Author: Site Staff

Sports psychology tips for business professionals
Michael McDermott, consultant for Personnel Decisions International (PDI) and a sports psychologist, offers five tips today’s business professionals can glean from pro athletes to improve their performance.

Scrimmage for 10 minutes each day.
McDermott advises athletes to set daily practice goals and spend 10 minutes of each practice simulating a competitive situation, trying to attain a goal. That means setting a goal the athlete initially can’t sustain more than 10 minutes, and disciplining himself to reach the goal every practice, performing as if actually in competition.

Likewise, McDermott advises executives to do more than routinely run through their daily responsibilities. Spend 10 minutes each day working on a goal that will boost performance. This may include developing new knowledge, planning and preparing, benchmarking processes or improving communications. Whatever the goal, it’s best achieved when practiced routinely in short, concentrated efforts.

Control your self-talk.
Sports psychology tells us the body follows the mind. And it’s self-talk — the constant stream of messages we send ourselves — that directs our expectations and actions. Golfers know that thinking about the water in front of the tee is the surest way to get the ball wet.

Positive self-talk messages program us to take successful action. The golfer who avoids the water hazard is the one who picks a target on the far side of the pond and tells herself she can easily hit that spot.

Likewise, for business professionals, positive thoughts and self-talk result in success, while thoughts spent on negative outcomes or shortcomings often lead to self-fulfilling prophecies — from unmet plans to destructive interpersonal conflicts, to failure to stay ahead of the competition.

Don’t say “don’t.”
Our minds cannot process the word “don’t” when it comes to activities. So, in football, the words “don’t throw an interception” translate into “throw an interception.” Likewise the words “don’t be limited to one action plan” translate into “limit to one action plan.”

Visualize success.
McDermott asks athletes and executives to envision ultimate success. While many find it difficult to imagine complete victory, McDermott says envisioning success is necessary to define and achieve it. Continually striving for improvement without a picture of the end in mind leads to burnout, frustration and despair.

Failing to visualize ultimate success may result in executives limiting their view to short-term budget or market goals.

Rehearse for success.
Once the vision is set, McDermott asks the athlete to run through a successful performance in his mind, simulating the body movements required. In his mind’s eye, the athlete runs the perfect race, and trains or rehearses his muscles for that performance.

Executives can rehearse for many difficult situations they’ll face. Knowing and feeling the desired outcome of a meeting or interaction prepares business professionals for the actual event.

SOURCE: Personnel Decisions International (PDI), Minneapolis, January 22, 1999.

Issue:Your manufacturing company employs many workers who speak Vietnamese. You are ready to implement work teams. A team leader wants to have a rule that only English may be spoken during team meetings and on the production floor during working time. You have concerns as you suspect that there may be a negative reaction from the employees. Also, you know that English-only rules can be a sign of discrimination. Should you approve the team leader’s request?

Answer:
Not yet. Rules requiring that employees speak only English at ALL TIMES in the workplace may disadvantage workers on the basis of national origin and can create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation that results in a discriminatory working environment.

The EEOC takes the position that English-only rules applied at all times are presumptively discriminatory, although the courts have not always agreed with that approach. When a rule is applied at CERTAIN TIMES, it must be justified by a business purpose in order to avoid discrimination claims. Rules applied during WORK TIME only are less likely to be considered harassment and more likely to show a business purpose.

Decide whether an English-only rule is necessary.
Ask the team leader if there really is a language problem. As long as employees are not interfering with the company’s efficiency or causing tensions with other employees, there might not be any harm for certain employees to converse in another language. It may, in fact, be easier for employees to speak in their primary language and it may boost their morale to be able to do so, especially during the transition period to teams.

