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.  

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."

FMLA Abuse and Employee Surveillance

An increasingly prevalent area of surveillance that the courts seem to be upholding is the hiring of private investigators to conduct surveillance on employees that are suspected of taking leave dishonestly under the Family Medical Leave Act.  While still a relatively new development, this is one in which the courts are, so far, siding with employers.  With that said, however, this is a very delicate topic as it deals with surveilling employees when they are not at work.  In most cases, there are heavy suspicions of the employee abusing their FMLA leave before any surveillance is conducted, and it is highly encouraged that employers seek legal counsel before considering this option.  (Virginia Business Law Blog)

The FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right given under FMLA.   And, it is one of the largest employee abuse areas for employers.   One of the bases upon which an employer can defeat an FMLA "interference" claim is obtaining supporting documentation/evidence by the employer that an employee did not, in fact, take leave for a purpose authorized under the FMLA. 

I personally had a case 4 years ago in which an employee was placed on FMLA.  A week later we found out that the employee was moonlighting for another company.  After careful investigation, I found that the employee was performing the same tasks for the second company that the employee was restricted (medical requirements) from performing for us, his primary employer.

Employer surveillance of employees outside the workplace is an extremely touchy subject.  And, there are confusing legal issues to tackle.

In the Seventh Circuit Court decision, Vail v. Raybestos, "employers are allowed to spy on their employees not only when they are suspicious the employee is taking fraudulent leave under the FMLA, but also in any situation where the information gained by surveillance may be used as evidence to support the employer's honest belief the employee is taking fraudulent leave."    Diana Vail received more than 33 days of approved leave for chronic migraines.  The company noticed a pattern in regards to her leave and engaged the services of an off-duty police sergeant to monitor her activities.  The employee was found working for her husbands business during peak times.  The court dismissed her claim for interference stating that the plaintiff must show she took leave "for the intended purpose of the leave."

In Colburn v. Parker Hannifin (1st Cir., 2005), the employee claimed to be too dizzy to drive to work, but was caught working out at the gym while on leave.  The court found that the employer's surveillance did not violate the employees FMLA leave.

Tillman v. Ohio Bell Telephone, (6th Cir., 2011).  This case is note-worthy in that the employer sent the surveillance footage to an outside medical consultant for analysis before it made its employment decision. The consultant issued a report of her findings in which she concluded that, in her professional opinion, Tillman's activities on his days off were inconsistent with the medical restrictions.

When presented with evidence of suspected FMLA abuse, you must first independently investigate the issue before taking any action.  Avoid any conduct that interferes with FMLA.  Validate the accuracy of your suspicion before taking an adverse action against the employee.  Secondly be sure that any surveillance does not go too far and invades the privacy of the employee or the employee family members.

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.

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."

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.

Nepotism - It's All Relative

"Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit."   

 

You have to wonder in what world a business owner / executive would think that an organization is best-served in hiring relatives "regardless of merit."   

 

For an employer, there may be a perceived benefit to hiring family members.   You're helping the family member out, becoming a bit of a hero in the process, while potentially saving the costs of recruiting, training, background investigations, etc.  for a new employee.    However, there may be disasters looming right around the next corner.

 

While family members may create a readily available workforce oftentimes they are under qualified for the positions they fill.   And those employees who are bypassed in favor of family members may develop hostile feelings, feelings of resentment.  Nepotism in a business environment may create a perceived lack of fairness in the organization, a disastrous negative impact in which employees may see no career growth. 

 

What about employees who are responsible for supervising family members?  Disciplining or firing employees is difficult enough but will they be restricted in what corrective actions they may take?  Will there be repercussions in taking corrective actions?  Will it cost the employee their career?  How does an employee handle the situation when it's the bosses relative?  Whether or not the owner wishes to admit it, nepotism can be a disruption to the work environment. 

 

Can engaging in nepotism be illegal?  Ordinarily, no.  However,  if the employer hires family (or friends) to the point where there is no consideration for other sexes, age groups, etc, the employer may be unknowingly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Business owners - here are a couple of questions for you to ponder:

1. Is nepotism unethical?
2. Should nepotism be in the Code of Conduct?

Rudeness At Work

In my previous blog I addressed language policy's as a tool to assist employers in maintaining a civil and respectful workplace.  Civility, the fundamentals of courtesy, politeness and consideration, are critical to business.  The lack of civility leads to high turnover, lower moral and even a potential loss of business.

In 2011 a survey was published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.  The survey, titled "Civility in American 2011" addressed civility in politics, education, the workplace, the Internet and the marketplace.   The real interest to me is the section "Incivility Goes To Work."  The study reflected that two-thirds of employees reported that their performance had declined as a result of incivility encountered in the workplace.  43% of Americans (four in 10) have experienced incivility at work with 38% reporting the belief that the workplace was "becoming more uncivil and disrespectful than a few years ago." 

