Part 6: Shared understanding of a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment
6.1
A shared understanding of what constitutes harmful behaviour is critical to reducing it. NZDF personnel also need to have a shared understanding of the value of a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment, including how this environment enhances the ability of the organisation to achieve its aims.
6.2
This Part sets out the data we collected that describes what personnel understand harmful and inappropriate behaviour to be and how necessary and effective they think Operation Respect is.
The outcome and impacts we expect to see over time
6.3
The outcome we assess in this Part is “NZDF personnel have a shared understanding of the purpose and value of a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment”.
6.4
We identified three impacts that we expect to see if NZDF is likely to achieve this outcome:
- NZDF personnel understand what is and is not appropriate behaviour.
- NZDF personnel have a shared understanding of what Operation Respect is and what it is intended to address.
- NZDF personnel believe that Operation Respect is an appropriate and effective initiative.
Our assessment of progress
6.5
Our overall assessment is that although there is a good understanding of what constitutes unwanted sexual activity, there is not yet a shared understanding of what constitutes inappropriate sexual behaviour or bullying, harassment, and discrimination. This means there is not a shared understanding of what a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment looks like and why it is important for NZDF’s success.
6.6
Personnel generally see Operation Respect as an effective intervention. It is widely known as an initiative targeting harmful sexual behaviour, but less known as an initiative targeting bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
6.7
Operation Respect’s high name recognition means that it has the potential to widely communicate that NZDF does not tolerate harmful behaviour.
6.8
However, Operation Respect had limited visible activity in the 12 months prior to the collection of our data. When leaders prioritise Operation Respect and implement activities designed to reduce harmful behaviour, it sends a message that harmful behaviour is not tolerated. However, this is not happening frequently enough, and Operation Respect is not yet embedded into day-to-day work. This undermines its effectiveness.
6.9
Our assessment of this outcome is based on findings from the three impact areas described in paragraph 6.4.
Impact area 1: NZDF personnel understand what is and is not appropriate behaviour
6.10
To work in safe, respectful, and inclusive environments, NZDF personnel need to have a shared understanding of what constitutes appropriate behaviour. Research in other organisations suggests that a shared understanding of harm provides an essential basis for change.56
6.11
This allows personnel to respond to harmful behaviour confident that they are on “shared ground”. It also helps to mitigate under-reporting that can arise from a fear of not being taken seriously.57
6.12
In this impact area, we look at what personnel understand harmful behaviour to be and whether that understanding is shared throughout NZDF.
Main findings for impact area 1
6.13
There was a shared understanding of what constitutes unwanted sexual activity. However, there was not a shared understanding of what constitutes inappropriate sexual behaviour or bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
Detailed findings for impact area 1
Harmful sexual behaviour at the criminal end was understood
6.14
The personnel we interviewed had a shared understanding of what constituted harmful sexual behaviour at the criminal end, including rape and indecent assault.
6.15
However, in our interviews, a small number of personnel expressed victim-blaming attitudes. This included the view that those who had experienced unwanted sexual activity were in some way responsible for the incident through, for example, wearing what those personnel considered provocative clothes or drinking too much.
6.16
Although these views were not widespread, personnel in positions of authority sometimes expressed them. If leaders hold and express these views, it can reduce the likelihood that personnel will report unwanted sexual activity.
There was not a shared understanding of what constitutes inappropriate sexual behaviour and the harm it causes
6.17
Personnel told us that the understanding of what constitutes appropriate behaviour in the workplace has shifted since NZDF introduced Operation Respect. However, there was not a shared understanding of what constitutes inappropriate sexual behaviour.
6.18
For example, some personnel still saw some forms of inappropriate sexual behaviour as harmless. In Part 2, we observed that personnel did not have a shared understanding of the harm caused by sexualised jokes and gossip.
6.19
Research has shown that unwanted sexual activity is more likely to occur in environments where inappropriate sexual behaviour is common.58 Although NZDF made attempts to convey this message when it first introduced Operation Respect (see paragraphs 6.60-6.63), this relationship was still not well understood.
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination were also behaviours that were not well understood
6.20
There did not appear to be a shared understanding of what constituted bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
6.21
As with inappropriate sexual behaviour, personnel had different understandings of what was acceptable banter in a work environment and what crossed the line into behaviours that ridiculed and excluded (and could be considered bullying).
6.22
In Part 2, we discussed the lack of shared understanding about the difference between appropriate command and discipline behaviours and bullying from superiors.
