If thereâs a better way of starting 2020 than with the first nominee for the yearâs worst employer, Iâm not sure what it is.
Meet Dru DiSilvestro, the manager at an electrical contractor in Elmer, NJ, accused of sexually harassing Kimberly North, a 23-year-old employee, while in the midst of litigation brought by another employee accusing DiSilvestro of flashing his penis and leaving a dildo on her desk. And that wasnât even the first lawsuit accusing DiSilvestro of harassment. His employer settled another even earlier suit accusing him of sexually crude language.
According to the New York Post, âNorth says DiSilvestro for years made comments about her âhot body,â grabbed his crotch while making lewd faces at her and asked her about her sexual preferences.â Further, when she broke up with her boyfriend, âDiSilvestro allegedly sent her a text ⌠of a porno video and a GIF of a woman performing a sex act on a man.â Her lawsuit includes screenshots of the alleged text messages.
Worse yet, when North complained to DiSilvestroâs bosses they did nothing, even though they were already in the middle of defending the penis-and-dildo lawsuit. Eventually, North took a leave of absence because of the anxiety of working with DiSilvestro, and quit a month later. Her lawsuit soon followed.
If you ignore complaints of egregious sexual harassment brought by an employee while already litigating similarly awful claims of sexual harassment brought by another employee against the same supervisor, you might be the worst employer of 2020.
From a diversity and inclusion perspective, this has been a tumultuous decade. There has clearly been an increase in conversation about moving the dial on D&I, but how much has really changed?
Itâs easy to feel discouraged when women make up only 17 percent of executives in consulting, 15 percent in financial services, and 11 percent in tech. However, increased advocacy, laws and pressure addressing this problem has begun to make changes. The proportion of women on boards of the FTSE 100 has increased from 12.5 percent in 2010 to 32.4 percent in 2019.
But the numbers donât tell the whole story. The biggest areas where things have changed are our understanding of bias and discrimination and the way people are thinking about D&I.
Ten years ago, the words âunconscious biasâ were only heard in academic circles. Now, they are common parlance. The term âpsychological safetyâ was only used in academic journals in 2010, but now C-suite executives discuss its importance. These examples show an incredible increase in our understanding of why inclusion problems persist in the workplace.
Perhaps the biggest change comes from the very reasons organizations are doing D&I work in the first place. A decade ago, most organizations were approaching D&I from a compliance-driven approach that focused on ensuring the company was meeting all requirements it was legally obligated to. This âDiversity 101â approach was about attaining a minimum, not adding value.
As social consciousness around D&I increased, many organizations moved to a âDiversity 2.0â approach. They recognized that consumer markets look very different than they might have even 10 years ago and that consumers want to respect the values of the organizations they buy from. Putting diversity at the center of a major ad campaign is a good signal to these diverse populations that businesses understand these needs.
But as we close out the decade, some organizations have realized when these ad campaigns are not backed up by concrete action, it can create a feeling of inauthenticity. This can make the dominant group feel good about themselves but make the minority group they are trying to attract even more cynical. That gap in marketing versus reality is stark, and people notice. It causes a credibility gap that can make things worse in the eyes of the public.
As a result, businesses have found real success by using the âInclusion 3.0â approach. This is where diversity and inclusion initiatives are not something done on the side, but rather are a key aspect of the way they do business.
Inclusive thinking is embedded in all the decisions they make, creating the conditions for a more organic increase in diversity in the company and a more inclusive environment that makes everyone thrive and work together more productively.
This change in perspective is also affecting new technologies. In the last decade, advances in machine learning and AI have caused some problems in the D&I space. Algorithms are created by human programmers, so everything the machine learns is imbued with their biases. One famous example is how object-detection systems in self-driving cars are better at detecting light skin than dark skin, a phenomenon discovered by Georgia Tech researchers in early 2019.
