Category: Commentary & Opinion

Posted on

#MeToo Does Not Always Equal #FireHim

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Just because an employee complains about harassment does not mean that if the allegations are founded the employer must fire the harasser.

Consider, for example, Abbood v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm. (5th Cir. 11/7/19).

Amanda Abbood, an employee of the Texas Health & Human Service Commission, complained to her supervisor that a co-worker, Matt Otts, had subjected her to sexually offensive and unwelcome conduct, including comments about her figure, discussing his marital problems and describing “movies on Netflix that have a highly sexual connotation.” When confronted, Otts admitted to the misconduct, but claimed he was just joking. Instead of firing Otts, the employer reprimanded him, counseled him, reassigned him to another unit and relocated his office away from Abbood.

Four months later, however, Abbood again complained about Otts, this time that he told her he wanted to “jump her bones.” This time, the employer immediately removed Otts from the building, placed him on emergency leave, and changed the office locks. After completing its investigation, the employer then fired Otts.

Abbood’s second complaint about Otts occurred the same day as she suffered her own workplace issue. She discovered a stray dog outside the office, and used the commission’s computer database to try to locate the owner. The employer fired Abbood for the inappropriate use of its data system, in violation of its Computer Use Agreement and a Data Broker Computer Security Agreement.

Abbood, however, alleged that she was fired because of her complaints about Otts, and that the employer acted inappropriately by not firing Otts after the first harassment investigation. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, disagreed.

HHSC is not liable under Title VII if it took “prompt remedial action” once it knew of Otts’s harassment. Abbood argues that Otts should have been fired when she first reported him in August 2016, and that HHSC’s response was ineffective because he harassed her again in December. But an employer “need not impose the most severe punishment” on an offending employee, so long as the remedial action is “reasonably calculated” to end the harassment. And [t]o be reasonably calculated to end the harassment, an employer’s actions need not end the harassment instantly.” “The test … is not whether the harassment stopped but whether the action taken by the employer was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.”

Here, the record reflects that HHSC took prompt remedial action.… When … Abbood complained a second time, Otts was immediately placed on emergency leave, the office locks were changed, and he was subsequently fired. These facts demonstrate that HHSC took prompt remedial action.

An employer’s obligation in responding to a harassment complaint is to investigate and, as the court points out, take “prompt remedial action” to reasonably ensure that the harassment stops. If it doesn’t stop (as was the case here), then remedial action must become more severe (as the employee didn’t get the message the first time).
For a first instance of harassment, however, while termination is a remedial option, is is not the only remedial option. As long as the employer acts reasonably and promptly under the circumstances, a court likely will not second-guess the employer’s handling and response.
Posted on

A Page From My Working Mom Diaries

blog
Stefanie Coleman, Workforce Game Changer 2019.

These are interesting times for a professional woman in her 30s.

For many, more than a decade has been invested in a career. Rungs on the ladder climbed, reputations established. Big responsibilities in tow … heck, some of us run departments, even companies!

And that is awesome — after all, the #futureisfemale. It is also the decade where women in big cities like New York and London most commonly start having children [1a] [1b].

Gender aside, it is my opinion that jobs get more rewarding with age. The more time you spend in the workforce, the more experiences you have.

In time (assuming these experiences are relevant), they will pave the way to enhanced responsibilities, usually coupled with better role titles, bigger teams to manage, and more generous compensation. Sure, the pressure is higher, but in the eyes of an emerging executive, the benefits of climbing the corporate ladder outweigh that burden.

But this poses an interesting challenge for professional women who want children.

Imagine this. After more than a decade of hard work, a woman in her mid-30s is breaking into leadership ranks. Established and credentialed in her field, she is scaling the corporate ladder — her eye on the prize, the next promotion in sight. But she knows she wants to birth children, and that window won’t stay open forever. So that is what she does, and while she will always cherish that decision, she wonders if it will hurt her career.

