Author: Rick Bell

Posted on

The Benefits of a Productive Relationship Between the CEO and CHRO

Jack Welch leadership

The relationship between a CEO and chief human resources officer is arguably the most unique in the corporate world.

When fostered strategically, the dynamic between the person at the helm of the company and the head of human resources can drive a business to greater heights. However, when that dynamic is one of misalignment or blurred responsibilities, it can singlehandedly take an organization down unproductive paths.

Many key executives report directly to the CEO — for example, the chief financial officer. This is typically someone with a highly specialized background in finance who has grown through the management ranks into the executive level.

When CEOs and CFOs interact, the dynamic is one where the CEO relies heavily on a CFO’s extensive knowledge of financial best practices. The CEO sees a clear line between responsibilities for their role and the CFO’s role, and understands they must rely on the CFO to ensure financial processes and decisions support the overall strategy.

Oftentimes a CEO’s leadership team is viewed as a three-legged stool between the CEO, CFO and CHRO. Unfortunately, the relationship between the CEO and CHRO is not as clear-cut, causing confusion and frustration.

One study found that only 11 percent of CEOs view their HR chiefs as anticipators, able to forecast talent needs and provide the insights that support business planning. When HR is viewed as reactive and not strategic, CHROs are not given opportunity to demonstrate how their expertise can add value. Too often, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy relegating HR to an administrative, rather than strategic, function.

Trusted Adviser

Why are CEO-CFO relationships generally more productive than CEO-CHRO relationships? Many CEOs have spent meaningful time in P&L roles where they’ve gained a strong foundation in sales, marketing, finance and operations. Some have even held significant staff roles in those functions.

Very few have ever rotated through HR. Ironically, many CEOs fancy themselves as HR experts with an innate ability to identify, select and develop talent. Some do excel at this, but many do not. It’s a delicate situation for CHROs to address. It takes courage, finesse and credibility to become a trusted adviser.

Mary Barra, chairman and CEO of General Motors, is a rare example of a CEO who spent meaningful time in HR. From 2009 through 2011, Barra served as vice president, global human resources. Her earlier experience included stints in engineering, manufacturing and product development. Shortly after becoming CEO, Barra took a page out of her HR playbook when she decided to change GM’s archaic 10-page dress code policy to two words: “Dress Appropriately.”

On the surface, this might appear to be a mundane issue for a CEO to focus on. In reality, it was a brilliant move to send a clear message on empowering people to lead. Ironically, the HR department posed the biggest hurdle.

In a recent article in Entrepreneur, CEOs are said to want four things out of HR: match talent resources with company strategy; help attract the best and brightest; deliver excellence in the onboarding process; and foster employee engagement.

It’s interesting to note that, in Entrepreneur’s above four points, there is no mention of compliance, policies, cost-per-hire or other baseline tactical issues. Over the years, CFOs have earned a “seat at the table” by focusing on the more strategic issues while delegating day-to-day tasks such as accounting, controls and financial reporting. The truly exceptional CHROs have been able to do the same, however, their numbers are few. Many CHROs are still considered by the CEO to be administratively minded, and that’s why they are unable to attain or keep their seat at the table.

Moving Forward Collaboratively

There is another interesting phenomenon in the CEO-CHRO relationship. While most CEOs express a desire to have a strategic CHRO on his or her team, few really understand what that truly means. In some cases, they have had limited interaction with a strategic HR leader and can’t comprehend how that function will impact business. These CEOs often have a difficult time assessing CHRO abilities and actual performance. In other cases, the CEO understands the value of a strategic HR partner, but the organization is not ready for that type of transformational leader.

Naturally, every company has its own unique dynamics that shape the relationships within it, especially between the CEO and the CHRO. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, is often credited with embracing the value of HR and changing the way the function is viewed. During his tenure as CEO, GE’s CHRO was Bill Conaty who had a great deal of business and financial acumen. As a result, Welch involved Conaty in most major business decisions.

Not every CEO will utilize the HR function to its fullest potential. For those who do, however, the results will be significant assuming the CHRO is up to the task.

