John Palmer was a longtime AT&T employee who became the companyâs first chief learning officer in 2016 as CEO Randall Stephenson laid out plans to digitize a business that was entrenched in a legacy as a telephone company.
Palmer, 39, started with the company in the late 1990s managing call centers, and now focuses on learning, collaboration between departments and implementation of the 238,000-employee companyâs reskilling to achieve Stephensonâs vision. Palmerâs team achieves this through AT&T University, which partners with Georgia Tech, University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma and for-profit education organization Udacity to offer employees specialized technical training.
Palmerâs passion for learning extends to his board membership with the Texas Rangers Association Foundation, where he helps ensure that children of state law-enforcement officers have funding to pursue higher education. The married father of three is also a mentoring lead for AT&Tâs largest employee resource group, Women of AT&T.
When an organization commits to creating a more diverse workforce and inclusive environment, one common criticism is that doing so causes divisiveness and unnecessary friction. This criticism can be expressed directly or it can manifest as an undercurrent of unstated resistance.
Similar resistance often shows up in response to conversations about race. It often stems from the belief that discussions about race and racism cause problems that didnât exist before, because racism today is created or perpetuated by those who talk about it.
These criticisms are false. Most people who hold such ideas are well intended, but make the mistaken assumption that if something doesnât exist for them, it doesnât exist at all. Whatâs odd is this error of logic doesnât apply to most other areas of work life. Humans are remarkable in our ability to communicate new, complex information to other humans, then record that information for future generations. This process has helped us survive hostile habitats and evolve rapidly, since (ideally) we donât have to waste time relearning knowledge gained by our ancestors.
Our curiosity and openness to new information has been crucial to this evolution. Tens of thousands of years ago, if a homo sapiens told another homo sapiens where theyâd discovered a food source and the recipient of the information said, âNah, I donât see that, therefore it doesnât exist,â our species would have died out long ago.
Likewise, if a friend told you about a great new restaurant and you replied, âNah, I donât know about that, therefore it must not exist,â youâd look silly and miss out on an excellent meal. Youâd also come across as a pretty arrogant son of a gun. The other person would never recommend a restaurant to you again.
Missing out on tasty food is no big deal. But what if the information offered is a big deal? What if the information will help solve a problem, avoid a problem or get ahead of a problem? We then ignore the information at our own peril. Examples abound in organizations, industry, and even our economy, from Deepwater Horizon to the 2008 financial crisis to Donald Trumpâs presidential win.
Ignoring information we donât have, that another person is providing, isnât only arrogant, itâs stupid. Itâs bad business, poor leadership and ineffective decision making. So why do we brush off people of color, women, millennials, LGBTQ, those with disabilities and even hard data when they tell us thereâs a need for more diversity or inclusiveness? Or when they say they experience prejudice or unfair barriers that disrupt their effectiveness?
Dismissing these gifts of information outright as unimportant, imagined or false is the definition of bigotry and a symptom of the very problem at hand. Itâs also dangerously short-sighted and misguided. This information isnât the cause of divisiveness, itâs a symptom of existing divisions. It isnât the noxious gas in the coal mine, itâs the canary.
The business case for diversity is clear, robust and data-driven; years of evidence show diversity plus inclusiveness gets better results and diverse teams out perform individuals, non-diverse teams and even a group of the best. The best and the brightest want to work in environments that support their brilliance and excellence, where they can contribute their gifts for collective benefit.
Their perceptions and experiences are among the gifts they bring. If the problems and solutions they uncover arenât taken seriously and addressed in a meaningful way, they â especially millennials â vote with their feet.
When someone brings up race or racism, or champions diversity and inclusiveness, the best response expresses the same curiosity, trust and commitment to creative action that helped our ancestors survive. The divisions and problems were there before someone brought them to your attention. Talking about them, exploring their impact and taking action to solve the problem may be uncomfortable, but since when has discomfort been sufficient reason to dismiss business-critical information? No leader is expected to know everything; thatâs why they have a team. Surely effective leaders who expect to lead thriving organizations in the 21st century have the strength and resilience to hear surprising, even inconvenient truths.
Those that cannot, or will not hear these truths â dismissing them on their face as divisive â do so at their peril. Not only will their results suffer, so will their bottom line.