However, this technology has also become much cheaper. Thus, as we become more aware of how bias affects AI, we are more easily able to rectify its problems. In the case of self-driving cars, companies like Tesla and Uber have been able to adapt their platforms to completely change the way their cars detect objects in a short time for a relatively low cost.
Moreover, we are seeing the advent of tech products that actually help mitigate our biases. Textio is one example. It uses machine learning to help us understand what words and phrases in job descriptions are more or less biased toward applicants of different genders.
As tech becomes cheaper and easier to use, and as our awareness of our own biases and how they affect our work and technology increases, we can become increasingly innovative in how to mitigate our biases in day-to-day life. While at times it may seem that little progress has been made when we look at the numbers, in reality the change in consciousness around D&I is a much more substantive change.
We may have backlash to this progress, coming in the forms of political crises around the globe, but the conversation has clearly changed. As such, we can look to the next decade with optimism.
Apogee Retail is a much bigger deal than Caesars Entertainment. Purple Communications required employers to allow employees to use their email systems for union-related communications if they otherwise allowed employees to use the email systems for any other purpose. Because it’s still the employer’s system, however, the employer still has access to the communications. I question why any employee would want to use an employer’s email system to talk union business, as they should assume the employer is reading all of their union-related emails.
Apogee Retail, however, reverses the biggest tragedy of the Obama-era NLRB. As I wrote all the way back in 2012 criticizing Banner Estrella Medical Center:
Workplace interviews are high-stakes affairs that carry serious liability repercussions for the employer. Moreover, it is often difficult to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. This difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that those conducting these investigations are not trained detectives, but often HR personnel. âŚ
By prohibiting employers from requiring that workplace investigations remain confidential, your decision in Banner Estrella neuters the ability of employers to make key credibility determinations. Limiting confidentiality in this manner will severely constrain the ability of employers to conduct thorough and accurate workplace investigations, which, in turn, limits the ability of employers to stop the workplace evils they are investigating (discrimination, harassment, theft, etc.).
The Board concluded that determined that a confidentiality rule limited to the duration of an internal investigation is generally lawful.
Bravo NLRB (for now). Still, it’s best to save your policies that complied with Purple Communications and Banner Estrella Medical Center. All bets are off if a Democrat takes back the White House in 2020, and you just might need to dig them out.
All year long, Iâve been sharing examples of the worst employers in America. My goal? Compile them at the end of the year and then turn it over to you, my readers, to pick the worst of the worst.
Iâve narrowed this yearâs preliminary list down to my choice for the top 10 naughty employers.
Voting will take from today until December 17, at 11 p.m. You will be able to vote for up to 3 choices.
I will then tally the votes, and, announce the highest recipient as the very worthy winner of the Worst Employer of 2019.
Vote, share this post with your friends, colleagues, and social networks, and most importantly, learn something from the mistakes of these 10 very cringe-worthy nominees.
When hiring is brisk, itâs easy to rush the process and end up with mismatched employees. So itâs important to know what motivates them â not just how they behave, but why they do what they do. With todayâs labor market, finding the best match for performance and retention pays for itself in retention alone.
A majority of Fortune 500 companies use assessments for selection and companies of all sizes can benefit from emulating the practice. To ensure the best talent selection and long-term match, HR should go deeper than personality types and behavior.
With assessments that determine what motivates candidates, HR can be more assured in choosing â or passing on â any individual.
âSelection is very different than just hiring,â said Brett Wells, chief science and consulting officer at Talent Plus Inc. âSelection means youâre making a sound judgement based on validity and science, based on whatâs the very best in a role or an industry and how they will respond versus what you think your gut reaction should be. Itâs predictive.â
Itâs a Good Time to Be Choosy
âPeople can answer interview questions very well,â said Alison Nolan. âPeople are fantastic at answering interview questions, but it doesnât always tell you the truth.â
Nolan is HR partner for the public health NGO, FHI 360. Previously, she did the same job with Volvo Group Trucks. With her 18 years of talent acquisition experience, she recommends an assessment-based hiring process.