Posted on

Employee Suicide Is the Next Big Workplace Safety Crisis

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A recent headline at businessinsurance.com caught my eye:

Suicide seen as “next frontier” in workplace safety risks. It’s a pretty dramatic headline, but when you drill down into the statistics, it has a lot of weight.
  • Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.
  • Between the ages of 10 and 34, however, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and the fourth leading cause of death between the ages of 35 and 54.
  • In 2017, 47,173 Americans died from suicide (more than double the number of homicide victims), and another 1.4 million attempted suicide.
  • Between 2000 and 2016, the U.S. suicide rate among adults ages 16 to 64 rose 34 percent, from 12.9 deaths for every 100,000 people to 17.3 per 100,000.
  • In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics hit a record in its 25-year tally of workplace suicides at 291, with the number gradually climbing over the prior decade.
  • The highest suicide rate among men was for workers in construction and mining jobs, with 53.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 43.6 in 2012.
  • The highest suicide rate among women was for workers in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media, with 15.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 11.7 in 2012.
The numbers are stark and scary and show a nation in the midst of a mental health crisis. What can employers do to recognize and mitigate this risk, and provide a safe workplace for employees in crisis?
For starters, educate yourself. There are a lot of free resources available online.

Next, employers need to increase awareness and reduce the stigma that surround mental health issues. Stigma and silence are the two biggest reasons why those that need help don’t receive it. What can employers do to recognize and help an at-risk employee?

1. Be aware of individual risk factors for suicide. You cannot always prevent suicide, but you can understand some of the risk factors so that can recognize when an employee might be in crisis and in need of help.

  • Mental disorders, particularly mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and certain personality disorders.
  • Alcohol and other substance use disorders.
  • Hopelessness.
  • Impulsive and/or aggressive tendencies.
  • History of trauma or abuse.
  • Major physical illnesses.
  • Previous suicide attempt(s).
  • Family history of suicide.
  • Job or financial loss.
  • Loss of relationship(s).
  • Easy access to lethal means.
  • Local clusters of suicide.
  • Lack of social support and sense of isolation.
  • Being victimized by discrimination, harassment, or bullying.
  • Stigma associated with asking for help.
  • Lack of healthcare, especially mental health and substance abuse treatment.
  • Cultural and religious beliefs, such as the belief that suicide is a noble resolution of a personal dilemma.
  • Exposure to others who have died by suicide (in real life or via the media and Internet).

2. Provide mental-health awareness training to managers and supervisors. They spend the most time observing their employees, and are often in the best position to observe behavioral changes and risk factors, and hear from co-workers that someone might be in danger. Some of the warning signs for everyone to look for include:

  • Talking about wanting to die or to kill themselves.
  • Looking for a way to kill themselves, like searching online or buying a gun.
  • Talking about feeling hopeless or having no reason to live.
  • Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain.
  • Talking about being a burden to others.
  • Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs.
  • Acting anxious or agitated; behaving recklessly.
  • Sleeping too little or too much.
  • Withdrawing or isolating themselves.
  • Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge.
  • Extreme mood swings.

3. Consider implementing a comprehensive psychological health and safety management program to help improve overall workplace culture and resolve issues more effectively. This program would include eliminating stigma related to mental health issues; developing an inclusive working environment for all; and ensuring that you have a confidential Employee and Family Assistance Program (EAP) that offers support and counseling services and that your employees are aware of it.

4. Educate all employees and support those are struggling. This effort includes mental-health awareness and suicide prevention education to employees; reducing stigmas relating to protected classes, mental illness, substance use disorder, and suicide; expanding awareness of mental illness and addiction; encouraging help-seeking for those at-risk; creating a caring and supporting work environment, including the promotion of listening and interpersonal skills to help all employees.

If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting suicidal behavior, help is just a phone call away via the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 800-273-8255. One phone call can save a life.
Posted on

The 14th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Horrible Harasser

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

In its press release announcing a recently filed sexual harassment lawsuit, the EEOC says that a New York-based housing development and property management company violated Title VII when its owner and top executive repeatedly subjected female employees to crude sexual comments, called them sexually obscene names and showed them pornography.

And, as bad as that sounds, that description barely scratches the surface of what is actually alleged to have happened in this workplace.

The complaint that the EEOC filed fills in the blanks with disgusting details about the daily barrage of unwelcome and offensive misconduct.
    • The owner made crude remarks about his sexual interests, such as: that his “dick may not always work but my tongue will”; and that he “knows how to satisfy a woman” and “likes the way they [women] taste.”
    • The owner made unwelcome and sexualized comments about female employees’ bodies, such as: telling a female employee that her body was curvy and reminded him of his wife’s body, telling another that he admired her breasts, and telling another that he “felt like a kid in a candy store,” when she bent over.
    • When angry, the owner called female employees hostile, abusive, and demeaning names, such as: “cunts.”
    • The owner repeatedly put his hand down his pants and touched his genitals while speaking to female employees.
    • The owner showed female employees pornography on his cell phone.
The women say in the complaint that this egregiously offensive misconduct happened on daily or near-daily basis, that their complaints to the company’s CFO fell on deaf ears, and that it finally compelled them to quit.
I’m speechless, other than to say that if these allegations are true, “Congratulations, Birchez Associates and Rondout Properties Management of Kingston, N.Y., you’re the 14th nominee for the worst employer of 2019!”
Thanks to Janette Levey Frisch for bringing this story to my attention.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Excoriating Executives
Posted on

Parental Discrimination Claims Pose Big Risks for Employers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The article is right — parental discrimination claims (which are really just sex discrimination claims brought by working parents) are very dangerous for employers.