Fifteen years ago Workforce printed a story titled â31 Core Competencies Explained.â
Written by Edward J. Cripe and Richard S. Mansfield, the story today is one of Workforce.comâs most popular stories, generating tens of thousands of sessions a month.
Why a story published in 2002 remains so popular as we enter 2017 is something of a mystery, though one answer could be the timeless nature of the storyâs content.
It is also broken into three separate components: Competencies Dealing with People; Competencies Dealing with Business; and Self-Management Competencies.
While Iâm not going to go through each item â the story is more than 3,100 words â Iâve included the first three competencies under each heading. I urge you to go to 31 Core Competencies to read the full story.
âRick Bell
Competencies Dealing with People
Establishing focus: The ability to develop and communicate goals in support of the businessâ mission.
Providing motivational support: The ability to enhance othersâ commitment to their work.
Fostering teamwork: As a team member, the ability and desire to work cooperatively with others on a team; as a team leader, the ability to demonstrate interest, skill and success in getting groups to learn to work together.
Competencies Dealing with Business
Diagnostic information gathering: The ability to identify the information needed to clarify a situation, seek that information from appropriate sources and use skillful questioning to draw out the information, when others are reluctant to disclose it.
Analytical thinking: The ability to tackle a problem by using a logical, systematic, sequential approach.
Forward thinking: The ability to anticipate the implications and consequences of situations and take appropriate action to be prepared for possible contingencies.
Self-Management Competencies
Self confidence: Faith in oneâs own ideas and capability to be successful; willingness to take an independent position in the face of opposition.
Stress management: The ability to keep functioning effectively when under pressure and maintain self control in the face of hostility or provocation.
Personal credibility: Demonstrated concern that one be perceived as responsible, reliable and trustworthy.
Rick Bell is the editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Alison Quirk, Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources and Citizenship Officer, State Street Corp., Boston
One of the enjoyable aspects of watching a dance routine is how something that looks so seamless requires so much strength, flexibility and preparation. Dancers memorize their routine, but while preparing for the next step they must remain in the present. Each small movement contributes to the dance holistically. There is also a degree of strategy, mental capacity and intelligence along with the creativity, flexibility and pure strength.
Alison Quirk â who took dance classes recreationally through college and is the vice chairman of the board of Boston Ballet Inc. â brings the same mental and creative stamina to her role of chief human resources and citizenship officer at financial services company State Street Corp., where sheâs worked for 14 years.
âI never thought Iâd be as involved in an arts organization as I am, but I love being involved in it. It really stretches me in ways Iâm not used to,â said Quirk, 54. âWorking with artistic people is a lot different than working with people in the financial services. It helps me think differently and helps my innovation and creativity in my day job.â
She began her career at Boston Financial Data Services as a compensation and benefits specialist. She remained for 16 years, attaining functional experience in every area of HR and ending up as head of HR. She continued on to Liberty Financial Cos. and FleetBoston Financial.
When she had been at her first company for 15 years, she was getting itchy to do something else. She had to decide between âthe devil you know versus the devil you donât. Why would I give up everything I put into this to take a risk to go do something new? I had a young family, and [thereâs] a lot of uncertainty with moving to something new.â
Some advice from her father, whom she described as the biggest influencer in her career, made her decision easier: Treat your career like youâre making strategic decisions for a business, he advised. Is a career move now good for that business? The advice has guided her throughout career junctures since then.
That willingness to make hard admissions and necessary change is apparent when talking to her, whether itâs admitting she needs to move on to the next career opportunity or admitting her own shortcomings and improving on them.
Sheâs always enjoyed multifaceted roles that have a level of complexity to them, and big, general management jobs are her sweet spot. Persuasion, though, is a skill sheâs focused on and improved.
âOne of the skills that I have that makes me effective there is I can see broad landscapes and the implications of decisions into the future pretty clearly,â said Quirk. But sheâs âhad to learn how to articulate a vision of what it is I actually see. Iâve had to learn how to articulate that so that other people will follow.â
Several years ago, State Street was going through a major transformation across the entire organization, which has 32,000 employees in 28 markets. To deal with the confusion involved, Quirk realized they had to change the way State Street was communicating the companyâs strategy to employees. She led a team, and together they developed a new way of talking about the future of the organization called The Way Ahead, which was based on the foundation that people donât follow what you want them to do unless they understand why youâre doing it.
