hazing was "an activity expected of someone joining or participating in their unit or a sports team that humiliated, degraded, or endangered them". The examples of this behaviour that we gave included having to drink large amounts of alcohol, acting as a personal servant, or performing sex acts.
2.195
Of the 753 personnel who said in our survey that they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination, 39 (5.2%) said that they had taken part in the type of activity we defined as hazing.
2.196
Some personnel we interviewed said that, although they knew that hazing and initiations had been common in the past (especially in the Navy), these had reduced in frequency and seriousness in recent years. Some hazing activities still involved drinking alcohol, but personnel who talked about hazing generally felt that there was no pressure to participate. Personnel felt that clear messaging that hazing was not acceptable had influenced this, especially in the Navy.
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination were often experienced frequently
2.197
The results of our survey indicated that when personnel experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination, they often experienced these behaviours at least once a week.
2.198
Of the survey respondents who said that they had experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination:
- about a third (31.3%) said that they were excluded, ignored, or humiliated once a week or more, and a quarter (26.2%) said that they were excluded or humiliated several times a month;
- more than a third (39.5%) said that they had their credibility, performance, or confidence undermined once a week or more, and another quarter (28.0%) of these respondents said that they were subject to these behaviours a few times a month; and
- about a quarter of respondents (23.1%) who had experienced verbal or physical bullying said that they experienced this sort of behaviour once a week or more, and another quarter (24.1%) said that they experienced it several times a month.
What contexts do personnel experience bullying, harassment, and discrimination in?
Aspects of the military environment appeared to create specific risks for bullying, harassment, and discrimination
2.199
Personnel we interviewed experienced a wide range of bullying behaviours. Many of these might also be found in a standard professional workplace. However, we also heard about bullying that is unique to the different services or that elements of the military environment are likely to exacerbate.
2.200
We heard from Army personnel about the risks of bullying in "high performance" units (such as combat corps) that involves excessive criticism or exclusion when they cannot meet performance requirements (such as fitness requirements or other tasks).
2.201
We heard from Navy personnel about the risks that being on board ships for extended periods presents for bullying. Living and working aboard a ship, particularly on frigates that are deployed for long periods, can exacerbate stress.
2.202
We also heard about some working environments where a more aggressive leadership style was common (described as a "do what I say" approach). In these environments, some described feeling that they were blamed for anything that went wrong and were dissuaded from raising any issues they were experiencing.
When personnel experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination from their superiors they were not always sure whether it was inappropriate
2.203
Many of the personnel we spoke to who had experienced or witnessed bullying, harassment, and discrimination said that it came from those more senior than them. This was the case for uniformed and civilian personnel, and the personnel responsible were a mix of men and women, and civilian and uniformed personnel.
2.204
The uniformed personnel we interviewed did not have a clear or shared understanding of what was appropriate behaviour from their superiors compared with what could be considered bullying behaviour.
2.205
We heard of some instances where personnel witnessed or experienced aggressive and demeaning behaviour from superiors that made them feel uncomfortable. However, they were unsure whether this behaviour was bullying or the usual way for orders to be given. This was reflected in survey comments, where some personnel described feeling as if bullying behaviours were excused as necessary for discipline.
2.206
Although some personnel felt uncomfortable with the behaviour that they had experienced, such as yelling and swearing at subordinates, other personnel expressed concerns about what they saw as a "weakening" of the defence force by changing the way personnel are treated.
2.207
These diverse views reflected a broader difference in understanding among personnel about what constituted a "respectful" environment. Some personnel believed that a safe and respectful environment is one where their voices are heard and where they can question decisions. However, others felt that this was leading to less respect for command and seniority.
2.208
This tension was more noticeable in personnel from the Navy and the Army we interviewed. Navy personnel talked more about the move in recent decades away from superiors regularly engaging in physical and verbal harassment of those more junior to them.
2.209
However, we did hear that, in some environments, a style of leadership designed to "toughen people up" or "break people" continues.
There was no shared idea of what is bullying rather than banter
2.210
Many of the personnel we interviewed highly valued comradeship and team cohesion, which were commonly understood as core to operational effectiveness. However, strong team cohesion can increase risks of bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
2.211
Personnel we spoke to talked about how "banter" is common in their work environments. Although it was not always clear what constituted banter, it appeared to include joking, making fun of peers, and giving nicknames. Personnel acknowledged that the line between what is banter and what is bullying is not always clear.
2.212
As with sexualised comments and jokes, personnel often felt that banter is acceptable as long as it not directed at anyone specifically, or if it is directed at an individual, that person is not visibly offended. Others we spoke to told us that it can be difficult to determine whether jokes directed at them are intended in a light-hearted or malicious way and that this reduces trust between people.
