Without proper training, even well-meaning feedback can cross into harassment, says lawyer after Columbia U incident
On April 18, Columbia University made headlines when Swelle Chan, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, was fired following allegations of concerning behaviour towards colleagues. Staff members alleged that they experienced insults, threats, and overall hostility working under Chan’s leadership.
In a statement published on LinkedIn, Chan called his dismissal “hasty, ill-considered, and quite frankly baffling,” and described his interactions with colleagues as "pointed conversations". He claimed the complaints stemmed from situations where he offered "fair and critical feedback rooted in editorial rigor."
This incident highlights the broader issue of when feedback intended to improve performance may cross the line into hostility.
Malini Vijaykumar, labour lawyer at Nelligan Law, spoke with HRD about how managers can avoid having feedback come out with hostility.
“Hostile behaviour is another term for workplace harassment," says Vijaykumar.
According to the Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), workplace harassment can be defined as a worker engaging in a comment or conduct in the workplace that is known, or “ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome."
It can include unwelcome words or actions that can be offensive, embarrassing, or humiliating to a worker, as well as behaviours that intimidate, isolate, or discriminate against a worker or a group.
Performance review feedback crosses the line into hostility and harassment when the feedback is given in an aggressive, belittling, and demanding tone, Vijaykumar explains.
“If [a manager is] raising their voice... and even going so far as to say, 'Your work is terrible,' if they're using strong words like that, that's when it can cross the line into harassment — or what people might colloquially refer to as a hostile workplace,” she adds.
The OSHA requires all employers to have a policy and procedure in place to investigate and address workplace harassment.
Policies, documentation, and training are the three steps that Vijaykumar recommends to reduce legal risks and prevent issues like this from happening.
Prevention usually starts with training managers on how to deliver feedback appropriately, she says.
“Oftentimes, in technical or professional fields, someone can become a manager without ever having received training in how to manage people — and as a result, they may not know how to conduct productive, positive, and appropriate performance management,” she explains.
Vijaykumar notes that untrained managers may also struggle to use appropriate language when addressing performance concerns, leaving employees feeling personally attacked.
"HR can provide the training for them, along with role-play scenarios, so that they can practice delivering negative or constructive feedback to an employee in a manner that's not seen as hostile," she adds.
Vijaykumar suggests that HR should also join performance review meetings when necessary to help moderate the conversation. “The simple act of adding a third person can help bring the temperature down a bit,” she says.
She also recommends that both managers and employees take notes during performance reviews. Whenever possible, managers should provide employees with a written review in advance to avoid surprises.
“What I've seen is that meetings tend to go better if nobody is taken by surprise — if the employee has had a chance to see the review in writing beforehand,” she says.
Poor record-keeping, Vijaykumar adds, is one of the most common mistakes employers make.
When employees raise concerns about hostility during a performance review meeting, HR should first review any available records or notes from the meeting, Vijaykumar says.
“Meet with the parties separately, get each side's version of the story, because there may be two different versions of what happened in that room,” she explains.
HR and employers should then refer to their workplace harassment policy to determine whether the concern warrants further investigation, particularly if the employee’s health and safety could be at risk.
In cases where it’s unclear who to believe, Vijaykumar suggests looking at patterns in the manager’s and employee’s behaviour.
She says, employees who have successfully filed harassment complaints often provided evidence of a pattern of concerning behaviour by a manager —such as multiple employees coming forward with similar experiences.
When the same concerns surface again and again, employers may no longer be dealing with a one-off miscommunication, but a pattern of behaviour.