Determine if an English-only rule is a business necessity.
It has been shown that the use of another language at work may adversely affect efficiency, job performance, safety, teamwork, customer service, management-employee communications and racial/ethnic tension. In such cases, an English-only rule has been found to be a business necessity. You may find that the team leader believes that requiring employees to speak English at all team meetings and while working would ensure that all employees and supervisors could understand each other during meetings and that it would prevent injuries through effective communication on the production floor. He may also believe that it would prevent non-Vietnamese employees from feeling that they were being talked about by Vietnamese employees. Such reasons suggest that there is a business purpose for an English-only rule.

Is everybody fluent in English?
The use of English may be difficult for some employees. If a team leader is uncertain whether a Vietnamese employee understands instructions or information provided in English, the team leader should makes sure that the instructions or information is also explained in Vietnamese. Also, the company could offer English classes to employees whose primary language is not English.

Communicate the rule to employees.
Should you decide to implement an English-only rule, employees need to be told about it–who it applies to, when it applies, what languages are involved, and what the consequences are for violating the rule. It should be explained in all employee communications, discussed in training programs and management guides and it should be posted. Employers should notify employees of the rule in both English and the language with which the employees are most comfortable. Employers should also consider a grace period before the rule becomes effective in order to ensure that employees have received actual notice of the rule.

Enforce the rule fairly.
Counsel employees when there are rule violations as opposed to automatically disciplining a violation. Enforce the rule in a manner that does not create a hostile environment.

Cite: Tran v Standard Motor Products, Inc. (DKan 1998) 74 EPD 45,621.

Source: CCH Incorporated is a leading provider of information and software for human resources, legal, accounting, health care and small business professionals. CCH offers human resource management, payroll, employment, benefits, and worker safety products and publications in print, CD, online, and via the Internet.

An employer may be liable for harassment of employees by customers when it has the knowledge and means to prevent it.

Rena Lockard, a waitress for a Pizza Hut franchise, was repeatedly subjected to sexually harassing comments and conduct by two customers. Lockard informed her supervisor of the harassment and asked that she not be required to wait on the men again. Despite this request, she was forced to continue waiting on the two men. After one of the men grabbed her and put his mouth on her breast, Lockard quit. Lockard refused a production position and sued for hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Lockard was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed. When Lockard’s supervisor was notified of the harassment, the employer was required to respond promptly and adequately, but instead did nothing. The court noted that employers who tolerate a hostile harassing environment should be liable, regardless of whether the harasser is a coworker or a customer. Lockard vs. Pizza Hut Inc., 10th Cir., 97-7027, 97-7078, 12/14/98.

Impact:
Employers are advised that when they have knowledge of customer harassment and the means to prevent it, they may be held liable.

Source: D. Diane Hatch, Ph. D., a human resources consultant based in San Francisco, and James E. Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Barlow, Kobata & Denis, with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago.

Customers’ conduct toward waitress costs pizzeria more than $200,000

Issue:
Another waitress in the restaurant chain you work for as HR manager has quit; this, in itself, is not news, for there is an historically high turnover rate in the hospitality industry. However, this waitress says she quit because she was sexually harassed—by a customer. Occupational hazard? Or possible employer liability?

Answer:
Employers are liable for sexually harassing conduct of customers if

1. The employer knew or should have known of the conduct,
2. The employer has some control over the situation or is otherwise legally responsible for the non-employee’s conduct, and
3. The employer fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

In a situation similar to that described above, a federal appeals court has upheld an award of more than $200,000 to a waitress who was sexually harassed by customers while she served them beer.

Lesson for HR?
Your policies are only as good as the employees who implement them.
The waitress had worked at a local pizzeria for only a short time when she encountered male customers who directed sexually offensive comments to her. Without explaining why, the new waitress told her shift manager that she felt uncomfortable waiting on these customers. According to the company’s policy on harassment for management employees, managers were supposed to ask why. But this manager didn’t.

