Part 3: The role of leadership
3.1
Leaders set the tone for the camps, bases, and units that they lead. Research has shown that there is a higher likelihood of sexual harm occurring in units where commanding officers display or condone behaviours that encourage a sexualised environment (such as sexist jokes and derogatory comments).45
3.2
Informal leaders or influencers – such as senior NCOs and junior leaders – also play a key role in influencing the climate and culture.46 They also need to model the right behaviour.
3.3
This Part sets out the data we collected that describes the experiences personnel have with leaders in the organisation and the impact their behaviour has on creating a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment.
The outcome and impacts we expect to see over time
3.4
The outcome we are assessing in this Part is “Leaders create an environment where what constitutes harmful behaviour is understood and not tolerated”.
3.5
We identified three impacts that we expect to see if NZDF is likely to achieve this outcome:
- Leaders model respectful and inclusive behaviour.
- Leaders create an environment where harmful behaviour is not tolerated by setting clear expectations of what is and is not appropriate.
- Leaders and specialist support staff have the capacity and capability to support prevention activities.
Our assessment of progress
3.6
Good leadership is an important factor in creating a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment. The behaviour of managers and direct supervisors is key. Our overall assessment is that most personnel feel that their immediate supervisors model appropriate behaviour.
3.7
All parts of the chain of command need to work together to set clear behavioural expectations. Most personnel told us that they feel that harmful behaviour is not tolerated in their work environments. However, we heard that some leaders engage in inappropriate behaviours or do not act on it when they see it occur. This sends a message to personnel that harmful behaviour is tolerated.
3.8
We developed a mixed picture of the extent to which leaders take a deliberate and proactive approach to developing a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment. Although leaders often model appropriate behaviour, there is less focus on proactively setting clear behavioural expectations, identifying issues in their units that need addressing, and implementing prevention activities.
3.9
Leaders at all levels need the right skills to create respectful and inclusive environments in their units. Their individual motivations, skills, and experience influence their ability to set expectations. Although some leaders are well equipped to do this, we heard that current training does not adequately prepare all leaders to lead or support activities to prevent harmful behaviour.
3.10
Our assessment of this outcome is based on our findings from the three impact areas described in paragraph 3.5.
Impact area 1: Leaders model respectful and inclusive behaviour
3.11
One of the main ways that leaders can support positive change is through modelling the behaviours that they expect to see in others.
3.12
In this impact area, we look at whether personnel felt that their leaders modelled respectful and inclusive behaviours and the impacts of this.
Main findings for impact area 1
3.13
Most personnel felt that their leaders modelled respectful and inclusive behaviours.
3.14
However, modelling good behaviour requires more than not engaging in harmful behaviour. It also includes demonstrating accessible, encouraging, and respectful behaviour. These behaviours are needed to create respectful and inclusive environments. We heard that the extent to which leaders did this was varied.
3.15
A small number of personnel experienced harmful behaviour from leaders. We heard that when this happens, it set a tone in their work environment that this behaviour was acceptable.
Detailed findings for impact area 1
Most personnel agreed that their immediate supervisor models respectful behaviour
3.16
We asked survey respondents how strongly they agreed with the statement that their leaders have modelled respectful behaviour and language in the last 12 months (see Figure 15).
Figure 15
Perceptions of whether leaders have modelled respectful behaviour and language in the last 12 months
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Total respondents | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 55.7% | 34.9% | 6.9% | 1.7% | 0.8% | 6075 |
| Women | 50.4% | 36.7% | 8.0% | 3.1% | 1.7% | 1622 |
| Men | 57.9% | 34.3% | 6.0% | 1.2% | 0.5% | 4331 |
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.
3.17
Of all survey respondents, 90.6% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that their leaders model respectful behaviour and language. The rate was slightly lower for women – 87.1% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.
3.18
Our interviews supported the survey findings. Most personnel we spoke to reported that their immediate leader models respectful behaviour and language.
Leaders who were accessible and encouraging contributed to respectful and inclusive environments
3.19
Part 2 outlines the important role leaders have in encouraging or discouraging harmful behaviour in their work environment. Personnel described this as more than simply using respectful language. Leaders who contributed to creating respectful and inclusive environments:
- were accessible and made an effort to get to know their personnel;
- encouraged their personnel to share their views and were open to feedback;
- empowered and gave their personnel autonomy where appropriate; and
- sent clear messages that success comes through diversity.
3.20
A few personnel described this as leading with respect rather than leading with fear. It is an approach that aims to build people up rather than break them down. We heard that these leaders still challenged personnel to be good soldiers, sailors, or aviators through building their mental and physical resilience, but in different ways.