Employers, take note.  As a result of experiencing rudeness, or just awareness, 67% of the respondents reported the need for civility training!  It is up to the employer to determine what is and isn't tolerated in the workplace.  But employees are asking for the education to understand how to communicate with each other and avoid creating conflict.

Statistics provided in the section Who/What is to Blame For Workplace Incivility reflected that the largest offenders were organizational leaders at 65%.   The stats for younger vs. older employees peaked my interest.   Does this present a framework for identifying age-related differences in work attitudes and behaviors?

• 65%  Leadership of the Workplace
• 59%  Employees themselves
• 34%  Younger employees
• 24%  Lack of employee rights
• 6%  Older employees

It is to be expected that a certain level of civility is fundamental to the operation of any business.   The survey reported that approximately 69% of Americans "have either stopped buying from a company or have re-evaluated their opinions of a company  because someone from that company was uncivil in their interaction."  There it is.  A direct impact to your bottom line!

Are there remedies for restoring civility?  Here are some basic steps that any individual can take:

• Active Listening (Listening to a co-workers perspective without interrupting; ask clarifying questions, reflect back understanding of views)
• Communicating critical feedback with consideration
• Assuming that everyone has the best motives
• Remember the small but important gestures - saying "please" and "thank you."
• Be aware of your tone and volume
• Be respectful, even in disagreement
• Maintain objectivity during conflict

In closing, remember the Golden Rule that your mother taught you?  When in doubt, refer back to those words of wisdom (or your mother).

Civility is NOT a sign of weakness.  Civility is about boundaries. 

Employee Actions Off The Clock

In case you missed it, Joseph Andolino, a senior vice president of Halliburton's tax department was arrested in a Harris County prostitution sting along with six other men (reported in the Houston Business Journal).  While there are no reports that he committed the crime on the job, several questions relating to his on-going employment with Halliburton come up.   

 

While I don't think that employers want to overly intrude into the private lives of employees, as an employer do you  have a policy or an employment contract that says an employee may be terminated if s/he engages in criminal conduct?  Do any of your company policies address employees conviction of a crime that indicates unfitness for the job or raises a threat to the safety or well being of fellow employees? 

Texas is an at-will state.  That allows Texas employers a lot of latitude in the hiring and firing decisions.  Essentially an employer can terminate an employee for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law.  However, state legislation, employment contracts, union contracts or your internal policies may dictate your decision.   An employment clause may provide you with an avenue for dismissal.  But does it mandate the dismissal?

• Do you have to prove that the conduct has a direct impact on the job? 
• Does it compromise the employee's ability to do the job? 
• It is an embarrassment to the organization? 

We all agree that an employer shouldn't keep an employee whose after-work activities affect their job performance.  The general rule is the more off-duty behavior negatively affects the work environment, the more termination and/or discipline becomes a legal and valid option.  But, is failure to take remedial action regarding the off-duty conduct inferring that similar actions are condoned on the job?

 

Companies may face difficulty when dealing with terminating employees for off-duty conduct. Potential results when employee's are fired for off-duty behavior can be negative publicity, low morale and related turnover.   You must consider the nature of the crime and how it affects the workplace.  What effect, if any, does the behavior have to the workplace or the company's image?   Does the behavior justify adverse employment action?

 

If you are considering regulating the off-duty conduct of your employees, there are some things to be considered:

• Is the conduct legal or illegal?
• Is there an applicable law that protects the off-duty conduct of the employee?
• Am I willing to apply this policy consistently?

Jason Bosch, None Of Your Business (Interest):  The Argument for Protecting All Employee Behavior With NO Business Impact: " . . . employees should not have to relinquish autonomy over very aspect of their lives just to get or keep a job.   Employers have a vested interest in controlling those aspects of employee's lives that reasonably affect the employees' performance on the job, but that does not justify giving employers carte blanche to control every aspect of their employees' lives."

EEOC and BellSouth Telecommunications

BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (Atlanta) will be shelling out $120,00 to two former employees to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit.

Two BellSouth female employees were sexually harassed by a male manager of the Kennesaw, GA., call center where they were employed.   According to the EEOC website, immediately upon the managers arrival at the call center, he began making inappropriate sexual comments in the sales meetings.  It didn't end there.  In addition to the comments, he pantomimed engaging in sexual intercourse on the floor of the conference room.  "He routinely and continually talked about sex and asking out women as analogies when giving speeches in sales meetings, and would make sexual comments about the women's attire.  The manager would also hug the women unwantedly when greeting them and move his hand down their backs towards their posteriors when he did so."

Most employers understand that harassment is forbidden in the workplace! Sexual harassment under Texas and Federal law is generally defined as unwanted sexual contact of two main types: (a) quid pro quo harassment or (b) unwelcome sexual conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive environment for the employee.