What is parental discrimination? The article breaks this claim down into four different subsets.

    1. Pregnancy discrimination: Examples include firing someone because she is pregnant, refusing to hire someone because she’s pregnant, or denying an accommodation to a pregnant employee that you otherwise grant to other employees with similarly disabling limitations.
    2. Caregiver discrimination: Treating moms (or dads) differently than non-parents because of their parental responsibilities outside of the workplace.
    3. Breastfeeding discrimination: Denying accommodations, including unpaid break time and private lactation spaces, to new moms.
    4. Stereotyping discrimination: Denying employment or employment-related opportunities (i.e., promotions) to moms (and dads) based on stereotypes like, “You’re more dedicated to your family than your job.”
According to the article, the number of parental discrimination claims filed in federal courts rose an astounding 269 percent between 2006 and 2015, and continues to rise.

Moreover, not only are parents suing more, but they’re also more likely to win. A typical employee only wins a workplace discrimination case between 16 and 33 percent of the time. Parental discrimination claims, however, are two to four times more successful for employees, with plaintiffs winning 67 percent of cases that go to trial.

Why are these claims so dangerous for employers? Working Mother offers several theories.

1. The number of employees with family responsibilities has swelled.

2. #MeToo has affected a cultural shift towards the rights of women in the workplace.
3. There exists more awareness of sex and pregnancy discrimination laws.
4. Society can be more progressive than many employers, who are still operate from the stereotypical idea of one-working-parent households.

We no longer live in an Ozzie & Harriet world. Long gone are the days when the wife would be waiting at home to greet her husband with a pair of slippers and a martini while she put dinner on the table for the family. Women work. Moms work. And no one should be treated differently or punished as a result.

As the Working Mother article adroitly points out, there is only one unhappy ending to telling an employee that his wife, or she, belongs at home with the children. It starts with law- and ends with -suit. Women have the right to work, and neither they, nor their spouses, should be punished for exercising that right, regardless of their chosen profession. Employers, force a working parent to make that unlawful choice at your own risk.

Posted on

There Isn’t a Magic Number of Racial Slurs an Employee Must Prove to Establish a Hostile Work Environment

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Jamie Ortiz (of Puerto Rican descent) worked for the Broward County, Florida, School Board in various capacities for nearly 20 years, including, from 2009 through 2017, as an auto mechanic in the district’s garage under the supervision of Michael Kriegel.

According to the testimony of both Ortiz and many of his co-workers, Kriegel had some issues with Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics, which he expressed to anyone who would listen, including Ortiz, on a daily basis.

  • Kriegel made offensive comments and jokes about Puerto Ricans, such as, “I’m around too many Puerto Ricans, I better carry my gun with me”; “we need to lock our toolboxes because we’re hiring too many Puerto Ricans”; “this New York Puerto Rican is on me”; “Puerto Ricans like to do their own thing, they don’t follow orders”; and “it ain’t right you Puerto Ricans are making more money than me.” Kriegel never used Ortiz’s name and instead called him “Puerto Rican.” Kriegel also used the ethnic slur “spic” “several times.”
  • Ortiz also testified that Kriegel harassed him “every day on any type of work order.” Kriegel would wait for him to finish his bus route and say things like, “your Puerto Rican ass think you can do whatever you want to do.” Another time, Kriegel criticized Ortiz for using a certain bus and stated that he was “going to write your Puerto Rican ass up.” Over Ortiz’s objections, these and other comments did not stop.
  • According to Ortiz’s coworkers, Kriegel used the terms “spic,” “lazy spic,” “knock-kneed spic,” “dumb spic,” and “wetback,” either specifically about Ortiz or about Hispanic people more generally. Kriegel also made other discriminatory comments, including “here comes the Puerto Rican gang, I need to call the cops”; “the damn Puerto Rican again, I’ve got to go see what this freakin’ Puerto Rican is doing, they’re all the same”; “I would rather have, you know, three more of these guys than a smelly Puerto Rican in here”; “spics come over here and they want to eat up all the benefits”; and “had a lot of niggers and spics apply, and we won’t need no more of them here.”

Amazingly, the district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ortiz’s racial harassment claim. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, was not having it.

Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that Ortiz’s workplace was objectively hostile to a reasonable person in his position. First, for nearly a two-year period preceding Ortiz’s EEOC charge, the frequency of the harassment was daily or near daily. Ortiz reported that, from the beginning of 2013 through September of 2014, Kriegel made offensive comments and jokes every day about Puerto Ricans. Likewise, one of Ortiz’s coworkers stated that he heard discriminatory comments by Kriegel about people of Hispanic origin on a daily basis during the same time period. Other coworkers reporting hearing discriminatory comments on a less frequent but still regular basis. This evidence is not consistent with the type of “isolated” or “sporadic” conduct that is insufficient to meet Title VII’s threshold. Rather, it reflects a work environment “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.”

[T]here is no “‘magic number’ of racial or ethnic insults” that a plaintiff must prove. …

I am flabbergasted that a federal district court judge could conclude that these facts did not, as a matter of law, constitute a racially hostile work environment.

Indeed, I’d argue that even one “spic” or “wetback” is enough to create a hostile work environment. A daily barrage of these slurs is the definition of racially hostile work environment. Bravo to the appellate court for correcting a very poor decision.

Posted on

A Handy FAQ for Service Animals in the Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A local Subway recently earned itself some bad publicity when an employee denied access to a customer with a service dog.

While this story involved a customer and not an employee, it did get me thinking about employee service dogs at work.

I created this handy FAQ on service dogs at work for your reference.

Q1:     What does the ADA say about service animals?

A1:     Believe it or not, Title I of the ADA (the part of the law that covers employers and employees) is completely silent on the issue of service dogs. Thus, because Title I does not specifically address service animals, an employer should consider a request from an employee to bring a service animal to work just like any other request for a reasonable accommodation. This means that employers must consider the request, but do not have to automatically allow employees to bring their service animals to work.

Q2:     What types of service animals does the ADA cover?

A2:     Only two species can ever qualify as service animals under the ADA—dogs and miniature horses. That’s it. Any other animal, even if trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, is not an animal for which the ADA requires the consideration of an accommodation.

Q3:     How should employers process requests for service animals by employees?

A3:     Because the ADA is silent on this issue, a request to bring a service animal to work is nothing more than a request by an employee for an employer to modify its no-animals-in-the-workplace policy. If you have such a policy, you must consider modifying the policy on a request-by-request, case-by-case basis. If you don’t have such a policy, and generally allow other employees to bring animals to work, then you should allow employees with disabilities to bring service animals.

Q4:     Must an employer allow service animals upon request, or can it offer other accommodations?

A4:     A disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not his or her preferred accommodation. Thus, if there exists another reasonable accommodation (other than an exception to your no-animals policy) that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, then you can offer that accommodation in lieu of permitting a service animal. That said, because of the personal nature of a service animal, you should be prepared for the possibility that it might be the only reasonable accommodation in many instances.

Q5:     What kind of documentation can an employer seek from an employee in support of the request for a service animal at work?

A5:    When an employee with a disability requests the use of a service animal at work, the ADA grants the right to an employer to request medical documentation to support the need for the accommodation (if the need is not otherwise obvious; a blind employee should not need to prove the need for a seeing eye dog). Also, an employer has the right to request proof that the service animal is appropriately trained and will not disrupt the workplace.

Q6:     Can you require proof of certifications, vaccinations, or insurance coverage?

A6:     I would. Before being permitted to bring animals to work, owners (even those with disabilities and service animals) should verify that vaccinations are up to date, that the animal licensed and free of parasites and insects, and on regularly scheduled flea and tick preventatives. An employee should verify, in writing, sufficient homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to cover any damage to person or property caused by the animal. You could also consider indemnification in case your business gets sued, and a written paycheck deduction authorization for any damage caused (but I wonder if this could creep into the realm of discrimination or retaliation if you don’t require the same of other employees in similar circumstances.)

Q7:     Can I hold the animal to certain workplace standards?

A7:     Absolutely. I have no issues with requiring that all service animals be “office broken.” Animals with any bite history should not be permitted. Moreover, any aggressive behavior, such as growling, barking, chasing, or biting, should result in the animal’s expulsion on the first complaint. Animals should also be house broken, friendly towards people and other animals, and not protective of their owners or their owners’ spaces. Finally, you should define when animals must be leashed or otherwise restrained.

Q8:     Can an employer deny a request if certain areas are off limits, or to accommodation other employees with certain animal allergies or phobias?

A8:     No. If certain areas are off limits, for example, because of safety or other reasons, you just set rules and limits keeping the animal out of those areas. It’s not a reason to deny a request outright. Similarly, when you have When you have two people with disabilities, you don’t treat one as more important than the other. Instead, you work out a balance between each’s needs and accommodations.