It shouldn’t. But for some women it does, particularly when the right support is not in place. And this is my reason for this blog post.

blogI don’t suppose to have all the answers — and as a mother of two currently on maternity leave, I’m still working this out for myself. But I do have some thoughts. And, if my thoughts help even one more mother assimilate back to work when it suits her, then I’ll take it.

I took interest in this topic in 2015 when I discovered my first child was on her way. I was 32 and living with my husband in New York City. Eyeing up promotion and facing the most challenging client engagement of my career, the discovery of my pregnancy was both thrilling and terrifying.

Among the excitement were the moments when I realised the “work hard, play hard” mentality that served me through my 20s was no longer an option. After all, a pregnant woman needs her sleep. The realisation was perplexing — I needed to reframe my attitude toward work and its role in my life, and I didn’t know where to start.

I’ve made a lot of progress since then. Two babies later, I am often asked how to juggle life as both a mother and a professional. It’s the impossible question as there is no simple, let alone right answer. Alas, I attempt:

  1. It takes a village.This African proverb is profound. For me, that village is my husband, nanny, in-laws and sister. Put simply, I could not do my job without them. A working mother must identify her villagers — they must be strong and reliable, trusted to look after the most precious of possessions. They must be thanked and appreciated, for this group is the most important coalition for a working mother’s success.
  2. We’re in this together. There are many allies to working mothers — both men and women. But other moms in particular truly get it. We must support one another. A colleague told me she thought of asking me for a change of clothes since her baby ruined her outfit in transit to an important meeting. I wish she’d have asked — I’d have moved mountains to help. Another colleague jumped on a plane to cover for me at a moment’s notice when I was too pregnant to travel across the U.S. for a meeting. Her words when I thanked her: “We must help each other out.” I knew exactly what she meant.
  3. Find a supportive employer. I am lucky since my firm is consistently ranked a top company for working mothers [2]. A firm that takes diversity and inclusion seriously is more likely to support a working mother’s integration than one that does not. Look for flexible work policies and family friendly benefits, as well as a leadership culture that promotes wellness and work life balance.
  4. Divide domestic duties. As articulated by Annabel Crabb in her quarterly essay on Men At Work [3], many working mothers continue to take on the lion’s share of domestic duties in the home. In fact, research from Manchester University and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University in the U.K. has shown that working mothers with two kids score consistently higher on chronic stress indicators, such as blood pressure and hormones, as compared to the general population [4]. In order to transition back to work in a way that is sustainable and healthy, we need to see more balance in the way domestic duties are divided between family members in the home.
  5. Set boundaries and get to work. Working mothers are expert multi-taskers, whether it’s fixing the kids’ breakfast while taking a conference call or squeezing in a doctor’s appointment between meetings, one thing is for certain and that is that working mothers have very little time. This means that what time we do have reserved for work must be used wisely. For me this has meant less procrastination. If something needs to be done, it needs to be tackled fast. It also means that there is only time for the critical items. As a fellow working mother once coached me, “You can drop the rubber balls but not the crystal one.” Identifying what really matters at work is important, and de-prioritizing the rest is a necessary action for a working mother (even if it doesn’t feel natural).

This article might feel stereotypical to some. Of course, there are women who do not want children, and there are fathers who are primary caretakers. And, obviously, women give birth to or adopt children at all ages, not just in their 30s. I’m not ignorant to that. Take my thoughts for what they are worth. As one working mother to another (or, the partner, child or colleague of a working mother), I hope these thoughts help our working mothers transition back to work with grace. After all, we’re all in this together.

P.S., This post is dedicated to my own working mother, Dr. Cathy Allen, and inspiring friends: Liz Kreuger, Caroline Gatenby, Courtney Nolan, Joanna Bates, Sarah McGrath, Emma Fletcher and Dr. Patricia Davidson. Also, the countless working mothers at PwC who inspire me every day — there are too many to name, but they know who they are.

