The mentions in this story of what the Angels did remind me of the time members of the Angeli family moved the Holy House from Nazareth (under islamic invasion) to safety in Loretto. History duly recorded that angels did the incredible deed...
"“Fr. Steve, as CEO...never should have been a spiritual director or confessor to his own staff members, as this violates the dynamic of internal/external forum, which blurs the appropriate spiritual boundaries,” their letter said."
I'm quite confused. It seems like the Gloor investigation was handled appropriately. People are complaining about a lack of communication, but that's pretty par for the course with HR and privacy; nobody outside those investigating are supposed to have details.
Ultimately, Gloor was terminated, which seems unfair, but that was the decision of the board and their call to make.
I'm not sure what people are angry about? That he was fired? But then they talk about his negative influence and potential favoritism, so shouldn't they be happy he was let go?
I thought WoF's statement regarding the timeline of events and the accountabilities of the organization was spot on. What am I missing here?
I'm confused as well. You really have to squint to see the problem. Misconduct alleged, investigation conducted, accused fired. Sounds like more than anything the complaint is about tone and culture. One worries that this is more a case of workplace politics, and its associated resentments, playing out in public than anything else.
It really does have that vibe. People have latched on an opportunity to air their petty grievances while the public is paying attention. Is the workplace culture bad? Maybe. But that alone isn't scandalous nor is it worthy of the attention it has been getting.
And given the "workplace politics" nature of this, what is the public interest that is served by giving so much space to anonymous sources, airing lengthy quotes from them? It may have been better to limit the article to something more concise, limiting to the most well-substantiated facts--and asking people to put their names behind any broader commentary they want to make on the situation.
A lot of vapour, seems to me. Strenuous efforts to expose a non existent scandal. Lots of huff and puff reporting. Employees come across as whiners and whingers
Workplace culture is extremely important to a nonprofit because it’s important for donors to know how their funds are being used (or wasted, in this case). There is much research that shows a toxic workplace not only leads to high turnover, but also has a major impact on business productivity and profit. If so many employees as already leaving, it sounds like productivity is already being significantly negatively affected.
Many of the issues JD raises not only sound like a toxic workplace, but also illegal. Steve Grunow threatening employees with termination for asking legitimate questions about an employee on leave may be illegal, or least least poses a big liability risk for wrongful termination. Gloor speaking inappropriately (assuming JD means Gloor making sexually inappropriate comments as referenced in the Chris Damien articles) in front of Grunow and Barron, where Grunow and Barron were silent and didn’t correct the behavior, means they enabled a culture that allowed Gloor to sexual harass women at work (also illegal). That’s sexual harassment training 101. These are just some examples of the illegal conduct, but there’s more. Any of these facts could lead to an employee lawsuit. Also, a big red flag for donors. Why would a donor want their money to go towards defending a lawsuit that could have easily been prevented by having an HR department that just enforced the law? Or prevented by firing an incompetent CEO who clearly has anger issues?
So, no, it’s incorrect to dismiss all of these facts as just run-of-the mill workplace issues. Illegal and toxic workplace behavior pose a big financial risk and must be taken very seriously. And, not to mention WOF is a Catholic organization, so it should be held to a higher standard. What kind of true Catholic would put so many families of the employees through so much emotional distress? That isn’t very Christ-like.
Thanks for your reply, Rose. If you would indulge me, I would be curious if you could expand on some points for me.
What law is being broken by Steve Grunow threatening employees with termination for asking after matters not related to their employment? Notwithstanding that the accusation is hearsay, an employee asking about a private HR matter about another employee would be grounds for a verbal reprimand at companies I have worked for, under the “need to know” principle. While an aggressive response, this is the first I have heard that it would be illegal to suggest a consequence of poking around where you do not belong is termination of employment.
Your assumption that Gloor was making sexually inappropriate comments is itself an inappropriate comment; we do not know what Gloor was or was not doing and to presume is unhelpful and lacks charity. Obviously, if there was harassment, it needed to be dealt with, but we do not know the specifics, other than vagaries of supposed inappropriate behaviour. Supposition and innuendo are not sufficient grounds to build a legal case.