âIt was a big departure from the way we talked about the strategy in the past,â said Quirk, adding that ideally it results in improved communication across the company. The CEO originally wasnât keen on it but gave it a shot. âIt took a lot of time, persistence and personal risk, but I really believed it was worth the risk because we needed something different,â she said. âWe needed something disruptive to get employeesâ attention and [have them] understand what it means to move through this change with us.
Taking risks, taking action and taking control of her own decisions are qualities that make her an effective HR leader, such as when communicating a disruptive strategy to employees.
âThere have been junctures in my career where I felt like I was running out of opportunities, therefore I had to take it upon myself to do something about that,â said Quirk. âThe trick there has been to recognize what it is Iâm wrestling with.â At times like this, she added, itâs important for people to realize that no one else will fix their problems. They should take action themselves to do something about it.
âIt could mean something outside work, like joining the Boston Ballet board, or it could mean changing jobs and going in a different direction,â she said. âThe trick is to recognize when youâre there, and not keep spinning and expect someone else to solve for it.â
A few people have emailed me since the election wanting me to write something scathing and heated about the outcome, but I didnât for two reasons. One, the less I talk about that situation the better I feel. I have to live it, as do many Americans, and thatâs more than enough. Two, politics has its connections, but not necessarily a place in this workplace diversity-themed blog.
That changed when I ran across an NPR article detailing the drama diversity trainers are facing post-election. The piece, from writer Kat Chow, described it as a heightened sense of us vs. them, and spoke from multiple diversity consultantsâ perspectives.
For instance, consider Dorcas Lind. As the election results rolled in and it became clear that Donald Trump would be the next president, Lind, founder and president of Diversity Health Communications, wondered if she should think about another career.
Lind was shocked when she saw how many people supported Trump â âthe stretch of red in her district, a New Jersey suburb, which she said had once been celebrated for its diversity.â She experienced feelings of hopelessness and futility as she contemplated the amount of work that needed to be done and her marked lack of interest in doing it.
Like many, Lind associated a vote for Trump with a vote for intolerance, the antithesis of strategic diversity and inclusion practice. But Chow wrote that many consultants are expecting an increase â however slight â in calls for business in the near future. Why? âThe corporate world is a microcosm of the larger world. People who voted for Trump work at the same companies as those who voted for Hillary Clinton or other candidates. And with a contentious post-election environment, employees will inevitably clash over matters of race.â
Basically, HR and business leaders will be super busy, and many have little to no experience dealing with the kind of problems that will crop up thanks to the political polarization in the country right now. Lind said leaders will need to create an entirely new language to deal with the election aftermath. It sounds exhausting.
Chow also interviewed Luby Ismail, head of Connecting Cultures, a diversity consulting business in the Washington, D.C., area. Ismail, an Egyptian-American Muslim, helps companies like Sodexo, Nike and Walt Disney Co. better understand American Muslims and Arab-Americans. She said the quandary in the workplace â should we talk about politics and religion or not â is tricky because right now, since people actually need to talk about these things. Theyâre actively processing whatâs happened and what are the potential implications for them and for their families.
There is no if. That us vs. them feeling, Trump vs. Clinton, or whatever camp you may fall into, will filter into the workplace. To ignore it, feeling that avoidance of this particular issue is possible because professional courtesy will mitigate or suppress issues, simply wonât work. To coin the popular vernacular, people are feeling some type of way about the current state of political affairs. And thatâs putting it mildly.
Now more than ever diversity executives have to ensure that everyoneâs concerns are addressed â including white men, said Doug Harris, head of the Kaleidoscope Group, a Chicago-based diversity company. âI think right now thereâs a temperament within society of exclusion on both sides of the table,â Harris said. âAnd those who may have been seen to have been historically included are feeling just as excluded as everyone else.â
On the one hand, that shared sentiment might be used as a connector, common ground â however wretched and ill conceived â but it doesnât make things any easier for diversity trainers and consultants who have to deal with this angst on top of historically rooted bias, ignorance, racism and all the other dimensions of diversity that we shake our heads over.