Posted on

‘Smoking Gun’ Email Revives Employee’s Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Maryville Anesthesiologists fired Paula Babb, an experienced certified registered nurse anesthetist, because it thought she suffered from a visual impairment.

How do we know why it fired her? Because the day after Babb’s termination, one of her co-workers confirmed it in an email (written at the direction of one of the employer’s owners).

As most of you know, [Babb] has been having major issues with her eyesight and as of late, it has seemed to be getting even worse. We have had numerous complaints from [hospital] staff regarding her inability to read the monitor, etc. Over the past several months the group has given her several opportunities to provide documentation from her eye specialist saying that she was safe to practice. [Babb] was unable to provide this documentation. This, in addition to a few other issues, has forced the group to make a very difficult decision. As of today, she is no longer with our group. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. This was one of the reasons that our meeting was postponed. See you all tomorrow.

Despite this email, the district court granted the employer summary judgment and dismissed Babb’s “regarded as disabled” ADA lawsuit.

On appeal, the 6th Circuit had little difficulty in reviving the claim, in large part because of what it described as the “smoking gun” email.

Maryville has never tried to defend its termination of Babb on grounds that Babb’s vision created a safety hazard, and has instead insisted that Babb’s termination occurred solely because of clinical errors unrelated to her vision. But, yet, just hours after Maryville decided to fire Babb, Crystal Aycocke wrote an e-mail to her fellow CRNAs essentially stating that Maryville was firing Babb because of her impaired vision. More striking still, far from being mindless office gossip, Aycocke admits that she composed this e-mail at the direction of Dr. Proffitt—one of the key players involved in Babb’s termination—shortly after Dr. Proffitt informed her of Babb’s termination. And, of course, all of this occurred in a context in which Maryville’s physicians felt concerned enough about Babb’s vision to discuss it at the meeting at which they decided to fire Babb, and on the official evaluations they wrote about Babb. (“I see her questionable ability to see reflect on how surgeons and the medical staff lack accepting her.”). If this kind of “smoking gun” evidence cannot get an employment discrimination plaintiff past summary judgment on the question of pretext, it is hard to imagine what could.

Employers, if you are short-sighted enough to (a) fire an employee because you believe she suffers from a disability, and (b) confirm that belief in writing, then you deserve whatever fate you suffer in litigation.

Posted on

Decision on Positive Drug Test Reveals the Future of Medical Pot and Drug Testing

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Richard Turner worked as a crane operator for Phillips 66.

The company’s substance abuse policy allowed for random and post-accident drug testing for “Cannabinoids, Cocaine, Opiates, Phencyclidine (PCP) and Amphetamines,” and mandated termination for any positive test.

On April 24, 2017, Turner was selected for a random drug test and provided a urine sample. Three days later he was involved in a workplace accident and was again tested.

The following day, Phillips 66 learned that Turner’s April 24 sample tested positive for amphetamines. As a result, the company fired him.

According to a letter Turner later provided from his physician, Turner had not been prescribed amphetamines, but had taken over-the-counter medications, including Sudafed, for unspecified “medical conditions.” The April 27 sample, and the sample from a retest Turner himself took, both tested negative. The company’s retest of the April 24 sample, however, again tested positive for amphetamines.

In Turner’s subsequent disability discrimination case challenging his termination, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Phillips 66 did not violate the ADA via its drug testing.

Under the ADA, an employer “shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Turner argued that Phillips 66’s drug screen violated this rule because it revealed the potential use of a legally prescribed medication. The 10th Circuit disagreed:

The EEOC has indicated a drug test does not become a medical examination simply because “the results reveal information about an individual’s medical condition beyond whether the individual is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs,” such as “the presence of a controlled substance that has been lawfully prescribed for a particular medical condition, this information is to be treated as a confidential medical record.” A test for the illegal use of drugs does not necessarily become a medical examination simply because it reveals the potential legal use of drugs.