âWith an assessment, if theyâre trying to fake it, it shows up,â said Nolan. âItâs very clear if theyâre trying to skew the answers. If youâre honest it just gives you so much more insight. It saves the employer and the employee.â
In Nolanâs experience, only about 25 percent of employees who are put on a performance improvement process end up keeping their jobs. So why not make it a goal to avoid performance improvement interventions?
Right now, two competitive factors make it more important than ever to assess and understand employee motivation in hiring so great performance is the norm:
Near full employment. With full employment, talent acquisition is more about who you donât hire than who you do hire, because you want to be selective and find people who will thrive in your organization. And once theyâre hired, retaining those employees also becomes a competitive necessity in a tight labor market.
Career trends. People have become more selective about what jobs they take. Once upon a time, job seekers considered just getting a job a societal responsibility. Today, they are more attracted by intrinsic factors â in other words, corporate culture and corporate responsibility â than the need to simply find a steady income or a job for life.
Personality assessments that identify motivation can make all the difference in matching candidates with the jobs in your organization.
For Wells, who researches and builds assessments, carefully matched talent has never been more important for retention.
âWith a tight labor market for candidates, the world is their oyster right now and âfitâ is key for retention,â said Wells. âIf they donât have that fit for the role or the organizational culture, they will leave. If theyâre in a role where theyâre not getting that intrinsic satisfaction theyâre at risk for being disengaged and, again, at greater risk for leaving.â
Finding a Motivational Match
When youâve done the work to accurately assess candidates, you can honestly say to those who arenât a match, âYouâre probably not going to like this job.â
How come?
You can answer, âWell, youâve got the work ethic and the skills to do the job, but after a year, youâll be exhausted because this job is all about engaging with clients daily in a strictly established corporate structure and youâre more motivated by thinking outside the box and coming up with new ways to accomplish tasks.â
On the other hand, for the candidate who assesses as a good fit, you can offer the job with assurance and negotiate as necessary to get them on board: âI really think you would love working here.â
Nolan has seen how this can be a positive experience for people who are not hired as well as the company.
âThey get to hear why they didnât get selected and they get that review,â said Nolan. âThey have something tangible to walk away with. And sometimes, we say, âHey we have this other position where youâd be a great fit.â â
Youâll know this because youâve used a scientifically valid instrument that goes deeper than simple behavioral traits to find out things like:
Do they like to develop their own way of working or do they prefer to have it laid out for them in a prescribed manner?
Would they rather help others succeed or do they prefer monetary incentives?
Can they focus on their job with no environmental distractions or do workspace aesthetics energize them?
There are no right or wrong motivations. Itâs all about congruency between what your organization needs and what it can offer the candidate.
When you assess a personâs motivation, you gain a deeper understanding of them so you can either lead them into a fulfilling and satisfying position or honestly wave them off, so they donât take a job that will ultimately frustrate them and send them looking elsewhere.
âThis is where that motivational piece comes in,â said Wells. âWe often see potential wasted because theyâre in roles spending time just doing things that theyâre excellent at, but they donât necessarily enjoy it.â
For Wells, itâs about talents versus strengths.
âA strength is something Iâm good at, but I might not enjoy doing it, e.g., balancing a checkbook,â said Wells. âA talent is something I have the potential to do with excellence and is something Iâm going to enjoy doing.â
The Perils of Using Gut Instinct
Outside of HR, not all managers are believers. Or maybe theyâre just not aware.
âWith some hiring managers, it can be them saying, âOkay, I want this personâ even when it didnât make sense from the assessment to take that person,â said Nolan. âAnd nine times out of 10 they would end up on a performance improvement plan since they could not do the job, because they were not motivated by what it took to do the job.â
The best way to bring hip-shooting hiring managers into the fold of scientific talent selection is to give them the assessment thatâs being used, including the feedback session. Theyâll see how in-depth and revealing it is, firsthand, and theyâll be inspired by what can be achieved with a more careful hiring discipline.