2.213
We heard about instances of personnel being bullied because they do not fit the norms of the unit or team. This was, in some instances, related to their performance, for example, making fun of a team member because they were not seen as a good soldier. Several personnel in the Army talked about people who were targeted or excluded if they were not "pulling their weight" and that this was seen as acceptable.
2.214
We heard more generally about civilian and uniformed personnel sometimes being excluded if they did not fit into the team – for example, if they were not as social, had a different personality type, or were in other ways different from their team members.
2.215
In these instances, it did not appear that personnel were consciously trying to exclude others. However, as one person told us, in these situations the individual is expected to change to fit to the team rather than the team becoming more inclusive.
Personnel experienced bullying during initial training
2.216
Personnel we spoke to generally felt proud of having gone through initial training and appreciated the physicality and challenge it provided. Most personnel agreed that it should remain challenging. Many also told us they felt that you can still make good soldiers, sailors, and aviators without harsh treatment. Conversely, others felt that without it they would be "weaker" as a force.
2.217
We spoke to some personnel who had recently been through initial training. Most had a positive experience. They had found the training challenging but felt that they had been treated respectfully throughout.
2.218
We also heard from some junior personnel who had felt bullied during their initial training. This behaviour included being excessively yelled at, being belittled, having their weaknesses identified, and being picked on by instructors. Some said that, at the time, they had been unsure whether what they had experienced was appropriate. They felt that it was difficult to raise issues with the behaviour because of the power the instructors had.
2.219
Most examples of bullying during initial training were provided by women. However, men also described experiencing this. Both men and women who had experienced bullying told us that they had come out of initial training feeling anxious and unsure of themselves.
2.220
We heard that NZDF has attempted to move away from this style of training. However, there was a perception that some instructors could find it challenging to change their behaviour when they had experienced this type of training themselves and did not necessarily recognise that it was inappropriate.
2.221
Navy personnel told us about a range of negative experiences, which mostly occurred several years ago. The Navy has since made changes to its initial training. Personnel we interviewed who had been through the training said that clear expectations about what constituted appropriate behaviour had recently been set.
2.222
The experiences of bullying described in the Army were more recent. However, we also heard that command was trying to set clearer expectations about appropriate behaviours. We heard of instances where instructors who behaved in inappropriate ways (for example, through excessive discipline) were spoken to or reprimanded and their behaviour monitored.
Leaders played a key role in exacerbating or preventing harmful behaviours
2.223
We heard that leaders in the unit played a key role in either exacerbating or preventing peer-on-peer bullying and exclusion. We heard that when leaders engage in behaviour targeting individuals (including instructors during initial and other training), it sends a message that this is acceptable.
2.224
We also heard about leaders who discouraged bullying behaviours by sending clear messages that team cohesion and success come from everyone supporting each other. Some personnel described the frequency of leaders picking on individuals declining.
2.225
We heard about improvements that the Army had made. For example, we were told there used to be intense competition between different combat corps (which contributed to bullying and violence), but work had been done to create a greater appreciation of what each corps had to offer, and now different units were working much better together.
2.226
We heard generally that having a more diverse team (in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender) helped prevent bullying and exclusionary behaviours. However, several personnel said that, for this to happen, leaders also need to set the expectation that personnel are to be valued regardless of rank, gender, trade, or other traits. Some of those we interviewed noted that it is helpful to have personnel in influential positions, such as senior NCOs, reinforcing the message that diversity is beneficial.
Building people's agency was seen as a protective factor against bullying, harassment, and discrimination
2.227
Those who worked in environments free from bullying, harassment, and discrimination considered that several factors contributed to this. Valuing personnel for their contributions and opinions was seen as an important factor.
2.228
We talked to some Navy personnel who said that the ships they worked on felt less hierarchical. They felt that this contributed to a safer environment. Although the chain of command was still central, leaders adopted styles of leadership that were more accessible.
2.229
Personnel on these ships described good leadership as being built into the culture of their work environment. Leaders tried to listen to and value what junior personnel had to say, and personnel were encouraged to share ideas and challenge practices they did not agree with. Personnel felt that this protected against harmful behaviour.
2.230
We heard from Air Force personnel that the focus in recent years on improving safety helped encourage them to voice their opinion and feel more empowered to raise issues, and that this protected against harmful behaviour.
2.231
Making these changes has taken time and effort. We heard that a better environment was created when leaders were given permission to focus on building a positive work culture. For example, we heard about a unit where personnel were mistreating each other. New leaders were brought in to address the issues and were empowered to make this their focus. This led to positive change.