Pay careful attention to that last sentence:

A test for the illegal use of drugs does not necessarily become a medical examination simply because it reveals the potential legal use of drugs.

Assume for a second that Turner tested positive for legally prescribed medical marijuana instead of amphetamines. Would this result be any different? Marijuana remains federally illegal. If an employer drug tests for marijuana, according to Turner v. Phillips 66, a positive test does not become an unlawful medical exam in violation of ADA merely because it could cause the employee to reveal medical information to justify the positive test.

In other words, drug tests remain 100 percent legal, whether or not they cause an employee to reveal medical information in response to the drug screen.

A great result for employers as we continue to figure out the difficult intersection between the lawful use of impairing drugs and the ADA.

Posted on

An Employee’s Disability Is Not a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ Card for Workplace Misconduct

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Does a medical leave of absence grant an employee a free pass for pre-leave misconduct discovered during the LOA?

This question is squarely at the center of the court’s decision in Williams v. Graphic Packaging International (6th Cir. 10/31/19) [pdf]

James “Randy” Williams worked as a department manager for Graphic Packaging. In late 2014 or early 2015, Williams told his supervisor, plant manager Eddie Lee, that he had been re-diagnosed with prostate cancer. In September 2015, Williams requested time off for treatment, which the company granted from Sept. 14 through Nov. 23, 2015. During that leave, however, several of Williams’ subordinates lodged complaints against him of inappropriate treatment. The company investigated, and concluded that “Williams had been using manipulative and coercive tactics to control his employees and prevent them from communicating with upper management.” As as a result, shortly after Williams returned to work, the company fired him.

Williams sued, claiming (among other things) that firing on the heels of a return to work after cancer treatment is tantamount to disability discrimination.
The 6th Circuit court of appeals disagreed.

The evidence demonstrates that Graphic Packaging terminated Williams’s employment after receiving complaints from an employee, which were later corroborated by interviews with fellow employees, an internal investigation, and depositions from Graphic Packaging upper management, Human Resources employees, and employees who reported to Williams. The record reflects that Williams violated Graphic Packaging’s Core Values by mistreating employees both publicly and privately, limiting access to upper management, and propagating troubling and salacious rumors concerning upper management. Williams has even admitted that he committed at least some of the acts which so clearly violated Graphic Packaging’s Core Values.

No employee gets a free pass on workplace misconduct just because he or she suffers the misfortune of having cancer (or any other disability). The company concluded that the allegations against Williams (which its internal investigation corroborated, and many of which Williams himself admitted) merited termination. Those allegations included Williams telling his subordinates that he “owned” them; spreading an unsubstantiated rumor that Lee had molested his own daughter; cheating on a mandatory safety exam; and forbidding his subordinates from speaking to plant management.

Cancer and other ADA-protected disabilities are not “get out of jail free” cards for workplace misconduct. Do your due diligence, and treat the employee the same as you would have treated him or her if the disability didn’t exist. If the misconduct warrants termination, so be it. Terminate, and defend your legitimate, non-discriminatory decision. Otherwise, you risk setting a precedent that the misconduct is OK, which will make it that much more difficult to hold others accountable for that same misconduct in the future.

Posted on

Personalization Versus Ease of Use

I recently had coffee with a benefits leader who is implementing a new technology platform for her organization’s employees and spouses. Her scenario is much like that of many of our clients: She works for a big organization with employees all over the United States and in many locations around the world. The company’s benefits and HR programs are complex — and getting more so as it seeks to meet the needs of different employee segments and an increasingly diverse population. Data is used for everything in the organization, and HR is catching up to the rest of the enterprise.

Their goal is to provide a better experience for employees, driven by data. Her team is looking at consolidating all benefits information from existing channels (including the intranet, external sites, vendor sites, email newsletters and more) into a personalized portal.

But she has a lingering concern: As we look to offer employees a highly personalized experience, do we unintentionally make it harder to access benefits information?