6.23
Finally, there was not a good understanding of what constituted harassment on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation (see paragraphs 2.182-2.184), and gender. For example, we heard that in some units or teams, there were frequent comments about women not being good soldiers, sailors, or aviators, which were seen as acceptable.
6.24
Even when personnel did not describe these comments as harmful, it was evident that the comments created additional pressure to perform. The effect of these kinds of comments did not appear well understood in the organisation.
Impact area 2: NZDF personnel have a shared understanding of what Operation Respect is and what it is intended to address
6.25
Visibility of an organisation-wide initiative can be indicative of its priority in the organisation. The extent that personnel hear about and see activity related to Operation Respect in their workplace can affect whether they trust that NZDF takes their safety seriously.
6.26
In this impact area, we look at what personnel understood the purpose of Operation Respect to be and how visible it was to them.
Main findings for impact area 2
6.27
Operation Respect had a high level of name recognition throughout NZDF. It was well known as an initiative to address harmful sexual behaviour. However, it was less well known as an initiative to address other harmful behaviours, such as bullying.
6.28
In recent years, there had been visibility of Operation Respect. Almost two-thirds (64.3%) of personnel told us that Operation Respect had been visible to a great extent or some extent in their workplace in the last 12 months. However, we were told by some that it was seen as a compliance exercise and it was not yet embedded in everyday work.
Detailed findings for impact area 2
Most personnel said that there had been visibility of Operation Respect in the last year
6.29
Results from our survey and interviews showed that Operation Respect was visible to most personnel and that it had high name recognition throughout NZDF.
6.30
We asked survey respondents to identify how visible they thought Operation Respect had been in their workplaces in the last 12 months (see Figure 37).
Figure 37
Perception of visibility of Operation Respect in the last 12 months
| To a great extent | To some extent | To a small extent | To no extent | Total respondents | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | All | 21.8% | 42.5% | 25.6% | 10.1% | 6062 |
| Women | 16.7% | 43.0% | 29.2% | 11.1% | 1611 | |
| Navy | All | 24.9% | 42.8% | 22.5% | 9.8% | 957 |
| Women | 18.5% | 44.0% | 25.0% | 12.5% | 248 | |
| Army | All | 24.7% | 41.0% | 23.0% | 11.3% | 1928 |
| Women | 13.9% | 43.2% | 31.0% | 11.9% | 294 | |
| Air Force | All | 17.6% | 45.2% | 29.3% | 7.8% | 1504 |
| Women | 9.6% | 44.6% | 38.3% | 7.5% | 334 | |
| Civilian | All | 20.4% | 41.6% | 27.0% | 11.0% | 1664 |
| Women | 20.4% | 41.7% | 25.9% | 12.0% | 734 |
Note: Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.
6.31
Just under two-thirds of survey respondents (64.3%) reported that Operation Respect had been visible to a great extent or some extent in their workplace in the last 12 months. Operation Respect’s visibility appeared to be similar across the services and for civilians.
6.32
However, in our survey:
- 10.1% of survey respondents indicated that Operation Respect had not been visible to any extent in their workplace;
- women were generally less likely to report that Operation Respect was visible to a great or some extent at work (59.7%) compared to men (66.3%); and
- junior women officers (53.3%) and junior women NCOs (61.9%) were also less likely to report that Operation Respect has been visible to a great or some extent at work.
6.33
Almost everyone we spoke to knew what Operation Respect was. However, although it has high name recognition, most NZDF personnel we interviewed said that there had been little visible activity associated with the initiative in the last year.
6.34
Several personnel spoke about how visible Operation Respect was when it was first launched and said that this had subsided. Many respondents to our survey also said that there had been little official communication about Operation Respect in the last 12 months and little discussion in teams and workplaces.
6.35
For most personnel, they were aware of Operation Respect only because it had been discussed in the Sexual Ethics and Responsible Relationships (SERR) training they attended or because they knew about SAPRAs.
6.36
Civilian personnel had less awareness of Operation Respect. Some had not heard of Operation Respect nor attended any of the activities associated with it.
Operation Respect had more visibility in environments where it was prioritised by leaders
6.37
Personnel had more awareness of Operation Respect when they were involved in specific activities related to it.
6.38
Activities that we heard about included discussions about above and below the line behaviours, scenarios built into training sessions, infrastructure changes, and discussions about what constituted appropriate behaviour when an incident occurred.
6.39
These activities occurred in all parts of the organisation. However, some camps and bases put more focus into Operation Respect after the 2020 review and visibility of it was higher in those locations.