Q9:     How you handle a service animal’s bathroom needs?

A9:     Designate a specific area outside for animals to go to the bathroom (preferably away from the entrances), and make sure pet owners understand that it is their responsibility (and only their responsibility) to clean up messes outside and accidents inside. You may, however, have to considering altering an employee’s break time(s), or providing additional breaks, to permit the disabled employee to care for the needs of his or her service animal.

Q10:     What about emotional support animals, and other animals not classified as “service” animals?

A10:     Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under the ADA. Thus, you have no duty to accommodate these requests.

These are not easy issues to work through. My recommendation is that you work with your employment counsel if you receive an accommodation request for a service animal from an employee.

Posted on

As You’re Aware … Self-Awareness Is Critical to Your Company’s Success

The research indicates that more self-aware individuals understand others better, enabling them to lead more effectively.

However, while most people believe they are self-aware, a study by The Eurich Group shows that the quality of self-awareness is actually in short supply.

There are a number of reasons to believe that greater general levels of self-awareness at organizations lead to positive business outcomes. For example, studies such as those by Bass & Yammarino, Atwater & Yammarino, and Church showed that people with more accurate self-conception tended to perform better.

At the top level, the relationship between self-awareness and flexibility is demonstrated by a study of the Royal Navy, which found that more self-aware leaders were better able to tailor their leadership style to the needs of the situation at hand. Better employee performance plus more agile leadership typically leads to a better bottom line.

There’s also reason to believe that it might influence retention. My team at the Myers-Briggs Co. recently researched workplace well-being with over 10,000 global respondents, and found that individuals with a higher level of well-being — which can stem from self-awareness — had significantly higher levels of job satisfaction and were significantly less likely to look for a new job.

What Is Self-awareness, and How Does It Help You?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary self-awareness is “Conscious knowledge of one’s own character and feelings.” Researcher Anna Sutton further elaborates on this to describe it as, “The extent to which people are consciously aware of their interactions or relationships with others and of their internal states.”

Think about a time you took your car in for a tune-up. Nothing major was fixed, but afterward it drove like a dream. Similarly, increasing your self-awareness can help you perform better — by discovering how you operate, you begin to understand how to adjust your behaviors for better results.

You also begin to understand other people’s approaches too. In our own recent research on self-awareness, survey respondents reported that increased self-awareness led to improvements in confidence, decision-making, people-management and stress management. When we asked people about the advantages of being self-aware, the top responses were:

  • . Understanding of reactions and motivation.
  • . Management of self and others.
  • . Ability to adapt behavior.
  • . Relationship improvement.
  • . Personal growth.

Additionally, people said that self-awareness was particularly helpful when:

  • Working with others in a team (mentioned by 58 percent of survey respondents).
  • Coping with stress (mentioned by 54 percent of survey respondents).
  • Acting as a coach (mentioned by 53 percent of survey respondents).
  • Dealing with change (mentioned by 50 percent of survey respondents).
  • Managing and leading others (mentioned by 45 percent of survey respondents).
  • Dealing with clients (mentioned by 33 percent of survey respondents).
  • Receiving coaching or feedback (mentioned by 28 percent of survey respondents).

 How Is Self-awareness Measured?

A number of models and assessments can be employed to measure self-awareness in individuals, but one particularly useful one comes from a 2015 study by Sutton, Williams and Allinson which identified four facets of self-awareness: Reflection, Insight, Rumination and Mindfulness. In our own research, here is a sampling of the included questions designed to measure these facets:

 Reflection

  • I often reflect on my thoughts. I do not often think about the way I am feeling.
  • I enjoy exploring my “inner self.”
  • I often reflect on my feelings.
  • Others would benefit from reflecting more on their thoughts.

Insight

  • I am interested in analyzing the behavior of others.
  • I value opportunities to evaluate my behavior.
  • It is important to understand why people behave in the way they do.
  • When I’m feeling uncomfortable, I can easily name these feelings.
  • I usually know why I am feeling the way I do.

Mindfulness

  • I am often on autopilot and do not pay much attention to what I am doing.
  • Sometimes I am careless because I am preoccupied, with many things on my mind.
  • I often dwell on the past or the future, rather than the present.
  • My mind often wanders when I am trying to concentrate.

Rumination

  • I often find myself thinking about past negative events.
  • When things go wrong, I often ruminate on them for long periods of time.
  • I tend not to look back and think about how I could have done things differently.

 How Can a Workplace Professional Promote Self-Awareness?

