2018 EEOC Report Shows Spike in Sexual Harassment Charges

In fiscal year 2018 the EEOC saw an increase in sexual harassment charges over 2017 numbers.  The EEOC filed 66 harassment lawsuits, including 41 that included allegations of sexual harassment.  These preliminary numbers reflect more than a 50% increase in suits challenging sexual harassment over fiscal year 2017.  As a result, the agency has put a new emphasis on anti-harassment efforts, focusing on training and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

The numbers:  The EEOC recovered almost $70 million for sexual harassment claims in fiscal year 2018.  This is an increase from $47.5 million in fiscal year 2017.

"The EEOC's innovative training program "Respectful Workplaces," which teaches skills for employees and supervisors to promote and contribute to respect in the workplace, was in high demand since it was launched in October 2017.  Over 9,000 employees and supervisors in the private, public and federal sector work forces participated in Respectful Workplaces trainings this past fiscal year.   An additional 13,000 employees participated in the EEOC's anti-harassment compliance trainings."

Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, a senior attorney adviser to the chair of the EEOC, stated that sexual charges increase and decrease in response to major national events.  Early reports reflect that #MeToo may be one of those events prompting a spike in claims.

In closing, never turn a blind eye to potential or actual acts of harassment in your organization.  Be proactive.  Address the situation.  Alternatively you may find yourself on the receiving end of an EEOC claim.

The Quality of Being Honest

HR is torn between two masters.  The first master is the employer who controls your job, your career and that much desired paycheck.  The second master is the multitude of state, federal and local laws that govern employment actions.

What happens when there is a conflict between the two?  HR, with knowledge in hand, has the dilemma of "should I tell you what you WANT to hear, or what you NEED to hear?"  Hopefully you will go with the latter action and not be silenced by the fear of the internal consequences of your honesty.  But if you're in an employment situation wherein you're dealing with a narcissistic boss, bring that Emotional Intelligence into play.  

• Have a game plan as to how you'll communicate with him/her.  
• Frame your communication so that it meets the facts equally well, but paves the way for the most positive communication.  

Always operate in a professional and ethical manner within the workforce, regardless of whatever situation you're faced with.

Manager Ethics.

Whether via creative accounting, discrimination, harassment, wage inequality, or health and safety violations, organizations periodically experience ethical challenges.  In 2013 the National Business Ethics Survey reported that managers are to blame for workplace misconduct the majority (60%) of the time.

In December 2017 the ECI (Ethics and Compliance Initiative) continued its longitudinal study of the U.S. workforce, collecting data from over 5,000 employees.  The data reflected "pressure for employees to cut corners is on the rise, along with retaliation for reporting."  Patricia Harned, CEO of ECI.  Additional highlights from the U.S. data reflected:

• 16% of employees experienced pressure to compromise ethical standards, a 23% increase since 2013. 
• 84% of those employees also observed misconduct.

In many ways the field of business ethics appears irrelevant for managers as ethics and business interests can conflict.  The issue here is not when the conflict occurs, but how the manager responds.  Managers need to be able to reason through ethical decisions, just as they would reason through any managerial problem facing them.  Many times, ethics-laden situations involve issues that are clearly right or wrong when judged by the organizational values or the code of conduct.

Ethics are moral principles that drive our behavior.  The policies, rules and regulations within an organization should be the same for every employee regardless of their role, title or status. Business leaders, managers and supervisors should set clear guidelines for ethical behavior in the organization.  They should embody the principles of ethics.  

The Bro Culture Exists

On November 7th SHRM released an article entitled "How Masculinity Contests Undermine Organizations and What To Do About It."  The article addressed illegal behavior, harassment and toxic leadership that develops in companies with a bro culture.

It is unfortunate that this behavior exists, but exist it does.  When faced with environments dominated by the bro culture, where actions block female employees from participating in the male-dominated decision-making circles, or exclude them from boardrooms or leadership teams, organization effectiveness is damaged.  Employee engagement deteriorates.  Talent is lost.

For women (or minorities) in these environments, there's not seat at the conference room table - they're not even in the same room.

The bro culture is an office clique.  The really bad news?  If the leadership team are all members of the bro culture, don't expect anything to change.

"Small acts of inappropriate behavior that often go unpunished in a bro culture can normalize, leading to a toxic atmosphere in the workplace."  Adam bear and Joshua Knobe wrote about normalization in the political realm for The New York Times.

