The Last Acceptable Prejudice

2017 marked the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act  (ADEA) which provides protection to individuals aged 40+ from discrimination in employment.  Age discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee or an applicant less favorably because of his / her age.  

But where are we now? 

In 2017 over 18,000 cases were filed with the EEOC alleging violation of ADEA.  Of those cases, less than 2.5% were found to have "reasonable cause."

In a June, 2017 article by the American Bar Association, "the need to ensure equal employment opportunities regardless of age continues to be an important public policy and civil rights concern. Older workers may be unfairly stereotyped as close-minded, less productive, less adaptable to new technology and ideas, slower, less physically active, and more prone to sickness."

As Baby Boomers continue to age they face discrimination in layoffs and hiring. Organizations eye senior employees as candidates for layoffs or forced retirement due to their compensation levels, perks, pensions, healthcare costs, etc.   These same factors become barriers to their hiring because potential employers can hire a less experienced candidate at a reduced compensation.

While the ADEA makes it illegal to discriminate against workers age 40 and up, the exact rules aren't always crystal clear.  Here's a few interesting facts:

1. Age discrimination is illegal at any stage of employment.  This includes hiring, promotions, raises and layoffs.
2. It is legal for employers to ask your age as well as the date you graduated from school. 
3. There is a gender difference in the perception of age discrimination.  Men are less likely to feel they are facing discrimination.

Ensure your internal processes are legal, equitable and fair!

Microagression in the Workplace

Does Microagression exist in your workplace?

Merriam-Webster defines Microagression as "a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as racial minority)."   “Microagressions are along a continuum  from being very deliberate and conscious to being outside one’s conscious behavior.”    Derald Wing Sue, PhD,  Professor Columbia University.

While they may not always be ill-intentioned and are oftentimes an unintended insult, it is a way an individual’s implicit biases leak out.    Microagressions prevent improvement of workforce diversity and employee productivity. 

Corporate cultures should be proactive in addressing microagression and unconscious bias.  Recognize it when it happens.  Foster communication.  Be inclusive.   Create an environment where employees are comfortable raising issues such as microagression and bias.

Is AI in Recruiting a Good Or Bad Thing?

In 2014 Amazon set up an engineer team to build an AI tool for use in its recruiting process.  A year after putting the program into use, Amazon discovered the system didn't like women.  Reuters reported that the system suffered from gender bias as well as selecting candidates that were unqualified for the positions.

AI is being used to improve and/or automate parts of the recruiting cycle.  In a 2018 Korn Ferry Global survey, of the 800 HR professionals surveyed, 63% said that AI had some impact on the way recruiting was being done.  But what type of impact?

AI and algorithmically based hiring is supposedly unbiased and doesn't allow for "ism's" in the selection process.  But there have long been kinks in the process.  Not all algorithms are created equal and they can carry the implicit biases of those who programmed them.

Of additional concern is the thought that there might be great organizational fits being sorted out because their resumes aren't deemed worthy by the ATS.

"Let's definitely embrace technology to help find the best people, but let us not forget that hiring great people will always be a people business."  Stephen Ley.  Is Technology Removing the Key Element of Hiring?  

Finding candidates who fit into your culture isn't an easy task.  Make sure you are using all the tools available to you in the recruiting process. whether human or AI.

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.

"Ban the Box" Laws

Some employment applications have that pesky little box that screams "check me if you have a criminal conviction!"   Research has found that this one little question may automatically and unfairly eliminate some applicants from the hiring process.

When the box is checked, applicants are often immediately rejected for a prior offense that may have no bearing on the job or is so old that it's not relevant.  If the applicant doesn't check it and the employer runs a background check, he or she may be disqualified because they lied on the application.  The applicant is between a rock and a hard place.

While some Ban the Box laws apply only to public employers, it is quickly expanding to private businesses.  Six states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island) have passed laws that require private employers to remove any conviction-related question from job applications.   While each Ban the Box law is different, they all address when the criminal history question may be asked, what types of convictions can be asked about, how far back an inquiry may extend and what, if any, exceptions apply. 