There are many ways to develop self-awareness, but a mix of methods will probably work best. Here are some of the most popular, based on responses to our survey.

  • Feedback from peers.
  • Completing personality questionnaires.
  • Feedback from family, managers, clients, subordinates and a wider network.
  • Training to become a coach.
  • Professional training.
  • 360-degree tools.

However, the most popular methods aren’t necessarily the best. We looked at a number of commonly used approaches and found that the best methods, in order of effectiveness, were:

  • Training to be a coach.
  • Being coached.
  • Having structured feedback from your peers.
  • Completing personality assessments.

It wasn’t too surprising that “training to be a coach” topped the list, as this involves many, many hours of learning to understand oneself before being allowed to coach others. Of course, such training is also time consuming and expensive and not a realistic route for most employees.

On the other hand, “being coached oneself” as a way to help senior managers, is something that many organizations may invest in. It does, however, come with a significant cost and time commitment, so companies might want to look into having ‘structured feedback from your peers and completed personality assessments, which may in fact be the most cost-effective approaches in terms of providing the biggest payoff for a relatively low monetary investment.

Similarly, journaling, the practice of keeping a diary or journal that explores thoughts and feelings surrounding the events of your life, offers a low-cost way to effectively promote self-awareness.

However, companies should note that one of the interesting findings of our research was that “feedback from your manager” was seen to be one of the least effective methods. This is an important point because, as noted earlier, this kind of feedback was also listed as one of the most common methods of promoting self-awareness that organizations leverage.

Though we cannot say exactly why manager feedback was not seen as especially effective, there are a number of possible reasons. Some managers may be less close to their subordinate’s work than peers, seen to have particular agendas or as too busy with other aspects of their job. Whatever the reason, this is a troubling finding for managers.

You’re Self-Aware, Now What?

Self-awareness is really just the first step. Once individuals become more aware of their own personality preferences and have a structure to understand and describe them, they can start to recognize how their co-workers are similar to or different from them and begin to devise strategies to work with them more effectively. Linked to this greater understanding, managers and workplace professionals can put in place systems to help people work together more effectively. This could include approaches such as:

  • Establishing a modus operandi for working together that takes account of the rights and the responsibilities of different personality types.
  • Ensuring that important information is communicated in a range of different ways (rather than only in a style that suits the personality of the sender).
  • Allowing time for reflection during or after meetings.
  • Considering personality preferences when reorganizing office layouts.

Regardless of whether some or all of the approaches are taken, the key to successfully implementing any of these is the realization that we are different from others in ways that can be identified and described, and the harnessing of this diversity of personality in a positive way.

Posted on

Playing the Game of Baby Boomer Bingo

baby boomers

It’s no secret that the retirement of baby boomers is contributing to a shortage of workers. baby boomers

Recent reports show that the United States is predicted to see a 38 percent increase in the over-65 population between 2015 and 2025, while the U.S. population of those between ages 18 and 64 is only expected to rise by 3 percent. Baby boomers are estimated to comprise 15 percent of the total global population, according to a resource on website employmentcounselor.net.

Around the world, employers are trying to retain these tenured resources with creative incentives. Some countries are increasing wages, and others are increasing retirement ages.

At the same time, companies are finding that the work styles of baby boomers are changing. After long careers spent largely working as traditional, full-time employees, many in this generation are shying away from retirement and are instead looking for smaller, more flexible work as contractors or consultants. In a tight labor market, this shift can be a significant opportunity for employers desiring the deep level of subject matter expertise, hard and soft skills, and management experience that boomers carry.

Boomers’ preference to continue working can be a big win for any company. To keep this generation in the workforce, however, companies will have to embrace several basic approaches to improve worker engagement. These approaches include creating flexible schedules and engagement models, partnering with senior workers in their career progression, and empowering senior workers with technology.

Embrace Flexibility

As baby boomers find their own balance between easing into retirement and staying productive, employers can aid the transition by providing flexible work options and alternative engagement models. For example, consider the sales executive who looks forward to cutting the hourlong commute from her morning or evening schedule.

For the employee, retirement may be a big, drastic step, but the personal and lifestyle benefits of removing the commute, even if just a few days per week, outweigh the anxieties of not working. By engaging that worker in meaningful dialogue around her real needs and proactively offering remote work as an option, the employer can dramatically alter the equation, often resulting in the employee staying on board for several valuable years. Similarly, flexibility in scheduling may include four-day weeks or alternative hours.

Along with schedule adjustments, an open mind about engagement models is also an advantage. Talent may come in the form of consultants or contractors, allowing a more flexible engagement model.