Nolan has worked with managers who have a certain feeling and until theyâre proven wrong â and it could be a hiring mistake that ends badly and could be costly â the task becomes how do you convince a hiring manager.
âI gave my hiring mangers the assessment and told them to take it,â said Nolan. âWith them taking it, it was an eye-opener. Like someone peeking inside of you. They do it themselves and see how accurate it is.â
 Why Touchy-Feely Matters
Assessments differ, but terms like âharmoniousâ and âaltruisticâ are common. This may strike old school hiring managers as a little too soft-skill or âtouchy-feelyâ to be practical.
What does it matter if a worker cares about the number of windows and art installations in the office? Or if theyâre indifferent to status and recognition?
Plenty, according to most science on the subject, but itâs also basic psychology. People function at their best when theyâre at ease. If an organizational structure or a particular job aligns with motivational preferences, the employee will be more comfortable and more able to do work in a way that gives them fulfillment.
People need to be able to be themselves at work. You can fake it for a few months in a mismatched position, but not for long.
And outside-the-box thinker isnât going to be happy if they have to support the status quo. A person who puts himself first, will burn out in a customer service job where altruistic motivation is more valued. An employee who is highly receptive to new ideas wonât fare well in a position that demands adherence to a standard process.
A motivational assessment gives you a reliable picture of what situations are best for any job candidate.
Behavior is easy to assess. If youâve been in talent management or training for a while, youâre probably pretty good at determining a personâs way of doing things without an assessment and through good interview questions.
Motivation, however, is deeper and youâll need a sophisticated assessment instrument to divine it.
Motivation as a metric goes back to the work of Eduard Spranger who identified six types of motivation: theoretical, utilitarian, aesthetic, social, individualistic and traditional. Todayâs motivational assessments adapt this taxonomy with more workplace-specific terms.
First Step: Assess the Job
Knowing a personâs motivational make-up wonât help if you donât know the motivational realities of your organization and the specific jobs. So, itâs important to document the chemistry of your company first.
What is the work environment like? What are the workday demands â strict office hours, telecommute, work from the field? What are the job categories? People focused? Process focused? Creative driven or analytical?
Doing this homework will allow assessments to work as talent matchmakers.
âAt Volvo, we interviewed a lot of senior buyers in our purchasing group and we benchmarked what our needs are for this job,â said Nolan.
This included requirements such as working independently, working with vendors all day long, negotiating pricing, giving presentations, and being driven by metrics in working with other people.
âOnce we did the interviews, we would give the assessment and it would show us how good of a match are they for the position,â said Nolan.
Wells says itâs absolutely vital to baseline the culture before assessing talent.
âIn any organization there are likely pockets of success or teams that are very successful and also pockets or teams that are struggling. With a validated assessment and research process you can discern those reliable patterns, thoughts, feelings, behaviors that drive success vs. failure in those roles,â said Wells. âSo, bringing those to the forefront and making them part of your selection process will help replicate that success, selection after selection, and mitigate future failures.â
Wells recommends starting with the companyâs mission statement, vision statement or a competency model, then mapping out what behaviors the company rewards, ignores and punishes. And ultimately, who gets promoted.
Itâs a process of defining the culture and identifying what it takes to thrive within it. Once this is known, any number of scientifically valid assessments can be used by talent professionals to dial in the optimum profile of the candidates to hire.
Finding the Right Assessment
Once an organization knows âwho it isâ the process of choosing an assessment can begin.
Fortunately, the assessment industry has evolved to a point where there are many accurate, reliable and powerful instruments from which to choose.
Across the board, Wells advises that there are three basic factors to always evaluate:
1) Reliability: How consistent are scores over time and across situations. If I test you today, if I test you five years from now, am I going to get roughly equivalent results?
2) Validity: How strong is this assessment result in predicting something I care about thatâs going to impact my business?
3) Fairness: To what extent do individuals from protected classes perform on the assessment compared to their majority group counterparts?