In 2012, the EEOC recommended - as a best practice for all employers - removing criminal history questions from job applications, reserving such questions until later in the hiring process (such as after an in-person interview or after a contingent offer).  The EEOC guidance requires the employer to demonstrate that the criminal records restrictions are directly related to the job and that the applicants are individually assessed for the position.

Whether such a proposal becomes a law in Texas remains to be seen.  In the interim, follow EEOC guidelines with respect to your hiring process.   As an employer, we need to remember that these convictions or arrests may not accurately represent who the applicant is today.

Workplace Trends for 2015 #1

Over the next ten days I'll share the top ten employment predictions for 2015 (as reported on Forbes)!  Let's see how they fare with their predictions.  So let's kick off with prediction number 1:

1.  Companies hiring Generation Z for internships.   "While many companies are still trying to understand and connect with Gen Y (or millennials), some companies are going to be heavily invested in the upcoming generation, Gen Z.  Gen Z's, born between 1994 and 2010, will become a major target for companies looking to recruit interns next year."

HRi:  We all recognize the growing skills gap and many companies are faced with a workforce not properly trained for a job.  Students are not ready to be effective employees until they have experience with employment.   While internships do not guarantee permanent placement, they do provide individuals with an opportunity to work in a specific field and hone their skills.  Organizations may be able to partially close the skills gap and hire knowledgeable individuals. 

Unemployment, August 2013

U.S. employers added 169,000 jobs in August and much fewer in July than previously thought.  The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.3%, the lowest in nearly five years.  But it fell because more Americans stopped looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.  The proportion of Americans working or looking for work fell to its lowest level in 35 years. 

July's job gains were just 104,000, the fewest in more than a year and down from the previous estimate of 162,000.  June's figure was revised to 172,000, from 188,000.  The revisions lowered total hiring over those two months by 74,000.

Employers additionally have added an average of just 148,000 jobs in the past three months, well below the 12-month average of 184,000.

Another concern is that most of the hiring in August was in lower-paying industries such as retail, restaurants and bars, continuing a trend that began earlier this year.  Retailers added 44,000 jobs and hotels, restaurants and bars added 27,000. 

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.

Summer Workers

CareerBuilder's annual Summer Job Forecast shows that the summer's hiring expectations reflect a continued improvement over the years immediately following the recession.  Nearly three in 10 employers report plans to hire seasonal workers.  That's an increase from an average of 21% (2008 - 2011) to 29%.

Most likely to hire seasonal workers:

• 47% leisure and hospitality
• 34% manufacturing
• 34% IT
• 33% retail

Safeguard the Front Door

Great title, right?  In response to my recent blog on Candidate References, an associate forwarded an article to me for my reading pleasure.  While I can't identify who wrote it or when, I felt I needed to share a portion of it.  He/she did a fabulous job in writing this.  So, here goes .. .

"Rule one in minimizing risky behavior is to prevent questionable job candidates from ever becoming employees.  It isn't enough to study resumes closely; studies have shown that over 50% of them contain inaccuracies.  Basic controls include employment and background checks.  As a recent example, a simple background check would have saved the Yahoo board the trouble of ousting Scott Thompson, the company's fourth CEO in five years, because he falsely claimed a computer science degree.  A growing number of companies conduct behavioral and honesty testing to screen employees."

Paperwork people.  It's all about paperwork. 

Candidate References

Checking references is critical in the decision making process and oftentimes will assist the employer in cutting down on selection errors.  While applicants may distort their employment history and accomplishments, reference checking will allow you to assess the accuracy of their claims.   Most importantly, it will allow you to assess if the candidate can do what s/he claims to be able to do.  Be clear with candidates from the beginning that you will be checking references. (Bear in mind that some employers have internal policies restricting the amount of information provided, oftentimes limiting the information to dates of employment and role within the organization.) 

Create a standardized process for checking references.  Ask questions pertaining to the candidates previous position.  What responsibilities did s/he have?  Discuss the responsibilities of the new position and if the reference feels the candidate could effectively fill the role.  Were there attendance issues?  Is the candidate a team player?   Would the reference rehire the candidate?   In what capacity was the reference associated with the candidate?  Most importantly, should you hire the candidate?  Avoid any inappropriate questions relating to health problems, disabilities, children, child care arrangements, etc.  (For the professional level employee, refine your reference process to encompass topics such as leadership, employee relations, oral and written communication, managerial skills and decision making, just to name a few.)