One might even argue that Gloor’s eventual termination was itself related to these alleged inappropriate comments, which goes back to my point of confusion regarding the whole bru-ha-ha around WoF; it seems the matter was dealt with, yet the outcome does not seem to satisfy. Why is that?
As you suggest, perhaps it is donors who want more digging, but illegal behaviour is a risk to any workplace, as is toxic behaviour, yet there is little indication that either is more of a concern here than in any other environment. I am fine with wanting to hold them to a higher standard, but what exactly does that look like in this context? What could WoF have done differently to satisfy their legal and moral obligations more than what they have done?
As I mentioned previously, it appears the investigation was handled appropriately and the decision on what to do about Gloor was made through the appropriate channels and by the relevant authority.
The rest of the commentary seems like sour grapes from disgruntled employees who, as I said, are taking advantage of a difficult situation to recriminate against their former employer.
In my experience, it is these exact types of people that themselves create a toxic workplace culture and I have a suspicion that WoF will be better off without people like that in their organization.
As you indicated, this situation is less about what did or did not happen, but rather the emotional impacts of how donors feel the situation was handled and whether those involved were treated fairly.
In the absence of anything verifiable, I am not inclined to take the word of potential malcontents as gospel and will be curious to see how The Pillar’s reporting develops from here.
Post-Script:
I am unclear as to which families you are referring to who went through emotional distress or even what distress to which you are referring. Could you clarify?
Maurice—how fun to have a last name after my most favorite Italian dish! Your response is very thoughtful. I’ll place your quotes and then my responses.
You said: “An employee asking about a private HR matter about another employee would be grounds for a verbal reprimand.”
No, it would not be. It’s not common practice for a CEO to threaten an employee for asking questions about where an employee is. It’s not best practice, either. A proper response would have been to follow their progressive discipline process and address any policy violations with employees. Sure, a CEO can fire anyone on the spot, but it will be very difficult for the CEO to defend his action in a wrongful termination claim because they denied that employee due process. And, in this situation, there is clear favoritism being shown between other employees and Gloor. Gloor was thoroughly investigated before being fired, yet Grunow was ready to fire anyone on the spot for simply asking questions about where Gloor was? This is a very risky management practice and not common whatsoever. It’s a big liability for a CEO to behave that way.
Also, Gloor was not just any employee. He was one of the most senior employees, the highest-paid according to this article, and at least 40 employees relied on him for their jobs. The article states: “So Joe’s the senior producer…what he did directly impacted 40 employees, at least.” It is very reasonable for any employee to ask about the status of arguably the most senior employee, other than the CEO, upon whom their job duties relied. Grunow’s threat of termination is not an appropriate response in this situation because employees naturally would be asking questions about where Gloor was because there was no formal communication about his whereabouts.
You mention hearsay, which I’m not sure what the relevance of that comment is here. Hearsay is only not admissible in a court of law, but it is admissible in workplace investigations. So, it isn’t a relevant concept to bring up in a workplace context. You can’t dismiss something in a workplace context as “hearsay” because everything being discussed in a workplace is essentially hearsay. Hearsay is commonly used in HR investigations and can lead to relevant evidence. If it wasn’t, there would be no such thing as an HR complaint because it would all be hearsay.
You said: “Your assumption that Gloor was making sexually inappropriate comments is itself an inappropriate comment.”
I did not assume that Gloor sexually harassed women at work—both this article and another article state that. I only assumed JD was also referring to the other article I had read. In an article by Chris Damien (https://chrisdamian.substack.com/p/misogyny-at-word-on-fire?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F11988131-chris-damian&utm_medium=reader2&s=r), a woman who interviewed with Word on Fire spent time in the Word on Fire office with Gloor. She said that there was “constant (graphic) talk about only being open to marrying women who were virgins with hymens in tact.” This Pillar article also itself states: “complaints about [Gloor’s] failure to observe professional boundaries with female colleagues went unaddressed.” All of these are sexual harassment.