Nolan has a couple of preferred assessments and both have multiscience features that include what metrics of what drives the candidate, along with a DiSC component, and have been proven over time.
Itâs always been important to match employees with positions that suit their personalities. However, now itâs more of a competitive advantage than just an employee satisfaction exercise.
In the current talent market you can afford to be more selective, which will pay off in worker retention.
As younger generations redefine why we work, thereâs a little more care and feeding of talent we have to accept as employers.
Matching talent with positions by motivation helps assure success on both fronts.Â
The 20th (and final) nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is Alki David, heir to the Coca-Cola bottling fortune and owner of several media firms.
The evidence?
This week, a jury awarded over $58 million to a female employee who accused him of thrusting his pelvis into her face, simulating oral sex, moaning and zipping up his pants and walking away saying, âThanks, M.K.â
Itâs the third massive sexual abuse verdict leveled against David just this year.
In April a jury ordered David to pay another employee more than $11 million, fired after she refused to have sex with him. And in October, yet another jury awarded another employee over $5 million for allegations that David put his hands on her throat and pushed her chair into a wall, and for telling her that she needed to get supplies for his ârape room.â
For his part, David does not seem to have learned his lesson. âThis trial proves that not only is the system broken. Itâs in a state of emergency.â
Quite a worthy nominee to end this yearâs list.
Come back one week from today, when voting will open to name this yearâs Worst Employer. I have a feeling Alki David will have a very nice showing when the votes are counted.
My father passed away in October 1986 from a heart attack at age 49.
That was his last in a series of major and minor cardiac events. I was 21 years old when he died. At the time I perceived my father to be old (as do most children).
Now, at age 53, itâs an odd perspective to look back at his passing and reflect on where he was in his stage of life and career and consider his outlook on the future.
Gary Cassidy
My family has a history of heart disease and my father was no exception. As an engineer for General Electric, he worked long, hard hours and traveled frequently.
Physical activity, nutrition and doctorâs visits were not high on his priority list. I call this attitude the âI feel fine so I must be fineâ mentality.
He enjoyed eating the crispy skin off the Thanksgiving turkey, fat from a well-cooked steak and ladles of cream sauces â all the good-tasting stuff that was loaded with calories, fat, cholesterol and sodium.
When my father had his first heart attack, the doctors found he had extremely high blood pressure and major blockages in all four of his arteries. By that time, too much damage had been done to his heart and there was nothing they could do for him. Still, my father started eating better, took up golf, spent less time at work and focused on reducing his stress.
Itâs important to remember that during my fatherâs lifetime, 1937 to 1986, company wellness programs did not exist. He grew up with exercise guru âThe Jack LaLanne Show,â hula hoops, calisthenics, the sauna suit, vibrating belts and other early fitness trends and fad diets. Most centered on the external appearance of fitness but lacked a focus on inner fitness, the biometric and lifestyle measurements that truly determine if one is healthy.
You would think I learned something from his experience, but youâd be wrong. When I was young I felt indestructible.
I had a high metabolism and didnât gain weight no matter what or how much I ate. The good news: I was physically active in soccer, aerobics, long-distance running, weight lifting, competitive Taekwondo and many other activities.
The bad news: my diet was significantly less than stellar. It wasnât unusual for me to have fast food for breakfast, lunch, dinner and a late-night snack all in the same day. I inherited my fatherâs âI feel fine so I must be fineâ mentality.
In 1993, after eight years in the Air Force, I returned to civilian life to work at a large insurance carrier, where I learned about health care claims, annual employee benefit renewals and risk management, which drive and control an employerâs health insurance costs. I began to understand that the overall health of a workforce can affect an employerâs health care costs.
I learned about the decisions that organizations must make about health insurance cost sharing, like imposing premium increases, and that employee benefits are a large part of the workforceâs total compensation. I observed how employees who do not take responsibility for their personal health can cause others who do to pay more for their own health care benefits, something that always struck me as unfair.