Impact area 2: The dignity and privacy of NZDF personnel are respected in the environments they live and work in
2.232
NZDF personnel work in unique environments. They spend periods of time living and working on ships, out on field exercises, and in other environments that are different from standard professional working environments.
2.233
The boundaries between living, working, and socialising in these environments can become blurred. This presents risks for harmful behaviour to occur. Crime prevention research has shown that physical environments designed in the right way can reduce risks. In military environments, this includes personnel having access to facilities that they feel safe using and living in (such as bathrooms and barracks), and adequate lighting around the camp and base.
2.234
NZDF has invested in infrastructure as part of Operation Respect. Although not yet consistent in each camp and base, there have been improvements to add lighting around barracks and bars on site, upgrade bathrooms, and add door viewers in barrack rooms that enable the room occupant to see who is outside.
2.235
In this impact area, we look at the experiences of personnel related to the physical environments they live and work in and how safe and included these environments make them feel.
Main findings for impact area 2
2.236
The changes made to infrastructure, such as to bathrooms and barracks, have improved some people's perceptions of safety. However, some personnel also felt that, to increase their sense of safety, some physical areas still needed changes.
Detailed findings for impact area 2
Mixed gender bathrooms and barracks were the places most likely to make personnel feel unsafe
2.237
Personnel highlighted aspects of the physical environment that could potentially make them feel unsafe. Mixed gender barracks and mixed gender bathrooms on camps and bases were most frequently identified as being potentially unsafe. However, there was a not a shared view on this.
2.238
Mixed gender barracks were mostly identified as unsafe when there was drinking and personnel who did not live in the barracks could enter. Some women said mixed gender bathrooms could be uncomfortable because, even though the showers have separate stalls, they still must walk out of the stall into a bathroom where men could be present. We also heard that open (but gender-segregated) showers could be uncomfortable to use and felt unsafe for both men and women.
Personnel acknowledged that NZDF has improved the physical environment
2.239
Some personnel acknowledged that NZDF had made efforts in recent years to improve infrastructure, including by adding door viewers that enabled the room's occupant to see who was outside, installing one-way handles on doors, and increasing the number of streetlights on camps and bases.
2.240
Door viewers help prevent "door knocking", which was described to us as when men knock on the doors of women's rooms and, if the woman answers the door, the man enters her room without permission. We were told that sexual assaults in the Army and the Air Force have occurred in this way. Several women described how adding door viewers made them feel safer.
2.241
Another area of improvement was the removal of inappropriate material in work environments. Environment assessments were carried out that uncovered explicit photographic content and other inappropriate material that was subsequently removed.
2.242
Improvements to bars on site were also mentioned. Stricter limits on when bars can open and how much alcohol can be consumed have been set. Some personnel felt that safety on ships had improved after alcohol consumption at sea was stopped.
Despite infrastructure improvements, some people continued to feel unsafe
2.243
Some personnel told us that they still did not always feel safe. They said that they sometimes felt that NZDF did not give enough weight to changes they felt were a priority.
2.244
Not all women had the same ideas about what they needed to feel safe. Several women told us that they felt comfortable having mixed bathrooms or that changes made to create more privacy for women were not necessary.
2.245
These women were concerned that introducing single-sex barracks and other measures would further separate men and women when they need to think of themselves as a team. In some instances, women would have preferred other solutions, such as having agreed times for women to shower, rather than gender-specific facilities.
2.246
Several personnel noted that changes to the physical environment can only do so much if people are intent on harming others. Although personnel valued the environmental and infrastructure changes that NZDF had made to date, they saw them as effective only when combined with efforts to change behavioural norms.
Impact area 3: Respectful and inclusive behaviours are valued and rewarded in the organisation
2.247
Personnel need to be incentivised to behave in respectful and inclusive ways. This involves not just discouraging and responding to harmful behaviour but also encouraging personnel to act respectfully and inclusively.
2.248
Human resource policies need to incentivise the desired behaviours and should encompass how personnel are selected, how performance is measured and managed, and how personnel are promoted.
2.249
In this impact area, we look at whether personnel felt that NZDF formally and informally recognises and rewards respectful and inclusive behaviours.
Main findings for impact area 3
2.250
Personnel often told us that NZDF values respectful and inclusive behaviours. However, personnel did not always feel that there were suitable methods to formally recognise these behaviours. In a small number of instances, personnel felt that reporting harmful behaviour had inhibited their career progression.
Detailed findings for impact area 3
Assessing whether respectful and inclusive behaviours are rewarded was difficult
2.251
It was difficult to assess whether NZDF rewards respectful and inclusive behaviours. When asked about this, personnel were often unsure how to answer. They often commented that they should not be rewarded for behaviour consistent with Operation Respect because they felt that it should just be expected.