3.21
Not all personnel wanted this style of leadership. Some appreciated and wanted a more “old school” disciplinarian style of leadership. However, we heard that ideas of what makes a good leader are changing. Some senior NCOs who had reflected on their “old school” ways told us that they now realise that these are not the best approaches.
3.22
Some personnel experienced the positive behaviours described in paragraph 3.19. Others had more mixed experiences. For example, some felt that their immediate supervisors, although respectful, are less available or accessible.
3.23
A small group of personnel we interviewed told us that they had experienced harmful behaviour from their immediate supervisors (1-ups and 2-ups) or witnessed them exhibit harmful behaviour towards others.
3.24
Some survey comments also described inappropriate behaviours that some leaders had engaged in. We also heard that some personnel were frustrated when leaders did not acknowledge their past harmful behaviour. Personnel felt that, to model the right behaviour, leaders needed to be open and honest about their own past behaviour and what they had learned.
Impact area 2: Leaders create an environment where harmful behaviour is not tolerated by setting clear expectations of what is and is not appropriate
3.25
Setting clear behavioural expectations is an important way for leaders to create safe, respectful, and inclusive environments.
3.26
In this impact area, we look at the extent that personnel felt that leaders set clear expectations about appropriate behaviours.
Main findings for impact area 2
3.27
Most personnel felt that harmful behaviour is not tolerated in their work environments. Almost 90% (89.4%) of all survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour is not tolerated in their current unit. However, only 80.9% of survey respondents thought that bullying, harassment, and discrimination were not tolerated in their current unit.
3.28
We heard some good examples of leaders making deliberate efforts to set clear expectations. However, overall, there appeared to be more focus given to reacting after events had occurred.
Detailed findings for impact area 2
Most NZDF personnel felt that harmful behaviour was not tolerated by leaders
3.29
We asked survey respondents how strongly they agreed with statements about how seriously inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour and bullying, harassment, and discrimination are taken in their units (see Figure 16).
Figure 16
Perceptions of tolerance of harmful workplace behaviour by leaders in the last 12 months
| Statement | Sentiment | All | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour is not tolerated in my current unit – complaints are taken seriously | Strongly agree | 58.1% | 49.4% | 61.6% |
| Agree | 31.3% | 34.7% | 30.3% | |
| Neutral | 8.1% | 11.9% | 6.3% | |
| Disagree | 1.7% | 2.4% | 1.4% | |
| Strongly disagree | 0.8% | 1.6% | 0.4% | |
| Total respondents | 6074 | 1620 | 4332 | |
| Bullying, harassment, and discrimination is not tolerated in my current unit – complaints are taken seriously | Strongly agree | 44.5% | 35.1% | 48.4% |
| Agree | 36.4% | 37.4% | 36.2% | |
| Neutral | 11.6% | 15.3% | 9.9% | |
| Disagree | 5.1% | 8.2% | 3.7% | |
| Strongly disagree | 2.5% | 4.0% | 1.7% | |
| Total respondents | 6062 | 1614 | 4326 |
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.
3.30
Most survey respondents (89.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that harmful sexual behaviour is not tolerated in their workplace and that complaints are taken seriously. The rate was slightly lower for women (84.1%).
3.31
Most respondents (80.9%) also agreed or strongly agreed that incidents of bullying, harassment, and discrimination will be taken seriously. The rate was lower for women (72.5%).
Leaders did not always proactively set expectations about behaviour
3.32
From our interviews, we heard many examples of leaders role-modelling good behaviour and acting on harmful behaviour when it occurs. However, personnel talked less about leaders making time specifically to discuss and reinforce behavioural expectations.
3.33
Some interviewees provided examples of where leaders had done this well. This included leaders:
- having regular discussions about above and below the line behaviours that became embedded in their routines;47
- leaders setting expectations for instructors about how they should behave with recruits;
- having sessions as part of training that set expectations, and involved discussions about how to respond to harmful behaviour; and
- facilitating discussions about appropriate behaviour when harmful behaviour occurred.
3.34
However, most personnel did not talk about leaders engaging in these types of activities. They talked more about leaders reacting after inappropriate behaviour occurs rather than proactively setting out what appropriate behaviour in their units or teams looked like.
All parts of the chain of command needed to work together to set clear expectations
3.35
Uniformed personnel recognised the importance of each level in the chain of command setting and reinforcing behaviour expectations.
3.36
We were told senior officers, such as the commanding officer (CO) of a unit and the officer commanding (OC)48 need to provide clear direction about appropriate behaviour.
3.37
Senior NCOs (that is, warrant officers, staff sergeants) set the tone for appropriate behaviour below them. The CO and OC often rely on senior NCOs to know what is happening in a unit. Senior NCOs need to be accessible to personnel in their unit so that they know what behaviours are occurring and can pass information about the risks in the unit up to senior officers.