This is a critical question. Ease of access and ease of use need to be the highest priority if we are going to get the right people to use their benefits at the right time. It’s also an often-overlooked question when pursuing personalization. And it becomes even more important to consider when you’re using personalization and engagement to drive health strategy. Personalization is among large employers’ top health care initiatives for 2020, according to the National Business Group on Health’s latest survey. Some 26 percent of respondents said they plan to “implement an engagement platform that aggregates point solutions and pushes personalized communications to employees.”

That initiative follows employers’ top three strategies, which are largely focused on changing the health care experience: implementing virtual care solutions, a more focused strategy on high-cost claims, and expanding centers of excellence to include additional conditions.

So, why are personalized tools getting so much attention? Personalized portals and apps are good at doing several important things. They can serve up data-driven content, send just-in-time notifications, and help identify missed opportunities in a very relevant way. They can also deliver recommendations, which helps create the “Amazon” experience so many plan sponsors are looking for.

Amid all this incredible promise, it’s important to remember that these tools can deliver customized content only if and when people use them. By their nature, personalized tools have more access barriers, because all that personal information needs to be protected. It is easy to underestimate the amount of effort it takes to get people to engage frequently with even the most cutting-edge and appealing platforms.  You must have a compelling reason to check anything out. You must have an even better reason to go back.

If you’re asking someone to download an app, authenticate with personal information, keep that app up to date, allow notifications, and go back to it frequently, is that actually easy? Each one of those action steps is a specific user behavior that has to be promoted and encouraged.

Think about when you log in to a website and have forgotten your password. Are you always motivated to track it down? Or do you file that for “do later” and move on to something else? We all have a lot of to-do’s and a lot of distractions — especially on our phones.

When you’re considering a personalized app or platform, you need to take into account the ease of access and the amount of resources you’ll need to drive ongoing use.

Of course, we have clever ways to encourage engagement. And this is where we can really use HR’s unique advantages.

First, we can make something so enticing that you can’t resist going there often. The best example of this that I’ve seen recently is a large retailer that puts their employee discount in their benefits engagement app. The only way they can use their discount is to have the app on their phones. You can bet all their employees are using that app.

You can also make the app so critical to an individual’s day-to-day job that using the platform becomes a de facto job requirement. Some large companies have built their HR apps to include core functions like scheduling and time tracking. If you have to use the app every day you work, it’s an ideal channel for serving up key benefits and HR reminders.

There is tremendous promise with personalization. But that promise can only be fulfilled if people have a good experience with personalized tools and use them frequently. It is our job to use all the tools we have to make that desirable — and most importantly, easy.

Posted on

A Workplace Nip and Tuck

I recently received a story pitch with the subject line, “Do Baby Boomers Need to Go Under the Knife to Keep Their Edge at Work?”

Sure, roll your eyes. Scoff at a pitch with a pandering subject line that cries “Open me!” like a pricey bottle of booze at a five-dollar white elephant holiday gift exchange. Crinkle your nose and sniff a haughty sniff at the thought of someone actually undergoing plastic surgery to keep an edge at work.

I don’t think it’s a silly question at all.

But you do. Then again you look like an Olympian thanks to that Lagree ultimate strength workout in the corporate fitness center. If Adonis was your co-worker he’d stare slack-jawed at your chiseled body as you passed by in the company cafeteria with your meatless burger, bowl of elderberries and glass of oat milk.

Perfect hair, stylish glasses (not that you need them; it’s just accessorizing to make you look smarter), glowing skin (of course you use product, doesn’t everybody?), and the shoes. Yes, it’s all about the shoes.

You’re at the top of your game. You crush it daily.

Until, well … until you’re getting ready for work one early spring morning and the bubbly yet acerbic TV personality on your go-to morning news program blurts out that your company has been acquired. The deal is just a passing mention following the always informative “Mr. Fix-It” segment but the chill racing down your spine buries a big fat pit in your stomach. Your knees buckle and your cup of freshly brewed raspberry chai tea trembles like a swimming pool in an earthquake.