You said: “What could WoF have done differently to satisfy their legal and moral obligations more than what they have done?”
First, make a standard HR communication that Gloor was on administrative leave. Employees are generally notified, as part of standard HR procedures, that an employee is on administrative leave and contact information is provided for someone else to follow up with for business-related questions. A simple benign email to all staff that stated “Gloor is on administrative leave. Here is who you can contact in his absence” would have sufficed. That statement does not reveal any confidential information about the employee on leave. Again, that statement is common HR practice for employees on leave, especially for executives or senior employees.
Second, you seemed to have glossed over many of the very troublesome aspects of the investigation outlined in this article, such as “Barron identified the alleged victim to Word on Fire employees.” It exposes WOF to liability to disclose the identity of a victim to all of the employees, not to mention it is inappropriate and unethical. This article also states that employees claim “Word on Fire leaders favored Gloor during the probe into his conduct.” If true, that is also troublesome and must be investigated. In a company with an effective HR department, the employees interviewed in this article should have been able to file an HR complaint against Grunow for the alleged favoritism shown to Gloor during the investigation, and Grunow should have been investigated. If WOF simply chose not to investigate these complaints from these employees, that is also a big HR “no-no.”
You said, “In my experience, it is these exact types of people that themselves create a toxic workplace culture and I have a suspicion that WoF will be better off without people like that in their organization.”
Again, false. A toxic workplace is almost always top-down. It begins with the leadership of a company. This Pillar article mentions 6 former and current employees—that’s enough to show this is a leadership problem, and not an employee problem. Read up on HR research and you will find this to be the case.
You said: “I am unclear as to which families you are referring to who went through emotional distress or even what distress to which you are referring. Could you clarify?”
This article is filled with comments from employees who are clearly experiencing emotional distress. Every one of these six former and current employees has a family. The Angels specifically call out their mental health. One particular quote I found striking was: “Fr. Steve, as CEO...never should have been a spiritual director or confessor to his own staff members, as this violates the dynamic of internal/external forum, which blurs the appropriate spiritual boundaries.” You don’t think the families of these employees have suffered as a result of workplace bullying, a toxic workplace, and spiritual manipulation? The spiritual manipulation makes me even question the theology of WOF. And, we wonder why people leave the Church. How can Bishop Barron evangelize the world when he can’t effectively minister to his own employees?
Dysfunction in a rich and powerful Catholic organization in a country where most people, including the bishops, worship money and power? Say it ain’t so! In all seriousness, though, isn’t the evangelization supposed to come from how we love each other? (“To will the good of the other,” as Bishop Barron likes to quote.) So let’s give away all the money and power and love each other already!
Word on Fire and Bishop Barron have made magnificent contributions to deepening the faith of many Catholics worldwide. But in order to move forward, they should come clean and explain exactly what happened, what mistakes were actually made, etc and how to improve in the future. Because as someone who has purchased many items from WOF bookstores etc, I certainly won't be supporting them again until it is evident that things have changed. Regardless of what wrong a person does in any walk of life, you cannot beat transparency and honesty even if it means certain repercussions. People will respect you more in the long run too, especially if you admit you were wrong.
A mess, and a fear of messiness. It's clear that the people at Word on Fire are imperfect, and it's also clear that the people at Word on Fire are afraid of imperfection. It's as if everyone went into this expecting to be working with perfectly-program robots that communicate perfectly and never make mistakes, and then got upset that they were actually working with humans who behave like humans.
While there are some obvious organizational fixes that need to be implemented--Fr Steve can't be CEO and spiritual director, for instance--the biggest problem at Word on Fire seems to be a pervasive spiritual naivete among the people working there. People are messy, even people striving for holiness. Get used to it.
Not ideal news, but things we needed to hear. Good work, Pillar team.
damn, rip word on fire.
The mentions in this story of what the Angels did remind me of the time members of the Angeli family moved the Holy House from Nazareth (under islamic invasion) to safety in Loretto. History duly recorded that angels did the incredible deed...