3.38
Junior leaders (including officers and NCOs – that is, corporal level) have more contact with most personnel in the unit. They also need to be accessible and available so personnel will bring issues to them, and they can escalate them up the chain of command. Junior officers and NCOs also need to have good relationships so that information about what type of behaviours are occurring can be passed to more senior officers.
3.39
This is what personnel described as all parts of the chain of command working well.
3.40
We heard that in the Army training environment, all leadership levels (CO, OC and senior NCOs) have agreed expectations about how they should behave. The CO sets clear expectations with the levels below them about how to work with recruits. We heard instructors talk about these expectations. We were also provided with examples from the Navy and Air Force (see paragraphs 2.228-2.231).
3.41
However, some personnel told us that parts of the chain are not working well. We were told by some personnel from all three services that messages about acceptable behaviour sent by senior officers sometimes got lost at the senior NCO level and did not filter down. We heard that strained relationships between junior NCOs and officers could be a problem and this meant that issues were not always escalated to senior personnel.
3.42
The survey results and our interviews indicate issues are more likely to occur when those at the top of the chain – such as a CO and OC – do not set good expectations, engage in harmful behaviour themselves, or do not act when they see harmful behaviour occur.
Leaders needed support to create the right environment
3.43
Leaders need to have the right skills to create an environment where harmful behaviour is not tolerated. We were told that leaders who effectively support the aims of Operation Respect often have the right skills and are interested in it. It was felt that those considered “old school” were less likely to lead well on Operation Respect.
3.44
We heard that leaders are not always aware of what constitutes inappropriate sexual behaviour, bullying, or victim-blaming. This makes it difficult for them to model appropriate behaviour and set expectations.
3.45
Some personnel said that to be effective at setting expectations and supporting the aims of Operation Respect, leaders need to be comfortable and convincing when they talk about it. It is clear when they are not, and this undermines the messages they deliver.
3.46
We heard that leaders at all levels need more support to create the right environment. Some personnel felt that there is not enough emphasis given to the “people side” in leadership training. Instead, the priority is on technical skill and operations.
3.47
Some personnel we interviewed felt that training did not adequately prepare junior leaders to have the necessary discussions or manage the types of issues they need to deal with.
3.48
Some junior leaders told us that they did not feel prepared to deal with some of the complex situations that are likely to arise in the workplace. These included how to talk to personnel about why certain behaviours, such as making “hot lists”, are not appropriate or how to address complaints about women perceived to be getting “special treatment”.
Impact area 3: Leaders and specialist support staff have the capacity and capability to support prevention activities
3.49
For personnel to work in an environment free from harmful behaviour, NZDF needs effective ways to target the causes of harmful behaviour and prevent it from occurring. Prevention can include a wide range of activities that focus on changing norms and expected behaviours.49
3.50
In this impact area, we look at whether leaders and specialist support staff felt that they had the capacity and capability to support or implement prevention activities.
3.51
We interviewed specialist support staff and senior officers on camps and bases to inform our understanding.
Main findings for impact area 3
3.52
Leaders and specialist support staff (such as SAPRAs and social workers) recognised the need for effective prevention activities. However, there were capacity and capability constraints.
3.53
Leaders were often not clear about what prevention activities should look like and what they should be doing to support prevention. Specialist support staff do some prevention work. However, they often did not have enough capacity because they spent most of their time on response activities.
3.54
Leaders and specialist support staff need to work together to implement effective prevention activities and for the support system to work effectively. This requires good relationships based on mutual trust. In some parts of NZDF, these relationships needed more attention.
Detailed findings for impact area 3
Specialist support staff were not always able to engage in prevention activities
3.55
NZDF employs a range of specialist support staff who can help design and deliver prevention activities:
- SAPRAs are experts in the subject of harmful sexual behaviour. They provide practical information, resources, and support to respond to, and prevent, any form of harmful sexual behaviour.
- Psychologists in NZDF provide psychological services, advice, and research to all parts of the organisation.
- Social workers are experienced at detecting issues early. They are also experienced at building programmes or interventions that target social harm.
- Chaplains focus on providing personnel with spiritual and pastoral support and guidance.
3.56
SAPRAs are responsible for implementing sexual harm prevention activities on camps and bases. They generally saw this as a key part of their role and have implemented a range of activities that support prevention.
3.57
SAPRAs deliver the Sexual Ethics and Respectful Relationships training, which is a key NZDF prevention activity. They also lead or are involved in other kinds of training, for example to reduce specific risk factors or work with different units that have issues with harmful behaviour.
3.58
However, SAPRAs told us that, in general, a lot of their time is taken up with response and support work. In some cases SAPRAs work across multiple camps and bases. This means it can be difficult to make time for prevention activities.
