Commentary & Opinion Archives - Page 65 of 85

October 6, 2016June 29, 2023

My Second HR Conference: Finally Getting the Hang of It

I attended HR Tech this year in Chicago, and to a certain degree it was overwhelming — that is, there were so many companies and solutions it was hard to keep track until I’d had my morning coffee and then some. But throughout the meetings, interviews and lectures, I noticed a few key themes that just kept on coming up.

First of all: women in tech. The conference kicked off on Tuesday morning with four hours and four lectures on women in HR tech. The speakers mentioned unconscious bias in the workplace, expectation differences for men and women, and how when women are assertive it’s seen much differently than when men are assertive. Based on the reactions by women in the room and the whisper-comments people made to each other, this is obviously a reality for a lot of working women, especially in the tech sector.

Workforce‘s Rick Bell also commented on the theme of women in tech in his HR Tech blog: But I want to focus on one totally different angle. Rewind a few days: My friend calls me on the phone to give me very exciting news. Her company is sending her abroad for two weeks to work on a project. She made it clear this had nothing to do with that “lean in crap.”

(Note: I still don’t understand “lean in.” A dozen people have described it to me in very, very different ways. Media outlets either tout it as an effective strategy or as some classist dribble. I have too little interest in reading self-help books to read and interpret it myself. Anyway, this obviously came from a person who has one of those negative perceptions of leaning in.)

She could attribute it to something else, though: she asked. She emailed the team leader a while back. She said she was interested and would be willing to go even though it wasn’t technically her project. Out of the blue they contacted her a month later telling her she was going across the ocean.

At the HR Tech conference, the female leaders also echoed the importance of asking. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. Good advice for women, of course, looking for opportunities to grow at work, but it can also be applied to anybody looking for an opportunity.

I also spoke with Caroline Turner, chief revenue officer of PowerToFly, a company launched in 2014 which connects talented women in tech to companies that value gender diversity and inclusion. She attended college as an athlete under Title IX, appreciated the equal opportunity this gave her and has that same passion for gender equality now in the workplace.

This conversation around diversity was very valuable, and one of the key points of interest for me was the importance of getting diverse talent in the door at the very beginning, when recruiting. Hiring people just because they’re diverse isn’t the best business move, but bringing in a pool of candidates who look different from each other can go a long way.

Second of all: rethinking recruiting. I noticed a lot of companies working in recruiting, and they’re looking to solve the same problem: how to hire the right people. But I liked the way Bob Schultz, general manager of the smarter workforce at IBM, described it in our interview. He mentioned the importance of taking a “holistic” approach to recruiting — that is, going beyond just past experience and the usual considerations. How about considering behavior and problem solving skills? IBM Watson has the capabilities to take the whole person into account in the recruiting process.

I liked the use of this word. Holistic. Just like companies are more often now taking a holistic approach to wellness (considering aspects like physical health, mental health, financial health, and beyond), apparently the same thing can be said about other business processes.

October 6, 2016June 29, 2023

NLRB Takes One on the Chin in Appellate Decision

I am no fan of the NLRB and its aggressive agenda over the past few years. And, it appears I don’t stand alone.

Check out these scathing words from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heartland Plymouth Court MI v. NLRB[pdf], in which the appellate court ordered the NLRB to pay the employer’s $17,649 in legal fees for the board’s bad faith litigation by continuing to pursue a case that the NLRB knew it could not win. Why? Because the NLRB’s position ran counter to the law of every single appellate court.

Facts may be stubborn things, but the Board’s longstanding “nonacquiescence” towards the law of any circuit diverging from the Board’s preferred national labor policy takes obduracy to a new level. As this case shows, what the Board proffers as a sophisticated tool towards national uniformity can just as easily be an instrument of oppression, allowing the government to tell its citizens: “We don’t care what the law says, if you want to beat us, you will have to fight us.” …

We recognize the Board’s unimpeded access to the public fisc means these modest fees can be dismissed as chump change. But money does not explain the Board’s bad faith; “the pleasure of being above the rest” does. Let the word go forth: for however much the judiciary has emboldened the administrative state, we “say what the law is.” In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it.

