workplace culture – Workforce

Emotions in the workplace can range from outbursts among coworkers due to daily stressors but can also include mental health conditions and outside factors that people bring to work with them. These struggles can make it difficult or uncomfortable to ask for help due to the stigma surrounding mental health issues. While breaking the stigma encourages people to seek help and discourage discrimination against them when they do, sometimes the implementation of these efforts cross too many lines. Mark Kluger, founding partner of employment law firm Kluger Healey, spoke to Workforce about what is and is not appropriate when it comes to developing workplace policies that address emotions at work.

Workforce: To what extent does an outburst at work due to negative emotions end up resulting in discipline or determination?

Kluger: I look at it as three different levels. Human emotions, or workplace emotions, can include anything as simple as an argument at work. What I would look at as a potential disciplinary issue could involve an outburst from an employee to another coworker or somebody losing their temper. From a policy standpoint, this can justify discipline or termination, depending on how bad it is. Sexual assault or sexual harassment can also obviously create conflict at work and result in discipline.

The next level are issues that border on mental health problems that manifest themselves at work, and those two things can bleed into each other. Obviously, somebody with a mental health problem at work can also have outbursts that can result in there being discipline. So, that’s one set of policies that revolves around how people just behave at work toward one another — essentially a civility code — and that kind of civility code, from an employer’s standpoint, can result in people losing their jobs or being disciplined or counseled.

Another level is the mental health aspect. Employers have to be careful about having policies that specifically address mental health issues because the Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of mental health issues. So, employers have to be very careful not to have policies that delve into people’s medical conditions. There is protection against discrimination for employees who have mental health problems at work where employers do cross over into having to meddle in people’s mental health problems, where those mental health problems cause a disruption at work or cause an employee to not be able to perform their job effectively. There are also times when employers are obligated to engage in what’s called an interactive process under the Americans with Disabilities Act where they essentially ask employees what’s going on and whether there is something the employer can do to accommodate them.

Workforce: How do organizations ensure that their policies are respecting and accommodating employees’ needs and privacy while also being effective and not crossing any lines?

Kluger: Employers have to be really careful not to intrude into areas of potential mental health problems or even just people having a bad day. But of course things like anxiety and depression are associated with mood, so when an employer starts asking questions like, “Why are you in a bad mood today?” or, “What’s troubling you?” employers may be crossing that line into areas not only that they shouldn’t be but that they don’t want to be because it can lead to actions by the employer, while maybe unintended, that could appear to be discriminatory.

Workforce: Does the nature of the workplace culture determine what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate behavior?

Kluger: It depends on the environment, of course, but from an employer’s perspective, it almost doesn’t matter because you can’t have people who are being insubordinate or screaming at their bosses in front of everybody else because it totally breaks down the respect for the authority figures. I mean, in an advertising agency you can maybe have a little more leeway with people being argumentative with one another, but in a police department or a fire department you can’t. There are those kinds of environmental factors to take into consideration, but when people express their emotions at work, it can lead to legitimate reasons for terminating them regardless of what the origin of the emotion is, so I think it’s important to keep that in mind.

Workforce: What role do EAPs play in these situations?

Kluger: EAPs are very common these days, usually as part of a health insurance plan and they’re conducted by outside mental health professionals. I think they are an excellent resource for employers to make available to their employees. The privacy is protected with EAPs because although someone in HR may know that an employee is taking advantage of it, they ultimately don’t know why or what it’s about. So, it is private in a sense that the professionals are outside of the organization and it is a great way for an employer to provide a benefit for employees who need some counseling or guidance. Since so many people need those kinds of resources today, the fact that employers are able to make it available is a real asset to most workplaces.

Workforce: How can workplaces start breaking the stigma against mental illness/coping with that in the workplace?

Kluger: I think it’s probably as much a societal problem as it is a workplace problem. The stigma has been there for a long time, but I think the definition of what a mental health problem is has broadened so much today that I think that most areas of society are starting to loosen up on that stigma, including in the workplace. Because so many people report issues of anxiety and depression and are far more open about it than ever before, I think that stigma is slowly melting away.

I view it as a generational issue as well. I think that the baby boomer generation may be the last of the generations that attach that stigma. As millennials and Generation Z become more ingrained in management among employers the stigma will all but disappear. I think millennials and Generation Z are far more comfortable and open about anxiety and depression being part of most people’s lives, unfortunately, and less of a problem. So, I do think over time the stigma will disappear and people will feel more comfortable revealing that they’re having mental health problems.

Workforce: What is some advice that you give when counseling HR managers or developing these types of policies?