2.252
Personnel we talked to interpreted the phrase "acting in line with Operation Respect" as being only about behaviours that they should not engage in, rather than also being about demonstrating positive behaviours.
2.253
This might be because there is not a shared understanding of what a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment looks like. Without this, personnel find it difficult to know what positive behaviours are needed to create it.
NZDF does not consistently use the Performance Development Report process to encourage respectful and inclusive behaviour
2.254
NZDF has a range of formal methods that it can use to recognise and reward respectful and inclusive behaviour. These include performance reviews, promotions, and other opportunities. Informal recognition of good behaviour can also be positive feedback from leaders.
2.255
We talked to a lot of personnel who shared their views on the Performance Development Report (PDR) process, which is part of NZDF's Talent Management System. This system applies to uniformed members of NZDF and civilian personnel. NZDF describes the PDR as a tool to track short-term goals and progress against them.
2.256
We heard a range of views about how well-integrated Operation Respect was with the PDR process.
2.257
Some personnel told us that Operation Respect is integrated into the PDR process through discussions about ethics and core values such as integrity and courage and that this is sufficient.
2.258
However, other personnel told us that their PDRs do not include objectives relating to Operation Respect and they did not feel they were held accountable for Operation Respect outcomes in any specific way. It appears to be up to individual commanders to determine whether to include objectives relating to Operation Respect in PDRs. Some personnel suggested that standardising PDRs to require personnel to report on how they supported Operation Respect values would be useful.
Some personnel felt that reporting harmful behaviour had inhibited their career progression
2.259
A small number of personnel told us that following the values of Operation Respect has inhibited their progression in NZDF. These personnel felt that they had embodied the values of Operation Respect by consistently speaking up when harmful behaviour occurred. They said that others would come to them for help when experiencing harmful behaviour.
2.260
These personnel felt that consistently raising these types of issues, especially when it involves senior personnel, had not helped their career. In some instances, they felt that it had led to promotions taking a longer time.
The skills needed to create respectful environments are not always valued
2.261
Leaders at all levels need specific skills to perform their role in creating respectful and inclusive work environments.44 Personnel described these skills to us in several ways, including soft skills, empathy, compassion, people skills, and emotional intelligence. The extent that personnel felt that NZDF valued interpersonal skills was mixed.
2.262
Some personnel said that interpersonal skills were valued but could not always articulate how. Some personnel had the sense that interpersonal skills are not seen as being central to NZDF's broader objectives as a military force. Some felt that, even if interpersonal skills are valued, war-fighting or technical skills are still seen as more important.
38: Zedlacher, E, and Koeszegi, ST (2021), “Workplace bullying in military organizations: Bullying Inc?”, in P. D’Cruz (Ed.), Special Topics and Particular Occupations, Professions and Sectors, pages 435–464; Castro, C. A., Kintzle, S, Schuyler, AC, Lucas, CL, and Warner, CH (2015) “Sexual assault in the military”, Current psychiatry reports 17(7), 54; Souder III, W (2017), Risk factors for sexual violence in the military: An analysis of sexual assault and sexual harassment incidents and reporting, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey United States; Matthews, M, Morral, AR, Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Snoke, J, and Briggs, RJ (2021), Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the US Army: Where Cases Are Highest and Why, RAND Corporation.
39: Thomsen, CJ, McCone, DR, and Gallus, JA (2018), “Conclusion of the special issue on sexual harassment and sexual assault in the US military: What have we learned, and where do we go from here?”, Military psychology 30(3), pages 282-293.
40: This definition was informed by definitions in similar surveys, such as that completed in the Canadian Armed Forces. See Cotter, A (2019), Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force, 2018.
41: United States Department of Defense (2021), Hard truths and the duty to change: Recommendations from the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military; Farris, C and Hepner KA (2014), Targeting alcohol misuse: A promising strategy for reducing military sexual assaults?, RAND Corporation.
42: Although most of these behaviours (except for indecent exposure and some behaviours involving sexually explicit images and videos) are not criminal, they can negatively affect individuals experiencing or witnessing them, including negatively affecting their mental health. These behaviours can also increase the risk of affected individuals leaving the organisation. See Morral, AR, Matthews, M, Cefalu, M, Schell, TL, and Cottrell,C (2021), Effects of sexual assault and sexual harassment on separation from the US military: Findings from the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study, RAND Corporation.
43: We use the phrase "initial training" to describe the various training pathways that new recruits to the military carry out. Initial training is slightly different for each service, with different terminology used for the different courses that are required.
44: Klein, M and Gallus, JA (2018), "The readiness imperative for reducing sexual violence in the US armed forces: Respect and professionalism as the foundation for change", Military psychology, 30(3), 264-269.