Lind said one canât think of all challenges as equal because the rhetoric at play is, âOne side has lost, one side has won, and everybody needs to get together and move forward for all Americans in the country.â Diversity executives and consultants are left to walk a very narrow and rocky line to keep everyone engaged in productive dialogue and to promote positive action and behavioral change.
Even using the word diversity before the word consultant is a problem for some. Leah P. Hollis, president of Patricia Berkly LLC in Philadelphia, specializes in workplace bullying. She said as soon as she uses the word diversity âshe loses the room.â
Itâs tough. Rather, it was tough before, and itâs even tougher now. Diversity executives have to not only pursue their individual missions to advance equality and tolerance and strategic diversity management for their respective workforces and businesses, they have to navigate a sticky layer of political sensitivity as well. I donât envy them the task.
It reminds me of an old Guns Nâ Roses tune, âWelcome to the Jungle.â
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
According to OSHA, âThe anti-retaliation provisions were originally scheduled to begin Aug. 10, 2016, but were previously delayed until Nov. 10 to allow time for outreach to the regulated community.â While I hate to be appear cynical, I canât help but think that the pending lawsuit challenging the legality of these rules has something to do with this delay.
Second, even though OSHA keeps delaying these rules, it continues its efforts to educate employers and employees about them. On Oct. 19, OSHA published both a memorandum and example scenarios interpreting these new anti-retaliation provisions.
So, letâs take a look at the types of scenarios OSHA believes will violate, and will not violate, its new anti-retaliation provisions.
Disciplinary Programs
The rule prohibits disciplining employees simply because they report work-related injuries or illnesses without regard to the circumstances of the injuries or illnesses, such as automatically suspending workers who report an injury or assigning them points that have future employment consequences. The rule also prohibits disciplining an employee who reports a work-related injury or illness under the pretext that the employee violated a work rule if the real reason for the discipline was the injury or illness report.
Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employee is injured when he is stung by a bee at work, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer disciplines Employee for violating a work rule requiring employees to âmaintain situational awareness.â Employer only enforces the rule when employees get hurt.
Employee twists his ankle at work but does not immediately realize that he is injured because his ankle is not sore or swollen, and therefore he does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employeeâs ankle is sore and swollen, and he realizes he has the kind of injury he is required to report to Employer. He reports the injury to the employer that day. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report his injury âimmediatelyâ as required by Employerâs injury reporting rules.
Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employee reports a hand injury that she sustained while operating a saw after bypassing the guard on the saw, contrary to the employerâs work rule. Employeeâs hand injury required her to miss work for two days. Employer disciplined Employee for bypassing the guard contrary to its instructions. Employer regularly monitors its workforce for safety rule violations and disciplines employees who bypass machine guards regardless of whether they report injuries.
Employee twists her ankle at work but does not immediately realize that she is injured because her ankle is not painful or swollen, and therefore she does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employeeâs ankle is painful and swollen and she realizes it is the kind of injury she is required to report to Employer as soon as practicable. However, Employee does not report the injury after this realization, although she easily could have, and instead reports it several weeks later. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report her injury as soon as practicable after realizing she has the kind of injury she is required to report.
Incentive Programs
The rule prohibits using incentive programs to penalize workers for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. If an employee reports an injury or illness, and the employer subsequently denied a benefit as part of an incentive program, this denial may constitute retaliatory action against the employee for exercising his or her right to report an injury or illness.
Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which no employee in the work group sustains a lost-time injury. Employee reports an injury that she sustained while operating a mechanical power press. Employee did not violate any employer safety rules when she sustained her injury. Employeeâs injury requires her to miss work for two days. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for that month for Employeeâs work group because of Employeeâs lost-time injury.
Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employeeâs work group that month ostensibly because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. However, Employerâs employees routinely fail to wear required fall protection but the only time Employer cancels the cash prize drawing is when an employee reports an injury.
Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employeeâs work group that month because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. Employer actively monitors its workforce for compliance with applicable work rules and cancels the cash prize drawings when it discovers work rule violations regardless of whether the employee who violated the work rule also reported an injury.