Bravo, D.C. Circuit, bravo.

October 3, 2016June 29, 2023

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson Is a Boss

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently addressed some 1,700 employee-resource group members about race. Not about business and race or the future or new products and services in a racial context; he spoke candidly about race, period.

He began by addressing the latest news from Dallas, Charlotte, police and black men killed — you’ve likely heard all about these major headlines — then he settled in and made things personal. He talked about his close friend Chris, who is black, and who he has known for many years. But it was only recently that Stephenson learned what a fraught history Chris had and realized how much it shaped his world view.

Stephenson spoke of the shame he felt for not knowing surprising and intimate details about his friend’s life, details and history that typically define a friendship but that were completely omitted from this one. Then, like all great storytellers, he connected this personal nugget from his own life to his theme around racial tension: “If two very close friends of different races don’t talk openly about this issue that’s tearing our communities apart, how do we expect to find common ground and solutions for what’s a really serious, serious problem? … Our communities are being destroyed by racial tension, and we’re too polite to talk about it.”

That’s basically where we are. Despite all of the evidence that screams, “there’s a big, big problem!” People still don’t want to talk about race. People don’t want to talk about gender bias and inequity, racial injustice, the cruelty and humiliation LGBT and disabled people are forced to endure on a daily basis. These topics are almost taboo in a way despite being perennially in the news because in the workplace, and in corner offices, the stigma around them lingers; and when it comes time for action, even the best intentions wither and die from lack of sustainable fuel.

I respect Stephenson so much for addressing racial tension head on. No dissembling, no politically correct waffling, he was thoughtful, but direct. Direct is very, very good.

Watch AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson’s speech.

Don’t get me wrong. Every conversation at work can’t and should not be about race or diversity. And it’s important to be polite, to be considerate. But when polite and considerate lead to a highly inequitable status quo that pats those concerned on their collective heads until occasional tensions dissipate without making change? When incidents are repeated and identified and then neatly swept into a file or brushed aside in favor of business as usual? That’s where direct becomes essential. Business as usual isn’t going to work much longer. I’d be willing to bet Stephenson knows that.

Forget the elephant in the room. He wants his customers, business partners and employees to know exactly where he stands on the racial divide — then they can act accordingly. “It takes work, it takes time, it takes emotion, and you’re gonna have to understand where the other one is coming from,” he said, “but we have to start communicating. And if this is a dialogue that’s going to begin at AT&T, I feel like it probably ought to start with me.”

He spoke again about his friend Chris and how his confusion with Chris’ response to certain issues has been replaced by a healthy dose of humility. And the next part in the speech literally made me swoon. I was nodding and clapping at my computer like I was seeing the event live. He said, “We should not say all lives matter to justify — ” and then the crowd erupted, and I missed the rest, but you get the picture.

For those who still don’t get it, he offered some fabulous examples to illustrate just why the phrase all lives matter in response to black lives matter is ridiculous. And then he moved into my favorite part of any diversity discussion, the action part, the what now/what are we going to do differently?

“When we talk about race let’s begin the discussion with why. Why does my colleague feel this way? If we can understand why, it’s so much more likely that we can begin to agree on what needs to be done. You guys, the AT&T ERGs, you are a model for America. Look around. Look around, folks. It does not get any more diverse than this.

“I’m not asking you to be tolerant of each other. Tolerance is for cowards. Being tolerant requires nothing from you but to be quiet and to not make waves, holding tightly to your views and judgments without being challenged. Do not tolerate each other. Work hard. Move into uncomfortable territory and understand each other … I encourage you, please. Let’s go out and understand each other, OK?”

I legitimately want to switch to AT&T just because of the brave and sincere stance this leader took on a controversial issue that is close to so many hearts, and I doubt I’m the only one.

If you don’t believe that race, LGBT, gender and all of the different dimensions of diversity and inclusion that I discuss in this blog, and that so many discuss in different media around the world, are important for business, you are deluding yourself.