At age 35, I finally visited my doctor for an annual physical, and the results were not good. My total cholesterol was over 300, my HDL was low and my LDL and triglycerides were high. I was also diagnosed with hypothyroidism.
While this was an âaha!â moment, I should have seen it coming. I knew that I had a family history of high cholesterol and most men on my fatherâs side of the family died young from cardiac-related causes. But âI felt fine so I must be fine.â
My doctor prescribed cholesterol and thyroid medication. I began to focus on nutrition and continued to be physically active. After one year, my numbers started to improve, but even now I still have work to do. Progress, not perfection.
While conditions like these may take years to produce symptoms and can initially go unnoticed, they are still incrementally causing damage to oneâs health and well-being. This is why itâs so important to focus on preventive measures to manage a disease before it has the chance to cause a major medical event.
After my father had his first heart attack, he was released from the hospital and sent home. He walked slowly so as not to raise his heart rate. One day I watched him spend 20 minutes walking up 15 steps in our house. When we lose our health itâs the simple things we take for granted that are impacted the most.
Seeing first-hand the impact of how an undiagnosed heart condition affected my fatherâs health helps me stayed focus on wellness. In every wellness program participant, I see someone whose life can be positively impacted.
I often reflect on what would have happened if my fatherâs company had a wellness program. Knowing him, he would have been one of those people who wouldnât want to participate. Because he was too busy. Because he didnât have the time. Because it didnât make sense; he âfelt fine.â Because he had too many other things to do. Because it was his choice how he managed his health, not the companyâs.
While all of this may be true, I think that if he had participated in a wellness program, gotten his blood work done and learned about his high blood pressure and high cholesterol before he had a heart attack, he would still be here today.
So I ask you, whatâs the downside of participating in a wellness program?
Gary Cassidy is the director of employee education, communication and wellness for Camden, New Jersey-based insurance broker Corporate Synergies.
42% of U.S. employees say they have personally experienced political disagreements at work
44% say they have witnessed political disagreements at work
34% believe that their workplace is not inclusive of differing political perspectives
12% report they have personally experienced political affiliation bias or discrimination based on their political views
56% state that political discussions at work have become more common over the past four years
Some will tell you that employees should avoid political discussions at work at all costs. I am not one of those people.
Itâs simply not realistic to eliminate all political discourse from the workplace. Thanks to CNN, the internet and round-the-clock news cycles, politics has invaded every crevice of our existence (and itâs only going to get worse between now and 11/3/20). How can we expect employees simply to ignore conversing about these issues for the eight-plus hours a day they are at work?
Instead of banning these discussions, remind employees of your expectations regarding all workplace conversations â that they be civil, professional and respectful. And, if a co-worker violates these precepts you have the right to disengage and to go to a supervisor, management or HR to address the problem.
Political discussions need not be nasty, uncivil, or contemptuous, as long as we respect the rights of others to think differently, and hold them accountable when they fall short of this standard.
Wesley Wernecke, an ex-employee of New York event planning company Eventique, claims in his recently filed suit that the company intentionally alienated him, ostracized him and shut him out of the business after its CEO learned Wernecke was gay.
NBC News shares the details of the allegations in Werneckeâs lawsuit.
Wernecke had just begun to work for Eventique âŚwhen [CEO Henry Liron] David began to push him out of his role ⌠.
A week after he was hired, Werneckeâs co-workers commented on his âgirlyâ engagement ring. When a co-worker asked if his wife wore a similar ring, Wernecke replied that his partner, Evan, did.
From that point on, tension developed between Wernecke and his co-workers and David that had not existed before, according to the complaint.
In the interim months, the complaint alleges, Wernecke was ostracized and excluded from professional meetings and office social events, passed over for assignments with large commissions and subject to discriminatory remarks.
David ⌠would exclude Wernecke from company lunches and frequent after-work drinks with âthe fellasâ in his office, the lawsuit states, and at one point, David gave an account Wernecke had been working on to another employee without consulting Wernecke.