 

Remember, a candidate's past performance can be used as a predictor of future performance.   Increase your success rate in the employment selection process by conducting thorough reference checks. 

 

To avoid any questions regarding your hiring methods, ensure you maintain detailed records of your reference checking activities.  These may be helpful should you run into a negligent hiring claim later.

Update: Affordable Care Act

Federal Government Releases Proposed Rule on 90-day Waiting Period

On March 18, the federal government issued a proposed rule on the 90-day waiting period that would implement the 90-day waiting period limitation and make technical amendments to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) health care coverage requirements.

Under the proposed rule, for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, employers that provide a group health plan or health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage cannot require an otherwise eligible employee (or dependent) to wait more than 90 days before coverage becomes effective.

The proposed rule also clarifies that any period before a late or special enrollment by an employee is not a waiting period.  The proposed conforming amendments make changes to existing requirements and other portability provisions that are either no longer applicable or need to be changed because of new market reform protections under ACA.

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register today, March 21st.  Comments will be due 60 days after publication.

Exit Interviews

Exit interviews get a bad rap.  Some people think they have value to the organization, others don't.   I read an article once by a headhunter who stated that "exit interviews fascinate me like cockroaches do."  His explanation was that no one knows why they exist, can justify or eliminate them and are likely to continue to survive.

Cockroaches aside, exit interviews are intended to help the company understand the full scope of reasons behind a voluntary separation.    With this information, an organization can determine and implement strategies to increase retention and reduce turnover.   If effectively structured, an exit interview will provide information that will:

1. gauge the effectiveness of current employment and business practices;
2. identify problems that contribute to turnover;  
3. manage employee expectations; and,
4. allow for the proper incorporation of new employees into the organization.

 In structuring an exit interview program the employer must decide:

1. Who:  Voluntary resignations?  Involuntary Resignations?  Or all departing employees?  (Not all turnover is undesirable.  As an employer you should be strongly interested as to why a valued employee quit.)
2. When:  Before or after the employees scheduled departure date?
3. How:  Face to face?  Questionnaire?  Third party platform?
4. Participation:  Mandatory or Voluntary?

One final recommendation, if you have an exit interview program develop a list of standard and open ended questions for all employees.  Ensure that no privacy rights (health related issues) are violated.  And most important, listen rather than talk. 

Outside The Interview Process

We're all pretty much aware of what we can, and can't, ask during an interview process.  I mean, not everything is fair game.  Depending on the type of interview style or format in use, most employers have a standard list of questions that they use.    But even with the best interview processes we face flawed human judgement.

I don't quite remember where I ran across this, but below is an interesting list of candidate traits to keep an eye on during the interview process. 

• Arrive late for interviews or who get lost (not prepared)
• Bellyache about their current job (negative/disloyal)
• Describe every accomplishment as a personal feat (loner/non-team player)
• Speak before processing a question and its implications (careless thinker)
• Disregard/poke fun at your administrative staff (not a strong team player/disrespectful)
• Use diminutives to address junior staff/women professionals/their seniors (poor manager of diverse staff)
• Use the passive voice extensively in conversation (not willing to take charge)
• Cut others off before they have finished a thought (impatient)

As a closing recommendation, take the time to discuss the candidate with the receptionist.   How did the candidate interact with the receptionist?   What was his/her behavior like?  Pay close attention to the initial impression - whether yours or someone elses.   It may provide you with valuable insight!

Happy recruiting!

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.

Effective Job Advertisements: A Bit Of Humor

For a job advertisement to be effective it needs to provide information that captures the interest of the best candidates.  And yet, it must avoid any discriminatory language that might violate federal or state laws.  The advertisement should provide enough information about the job, including the education, experience and skills that will allow the candidate to decide whether or not s/he is a fit.  For just a moment I want to poke fun at a few current job advertisements I ran across.