After that speech makes the rounds do you think AT&T will have recruiting problems? No. Some of the best and brightest will beat down this company’s doors to join up with a leader who shares and is vocal about their views on the importance of racial diversity.

Will AT&T have trouble finding sponsors for its events? No. Will it have difficulty finding business partners? No. Even if it didn’t have these issues before, now that Stephenson has made his views crystal clear people, savvy companies will clamor to align themselves with him.

Some may shy away, of course, but honestly, who cares? The world is diverse, customers are diverse, businesses need to be diverse if they are to thrive and not just survive, and Stephenson knows that. That’s why he went out on the ledge and thumbed his nose at tolerance and the status quo, to let key stakeholders know who he is and what his company stands for.

Leaders, your customers and employees are watching you. They note where you stand, where you fall down, and where you refuse to stand. Randall Stephenson had church the other day. And his pews weren’t filled with church goers but with employees and customers and evangelists for his brand.

His actions were brave, smart, thoughtful and absolutely great for business. We would all do well to follow this leader’s example.

Kellye Whitney is the associate editorial director for Workforce. To comment, email editor@workforce.com.

September 30, 2016June 29, 2023

Workday Rising — My First HR Conference

I attended the Workday Rising conference in Chicago, my first major HR conference.

Almost 7,000 people attended. HR software company Workday released information about new products, features and partnerships. We’re going to take a break from my normal beat of wellness for a moment and consider two other workplace issues that I encountered at the conference: learning and recruiting.

James Cross, director of product strategy at Workday, spoke of the increasing relevance of video in today’s workplace learning. For example, Workday is incorporating video learning on its platform, and users can create their own content from their own phones. They can post it in seconds onto the platform for learners to watch.

The rising importance of video is as significant as the rise of mobile a few years back, Cross said, paraphrasing Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who saw the increasing importance of video and developed Facebook Live.

Video has always been powerful, Cross said, but it’s only recently that it’s been at the reach of your average person or consumer. And because people consume so much video content in their everyday lives, they want their learning content to look the same.

But this explosion of video in the consumer world — think YouTube — hasn’t been as quick to spread to the enterprise market, which is why Workday is investing so much time in developing a simple, effective video learning system.

The other gem of this conversation: Cross started out his career as a high school music teacher, which is when he realized how video could have such a strong impact on learning. At the time though, video was difficult enough that other teachers didn’t necessarily use it in the same way. Now in 2016, video is so simple anyone with a phone can create video content.

My conversation with Cross was valuable, first of all, because I used to write mostly for our sister magazine Chief Learning Officer about learning and development. Now, on my benefits and wellness beat I wonder: If the rise of video is such a noteworthy development, how might video be incorporated in wellness programs, benefits communications and the like? The rise of telemedicine, for example, is related to the increased availability of video chatting and the convenience of speaking to a doctor or counselor via a phone or computer. Increased access to video and increased simplicity in creating video content is something that could impact other parts of a business outside of learning.

I also spoke with Kelly Swanson, director of HR operations at FICO, the leading data analytics software company. The company is now using Workday’s platform and especially found value in the recruiting capabilities. What was especially interesting about this conversation was how FICO used very focused data to recruit a particular type of person: students.

Whereas before their internship program was not robust, now internships are key to FICO’s growth strategy. The company looks at developing interns for full time positions, Swanson said. They use this recruiting system, which allows them to focus the search and find the right people who are interested in working in the industry.

Also key to this conversation: the unification of HR processes. For example, FICO uses Workday, which unifies everything from recruiting to onboarding to compensation under one platform and which does so across all of FICO’s 38 global offices.

Simplifying HR processes is something I hear a lot about now, and as I head to my next HR conference next week, I’ll be sure to look out for more about it.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

September 28, 2016June 29, 2023

The Most Expensive Bottle of Orange Juice Ever

I bring you a first for the blog. A magic trick. Read along as the EEOC transforms a $1.69 bottle of OJ into $277,565.