Kluger: I tell HR professionals to listen and be careful what you ask because you may not want to know. Ultimately, the employer’s job is to get the job done right and if somebody can’t come to work, whether it’s because they’ve got a substance abuse problem or a mental health problem, is sort of irrelevant to the employer. So, while many employers are generous about providing people with time to heal and to get better — obviously there are laws that protect them as well — policies need to be geared to comply with the law but to also be cognizant of the fact that too much information is a dangerous thing for the employer.

Today’s workplace seems to have become a battleground in the culture wars. Will your employees embrace workplace diversity or will they feel embattled?

WF_1016_CultureWarsImage_302 — Focus on relationships, not rules, when it comes to creating a thriving workplace culture.

The workplace is the most prevalent arena of so-called forced diversity. That’s not intended as a criticism or qualitative assessment. To the contrary, properly understood and directed, the reality can be a positive development. Rather, the observation notes the following reality — the workplace is both where we spend the greatest amount of time outside the home and where diversity is thrust upon us more than in any other place.

Reasonable people can see the benefit of embracing diversity — diversity of thought, culture and experience. We learn much from each other. The pace of social change — reflective in the workplace — was intentional and deliberate in the past. It started perhaps before 1964, but certainly no later than that year with the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The pace of social and cultural change has accelerated dramatically recently with several developments:

The Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage, and that ruling has expanded social relationships on which some workplace policies and benefits depend, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and employee spousal benefits.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other government agencies now interpret the phrase “sex discrimination” — which has been used in various laws, regulations and executive orders since 1964 — as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Affordable Care Act’s non-discrimination mandate recently was interpreted to require a health plan to cover gender transition medical treatment. These new interpretations have impacted the workplace — from harassment policies to bathroom access to procedures covered by insurance.
Technology and social media allow people to work anywhere, and many people work everywhere. These advances allow employees to broadcast opinions to a wide audience, including co-workers. The lines between “on duty” and “off duty” are blurred, and broadcasting personal opinions among a large group of fellow workers can impact workplace relationships and taint the workplace environment — and yet these activities have been interpreted as “protected concerted activity” for which an employer may not be able to take any discipline.
The mounting importance of “feelings” in the culture, with a corresponding expectation (albeit unrealistic) that workers should be free of any conduct they find insulting, unaccepting or challenging to their viewpoint.

The Tension

These legal and social changes create tensions that are a huge challenge for employers. The differences in this “forced diversity” are no longer limited to race or gender, but are also reflective in more divergent religious views, ethnic origins, sexual preferences, gender identities and widely divergent political persuasions.
But, as with all challenges, a savvy employer realizes that this challenge also presents an opportunity: Meeting this challenge effectively can be a difference-maker and can provide a means of recruiting and retaining quality talent.

Can employers effectively meet this challenge with the adoption of more policies? Not likely.

As the culture changes more rapidly, many employers — and those advising them — cry that handbooks must be reviewed and policies must be revised. While a team-oriented workplace requires occasional policy review and revision, this approach does not provide an effective solution. Why? The answer is multi-faceted:

No rule, law or policy transforms behavior at its most needed level. Those will only suppress behavior. Fear of discipline becomes the primary motivator. In a fear-based environment, compliance is at risk, cover-up is more likely and the complaint process loses integrity.
According to the National Labor Relations Board, broad civility codes violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; that is, policies with broad expectations of a “positive workplace environment” violate employees’ rights to object to, and confront management about, pay practices or working conditions.
Revising a policy does not address issues of unprofessional or inappropriate conduct. For example, consider this scenario: Employee Jane, a Caucasian, sees co-worker Natasha, an African-American, with a new hairdo. Jane compliments Natasha but then asks if the hair is “really hers.” Jane means no offense but is clueless as to how this question sounds to Natasha. Natasha appreciates the compliment but sees the comment as reflective of Jane’s inherent bias. Natasha complains. Yet, no “rule” or “policy” has been broken. The statement was a compliment and at most, was ambiguous and not expressly reflective of bias. A “rules-first” mindset would not prompt any action. But, that approach would not be responsive to the battle brewing.

So, is more training the answer? Recently announced findings of an EEOC task force say no. After a long and detailed study, the task force found that training requirements were not effective in curbing incidents of harassment.

As one who has attended, and presented, many training sessions, this finding is not surprising. Much training — perhaps most training — focuses on a “rules first” mindset. The training announces the rule, law or policy and then instructs employees or managers that the company has a “zero tolerance” for violations. The message is “comply or else.” Worse yet, the training leaves the impression, expressly or implicitly, that the company’s interest in training is merely as a defense in any future lawsuit.

Nonetheless, the task force recommended that employers still conduct training. Part of the answer is more training, but of a different sort. It must equip employees with a more powerful narrative than fear or litigation risk avoidance.