My recommendation.  If you want change, change the people inside.  Change your culture.

Do Pretty People Get the Jobs?

There are different hidden issues that can influence the recruitment and selection process other than the qualifications and experience of the candidates.  Appearance is one of them.  There is considerable evidence that physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive an individual, the greater the likelihood that the person will be hired (Watkins and Johnson, 2000).  Similarly, other factors like the age of the candidate, facial expressions and attractive communication skills are effective too.

Research shows that beautiful people are hired sooner, get promotions quicker, are higher ranking in their companies, and receive extra benefits.  The benefit to the employer?  It turns out that attractive people often bring more money to their companies and therefore are more valuable employees.

Is there an link between the applicant's physical appearance, grooming, dressing style and the hiring decision by managers?  To quote my son,  "If you have two equally qualified candidates in a business environment, are you going to hire the pretty person or the not so pretty person?  You're going to hire the pretty person!  I want to shop with the pretty girl, not the pimply guy!"

But all of these practices of biasness can put an organization at risk for applying unethical actions. Making decisions based on the non-job-related factors is detrimental to the overall organizational performance.  And, employers must be cautions of the reputation of their business.

For just a moment let's reflect on American Apparel's disturbing beauty-based hiring policy.  But then again, Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch also have the same sex-appeal based employment policies. Abercrombie and Fitch lost a class action lawsuit that claimed the organizations "look policy" was racially discriminatory.  The court found that a specific "all American" look was not necessary for the actual job in which the company was hiring, and the company settled the case for $50 million and agreed to change its "look policy" to hire candidates of varying races.  But, they did not face legal trouble for hiring attractive people.  They needed to clarify that "good looking" people come from varying races.

Given the legislation prohibiting employment discrimination based on non-job-related factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, age and disability, it is interesting that there is no legislation regarding physical attractiveness.  Because many of these protected factors tend to overlap with physical attractiveness or personal appearance, employers need to tread carefully.  An example of where personal appearance may intersect with protections under law include not hiring a person because s/he is obese (ADA) or a preference for hiring younger employees as opposed to older employees, or biasing a specific gender or race as more attractive.

Workplace Trends for 2015 #3

3.  Honesty becomes a revered leadership trait.  "Companies are going to start embracing transparency more next year as younger generations are demanding it.  Leaders won't just have to be good at inspiring and educating, they will have to be able to instill trust through honesty."

HRi:  We all encounter issues with honesty in the workplace from time to time.  How we handle these situations makes the difference in how our employees and coworkers view and trust us.  And, every organization is different.  In an environment where employees are forced into competition with each other, such focus may be at the expense of honest behavior.   Leaders should hold themselves to a high moral and ethical standard, leading employees by example.  Promote honest and open communication, ensuring the environment is free from rumors and negativity.  To quote Rex Huppke; ". . . a workplace needs to find honesty equilibrium - enough permissible white lies that co-workers aren't beating each other up for saying, "Those jeans DO make you look fat!" combined with a culture that promotes honesty."

Employee Accountability

I ran across a definition for accountability that I feel truly identifies its precise meaning; ". . . the responsibility of the employee to accomplish with integrity the defined and assigned tasks required by his/her job within a reasonable time in order to assist the organization to fulfill its goals." 

Is employee accountability important?  Yes!  Employee accountability is important to a business's success as a whole.  It is the cornerstone of business success.  A Gallup poll estimates that the lost productivity that stems from disengaged and unaccountable employees costs American businesses between $287 and $370 billion annually.  This is through customer loss due to poor service, high employee turnover and quality control issues, just to name a few impacted areas.

How can you engender a culture of accountability in your workplace?  Through the effective communication of goals, expectations, success and failures.   These are the fundamental tenants of accountability. 

Establish the beliefs and values required for accountability in your organization.  Behavior will follow belief.

• Communicate accountability
• Coach accountability
• Practice accountability

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

First the history lesson.  The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted September 21, 1996, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. 

Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in June, 2013 thereby allowing same-sex married couples to be recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, and allowing them to receive federal protections such as Social Security, health insurance and retirement savings.  Essentially, same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under Federal law that go to all other married couples. 