When these two employees complained, BellSouth retaliated.  The employees were denied promotions and demoted. 

While the suit has been settled, BellSouth has denied any liability or wrongdoing.  In addition to the monetary relief, there are provisions for equal employment opportunity training and reporting and posting of anti-discrimination notices.

Just in case you've been hiding under a rock, these alleged conducts violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   How can you deny liability or wrongdoing?  Honestly?

Employee Satisfaction Surveys

In 2004 Congress mandated that all federal agencies conduct surveys of their employees.  The purpose was to assess the employees perceptions about their work environment and work experiences.  The results of these surveys are used to measure employee satisfaction in areas such as benefits, training, leadership, diversity, recruiting and the work environment. 

Employee viewpoint surveys are extremely important as they provide an overview of how well the organization is doing.  Where properly conducted, the survey can identify an organizations strengths and areas of improvement. The survey is a tool for opening a dialog among the employees and the results can act as a tool for driving positive change. 

Remember, a survey doesn't end once the results are received.  If the survey is not responded to, employees are less likely to participate in future surveys.  The employees expect that management will use the information to make improvements to the organization.  These surveys create expectations.  Conversations around survey results can potentially lead to increased engagement, productivity and profits while reducing turnover and costs. 

Once you have the survey results you should act quickly.    Create a team to review the results.  Select the key items to address and develop a corporate action plan to resolve them over the next 6 - 12 months.  Re-evaluate and adjust your action plan as necessary.  A recommendation is to select three areas to focus your efforts on.  This will allow you to concentrate your efforts and make substantial progress.

• In what areas is positive change most important to your organization?
• In what areas is the positive change most needed?
• What areas are the top priorities?

Follow up regularly on the plan and the progress toward meeting the goals.  Communicate across the organization OFTEN and make the improvements visible.  Employees expect that their concerns are addressed and resolution to occur. 

When You Lose A Good Employee

I lost a good employee today.  And while I understand the reasons behind her resignation and departure, it doesn't make the loss any less significant.  After months of looking for the right employee, reviewing hundreds of resumes, phone screens, and face:face interviews, we found the right employee for the position.  Someone that had the level of skills and abilities to take the position and re-define it - -  to grow it.   

 

As an organization we failed.  While we identified where processes could be improved, workloads leveled, bottlenecks eliminated, and savings experienced, we lacked the ability to implement the very changes that would allow us to be successful.    We were unable to engage the employee in this new role because of our inability to let go of an existing process.

 

(We were able to identify a new start. We were able to provide the vision of what it would be like when the change took place. But we were not able to overcome the resistence by the existing employees that would experience this change and the sense of loss the new process would bring. Employees need to understand how the organization will benefit from changing. They need to understand how the change will benefit them individually, as well as the consequences for them if there is no change.) 

 

My advice to every employer out there - to retain employees, the employer must deliver on the expectations set up during the recruitment process. Put forth every effort to keep your employees engaged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Satisfaction

Earlier this year an on-line survey by Accenture reflected that 57% (women) and 59% (men) were dissatisfied with their jobs.  While dissatisfied with their jobs, more than two-thirds (69%) said they would stay with their current employer.    I guess that’s a good news / bad news scenario.    The workforce is stable, but it's dissatisfied. 

I’m a firm believer that employees are the key to either the success or failure of an organization.  What happens when those employees decide it's just too much anymore and they seek other opportunities?   Are you willing to loose this intellectual resource?  What will the impact to the organization be?

As an employer, proactive steps should be taken to determine where employee dissatisfaction stems from.  

1. Survey your employees to find out their needs.  Are there little hassles they they are experiencing day to day?   What would make them more satisfied in their work?  Smart employers will listen to new ideas, be open to change.  Provide employees with the opportunities to present ideas for new processes, new efficiencies, to management.
2. Provide training and advancement opportunities.  Is there a career path for employees?  Do they have an opportunity to grow and/or expand their skills?  Achievement can be more important to one employee than another. 
3. Address any compensation concerns.  Is there a perception of “fair pay?” 

 

Workplace Bullying Increasing

New survey results.  And no, the results aren’t good.  CareerBuilder released the results of a survey addressing workplace bullying.  The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive (May 14 – June 4, 2012), collected the responses of more than 3,800 workers nationwide.  The survey found that 35% of the respondents admitted they felt bullied on the job.  Unfortunately, that’s an 8% increase from last year.    

Bullies are found at all levels of the organization. The largest offender?  The boss at 48% followed by co-workers at 45%.  In a 2005 survey, when participants were asked to identify factors "which impair their organization's ability to deal effectively with bullying, the most commonly cited factors were management's unwillingness to acknowledge that a problem exists, and the prevailing management style."   Where are we 7 years later?  We acknowledge that a problem exists, but we're not making much headway in solving the problem. 