I’ll let the EEOC explain its own magic:

A federal jury has found in favor of the EEOC in a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against the retail giant Dollar General…. EEOC had charged Dollar General with firing a cashier at its Maryville, Tenn., store because of her need to treat her diabetes.

According to EEOC’s suit, the cashier, an insulin-dependent diabetic, told her supervisor she was a diabetic and requested on several occasions that her supervisor allow her to keep juice near the register to prevent a hypoglycemic attack. At trial, the cashier testified that her supervisor told her that Dollar General did not allow employees to keep food or drink near the register. …

While alone in the store one day, the cashier drank orange juice prior to purchase, in violation of Dollar General’s “grazing” policy, in response to symptoms of a hypoglycemic attack and to protect the store. As soon as the medical emergency passed, the cashier paid for the bottle of orange juice that cost $1.69 plus tax. Later, the district manager and loss prevention manager appeared in the store to address inventory shrinkage and fired the cashier after she admitted to drinking orange juice prior to purchase. The store fired the employee even though it knew she drank the orange juice because of her diabetes and that she had requested to keep juice near the register. …

The jury returned a verdict … for EEOC and the victim, awarding the former cashier $27,565 in back pay and $250,000 in compensatory damages.

When an employee requests an accommodation that costs a grand total of $1.69, make the accommodation. Never mind that the employee’s manager was ignorant of the company’s accommodation policy that would have permitted the employee to keep a drink near her register.

Truthfully, there is no magic here, just a stunning failure of common sense, not to mention legal obligation.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

September 27, 2016June 29, 2023

Can You Require Flu Shots for Your Employees?

As the calendar winds its way into autumn, and as the temperature starts to trend downward, we move into flu season. Which is why should pay special attention to this story from Employment Law 360:

A … hospital was sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Pennsylvania federal court Friday, over allegedly firing six employees after it denied their request for a religious exemption from the flu vaccine.

According to the complaint, Saint Vincent Health Center maintained a policy that provided exemptions for medical or religious reasons, which allowed employees to wear face masks instead of receiving the violation. But it denied the exemptions in the case of the six employees, who were fired in January 2014.

So, can you require your employees to receive a flu shot as a condition of employment?

According to same EEOC that is suing the Pennsylvania hospital over this very issue, the answer is a qualified yes.

An employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).

Thus, at least as far as the EEO laws are concerned, a private employer can require flu shots as long as you are willing to accommodate employees’ disabilities and religions.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

September 26, 2016June 29, 2023

Are You Sure You Want to Take That Case to Trial?

Consider Locigno v. 425 West Bagley, Inc. [pdf], decided last week by an Ohio appellate court.

This case is remarkable. Because of some odd communications between a juror and the court, the concurring opinion gives a unique look behind the curtain of jury deliberations. And it isn’t pretty.

The jury foreperson passed the following letter to the judge’s bailiff:

As the jury foreperson in this trial, I feel compelled to share the following with you. It has come to a point in the trial where the jury agrees that there was some degree of wrong doing by the Defendant and some agree that also on the Plaintiff’s part. At this juncture, jurors have started to make personal attacks on others and brought others’ children and even God and Religion into their decision making process. Much to my dismay, one juror has referred to two other jurors as pigs because they are business owners and the Defendant is a business owner. One has taken a personal stance and said I will never understand until this happens to my two daughters. I have tried with little or no success to mediate these events and have repeatedly read the jury charges to them. Many, mainly the women, are too passionate and can not set their passions aside to consider the testimony put before them as their basis for the decision making process. We have one juror with a sprained or strained back from a car accident that is very rational and a good juror, but, in light of his discomfort some of the other jurors are starting to leverage him because they know he is in pain and wants to just go home. I am very disturbed by the fact that some jurors are merely just wanting to send a message without making decisions based on the evidence presented and testimony that has taken place over the last 7 days.

Ultimately, the jury reached a verdict for the plaintiff.

Yet, what does this letter illustrate?

Jurors were making ad hominem attacks on each other, some of which focused on jurors’ children and religion.
Jurors disparaged the parties.
Jurors leveraged another’s medical condition to pressure him into a decision.
Jurors let their personal experiences override the facts as presented in the case.