Neutral outside expert organizational review to distinguish opinion from fact and recommend a future course of action seems like the way to go.
"“Fr. Steve, as CEO...never should have been a spiritual director or confessor to his own staff members, as this violates the dynamic of internal/external forum, which blurs the appropriate spiritual boundaries,” their letter said."
That is a big problem.
Amen. How in the world was that allowed to happen?
I'm quite confused. It seems like the Gloor investigation was handled appropriately. People are complaining about a lack of communication, but that's pretty par for the course with HR and privacy; nobody outside those investigating are supposed to have details.
Ultimately, Gloor was terminated, which seems unfair, but that was the decision of the board and their call to make.
I'm not sure what people are angry about? That he was fired? But then they talk about his negative influence and potential favoritism, so shouldn't they be happy he was let go?
I thought WoF's statement regarding the timeline of events and the accountabilities of the organization was spot on. What am I missing here?
I'm confused as well. You really have to squint to see the problem. Misconduct alleged, investigation conducted, accused fired. Sounds like more than anything the complaint is about tone and culture. One worries that this is more a case of workplace politics, and its associated resentments, playing out in public than anything else.
It really does have that vibe. People have latched on an opportunity to air their petty grievances while the public is paying attention. Is the workplace culture bad? Maybe. But that alone isn't scandalous nor is it worthy of the attention it has been getting.
Agreed, it reads like Glassdoor reviews.
Agree! I have no dog in this fight at all, but I’m confused by what the real substance of the issue is.
And given the "workplace politics" nature of this, what is the public interest that is served by giving so much space to anonymous sources, airing lengthy quotes from them? It may have been better to limit the article to something more concise, limiting to the most well-substantiated facts--and asking people to put their names behind any broader commentary they want to make on the situation.
Too long
I don’t see the problem either.
A lot of vapour, seems to me. Strenuous efforts to expose a non existent scandal. Lots of huff and puff reporting. Employees come across as whiners and whingers
Your first pratfall, Pillar.
Workplace culture is extremely important to a nonprofit because it’s important for donors to know how their funds are being used (or wasted, in this case). There is much research that shows a toxic workplace not only leads to high turnover, but also has a major impact on business productivity and profit. If so many employees as already leaving, it sounds like productivity is already being significantly negatively affected.
Many of the issues JD raises not only sound like a toxic workplace, but also illegal. Steve Grunow threatening employees with termination for asking legitimate questions about an employee on leave may be illegal, or least least poses a big liability risk for wrongful termination. Gloor speaking inappropriately (assuming JD means Gloor making sexually inappropriate comments as referenced in the Chris Damien articles) in front of Grunow and Barron, where Grunow and Barron were silent and didn’t correct the behavior, means they enabled a culture that allowed Gloor to sexual harass women at work (also illegal). That’s sexual harassment training 101. These are just some examples of the illegal conduct, but there’s more. Any of these facts could lead to an employee lawsuit. Also, a big red flag for donors. Why would a donor want their money to go towards defending a lawsuit that could have easily been prevented by having an HR department that just enforced the law? Or prevented by firing an incompetent CEO who clearly has anger issues?
So, no, it’s incorrect to dismiss all of these facts as just run-of-the mill workplace issues. Illegal and toxic workplace behavior pose a big financial risk and must be taken very seriously. And, not to mention WOF is a Catholic organization, so it should be held to a higher standard. What kind of true Catholic would put so many families of the employees through so much emotional distress? That isn’t very Christ-like.
Edited for clarity
Thanks for your reply, Rose. If you would indulge me, I would be curious if you could expand on some points for me.
What law is being broken by Steve Grunow threatening employees with termination for asking after matters not related to their employment? Notwithstanding that the accusation is hearsay, an employee asking about a private HR matter about another employee would be grounds for a verbal reprimand at companies I have worked for, under the “need to know” principle. While an aggressive response, this is the first I have heard that it would be illegal to suggest a consequence of poking around where you do not belong is termination of employment.