Hiring managers need to become comfortable in looking at both traditional employees and flexible workers when considering talent needs. That level of comfort requires an environment that enables the employer to quickly and easily identify and access all available talent, including permanent employment candidates and contractors alike.

Become a Career Partner

When employing baby boomers, it is critical to partner with them in their career progression and understand what they want from the position, as well as their overall career goals. For example, they may be interested in expanding their skills.

From technology to processes and new fields of expertise, workers of all generations value learning, and employers would do well to meet their needs with appropriate resources and learning programs. Likewise, visibility into job openings across the company is also valuable to pre-retirement workers. What the boomers desire in development (or increased flexibility) may come simply in the form of a role in a different department or functional group.

Along with traditional training opportunities and job visibility, boomers can benefit greatly from the give and take of knowledge transfer among workers in the organization. Mentorships are an obvious option for knowledge sharing from pre-retirement workers to those of other generations. Less obvious, but just as important, are reverse mentorship arrangements that give pre-retirement workers a chance to learn from younger generations.

Provide Up-to-Date Technology

Employers wishing to continue working with highly skilled baby boomers should not only provide them with workplace flexibility but also enable them to do that work with easy and transparent digital interactions. While baby boomers may have lived a substantial portion of their lives before the rise of digital communication, they also have grown accustomed to the consumer experience of using applications for everything from shopping on their phone to using Facetime to connect with distant family members.

In the workplace, baby boomers can benefit from the same level of technology enablement. For example, the use of cloud-based technologies for collaboration should make workflow, documentation, feedback, and approvals on projects transparent and accessible any time, any place.

Likewise, telecommuting tools like videoconferencing are no longer new, but many organizations have not fully adopted the concept in their core business. As more boomers opt to avoid or reduce the number of days spent commuting to onsite locations, use of these tools will become more widely accepted as part of corporate cultures and more widely sought after by generations approaching retirement. 

Make Workplace Accessibility a Priority

Regardless of age, employees need to believe that their employer is committed to their well-being, and removing barriers to access is an important part of that commitment.

For workers with disabilities, an employer’s commitment to improving employees’ ability to utilize physical and virtual resources can be instrumental to a positive work experience. Considering that the percentage of the U.S. population with a disability jumps from 10.6 percent for those between 18 and 64 to more than 35 percent for those over 65, according to research by the University of New Hampshire, the importance of access and accommodation for baby boomers is clear.

The most obvious example of accessibility is the corporate website. Captions with audio and video, along with visual options such as larger formats and contrasting color schemes, can help to ensure that the employer does not place unnecessary barriers to work and interaction for employees.

Many organizations can help companies assess their accessibility and provide paths for improvement. At the same time, employers should consider that accessibility often leads to a better experience for everyone and not just workers with disabilities.

Engaging Talent of All Ages

Organizations will continue to compete for valuable baby boomer talent. The competition may come from different employers, or it may come in the form of competing life choices, from full retirement to relocation. In all cases, core principles that drive great talent engagement will make the difference between employers that successfully engage baby boomers and those that miss out on the opportunity these workers present.

These commitments — being flexible, empowering their careers, and providing the right tools and technology to get work done — are more than strategies for recruiting senior workers. They are basic paths for any company to become a better employer to the people it hires and aims to retain, whatever their age and experience group. When it comes to attracting and retaining talent of any age, what’s good for people is good for business.

Keep Looking Ahead

Companies face persistent challenges in attracting, finding and retaining critical talent. They are struggling to get work done in a market where demographics are shifting, and the technology is constantly evolving.

When positioning a talent acquisition strategy to better engage the workforce, regardless of generation, an open mind for change is essential. A new solution may supplant the technology that works today for virtual work.

The model that engages pre-retirement professionals as consultants may evolve as part of a total talent approach. Amid such conditions, the leaders, today and in the future, will be the employers that continually question how work gets done, who needs to do it, and how they will go about securing that talent.

Posted on

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Excoriating Executives

It’s been nearly a month since I posted the last nominee for 2019’s Worst Employer.

It’s not for lack of ideas; it’s just that the prior nominees have been so awful that the bar for qualification has been set pretty high. Thankfully, France Télécom has come to the rescue.

What did the former top executives at France’s national phone company do to earn their nomination?

I’ll let the New York Times story take it from here:

The men — all former top executives at France’s giant telecom company — wanted to downsize the business by thousands of workers a decade ago. But they couldn’t fire most of them. The workers were state employees — employees for life — and therefore protected.

So the executives resolved to make life so unbearable that the workers would leave, prosecutors say. Instead, at least 35 employees — workers’ advocates say nearly double that number — committed suicide, feeling trapped, betrayed and despairing of ever finding new work in France’s immobile labor market. …

“They were stuck, cornered,” said Michel Ledoux, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. “The only possibility was to make them leave, one way or another.”