Employer holds a party for all employees who complete a safety training course. Employee failed to attend the training because she was absent from work due to a work-related injury that she reported. Employer excluded Employee from the training-completion party because she did not complete the training. Employer consistently excluded all employees who failed to complete a training course from the training-completion party regardless of why they failed to complete the training, including those who were on vacation or absent because of a non-work-related injury or illness.
Drug Testing
OSHA plainly states that the rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees, including drug testing pursuant to the Department of Transportation rules or any other federal or state law (such as state workersâ compensation law). It only prohibits using drug testing, or the threat of drug testing, to retaliate against an employee for reporting an injury or illness. Employers may conduct post-incident drug testing if there is a reasonable possibility that employee drug use could have contributed to the reported injury or illness. However, if employee drug-use could not have contributed to the injury or illness, post-incident drug testing could constitute prohibited retaliation, as it would discourage injury reporting without contributing to the employerâs understanding of why the injury occurred .
Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employer required Employee to take a drug test after Employee reported work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her condition, and it had no other reasonable basis for requiring her to take a drug test. Rather, Employer routinely subjects all employees who report work-related injuries to a drug test regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury. The state workersâ compensation program applicable to Employer did not address drug testing, and no other state or federal law requires Employer to drug test employees who sustain injuries at work.
Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test regardless of whether drug use could have contributed to the injury because the drug testing requirement is included in the collective bargaining agreement at the workplace. Employer drug tests Employee (who is covered by the collective bargaining agreement) when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her injury and had no other reasonable basis for requiring the test.
Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):
Employee was injured when he inadvertently drove a forklift into a piece of stationary equipment, and he reported the injury to Employer. Employer required Employee to take a drug test.
Employer drug tests all employees who report work-related injuries to the employer to get a 5% reduction in its workersâ compensation premiums under the stateâs voluntary Drug-Free Workplace program. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a work-related injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.
Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test because the employerâs private insurance carrier provides discounted rates to employers that implement such a drug-testing policy. The relevant rate discount provisions in the private policy are identical to those in the applicable state workersâ compensation law. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.
If OSHAâs new anti-retaliation rules go live, employer will have to study these examples as if they are gospel, as they will help employers navigate the increasingly complex world of OSHA compliance so as to avoid costly and complex retaliation complaints.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hymanâs blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
The plaintiff in Tennial v. UPS [pdf], a former UPS manager, claimed that his manager placed him on a performance improvement plan, and ultimately demoted him, because of his race.
In support of this claim, he relied in part on: 1)Â his managerâs alleged use of the word ân*****â in referencing another, nonparty UPS employee, and (2) a district presidentâs use of the word âboysâ in reference to Tennialâs black co-workers.
The 6th Circuit concluded that these two stray comments could not stand as direct evidence in support of Tennialâs race-discrimination claim:
Direct evidence consists of facts that, âif believed, require[] the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employerâs actions.â In other words, when direct evidence is provided, no inferences are needed in order to conclude that racial discrimination is afoot. âŠ
A finding of racial discrimination based on these comments, moreover, would require us to make inferences. First, we would have to infer that Cochranâs alleged use of the n-word with respect to an urelated employee meant that his decision to demote Tennial was due to a similar racial animus. We would also be required to infer that Harmâs reference to Tennialâs coworkers as âboysâ meant that his animus trickled down and influenced the individual decisions of Cochran and Slabaugh to initiate Tennialâs MPIP and demotion process.
So, this employer won, and avoided liability for a managerâs alleged use of the N-word. Just because something is legally defensible, however, doesnât make it right. Merely because an employer can win a case for a stray racial epithet does not mean that any employer should tolerate this language. If Iâm this employer (or the lawyer advising this employer), this manager would have been terminated upon an investigation reasonably confirming the misconduct.
I reach this conclusion for two reasons.
First, itâs the morally correct position. If someone uses the N-word to describe African Americans, even once, that person is a bigot, and bigots have no place in my workplace.
Secondly, if I, as the companyâs lawyer, need to defend to a judge or jury my clientâs actions, I need to able to argue that one stray comment doesnât violate Title VII and, more importantly, that my client doesnât tolerate such bigotry. Not firing the N-bomb utterer is nothing short of condoning the racism, and, if youâre condoning racism, youâre no better than the alleged racist.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hymanâs blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Consultancy EY’s program is identifying autistic individuals skilled in data crunching, pattern recognition and paying close attention to detail.