3.59
SAPRAs generally only design and implement activities for preventing sexual harm. It was less clear from our interviews who is responsible for supporting leaders to respond to or prevent bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
3.60
Some social workers and psychologists told us that they lead activities for preventing bullying, harassment, and discrimination. This includes delivering workshops in units with bullying, harassment, and discrimination issues. However, most did not describe it as a core part of their role and not all social workers and psychologists were engaged in this type of work. Some told us that they do not have enough capacity to design and implement prevention activities.
Leaders needed more support to engage in prevention activities
3.61
We asked leaders what work they did to prevent harmful behaviour. The most common response was that they responded to issues brought to their attention to demonstrate to others that harmful behaviour is not acceptable.
3.62
Some leaders talked about wanting to do more prevention but were often not sure what that involves. Leaders at multiple camps and bases expressed a desire to know more about appropriate prevention activities.
3.63
We were told by leaders that they were sometimes reluctant to engage in harm prevention activities because they feared doing the wrong thing. They needed the right support. However, at some sites SAPRAs had limited capacity to assist.
Leaders needed to understand the risks and issues in their units to better prevent harmful behaviour
3.64
To prevent harmful behaviour from occurring, leaders need a good understanding of both risks and protective factors in their unit or on their ship, camp, or base.
3.65
Many leaders did not fully understand the risks and issues related to harmful behaviour. These leaders needed more information, support, and guidance at the unit level to better understand the issues. This was particularly the case when dealing with inappropriate sexual behaviour.
3.66
We heard a few examples of leaders meeting regularly with specialist support staff to understand the issues that are occurring.
3.67
We were told that some commanding officers are also trying to better understand the issues by encouraging their direct reports to pass on anonymous information about the types of issues they observe. This helps them to understand whether there are unit-wide problems that need addressing.
3.68
Although these examples are positive, it was clear from our interviews that not all commanding officers were doing this.
Leaders and specialist support staff needed to work together
3.69
We heard that when commanding officers properly understood the role of SAPRAs and social workers and trusted them they were more likely to refer personnel when needed. They were also more likely to work with specialist support staff on prevention activities.
3.70
We were provided many examples of trusting relationships between command and specialist support staff. We heard that in these situations command ensured that personnel who needed access to SAPRAs or social workers could get it.
3.71
We heard about leaders and specialist support staff who worked co-operatively to support prevention activities on some camps and bases. For example, at some sites, leaders at the unit level asked specialist support staff to deliver targeted training to their units. Sometimes specialist support staff proactively offered this.
3.72
In other areas, experiences were mixed. In some instances, SAPRAs and other specialist support staff felt that they did not get as much access to units as they would have liked. In some areas, specialist support staff and command had good relationships when responding to harmful behaviour, but specialist support staff were less involved in prevention activities. We also heard that command sometimes consulted specialist support staff on prevention activities after they had been designed, when there would have been more value in involving them earlier.
3.73
We observed tensions between commanding officers and SAPRAs in some locations. We were told that commanding officers were sometimes frustrated with the restricted disclosure process, which meant that they could not get information on all incidents occurring in their unit or on their base.
3.74
Leaders told us they felt responsible for the welfare of personnel in their unit. It was difficult for them in situations where they knew that someone in their unit has experienced or been accused of harmful behaviour, but they did not know the details. They wanted to understand the situation to prevent further harm occurring.
3.75
We heard that the strong sense of responsibility many leaders feel makes it harder for them to trust civilian specialist support staff (such as SAPRAs and social workers) to manage these issues. They did not always recognise how important it was for personnel to have a confidential way to report harmful behaviour.
3.76
In most instances, commanders did not think that specialist support staff deliberately withheld information from them. In the few instances where they did feel this way, this seemed to be related to misunderstandings about the process of making a restricted disclosure and the confidentiality requirements that SAPRAs are bound by.
45: Sadler, AG, Mengeling, MA, Booth, BM, O’Shea, AM, and Torner, JC (2017), “The relationship between US military officer leadership behaviors and risk of sexual assault of Reserve, National Guard, and Active Component servicewomen in nondeployed locations”, American journal of public health 107(1), 147-155.
46: Crompvoets, S (2021), Blood lust, trust and blame, Monash University Publishing.
47: The “above the line/below the line” model is a tool that NZDF uses to guide discussions about how personnel are expected to treat each other.
48: Officer commanding (OC) is the commander of a sub-unit or minor unit.
49: Evidence about the comparative effectiveness of different prevention activities is still lacking, particularly in the military context. Examples of activities that have been used in other jurisdictions include healthy relationship training programmes, women’s empowerment training, alcohol misuse prevention programmes, social norms marketing campaigns, and perpetration prevention programmes (See RAND Corporation, Types of sexual assault prevention activities in the military: Finding and assessing effective prevention activities, at rand.org).