If you have followed the DOMA case, you know by now that the ruling will have far-reaching implications.  The recent ruling which mandates that all officially recognized marriages be treated equally under the law, has immediate legal ramifications for the 12 states that already allow same-sex marriages.  Opponents of same-sex marriage are bracing themselves for a wave of legal challenges in the states that do not recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. 

What does all of this mean for Human Resources and Texas employers?  Well, here in Texas marriage is defined as the "relationship between a man and a woman."   While the Supreme Court removed the federal definition of marriage, it left it to the states to decide whether to honor other states' laws on the matter.  This does not mean that Texas is required to legalize same-sex marriage.  Texas Family Code 6.204 states same-sex marriages performed in other states are void in Texas.  For Texas, there isn't a huge impact immediately.  However, employers should revisit the definition of "spouse" in their benefit plans to ensure that the definition is consistent with the employer's intent, in light of the Windsor decision.  With regard to qualified pensions, plan language and procedures will need to be considered because same-sex spouses have additional rights to federally protected benefits. 

Legal Mistakes by HR (Part 2)

Many employees are unaware that their computers can be monitored without their knowledge. If they have a computer, it's the employer's window into their workspace. Employers should take steps to notify employees that monitoring is taking place. 

2.  Permitting an expectation of electronic privacy.   Remember to advise your employees that there is no expectation of privacy on their company computers.   "With businesses losing billions to computer crime and employees wasting considerable time on their computers looking at sports updates, the latest fashion trends, and even less appropriate websites, business are cracking down by monitoring their employees.  The efforts are to ultimately reduce scams, identity theft, computer crimes, fraud, sexual abuse, piracy, and threats.  As a result, many businesses have resorted to online monitoring of their workplace computers"  (Texas Business Today, Fourth Quarter 2012). 

While the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (1986) comes close to creating a starting point for a legal foundation of what can and cannot be done, legal and ethical debates on electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace continue. 

*There may be additional rights for employees in California given specific statutes of that state.

Exel and EEOC

An Atlanta jury awarded $500,000 ($25,000 in compensatory damages and $475,000 in punitive damages) in a sex discrimination suit against Exel, Inc., a Westerville, Ohio-based warehouse and distribution company.

According to the EEOC's suit filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Excel, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to promote a female, Contrice Travis, to an inventory supervisor position in 2008.

During the course of the trial, the EEOC presented evidence that:

1. Male employees were routinely promoted after verbally requesting consideration from open positions while Travis, who was indisputably recognized as the most knowledgeable in inventory control, was denied the inventory supervisor position.
2. Travis's former supervisor testified that when he recommended Travis for the position, the general manager informed him that he would never put a woman in that position.
3. Travis was told that the inventory supervisor position would not be filled.
4. The male selected for the position was told by management and a human resources official that the position would be filled, but that he would be selected only if he kept it a secret.
5. The selectee, Michel Pooler, required training by Travis because he had no inventory experience.

This isn't the first, or last,  potential violation by Exel.

On April 9th of this year, The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Yusuf Sufi, was fired by Exel in May, 2012.   The federal complaint states that Sufi repeatedly asked Exel to provide him with an accommodation under which he could attend his Friday afternoon prayer services.   His employment was ultimately terminated by Exel in May 2012 when he asked for the accommodation a second time.  (It appears that Exel missed the memo.  Both state and federal law requires employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless it creates an undue burden on the company.)

"This is not the first time Exel has discriminated against employees when they have asked for religious accommodation. Our office filed 18 charges of discrimination with the EEOC last month relating to the denial of religious accommodation for Muslim employees who worked at the same facility at which Mr. Sufi worked," said CAIR-Ohio Legal Director Jennifer Nimer. "This pattern of discriminatory behavior continues to be a problem at Exel." 

A massive review and overhaul of Exel's practices, policies, training and personnel needs to occur.   Both management and human resources have failed on a massive level.  Human resources is there to protect employee rights and employer rights.   In the case of Ms. Travis, HR took the side of the wrongdoer and supported a discriminatory selection process.  Human Resources didn't take steps to eliminate discrimination or reduce company liability in either case.

Pending Legislation in Texas

Below is a small sampling of employment-related legislation filed in the Texas Legislature.   If passed and signed into law, these will have a tremendous impact on Texas employers.

HB238/SB237
Prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

HB321
Deferred adjudication may not be used as a factor in employment decisions, housing or issuance of state licenses.