For the first advertisement, let's roll on over to Craigslist/Houston and look at the advertisement for a "National Director of Human Resources."  We all know that there are guidelines for employers to use during the selection process. These guidelines ensure that the information requested is of business necessity only and is job-related.  This organization wants a complete profile including a picture and a short video of the candidate.  Really?  Requesting that an applicant submit a photograph, mandatory or optionally, at any time before hiring is an unfair pre-employment inquiry.  Can you read potentially discriminatory?  Employer please take note, it is totally acceptable to request a photograph after hiring and if for identification purposes.

Example number 2 can be found on CareerBuilder.com.  A real estate organization in San Antonio is seeking an HR Department Manager.  The posting reads, "Human Resource experience is not required."  Okay, not a problem - if there was an educational requirement in lieu of experience!  This organization is requesting that the individual create policies and procedures and be responsible for employment law.  There is a long laundry list of responsibilities for the position. As a potential employer, you should ponder some of the basic requirements of the position.  Take the time to properly identify and develop a description of the required behaviors, abilities, skills, and knowledge of the position.  My 17 year old could apply for the position and, theoretically, couldn't be disqualified from the application process.  He does have the reliable transportation, a valid driver's license and vehicle insurance that is requested in the posting.  With a base pay of $45 - 90K, I'm sure he'd just love it. 

 

The last posting, back at Craiglist/Houston, advertises a "2-day HR Gig."  The potential employer is requesting a "very experienced HR professional (2-5 years)" to work with them on a two day engagement.  The job?  Represent the employer on a two day "introduction presentation/session" with a client.  The individual is coached and prepped on the company, then on day two, the individual presents the information to the client.  The compensation for this jewel of a job "will be interesting" according to the advertisement.  I'd run from this one.  But, if any brave soul accepts this position, I'd be morbidly interested in the details!  I think there's smoke and mirrors involved here.

 

Happy recruiting!

We'll Miss The Twinkies

Talks between Hostess management and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union failed on November 20th.  If a favorable agreement had been reached, over 18,000 jobs would have been saved.  It is unfortunate, but Hostess brand began terminating most of its 18,000 employees last week.  This action came after Hostess won court approval to shut down and start selling assets.

CEO Gregory Rayburn said 15,000 workers would be fired as soon as possible so that they could begin receiving unemployment benefits.  The Court ordered the Company to implement a non-executive employee retention plan to ensure the Company has the necessary personnel to implement the wind down.  Approximately 3,200 employees will stay on temporarily to clean plants and begin to wind down operations.  Employee headcount is expected to decrease by 95% within the first 16 weeks.  The closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes, and 570 bakery outlet stores could take up to three months. 

WARN Act
In May, Hostess Brands Inc. mailed out WARN Act notices to its employees.  The WARN Act requires companies to give workers sixty (60) days notice before closing a facility or performing a mass layoff.  Spokeswoman Anita-Marie Laurie stated Hostess wanted to notify employees that a "sale or wind down of the company is possible in the future." 

On November 21st a former employee, Mark Popovich, filed for damages on behalf of himself and all employees laid off by Hostess.  "We believe Hostess violated the federal WARN Act as well as state laws.  These employees deserved better," said Charles A. Ercole, who filed the Complaint for Mr. Popovich.   Failure to give sixty (60) days advance notice violates the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act. 

Hostess has a different viewpoint believing that the multiple notices issued throughout 2012 and the court declaration to layoff workers are sufficient to excuse it from WARN Act liability.

There are a lot of different versions as to who is to blame for the failure of Hostess and the loss of so many jobs.  Whether mismanagement or a union failing to make concessions, there are now 18,000 people facing unemployment.  The largest number of employees impacted are based in Irving, Texas.  I'm sad to say I haven't been able to find any information relating to job fairs for the Irving employees.    Texas, let's get moving on that shall we?  The Utah Department of Workforce Services and Ogden/Weber Technology College is hosting a job fair this Thursday for former Hostess employees. 

Hostess, previously with annual sales of about $2.5 billion, had been making 500 million Twinkies annually prior to the shutdown.  We'll miss the Twinkies. . . .

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.

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.