Autism spectrum disorders affect 1 out of every 68 people nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, limiting their ability to socialize and communicate.
However, individuals on the autism spectrum are also known to be particularly detail-oriented, task-driven and analytical, qualities that global business consultancy Ernst & Young needed in its workforce.
The company piloted the EY Neurodiversity program in its Philadelphia office over the past year to recruit and train individuals with high functioning autism in order to streamline its process of compiling and analyzing client data and reduce the workload of client-facing employees.
âWe needed to divert this work to individuals who were particularly good at data crunching, pattern recognition and paying close attention to detail,â said Lori Golden, abilities strategy leader for the Americas talent team at EY, as the company is now known. âWe know that individuals who are neuro-diverse tend to have a lot of the characteristics weâre looking for.â
Working alongside their âneuro-typicalâ colleagues over the past six months, Golden said the account support associates hired through the program have achieved higher-than-average levels of work productivity, quality and innovation.
To source this neuro-diverse talent, EY worked with Specialisterne, a global nonprofit organization that assists autistic individuals in gaining employment. In November 2015, Golden and her team sought out college graduates with high grades and experience with numbers.
Selected candidates participated in a group problem-solving activity and a set of interviews. Applicants were then invited to a four-week paid training program co-run by EY, Specialisterne and the Arc, a national organization serving individuals with disabilities. The first three weeks trained participants in the basics of working in a corporate setting.
âThese individuals mostly hadnât had professional work experience. We wanted to make sure they got the benefit of as much information as possible in a way that was easy to digest,â said Golden.
The last week was run by the team supervisor and introduced participants to the EY culture and business model.
Specialisterne also provided training for EY staff and supervisors on what autism is and how they could communicate effectively and create comfort during the interview and training process. According to Golden, this provided overarching benefits to managers at the office.
âIf you can be clear, simple, straightforward and logical to people with autism, youâre generally going to be better at communicating with anyone,â she said.
Out of the approximately 20 applicants who participated, EY choose four to join the account support services team in March. The success of the program has even led other EY offices to request it in their regions. However, Golden and her team are still identifying where they can successfully implement the program.
âThe first thing weâre looking for is where thereâs the greatest business need,â Golden said. âWe also need to find agencies with good track records that will provide us with the right talent.â
Nidhi Madhavan is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Financial wellness is a trendy phrase nowadays in the wellness space. People donât want to worry about money, and companies want employees not to worry about their finances, either. It makes sense that employees will be more productive at work, and employers can get the most out of their workers if theyâre not fretting about their finances. But letâs take a step back for a moment and consider what financial wellness even means.
The whole definition has changed within the past 10 years, said Dorothy Miraglia-King, strategic benefits consulting expert and executive vice president at Engage PEO, a company that provides HR solutions for small and mid-sized businesses. Ten years ago, financial wellness meant retirement savings. But the idea of what retirement looks like has changed dramatically in the past decade. Itâs not as realistic for people to retire at 65 anymore, for example. People are living and working longer. What about all the life that happens before retirement that requires financial health?
Another dramatic change? The multigenerational workforce: baby boomers, millennials, Gen X and Gen Y, all working together.
I recently wrote about how, at the basic level, employees in every generation want the same thing. Theyâre interested in the same benefits and life-long financial goals. However, theyâre at different steps in obtaining those goals. Their immediate financial needs are dependent on where they are in life. Based on these more short-term differences, I spoke with Miraglia-King about how a company can develop a successful financial wellness program.
The first step, she said, is to create a measurable objective. For example, âI want employees to understand their 401(k)s better.â
Financial health objectives may be dependent on the employee demographic. One companyâs workforce is not the same as the other. A millennial who needs to learn how to manage credit card debt or how to acquire a mortgage or how to put together a financial plan has a different objective than someone in their 50âs whoâs figuring out if they can retire in 10 years.
The employer has to ask, âWhat do my employees look like?â when defining financial health.