Your assumption that Gloor was making sexually inappropriate comments is itself an inappropriate comment; we do not know what Gloor was or was not doing and to presume is unhelpful and lacks charity. Obviously, if there was harassment, it needed to be dealt with, but we do not know the specifics, other than vagaries of supposed inappropriate behaviour. Supposition and innuendo are not sufficient grounds to build a legal case.
One might even argue that Gloor’s eventual termination was itself related to these alleged inappropriate comments, which goes back to my point of confusion regarding the whole bru-ha-ha around WoF; it seems the matter was dealt with, yet the outcome does not seem to satisfy. Why is that?
As you suggest, perhaps it is donors who want more digging, but illegal behaviour is a risk to any workplace, as is toxic behaviour, yet there is little indication that either is more of a concern here than in any other environment. I am fine with wanting to hold them to a higher standard, but what exactly does that look like in this context? What could WoF have done differently to satisfy their legal and moral obligations more than what they have done?
As I mentioned previously, it appears the investigation was handled appropriately and the decision on what to do about Gloor was made through the appropriate channels and by the relevant authority.
The rest of the commentary seems like sour grapes from disgruntled employees who, as I said, are taking advantage of a difficult situation to recriminate against their former employer.
In my experience, it is these exact types of people that themselves create a toxic workplace culture and I have a suspicion that WoF will be better off without people like that in their organization.
As you indicated, this situation is less about what did or did not happen, but rather the emotional impacts of how donors feel the situation was handled and whether those involved were treated fairly.
In the absence of anything verifiable, I am not inclined to take the word of potential malcontents as gospel and will be curious to see how The Pillar’s reporting develops from here.
Post-Script:
I am unclear as to which families you are referring to who went through emotional distress or even what distress to which you are referring. Could you clarify?
Maurice—how fun to have a last name after my most favorite Italian dish! Your response is very thoughtful. I’ll place your quotes and then my responses.
You said: “An employee asking about a private HR matter about another employee would be grounds for a verbal reprimand.”
No, it would not be. It’s not common practice for a CEO to threaten an employee for asking questions about where an employee is. It’s not best practice, either. A proper response would have been to follow their progressive discipline process and address any policy violations with employees. Sure, a CEO can fire anyone on the spot, but it will be very difficult for the CEO to defend his action in a wrongful termination claim because they denied that employee due process. And, in this situation, there is clear favoritism being shown between other employees and Gloor. Gloor was thoroughly investigated before being fired, yet Grunow was ready to fire anyone on the spot for simply asking questions about where Gloor was? This is a very risky management practice and not common whatsoever. It’s a big liability for a CEO to behave that way.
Also, Gloor was not just any employee. He was one of the most senior employees, the highest-paid according to this article, and at least 40 employees relied on him for their jobs. The article states: “So Joe’s the senior producer…what he did directly impacted 40 employees, at least.” It is very reasonable for any employee to ask about the status of arguably the most senior employee, other than the CEO, upon whom their job duties relied. Grunow’s threat of termination is not an appropriate response in this situation because employees naturally would be asking questions about where Gloor was because there was no formal communication about his whereabouts.
You mention hearsay, which I’m not sure what the relevance of that comment is here. Hearsay is only not admissible in a court of law, but it is admissible in workplace investigations. So, it isn’t a relevant concept to bring up in a workplace context. You can’t dismiss something in a workplace context as “hearsay” because everything being discussed in a workplace is essentially hearsay. Hearsay is commonly used in HR investigations and can lead to relevant evidence. If it wasn’t, there would be no such thing as an HR complaint because it would all be hearsay.
You said: “Your assumption that Gloor was making sexually inappropriate comments is itself an inappropriate comment.”
I did not assume that Gloor sexually harassed women at work—both this article and another article state that. I only assumed JD was also referring to the other article I had read. In an article by Chris Damien (https://chrisdamian.substack.com/p/misogyny-at-word-on-fire?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F11988131-chris-damian&utm_medium=reader2&s=r), a woman who interviewed with Word on Fire spent time in the Word on Fire office with Gloor. She said that there was “constant (graphic) talk about only being open to marrying women who were virgins with hymens in tact.” This Pillar article also itself states: “complaints about [Gloor’s] failure to observe professional boundaries with female colleagues went unaddressed.” All of these are sexual harassment.