6.40
We were told about specific individuals who were seen as committed to Operation Respect and who had made efforts to embed it into the work of their unit. Some of these individuals were instructors who introduced it as a focus area in recruit training. However, as we discussed in Part 3, some personnel would have liked more direction from leaders on how to embed it.
When personnel did not observe ongoing Operation Respect activity, it could be seen as a compliance exercise
6.41
Many personnel we talked to felt that Operation Respect had become a compliance exercise. Those people often said that discussion or activities related to Operation Respect were limited or not visible to them.
6.42
Most personnel we talked to were positive about the SERR training. However, some felt it was the only tangible activity, and this reinforced a view that Operation Respect was not embedded into the day-to-day work of the military.
6.43
One person told us that Operation Respect had become just a tagline (a “safe, respectful, inclusive environment”) but it was not clear to personnel what this actually meant. This made it difficult for people to know whether their work environment was safe, respectful, and inclusive.
6.44
Those who felt that Operation Respect was needed, especially those who had seen or experienced harmful behaviour, were frustrated that some in the organisation saw Operation Respect as a compliance exercise. They felt this meant NZDF was not prioritising addressing harmful behaviour. Many personnel told us that the gains that Operation Respect made when it was first introduced have now stalled.
Operation Respect was less well-known as an initiative to address bullying, harassment, and discrimination
6.45
Operation Respect was designed to address a wide spectrum of harmful behaviour, including sexual harm and bullying, harassment, and discrimination. However, most personnel we interviewed did not associate Operation Respect with addressing bullying, harassment, and discrimination. The reset of Operation Respect after the 2020 review does not appear to have addressed this gap in understanding.
6.46
However, personnel also told us that they supported the idea that Operation Respect should also focus on bullying, harassment, and discrimination, because they felt that these types of problems needed more visibility.
Impact area 3: NZDF personnel believe Operation Respect is an appropriate and effective initiative
6.47
In this impact area, we look at how necessary personnel consider Operation Respect is to NZDF’s success and how effective they think it has been.
Main findings for impact area 3
6.48
Personnel we spoke to believed that Operation Respect had been effective in reducing harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace to some degree. Most survey respondents (81.5%) reported that they felt that it was effective or very effective in reducing inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace. This rate was lower for women, especially junior uniformed women.
6.49
Most personnel still thought Operation Respect was needed. However, preventing harmful behaviour was not seen as something that all personnel feel collectively responsible for. Operation Respect was also still not widely understood as being core to operational effectiveness.
Detailed findings for impact area 3
Most personnel thought Operation Respect had been effective at reducing harmful behaviour
6.50
The survey asked respondents to rate how effective they thought Operation Respect had been at reducing inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace (see Figure 38).
Figure 38
Perception of Operation Respect’s effectiveness at reducing inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour in the workplace
| Very effective | Effective | Ineffective | Very ineffective | Total respondents | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | All | 12.1% | 69.4% | 13.9% | 4.5% | 4676 |
| Women | 9.1% | 70.6% | 16.4% | 3.8% | 1151 | |
| Navy | All | 10.9% | 71.7% | 13.0% | 4.3% | 771 |
| Women | 7.2% | 71.8% | 16.9% | 4.1% | 195 | |
| Army | All | 13.3% | 63.4% | 16.0% | 7.3% | 1539 |
| Women | 8.6% | 64.9% | 21.2% | 5.4% | 222 | |
| Air Force | All | 9.4% | 72.4% | 14.3% | 3.9% | 1214 |
| Women | 3.7% | 70.5% | 20.5% | 5.2% | 268 | |
| Civilian | All | 14.1% | 72.7% | 11.5% | 1.7% | 1145 |
| Women | 13.3% | 73.0% | 11.6% | 2.1% | 466 | |
Note: Totals for services and for civilians will not add up to total respondents because some respondents did not specify service or whether they are a civilian. Percentages might not add up to 100% due to rounding.
6.51
Most survey respondents (81.5%) said that they felt that Operation Respect was effective or very effective.
6.52
There was some variation between the services. Respondents in the Army had the lowest results when asked if they viewed Operation Respect as effective and the highest when they were asked if they viewed it as ineffective or very ineffective.
6.53
Almost one-quarter (23.3%) of respondents from the Army said that they felt that Operation Respect was ineffective or very ineffective, compared to 18.2% of respondents from the Air Force, 17.3% of respondents from the Navy, and 13.2% of civilian personnel.