Later, the men returned and the waitress once again told her manager that she did not want to serve them. No one else wanted to either, and the manager instructed the waitress to wait on them. There was another “incident” that the waitress immediately told to her manager; she asked that someone else serve the men. The policy manual gave the manager the authority to ask customers to refrain from harassing conduct and to ask the customers to leave if they persisted; instead, he ordered the waitress to continue. When the waitress returned to the table, the customer grabbed her by the hair, grabbed her breast and put his mouth on her breast. At that point, the waitress quit her job.

The manager clearly had authority over the waitress and ordered her to wait on the offensive men despite her request not to, which put her in an “abusive and potentially dangerous situation,” according to the court. Just as the policy manual had suggested, the court found that the manager had sufficient notice that “these customers were likely to sexually harass” the waitress, triggering the restaurant’s obligation to respond adequately.

Action for HR?
Training.
As HR managers well know, the existence of a well-drafted policy, if not followed appropriately by managers and supervisors, provides no protection. Here the manager’s insensitive disregard of company policy forced the company to pay a high price for its customers’ behavior.

Source: Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc, 10thCir, 74 EPD 45,670.

Source: CCH Incorporated is a leading provider of information and software for human resources, legal, accounting, health care and small business professionals. CCH offers human resource management, payroll, employment, benefits, and worker safety products and publications in print, CD, online, and via the Internet.

Flexible application of an early retirement plan does not violate the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

General Motors’ (GM’s) early retirement plan allowed management to determine whether each candidate’s retirement was in GM’s best interest.

Ten managers at the Indianapolis Allison Gas Turbine Division were denied early retirement because they were determined to be too valuable to the company in light of the division’s imminent sale. When the division was sold, these managers lost their GM employee status. They sued, alleging unfair application of the plan and violations of ERISA.

The U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana granted GM summary judgment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed, holding that ERISA does not prohibit plans that give administrators the discretion to apply the plan flexibly with the company’s best interest in mind. McNab vs. General Motors Corp., 7th Cir., 98-1041, 12/11/98.

Impact:
Employers, who are without intention to discriminate against a protected class, may apply early retirement programs flexibly using managerial discretion.

Source: D. Diane Hatch, Ph. D., a human resources consultant based in San Francisco, and James E. Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Barlow, Kobata & Denis, with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago.

While some discrimination is intentional, thousands of people have ended up in court for discrimination, when they didn’t realize they were doing it.

For example, at Dominick’s, the number-two deli person is called the Second Deli Man, even if the person is a woman. This may not sound so bad, and standing alone, it probably isn’t. But when the store was hit with a class-action suit by 1,500 women, this was one of the pieces of evidence. Little things can add up to a big headache in court.

Source: Positive Leadership newsletter, Ragan Communications, Chicago, IL.

Valentine’s Day may be over, but romance in the workplace is not. Here are three preventative measures an employment attorney recommends you take to avoid related lawsuits.

Be serious about commitment.
Have and enforce an anti-harassment policy. Make sure no one suffers retaliation or adverse job action as a result of making a complaint.

Use protection.
Have a policy which addresses relationships between management and non-management employees or between a supervisor and a direct report. For example, policies requiring that the relationship must be reported to the company are gaining popularity. These “confessional” policies re-emphasize the company’s anti-harassment policy and get sign-off that the relationship is consensual.

Talk to me.
If you learn of a relationship that has ended, talk to the employees, confirm the relationship is over and that there will be no workplace problems as a result. Supervisors should make sure the employees know how to make a complaint, should anything go wrong.

Source: Baba Zipkin, Partner, Hall Dickler Kent Friedman & Wood LLP.

How to Keep Employees in the Loop

• Here are some ways to increase communication with employees.

• More frequent group meetings — short but with lots of information.

• A regular newsletter, published and edited by a group of volunteer employees.

• E-mail with specialized address groups to people interested in certain areas.

• MBWA — every day, practice Management By Walking Around. Spend part of every day out of your office. You may get to only one office and one person, or you may get to several. The point is to do it regularly.

SOURCE: Penny Miller, 82d Mission Support Squadron (US Air Force), Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, posted on HR Net, January 1999.