Bullying takes many forms:

• applying different standards to different people;
• constant criticism;
• ignoring an employee;
• false accusations of mistakes.

No matter what shape or form bullying takes, it can cause more harm that just hurt feelings.   Seventeen percent of the respondents to the survey indicated that they quit their jobs to escape the situation.  Sixteen percent said they suffered health-related problems as a result of being the target.

CareerBuilder released the results of their survey for Canadian employees on August 29^th.  How did our neighbors to the North do?  Of the 552 full-time employed Canadians, 45% of respondents said they were bullied.  The source:  24% coworkers, 23% immediate boss, 17% higher manager.  Twenty six percent of the bullied workers stopped their bullying by quitting their jobs.  A larger survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute indicated that 28% of the targets voluntarily quit, but another 25% quit after being forced out (constructive discharge).

The Workplace Bullying Institute defines bullying as "repeated, health-harming, mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. .. . ".   Workplace bullying may violate an organizations ethics standards, company policies or even the law.   Review your policies.  Has anyone in your workplace been subjected to bullying?  What steps have you taken to eradicate bullying from your workplace?

 

 

Office Politics. Is Survival Possible?

Organizational politics refers to behaviors “that occur on an informal basis within an organization and involve intentional acts of influence that are designed to protect or enhance individuals’ professional careers when conflicting courses of action are possible” (Drory, 1993; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981).

Politics are the unseen elephant in the living room. We know it’s there, it’s just difficult to define and describe. And politics, seen or not, have a long-term negative affect on the organization and ultimately, organizational outcomes are damaged.  I have provided examples below of some the more obvious results of politics: 

1. Environment: Politics lead to a negative environment; spoiling relationships among individuals.   The overall climate of the organization may have an influence on an employees’ performance through mistrust, threats, defensiveness, low support, and/or poor communication.
2. Demotivator: No matter how much hard work an employee puts in, it goes unnoticed in a politically driven organization.  The employee who works hard is not rewarded suitably versus the non performer who is rewarded due to politics (favoritism rather than merit determines who gets ahead).
3. Increased Stress:  Politics increase the stress levels of employees (mistrust, threats, defensiveness, etc.). 
4. Information: Information is manipulated and either not passed on in its desired form, or is withheld. Managers/Supervisors have an incorrect view of what is happening in the organization.
5. Turnover (Organizational Commitment):  An employees’ desire to remain in the organization and/or willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization are greatly impacted by politics and behaviors. 

R. Buckminster Fuller (Critical Path) said that rather than attempting to teach people the right things to do, one should design organizations such that doing the right things was simply the path of least resistance.   Good advice.

Here's some ideas to help you survive a politically driven environment:

• Maintain your composure.
• Have those “hard” conversations and make your case.  The truth is hard to resist (however, there may be some harm to the messenger).
• Be the best you can be.
• Never join other voices to persecute the establishment.
• Never join hands to persecute a co-worker.
• Learn to know each co-worker individually and not base a relationship on gossip.

 

Cultural Change - Survival of the Fittest

Are there petty problems, constant crisis, ongoing conflict, power struggles, disagreements and drama? Is there a highly politicized internal environment where issues are resolved on basis of political clout?  Is there hostility to change where experimentation and efforts to alter status quo are discouraged?  If you answered "yes" to any of the above, you’re a victim of a dysfunctional organization.

It takes experienced management to understand how a dysfunctional culture develops and to actively work to avoid it.    As I stated in a previous blog, we “hire ourselves” and as a result, oftentimes dysfunctional factors creep into an organization.  The organization may begin to reflect a Darth Vader aspect of leadership (entitlement, narcissism, abuse of power).   It’s  organizational insanity.  We're doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  And, it's just not happening.    To change the culture we have to consciously change all the elements that have developed over the years to make up the system. 

An organization must be open to reality.    . .. “If a company’s internal culture isn’t healthy – if it isn’t focused on the right values and goals, and if it isn’t behaving in the right way – then ultimately, that will become apparent to the outside world."  With any organization the question must be asked, "are we (management and employees) moving in the same direction, toward the same goals?”

I have read a couple of interesting articles referencing the use of peer pressure.  Because we tend to conform to the behavior of people around us, the use of peer pressure may be key to changing an organizations culture.   Locate those employees that others look up to and admire.  If they are on-board with the culture change, they can model the behavior (best practices) that you want others to follow.    These individuals can enlist enthusiasm and a dedicated effort to achieve the company objectives.  Peer pressures that exists to display the core values.   

Promote positive change.  Bring in new blood, replacing traditional managers.  Change dysfunctional policies, change reward structures, reinforce culture through both word and deed.  Put constructive pressure on the company to achieve good results.  Promote and enable your cultural drivers!