Your company was acquired by an out-of-state competitor. You’re stunned. And you’re angered because you didn’t hear about the multimillion-dollar acquisition from the CEO via a hastily called all-hands teleconference call, or a posting through the corporate intranet. Not even a terse, one-paragraph companywide email announcing the deal. No, it was a giggly morning news show delivering a body blow that radically alters your perfectly coiffed life.

It’s been your corporate casa for nearly three decades, which makes sense given that its inviting, folksy motto is “It’s our business to make you feel at home!” Sure you’d bounced from job to job early in your career searching for the right fit. I mean, who hasn’t? And after three decades on the job it’s OK to admit that you’ve toyed with the thought of retiring — not immediately mind you. There’s still a lot left in the tank.

Your “home,” however, has other ideas that don’t take into account your distant fantasy of spending part of your golden years mountain biking across the Peruvian Andes. The mentoring of junior executives whom you suspected were already at your pay level despite being half your age has come to mean nothing. The weekends spent hitting near-impossible deadlines, all the sweat equity dripping from that slightly wrinkled brow onto your place of employment — wow, reality sure bites sometimes.

Within a month it’s clear your job is in peril. A week after regulators were pleased and stockholders were paid out you also are out … out of a job. Because you know, as the new CEO proudly boasted on your go-to morning news show, “After any acquisition, there is a duplication of efforts, which results in some synergies, and unfortunately for a lot of people today, we’re realizing those synergies. These synergies will ultimately provide a better experience for the consumer.”

Well naturally. I mean, synergies. 

So now you are just another older worker in the job market. Self-doubt creeps in as you realize after your third rejection notice that ageism is a cold, cynical, perpetual workplace cycle that many employers flaunt in their never-ending search for younger, cheaper labor.

Where once you dismissed studies that found more than half of full-time workers in their early 50s were at some point forced out of their job and then experienced long-term unemployment or a huge cut in pay for years after, you now see that you are its living embodiment.

Two months ago you were a highly respected senior VP of product development. Now you’re unemployed, trips to the gym are infrequent and toast with butter and jam has replaced elderberries.

Those kids you mentored, the ones you took under your wing, not to mention out for happy hour? They are the ones interviewing you now. They all look so young and vibrant. You’ll do most anything to get back in the game, because you still have a lot to offer!

And, well, a nip here or a shot of botox there is justified to level the playing field. Going under the knife? Given your life’s new realities it’s not so silly after all.

I mean, synergies, right?

Posted on

Must You Tell Employees When You Are Surveilling Their Devices?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

It’s unusual these days for an employee not to have a device issued by their employer, or on which they can access their employer’s information — cell phones, tablets, laptops, and other computing devices.

Conventional wisdom (California notwithstanding) is that if the employer owns the device, the employee has zero privacy rights in that device, its use, or the information stored on it.

That conventional wisdom, however, might be changing.

The Federal Trade Commission just announced the settlement of charges it had brought against the developer of certain “stalking” apps.

What is a stalking app? It’s one that runs surreptitiously in the background of a device so that the user of that device does not know that the app is tracking their physical movements and online activities.

In this case, the apps in question “allowed purchasers to monitor the mobile devices on which they were installed without the knowledge or permission of the device’s user.” The apps also came with instructions so that the purchaser could “remove the app’s icon from appearing on the mobile device’s screen so that the device’s user would not know the app was installed on the device.”

Notably, one of the apps, MobileSpy, was specifically marketed to monitor employees.

The Settlement Agreement and Consent Order [pdf] specifically addresses the employment concerns raised by the app.