What does this one glimpse into the jury process show? That this jury tried to rely on everything but the facts to reach a decision. We hope that jurors leave their prejudices outside the deliberation room and focus on the testimony and evidence presented during the trial. This one example shows that this hope is not always satisfied.

There are lots of disputes that must be litigated to be resolved. A (small) percentage of them will even need a jury of our peers to conclude. When a plaintiff makes a settlement demand many times in excess of what it will cost you defend the case, litigation makes sense. When the future of your business hinges on an outcome (such as a key employee’s theft of trade secrets), litigation makes sense. When an employee did something horrifically wrong causing the termination, and you cannot in good judgment pay that employee any amount of money, litigation makes sense.

However, when deciding whether to take your case all the way, remember Locigno v. 425 West Bagley.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

September 23, 2016June 29, 2023

Stay Out of My Hair. Deal With My Work

This week, in a 3-0 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against an Alabama company that rescinded a job offer because a black woman refused to cut off her dreadlocks.

I don’t want to, but I can see two sides in the issue. Dreads are a hairstyle; they aren’t an “immutable trait,” as the court says. They often have spiritual significance, and they take a lot of time and effort to grow and care for, but they are a hairstyle.

If they’re long and the person works around machinery where they might get caught, or in a kitchen where they might flop into the soup, OK, let’s regulate it — just as you would long hair of any type — hello hair net. Or, if an employer feels that a certain hairstyle is inappropriate for their particular workplace — a hair salon with a predominantly white customer base — it makes more sense for them to say you don’t meet our internal or external aesthetic. That too has its iffy sides, but I get it. Here, however, we’re not talking about a kitchen or a plant filled with dangerous, heavy machinery. We’re not talking about a salon filled to the brim with little old white ladies with beehives and blue-tinted bouffants. We’re talking about customer service. I’ll get to that in a minute.

With this ruling, we’re now walking a fine, fine line. If the Supreme Court can ban dreads from the workplace — a hairstyle almost exclusively favored by people of African descent, what’s next? At some point in the future, will my employer be legally able to force me to get a perm if they decide my curl pattern’s not right for the office?

The company involved in the incident that kicked it all off openly stated that this was a grooming issue. A piece published in Elle recounted the tale:

“In 2010, a woman named Chastity Jones received a job offer from Catastrophe Management Solutions in Mobile, Alabama. But according to Jones, a white human resources manager took issue with her dreadlocks, saying the style was against company policy because dreadlocks “tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.” ’

WF_0916_ONLINE_Dreadlocks — Dreadlocks were at the center of a case recently decided by the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Um, no. No I don’t. Actually, wait. I have seen some extremely messy dreads before — on white people’s heads. Sorry, guys. Certain textures of hair don’t work as well in certain hairstyles. It’s just a universal beauty shop truth.

But let’s dig into to that HR manager a bit. The woman openly said that dreads — also known as black, natural hair — are messy. There’s so much wrong with that, I don’t think I have enough strength in my fingers to type/battle it out. But ultimately it goes back to a not uncommon belief that natural black hair is offensive, dirty and ugly. Why? It doesn’t conform to the accepted standard of beauty. Comedian Paul Mooney said it best: If your hair is relaxed, white people are relaxed. If your hair is nappy, they’re not happy.

Black hair has always been political, not to mention an endless source of curiosity. I’ve blogged more than once about incidents in the news where some poor black person’s body became the equivalent of a petting zoo for an unexposed person who regressed to toddler age and couldn’t keep their hands to themselves.

I’m no legal eagle; I don’t know the ins and outs of the case and the deliberation process that produced the final ruling, but it seems like one key side of the issue has been woefully neglected: Would Chastity Jones’ hair prevent her from giving excellent customer service? No. Not unless someone wrapped one of the dreads around her throat, and she couldn’t talk.