HB667
Puts leave for foster children on same basis as leave for biological or adopted children.

HB950
Incorporates federal law in the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

HB1829
Relating to safe patient handling and movement practices at hospitals and nursing homes.  No retaliation or discrimination toward staff members who refuse to participate in unsafe handling of patients.

HB1188
Relating to limiting the liability of persons who employ persons with criminal convictions.  Tightens up on standards for proving negligent hiring and supervision of employees with prior convictions.

HB494/SB741
Extends to two years the time limit for filing a wage claim with Texas Workforce Commission.

SB340
If TWC finds bad faith on employer's part for failure to pay wages, it "shall" impose a penalty (instead of "may").

Happy Birthday to the Equal Pay Act

50 years ago today the Equal Pay Act was signed by President John F. Kennedy.  While equal pay is the law, the nation still faces gender wage disparities.  In 2012, women generally earned 77 percent of men's wages.  For African-American and Latina women, the number is even lower.    We have made progress, but it's not enough.

The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work.  The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal.  Remember that job descriptions and titles are irrelevant. 

On the front line of this battle is the EEOC who has made enforcing equal pay laws one of its six priorities as outlined in the Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Religious Accommodation

Good Friday is right around the corner.  That day will always serve as a reminder to me of the event forever referred to as The Employee Mutiny of 2011.  In 2011, I upset a few employees by converting the Good Friday Holiday to a floating holiday.  Yes, change is difficult, no matter how small the change.  But with proper communication the employees came to understand that they didn't lose the day, it was just handled a bit differently. 

 

Religious discrimination by employers is expressly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although employers don't have to satisfy an employee's every desire in accommodating his/her religious beliefs, employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations." The most common such accommodation is granting an employee time off to observe a religious holiday.

 

My goal in converting this to a floating holiday was to allow other employees, with different religious beliefs, to have a holiday for their use.  As any organization grows, you want to be able to recognize all religions.  (Another basic step is to modify the vacation/PTO policy to reflect the use of available vacation time for religious holidays not normally recognized by the company.)

 

We live in a beautiful and diverse world!  There's Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the feasts for Santeria.  We have Hindu holidays, Muslim holidays and even Pagan holidays.  Employers and HR professionals all struggle with how to celebrate them, how to recognize the diversity of these religious beliefs and practices.  With care, communication and understanding, the process is easy!

 

Tortious Interference?

Employee John Doe has been working for XYZ  for two years, being recognized as nothing more than one of the many cogs in the wheel.    As a result of John's role within the company, he frequently comes into contact with a large number of company clients.  Then one day, something extraordinary happens. One client, Acme, realizes that John is a rising star!  After ensuring that no non-solicitation is being violated with XYZ, Acme extends an offer of employment to John.  John is excited about this new opportunity. It's the next logical step in his career and a nice increase in his compensation.  After all of the necessary pre-employment requirements are completed and the hire date is set, John submits his resignation to XYZ.    But this story doesn't stop here and there's no Cinderella ending.

The President of XYZ is astounded.  Why would you quit?  You're one of our rising stars.  Those last six words astound John, he's never heard them.   The President offers him more money to stay.  The office he'd like to have.   But in John's eyes, this recognition comes a bit too late.  After a lengthy discussion, John is more dedicated than ever to begin his new career with Acme.

Behind the scenes, the following happens.  While no non-solicitation exists in their contract, the President of XYZ calls Acme and schedules a meeting with them.  After a heated meeting and threats of pulling business, Acme is forced to rescind the offer of employment to John Doe.  John, somewhat reluctantly, remains in the employ of XYZ. 

Two months later, still at XYZ, John Doe hasn't received that proposed increase and the office has gone to another employee. 

Would you view this as Tortious Interference by XYZ?   Tortious Interference:  n.  Encouraging a breach, infringing on another's agreement, interfering with contract or contractual commitments, wrongful interference with business relationships.  For there to be liability under this tort you must show some improper or illegal actions as an intermeddler. You must evaluate whether actions, or contemplated actions, can be construed to have an appearance of impropriety.

For the laymen, tortious interference occurs when a person damages another person's contractual relationships or other business relationship on purpose.  Liability ensues where proof of economic injury exists.  The wrongful interference with some right or economic opportunity belonging to a person which causes that person some monetary loss.  Interference with prospective economic advantage.

 

What is your call on this?  Tortious Interference or No?