Prior to the sale or distribution of any Monitoring Product or Service, Respondents must obtain … [a]n express written attestation from the purchaser that it will use the Monitoring Product or Service for legitimate and lawful purposes by authorized users. The express written attestation must state the legitimate and lawful purpose for which the purchaser is using the device, which may include only the following: … 2. Employer monitoring an employee who has provided express written consent to being monitored….

In other words, while the FTC brought this case against the company that developed, marketed, and sold the stalking apps, the settlement specifically prohibits that company from selling the apps to an employer unless the employer certifies, in writing, that it will only use the apps to monitor employees who have provided express written consent to being monitored.

Legally speaking, this development is very interesting. The law is figuring out how to catch up to advancements in technology.

Practically speaking, I’m wondering why employers aren’t already obtaining consent before tracking their employees. In my mind, this issue raises a fundamental question of the type of employer you want to be, and the type of relationship you want to foster with your employees.

Do you want to be an employer that is open and honest with your employees that operates on trust? Or do you want to be an employer that slinks around behind your employees’ backs and breeds dishonesty and distrust? I know how I answer this question. How you answer it says a lot about who you are as an organization.

Posted on

Inclusiveness Is Not a New Leadership Competency

blog

In most organizations today, leadership competencies are being revised due to the impact of the changing dynamics of globalization, technology advancements and demographic shifts.blog

Among these revisions, there is a significant focus on inclusiveness as a distinguishing leadership competency.

It is my contention that inclusiveness is not a new leadership competency. Leadership hasn’t fundamentally changed, and inclusive ways of working have always been a part of the traits and skills that leaders need to exhibit.

Many aspects of inclusive leadership are connected to more traditional leadership competencies:

Open-mindedness: Inclusiveness is characterized by having a mind both open and attuned to differences. Inclusive leaders value differences, exhibit curiosity to know more about the world around them and are not opposed to being proven wrong in the spirit of learning.

Pritika Padhi

This is not very different from the learning agility that we expect leaders to demonstrate, in terms of quickly grasping and adapting to changes. Understanding the limiting nature of beliefs (whether their own or that of others) helps leaders be open to change and more diverse experiences that can expand their beliefs and views.

Freedom to dissent: The role of a leader is critical in fostering an inclusive climate at the workplace. This entails creating an environment where employees feel safe and empowered to dissent with and challenge each other.

Not surprisingly, this has always been a leadership requirement as it promotes divergent viewpoints that are fundamental to sustaining innovation and creativity in the  organization. The courage to question norms and the freedom to take risks is also a characteristic of teams and leaders that zealously guard their integrity.

Awareness and understanding: Inclusiveness begins with a better understanding of self. There is a need to be conscious and mindful of our biases (conscious and unconscious) and mental blind spots.

Checking for biases is not just good for a healthy work environment. Biases are threats to clear judgment, and any decision-making or critical thinking competency has an aspect of developing awareness of one’s biases.

However, enhanced self-awareness is not enough. There is also a need to accept and respect others’ beliefs and choices. Respect is a fundamental leadership trait that cuts across several competencies like collaboration and interpersonal effectiveness.

Empathy:  Empathy is the ability to view things from different perspectives. It is a step above acknowledging or respecting differences. Authentic inclusiveness stems from an ability to place oneself in  someone else’s shoes to understand their point of view and their approaches and challenges.

This is a fundamental trait that helps people relate to each other on a deeper level and is a building block of effective communication. Even with a homogeneous team, an empathetic leader is likely to connect with the team members more effectively than an unempathetic one.

Inclusiveness, then, is not new. Neither is diversity, for that matter. This should be reassuring for leaders and stakeholders invested in employee and leadership development. The focus on inclusiveness is not a fad. It is not a half-baked reaction to emerging workplace developments. It is a fundamental leadership challenge about bringing people together with different personalities, backgrounds, mindsets and ways of working in a way that allows them to contribute their whole selves, leading to significant competitive advantage over homogeneous or conforming teams.