6.54
Most personnel we interviewed said that Operation Respect had some effect in reducing harmful behaviour and had made it easier to report it where it occurs. We heard many examples of how personnel thought that Operation Respect had helped to change behaviours.
6.55
Personnel from the Army, Navy, and Air Force and civilian personnel described how Operation Respect helped them to:
- be more aware of what they say;
- come to more of a shared understanding of what behaviour is acceptable;
- stop seeing differences as something to make fun of;
- better understand reporting processes; and
- see that there could be consequences for people engaging in harmful behaviour.
6.56
Several personnel told us that they had changed their behaviour and how they treated peers. They said that they had been through a process of reflection and realised they needed to acknowledge the harm they had caused.
Women, especially junior uniformed women, were less likely to see Operation Respect as effective
6.57
Women (79.7%) were slightly less likely to agree that Operation Respect was effective or very effective than men (82.5%). Both junior women NCOs (73.2%) and junior women officers (69.3%) were less likely than other groups to believe that Operation Respect was effective or very effective.
6.58
This was also reflected in our interviews. Women said more often that they did not see Operation Respect as effective. This was particularly the case for women who had been affected by harmful behaviour that had not been dealt with satisfactorily.
6.59
Men were less likely to experience harmful behaviour or witness it (see Part 2). This might have positively influenced their views of Operation Respect’s effectiveness. Conversely, junior women were most likely to be affected by harmful behaviour and this may have negatively influenced their views. Because junior women are disproportionately impacted by harmful behaviour, it is particularly important to understand their perceptions about the effectiveness of Operation Respect.
Perceptions of effectiveness were impacted by how personnel related to key messages
6.60
Many personnel were still influenced by the messages they heard when Operation Respect was first launched in 2016. There was a widespread belief that the original message was that all men had the potential to commit sexual violence.
6.61
NZDF had tried to convey the message that sexual harm existed on a continuum: Unwanted sexual activity was at the extreme end and inappropriate sexual behaviour (such as sexualised jokes) was at the other end.
6.62
This message is consistent with research that shows that, although most people will not commit unwanted sexual activity, when inappropriate sexual behaviour is more common, the likelihood that unwanted sexual activity and other criminal behaviours will occur increases.59
6.63
We were told that many interpreted this message as equating inappropriate sexual behaviour with unwanted sexual activity. Personnel from all genders felt that this messaging created a sense of shame and division between them.
6.64
Although personnel generally felt that messaging about Operation Respect had changed, those feelings had stuck with them and influenced their views. This was echoed in comments we received in the survey. People told us that a more effective narrative of Operation Respect that conveys the importance of addressing all forms of harmful behaviour needed to be developed.
Most personnel felt that Operation Respect is needed to some extent
6.65
Personnel who had experienced, witnessed, or knew about harmful behaviour were more likely to see Operation Respect as needed to set clear boundaries and expectations about appropriate behaviour.
6.66
Some personnel told us how their views about Operation Respect had changed when they became more aware of the behaviour others experienced. In some instances, they had been sceptical of Operation Respect in the beginning because they did not think it related to them. They had not understood its purpose until they heard about individual cases (for example, from friends) or came into a role where they were more exposed to the harmful behaviour that others experienced.
A minority of personnel did not see it as a high priority
6.67
Some personnel we talked to were ambivalent about Operation Respect. Although they were not opposed to it, they did not see it as a high priority. This often occurred where harmful behaviour was not visible to them and they felt it had little bearing on their everyday work life. Although ambivalent views more commonly came from men, some women also felt this way.
6.68
In some of these instances, personnel expressed frustration about having to attend any activity related to Operation Respect (such as SERR training). They saw the training as irrelevant to them because they did not think they engaged in harmful behaviour.
6.69
Some felt that, because harmful behaviour occurs in wider society, it was a societal problem rather than an NZDF problem. Similarly, some felt that harmful behaviour was perpetrated by only a small number of personnel. They thought there was little NZDF could do to change these behaviours.
6.70
Personnel who held these views often did not see themselves as playing a role in actively supporting Operation Respect.
6.71
Several women we talked to expressed frustration that some men do not understand the impacts of harmful behaviour and did not take Operation Respect seriously.
6.72
We observed that there was not a shared understanding of Operation Respect as a collective responsibility. Some personnel felt that the original message of Operation Respect contributed to this because it created division rather than promoting collective responsibility.
A minority of women did not feel Operation Respect is needed
6.73
A small number of women we talked to, including those who had experienced harm, felt Operation Respect drew attention to them and made their situation worse.