Practical Solutions

Wise employers have recognized the differing constituencies in the workplace and have begun evaluating how to balance the needs and rights they present. Savvy management knows that true leadership involves managing relationships in a way that promotes the desired workplace narrative. For example, a savvy manager, when faced with the scenario of Jane and Natasha above, would not ignore the situation. No rule was violated, but the more important relationships within the workplace have been strained.

Practical solution No. 1. Focus on relationships, not rules. A rules-first mentality is misguided. No employer’s policy can anticipate all circumstances the human condition can present. Rules are important, and in almost all situations they should be enforced. But a wise employer avoids the entrapment of a “rules-first” mindset and recognizes that its policies serve as important guidelines to foster and promote cohesive, efficient, positive workplace relationships. On occasion, uncritical enforcement of policies may actually undermine those relational objectives. Rules, and their enforcement, must serve relationships, not the other way around.

Practical Solution No. 2. A well-run and efficient team is truly “other-minded.” An employer must encourage those within workplace relationships to affirm what they hope is the best in others, rather than focusing on what they fear is the worst. This conflicts with our me-first world. The culture has elevated to idolatrous levels a person’s feelings.

While no rule was violated, Jane still needs coaching. Jane needs to understand that her comment could be viewed by others as revealing an underlying bias (would she have asked such a question of a Caucasian co-worker?). Plus, if Jane’s cluelessness continues to manifest itself in insensitive comments (or if Jane is a manager and thus arguably should be held to a higher standard), then the employer should conduct higher levels of coaching or discipline.

But, likewise, Natasha needs coaching, too; she needs to work on accepting Jane’s comments in the spirit offered; recall Jane intended a compliment, not an affront. The standard of perfection — or better stated, Natasha’s expectation that Jane will harbor no inherent bias — is a standard of judgment that Natasha cannot satisfy either. Neither humans, nor workplaces — filled as they are with humans — can withstand being judged under a standard of perfection. When people are offended by statements, we must evaluate both the cluelessness (or worse, the inappropriate bias) of the speaker and also must evaluate the perhaps too-heightened sensitivity (or worse, the biased interpretation and lack of grace) of the hearer. Failing to do so will sow seeds of the very weeds we are trying to uproot.

Practical Solution No. 3. How does an employer encourage employees to affirm what they hope is the best in people and not focus on what they fear is the worst? An employer must reinforce that all work has dignity and that all workers have dignity and deserve respect.

Today’s workplaces are filled with not-so-subtle “caste systems.” There are white collar jobs and blue collar jobs; there are salaried and hourly workers. In hospitals, there are doctors and nurses (and now physicians’ assistants, RNs and LPNs), and techs and housekeeping. These various job titles lure workers into caste-system thinking; some, especially those in the more prestigious roles (i.e., the higher-paid ones) may be lured to feel superior to others in the seemingly less significant roles. But, if someone does not properly clean the countertops in a patient’s room, patients will die of infection.

Dare we, in this culture, advance a narrative that all work has dignity? If an employer fails to do so, any talk of a “team” concept rings hollow. And, if an employer can promote effectively the perspective that all work has dignity, then workers will readily see that all workers have dignity and deserve respect.

Practical Solution No. 4. If all workers deserve respect and dignity, then performance management is required. If a manager knows an employee is on an unsuccessful path, and yet says nothing, that manager is not being respectful of the employee. In fact, saying nothing could be another form of bias — the soft bigotry of low expectations.

There is a duty for a manager to act in addressing, and redirecting, the employee to a more successful path. But how? Is it OK to be angry at such poor performance? Yes. But follow one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of non-violence — be aggressive toward problems not people. Proper coaching is not manager versus employee, although the employee may initially feel that way. Rather, proper coaching is manager and employee versus the behavior leading to an unsuccessful outcome.

Practical Solution No. 5. A manager conducting this coaching must be willing and able to recognize and to confess that she too fails to meet this standard on occasion. That is, the manager must approach the performance management process with humility. The manager must recognize that she too has some flaws that prevent her from perfectly fulfilling the standard she espouses.

If the workplace is built upon a fear motivation, these solutions are not possible. Often, those who try to motivate by fear are fearful themselves. Fear is neither an efficient nor a successful motivator. Fear as a motivator sprouts from a rules-first mentality. An employer must evaluate and articulate the relational purposes that the rules are designed to serve and advance those objectives. This analysis necessarily will eliminate (or at least ease) a fear-based environment and focus more on the relationships being served. Focusing on the purposes the rules are designed to serve will result on occasion in an exception to the rules.

But those exceptions will occur in the limited circumstances when the purpose behind the rules is served more effectively by making an exception rather than enforcing the rule.

Tim Garrett is an employment law attorney with Bass, Berry & Sims in Nashville.

Tag: workplace culture

The do’s and don’ts of handling emotions in the workplace

Arming for the Workplace Cultural Dynamics