Also read: Inclusiveness is a Two-Way Street

Posted on

Inclusiveness Is a Two-Way Street

blog

blogConversations on developing greater inclusiveness at workplace today are centred heavily on changing the attitudes and ways of working of the groups that have majority representation in the workforce. That makes sense because the onus of inclusion cannot be on underrepresented groups that may not have the power or influence to bring about change.

But that does not mean that underrepresented groups need to sit around helplessly until the work environment changes substantially to make them feel included. There is plenty that they can do, in their own limited spheres of influence, to make themselves heard and even help their leaders make the workplace more inclusive for them.

Also read: Workplaces Should Be Chasing Inclusion, Not Diversity

Bolster your voice – The most obvious idea is to start or participate in employee resource groups. These are groups of employees with shared backgrounds or life stages that come together to support each other by sharing experiences and aiding in personal and professional development.

If your organisation doesn’t have one that meets your requirements already, it is not a bad idea to take initiative to build one. More likely than not, management would be happy to provide resources to help your group interact as it will help them understand more about your group and its needs.

An ERG is not the same as informal corridor conversations with employees of your background. It needs to have a formal structure to provide an effective forum for employees to come together and discuss issues and ways of supporting each other. It can also be a great way to brainstorm further on what actions the group can take to make the workplace more inclusive.

Question assumptions – At the root of all biases and misunderstandings are ill-founded assumptions. It is a human fallacy to jump to conclusions quickly, and we don’t always have the time or mind-space to think through our impressions in detail.

Question these assumptions, both those of others or your own. Ask clarifying questions to others when their behaviour does not seem inclusive to you. “Why do you say that?” or “Is this the reason why you think this way?” Are they operating out of biases or do they have other doubts in their mind? Provide clarifying information to help bust their assumptions and see the other sides of the story.

This is also a good way to test your own assumptions. Are you assuming that the other person is viewing you in a certain light, without checking with them on their actual opinions? Even if your assumptions get confirmed, you will gain more information and insights as a basis for further exploration.

Pritika Padhi

Speak up when you see behaviours that exclude – It is dangerous to be a silent bystander to an act of exclusion. Silence often implies condoning. If you see someone behave in a way that excludes you or a colleague, call it out.

This need not be confrontational. Use your situational judgement to gauge how best to address it tactfully. You can speak in private to the person who acted that way, use humour to diffuse the tension while bringing the person’s attention to their behaviour, or be firm about stating openly that the behaviour was not okay. If you see your colleague at the receiving end of such behaviour, then check-in with them on how they are feeling and how you can support them. At the same time, you will also have to be open to feedback from others on your behaviours that may make feel them excluded.

Interact with different people – Workplace interactions often get limited to departments or colleagues who are physically seated close to you. It is a good idea to walk around and introduce yourself as well as initiate interactions with people from different areas across the organisation.

If this seems daunting to those who are more introverted, then you can also create planned forums to help diverse employees come together. This is the opposite of an ERG, where you are encouraging interactions with people from different backgrounds. Take time to talk about things outside of work in these interactions or forums. This is a great way to understand other people as individuals and build relationships that ease the flow of communication. Being inclusive is easier if we understand each other better and feel more connected with them.

Also read: The ROI of Diversity and Inclusion Efforts

Be a part of a mentoring relationship – Being in a mentoring relationship gives you the opportunity to influence another person’s thoughts and behaviours. It is a fantastic way to share experiences and learn each other’s viewpoints. Irrespective of the topic you choose to mentor someone on, there is always room for you to help them understand what behaviours, in the domain that they are working in, can help promote inclusion. Alternatively, as a mentee, you can take the lead in some reverse mentoring by helping your mentor understand what inclusion means to you.

Inclusiveness is a two-way street. While majority groups have a long way to go in terms of behaving in more inclusive manners at the workplace, it is also important that underrepresented groups get proactively involved in the dialogue so that they feel heard and are able to contribute positively.