These allegations, however, are the least of Eventiqueâs problems. According to Werneckeâs lawsuit, David significantly cut his salary (from $145,000 to $58,000.) Davidâs justification (again, according to the lawsuit): so that Werneckeâs pay would be on par with âthe other females in the office.â
Thatâs not just an admission of sex discrimination against Wernecke, but also an admission of wage discrimination against the companyâs female employees.
My advice to Eventique? Get out ahead of this issue, conduct a pay equity audit as soon as possible, and adjust salaries and wages as needed. Because if Iâm a woman working at Eventique, Iâm interviewing employment lawyers this week.
My gut, however, tells me that if a CEO is brazen enough to (allegedly) make those statements, heâs brazen enough to take this lawsuit head on.
Flip-flops, board shorts and a tattered Rip Curl T-shirt. Perfect beach attire to be sure, but itâs not uncommon to see employees at companies with progressive â some may call them nonexistent â dress codes roll into the office as if itâs a day at the beach and not a 10-hour shift behind a keyboard.
Organizations still contemplate defining business casual dress codes.
While dress codes have substantially loosened over the past three decades, the area between appropriate and inappropriate apparel becomes a bit hazy. Fashion and personal style strategist Joseph Rosenfeld said that lax dress policies can result in employees consistently dressing down and misrepresenting themselves in a professional setting.
âWhatâs happened with business casual as a concept culturally is we chase to the lowest common denominator,â he said.
Business casual can be a safe bet in allowing employees to dress to their comfort levels and identities. By definition, business casual is just a step down from business professional. It is more casual, but doesnât include jeans, and certainly bars shorts and an old high school gym T-shirt. Still, business casual can be a bit blurry too, depending on how well, or how poorly, a workplace communicates its doâs and donâts when it comes to what to wear to work.
âMore than 20 years later, Iâm still trying to teach people that casual means leaving things to chance, and you donât really want to leave things to chance when it comes to how you present yourself professionally,â Rosenfeld said.
Joseph Rosenfeld, co-founder of ModeDNA.
An OfficeTeam survey found that nearly 31 percent of office workers stated that they would prefer to be at a company with a business casual dress code; 27 percent favor a casual dress code or no dress code at all.
But there are limits to what passes as acceptable office attire. The survey also found that the most common dress code violations at work include wearing overly casual clothing and showing too much skin.
Megan Moran, founder, The Style Foundry.
âI find that companies with a strict business professional policy often deal with less dress code violations and a more consistent workforce. However, their employees end up feeling bored with their wardrobes and unable to express themselves and their personalities,â said Megan Moran, founder and wardrobe stylist at The Style Foundry. Although Moran also said that companies that implement a casual dress code policy may struggle with displaying a consistent company message and their employees may lose that empowered feeling that comes with business professional attire.
Workplaces should also avoid enforcing a dress code policy that is sexist or neglects traditional clothing among different cultures and religions. Failing to accommodate these aspects can put a company in legal trouble. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on account of their religion, birthplace, ancestry, culture or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
Amy Quarton, associate professor at Maryville University in St. Louis, said managers should ask employees for their input to help draft an appropriate dress code as this could illuminate potential concerns and legal risks as well as earn support. Quarton also said that the policy should include clear guidelines and examples of what is and is not acceptable as well as established consequences. The goal is to create a dress code policy that allows all employees to express themselves through their work attire while simultaneously represent their employerâs brand in a positive way, she said.
âNew and existing employees may benefit from training programs aimed at improving their cultural competencies and understanding of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination,â Quarton said. âEmployers can also establish a process that allows employees to share their concerns about the dress code. They can then work with people on an individual basis to negotiate accommodations that work for both the employer and the employee.â
When hiring is brisk, itâs easy to rush the process and end up with mismatched employees. So itâs important to know what motivates them â not just how they behave, but why they do what they do. With todayâs labor market, finding the best match for performance and retention pays for itself in retention alone.