An unstated opinion or a belief rooted in bias should not be allowed to dictate policy. We can throw legal terms, arguments and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 around all day, but at the root this is about a perceived lack. Jones was judged not on her performance but on her appearance. Whether the employer’s decision to discriminate or behave in a biased and prejudicial manner was ultimately deemed legal or not, this woman was quietly labeled unattractive, and she lost the means to make a living because of it.

When it comes to the workplace we need to ask ourselves, what’s more important? Perception or performance?

Kellye Whitney is the associate editorial director for Workforce. To comment, email editor@workforce.com.

September 22, 2016June 29, 2023

Discourse Matters When Politics Enter the Conversation

My 8-year-old son hates Donald Trump. I know hate is a strong word. I rarely use it (except when describing the most evil of all condiments, mustard. I hate mustard).

But, Donovan hates Donald Trump. All you have to do is mention his name, and he will tell you how much he hates The Donald, and how he has no room in his life for anyone who thinks any differently.

Over the months of listening to our son tell us of his hatred for Trump we never thought to ask why. Until we did.

His answer? If Trump wins he will ban people from other countries from coming to America, and then Zarah will never be able to visit us again.

Zarah is our German daughter. We hosted her as a foreign exchange student three years ago, and she lived with us for 10 months. We visited with her and family in Germany last summer, and last month she returned with her sister for a three-week visit. We love Zarah as our own daughter, and Donovan certainly loves her as his big sister.

And he cannot stomach the thought of Trump winning, implementing his immigrant ban, and not seeing Zarah again. Hence, his hatred of Donald Trump.

Employers, words matter. They may not get you sued in many situations, and, when sued, it takes a lot for an employee to win, but make no mistake, they matter. What you say, or condone others saying, at work about race, sex, religion, immigrants and national origin, disability, age, politics, they all matter, because they all set the tone.

Yet, rarely do those words create liability. In the words of one court, “The pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.”

No, our workplace laws are not civility codes, but that does not provide us an excuse to behave uncivilized.

So, yes, Donovan hates Donald Trump, and, in his mind, he has good reason to do so. Your employees might suffer similar offense from the words they hear others utter in your workplace.

Just because those words might not be actionable does not mean you should not take action. First, your inaction might lead to liability. But, more importantly, your inaction and inattention signals that you condone, or worse yet, agree with the message.

That is not the type of employer you should want to be, and it not the type of employer for which your employees will want to work.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

September 19, 2016June 29, 2023

What Are You Scared Of?

I’m not one for contemplating the big questions. You know: Why are we here? Does God exist? What’s the meaning of life?

I disdained philosophy in college. I had a headache the entire class because my eyes were constantly rolling, and no question ever seemed to have an answer.

I’m big on answers: We’re here because we are. Now live it up until you’re not. God exists if you want him to. If you don’t, he won’t. And the meaning of life? That’s up to you. We have these wonderful things called free will and choice with which to craft if not the life of our dreams, at least lives we can be proud of.

But I often ask myself one big question: Why are people so resistant to diversity?

Off the top of my head I can come up with a half dozen really great answers: history, social conditioning, life experiences, diversity fatigue, the need for power — that’s a personal favorite — and the winner of this motley group of diversity blockers, fear.

Fear.

It makes sense. The sexist remarks, the refusal to consider minorities for leadership positions, the unreal, almost determinedly blind lack of response to incidents of racism, discrimination and inequality in the workplace — and everywhere else — the insistence that very real experiences for some are not real at all, or because of who these realities occur to they are not worth acting upon or even considering, it all screams — to me — I’m scared of you. I think you could take my job and surpass me. Therefore, I’m going to shut you down by fair means or foul.

Of course, everyone who throws up a workplace road block for a woman, a disabled person, someone of color or someone who is LGBTQ, isn’t motivated by fear. Just like every white man isn’t racist, and every black woman isn’t angry, and every gay man or transgender woman isn’t secretly trying to convert the world to their way of life — that’s not actually a thing, by the way. But I’d venture to say — with absolutely no real way to prove this — that most of the artificial barriers minorities face in the workplace are generated and/or motivated by fear.