In general, millennials may be interested in things like paying off student debt and managing basic living expenses. Also: balancing a checking account. This is one example of a financial skill that certain generations never learned because of how quickly technology took over everything.
âYouâd be surprised at how little people know about balancing a checking account,â Miraglia-King said. âWe donât use paper anymore, so balancing a checkbook is a skill thatâs gone away. A financial wellness objective could be learning how to manage money online.â
Once the employer has developed the need (the objective), Miraglia-King said, they should develop the communications strategy that identifies the audience and looks at method of delivery. How do employees prefer to get their information? Something electronic or written? In an email campaign or through access to an adviser? Maybe a weekend workshop?
Employers should also consider how will they measure whatâs occurring and what changes happen as a result of the initiative. They could, for example, use a survey at the beginning and the end to see if theyâve met the objectives.
This should be a continuous process: Financial well-being, like physical and mental well-being, is something that needs to be constantly worked on and improved. Thereâs no easy fix. As employees age or face different hurdles in their lives, thereâll be something new to learn.
One final topic we spoke about in creating an effective financial wellness program: the importance of having high-level support.
âLead by example,â Miraglia-King said. âYour upper management must set the tone for any campaign you do, and financial wellness is no exception.â
Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.
âDonât take this the wrong wayâ is a poisonous preamble that should be eliminated from interpersonal communication, especially in the workplace. Hereâs why:
This phrase signals that the speaker knows what follows is inappropriate, perhaps offensive. Itâs a gesture designed â intentionally or not â to give the speaker carte blanche to say inappropriate or offensive words.
This phrase places all responsibility for the speakerâs impact on the receiver. Speakers exempt themselves from all accountability for what they say.
This phrase is an exercise in coercive âpower over.â Would you tell your boss, a respected elder, or other authority figure âdonât take this the wrong way, butâŠâ? I doubt it.
There is no such thing as âthe wrong way.â The receiver is going to take the speakerâs words the way they take it. No one has the right to legislate or dictate someone elseâs feelings or reactions. What the speaker really means is, âdonât take this in a way that I donât mean, or that makes me look like a bad person.â However, itâs the speakerâs responsibility to communicate in a way that aligns with their meaning and come across like a good person, not the receiverâs.
âDonât take this the wrong wayâ can be used consciously to manipulate others and inappropriately leverage power, but itâs most often used unconsciously by well-intended people to communicate a sensitive idea or to deliver uncomfortable feedback. This is especially likely in conversations across differences like race, gender, sexual orientation and social class. But rather than softening an uncomfortable message, âdonât take this the wrong wayâ actually communicates disrespect, impedes dialogue and erodes trust.
If the intent is to soften difficult communication, provide context, and come across as a good person, try these approaches instead:
Own and express your own anxiety: âItâs uncomfortable for me to say this out loud, and Iâm not sure how itâs going to come across to you.â Then say the rest without saying âbutâ first.
Example: Itâs uncomfortable for me to say this out loud, and Iâm not sure how itâs going to come across to you. Iâve heard from some of our customers that they see you as aggressive. Iâd like to give you some specific examples, then problem solve together.
Take responsibility for your words: âI want to give you some feedback to help you succeed.â [Insert uncomfortable words]. âI realize that may come across as [acknowledge potential negative impact on the receiver].â Express next steps.
Example: I want to give you some feedback to help you succeed. Iâm hearing from customers that youâre being aggressive with them. I realize that feedback may come across as insulting, especially coming from your male boss. Iâd like to give you some specific examples, then problem solve together.
Frame what youâre going to say, using your knowledge about diversity and intercultural communication. âI understand that [insert knowledge or stereotype here].â Donât say âbutâ. âMy intention is to [be transparent about your goal for the communication].â
Example: I understand that thereâs a stereotype about women being seen as âaggressiveâ when theyâre confident go-getters. My intention is to give you some specific feedback about how our customers experience you this way, then problem solve together to get better results.
Example: Don’t take this the wrong way, Silvia, but you are so loud and aggressive for a woman! Say nothing instead.
Intent does not equal impact. Having good intentions isnât enough to be effective and produce excellence, even as a leader. It requires awareness, knowledge and skills like these to communicate effectively across differences and have the positive impact that matches your intent.
Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