 

Fair competition is always legal.  An employee may leave employment and avail himself of whatever expertise he has acquired from his former employer.  As long as there is no use of former employer's trade secrets.

For "John Doe."

Is Gender Bias Alive And Well?

Gender Bias n. unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and the expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees.  Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

 

Gender bias begins at an early age.  From the pink or blue outfits children receive at infancy, the influence of toy selections, to how teachers respond to a child in school, or the books we read them at bedtime. (An April, 2011 study of gender bias in literature examined nearly 6,000 children's books published from 1900 to 2000.  Of those, 57% had a central male character compared with only 31% female protagonists.  Presumably animals of an indeterminate gender led the rest.)  So how do we respond to gender bias in the workplace?

 

First let's understand that gender bias is more subtle than sex discrimination.    Bias occurs because of personal values, perceptions and outdated, traditional views about men and women.  We may encounter gender bias in many forms and degrees.   For example, both men and women tend to view women who express anger more negatively than they view men who express anger.  Even when the members of both sexes use the same words and body language to express that anger.  Gender bias exists where men or women are evaluated or perceived differently depending on whether their actions violate expectations of how they should act or expectations of what behaviors are required for a role they have assumed.  Whether the subject of bias is male or female, the effects of gender bias can be devastating.

 

Beginning in as early as 1982,  state judiciaries began to address gender bias by creating a variety of research committees and task forces.  Since that time, attention around gender bias in the workplace has continued to grow in every industry.

 

Then:

"Gender bias exists in many forms throughout the Massachusetts court system.  Sexist language and behavior are still common, despite an increased understanding that these practices are wrong."  New England Law Review.  Volume 24, Spring 1990.

"The New Mexico Supreme Court is greatly concerned over manifestations of gender bias in the court environment within the State of New Mexico."  "In 1987, the State Bar of New Mexico established The Task Force on Women and the Legal Profession and requested that the Task Force examine the needs of women lawyers, their acceptance by the Bench and Bar in general. . . . . The Final Report, issued November 2, 1990, documented gender bias not only directed toward women lawyers, but affecting female litigants, witnesses, and court employees."

The State of Florida, Gender Bias Study Commission:  Executive Summary, found that "during it's two years of hearing and study, that gender bias -- discrimination based solely on one's sex -- is a reality for far too many people involved in the legal system.  (1990)

In 2011, a team at Yale University asked 127 professors at six U.S. research universities to judge the merits of college graduates.  The graduates were applying for a position as a lab manager before heading to graduate school.  While using identical resumes, of which half were obviously female applicants, the participates were significantly more likely to hire the man, and at a higher salary.  Interestingly enough, the bias was equally strong among both the female and male scientists and did not vary by age, race or discipline. (www.sciencemag.com)

 

Now:

"The Supreme Court's decision on the Walmart case - in which five justices, all male, sided with the company in denying 1.5 million female employees the right to pursue a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit - showed a truly stunning obliviousness to the way gender bias actually plays out in the workplace."  The Daily Beast.  "The Supreme Court's Cluelessness on Gender Bias."  June 22, 2012.

 

MSLGroup currently has a class action lawsuit pending alleging gender pay discrimination.  The $100 million class action lawsuit was filed in February 2011 and represents women who worked at the agency from 2008 until the date of judgement.  Of the 33 total plaintiffs, two are current MSL employees.  One, Sheila McLean, is currently a SVP and a 12-year veteran of the firm.  The lawsuit alleges that MSL paid female professionals less; did not promote women at the same rate as male counterparts; and conducted discriminatory demotions, terminations and reassignments for female staffers during the agency's 2009 reorganization.

 

After all the steps we have taken, all the studies, polls, research papers, etc., gender bias is still alive and well in the workplace.  As an employer, you need to be aware if gender bias exists in your workforce.  Train your employees to identify it, and to acknowledge it.  Secondly, call attention to the bias.  Make a commitment to eliminating it in your workforce.

 

 Title VII prohibits discrimination "because of" an employee's sex. As an employer we may not take adverse action against an employee because of their sex. Sex can not play a role in any aspect of their employment including hiring, transfers, promotions, pay, disciplinary action, suspensions, and discharges. It's also important to understand that while Title VII was originally understood to apply only to women, that is no longer the case. It also prohibits discrimination against men. For example, when a male employee is denied a promotion in favor of a female employee, and the male can prove that the reason was "because of his sex," there may be claim for sex discrimination.