And in a business context, that leaders allow fear to dictate policy and procedure, that baffles me.

You don’t have to be a genius to look at the numbers, or the dollars. Diversity makes money — period. It helps businesses reach customers, innovate new products and services to sell, diversity can help companies reach new or untapped audiences with huge pots of discretionary/disposable income. It helps plump up talent pipelines, guide talent management efforts, produce better internal and external business outcomes. Diversity can facilitate more effective and results oriented collaboration, and in many situations it can mitigate risk.

There’s so much data floating around that proves diversity is good for business on multiple fronts. I just read an excellent piece from Tech Crunch on the competitive advantages diversity can bring. It was chock full of data points, many I’ve seen in myriad studies, on websites and in speeches. For instance:

“A 2015 McKinsey study found ethnically diverse companies were more than 35 percent more likely to outperform their industry counterparts. Even more significantly, each 10 percent increase in racial and ethnic diversity on the senior executive team yielded on average a rise of 0.8 percent in earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT).”

That’s real money directly attributable to diversity.

Or, check out these data points from the same article:

“ … a Credit Suisse study found that companies with higher female representation at the board level or in top management exhibit higher returns on equity, higher valuations and also higher payout ratios. Dow Jones studied more than 20,000 venture-backed companies over a five-year period and found that those companies with at least one woman executive were more likely to succeed than those with only men in leadership positions.”

That snippet didn’t throw around any hard or exact figures, but higher returns on equity, higher valuations and higher payout ratios, success in business, those word combos equal cash, kids. Bucks, dinero, moola, loot. And if we’re not just talking about dollars and sense in the marketplace, diversity also generates goodwill, brand equity, customer loyalty. And guess what? All of those things generate cash too.

So, I ask all of you discerning business professionals out there, if there’s a proven way to ensure that your efforts at work mean your company will make more money and solidify its place as a leader in the global marketplace, why wouldn’t you take it?

Fear.

Here’s another question for you: If you are scared of someone who’s different — and fear manifests in many different ways: aggression, distance, hyper-sensitivity, etc. — what are you really scared of? Of giving someone unproven a chance? Don’t be. Someone gave you a chance when you were new and untried. They mentored and nurtured and helped you learn from your mistakes, and you turned out great.

Are you scared a minority will eclipse you? Hence, you feel it’s in your best interest to keep a lid on your professional competition? Don’t be silly. Insecurity is weakness.

Be the guy or the girl who had the brains to prepare and package potential greatness, and unleash it on the competition. Be the leader who develops other leaders no matter what they look like or where they come from. Be the manager who ignores petty, temporary discomfort in favor of getting the job done, and done well, by using every available talent resource. Be the person responsible for developing the woman, gay man or whoever it is who shows that they want to take the bit between their teeth and run with it, and let the company reap the benefits.

Leaders who embrace diversity, who welcome it – despite any discomfort or unknowns — who enable it and measure it, they rarely regret it. These people aren’t necessarily fearless. They may still have valid questions and concerns.

But they’re willing to ask the tough questions, to challenge the status quo, to resist what that Tech Crunch article so eloquently called “a natural tendency toward sameness” that “has become a liability in today’s marketplace.” Leaders who understand the value of diversity are willing to use natural fear not to stall but to invigorate workforce productivity and effectiveness, to build fabulous cultures that talent queue up to join, and ultimately to knock those bottom line figures out of the park.

I ran across an Insta post on Scandal actor Tony Goldwyn’s account a few weeks ago. He was acknowledging Women’s Equality Day, and it reads: The rise of women does not mean the fall of men.

Allowing others who are different to step up to the plate or sit down at the table doesn’t mean those who are already in play will lose their place. Some may. No lie. I know it. There aren’t infinite slots at the top or unlimited corner offices. It’s natural that some rise and some fall based on talent, opportunity, work ethic. There are any number of variables that determine who is a success and who is a failure in the business world. But will you cheat to maintain your position, your corner office?

I have one more question for leaders: Are you scared to compete?

Kellye Whitney is the associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.