You said: “What could WoF have done differently to satisfy their legal and moral obligations more than what they have done?”
First, make a standard HR communication that Gloor was on administrative leave. Employees are generally notified, as part of standard HR procedures, that an employee is on administrative leave and contact information is provided for someone else to follow up with for business-related questions. A simple benign email to all staff that stated “Gloor is on administrative leave. Here is who you can contact in his absence” would have sufficed. That statement does not reveal any confidential information about the employee on leave. Again, that statement is common HR practice for employees on leave, especially for executives or senior employees.
Second, you seemed to have glossed over many of the very troublesome aspects of the investigation outlined in this article, such as “Barron identified the alleged victim to Word on Fire employees.” It exposes WOF to liability to disclose the identity of a victim to all of the employees, not to mention it is inappropriate and unethical. This article also states that employees claim “Word on Fire leaders favored Gloor during the probe into his conduct.” If true, that is also troublesome and must be investigated. In a company with an effective HR department, the employees interviewed in this article should have been able to file an HR complaint against Grunow for the alleged favoritism shown to Gloor during the investigation, and Grunow should have been investigated. If WOF simply chose not to investigate these complaints from these employees, that is also a big HR “no-no.”
You said, “In my experience, it is these exact types of people that themselves create a toxic workplace culture and I have a suspicion that WoF will be better off without people like that in their organization.”
Again, false. A toxic workplace is almost always top-down. It begins with the leadership of a company. This Pillar article mentions 6 former and current employees—that’s enough to show this is a leadership problem, and not an employee problem. Read up on HR research and you will find this to be the case.
You said: “I am unclear as to which families you are referring to who went through emotional distress or even what distress to which you are referring. Could you clarify?”
This article is filled with comments from employees who are clearly experiencing emotional distress. Every one of these six former and current employees has a family. The Angels specifically call out their mental health. One particular quote I found striking was: “Fr. Steve, as CEO...never should have been a spiritual director or confessor to his own staff members, as this violates the dynamic of internal/external forum, which blurs the appropriate spiritual boundaries.” You don’t think the families of these employees have suffered as a result of workplace bullying, a toxic workplace, and spiritual manipulation? The spiritual manipulation makes me even question the theology of WOF. And, we wonder why people leave the Church. How can Bishop Barron evangelize the world when he can’t effectively minister to his own employees?
Edited for clarity
Dysfunction in a rich and powerful Catholic organization in a country where most people, including the bishops, worship money and power? Say it ain’t so! In all seriousness, though, isn’t the evangelization supposed to come from how we love each other? (“To will the good of the other,” as Bishop Barron likes to quote.) So let’s give away all the money and power and love each other already!
Word on Fire and Bishop Barron have made magnificent contributions to deepening the faith of many Catholics worldwide. But in order to move forward, they should come clean and explain exactly what happened, what mistakes were actually made, etc and how to improve in the future. Because as someone who has purchased many items from WOF bookstores etc, I certainly won't be supporting them again until it is evident that things have changed. Regardless of what wrong a person does in any walk of life, you cannot beat transparency and honesty even if it means certain repercussions. People will respect you more in the long run too, especially if you admit you were wrong.
A mess, and a fear of messiness. It's clear that the people at Word on Fire are imperfect, and it's also clear that the people at Word on Fire are afraid of imperfection. It's as if everyone went into this expecting to be working with perfectly-program robots that communicate perfectly and never make mistakes, and then got upset that they were actually working with humans who behave like humans.
While there are some obvious organizational fixes that need to be implemented--Fr Steve can't be CEO and spiritual director, for instance--the biggest problem at Word on Fire seems to be a pervasive spiritual naivete among the people working there. People are messy, even people striving for holiness. Get used to it.