A Real Thanksgiving Turkey

A parade-goer watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on New York's Upper West Side noticed that the confetti that fell on him and some friends contained information including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, bank routing numbers, etc.    Additionally, one confetti strip appeared to provide information from an arrest record and others identified undercover detectives by name.   Upon inspection it appeared that all documents were from the Nassau County Police Department. 

"The Nassau County Police Department is very concerned about this situation," Nassau County Police Inspector Kenneth Lack said in a statement. "We will be conducting an investigation into this matter as well as reviewing our procedures for the disposing of sensitive documents."

Obviously there is more risk than ever that sensitive employee information may become pubic information.  Companies need to take the proper steps to ensure that sensitive employee information doesn't get into the wrong hands. 

And a word of advice to the Nassau County Police Department, skip the holiday drinks and buy a better shredder!

Management and Mr. Likert

Do you ever have to go through your old emails in search of some missing piece of information?  It's akin to a trip down memory lane.  You never know what you will stumble across or where you will end up.    During a recent journey,  I rediscovered this one small email and felt it worthy of discussion.   Yes, the email is cryptic.  But the message screamed volumes to me.

Him:  Are you familiar with Likert’s management theories? 

Me:  Are we speaking of exploitative authority?

Him:  We are.  Like verbatim.

Me.  Yes sir.  (End of conversation)

There are a lot of different definitions of the word “management,” but for the sake of this blog, I’m going with a very fundamental definition. Getting things done through and with people.  

Rensis Likert, an American educator and organizational psychologist, is best known for his research on management styles.  (And let’s not forget The Likert Scale.)   Likert identified a four-fold model of management styles,  each style revolving around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision making process:

1. Exploitative Authoritative;
2. Benevolent Authoritative;
3. Consultative; and,
4. Participative.    

With that email in mind, let's explore the Exploitative Authoritative management style.  For the EA, responsibility lies in the hands of the people at the upper echelons of the hierarchy.  The supervisor has no trust or confidence in subordinates and motivation is based on threats.  Decisions are imposed on sub-ordinates and teamwork/communication is extremely limited.  Essentially the communication style is almost entirely downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of the employees are ignored. With a style of “do what I tell you,” the overall impact to an organization is extremely negative.

In short, the leader imposes decisions on subordinates and uses fear to achieve employee motivation. 

“E-A leaders are highly production-oriented, display no confidence in their subordinates, provide them no influence in decision making, seldom seek or use subordinates’ ideas, use fear, a threat, punishment and occasional rewards to enforce compliance, and engage mainly in downward communication.”  Organization & Management by R.D. Agarwal.

Let's compare the EA management style against the characteristics of an effective work group.  In an effective work group there is a high degree of confidence and trust in each other.  The values and goals of the group all link in harmony with each other and there is strong motivation by each member to communicate fully and frankly.  An important factor is that employees feel secure in making decisions.  That is 100% at odds with the EA management style.

The “difference between a leader and a manager is that a manager pushes while a leader pulls.  By this, we mean that a manager uses its authoritative powers to push people to reach the set targets and pressurize them to achieve the firm’s goal.  He orders actually.  While a leader pulls, that is, it motivates people and develops zeal in them towards achieving a goal. . . “    The Role and Effectiveness of Leadership in Team-Working: Abstract.

In closing, I ask the following question:  If your employees had the chance, would they "vote" you out of your position?

Sorry, I'm Not Going To Tell You What You Want To Hear

I upset an executive the other day when I advised him that a tactic he wanted to take with an employee really wasn't the best approach.  When I explained why a different approach was needed, the response from the executive was anything but supportive. 

 

To quote Dilbert, "Do you want a realistic. .. that will ruin your day, or a lie that will allow your ignorance and your happiness to lock arms and square dance to the next cubicle?"

 

It's human psychology. Most times we hear what we want to hear. We want things to align with our vision of how the world works. However, Mr. Executive, if someone is brave enough to give you honest input, take a moment to recognize it. Don't shoot (or shun) the messenger.   Don't just turn to confidants who will tell you what you want to hear. My recommendation is that you turn to several sources for information and obtain several points of data.