6.74
This was most apparent when they worked in male-dominated environments (although not all women in male-dominated environments felt this way). Some women working in these environments said that it was important that they fit into the unit and did not want to be defined by their gender.
6.75
They felt that initiatives such as Operation Respect (and work on increasing recruitment and retention of women) drew attention to them and made them feel different from men. In their view, this increased the chance that men would perceive them as advancing in the organisation only because of special treatment.
6.76
We heard about women distancing themselves from Operation Respect for these reasons. These feelings were also expressed in some of the survey comments. These respondents said that Operation Respect isolates women and makes them feel less camaraderie than they had previously.
A minority felt that Operation Respect causes harm to NZDF
6.77
A small group felt that Operation Respect is not needed and causes harm to NZDF. They expressed this view in a variety of ways in our interviews and survey comments.
6.78
There was a sense from some that attention focused on Operation Respect takes attention away from operational outputs and gets in the way of operational effectiveness. In survey comments, some personnel said that “political correctness” or “cancel culture” is ruining the military’s capabilities.
6.79
A general theme was that Operation Respect is too focused on targeting “banter” and some felt it would remove the ability for people to joke and have fun in the workplace. Some felt this would affect team morale and the ability of teams to work effectively. This was especially the case in difficult circumstances (for example, on field exercises or long deployments on ships).
6.80
Although some of what personnel described as banter sounded like appropriate workplace behaviour, some of what we heard described as banter appeared to be potentially harmful (that is, sexualised jokes). This indicates a lack of shared understanding of what harmful banter is and the negative impacts it can have.
6.81
Some personnel felt that the focus on respectful behaviours might conflict with NZDF’s aims and reduce the ability of personnel in combat roles to engage in combat effectively. This view was more common among Army personnel we spoke to.
6.82
Some personnel also felt that Operation Respect could affect leaders’ ability to command. We were told that if personnel are encouraged to speak up and question decisions, this could lead to personnel not following orders. This view was more common among Navy personnel we spoke to.
Most did not link Operation Respect to operational effectiveness
6.83
Personnel had a variety of views for why Operation Respect is important, including, most commonly, that it is needed to ensure that personnel treat each other with respect. However, what this meant was not consistently defined (see paragraph 2.207).
6.84
From what we heard, there did not seem to be a shared understanding of Operation Respect’s value to operational effectiveness.
6.85
Some personnel talked about Operation Respect as being central to organisational success. For example, some commented that NZDF is a high-performing organisation that needs a diverse range of skillsets, and to have these respected. Those people recognised that Operation Respect could support that.
6.86
The need for Operation Respect was often better understood in areas such as training units, where it is better able to be embedded in everyday work. However, overall it was evident that, for many personnel, Operation Respect is more a “nice to have” than an initiative fundamental to NZDF’s success.
6.87
Many personnel had thoughts on how Operation Respect could be more effective. Many outlined ideas to embed Operation Respect in their work environments and encourage more ownership of it. It was noted that, to be effective, Operation Respect needs to be focused on enabling and supporting operational roles.
6.88
Personnel also talked about how to get buy in. The ability of leaders to talk about and lead this work was frequently mentioned (see Part 3). Personnel recommended that the focus of Operation Respect be at the unit and team level, with involvement from junior personnel, and informed by what drives the team.
56: Firmin, C, Lloyd, J, and Walker, J (2019), “Beyond referrals: Levers for addressing harmful sexual behaviours between students at school in England”, International journal of qualitative studies in education, 32(10), pages 1229-1249.
57: Firmin, C, Lloyd, J, and Walker, J (2019), “Beyond referrals: Levers for addressing harmful sexual behaviours between students at school in England”, International journal of qualitative studies in education, 32(10), pages 1229-1249.
58: Breslin, RA, Klahr, A, Hylton, K, Petusky, M, and White, A (2020),2019 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members: Results and Trends, Office of People Analytics Fors Marsh Group, LLC; Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Farris, C, and Morral, A (2021), The relationship between sexual assault and sexual harassment in the US Military: Findings from the RAND military workplace study. RAND Corporation.
59: Breslin, RA, Klahr, A, Hylton, K, Petusky, M, and White, A (2020), 2019 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members: Results and Trends, Office of People Analytics Fors Marsh Group, LLC; Schell, TL, Cefalu, M, Farris, C, and Morral, A (2021). The relationship between sexual assault and sexual harassment in the US Military: Findings from the RAND military workplace study, RAND Corporation.