Weeks of wrenching testimony about despairing employees who hanged themselves, immolated themselves, or threw themselves out of windows, under trains and off bridges and highway overpasses, have suggested that the former executives went very far in “pushing the company into the new century,” as corporate strategy dictated. …

“The company was going under and it didn’t even know it,” Mr. Lombard, the ex-chief executive, testified. “We could have gone about it much more gently if we hadn’t had the competition banging on our door.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Lombard, he was recorded saying in 2007 that he would reach the quota of layoffs “one way or another, by the window or by the door.” The window is what a number of the employees chose.

“This isn’t going to be lacework here,” Mr. Barberot said in 2007. “We’re going to put people in front of life’s realities.”

If you harass employees to the point of mass suicide in the name of layoffs, you might just be the worst employer of 2019.

Big thanks to Kelly Paxton for bringing this story to my attention.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

Posted on

Why Are Employers Testing Job Applicants for Prescription Medications?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

During a pre-employment medical examination and drug screen, an applicant tests positive for Alprazolam, the generic form of Xanax (a medication commonly prescribed for anxiety), a fact she had already disclosed during the examination.

The doctor performing the medical exam and reviewing the drug screen concludes that the applicant is medically acceptable for work as an intake specialist at an inpatient mental health facility. The employer, however, has other ideas. It withdraws the job offer without providing the applicant any opportunity to discuss the results.

The applicant sues, claiming disability discrimination.

Who wins?

(a) The employer, because the ADA permits pre-employment medical examinations and drug screening, and further because there exists a nexus between the applicant ’s underlying mental impairment (anxiety) and her fitness to work at a mental health facility.

(b) The employer, because the ADA only protects physical and mental impairments, not drugs used to treat them.

(c) The applicant, because the employer conducted an illegal medical examination.

(d) The applicant, because the only logical explanation for rescinding a job offer after an applicant tests positive for a prescription drug commonly used to treat anxiety is that the employer regarded the applicant as disabled.

While we may eventually find out the official answer to this puzzle (the EEOC recently filed suit alleging an ADA violation arising from these facts), if you answered (d), grab yourself a Kewpie Doll.

Still, the answer might not nearly be this cut-and-dry. The ADA is remarkably silent on the issue of testing for legally prescribed medications.

generic drugsThankfully, courts have stepped in to fill in the ADA’s omission. For example, Bates v. Dura Automotive Sys. (6th Cir. 8/26/14) [pdf].

1. Does the ADA permit an employer to test for prescription medications?

Whether the ADA permits an employer to test employees for prescription medications will hinge on whether the test is a “medical examination.” If the test is a “medical examination,” then the ADA only permits it during employment if the test is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” According to the Court, whether the prescription-drug screen is a “medical examination” will hinge on whether the test “is designed to reveal an impairment or physical or mental health,” which examines both the employer’s reasons in using the test and the test’s typical uses and purposes.

2. Does the ADA permit an employer to require employees, after a positive test, to disclose medications to a third-party administrator?

The court concluded that there exists a huge difference between a general requirement that employees disclose a list of all prescription medications taken (possibly illegal), versus a policy that only requires the disclosure of job-restricted medications after a positive test.

How can an employer make sense of this discussion? These are difficult issues that balance an employer’s right to maintain a safe workplace against an employee’s right to medical privacy. What is an employer to do?

    1. Limit testing for the use of prescription drugs to safety-sensitive positions, and then only for those medications that could pose a safety risk.
    2. Do not ask employees to disclose the underlying medical condition for which they are taking the medication.
    3. Be consistent in your treatment of employees who test positive.
    4. Only disclose the results to those who need to know.

In conclusion, I want to focus for a moment on point No. 1 — limit testing for the use of prescription (any?) drugs to safety-sensitive positions and then only for those medications that could pose a safety risk.

Unless one is applying for a job that poses a safety risk, why are we drug testing at all? If you don’t want those who use illegal drugs to work for you, I get that.

That’s your right and your decision. But prescription drugs?

What are you hoping to learn from those tests? Unless you have a legitimate reason to hunt for medications that could impair an employee’s ability to safely perform their job, the risks of the test severely outweigh any benefits to gain.

You’ll learn a heap of protected medical information (or make assumptions based on the physical or mental impairments the drugs are used to treat). Either way, you are opening yourself up to a difficult disability-discrimination lawsuit if you rescind a job offer, as Rogers Behavioral Health in the lawsuit the EEOC recently filed.

Is this risk worth the minimal benefit?