 

For just a moment please understand that HR isn't here to offend you.  We all know that in the business world, unintentional violations do not excuse wrongful behavior.   No, I'm not here to provide you with legal advice. But, I am here to advise you where you may face potential liability.  So,  I'll question tactics, suggestions or orders that may appear to be unlawful.   I will ask questions and seek clarification.  I will then tell you what works best based on my knowledge and experience.  I'm going to follow my instincts.

  
In May, Forbes published the "10 Commandments for Delivering Bad News."  In brief (and the link has been provided) the commandments are:

1. Thou shalt always treat people with respect and dignity.
2. Thou shalt always follow up and follow through
3. Thou shalt always remember your multiple audiences
4. Thou shalt always bring solutions
5. Thou shalt always look for the silver lining
6. Thou shalt always justify
7. Thou shalt always put in writing
8. Thou shalt never hide the facts
9. Thou shalt never delay
10. Thou shalt never surprise

Any successful employee strives to anticipate the boss's needs and then deliver them.  Telling people what they don't want to hear is risky.  I can sit here, nodding, and maintain the status quo.   But that's not what you hired me to do.   I'm not going to hide the facts and I am going to provide you with solutions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/05/30/10-commandments-for-delivering-bad-news/

I'm Just Not In To You (As An Organization)

Remember when companies and employees exhibited mutual loyalty? Over the last two decades there has been a not–so-subtle shift away from loyalty as evidenced by the ever-weakening bonds between employees and employers.  An employee pointed out to me that if loyalty is not yet dead, it’s at least on life-support.

In a 2011 CareerBuilder.com report, 76% of full-time workers, while not actively looking for a new job, would leave their current workplace if the right opportunity came along.  Employees just aren’t that in to you.  No, the employees don’t say that out loud, but they sure are thinking it. 

And in 2012, they're acting on it.

Fast forward to the CareerBuilder October 2012 survey of 1,078 full-time workers (U.S. and Canada).  Sixty-nine percent of full-time workers reported that searching for new job opportunities is part of their regular routine.  Fifty-three percent of the workers said they feel like they just have a job, not a career. 

The new trend?  Employee loyalty has shifted to their careers. 

A company's ultimate responsibility and loyalty is to the bottom line.  When sales slip a company's first response can be headcount reduction, reduction in benefits, and/or pay freezes.  Managers may act in a way that communicates “we don’t care about you” or "we don’t respect you.”    The employee may now perceive that the organization has placed zero value on their talent.  But, employees have a choice and will shop around for a better deal.

 

 

Cronyism or Extreme Social Connections?

Normally the hiring process is a relatively random process based on the selection of applicants.  And in the recruiting process, referral hiring is a common practice.   But there are times when the selection process is not so random or neutral.   What happens when the hiring manager is not totally indifferent to members of the candidate pool and the referral value of a candidate increases based on their social connection with the hiring manager?   Is this where an organization, or manager, potentially crosses the line into favoritism? 

 

In my last blog (Nepotism - It's All Relative) I discussed nepotism and the challenges it may bring to an office environment.  Skipping down that little favoritism trail,  hand in hand with nepotism, is cronyism.   Cronyism is a specific form of favoritism referring to partiality towards friends and associates.   

 

Have you ever worked in an environment where there's a bunch of "good ole boys?"   A group of individuals that are given an undue advantage but who don't necessarily merit this treatment?   Individuals that may be in positions where they are not even qualified to do their job?  In an environment where it's not WHAT you know but WHO you know, you are experiencing cronyism.  That favoritism can be exhibited in compensation, discipline, or even positions.  

 

Does cronyism undermine business effectiveness?  Unfortunately cronyism can create an air of entitlement for those employees who were hired based on their social connection.  They may feel as though company rules do not apply to them.  Additional negative consequences are that sometimes these individuals are under-qualified to perform their jobs (potentially promoted to a level of incompetence) and even pay scales may become distorted.

 

Referencing my earlier question regarding the practice of nepotism and whether or not it's ethical, here's something for consideration:

• One of the most basic themes in ethics is fairness. Logically, cronyism (or nepotism) interferes with fairness through the undue advantage of one person who may not merit such treatment.

Both can greatly undermine the effectiveness of an organization.  So, draw your own conclusion.

 

Always keep an eye on your hiring practices.   We all know that businesses are often thick with social connections.  But don't allow your organization to become too relationship-driven that you unknowingly violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discounting highly qualified applicants.